success or failure? Let’s look at the data and try to answer some questions. Without prejudices

Dear Director,

I’m a little perplexed by the tone of the articles on the progress of the first day of “tickets” in Venice. If the goal was to dissuade:

– “the surge of 113,000” visitors seems to demonstrate a failure of the measure.
If the goal was to make money:
– the (only) 78,000 euros in revenues will hardly cover the expenses relating to the management costs of the “car of almost 300 people” and the infrastructure investments, also because these 78,000 are even indicated as a “record” figure, therefore not always achievable in days quieter, but with constant management costs. The impression is that if the exemption is not removed from the Venetians, the true majority of daily workers, this solution will not work. But unfortunately, I don’t think removing the exemption from the Venetians will please the voters of the current municipal and regional council.

George
Venice

Dear reader,

Let’s try to line up some data and answer some questions. Did the machine set up to pay the ticket work? The numbers and what happened tell us yes: over 15 thousand tourists paid the entry tax, there were no particular problems in managing the controls, a large part of those who arrived in Venice demonstrated that they were informed of the the existence of new rules for accessing the city. Are the ticket revenues, around 78 thousand euros yesterday, a lot or a little? It depends: it is certainly not a figure that solves the problems and costs of the so-called “over tourism”, i.e. unsustainable tourism, nor can it compensate for the absence of a special law for Venice. However, it is a sum which, if projected for all the red stamp days, should make it possible to cover the considerable expenses that the municipal administration has borne to start the ticket operation. But above all, the 15,700 tickets issued indicate that there is a wide range of daily tourists willing to pay to enter Venice. And this is an interesting and useful indication for future choices. Another important question: has the ticket discouraged day tourists from coming to Venice by convincing them to move their lagoon trip to other less crowded days? Obviously we don’t have proof (that is, we don’t know how many would have arrived without the presence of tickets and reservations), but on April 25, 113 thousand arrivals were counted, which is not a lot and in some parts of the day the streets and fields were definitely under pressure. It will be a matter of understanding and verifying whether the same thing will happen with the ticket on subsequent days. And on the basis of this and other elements (the ticket and reservation also allow you to have a lot of information on the type and origin of the tourists) evaluate whether the ticket tool is effective, that is, whether it manages to reduce the pressure on the city at least on some hot days and whether at the same time, it guarantees adequate revenues to cover at least part of the enormous costs that the lagoon city has to bear. On the basis of this, it will be possible to decide whether it should be maintained or not, whether it should be supported by other measures or whether it should be modified: for example by increasing its cost (10 euros or more?), modifying the (quite a few) exemptions provided or expanding it to a greater number of days. Let’s not forget: we are talking about an experiment and it should be considered as such. Without prejudice and with absolute pragmatism. Remembering that the ticket does not exclude other types of intervention, for example in terms of residential incentives. And that in any case, after many years of mere words, this is the first real and concrete action implemented to slow down and improve tourist flows in Venice.

© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Read the full article at
The Gazzettino