GTJ

This explains the confusion. The traditional terminal is very accessible, as noted, but the new terminal is inconvenient. Unfortunately, it looks like you will be stuck at the new terminal. Where you should be looking is at rue de l'Estuaire, north of where your Google map is focused. I don't have first hand knowledge of using the new terminal, and so I can only rely on my knowledge of having been in the general area. There's a few new street level pictures, but most are old and out-of-date. The aerial map at Bing is more recent than the aerial map at Google, and so you should take a look there: https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=46.821393~-71.210527&lvl=17.9&style=a. You can see from the aerial view that the port has mapped out a pedestrian area, westward from the new terminal, with crosswalks that leads to the established sidewalks that are closer to the Gare du Palais (don't zoom in too much or you'll get older aerial views!). On foot, when you get to the end of rue de l'Estuaire there will be a T-intersection with rue Abraham Martin. Turn right, and almost immediately you will find a bus entrance. Actually, the first driveway you encounter will be customer parking for Expedibus service, the bus system's package express service. Walk in through the driveway and at the far end of the small parking lot you will find an entrance to the bus terminal. Go inside: the bus terminal is connected to the railroad station. There is no need to walk around the station as Google maps directs you to do. The total distance is about 750m, or about 9 minutes walking. Use this link for the best foot directions: https://goo.gl/maps/eSnnNiTM5ZsX1cPX6. Once in the bus terminal there are luggage lockers, so you can store your baggage if needed. Several stores inside the bus terminal and railroad station, along with places to eat.

The concern is larger than just Mendenhall alone, but extends throughout the systems. It is reminiscent of Long Island, New York, where parkways were designed for automobiles, and excluded bus travel. It enforced a two-tier structure, those having automobiles and being privileged, and the masses without, reliant on bus transportation, not being so privileged. In the context of Juneau, those owning automobiles--typically local residents--have easy access, but those without--typically those traveling from afar--being inconvenienced (though not entirely disenfranchised given that there is Capital Transit plus short walk, as well as taxi service). This is not a local park but a national forest, and the people who reside in Juneau have no greater claim to its use than other Americans. That automobilists should be favored over those who travel by bus is simply wrong. This is elitism at its worst.

The National Park Service does not operate or control the Mendenhall Glacier facilities. Rather, it is the National Forest Service (USDA). Both agencies, however, are lacking in sound transportation policy. They each have implemented policies throughout their realms that impose substantial costs and limitations on commercial bus transportation, while largely keeping a free-for-all system for private automobile usage. Yet, bus transportation is nearly uniformly accepted throughout the professional transportation community as having lower impact on the environment, and more efficient usage of highway capacity, compared to individual automobile usage. In a few instances the National Park Service has, out of actually necessity, limited automobile usage, but has then arranged for government-contracted public transportation for affected automobile users. The antipathy that the two agencies have towards commercial bus transportation is perplexing and wrong-headed. Use of bus transportation should be expanded, not discouraged.

The last time we walked it was either along Quai Saint-Sandré or Rue Saint-Paul (I don't recall which). The former is less busy, while the latter has more commerce, but either route is fine. Absent any temporary construction there are plenty of sidewalks, so I do not fully understand the alleged lack of sidewalks . . . is there a particular location where no sidewalk was observed using Google street views?

Best to download the current map using the provided hyperlink.

Actually, it is not a park. Rather, it is an area within a national forest (managed by USDA).

Yes, I have. It is scenic. It is overpriced, with parallel bus services much less expensive. Is it worth it? If a railroad enthusiast, yes. If one intends to sleep, no. For everyone in-between it is a balancing of scenery against cost, a personal decision on being worth it.

I wonder if the cancellation was the consequence of having gone to a third party--Viator--to arrange for the transportation, instead of having gone directly to the tour operator--M&M Tours of Juneau. By going to a third party, one relies on that third party being able to obtain the services in a competent manner. On the other hand, by going directly to the tour operator, one can get a contract with the actual party operating the tour, leaving less wiggle room for the tour operator to cancel. In the event of a limitation, the tour operator is more likely to provide the limited service to its own clients, but to cancel the arrangements made by third parties, such as Viator. I would hesitate to ever use a third party, such as Viator, in almost every case, for this and related reasons. In this case, I would most likely use Capital Transit to and from the glacier.

It really depends on what you want in a hotel, for each area is distinct. Many of the hotels in Jersey City are in a redeveloped urban core along or near the waterfront. It is ideal for people who like to be able to get out of their hotel room and walk around, being on the water, finding a nice restaurant, wandering into some stores. This area is most accessible to Manhattan, with good public transportation via PATH subway and buses. The hotels near the airport (some of which are actually within the corporate limits of Elizabeth) are in the middle of a tangle of expressways and the turnpike, outright hostile to walking. They usually have complimentary transportation to and from the airport, and are good if all that one seeks is a comfortable night's rest without ever leaving the hotel. Transportation to Manhattan can be cumbersome and expensive, often involving two-steps (hotel to airport, then airport to Manhattan). The hotels in Elizabeth are clustered around an outlet mall. Like the airport hotels there is little charm here, but at least one can leave the hotel and walk someplace, even if only to the outlet mall across its huge parking lot. The retail and restaurants are as bland as can be. There is transportation to and from Manhattan, by comfortable express bus service, but its schedule is rather limited. My preference is Jersey City, for it best reflects my values. Whether it reflects your values or not I cannot say.

You might also change again at Park Street Under and get an outbound green line car two stops to Arlington station, which is at the corner of the public garden. In comparison, at Park Street station itself you do have walk across the common to get to the public garden, not a terribly long walk. It is generally reliable to use the bus for returning to vessel at the end of the day. From within the subway you will want to find the Silver Line, then board a bus on the SL2 branch (to "Design Center" or "Drydock") for the trip back to port. In general, there are few local buses in downtown Boston, because the city is quite walkable and the subways serve most transportation needs. If you're going to travel much in Boston, then be certain to download a full Boston transportation map from here: http://www.mbta.com/bus-map.

All of the large cruise vessels are registered in neither the United States nor Canada, and few crew are of those nationalities. Most of these recipients would look to rid themselves of Canadian funds. Unless spending those funds locally in Vancouver for some incidental expenses, the recipients of Canadian funds would incur transaction costs in converting Canadian funds into other more useful funds. A few small vessels serving Alaska are American flag, with American crew, but these vessels do not generally sail out of Vancouver. There are some Canadian flag vessels that sail out of Vancouver, with Canadian crew, the greatest number being those of British Columbia Ferries, but these vessels do not generally sail to Alaska. In sum, Canadian funds would be accepted as tips, and certainly you could rid yourself of leftover Canadian notes for which you, yourself, would not find useful. So do bring along whatever Canadian notes you might happen to having lying around at home. However, nearly all crew would prefer receiving American funds, a de facto universal currency in the western hemisphere and much of the rest of the world.

Yes, this is a legal issue. This involves a repositioning of the Holland America Line vessel Eurodam from Fort Lauderdale to Seattle. It departs Fort Lauderdale on April 13, 2024, and arrives in Seattle on May 4, 2024. On the way, while in San Diego on April 27, 2024, it picks up some more passengers, including yourself. When traveling from one U.S. port to a different U.S. port, the regulations implementing the Passenger Vessel Services Act requires that the passengers aboard a foreign flag transit through a "distant" foreign port, so that the foreign flag vessel does not provide purely domestic travel. The passengers starting out in Fort Lauderdale will be transiting a "distant" foreign port--Cartagena, Colombia--so those passengers can travel from one U.S. port to a different U.S. port (i.e., from Fort Lauderdale to Seattle). But for those passengers boarding the vessel in San Diego there are no "distant" foreign ports to transit. All those San Diego passengers have to get booted off the vessel before it gets to Seattle. So even though many of your fellow Holland America Line passengers will be staying aboard while in Vancouver, and traveling with the vessel on its last leg to Seattle, the cruise line will compel you to disembark in Vancouver . . . because you boarded in San Diego. If you had planned to board the same vessel in Fort Lauderdale, then you would be allowed to continue onward to Seattle (and then further onward to Alaska). As for the issue at hand, traveling overland from Vancouver to Seattle, there are many options and there should be no problems. Best to to travel internationally the day before, and stay overnight in Seattle, than to stay overnight in Vancouver and hope everything goes without incident the next day. Additionally, you will have more control and lower costs by using your own transfer than to rely upon Holland America Line making the arrangements for you. You'll arrive in Vancouver in the morning--nominally at 7:00 a.m.--and you will have all day to get to Seattle and stay overnight. There are several bus departures, the easiest of which is Quick Coach Lines. The company has a bus that departs Canada Place at 9:10 a.m., and arrives in downtown Seattle at 1:30 p.m. It has additional departures throughout the day, and there are other buses operated by Greyhound Lines, MTR Western (FlixBus), and Cantrail Coach Lines. There's also an evening train operated by Amtrak, though its schedule is not great (it does not depart Vancouver until 5:45 p.m., and arrive in Seattle at 10:10 p.m., thereby ensuring a late hotel check-in), so unless you really riding trains, and are willing to compromise on the schedule to do so, it is not a great choice.

Are washing machines typically supplied by the landlord, for each apartment (or "flat") and for each tenant? That seems so odd. I would assume that most pre-war apartments were built without the type of plumbing that would be needed, so was there a massive rebuilding of pre-war apartments in London and other cities at some point in time? While other large appliances, such as refrigerators and stoves, are supplied as part of the rent for a basic apartment, washing machines--within an individual apartment--are a luxury, at least here in New York. Most ordinary tenants do not own washing machines, and either use the machines that are typically in a laundry room within a large apartment building, or use a laundromat for smaller apartment buildings that house two to six families. This article has more details: http://www.gasdaskaconlonteam.com/why-nyc-apartments-lack-washers-and-dryers.

Generally, there is customs and immigration at the port of entry, but not again after having already been admitted. Suppose you were to take a Great Lakes cruise with the following itinerary: 1. Toronto, Ontario 2. Port Colborne, Ontario 3. Cleveland, Ohio 4. Detroit, Michigan 5. Parry Sound, Ontario 6. Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan 7. Thunder Bay, Ontario You would then anticipate customs and immigration inspection at ports 3, 5, 6, and 7. Note that customs and immigration might not interview every passenger, but the vessel and its passengers are subject to inspection each time it enters a country.

I would insert the word "good" immediately before "travel agent." Too many travel agents only know how to push the keys on a keyboard. Too many travel agents are in the business only because they, themselves, like to travel, and they want discounts, but have never worked within the operations of a transportation company. In other words, many travel agents are not much better--if at all--than the cruise line representatives themselves. But if you find a good travel agent, then that person can be well worth more than his or her service fees. A good travel agent knows the workings of both transportation companies and tour operators, including how the services of each are planned and scheduled, and the legal relationships among the parties participating in the planned travel. A good travel agent has a knack for attention to details--loves numbers, times, places, and codes. A good travel agent must know geography very well, and be facile with maps, timetables, and navigating. A good travel agent knows more than just commissionable services (including, e.g., access by public transportation and public ferries that offer parallel service to cruise lines) and will possess the professional ethics not to sell based on commission alone. A good travel agent is well-traveled, not to just beaches but to all the places where travel occurs, and has paid attention to the logistics while travel and not just frolicking themselves. A good travel agent strives to travel on a variety of carriers, utilize various classes of accommodations, and to otherwise sample the full spectrum, without "loyalty" to a favored service provider. Yes, I am demanding of those who call themselves travel agents, but there are good ones out there, and if you're persistent, or perhaps just lucky, you may find one.

I don't think it requires much elaboration. The PVSA was enacted to protect the American maritime industry as a whole, and even if the carriers themselves were the primary object of protections, the longshoremen have always been part of that larger industry and therefore an intended beneficiary. The more important aspect, which I think you're rightly focusing upon, is whether the PVSA remains vibrant given the changes in the industry, or if it can even inspire industry evolution in a favorable manner. The PVSA was enacted in an era when there were both domestic and foreign flag vessels providing point-to-point transportation, much like what exists today in the commercial aviation industry. But today, there are only a handful of ferries that provide such transportation--the most notable being the Alaska Marine Highway--with virtually all passenger ocean vessels being foreign flagged. In addition, most, but not all, of the industry consists of closed-loop cruise itineraries, rather than point-to-point transportation. The effect of the PVSA today is to require that these foreign flag vessels bring passengers--and the commerce in which they engage--to foreign ports, at the expense of having those passengers and their commerce remain within the United States. Vancouver commerce benefits greatly as a result of the PVSA. Yet that commercial aspect is ignored as the PVSA is focused entirely on the maritime industry only. The exceptions for Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands are a half-hearted attempt to ease the burdens in recognition of the lack of any U.S. flag ferries providing service to these islands. Yet no foreign flag ferries have stepped in to provide that service. In a broader sense, it might be argued that the PVSA is ineffective today simply because, unlike commercial aviation, there is no vibrant domestic ocean liner industry remaining. Yet, that is not entirely true. Norwegian Cruise Line might a substantial investment in having a U.S. flag vessel serving Hawai'i, an investment that would otherwise be lost if the same market were opened to foreign flag vessels. American Cruise Lines and American Queen Voyages both provide U.S. flag vessels to serve domestic cruise markets, and could be decimated were Carnival, Royal Caribbean, and NCL able to use their foreign-crewed vessels on domestic itineraries. Thus, there remains vitality today in the PVSA, in protecting the domestic maritime industry and encouraging its growth, sparse as that vitality might be. The closed-loop cruise itinerary has become the tail that wags the dog. The PVSA was designed for point-to-point transportation, yet the closed-loop itineraries now dominate. The rules for these close-loop itineraries seems to have been jury-rigged to meet the industry demands as they arise, but are difficult to support on any intellectual or legal theory basis. One can make the argument that a closed-loop cruise itinerary provides no transportation--the passengers embark and disembark at the same port, so they have not gone anywhere--and therefore no cabotage concerns legitimately exist. Yet, in fact, the passengers are transported. The issue that I see here is that, with the industry having largely transformed itself from the provision of expeditious (even if comfortable or luxurious) point-to-point transportation to the provision of free-spending vacations, the commercial aspects have become substantially more important. The need is to balance the interests of the domestic maritime industry and the commercial interests of port communities visited by cruise vessels. How those two competing interests should be balanced against each other I do not propose here.

It is unfortunate because Red Bay rarely sees cruise vessels (though it is not too far from Blanc-Sablon, to which there are regular sailings from Rimouski, Québec). The most notable sight in the area surrounding Corner Brook is Gros Morne National Park. There is some distance, and it requires about 90 minutes to either Woody Point or Rocky Habour. The former is where you will find the Tablelands geological sight, while the latter is closer to the centre of most park activities (the most popular being the Western Brook Pond tour, just north of Rocky Harbour). Consider how much time you will have in Corner Brook to determine if you make a good visit to Gros Morne, or if you will need to stay closer.

1. "Best" is a matter of balancing the interests that are important. It is difficult to say whether SkyTrain is "best" without knowing what makes a transportation option "best" for you. Is SkyTrain practicable? Consider if the group's baggage can be easily handled by those capable of transporting it. Typically, each individual will have a large suitcase on wheels, and if each person can handle their own baggage then all is good. However, it can be cumbersome for one person to wheel two large suitcases for more than a very short distance. Think about what the people in your group are capable of doing. Would your group be able to use Connect Transit, with baggage, back home in Normal-Bloomington (say, the Tan route from the Uptown Station to the Central Illinois Regional Airport)? 2. It is both safe and secure to walk between the noted SkyTrain stations and the hotel. 3. Vancouver Centre is more commercial, while Yaletown is a bit less commercial, and the choice of the two would then be a matter of personal preference. 4. I would likely not make Timmies my breakfast spot, at least in the absence of something more substantial. But if donuts make for your standard breakfast, then go for it. I will leave it to others to provide their favoured breakfast locales. 5. This answer depends on your answer to no. 1. If baggage is manageable, then walk. It is a distance of 1.5 km, so about 15 minutes on foot. While there's several bus routes on Granville Street, if you can't manage your baggage then the bus will not be that useful (and besides, you will have to walk to Canada Place anyway once you alight from the bus). So if not manageable, use a taxi . . . it will be relatively inexpensive given the short distance involved. 6. Taxis will always be more convenient, but at a cost. Public transportation is almost always more efficient, but with less convenient. I will also note that the relative spaciousness of SkyTrain, compared to many people piled into a confined taxi, might also be a factor to consider. I cannot tell you how to balance the competing interests.

Do you have a citation? Ordinarily it can be difficult finding specific notices in the Federal Register, but even more so when a provision is not even codified as a regulation and instead stands as an interpretation.

Yes, one may. At least in the passenger terminal in Bayonne, in the corridor leading from the vessel to immigration inspection, there are number signs (on variable video screens) informing people of their right to do so. It is the typical small type used for many legal notices, and so most people likely ignore the notices.

It could be that operating conditions require a larger crew size. My comment was related to the union's claim that the number of passengers, by itself, is reason to have a three-person crew. Federal Railroad Administration regulations require a two-person operating crew, and proposed rulemaking would reduce that requirement in some cases to a one-person operating crew. See 87 Fed. Reg. 45,564 (July 28, 2022), http://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2021-0032-0001. There is controversy. See, e.g., http://www.wvpublic.org/railroads-slow-down-push-to-reduce-train-crew-sizes-but-it-may-not-last.But I do not believe that there is any serious discussion about increasing mimimum crew size to three persons, and to mandate a minimum three-person crew size for one particular railroad would require special conditions not existing on other railroads. Several American passenger trains operate in mountainous territory, all with similar operating conditions. Certainly the specific conditions in this region of Alaska differ from conditions in New York City, yet there are distinct hazards in New York City that are arguably more dangerous (e.g., the hazard of a live third rail). It is difficult to imagine that the White Pass Route is so distinct and dangerous as to require greater minimum crew size.

Very good point to raise. When I was writing the issue had been on my mind, but not wanting to go too far into the weeds I worded my response to note that the passengers need not actually alight without addressing whether the passengers must be given the opportunity to alight (which they might then actually forgo). The issue of technical stops is not in the statute, and I cannot recall seeing anything relevant presently within the implementing regulations. I think that you may be referring to a proposed interpretation by Customs and Border Protection of the coastwise laws published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2007, beginning on page 65,487. See http://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-2007-11-21/E7-22788 CBP claimed this to be just an interpretation, and not a change in the law, and there was no actual proposed regulatory amendment (an aspect that was criticized by some as an attempt by CBP to evade procedural requirements). The text of the proposed interpretation then proposed is as follows. CBP interprets a voyage to be “solely to one or more coastwise ports” even where it stops at a foreign port, unless the stop at the foreign port is a legitimate object of the cruise. CBP will presume that a stop at a foreign port is not a legitimate object of the cruise unless: (1) The stop lasts at least 48 hours at the foreign port; (2) The amount of time at the foreign port is more than 50 percent of the total amount of time at the U.S. ports of call; and (3) The passengers are permitted to go ashore temporarily at the foreign port. Accordingly, CBP proposes to adopt an interpretive rule under which it will presume that any cruise itinerary that does not include a foreign port call that satisfies each of these three criteria constitutes coastwise transportation of passengers in violation of 19 CFR 4.80a(b)(1). The purpose of the proposed interpretation was to protect Norwegian Cruise Line, and its American-flagged vessels, from competition by other cruise lines with foreign flag vessels that were making short calls at Ensenada, Baja California, as part of their closed-loop cruise itineraries between California ports and the Hawaiian islands. However, CBP failed to recognize the larger implications of the proposed interpretation on other cruise itineraries, including those itineraries that included stops in Portland, Maine. See http://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/local/2008/02/26/storm-brews-over-port-rules/52605206007. A total of 343 comments were received by CBP, see http://www.regulations.gov/document/USCBP-2007-0098-0001/comment, and no action is known to have been taken by CBP. You might also be recalling a discussion during the pandemic about cruise vessels making technical calls in Canada, but that issue related to the closing of Canadian ports. It had been proposed that cruise vessels be permitted to call in Canadian ports for a technical stop, without passengers being permitted to alight (so as to satisfy Canadian concerns of keeping passenger vessels isolated from the country). That, of course, related to Canadian law, rather than the PVSA. See http://www.openjaw.com/newsroom/cruise/2021/03/16/allow-technical-cruise-stops-in-can-or-lose-billions-industry-advocates.

Cruise line representatives that answer the telephone are there to generate sales for the company, read from a script, and generally are not very knowledgeable about transportation operations (whom the cruise lines shield from public access). The information here is more reliable, as is information posted on the tour operator's website, http://www.reservedenali.com/tours-transits/the-denali-tour-experience/tour-information. The same company also operates the transit buses, with parallel information on a distinct page, http://www.reservedenali.com/tours-transits/transits/transit-information. All of these services are available and can be purchased directly from the tour operator's websites linked above. I suspect that the transit service does not offer the same level of commissions as do the tour services, and for that reason Princess Cruises does not appear to offer transit bus service to its passengers. "Better value" options many times are able offer that better value by not paying high commissions to third parties, such as Princess Cruises. Consider whether the failure of Princess Cruises to offer transit bus service as an option constitutes a matter of business ethics. Nonetheless, it is curious that the script used by Princess Cruises does not include information on how passengers can upgrade from the basic Denali Natural History Tour to the more expensive Tundra Wilderness Tour, given that the more expensive tour would, presumably, provide a higher commission to Princess Cruises. Given the seeming lack of training, or possibly even the lack of empowerment, given to Princess Cruises representatives, I would likely investigate to possibility of forgoing any tour arranged by Princess Cruises (assuming this would lower the cost of the Princess Cruises travel arrangements) and just arrange a tour or transit bus use independently on my own.

The basic law is not particularly long, and you can read it here. 46 U.S.C. § 55103 (statute) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/55103 19 C.F.R. § 4.80a (implementing regulation) http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/19/4.80a You can also download guidance from U.S. Customs and Border Protection on the subject from here: http://www.cbp.gov/document/publications/passenger-vessel-services-act. There are a number of statutory exceptions, most of the relevant exceptions relating to the transportation of passengers to and from the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands, 46 U.S.C. § 55101(b), and Puerto Rico, 46 U.S.C. § 55104. There is no general exception for unforeseen circumstances, possibly because such a clause would undercut the strength of American longshoremen, an intended beneficiary of the law. It would be up to Congress and the administration to take action (which could happen, given that Canadian longshoremen are not an intended beneficiary of the law).

So it sounds as though MSC Cruises does, in fact, actually turn the vessel in the allotted amount of time. Good for MSC in being able to do so, though I am not thrilled with there being only two hours of effective embarkation time. I have never liked the concept of taking photographs because of the implications of the government building a database that could be used for nefarious purposes (true, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, the existing passport database could be so used, etc.). I have always taken my time with a manual inspection by an immigration officer.