GTJ

Of the four enumerated URLs, Alaskarailroad.com is the website for the Alaska Railroad, which itself operates the passenger trains. The other three websites are all travel agents that sell tickets for the Alaska Railroad. The URL Alaskatrain.com is linked to the Alaska Tour and Travel, which is, in my subjective opinion, the best travel agency for the purchase of railroad and motorcoach tickets by themselves. This travel agency not only sells railroad tickets that could purchased directly from the Alaska Railroad but also sells railroad tickets for one of the trains for which Princess Cruises supplies private railcars (the "McKinley Explorer") and for the private railcars used for the "Wilderness Express," the tickets for these latter two options not being available from the Alaska Railroad itself. Thus, at least for research purposes, the Alaska Tour and Travel website is a good starting point. The other two URLs are travel agencies that sell inclusive tours, rather than plain railroad tickets. They're not "fake," but they may not sell what you actually want, and they might charge extra for their services. Both the morning and afternoon trains from Anchorage are operated by the Alaska Railroad, and both use Alaska Railroad cars. The morning train is marketed by the Alaska Railroad, which sells tickets; the afternoon train is marketed by the various cruise lines (including NCL), with those cruise lines selling tickets. A caveat to this advice. GoldStar service (first class) uses Ultra Dome cars, which have glass ceilings, giving the illusion of being in a dome, and an outdoor viewing area. Adventure class (coach) uses ordinary railroad coaches, but is also scheduled to use a Vista-Dome car with unreserved classic dome car seating that is shared among all coach passengers. One can also ride the vestibules with the upper half of the dutch door opened, allowing one to lean outside. Thus, there are similar, though identical, features available to passengers in both classes of accommodations.

The question asked concerned two issues relating to the Brooklyn Cruise Port parking lot: security and safety. As to security, perhaps one of the best tools to use is the New York Police Department's CompStat tool. http://compstat.nypdonline.org Using this tool one can see where reported crimes in several categories have occurred. The tool shows crime up significantly within New York City overall, in the year 2022 compared to the year 2021. As to the Brooklyn Cruise Port itself, there are no CompStat crimes pinpointed to the Brooklyn Cruise Port particularly; there are crimes in the surrounding area, but seemingly no more concentrated in the area immediately surrounding the Brooklyn Cruise Port compared to Red Hook and South Brooklyn generally. But by reviewing the CompStat site directly, you might be the best judge for determining if the area is secure enough. As to safety, the Brooklyn Cruise Port is fairly new, and when I have been there the pavement has been well-maintained and without potholes. Driving in the parking lot should be safe with little risk of injury. Once parked, and having to walk to the passenger terminal, again the infrastructure is fairly new and well maintained. Obviously, there is always the chance that one will trip, fall, and injure oneself, but my subjective view is that the risk of injury from the physical condition of the parking lot is no greater than elsewhere in New York City. Of course, this is a transportation facility, where motorists and pedestrians come into conflict, and attentions may be diverted. As is the case at other transportation facilities, such as roadways at airports, there is safety risk imposed by motorists. But again, however, I don't see the driving at the Brooklyn Cruise Port parking lot to be less safe than any other transportation facility. In sum, I do not see any issues with the Brooklyn Cruise Port parking lot as being either less secure or less safe than as one would ordinarily anticipate.

Worst case: sail from Manhattan, where more competition exists and alternatives to parking are more convenient. The larger picture, as I see it, is that this is a situation where pricing has been disaggregated, with only those choosing to drive paying for the cost of "convenient" parking. There's regulatory barrier precluding other businesses from competing for the business of providing parking services, and there's regulatory control on the cost of parking by the existence of other choices besides parking at Cape Liberty. Indeed, that's the very premise of the original poster's inquiry. It may well be true that the other choices are less convenient. That advantage allows the market price for parking at Cape Liberty to be higher than it might otherwise be . . . but that's fine in a capitalistic economic system. I will be the first to admit that I save some dollars in not parking by using less "convenient" public transportation, coupled with a taxi or TNC ride for the last mile. But that lesser convenience is not unreasonable, and it is an alternative to paying for parking. I would very much dislike it if Royal Caribbean International were to raise its fares so that "free" parking at Cape Liberty might be included. Discussions like this, of alternatives to paying to park at Cape Liberty, are good.

Whether the cost of parking at a transportation terminal is $25 per day, $16 per day, or something else, the fact is that there exists a financial cost to storing (parking) a motor vehicle. I think that the reason that many people object to paying for parking at these transportation terminals is that most parking lots do not directly impose their costs on the motor vehicle operators, but instead have their costs buried in the price of the items sold by the stores that provide these parking lots. Many people believe that all parking should be "free" . . . or at least buried into the price of the goods or services being purchased. I am part of the minority that does not drive, and so I get saddled with parking costs that are buried into the price of goods or services. It is frustrating to me that I should have to pay for the parking costs of others, especially if have also had to pay a bus fare to get me to the store (see related store here as to legality of burring parking cost into prices paid by all). Worst are the laws that mandate business to provide "free" parking as a condition for doing business. I wish that more businesses would decouple the cost of parking and charge extra to those persons who do use motor vehicles and park them at the business. That charges are imposed by Cape Liberty Cruise Port should be supported. And there is to be a competitive parking business to be had, then competition will regulate the rates charged for parking. Yet even without competing parking business, the discussion in this thread demonstrates that one need not park at Cape Liberty (Uber and Lyft are available, and hopefully before too much longer there will also be public transportation), and that by itself regulates the amount that can be charged to people who nonetheless choose to drive to Cape Liberty and park there. Kudos to the original poster who seeks an alternative to driving to Cape Liberty and parking there.

I would not so readily concede that legal conclusion (though I have not researched the specific issue). But there would be difficulties, relating to evidence and proof of facts, in prevailing on a claim. Having a receipt would be helpful (though photographs or video of the hand-off might be adequate proof of custody having been transferred).

There are at least two issues of interest here. First, as explicitly stated, is being able to prove that someone lost or damaged baggage. Second is what liability attaches to a loss or damage. I am not entirely certain of all the implications here, but let me analyze. Generally, Amtrak handles this situation best, both as far as written policy and in practice, so I will start there. When a passenger hands over baggage to an Amtrak red cap, a red cap receipt is supposed to be given to the passenger. That receipt can support a claim for loss or damage. The red cap will take custody of the baggage and either check the baggage with Amtrak (delivering the checked baggage claim ticket for the checked baggage to the passenger), load the baggage into a car as unchecked baggage, or accompany the passenger with the baggage to some place (be it to baggage check-in, the platform, the train itself, the taxi stand, etc.). Where the passenger accompanies the red cap with the baggage the receipt might be dispensed with because there is never separation of passenger from baggage. In the even of a loss or damage to baggage, there are separate limitations for baggage loss or damage that was checked with Amtrak and lost or damaged by Amtrak's baggage handling, and for baggage lost or damaged by the red cap. For checked baggage, liability for loss or damage is limited to $500 per passenger (which can be increased up to $2,500 if additional charges are paid); for unchecked baggage no liability for loss or damage is accepted at all; and for baggage handled by red caps, liability for loss or damage is limited to $50 per piece of baggage. (There is also a separate liability limit for baggage storage, which is $100 per piece of baggage.) Airlines generally have similar policies as Amtrak, except that skycaps generally do not take custody of passenger baggage, and do not issue receipts therefor. Instead, skycaps handle baggage while accompanied by passengers and deliver it directly to baggage check-in. At baggage check-in the baggage is checked with the airline and a claim ticket for the baggage is given to the passenger (usually it is the skycap himself or herself that checks the baggage for the airline and gives the checked baggage claim ticket to the passenger). Thus, there is no need for skycaps to issue a skycap receipt, and so only checked baggage claim tickets are issued. If airlines lose or damage checked baggage, their liability is limited to $3,800 per passenger, but accept no liability for baggage not checked. For the cruise lines, baggage given to porters is taken into their custody, and they then deliver the baggage to the cruise line for handling onto the vessel and to passenger staterooms. There is separation of baggage from passengers, and, as with the case for Amtrak red caps, rightfully a receipt should be given to support any claim for loss or damage. But receipts are not given. It is a he said, she said, situation, made worse by most passengers not even knowing to whom the baggage was given (almost certainly it was not given to a cruise line employee but to someone employed by the port, a service company, or perhaps someone independent). Assume you get past the issue of proving loss or damage to baggage by a porter. The cruise lines limit baggage claims for loss or damage at very low limits (though accepting liability for baggage that is in a passenger's stateroom and not checked). For example, Norwegian Cruise Line imposes a limit of $100 (which can be increased if additional charges are paid), while Royal Caribbean International disclaims all liability. But cruise lines would likely disclaim any loss or damage of baggage by porters not employed by the cruise lines. Yet this might actually be beneficial because the failure of the porter to have delivered any receipt containing the terms of a contract limiting liability for loss or damage to baggage while in their custody (or adequate signs posted as to liability limits) could render the porter liable for the entire amount of loss or damage without limitation. There might be finger pointing between the porter and the cruise line, as to whom caused loss or damage, but if it can be proven that baggage was delivered to the porter, and that the baggage was lost or damaged by the porter, then there might possibly be full recovery of the amount of loss or damage. (Just to be clear on terminology. "Checking" is the process by which custody over baggage is assumed by a carrier, such baggage then becoming "checked baggage," and the carrier assumes responsibility for the safekeeping, transportation, and delivery of the "checked baggage." Transportation of baggage within a baggage area of the vehicle is not necessary checked baggage: most bus lines will transport baggage in the underfloor baggage compartment of buses, but such baggage is not checked baggage unless the bus line accepts custody over it (which most bus lines do not do today). A "baggage check" is the privilege of being able to check baggage, and is normally a part of the passenger ticket contract, and the receipt portion of a ticket typically indicates that it is both a receipt and baggage check (Amtrak, bus lines, and airlines have all traditionally had a baggage check space on their tickets, which was punched when the baggage checking privilege was used). A "claim ticket" is the receipt for having checked baggage and for identifying the specific baggage that was checked; sometimes "claim ticket" is referred to casually as a "claim check." Where baggage is not checked, sometimes a "courtesy tag" is attached to the unchecked baggage, with an identifying receipt given to the passenger, but no liability is assumed by the carrier for baggage not checked and only identified with a courtesy tag. Yes, there is a lot of transportation lawyering going on here.) This is my approach to the problem. Other thoughts?

Only some of the trains using Princess rail cars have been made available for transportation in the absence of booking in connection with a cruise operated by Princess Cruises. All of the rail cars owned by Princess are Ultra Dome cars, and these cars are used on both the "Denali Express," operating between Whittier and Denali, and the "McKinley Explorer," operating between downtown Anchorage, Talkeetna, and Denali. Tickets for the "Denali Express" and sold by Princess only in connection with their cruises, but tickets for the "McKinley Explorer" are available and sold by Princess (and travel agents) separate and apart from any other travel arrangements. The primary open question here is ascertaining why a train trip is desired. Is it that there is a need to travel between particular points within Alaska, and travel by train is a desired means to that end? If so, that the points between which transportation is needed will largely dictate which trains are appropriate. Or is there simply a desire to take a train ride, without regard to where the train might happen to go? Many railroad enthusiasts are in this category . . . for them (and I would include myself in this category as well), if there exists a train then it should be traveled upon. In this case, the appropriate trains to be used will be largely dictated by the specific type of equipment being used and/or (in the case of mileage collectors) the particular tracks traversed by the train. Without knowing the purpose of the train trip, it is difficult to make any recommendation about the trains most appropriate, and those that would be impracticable.

It is easy to understand confusion because there are multiple trains each with names that have similarities. I will try to go through what might be among the possible intended choices, and hopefully any confusion can be reduced, if not eliminated completely. The term "Direct to the Wilderness" is a marketing term used by Princess Cruises to describe two distinct trains, each of which operate to and from Whittier, timed to meet the cruises operated by Princess Cruises. These two trains are the "McKinley Express," operating between Whittier and McKinley stations (the latter station being referred to by Princess as Talkeetna station); and the "Denali Express," operating between Whittier and Denali stations. Both of these trains are operated by the Alaska Railroad, but ticketing for both trains is handled by Princess Cruises in connection with cruises operated by Princess Cruises; and ticketing for the "Denali Express" is handled by Holland America Line in connection with cruises operated by Holland America Line. Now as to types of equipment, there are three distinct types of railcars that are generically referred to as dome cars with 360-degree views of the surrounding landscape. The oldest of these cars, built in the 1950s, are "Vista-Dome" cars. These single level cars have an elevated dome section in which seating is not assigned to passengers for the duration of the journey but shared among all rail passengers. (Many, myself included, consider these to be the only "true" dome cars, and they are our preference.) The second type are newer single level cars known as "Panorama Dome" cars. These cars have a glass ceiling that give the illusion of being in a dome. The third type are new double deck cars known as "Ultra Dome" cars. These cars also have a glass ceiling that give the illusion of being in a dome. The "McKinley Express" uses Panorama Dome cars. The "Denali Express" used Ultra Dome cars. There are other trains that also use dome cars. Vista-Dome cars are used on "Coastal Classic" (between downtown Anchorage and Seward), "Denali Star" (between downtown Anchorage, Talkeetna, Denali, and Fairbanks), and "Hurricane Turn" (between Talkeetna and Hurricane), all of which have tickets available from the Alaska Railroad and travel agencies. Panorama Dome cars are used on cruise trains (between downtown Anchorage or Anchorage airport and Seward) in connection with cruises operated by Norwegian Cruise Line, Royal Caribbean International, Celebrity Cruises, Silversea Cruises, and Holland America Line, with tickets available only from the respective cruise lines. Ultra Dome cars are used on "Coastal Classic" (between downtown Anchorage and Seward), "Denali Star" (between downtown Anchorage, Talkeetna, Denali, and Fairbanks), "Wilderness Express" (between downtown Anchorage, Talkeetna, Denali, and Fairbanks), and "McKinley Explorer" (between downtown Anchorage, McKinley, and Denali). Tickets for "Coastal Classic," "Denali Star," and "Hurricane Turn" are available from Alaska Railroad and travel agencies, tickets for "Wilderness Express" are available from Premier Alaska Tours through its Wilderness Express website and travel agencies, and tickets for "McKinley Explorer" are available from Princess Cruises and travel agencies. As to "travel agencies," the most comprehensive and competent agency is Alaska Travel and Tour. Hopefully this information clears up at least some of the confusion.

Living in southern Ohio, you could actually visit an American Queen vessel while it is in port at Cincinnati. The American Dutchess will be in Cincinnati two more times this year, first on October 25, as she sails from Louisville to Pittsburgh, and again on November 4, returning from Pittsburgh to Louisville. Could you get a tour of the vessel during the day, while the passengers are ashore seeing the sights of Cincinnati? While the oceanliners have largely done away with such opportunities, but maybe the riverboat will allow it.

Maybe something had been done since that ruling, perhaps as I had speculated? I would be curious to know. If I were to guess, it would be that SunStone sold all of the foreign-owned zodiacs to an American owner, as that would probably be the least expensive solution to the problem. The decision had stated: "the vessel will arrive in U.S. waters outfitted with fifteen Zodiacs. The Zodiacs are U.S.-made inflatable crafts that will be manned by credentialed U.S. mariners and can carry up to 10-12 passengers. The Zodiacs are less than five net tons, and, as a result, are not eligible for U.S. documentation. Nevertheless, the Zodiacs are not otherwise eligible to be coastwise-qualified because they will be owned by a Bahamian entity. The zodiacs will arrive in and depart from the U.S. aboard the vessel." The decision explained that the only reason for the zodiacs not being coastwise-qualified was their foreign ownership. So change the ownership, and change the coastwise conclusion. Again, just a guess.

Getting into the weeds a little bit . . . . American Queen Voyages itself is one of three operating divisions of Hornblower Group. Based in San Francisco, Hornblower began with local sightseeing and charter operation, with dinner cruises, all now comprising the City Cruises sub-brand of its City Experiences division. City Cruises also includes ferries operated as a park concessionaire, including the ferries to Alcatraz island in San Francisco, to Liberty and Ellis islands in New York, and to the several islands in Boston Harbor. There is also a City Ferry sub-brand used the several passenger and highway ferries that Hornblower operates, the largest of which being NYC Ferry (which is mentioned frequently on the east coast discussion boards because it includes a route connecting Manhattan with the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal). Another division of Hornblower is Journey Beyond, which does business in Australia (not just cruises but also several railroad trips). The American Queen Voyages division of Hornblower operates overnight cruises utilizing eight vessels. Its mainstay has been a fleet of four paddlewheel riverboats. Three are steam powered and operate on the Mississippi river and its tributaries, connecting New Orleans, Memphis, St. Louis (Alton), Minneapolis (Red Wing), Louisville, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Nashville (Clarksville), and Chattanooga . . . these are the vessels American Queen, American Countess, and American Dutchess. A fourth paddlewheel riverboat operates on the Columbia and Snake rivers between Portland (Vancouver) and Spokane (Clarkston). A few years ago the company acquired Victory Cruise Lines and its two small cruise vessels. Renamed Ocean Voyager and Ocean Navigator, these vessel operate along the east coast, the St. Lawrence river, and into the Great Lakes.Most recently the company began offering service on two brand new expedition vessels, Ocean Victory and Ocean Discoverer. Unlike the other vessels in the fleet, these two are not owned and operated by American Queens Voyages, but have instead been chartered from SunStone Ships on a time-share basis. Services on these vessels are provided by Cruise Management International, an affiliate of SunStone. In the summer these vessels provide services to American Queen clients on summer Alaska cruises, with repositioning cruises at the beginning and end of the seasons to and from Costa Rica. In winter the vessel Ocean Victory is chartered to Albatros Expeditions for cruises to Antarctica (the winter disposition of the Ocean Discover is not yet known). As to those "zodiac boats on the back" of the Ocean Victory, there was an interesting ruling recently about them from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In a decision provided to Cruise Management International dated June 25, 2020, and based on the fact that the Ocean Victory is not an American flag vessel (and therefore cannot provide service between American ports exclusively) the government took the position that the zodiacs may be used only to tender passengers to shore at Petersburg, Alaska, but cannot be used to tender passengers to shore at Wrangell, Alaska, nor can the zodiacs be used for sightseeing excursions from the Ocean Victory (because doing so would be a violation of the Passenger Vessel Services Act). The full decision can be read here. Presumably the vessel was designed and chartered with zodiac use intended, and with the allure of the zodiacs, it seems difficult to believe that American Queen will stand for this ruling, either opposing it in court, modifying the zodiacs themselves to be American flagged, or chartering different vessels (this is speculation on my part).

If my memory is accurate--I think it is--until not long ago there were three vessels operating between Skagway and Bellingham, each on weekly cycles, a fourth vessel operating between Skagway and Prince Rupert on a twice-weekly cycle, plus the cross-gulf vessel operating between Kodiak and Bellingham on a fortnightly cycle. Thus, in each direction there were, on average 5-1/2 trips per week. As to the Prince Rupert vessel, all of the trips--two round-trips weekly--operated between Prince Rupert and Juneau, but only one round-trip continued north of Juneau to Skagway (because the sailing time to Skagway would be long for both round-trips to be completed within a single week). Thus, north of Juneau there were only, on average, 4 trips per week by these mainline vessels. However, the Alaska Marine Highway operates additional day boats between Juneau and Skagway (on average, these day boats operate 3-1/2 trips per week), so with the mainlines and the day boats combined, there had been even more service north of Juneau compared to the rest of the mainline. Now, however, we've decreased from those 5-1/2 trips per week to 1-1/2 trips per week . . . a 73 percent reduction in service!

I agree with much that reasoning, and also empasize that using the Alaska Marine Highway allows one to plan their own itinerary rather than having to live with what the cruise line planners have selected. That said, however, that usefulness of the Alaska Marine Highway has diminished substantially in the last few years. Previously there had been multiple vessels operating along the mainline, and so it might have only required staying in an intermediate port for a day or two before the next vessel would come to call. Now, however, there's only a single mainline vessel, the Matanuska, generally operating on a weekly cycle between Skagway, Juneau, Bellingham, and intermediate port, plus some additional service by the Kennicott, operating on a 2-week cycle between Kodiak, Whittier, Juneau, Bellingham, and intermediate ports. Thus, one would expect to have to wait an entire week for the same vessel to return and continue onward in the same direction. It is a budget problem for the State of Alaska. Nonetheless, the ferries do go to many places that the cruise lines do not, including places served by the various "day boats" also operated by the Alaska Marine Highway (and a few other ferry lines).

By "that type of itinerary," I take it to mean those that do not originate in Seattle or Vancouver. That would include all but the first type. I will also note that my "go to" website for searching for cruises is the Vacations to Go website. Select "more search options" and you will find a very useful search engine, including, for example, the ability to select "Alaska" cruise and also to exclude Seattle and Vancouver as ports visited. I highly recommend the website. The site works best for mass market cruise lines, so it may have limited utility if you're looking outside that market. The best values (in terms of the amount of cruising and services provided per dollar spent) are offered by the mass market cruise lines . . . all of which operated to or from Vancouver and Seattle. So if avoiding Vancouver and Seattle is important, then you will not be able to use any of the itineraries in the "first" category, and which constitute the vast majority of cruises and capacity available. Also, by avoiding Seattle and Vancouver you will miss seeing that portion of the Inside Passage through British Columbia. Nearly all vessels traversing this route through British Columbia do so without making any stops enroute. The main exception being the vessel Northern Expedition, operated by BC Ferries, which stops at Bella Bella and/or Klemtu, though only for one hour and not really allowing any time to see the communities if just passing through (one would have to stop over, and wait for the next ferry, to do any real exploration of either community). In the "second" category, some of the larger cruise lines offering itineraries in Alaska--all using small vessels--are the following. American Cruise Lines offers 7- and 10-night cruises, on the vessel American Constellation (175 passengers), throughout the Alaska panhandle, originating round-trip from Juneau, never venturing south of Ketchikan. Alaskan Dream Cruises has several small vessels (10 to 76 passengers), operating 5- through 9-night cruises one-way between Juneau, Sitka, and Ketchikan. UnCruise Adventures has several small vessels (22 to 86 passengers), operating 7- through 14-night cruises, either round-trip from Juneau or one-way between Juneau, Sitka, and Ketchikan. Lindblad Expeditions has three small vessels (62 and 100 passengers), operating 5- through 10-night cruises, one-way between Juneau, Sitka, and Ketchikan. There are a number of other cruise lines offering similar itineraries, all using small vessels. The cruises in the "third" category are not offered regularly, usually not more than once a year, and vary from year-to-year. These are somewhat larger than those in the "second" category, but still very small in comparison with the mass market cruise lines. In 2022 these cruises have included the vessel Scenic Eclipse (228 passengers), operated by Scenic Cruises from Greenland to Nome, then Nome to Vancouver; the vessel Silver Wind (274 passengers), operated by Silversea Cruises, from Greenland to Nome, then Nome to Vancouver; the vessel l'Austral (264 passengers), operated by Ponant Cruises, from Greenland to Nome, then Nome to Vancouver; the vessel le Commandant Charcot (270 passengers), operated by Ponant Cruises, from Iceland to Nome; and the vessel Roald Amundsen (528 passengers), operated by Hurtigruten, from Vancouver to Nome, then Nome to Halifax. Again, these are 2022 cruises, and the available itineraries for future years will be somewhat different, though the lines offering these itineraries will not vary too much . . . look also possibly at Hapaq-Lloyd and Lindblad Expeditions for future itineraries. For the fourth category, Alaska Marine Highway offers point-to-point ferry passage on the vessel Matanuska, generally on a weekly schedule, from Skagway via Haines, Juneau, Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, and Bellingham, with some trips calling at Sitka, Kake, and Prince Rupert. Also, the vessel Kennicott operates every two weeks from Kodiak via Chenega Bay, Whittier, Yakutat, Juneau, Ketchikan, and Bellingham. Finally, the vessel Tustumena operates once per month from Kodiak, through the Aleutian Island chain to Dutch Harbor and return. These three vessels all have staterooms and dining, each of which is optional and purchased individually. (There are also "day boats," without staterooms, providing short trips to many Alaskan communities.

I would say that there are really four main categories of Alaska cruises that might be considered. First, and most popular, is the mass market category. Dominated by the Carnival brands (Princess Cruises and Holland America Line), these lines provide regular and consistent service to all of the main ports, and provide what is generally perceived to be the typical Alaska cruise. Review the itineraries to get best combination of ports visited; the specific vessel traveled upon is less important. Generally, there are two choices: (1) a round-trip cruise from Seattle to a selection of Alaska panhandle ports, and (2) a one-way cruise between Vancouver and either Whittier or Seward (both being south of Anchorage). The second category is the small vessel market category. Some of the vessels used in this category are pure luxury, while others are American flag vessels that, as a matter of law, can provide transportation that foreign flag vessels cannot. This includes lines such as Seabourn, American Queen, and American Cruise Lines. All of these vessels generally attempt to serve smaller ports and other places where the mass market vessels cannot go (either because of the vessel size or because of the number of people being transported). Some itineraries travel entirely within Alaska, never venturing into either Seattle or Vancouver. If you're looking to see Alaska, and don't really care about vessel amenities (e.g., spas, shows, on-board shopping), these can be ideal cruises, albeit at a much higher cost than the mass market vessels. Third are the expedition cruises, with all or some of the vessels operated by lines such as Hurtigruten, Ponant, and Silversea in this category. These cruises look to visit more adventuress places, not frequently visited by many cruises lines, places such Nome and the Aleutian Islands. Most itineraries in this category are one-way, a few of which traverse the Northwest Passage, cruising the Arctic Ocean between Alaska and Nunavut, Greenland, Newfoundland or other east coast ports. Finally, there are ferries, most notably the Alaska Marine Highway and BC Ferries. These "cruises" can be tailored individually, on a port-to-port basis, spending as much time as desired in each port (such to ferry schedules). The ferry network stretches from Bellingham, Washington, or Port Hardy, British Columbia, through Prince Rupert and the panhandle of Alaska up to Juneau and Skagway, additional services operate less frequently from Juneau through Whittier, Kodiak, and the Aleutian Islands. Services are disaggregated, with separate charges for passage, staterooms, and meals, allowing one to choose what to purchase. Generally, the services provided by the ferries are basic but comfortable, the real benefit being the ability to plan your own cruise.

Interesting to see the differences between states. At first I thought is might be cultural, or perhaps the greater prevalence of mom-and-pop businesses in New York (vis-à-vis big box and chain stores). But it might be differences in tax rates. New York City has a tax on sales at a rate of 8.875 percent while Fairbanks has no general sales tax. New York City has a tax on personal income at rates of up to 10.9 percent imposed by the state, plus up to 3.876 percent imposed by the state, and not only is there additional tax on corporate income but also additional tax on unincorporated business income (plus an MTA tax on income to support transportation) . . . Fairbanks has no tax on personal income, though there is a tax on corporate income. Given the lack of taxation, there would be no incentive for businesses to employ methods that obscure income receipts and evade taxation. No incentive to discount cash prices.

It is similar in Canada, where Interac is used regularly for even small transactions. But that type of system has not really caught on in the United States to the same extent. I suspect that part of the reason is that cash used in transactions is not visible to the government--and a portion of such transactions escapes taxation--whereas electronic systems record all transactions and permit more thorough taxation. Routinely, many smaller businesses (and even many service stations) will offer lower prices for cash transactions, notwithstanding any cost for the handling of such cash, whereas larger businesses--and especially government businesses that are not taxed, such as public transportation systems--are more sensitive to cash handling costs and will do the opposite: offer lower prices for electronic transactions. Going into a smaller business, where prices might be negotiated, it is accepted that offering to pay cash is a bargaining tool in negotiating. Restaurants thrive in a cash world; where I reside in New York City, most restaurants do not accept credit cards (their menus have in large typeface "CASH ONLY"), and those that do accept credit cards are either part of a chain or are sufficiently expensive so that transaction and taxation costs are not substantial.

It has been a while since I have been in Alaska, so I don't have that first-hand experience. But where I live, in New York City, it would seem quite odd to me for a person to get, say, a bagel and coffee, and pay with anything other than cash. (In New York I have never seen a street vendor even having the capability of accepting credit cards, and I imagine that no vendors would want to either pay the credit card transaction cost or take the time to process a credit card transaction.) I would have the same reluctance in Alaska, and I would opt to pay cash.

My suggestion is to wait until you arrive in the United States, then use an ATM that has minimal fees and withdraw twenty American dollars to use for incidentals (cash gratuities, small purchases, street vendors, bus fares, etc.). Where I reside minimal fee ATMs are located in McDonald's restaurants, where a withdrawal of any amount incurs a fee of $1.19 (perhaps some Alaska residents can chime in as to where minimal fee ATMs are located within the state). Most American ATMs dispense cash in twenty dollar increments. If you know from prior experience that you're more generous with incidentals, then you might withdraw forty American dollars, but with ATMs being ubiquitous, you might just do twenty American dollars at a time.

In older harbors pilings near the shore are usually the remnants of former wharves and piers. But with the Grand Trunk Railway having been absorbed into the Canadian National Railway in 1923, the importance of Portland as being an all-weather port for Canada diminished. As the need diminished, its wharves in Portland were decommissioned, leaving the pilings behind (and later the tracks themselves were pulled, but for the narrow gauge tracks in their place). You will see the same thing in other older harbors. For example, in New York City the New York Central used to have massive railroad yards and piers on the west side of Manhattan, surrounding the present-day Manhattan Cruise Terminal. Such was also the case on the New Jersey side in Weehawken. All of that has been removed and the land redeveloped, but you can still find many of the pilings remaining.

I am not certain if you're an obvious question or something more subtle. The obvious response is that those are the supports for the wharf that had previously occupied the site, used by the Grand Trunk Railway. You can see the wharf in the 1956 and 1970 aerial views at Historic Aerials, on map plate 6 of the 1896 Sanborn fire insurance map of Portland hosted at the Library of Congress, and this picture book of Portland's eastern waterfront. Is there something more subtle that you asking (e.g., the reason pylons are grouped as they are for supporting but a single wharf)? The Grand Trunk Railway later became part of the Canadian National Railway, which spun off the line to the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railroad. The portion of the route south of Auburn was sold to the state in 2015, and within central Portland narrow gauge tracks were laid for use by the Maine Narrow Gauge Railroad Company & Museum for its passenger excursion trains. But the once busy waterfront no longer has any serious railroading activity, and so no longer any need for those railroad wharves.

It is a fascinating dynamic, both legally and politically. I read one scholarly paper on the subject suggesting that Uber's plan was to create dependence on its (superior) service, and by doing so the electorate would compel the regulators, politically, to acquiesce to Uber's operating plan, notwithstanding a contrary regulatory structure. Nonetheless, the Pennsylvania PUC imposed its largest fine ever on Uber because of the company's failure to adhere to the commonwealth's regulation of brokers. Another related fascinating aspect is whether TNCs ought to be considered carriers or brokers, given the degree that they exercise control over the drivers they engage. I had in mind the trip between the airport in Newark and midtown Manhattan. Airports generally have taxi stands where there is (or should be) a queue of taxis waiting and ready-to-go, no pre-arangement required. Is that not more responsive than having to make arrangements with Uber or Lyft? Is the taxi queue at the airport in Newark reliable? More generally, Uber and Lyft require waiting for one specific vehicle, while taxi service allows users to hail any vehicle. Perhaps there is not a single answer for responsiveness, and it depends on where one is located? I rarely use taxis, Uber or Lyft, averaging one trip every few years (taxis, Uber, and Lyft are generally more expensive and less comfortable than bus travel, so I eschew such transportation when possible). So I don't have much of the practical experience in making comparisons among the choices. I have higher expectations of taxis, because they are common carriers with the legal duties associated therewith, their fares are supposed to be fair and not subject to whim (e.g., "surge" pricing), and there is no prerequisite of having a smartphone. Yet, by having an effectively exclusive franchise, many taxi service providers becamse lax, and allowed Uber to provide a better quality service. Thus, I find it to be of interest how different people react to each type of service, if only because I do not have sufficient personal experience.

The problem with the quoted plan is that route 4 does not travel directly from Jordan Pond to Sand Beach. The buses on route 4 travel the loop road in a one-way circle, where Jordan Pond is already past Sand Beach. So to go backwards from Jordan Pond to Sand Beach you have to go all the way around the loop. Staying on the same bus, it will take more than one hour to travel from Jordan Pond to Sand Beach. (You could reduce the travel time to 45 minutes by traveling on either a route 4 or route 5 bus from Jordan Pond towards the Visitor Center, alighting at North Ridge (Paradise Hill Road), crossing to the other side of the street, and then travel on a route 4 bus coming from the Visitor Center headed towards Sand Beach.) While the quoted plan is possible, it is not very efficient, and you will spend much time on buses and retracing steps, because of the one-way roadway system. If possible, it is best to order your anticipated stops in the same order as the one-way loop road.

Bad idea all around to schedule the flight for arrival on the same morning of cruise vessel departure. (True, sometimes people don't have the time to leave home earlier, but then there comes the risk of flight delays resulting in missed cruise vessel departure.) All the more reason to do the test at home. When you live here in NYC, and all you see are urgent care centers advertising the tests, and mobile units on every block offering the test, it is easy to take that as the normal situation in all cities. But as to the situation at hand: a person can test at "home," where they have the time to consider what their own city offers; or wait until getting to NYC, where there are so many testing options available. My preference would be the former, to test at "home," but I would not get worked up over the latter (if anything, I would get worked up over the flight getting delayed).

You may want to look at the maps portion of the National Park Service website devoted to Acadia National Park. Along the one-way loop road, the order of the sites, and the bus routes serving each, is: Village Green (1,3), Sand Beach (3,4), Thunder Hole (3,4), Otter Cliff (4), Otter Point (4), Jordan Pond (4,5), Bubble Pond (4,5), Visitor Center (1,4,5), Village Green (1,3).