GTJ

There's three railway stations serving the city of Québec. You'll likely want to use the main station in the central city, known as the Gare du Palais. It is a gorgeous historic station and the last stop for the Via Rail Canada trains from Montréal. Attached to the station is a modern intercity bus station, so if the Via Rail Canada timetable is not convenient then Orléans Express might provide more convenient bus service between Montréal and Québec (there are 12 trips daily between the two cities, including 3 daily trips that originate at the Montréal airport and travel direct to the Gare du Palais at 2:00 p.m., 5:00 p.m., and 8:30 p.m., travel time from airport to Gare du Palais is 4 hours 15 minutes). It is a short walk between the Gare du Palais and the port in Québec. Another station serving Québec is Sainte-Foy, a suburban station that used by many people not having business in the center of Québec. It is also close to many suburban hotels with lower rates compared to central Québec, and there is good bus local transit bus service (regular, frequent, expeditious) from Ste-Foy to Québec. A third station serving Québec is Chute-Montmorency, an outlying station that is used exclusively by the Train de Charlevoix (not Via Rail Canada) for its scenic summer service to La Malbaie, which is in the opposite direction from Montréal.

I have a balcony at home. I go outside now and then, but likely not as often as some people might imagine. Why would I pay extra to have another balcony adjacent to my stateroom when traveling by sea? If I want to stand on a balcony I can do that at home. More generally, my reason for traveling by cruise vessel is primarily to visit the places enumerated on the itinerary. I have little desire to sit all day in my stateroom, or on a balcony attached thereto. Again, if I wanted to sit around in my own room, I could do that at home. The stateroom is simply a place to sleep and shower. It need not be large or exterior (though I would not deny the greater comfort provided by those characteristics). Indeed, I would compare the utility of a stateroom to that of a railway roomette, and in making that comparison I marvel at the substantial size of even the tiniest inside stateroom in comparison to those railway accommodations.

Some people might be scared of operating a bicycle on the streets, just as I have a fear of operating a motor vehicle (so I don't). While there are sometimes segregated bicycle paths that might alleviate the fear, if it is truly something that is disconcerting, then don't. San Francisco has other means of transportation, and is good for walking, for bus and streetcar, for ferry and cruise. All that being said, however, a very large number of people do use bicycles to travel around San Francisco, and it is a reasonable means of seeing the city, requiring no special licensure or other preparation.

Alas, a number of years ago the City of New York bought out the rights to the bus routes formerly operated by Command Bus Company, and these are now operated by MTA Bus Company. Additionally, the once-excellent service operated by Command Bus Company on route BM3, destined for Sheepshead Bay every 20-to-30 minutes during the day, has been decimated, with buses now operating every 70 minutes during the day. But with the larger advice I have agreement. There's really two types of tourist visits to New York City. First, the tourist circuit that this industry revolves around, the group of sights in Manhattan that they all urge the tourists to visit as "must-sees." And while at least some may be very much worthwhile, mostly people visit because they have been told to do so by the tourism industry, and the patter provided by guides is often filled with disconnected factoids lacking much context. Second, visits to those places that are truly historic, cultural, or otherwise interesting for other than making money for the tourism industry. It requires a bit more effort in preparing, and perhaps even engaging a specialize guide (my favorite is The Geography of NYC, http://www.geognyc.com)., providing interpretive visits to places of geographic interest). It won't be Disneyland, with some spectacular around every corner, but rather it can provide an appreciation for what this city is, how it became that way, and where its future might be.

Functionally, all of these services are the same--they provide door-to-door transportation on the demand of the person hiring the vehicle--even though the quality of the service may vary. Because they are functionally the same I would like to be able to use a single term for the entire collection of them all, instead of having to explicitly enumerate each (e.g., taxi, TNC vehicle, black car). A "for-hire vehicle," or "FHV," is an adequate term, but I suspect that many people do not know what FHV means (even the term TNC confuses some people). The term "taxi" is a nice surrogate for FHV, understandable and accurate in a generic sense, even though inaccurate specifically. I have generally used the expression "taxi or TNC vehicle" when I mean any type of FHV, but I don't particularly like that expression.

It is not very common for cruise itineraries marketed to those persons residing in North America. However, for vessels coming from across the pond, and largely carrying Europeans and treating New York as an intermediate port of call, they may stay in New York for multiple days because New York City is such a big attraction for them. It is fair to say that New York offers more than almost any other destination, and that a one day visit is an inadequate port of call. Most itineraries marketed to North America residents use New York as an embarkation and/or disembarkation port, and persons from outside New York can easily adjust their travel plans to spend as much time in New York, before and/or after their cruise, to see what they would like to see.

I think it is fair to say, with respect to commercial aviation, that reasonable facilities are provided to travelers at Portland International Airport. Car rental companies do not provide transportation (they rent vehicles, but do not actually transport passengers themselves), but even with their non-transportation service, these rental companies generally provide reasonable facilities for their customers. The facilities available for for-hire transportation services, where the customer specifies their pick-up location (as in chartered flights and limousines), are chosen by the customer hiring the carrier. In sum, reasonable facilities are provided for all of the transportation carriers (even if those facilities are not as good as they could be, as has been alleged with seating at the railway station) . . . except the intercity bus lines. Those persons intending to travel from Portland to Vancouver should be aware of this deficiency and likely failure to meet reasonable expectations. To be fair to Portland, the problem is not limited to that city alone. Even in this country's greatest city, New York, FlixBus uses a parking lot with no seating or other facilities, and Megabus uses a sidewalk alongside a fenced railroad yard with no seating or other facilities. But other bus companies do use the Port Authority Bus Terminal, where there is seating and other facilities (insufficient as they may be), so discriminating travelers can (usually) choose a bus company based on facilities. And New York is making progress on providing an upgraded intercity bus terminal with sufficient capacity and facilities to meet the reasonable expectations of travelers. Whether it is accomplished by the bus companies or by the municipalities themselves, all cities of any reasonable size ought to have facilities for their intercity bus travelers that meet their reasonable expectations.

For better or for worse, many people do blame companies for locating in places with transportation not meeting their expectations. Those companies may not be directly at fault for the transportation inadequacies, but nonetheless may be the recipients of the criticism. An example that is local for me: Royal Caribbean Cruises made the decision several years ago to move its departures from New York, N.Y., to Bayonne, N.J. Transportation in New York is generally very good, while transportation in Bayonne is much less so: there is neither local bus nor rail service providing service within reasonable walking distance of the terminal in Bayonne. Royal Caribbean has no direct control over the transportation in either city. And good policy arguments could be made that it is the government that is shirking its duties in failing to provide good transportation in Bayonne. Yet, I blame Royal Caribbean because it chose to locate itself in a place with inferior transportation . . . all else being equal, I would choose to patronize another cruise line that has remained in New York.

True, there should be be reasonable facilities and services for all, whether cruise passenger or not. But I think it can be insulting when someone, after having expended significant sums for a cruise, to then be presented with inadequate facilities and services that cause one to feel not welcomed.

What a great excursion! Have you already downloaded the bicycling map for the city? http://www.quebec-cite.com/en/what-to-do-quebec-city/bike-paths

The relevance is the comparison of the facilities offered to passengers seeking to travel from Portland, Ore., to Vancouver, B.C. The seats at the railroad station in Portland might be less than ideal, but at least Amtrak is providing a respectable and reasonably comfortable location. These are characteristics that may be important to people as they choose their means of travel from one place to another. Among those choices are Greyhound Lines and FlixBus. And so in this particular instance, showing that there are worse choices available, with respect to seating and shelter, may provide reaffirmation of the Amtrak choice, notwithstanding the seating its provides possibly being less than ideal. In addition, as duly noted, the information provided here should not necessarily limited the specific circumstances of the original poster because many others will read the information provided, and use that information to make their own choices. One might also go beyond a mere informational exchange here, and raise the larger transportation policy issues that permeate travel more generally. For example, there has been a trend in recent decades to relocate both railway and bus stations to places outside city centers (though this trend has greatly retarded, and arguably reversed, for railway stations, but has been accelerating for bus stations), and included within this trend is the outright elimination of stations altogether and their replacement with, at best, gasoline service stations, and at worse, a barren sidewalk in a desolate urban location. Many cities are complicit in this problem, oftentimes taking the view that persons who would choose to travel by bus are uniformly undesirable. The bus station situation in Portland should be viewed as an embarrassment to an important American city, and the largest in the state of Oregon. People traveling from Portland to Vancouver, having paid for an expensive cruise voyage, would ordinarily and reasonably expect proper facilities for making the transfer, whether by air, rail, or bus. The city of Portland should ensure that all modal facilities meet those expectations. But, at least for the time being, they do not. As also duly noted, the former Greyhound Lines station was not ideal. Indeed, I remember that, with Amtrak having arranged for several Greyhound schedules being operated as "Thruway" connections, Amtrak invited its Thruway passengers to remain in its station, rather than to wait in the former Greyhound station, promising to announce Thruway Greyhound departures in the Amtrak station, all, presumably, to save Amtrak passengers to discomforts of the Greyhound station. There ought to be a convenient, comfortable, and respectable bus station for the city of Portland.

I would love to see the railroad's rotary snow plow in service, clearing the track.

However uncomfortable the seats in the railroad station may be, at least there are seats. Greyhound Lines, including its sister company FlixBus, provides no seats for passengers boarding in Portland. No station, either, just stand outside in all types of weather, next to a fence. No checked baggage either. Beware. https://goo.gl/maps/ktz8QKGtfQaDXVyX9

Yes. While it would not be my choice to do so, it is entirely possible and no one would object to your avoidance of all excursions. Treat the vessel as a floating and mobile resort hotel. Use the facilities while in port. Or exit the vessel, remaining nearby, just to visit a restaurant or perhaps peer into some stores. Keep in mind, though, that all meals will be available to you on the vessel, included in your fare, while any meals you take ashore will be at your additional expense. No one outside your party will think of this as "terrible," and the only judgment that will be made will be your own. You know best what you want to do, what you can do, and what you can afford to do. That's the best guidance.

I would probably remain aboard until the very last stop, at the Salesforce Transit Center. This stop is the primary transportation facility for San Francisco, is in the heart of the city's central business district, and five short blocks from the Embarcadero and the Ferry Building (where one finds the Sausalito ferries). The Embaradero runs along the waterfront and is completely flat and easy for walking. Alternatively, from the Salesforce Transit Center, walk north on First Street, which becomes Battery Street on the far side of Market Street. Battery Street is also flat and easy walking, and leads directly to Pier 27 (slightly over one mile walk, 20 to 30 minutes on foot). Alighting on Van Ness Avenue might be good if one anticipates visiting Fisherman's Wharf, but in walking directly from that part of Van News Avenue to Pier 27 could involve some hilly walking. SF.pdf

I don't drive, so I can't relate to the issue of reading signs while also operating a motor vehicle, but from both walking and being a passenger on buses, I can't recall ever having difficulty navigating because the signs are not in English. The most important words, the cardinal directions (nord, sud, est, ouest), are all cognates of English words, and so I would think that there's really only one other important word to know, sortie (exit). But maybe I am just so used to reading signs in Québec that the fact they're all written in French is just second nature to me. I have not given it much thought about persons not knowing any French being able to navigate in Montréal. In any case, I would recommend using public transportation, and not driving, in Montréal, if not for the signs but rather that the traffic and highway engineering makes it challenging, just as it is in New York City.

Generally, I prefer using regular public transportation, rather than a tour that mimics public transportation, because there is usually great choice in timing, without the need to travel on one particular vehicle at a specific time. Marin Transit offers this public transportation service for a round-trip fare of $3.50 per passenger (but add to that the ferry fare to and from San Francisco, about $14 each way, and the national monument admission charge of $15, and the real total comes to about $46), as compared to the tour that charges $89. http://www.marintransit.org/routes/66 Unlike the tour, however, Marin Transit offers little hand-holding or other guidance, and so paying twice the price for the guided tour does provide a greater degree of confidence for those persons who might be intimidated by having to navigate on their own. Additionally, Marin Transit had suspended route 66F, which had provided service direct between Muir Woods and Sausalito, and it is not entirely clear if and when that direct service might return (in the absence of direct route 66F service, one would have to transfer to route 17 for service between the Larkspur ferry and Sausalito).

Which is why I find it amusing to listen to people complain about one base station's drivers and cars and swear by the other . . . when they're all essentially using the same pool of drivers and cars, the transportation providers simply jumping from one base station to another.

It might be that the railroad employs some knowledgeable historians. But I would wary of relying on what might be said by on-board employees who are simply reading from a well-worn script.

If the purpose of going to the bus stop at the corner of Jefferson Street and Mason Street is to board the "hop on-hop off" bus service operated by Open Top Sightseeing, LLC, dba Big Bus Tours, then it might be more convenient to instead walk to Pier 35 and board that bus service there. The advantage of walking to Jefferson Street and Mason Street, and boarding the bus at the company's office located at 99 Jefferson Street, is that the first bus departure in the morning is at 10:00 a.m., thereby allowing for a relatively early start that day. That first bus does not get to the Pier 35 bus stop until 11:45 a.m. I do not know the address "69 Jefferson Street." Are you certain of its accuracy? Finally, I note that this 2-hour "hop on-hop off" bus tour loop has a fare of $65.70. I note that the San Francisco Municipal Railway sells a 1-day visitor "passport" for as little as $13.00 (using the MuniMobile application), valid for the entire day on all streetcars, cable cars, and buses throughout the entire city.

Keep in mind that the ferry has limited service hours. Should the ferry schedule be inconvenient, or if you should miss the last ferry. there is also direct bus service operating hourly until nearly midnight on route no. 130. Ferry is $14.00 each way, bus is $8.00 each way (exact fare required for bus). GGT Ferry.pdf GGT Route 130.pdf

I would qualify "most people." As a whole, over 90 percent of the residents of the city of Québec are fracophone, and only about 2 percent having English as their mother tongue. A substantial number people--probably most people--do not understand English well enough to have a meaningful conversation. However, within the city centre, where tourists abound, English is well used and a de facto requirement for any public-facing position in the hospitality industry (hotels, restaurants). In navigating, customs with respect to street signs, bus maps and timetables, and the like, are much the same as in English-speaking Canada, only the words being a bit different. So if you're used to boarding a bus, paying the fare, taking your seating, and pulling the stop request cord when approaching your stop, you will be just fine. Most likely no need to speak. In reading a bus map or timetable, most should be intuitive (there are many French-English cognates), with the following words being most important in navigation. nord=north, sud=south, est=east, ouest=west, de=from, à=to, centre ville=city centre As a matter of courtesy, it would be useful to learn a few French words, and use them when initiating or terminating a conversation that is otherwise in English. bonjour=good day, bonsoir=good evening, merci (beaucoup)=thank you (very much) Google translate (translate.google.com) provides audio if you're uncertain how to pronounce any French words. Generally, people in Québec like Americans, they understand that many Americans do not know French (as opposed to fellow Canadians whom many believe ought to know French), appreciate gestures from Americans recognizing their distinct French Canadian society, and are patient.

That can be a problem with Amtrak, too. Sometimes the train crew will assign particular cars, and even specific seats, in advance of boarding, but other times not. More often assignments are given on western trains, while in the northeast passengers are free to choose any car without crew interference (at least within a specific class of service). I really don't like assigned seating, one of the reasons being the ability to choose a particular car or car type. Many years ago, when residing near San Francisco, I would travel on the Southern Pacific railroad, between San Francisco and San Jose, and the consists of some trains would include the more modern gallery cars (built 1955-57 and 1968) and the older suburban cars (built 1924-27). Given the choice, I would invariably choose the older suburban cars. (Several of the suburban cars were later sold to the Grand Canyon Railway, where they continue to operate, while others have gone to museums; some of the 1968 gallery cars were rebuilt as Ultra Dome cars for Tour Alaska and continue to operate for Princess Cruises and Holland America Line passengers.) Similarly, Amtrak for a while operated both its Superliner cars and the former Santa Fe Hi-Level (El Capitan) cars, and when I had a choice I would always opt for the Hi-Level cars. Are Lake Emerald (car 244) and Lake Tutshi (car 260) the two oldest? My understanding is that the first was built in 1884, for the South Pacific Coast Railroad, and later used by the Northwestern Pacific Railroad, and the second was built in 1893, for the Pacific Coast Railway, all in California. I have thought the oldest are Lake Atlin (car 218) and Lake Dewey (car 220) both having been built in 1881 for the Stony Clove and Catskill Mountain Railroad in New York. Such is reported in the Wikipedia article, disputing the contention that cars 218 and 220 were from the Los Angeles and Redondo Railway (as cited in my copy of the Canadian Trackside Guide 2004). The "railfan" section of the White Pass Route website has not been updated for so long (it does not even mention the railroad's newest cars, and the employee timetable posted is out of date), and it just seems to be a bit careless, possibly because owner Carnival likely treats the railroad as an amusement more so than anything truly historic, but in any case would not appear to be a particularly reliable source of information. Is there any definitive evidence of the oldest White Pass Route cars? In any case, however, my preference prioritizes any of the historic cars over the modern cars.

Is your concern actually safety, or is it really a security concern? Two different things. But neither is a substantial concern in the area between Times Square and the Manhattan Cruise Terminal. As to minimizing any concerns over security, walk along the busiest streets with the greatest amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. This could be walking crosstown on 42nd Street, then uptown on Twelfth Avenue. As to minimizing any concerns over safety, avoid wearing dark clothing, watch where you step, and look out for traffic, especially turning vehicles.

While it is true that the views of the landscape are identical from all cars--they all travel along the same railroad tracks--there are distinctions among the various cars themselves. (Would anyone select what automobile to purchase based on the scenery viewed from that auto?!) Perhaps most important to railfans is the issue of riding in historic or modern cars. Most of the White Pass Route cars are modern, having been constructed within the past 25 years. This is true of all the cars numbered in the 300-series. The newest cars, numbered in the 500-series, were built in 2019 and 2020. There's also a pair of modern club cars, nos. 401 and 402, built in 2014. I imagine, however, that most railfans would prefer riding in the historic cars rather than the modern ones. Most of the cars in the 200-series are these old cars. In particular, cars 218 and 220 are the oldest cars on the roster, each dating from June 1881 (nearly 142 years old each!), having originally been built for the Stony Clove and Catskill Mountain Railroad in the Catskill Mountains of New York. Many other these 200-series cars also date from the nineteenth century, though several are from the early twentieth century (as late as 1936). There are a few exceptions: cars 200 through 209, 230, and 290 are all modern cars. There is a paucity of train consists posted online, so I am not certain the extent to which the various cars are used on each of the railroad's daily trains. But my suggestion is to travel with a roster in hand so that the "best" car can be selected . . . based on those car criteria one believes are most important. Otherwise, you will likely just get herded into a car at random.