GTJ

No serious person can dispute New York City being the single most important city in the United States. Certainly other cities--including those further west--have carved out their niches. But even the largest of those other cities, such as Los Angeles and Chicago, pale in comparison to the size and influence of New York. When persons overseas aspire to the United States, their focus is New York. Objectively, no other city, singularly, is as important as New York.

While timetables are usually associated with travel by bus, railroad, aircraft, and vessel, and are not relevant to driving, in the case of driving to or from Whittier, motorists must rely on a timetable. The schedule is posted here: http://dot.alaska.gov/creg/whittiertunnel/schedule.shtml. If you're driving, you must plan your travel in accordance with the tunnel timetable.

New York City is the single most important city in the entire United States, and a majority of people therein are not licensed or capable of driving themselves. For the country as a whole, fewer than 85 percent of the people are licensed to operate a motor vehicle. Importantly, the percentage of people so licensed has been steadily decreasing over the past several years. While driving oneself can, in some circumstances, be one option, it is not a panacea, and one should not assume that driving is a viable option for all. The relevance of the excerpt was to provide an example of persons flagging down a bus along a highway, at other than a scheduled stop. There had been some skepticism expressed over people actually flagging down buses on the highway, and rather than relying on relating my own personal anecdotes, I thought a piece of literature authored by a well-known journalist would provide authoritative illustration.

You did not disclose that you had plans to do anything other than a direct connection between the train and the cruise vessel. That's the purpose of this particular train. And because of that particular purpose, the train does not operate on a daily schedule. You mentioned only one night in Anchorage, but said nothing about additional nights being spent in Seward. It is practicable to use the Cruise Train to connect directly from Anchorage airport to the waiting vessel in Seward . . . but not so otherwise. You can't leave out critical details. For 2023, you can expect the Cruise Train to operate from the Anchorage airport to Seward on Thursdays, Fridays, and alternate Mondays. These are the days that vessels are scheduled from Seward. So if you wanted to travel on the Cruise Train days in advance of your vessel's departure from Seward, you would first have to ensure that the Cruise Train is operating on the anticipated day of travel, and then, second, you would have to either talk your way, or sneak, onto the train. Think of the scene in the movie, North by Northwest, in which Cary Grant successfully sneaks onto the Twentieth Century Limited, with the help of Eva Marie Saint, going from New York's Grand Central Terminal to Chicago's LaSalle Street Station. In the absence of such a surreptitious plan of traveling on the Cruise Train, you could travel on the Coastal Classic train, from downtown Anchorage to Seward; or motorcoach, from either downtown Anchorage or Anchorage airport to Seward. All of the available options are outlined, in detail, in the Canada and Alaska Timetable.

I will note that for LaGuardia Airport, it is a free, non-stop express shuttle bus service between the airport passenger terminals and the subway and railroad stations in Jackson Heights and Woodside. In other words, comparable easy public transportation. (At all three airports there are other public transportation options as well.) So while there are some specific distinctions for each airport, from the broader perspective all the airports have good transportation to and from midtown Manhattan, be it private transportation or public transportation, and there is no general basis upon which any one airport should not be considered.

You've made my point well. Limiting access to Bar Harbor and the national park with respect to persons traveling by cruise vessel (i.e., public transportation), but to allow unfettered access with respect to persons traveling by private automobile, would be unfairly discriminatory against persons relying on public transportation (and also contrary to the national goal of encouraging use of public transportation instead of private automobile). My belief is that the discrimination arises from the prejudices of the local residents, nearly all of whom drive around daily in their private automobiles, and rarely, if ever, travel by cruise vessel.

I think that you're getting confused as to the difference between property rights and the town's use of its police power. Among the long-accepted rights bundled with property ownership is the right to exclude. A person who owns a road or a sea port can generally exclude others from using that real property (assuming no easements). And that property owner generally has no obligation to provide access (assuming no use of eminent domain, beach access obligations, etc.). Now there may be lawful limitations on how public entities may acquire and use property, but outside such specific limitations, there is no general obligation for Bar Harbor to provide roads, sea ports, or any other transportation facilities. The real concern is not property rights but rather the police power. Consider an owner of property that desires to provide port facilities to operators of vessels, but the town steps in and, through its use of the police power exacts an ordinance prohibiting the property owner from using its own port facilities. This would have nothing to do with the town, itself, providing, or refusing to provide, port facilities. In short, I think that you're arguing a point against which no one is taking a contrary position.

Are you suggesting that the roads existing between Bar Harbor and Acadia National Park be torn up, so that Harbor is no longer used as a gateway to the park? The fact is that Bar Harbor is the closest community to Acadia National Park, and is, de facto, the gateway thereto. Obviously, the town itself need not be a provider of transportation to and from the park (though it could decide that it is in its economic interest to do so), but that has little to do with the Bar Harbor being a de facto gateway to the national park.

To be certain as to your inquiry, I think you're asking about a hotel in Saint John, where you might spend the night after arriving by airplane, and preceding embarkation on the Bay Ferries vessel, Fundy Rose (departing daily at 9:00 a.m.). There are many hotels in Saint John, though not many in West Saint John from the vessel departs. You might consider Cosy Cottage Inn, http://www.savageyogainc.com/cosycottageinn, located about 1 km from the Bay Ferries passenger terminal. Being a small inn, you might even be offered a ride there in the morning. Also, keep in mind that the passenger terminal at Digby is not in the city centre, but is 5 km beyond. Be certain you will have transportation available upon arrival in Digby.

There are at least two basic concerns I have here. First is accessibility to Bar Harbor. Another person wrote about being able to drive themselves by private car to Bar Harbor, and the inconveniences imposed on them by other persons arriving by cruise ship. Not everyone is capable of driving themselves--doing so requires ability and resources. Many of us require public transportation to get to Bar Harbor. Overland, there is no meaningful public transportation access to Bar Harbor, Greyhound Lines having pulled its service many years ago. The only practicable public transportation available to Bar Harbor are the services offered by the several cruise lines. To deny cruise lines access to Bar Harbor is the imposition of a barrier: automobile drivers are okay, but public transportation users are unwanted. Second is the principle of travel freedom that ties together the several states into a federation. To permit a state to deny free ingress and regress besmirches the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Limiting vessel size sounds appealing, at least initially. I don't like huge vessels myself. Yet fares on small vessels can be quite steep. To limit the ability to travel by cruise vessel to Bar Harbor to only those persons able to afford the very high fares of small vessel operators would be unfairly exclusionary. Fundamentally, the matter seems to be that a relatively small number of individuals desire to restrict access to a national park for themselves and those they approve. The park belongs to all of us, not the few who live in Bar Harbor.

Yes. I assume you would be flying in the day before (wise decision) and are looking for just an inexpensive hotel for the night, and not otherwise having any substantial plans (sightseeing or otherwise) for Anchorage. Your plan is probably best, among the several bus and train alternatives available, based on simplicity. Presumably, the hotel will shuttle you from the airport on airplane arrival day, and will return you there on railroad departure day. Make the chartered train travel arrangements with the cruise line upon which you will be sailing.

LaGuardia was a politician, so when an issue he wanted to exploit landed in his lap certainly he would have played it up. And so look at what was going on at the time. LaGuardia, alongside Moses, saw the past as being dominated by lumbering streetcars that impeded progress, and the 1930s in particular were known for having motorized so many car lines. He saw automotive transport as the future, and so parkways were being built that decade. Complementing that modern travel was air transport and their necessary airports. And so LaGuardia certainly would have played up the opportunity to bring aviation into New York, and not let New Jersey have the upper hand. New York had built Floyd Bennett field, but it was not well-located and so most commercial traffic went to Newark. So LaGuardia being able to exploit the Newark incident as an impetus for expanding the relatively small airport at North Beach, Queens, into what has become LaGuardia Airport, certainly would have been reasonable at the time. Maybe there was some embellishment by the Daily News, but in the larger picture, LaGuardia knew how to work the press.

This is very disturbing to hear. You were right to be scared about being kidnapped by this renegade taxi driver. The TLC rule is clear here: "While on duty, a Driver must not lock either of the rear doors except with the consent or at the request of a Passenger or for a reason specified in these rules." 35 RCNY § 54-15(d)(1). The reasons specified within the rules relate to taxis being out of service, and so the only legitimate reason the taxi driver could have for imprisoning you in his taxi was that you consented to being imprisoned. If you had a cell phone with you it would have been appropriate to call 9-1-1, explaining that you were being kidnapped or unlawfully imprisoned. Also disturbing is that the driver could not hear. TLC rules require drivers to be physically fit, 35 RCNY § 80-04(e), though the rules don't give any specific requirements as to hearing ability. The driver does need to interact with his or her passenger, so hearing ability it important. This was not a good day for NYC taxi service.

Your question reminded me of a fairly well-known story from 1934, relating to a flight taken by New York City's mayor. As the Daily News reported: "[T]he formidable new mayor of the City of New York was flying home from Chicago aboard a TWA DC-2 that landed, as was its practice, at Newark. And everyone got off the plane except Fiorello LaGuardia, who pointed out that his ticket said CHICAGO-NEW YORK and said he wanted to go to New York, not Newark. And the captain politely explained that, well, Newark was where New York flights landed because that's where the airport was. And LaGuardia said again that his ticket damn well said New York and he refused to leave his seat. And the captain thought this over, and by and by the plane was in the air again, delivering Mayor LaGuardia, its sole passenger, to Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn, which could only just barely accommodate a DC-2." This incident pushed Mayor LaGuardia into developing a city airport where an amusement park and beach had previously been, and then presently occupied by a small general aviation field; the new airport would bear Mayor LaGuardia's name. It was then, and it remains today, a matter of municipal pride to fly into New York City. Countless comedians have made jokes about New Jersey (and to be fair, New York has had its fair share as well). But from a broad perspective, Newark Liberty International Airport serves New York City just as well as LaGuardia Airport. Both facilities are about 45 minutes distant from Times Square, when traffic is normal and not overly congested, and both have acceptable and comparable public transportation available. Of course, there are many small and specific instances (some of which might apply only at particular times of day) that could favor one airport over the other. For example, availability of economic or well-located airport hotels for a prior-day overnight stay might favor one airport over the other. I am generally more favorably disposed towards LaGuardia Airport, but that's largely a personal prejudice of mine that is driven by the same municipal pride possessed by Mayor LaGuardia, as well as the airport's proximity to my home in Flushing, Queens. But many others favor Newark. The other airport serving New York City, John F. Kennedy International Airport, is the most distant from Times Square, and objectively can be characterized as less convenient that both of Newark and LaGuardia airports. But even so, it is not terribly inconvenient, and it does have good public transportation access. It, too, has its own quirks that one can pick at, but again it is not an unreasonable airport to utilize. In sum, Newark's airport is not so awful, and it does not deserve the dire warning. It is a reasonable and practicable alternative for persons choosing to fly to New York City for a cruise vessel departure from the Manhattan Cruise Terminal. There may be reasons to use or avoid Newark's airport in specific cases, but my suspicion is that the general "dire" warning is largely based on personal prejudice.

As noted by another, the specifics for NCL might better be addressed on a different board. But let me add my own experience on the more general issue that I think is embedded within the question. Beginning university (at age 18) was clearly a change point for me. Prior, my parents took care of everything financial for me, though I had by age 16 become more independent (e.g., taking railroad by myself into the big city, travel cross-country by Greyhound bus). After I started university, I made the decisions for myself, not only as to the travel itineraries but also paying for travel. I could only do what I could afford (on a poor university student's budget), downgrading where need be, not being careless or extravagant. Those who joined me in travel paid their own way. It does seem unfair that you would be in the position of paying for, and taking the risks, of a girlfriend's travel. It is part of maturing, of getting past high school and parental dependency, being able to make decisions and assume risks. When I read the question posted, it really seemed to me that it is a question that the young man, himself, ought to be asking, perhaps with parents guiding him as to the means of making the inquiry, if only so there might be full appreciation of the costs and risks involved.

I also find hard copy schedules to be easier to read and manage, though increasingly the cruise lines have been cutting back on their printing and making them available. For comparing schedules across the various lines, Canada and Alaska Timetable does provide schedules for all the lines providing one-way transportation between Vancouver and Alaska. The most recent issue, November 2022, was updating with 2023 itineraries, from which I have excerpted and attached hereto Tables 761, which show all the relevant itineraries and can be easily printed out. Canada and Alaska Timetable 761.pdf

It may well be true that many--quite possibly most--cruise line passengers will choose to travel by taxi or Uber. But honestly, how many people need to be told that they can use a taxi or Uber service? Are there people who do not know that these services exist? If someone knows that they cannot handle their baggage themselves, and requires the use of a taxi or Uber service, it seems to me that the choice should be obvious. Maybe there would be a logistical question (e.g., where is the taxi stand located at the airport?). When questions are asked about options, then the various options should be laid out, along with their general pros and cons. (And if someone does not know all the options, then it is fine to say, "When we traveled, we did so by [using whatever], and it worked out [great, terrible].) It may be that in some city that the other options are so limited, in which case the limitation should be noted with a generalized conclusion (e.g., taxi service will be the only practicable transportation because [whatever the reason]). But generally I dislike concluding a response with a "best" choice (even if the original post requests the "best" choice) because doing so requires a value judgment, and possibly other unknown factors or limitations, about which I cannot in good faith assume (at least in the absence of further information). I might prefer a bus because I readily get sick in cars; someone else might prefer a taxi because they dislike sharing rides with strangers. Who really cares what I think is best? In short, what is "best" is not universal. But I do stand by my basic premise: Simply telling people that taxi or Uber service is available does not provide much useful information not already likely known.

There seems to be an inordinate amount of concern and some confusion over the selection of “car services” that might be used to address transportation needs in New York. Much of this concern and confusion appears to arise from a misunderstanding of the business of these companies and mistaken beliefs as to the services provided. “Car services,” as the term is popularly used, are what would more precisely be called dispatch services, or in the vernacular of the Taxi and Limousine Commission, “bases” or “base stations.” These car service companies do not provide transportation. They are middlemen, or brokers, who exist to connect persons who desire transportation with transportation providers. Persons who provide transportation are not employed by these car services. These persons own (or lease) and maintain their own vehicles. They “affiliate” with one or more bases as a means of obtaining referrals for the provision of transportation. They may not provide transportation in the absence of being affiliated with a base. By being affiliated with a base, a transportation provider is not a subsidiary of, or employed by, the base. The means of providing transportation are controlled by the transportation provider, not by the base. When transportation is provided, the transportation contract runs between the passenger and the transportation provider, and the base is generally not liable (at least unless the base has exercised excessive control over the transportation provider). So what is the business of a car service? What do these companies do, and how do they compete for business? Fundamentally, car service companies provide a telephone number, website, and/or smartphone app. They provide customer service, including the handling of billing on behalf of the transportation providers. They nominally exercise discretion over the transportation providers who seek to affiliate with the car service, though this is typically limited to making certain that the transportation provider’s legal papers are in order (e.g., license, insurance). In some cases a car service will refer transportation providers to lessors of vehicles that could be used by them. Car services could become vicariously liable for the transportation provided if they exercise excessive control over the means by which the transportation providers deliver their services. So while business goals might tempt car services to control how transportation is provided, the car service lawyers will push back on management to avoid exercising control and defend against claims on that ground of no control. The same transportation provider responding to dispatches from one base today might respond to dispatches from another base the next day. Same driver, same vehicle, same service, but with a different car service label. The transportation service provided is largely beyond the control of individual car service companies, and service is generally not a reliable indicator of car services to be used or avoided. That there was a “good driver” who was dispatched by one car service is not an indicator that all drivers dispatched by that car service are similar, or that similar drivers are not dispatched by other car services. So how does one decide among car services? Carmel, Dial 7, Uber, Lyft, others? One should decide based on the services actually provided by the car services themselves. That is, the interface (e.g., ease of using their telephone number, website, or smartphone app), the quality of customer service while doing so (including rates and billing), and the number of transportation providers affiliated with the car service (which may affect the responsiveness of transportation providers to a request for service). Hopefully this explanation provides information and insight useful in deciding the car company to be used in connecting with a transportation provider. It would be further insightful if transportation providers—drivers affiliated with one or more bases—would add to this discussion with their own perceptions of the industry.

There are many posts within this discussion board of the form, “I am going to arrive at [name of airport, train station, cruise port, etc.], and I want to go to [name of destination]. What transportation is available?” Invariably among the responses are “taxi” and “Uber.” Virtually every transportation terminal and community of any size reasonable size supports taxi and/or Uber service. I don’t think that there are many participants within this discussion board who are so unsophisticated to not already know that general taxi and Uber availability, and that such services are almost always the “easiest” choice to utilize (given that one sets foot into a taxi and driver takes care of the rest in providing transportation to the desired destination). Information about taxi peculiarities in a particular area can be helpful (e.g., distinct classes of taxi services, geographic areas without taxi service, fare anomalies, location of taxi stands) But generalized responses that “You can use a taxi,” or that “Taxi is easy,” provide virtually no information not already generally known by everyone. Most inquiries for transportation information reasonably implicate a desire to know about available transportation services beyond taxi and Uber service. Perhaps shuttle service arranged by the cruise line or the port authority, buses and other forms of public transportation, accessibility by foot, ferries, or any other transportation that is distinct to the particular place that is the subject of inquiry. In some cases it may be that a good response would be that there is no transportation available meeting the identified need other than taxi and Uber. But otherwise, a response saying that one can travel by taxi or Uber provides scant information. We might opine that taxi or Uber service is the best choice, and provide our reasoning therefor. Given that we’re not all the same, and we each have our own distinct preferences and values, we should avoid concluding that other persons “must” travel by a particular means of transportation. In some cases individuals have disabilities or limitations that preclude their use of certain means of transportation, or may require particular arrangements made in advance. For example, not everyone is licensed to drive, or can do so safely, so advising on the use of rental cars might be an option but not a panacea available to all. Not everyone can or will travel by air (indeed, some people travel by cruise vessel for that very reason), so advising on the use of air travel, instead of bus or rail travel, might also not be practicable. Let’s provide the options, not purposefully excluding options because of our own values (at least in the absence of stating that “one choice is . . . ,” explain the pros and cons, and our reasoning for recommendations or our choices. .But let’s avoid the temptation to decide for other persons. Many people making inquiry within this discussion board will ultimately choose to forgo other transportation, and simply settle into a taxi or Uber, leaving it to driver to get them where they’re going. That’s their choice. But to simply tell a person making inquiry, “Take a taxi,” generally adds no substantive information to the discussion.

It is difficult to give an all-purpose response on what is a "must see" in Alaska. The tourist industry (including the cruise lines themselves) certainly do have a tourist circuit of what they believe everyone should do . . . because it makes money for them. And if you like being with other tourists while traveling, the industry will gladly accommodate that. But the real answer to your question, as has been alluded to above, depends on what it is that is interesting to you, personally. For example, a political junkie would certainly make a point of visiting the state capitol while in Juneau. I am a transport enthusiast, so I would make a point of exploring the local public transit systems (e.g., visiting bus garages, photographing equipment at pulse points) and railroads. But it is hard to say what you should see or do without falling victim to simply enumerating the stops along the standard tourist circuit. As to the "scenic" railways (a matter in which I have an interest as noted above), keep in mind that there is only a single railroad that can reasonably be visited among the ports of your itinerary. The White Pass & Yukon Route is a rail route from Skagway up into the mountains, and then onward across the international frontier into British Columbia and Yukon. At one time the railroad carried both freight and passengers all the way to Whitehorse, but there is virtually no freight now and passengers are carried only so far as Carcross. There's actually multiple turn-around locations to which passengers may travel the scenic railroad from Skagway and return. The shortest excursion is to the White Pass summit, which marks the international frontier. Longer excursions continue into Canada, to Fraser, to Bennett, or to Carcross, each correspondingly further in distance, time, and cost for a round-trip excursion. Victoria used to have passenger trains as well, but the Equimalt and Nanaimo Railway, including its rail diesel cars, is now long gone. A portion of the railroad is operated as a heritage railroad, at Port Alberni. But that heritage operation is 2-1/2 hours distant from Victoria, and it is not even certain yet if the railroad will be operating in 2023, making it likely impracticable to visit. And finally, not strictly a railway, there is the Goldbelt aerial tramway in Juneau, which ascends nearly 4,000 feet up Mount Roberts.

The corporate structures and relationships of FlixBus and Greyhound are a bit complicated, to say the least! I don't think that the Amtrak train addition would do much to better the possibilities for your particular case, as the existing train schedule will accommodate your needs as if (even though the return Amtrak schedule from Vancouver to Bellingham is not as attractive). I would be fairly confident of Quick Coach Lines adjusting their schedules to be comparable, if not exact, as their schedules in summer 2019, at least to the extent that there does not arise any new health or travel concerns. Quick Coach Lines has had a fairly comprehensive timetable, and provides service exactly where you would want it: at the Bellingham airport and at Canada Place in Vancouver. True, you're spending the night before in a hotel, so you could pretty much pick anyplace in or around Bellingham to stay, and have convenient access to whatever Bellingham departure point you desired. Nonetheless, using Quick Coach Lines would provide the convenience of using an airport hotel and its courtesy shuttle, both post-flight on arrival day and pre-bus on departure day. On the return, it could be possible to fly on the same day. Assuming that Quick Coach Lines resumes its prior schedule, its first departure from Canada Place is at 9:00 a.m., with a scheduled arrival at the Bellingham airport at 11:40 a.m. So flights after, say, 2:00 p.m. could be practicable. The risks, of course, include (1) the implementation of the prior schedule, and (2) potential delays by U.S. immigration and customs at the border in Blaine. Buying non-refundable airline tickets out of Bellingham might not be a risk you're looking to undertake at this point in time. In 2019, the summer schedules went into effect in the first week of May, and were available at least as early as late February. Given this history, Quick Coach Lines might have its summer 2023 schedule available as early as January or February of next year.

If someone asks for "all options," I generally let them decide if it is worthwhile schlepping baggage--if any--or not. Obviously, there is no uniform consensus on such personal value judgments.

Check the website for the most recent People Mover Ride Guide . . . and to be absolutely certain give a call to confirm: (907) 343-6543 Typically, bus stops are regulatory signs installed by a municipality, separate and apart from the provider of the transit bus service. Many times old bus stop signs remain in place--because the city council or regulatory agency has not revoked the bus stop regulation, notwithstanding the absence of bus service, sometimes out of negligence and sometimes so as to bank the location for future bus service. So yes, there can be situations where no buses stop at designated bus stops . . . so one does have to ascertain where the bus operates before starting to wait at any random bus stop. I imagine that there are also errant highway directional signs as well. If a problem, complain to your city council member! Just as it being good practice to have a current highway map if driving, also good practice to have a current bus route map if traveling by bus . . . Google Maps tends to be very good at providing both.

As to Quick Coach Lines, their schedule does not presently allow for same day travel from Bellingham to Canada Place for a cruise departure . . . their first arrival into Vancouver on the current schedule is after all the vessels have departed for the day. The actual schedule is, departing Bellingham airport, Thursday through Monday (no departures Tuesdays and Wednesdays) at 5:10 p.m., 7:00 p.m., and 9:00 p.m., arriving in Vancouver at 7:55 p.m., 9:45 p.m., and 11:45 p.m. By next June I expect the schedule to be changed, probably (based on prior year schedules) to include daily departures from Bellingham airport at 10:25 a.m. and 12:50 p.m., arriving at Canada Place directly at 12:35 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. Amtrak presently has one train daily from Bellingham to Vancouver. The train departs from the Bellingham Cruise Terminal at 9:52 a.m., arriving in Vancouver at 11:45 a.m., permitting a same-day connection to a departing cruise vessel. By next June there should be an additional train later in the day, though it would likely not allow for a same day connection with a departing cruise vessel (in prior years that second train arrived in Vancouver at 11:00 p.m.). BoltBus, which was an operating division of Greyhound Lines, did previously operate from Bellingham to Vancouver. Those operations have since been rebranded as Greyhound Lines itself. (Greyhound Lines is a corporate subsidiary of Flix, but is not operated as FlixBus.) The schedule is not particularly attractive, with buses departing the Bellingham Cruise Terminal at 3:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., arriving in Vancouver at 5:20 a.m. and 9:25 p.m., respectively. FlixBus (also a corporate subsidiary of Flix) is a broker that has arranged for bus service being provided by MTR Western from Bellington to Vancouver. These buses depart from Western Washington University at 9:30 a.m. (with additional departures later in the day on certain days of the week), arriving in Vancouver at 11:55 a.m. Their stop in Vancouver, near the Waterfront Station, is only five blocks from Canada Place, and would the closest arrival point of all the options offering same-day connections with departing cruise vessels. However, FlixBus is still a new operation, and it has been changing schedules with some frequency. It is likely that, by next June, the schedule of this trip will be changed, though I would anticipate any change to be relatively minor and not disrupt the ability to make a same-day connection with a departing cruise vessel from Vancouver. As to return schedules from Vancouver to Bellingham: Quick Coach Lines presently departing Vancouver Thursday through Monday 6:45 a.m., 8:45 a.m., 10:25 a.m.; likely schedule next June, daily, 9:00 a.m. or 10:00 a.m., 10:45 a.m. Amtrak presently departing Vancouver 5:45 p.m.; likely additional train at 6:35 a.m. Greyhound Lines departing Vancouver 7:10 a.m., 10:00 p.m. MTR Western (FlixBus) departing Vancouver 12:40 p.m. (additional departures at 7:30 a.m. Mon through Wed, 9:30 a.m. Mon Thu Sat, and 3:00 p.m. Fri through Tue) Of course, one need not use the same carrier to return that one used initially (e.g., okay to use Amtrak from Bellingham to Vancouver, but MTR Western for Vancouver to Bellingham). All of the current timings are from the November 2022 issue of Canada and Alaska Timetable.

I concur with the ease of the subway plan. More specifically, and because route colors are most commonly used on the "T": the train from the airport station (to where the no. 33 shuttle bus travels) is the "Blue" line. While ferry is also an option from Logan, it, too, requires a shuttle bus ride (this time the no. 66 route). The ferry operates only half-hourly, and the $15.00 one-way fare is relatively steep for a short 10-minute trip. There is also an option to depart Logan on the "Silver" line. But that is round-about and requires one or two additional connections. The "Blue" line is best based on travel time, ease, and fare. I also concur with the characterization of Rome to Rio. The website might be useful in identifying transportation options not otherwise already known, but once learning of the options the best course of action is to go to the websites of the individual transportation providers themselves, and not to rely on Rome to Rio for logistical details.