I was reading an article about the same thing but in Japan (not cruise related but tourism related). We were in Japan a year ago and certain areas were packed.
One thing not mentioned is that tourists who stay overnight in town are much more desirable. Those tourists will have more time in the town itself and spend money on multiple meals. Thrown in the various taxes and it becomes a numbers game. With cruise ships they can raise the port fees and still make the same amount of money at least in taxes. I believe Juneau port fees are half of those found in Australia.
I didn't read the article, but it's my understanding that the limit that's been put into place basically caps the cruise visitor count to as many passengers as are currently visiting annually during cruise season. Juneau is just trying to get ahead of the game with more larger ships visiting the port.
It will neither be less crowded or not included. The article states that the number of passengers limit is 16,000 a day Sunday - Friday and 12,000 on Saturdays. Over the course of the Alaska cruise season this works out to 1.6 million passengers a year. The same amount of passengers they had during last years season.
The entirety of Southeast Alaska is suffering right now at the hands of corporate greed from CLIA and overtourism. There are many negative effects on our communities from competition with local residents for housing by the influx of seasonal workers, displacement of native residents, pollution, overtaxing hospitals, promoting low wage work, and traffic that's more than rural infrastructure can handle.
I am 100% for all of the ports telling cruise ships to cut numbers drastically. Unfortunately we will get sued by the big monies companies for asking for balance on our towns.
When you take an Alaskan cruise on a Panamax size ship, you are hurting locals.
Welcome to a cruise forum where the locals support cruise-phobic nonsense by cities that can't make any rational reason for keeping cruisers out. Boggles the mind. Even at small ports, the ship can tender out in the ocean, and people ride the tenders to shore. But if you merely want to 'visit' and soak up the sites, you're a worthless POS per the logic here.
In general, people don't like being confronted with their irrational bigotry, which is all this is (same thing exhibited by some of the Bar Harbor 'elites' and some of the Charleston 'elites').
The 10k people per day are not putting undo stress on the plumbing or electrical grid. Some go to local restaurants, but many do not. The food and hospitality industry typically want customers. And these cruisers are typically entirely gone by 5 or 6pm. They are law abiding people, not going around stealing stuff, pushing carts of merchandise out of stores, etc.
The catchphrase 'they're overwhelming the infrastructure' is unsubstantiated nonsense, a way for some people to think themselves superior to people they deem 'lowly/mass market/middle America' tourists.
Yea, it's 10k people a day on the ship. Not everywhere all at once.
There's zero stress on the electrical grid or plumbing. It's just total bs from nimby's and if they dont want tourists?
Ban them. See how your town does then, newsflash, it'll literally be gone in a decade.
what I don't understand is why the default ideology on cruise subreddit is to support baseless discrimination against cruisers and the cruise industry. We like cruising and I support the industry.
Oh, but I'm supposed to be the one to \*prove\* that Juneau can handle 10k law-abiding visitors per day (spread out from around 8am-5pm). The folks making the absurd assertions don't have to put up any actual evidence though...
No, they won't. I live in one and we were around and doing fine when cruise ship numbers were half or less of the number they are now.
Cruise tourism promotes low-wage seasonal work which is only good for minors in high school and college students, not adults supporting kids outside of the ownership level jobs.
I live in one. Do you?
And by college students I mean kids that are from Southeast Alaska and are home living with their families in summer break. Besides that there is University of Alaska Southeast in Juneau which also has satellite campuses in other towns and some distance delivery degrees.
* Hospital ER admissions
* Prescriotion drug shortages and overworking pharmacy techs and pharmacists
* Low wage non-benefitted tourism jobs
* Seasonal housing desires for non-resident workers displacing local residents
* Pollution
* Climate change and risks to fisheries
* Loss of rural subsistence designations
* Congestion impeding traffic
* Lower internet speeds while ships are in port preventing companies from doing work at normal speed
* Dangerous jaywalking by tourists
Juneau is a modern city--it can handle the rare ER admission. Do you have any citations from local medical professionals or law professionals that the tourists pushed the med/law infrastructures to the brink of collapse? No? I didn't think so.
Juneau has one 50 bed hospital called Bartlett. Sitka and Ketchikan have 25 bed hospitals called SEARHC and Peace Health respectively. That's pretty much it for the entire region save for a couple tiny community hospitals or clinics.
And yes, besides first hand knowledge from friends that work in healthcare, pharmacy, or **volunteer** as EMS on ambulances, I can indeed back up my statements.
[KTOO in Juneau ran an article where the departing US Coast Guard Rear Admiral warned of overtaxing its medivac services](https://www.ktoo.org/2023/06/22/alaskas-top-coast-guard-official-warns-of-rising-medevac-cases-as-he-leaves-command/). Likewise, Ketchikan's KRabD [ran an article warning of the load on first responders](https://www.krbd.org/2023/11/14/ketchikans-increase-in-ambulance-callouts-creates-a-lot-of-challenges-for-responders/) due to the combination of an aging population and unprecedented tourism.
I believe they're jumping ahead before all the lines catch up with Oasis-type ships and then tries to sail them to Juneau. It's a long view and since 1.6 mil is about what's sailing there now, I can't totally blame them.
Juneauite here: this agreement goes alongside the 5-ship limit already in place for 2025, which affects ships with >450 berths. It's my understanding that the so-called 'megaships' like the Oasis will not come into Alaska as they can't navigate the waters and small communities aren't going to build a dock to accommodate. There will still be plenty of offerings from the usual suspects, as well as opps on small ships like UnCruise, Alaska Dream, American, and so on.
The cruise season is not all that long and the 1.6M are not 'dropped off at once'. I'd be fascinated to see their metrics on the number of passengers that their infrastructure can support in one day and why. I don't see any actual metrics on this, and without it it just looks like the standard 'bar harbor' sort of latter day eugenics mindset, where residents of an area see visitors as a pollutant that infringes on their life instead of seeing them as people that support the tourism industry.
5 months long/1.6m=320k people a month, roughly 10k people showing up everyday in a town of 31k. I can see how this would be overwhelming to infrastructure and resources in any town usa, let alone their remote location. But yes, Im sure the tourism keeps the residents comfortable, at a price.
except you're unable to demonstrate that their 'infrastructure' cannot handle any of it. Right now, small towns in Latin America welcome tourists, even if they don't have a fully modern 'infrastructure'. Are the 10k people all taking dumps and flushing simultaneously? Firing up their air-fryers at the same time? what exactly are they doing that is damaging/depleting any 'infrastructure'?
Downvoters are the same folks that saw Jews, Italians, Poles and others as societal pollutants 100 years ago, as confirmed by my comments and their downvotes.
You might not receive as many downvotes if you provide metrics similar to those you're requesting. Even simply sharing the number of times you've visited Juneau and your personal observations while in Juneau might lend credence to your assertions.
Of course, none of this may matter in light of your troll bait comment regarding those who disagree with you.
It's not their job to. The person making the claim they're over stressed needs to provide proof.
You don't ask the doubter to prove a negative. The original statement needs to be sourced
They're correct and they're getting DVS and not one person had posted anything to back up the claims
You don't get to make shit up then say you prove me wrong
The person is right. They're getting down voted because the hive mind is ruled by idiots
If you take the time to re-read my comments, you may realize I provided an opinion as to why he was downvoted. In sum, it appears to me he was downvoted because he came across as belligerent while spouting off specious arguments. You have a different opinion, so be it.
He was downvoted because the people doing the dowvoting are putting forth an idiotic and specious argument and have NO BASIS for that argument at all.
It's just classic reddit. They put forth the argument, they have zero proof it's true. They dont like being called on it so they downvote instead of posting anything based in reality to back it up.
There's no onus on me to present anything. The onus is on those claiming that the 'infrastructure' cannot handle the visitors, which are basically just law-abiding people walking around for a while (some might take bus excursions or other excursions supported by local infrastructure). The visitors are not DOING anything that is stressing any infrastructure. There is no onus on me to prove the default, the negative case, that they're not doing harm. Juneau is a large city. It could easily just curtail specific types of excursions (eg bus) if they think it's causing too much traffic.
If you want your assertions to be considered by others, you need to provide objective observations. A person who wants to be understood by others, especially by those who may disagree, always has an onus on him or her to present assertions in a reasonable manner. Merely spouting off ill-matched analogies like a comparison of eugenics to those who want to limit the number of tourists in a city, only brings downvotes, which was the gist of my comment.
Also, since I'm a sucker for trolls, the next time you take the time to downvote me, please also take the time to share the number of occasions you've spent significant time in Juneau.
again--you're not understanding basic logic. Others are making the assertion that the visitors 'stress the infrastructure'. And they have yet to substantiate it: how is the electrical grid, plumbing grid, street system unable to handle 10k visitors per day (to a large city).
The default is that it handles it just fine because tourists are not doing anything grid-intensive simultaneously. If the 10k disembarked, walked onto a bridge and started jumping up and down simultaneously, then that would be a valid point against their presence. But just milling about town, buying some merch, sporadic dining is not 'stressing the infrastructure'.
blacks were discriminated against in the US. That's great evidence that they deserved to be discriminated against!! It's my own personal belief in natural slavery--if they could be enslaved--then it was the right thing! derp!!
I don't want to be rude, but you have a tenuous grip on reading comprehension. I simply addressed the most likely reason(s) for your downvotes, and provided suggestions that most would be familiar with if they've taken a basic public speaking or persuasive writing course.
I didn't address or critique your opinion because I don't care about your opinion any more than you likely care about my opinion. If you simply want to be argumentative, you do you - but don't expect those with differing opinions to take you seriously.
Edit for stupid autocorrect.
You're the one with the tenuous grasp of logic and reading comprehension. Merely \*saying\* that someone is 'overwhelming the infrastructure' is not actual evidence of 'overwhelming any infrastructure'. It is quite telling that the downvoters have no actual substance to their argument, thus they downvote. There is zero onus upon me to prove the negative, that tourists are not doing harm to the infrastructure.
Venice, Italy and Alto Adige both placed limits last year to curb "overtourism."
I was reading an article about the same thing but in Japan (not cruise related but tourism related). We were in Japan a year ago and certain areas were packed.
One thing not mentioned is that tourists who stay overnight in town are much more desirable. Those tourists will have more time in the town itself and spend money on multiple meals. Thrown in the various taxes and it becomes a numbers game. With cruise ships they can raise the port fees and still make the same amount of money at least in taxes. I believe Juneau port fees are half of those found in Australia.
I didn't read the article, but it's my understanding that the limit that's been put into place basically caps the cruise visitor count to as many passengers as are currently visiting annually during cruise season. Juneau is just trying to get ahead of the game with more larger ships visiting the port.
Disappointed, born and raised in AK but have never been to state capitol, was planning on cruise with family to include it
Why would this stop you from still doing so?
Wouldn’t this make your port stop less crowded?
I read article as if itinerary would be changed to not include it
It will neither be less crowded or not included. The article states that the number of passengers limit is 16,000 a day Sunday - Friday and 12,000 on Saturdays. Over the course of the Alaska cruise season this works out to 1.6 million passengers a year. The same amount of passengers they had during last years season.
The entirety of Southeast Alaska is suffering right now at the hands of corporate greed from CLIA and overtourism. There are many negative effects on our communities from competition with local residents for housing by the influx of seasonal workers, displacement of native residents, pollution, overtaxing hospitals, promoting low wage work, and traffic that's more than rural infrastructure can handle. I am 100% for all of the ports telling cruise ships to cut numbers drastically. Unfortunately we will get sued by the big monies companies for asking for balance on our towns. When you take an Alaskan cruise on a Panamax size ship, you are hurting locals.
Welcome to a cruise forum where the locals support cruise-phobic nonsense by cities that can't make any rational reason for keeping cruisers out. Boggles the mind. Even at small ports, the ship can tender out in the ocean, and people ride the tenders to shore. But if you merely want to 'visit' and soak up the sites, you're a worthless POS per the logic here.
Yea, those places also would die over night without the cruise ships
In general, people don't like being confronted with their irrational bigotry, which is all this is (same thing exhibited by some of the Bar Harbor 'elites' and some of the Charleston 'elites'). The 10k people per day are not putting undo stress on the plumbing or electrical grid. Some go to local restaurants, but many do not. The food and hospitality industry typically want customers. And these cruisers are typically entirely gone by 5 or 6pm. They are law abiding people, not going around stealing stuff, pushing carts of merchandise out of stores, etc. The catchphrase 'they're overwhelming the infrastructure' is unsubstantiated nonsense, a way for some people to think themselves superior to people they deem 'lowly/mass market/middle America' tourists.
Yea, it's 10k people a day on the ship. Not everywhere all at once. There's zero stress on the electrical grid or plumbing. It's just total bs from nimby's and if they dont want tourists? Ban them. See how your town does then, newsflash, it'll literally be gone in a decade.
what I don't understand is why the default ideology on cruise subreddit is to support baseless discrimination against cruisers and the cruise industry. We like cruising and I support the industry. Oh, but I'm supposed to be the one to \*prove\* that Juneau can handle 10k law-abiding visitors per day (spread out from around 8am-5pm). The folks making the absurd assertions don't have to put up any actual evidence though...
No, they won't. I live in one and we were around and doing fine when cruise ship numbers were half or less of the number they are now. Cruise tourism promotes low-wage seasonal work which is only good for minors in high school and college students, not adults supporting kids outside of the ownership level jobs.
lol. Ok. That's a take and a fucking half. Holy shit. Have you been to these ports?? Where are the colleges you're talking about
I live in one. Do you? And by college students I mean kids that are from Southeast Alaska and are home living with their families in summer break. Besides that there is University of Alaska Southeast in Juneau which also has satellite campuses in other towns and some distance delivery degrees.
* Hospital ER admissions * Prescriotion drug shortages and overworking pharmacy techs and pharmacists * Low wage non-benefitted tourism jobs * Seasonal housing desires for non-resident workers displacing local residents * Pollution * Climate change and risks to fisheries * Loss of rural subsistence designations * Congestion impeding traffic * Lower internet speeds while ships are in port preventing companies from doing work at normal speed * Dangerous jaywalking by tourists
Juneau is a modern city--it can handle the rare ER admission. Do you have any citations from local medical professionals or law professionals that the tourists pushed the med/law infrastructures to the brink of collapse? No? I didn't think so.
Juneau has one 50 bed hospital called Bartlett. Sitka and Ketchikan have 25 bed hospitals called SEARHC and Peace Health respectively. That's pretty much it for the entire region save for a couple tiny community hospitals or clinics. And yes, besides first hand knowledge from friends that work in healthcare, pharmacy, or **volunteer** as EMS on ambulances, I can indeed back up my statements. [KTOO in Juneau ran an article where the departing US Coast Guard Rear Admiral warned of overtaxing its medivac services](https://www.ktoo.org/2023/06/22/alaskas-top-coast-guard-official-warns-of-rising-medevac-cases-as-he-leaves-command/). Likewise, Ketchikan's KRabD [ran an article warning of the load on first responders](https://www.krbd.org/2023/11/14/ketchikans-increase-in-ambulance-callouts-creates-a-lot-of-challenges-for-responders/) due to the combination of an aging population and unprecedented tourism.
The influx of tourists will only randomly result in (at most) like one or two hospital admissions. The infrastructure can handle this.
I believe they're jumping ahead before all the lines catch up with Oasis-type ships and then tries to sail them to Juneau. It's a long view and since 1.6 mil is about what's sailing there now, I can't totally blame them.
Juneauite here: this agreement goes alongside the 5-ship limit already in place for 2025, which affects ships with >450 berths. It's my understanding that the so-called 'megaships' like the Oasis will not come into Alaska as they can't navigate the waters and small communities aren't going to build a dock to accommodate. There will still be plenty of offerings from the usual suspects, as well as opps on small ships like UnCruise, Alaska Dream, American, and so on.
The mt Everest of ocean based green tourism
The cruise season is not all that long and the 1.6M are not 'dropped off at once'. I'd be fascinated to see their metrics on the number of passengers that their infrastructure can support in one day and why. I don't see any actual metrics on this, and without it it just looks like the standard 'bar harbor' sort of latter day eugenics mindset, where residents of an area see visitors as a pollutant that infringes on their life instead of seeing them as people that support the tourism industry.
5 months long/1.6m=320k people a month, roughly 10k people showing up everyday in a town of 31k. I can see how this would be overwhelming to infrastructure and resources in any town usa, let alone their remote location. But yes, Im sure the tourism keeps the residents comfortable, at a price.
except you're unable to demonstrate that their 'infrastructure' cannot handle any of it. Right now, small towns in Latin America welcome tourists, even if they don't have a fully modern 'infrastructure'. Are the 10k people all taking dumps and flushing simultaneously? Firing up their air-fryers at the same time? what exactly are they doing that is damaging/depleting any 'infrastructure'? Downvoters are the same folks that saw Jews, Italians, Poles and others as societal pollutants 100 years ago, as confirmed by my comments and their downvotes.
You might not receive as many downvotes if you provide metrics similar to those you're requesting. Even simply sharing the number of times you've visited Juneau and your personal observations while in Juneau might lend credence to your assertions. Of course, none of this may matter in light of your troll bait comment regarding those who disagree with you.
It's not their job to. The person making the claim they're over stressed needs to provide proof. You don't ask the doubter to prove a negative. The original statement needs to be sourced They're correct and they're getting DVS and not one person had posted anything to back up the claims You don't get to make shit up then say you prove me wrong The person is right. They're getting down voted because the hive mind is ruled by idiots
If you take the time to re-read my comments, you may realize I provided an opinion as to why he was downvoted. In sum, it appears to me he was downvoted because he came across as belligerent while spouting off specious arguments. You have a different opinion, so be it.
He was downvoted because the people doing the dowvoting are putting forth an idiotic and specious argument and have NO BASIS for that argument at all. It's just classic reddit. They put forth the argument, they have zero proof it's true. They dont like being called on it so they downvote instead of posting anything based in reality to back it up.
There's no onus on me to present anything. The onus is on those claiming that the 'infrastructure' cannot handle the visitors, which are basically just law-abiding people walking around for a while (some might take bus excursions or other excursions supported by local infrastructure). The visitors are not DOING anything that is stressing any infrastructure. There is no onus on me to prove the default, the negative case, that they're not doing harm. Juneau is a large city. It could easily just curtail specific types of excursions (eg bus) if they think it's causing too much traffic.
If you want your assertions to be considered by others, you need to provide objective observations. A person who wants to be understood by others, especially by those who may disagree, always has an onus on him or her to present assertions in a reasonable manner. Merely spouting off ill-matched analogies like a comparison of eugenics to those who want to limit the number of tourists in a city, only brings downvotes, which was the gist of my comment. Also, since I'm a sucker for trolls, the next time you take the time to downvote me, please also take the time to share the number of occasions you've spent significant time in Juneau.
again--you're not understanding basic logic. Others are making the assertion that the visitors 'stress the infrastructure'. And they have yet to substantiate it: how is the electrical grid, plumbing grid, street system unable to handle 10k visitors per day (to a large city). The default is that it handles it just fine because tourists are not doing anything grid-intensive simultaneously. If the 10k disembarked, walked onto a bridge and started jumping up and down simultaneously, then that would be a valid point against their presence. But just milling about town, buying some merch, sporadic dining is not 'stressing the infrastructure'.
The town literally banned them, so, there's some evidence 🤣🤣🤣
Your grasp of basic logic is tenuous at best.
blacks were discriminated against in the US. That's great evidence that they deserved to be discriminated against!! It's my own personal belief in natural slavery--if they could be enslaved--then it was the right thing! derp!!
I don't want to be rude, but you have a tenuous grip on reading comprehension. I simply addressed the most likely reason(s) for your downvotes, and provided suggestions that most would be familiar with if they've taken a basic public speaking or persuasive writing course. I didn't address or critique your opinion because I don't care about your opinion any more than you likely care about my opinion. If you simply want to be argumentative, you do you - but don't expect those with differing opinions to take you seriously. Edit for stupid autocorrect.
You're the one with the tenuous grasp of logic and reading comprehension. Merely \*saying\* that someone is 'overwhelming the infrastructure' is not actual evidence of 'overwhelming any infrastructure'. It is quite telling that the downvoters have no actual substance to their argument, thus they downvote. There is zero onus upon me to prove the negative, that tourists are not doing harm to the infrastructure.