Absurd 200-foot ‘Railway’ demolished

[TinCan782]

"The law requires shipping between American ports to be handled by American-built, American-flagged vessels, with an exemption for goods moved by rail in Canada. The Bayside Canadian Railway used this loophole to push semi-trucks containing foreign-shipped seafood 100 feet down a short railway and back, ostensibly fulfilling the Jones Act's rail shipping clause."
https://www.thedrive.com/news/absur...molished-after-court-closes-shipping-loophole

 

[TinCan782]

Here is a February 2022 article (with video) about the "railway":
https://www.thedrive.com/news/44445...d-for-fish-thats-only-200-feet-long-heres-why

 

[BlackDiamond]

Also points out the absurdity of the Jones Act itself, which just adds cost to items shipped between US ports. Also requires for example that a cruise ship going from Seattle to Alaska has to make a stop in Canada just so they can get around the law and still use foreign flag ships which most cruise ships are.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm not against leveraging "domestic" seaport shipping to promote worker protections and earn tax revenue, but the Jones Act has proven itself to be impractical and counterproductive as implemented. That said this is not the way to fix it. You can make a case that fees of $350M were excessive but they should have fined them enough to dissuade someone else from trying this tactic again in the future.

 

[TrackWalker]

Also points out the absurdity of the Jones Act itself, which just adds cost to items shipped between US ports. Also requires for example that a cruise ship going from Seattle to Alaska has to make a stop in Canada just so they can get around the law and still use foreign flag ships which most cruise ships are.

I believe you are referring to the "Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886" in regard to cruise ships.

 

[railiner]

Also points out the absurdity of the Jones Act itself, which just adds cost to items shipped between US ports. Also requires for example that a cruise ship going from Seattle to Alaska has to make a stop in Canada just so they can get around the law and still use foreign flag ships which most cruise ships are.

A passenger going from Seattle to Alaska one way on a foreign flagged cruise ship even with a stop in Canada, would be illegal, under the PVSA. A round trip with a Canadian stop would be legal.
That’s why the one way cruises to Alaska begin in Vancouver, or vice-versa.
The PVSA has a lot of complicated rules, and differences between so-called “near foreign ports”, and “distant foreign ports”…

 

[cirdan]

What would happen if a passenger needs to be de-shipped and abandon the cruise for say medical reasons ?

 

[railiner]

Technically, if the law was violated, the ship line would still be subject to the fine, but in such extenuating circumstance, the fine would by waived by the CBP.

 

[TEREB]

What would happen if a passenger needs to be de-shipped and abandon the cruise for say medical reasons ?

I usually cruise 3 times a year. Passengers getting sick and having to be transported to a foreign hospital is quite common. So there must be a loophole to allow that.

 

[railiner]

I usually cruise 3 times a year. Passengers getting sick and having to be transported to a foreign hospital is quite common. So there must be a loophole to allow that.

Agree… what you mention is not a violation. What the post was referring to was if a passenger got on in one US port, and had to me removed in a different US port for medical reasons, that would be a technical violation.
Again, the fine would be waived in such a case.

 

[Anderson]

I usually cruise 3 times a year. Passengers getting sick and having to be transported to a foreign hospital is quite common. So there must be a loophole to allow that.

Not so much a loophole as an exception-as-a-matter-of-policy. I suspect there are similar things to deal with ships encountering mechanical difficulties or being fouled up by severe weather - I think the general rule is that nobody is "planning" on doing anything that is rules-violating, but sometimes circumstances don't allow plans to come to pass.

As to the "dummy railroad", I have to wonder if one could set something in this vein up in a way that would be compliant (i.e. would a 5-10 mile shortline "cut it"?).

 

[MARC Rider]

I'm not sure why the Jones Act applies here. It seems they're shipping seafood from Alaska to St. John New Brunswick in Canada. OK, so after that, it gets shipped to somewhere in the US by truck, but the sea voyage is an international voyage. It seems like there's a big extra expense shipping it out of the way to the Maritimes. I guess US flag ships are really that more expensive.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

What would happen if a passenger needs to be de-shipped and abandon the cruise for say medical reasons ?

If a deviation is reasonable and in good faith it should fall under "vessel in distress" exemptions. If it's a large ship experiencing a single health emergency I'd expect a smaller and faster craft to meet it en route rather than slowly navigating to a port large enough to handle a formal arrival.

I'm not sure why the Jones Act applies here. It seems they're shipping seafood from Alaska to St. John New Brunswick in Canada. OK, so after that, it gets shipped to somewhere in the US by truck, but the sea voyage is an international voyage.

The process was compliant when the product was transported 30 miles by a legitimate railroad that delivered it from one distinct location to another. The shipper later abandoned that process to shunt the product back and forth over a few hundred feet of disconnected track. The departing and arriving locations were identical and the entire operation served no definable purpose other than avoiding fees and regulations. It's unsurprising that it failed to hold up in court.

It seems like there's a big extra expense shipping it out of the way to the Maritimes. I guess US flag ships are really that more expensive.

Compliant vessels must be registered in the US, and constructed in the US, and owned by US citizens, and crewed by US citizens or permanent residents.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Compliant vessels must be registered in the US, and constructed in the US, and owned by US citizens, and crewed by US citizens or permanent residents.

Compliant to US law is work, other flag states are easier. Construction is become a problem due to the lack of ship yards. The US Navy is the only guarantee work currently. Plenty of US own ships, flying a flag other than the US. Crewed by US Citizens is in short supply and much more costly than let say the North Korean guys working on US flag fishing ships for 200 usd for 6 months. (That a story few notice, or care.)

The US does not lead or is compliant with major seafarers laws. It makes it extremely hard to do business elsewhere. That said those fishing boats do appreciate the lack of laws on minimum payments for workers.

 

[railiner]

The only large US registered cruise ship is the NCL “Pride of America”, which enjoys a monopoly on its 7 day Hawaii cruise…