Bill Overview
Title: Alaska Tourism Restoration Extension Act
Description: This bill extends for one year the authority for specified foreign-owned and -flagged cruise ships to transport passengers directly between ports in the states of Washington and Alaska without stopping in Canada. Under current law, these ships cannot transport passengers from one U.S. port to another without stopping in a foreign country. The bill applies to any foreign voyage that begins any date prior to February 28, 2023, on which Canada prohibits a vessel from berthing or docking in Canadian waters of the Pacific Coast due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sponsors: Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in or benefiting from the Alaska tourism and cruise industry
Estimated Size: 2000000
- Alaska's tourism economy is significantly reliant on the cruise industry.
- Foreign-owned and -flagged cruise ships typically carry large numbers of tourists from various parts of the world.
- The Pacific Northwest, particularly Washington, is a major starting point for Alaskan cruises.
- The bill's extension means passengers can travel between Washington and Alaska without Canadian stopovers, keeping the tourism flow active despite Canadian COVID-19 restrictions.
- Local businesses in Alaska that depend on tourism, such as hospitality, retail, and guided tours, will be impacted.
- Cruise-related employment in both Washington and Alaska may be sustained due to extended operations.
- Tourists or potential cruise passengers who might have deferred travel due to COVID-based interruptions will be part of the impacted population.
Reasoning
- Alaska's economy is heavily dependent on tourism, particularly cruise tourism from foreign-owned ships. Thus, the bill is targeted towards supporting this sector by eliminating the obstacle of Canadian restrictions.
- Ports in Washington will also indirectly benefit as embarkation and disembarkation points, potentially maintaining jobs there.
- The policy is budgeted, meaning not every potentially impacted person would receive benefits, but it is designed to maintain the flow of tourism-generated revenue without the previous Canadian detour, ideally mitigating employment loss and business impacts.
- The population affected includes Alaskan locals in tourism-related jobs, Washington State residents working at ports, and US tourists who might choose to cruise under these relaxed terms.
- Given the prominence of cruise tourism, there are numerous stakeholders ranging from direct employees in the hospitality industry to suppliers of cruise lines and local attractions.
Simulated Interviews
Small Hotel Owner (Juneau, Alaska)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The extended bill is crucial for my business, as cruise ships bring a major portion of our annual guests.
- Without the dock in Canada, we'll retain our bookings.
- If the situation worsens and we can't have tourists back, I might have to lay off staff.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Port Worker (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy gives stability to my job through this cruise season.
- It ensures our port stays busy, otherwise work hours are reduced.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 3 |
Tour Guide (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill extension is a lifeline, as it keeps tourists visiting.
- The lack of a stopover in Canada opens up more opportunities to attract tourists.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 2 |
Cruise Passenger (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy makes it simpler to travel without worrying about additional restrictions in Canada.
- It might make cruises more attractive and affordable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Maritime Industry Analyst (Vancouver, Canada)
Age: 44 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although I'm not directly impacted by the policy, I am observing the shifts in cruise patterns.
- It brings a mixed economic impact transboundary; benefits to US ports but losses to Canadian ones.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Souvenir Shop Owner (Sitka, Alaska)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am hopeful the extension of this policy will bring more tourists and boost my sales.
- The lack of Canadian stopover simplifies itinerary planning for cruise lines and passengers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Port Authority Health Inspector (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy impacts the volume of cruise traffic directly, ensuring more stable work.
- Without the policy, layoff risks increase during cruise downtime.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Travel Blogger (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy makes cruising more accessible and is likely content-worthy for my blog.
- Procedure simplification helps in promoting more cruise content back to followers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Independent Travel Agent (Spokane, Washington)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Customers want uninterrupted itineraries; this policy could drive bookings back up.
- Loss of Canadian stopovers simplify arrangements, making my job easier.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
School Teacher (Houston, Texas)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With this policy, our planned cruise trip becomes less complicated.
- Travel restrictions can be a hazard; simpler rules make it easy to enjoy vacations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The primary impact is regulatory rather than fiscal, affecting private sector operations more than direct government expenditure.
- The bill supports tourism-related jobs and businesses in Alaska and Washington, ensuring continuity in services and economic stability.
- The temporary nature of the bill limits long-term fiscal impacts, focusing on immediate economic relief.