Humanities desk
< September 17	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 18

Traffic handedness in Rwanda and Burundi

Around 10 years ago, Rwanda and Burundi announced proposals to switch from right-hand to left-hand traffic, but there has been no change and I haven't found any updates since about 2015 about why the switch didn't happen. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One reason might be that both countries have been and still are going through extended periods of political and civil turmoil (details and further links in both linked articles), and even discussing such matters as this would be very far down anyone's agenda. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.66.229.169 (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merchant Marine Act of 1920

Hi. The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly known as the Jones Act, prohibits cabotage by foreign carriers between US ports. OOCL is a foreign carrier and their ships travel between LA and Oakland in the PCS2 route [1].

I read cabotage in its entirety, but I'm still not 100% sure which of the following is happening:

Option A, ship docks in LA, offloads the LA-bound Asian cargo, and loads nothing. Then ship docks in Oakland, offloads the Oakland-bound Asian cargo, picks up Oakland-originating cargo destined for Asian ports.

Option B, ship docks in LA, offloads the LA-bound cargo, and picks-up LA-originating cargo destined for Asian ports. The rest is identical.

Obviously Option B would be more profitable, because it allows the shipping of LA-originating cargo to Asian ports. Option A, on the other hand, loses out on this revenue, because it loads absolutely nothing at LA.

But I'm not sure whether Option B is possible under the Jones Act. The act of loading LA-originating cargo, and moving it into the port of Oakland (without unloading it), could possibly be considered "transport" of goods from LA to Oakland, at least if we use the WP definition of transport: "Transport is the intentional movement of humans, animals, and goods from one location to another." Satoshit1 (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert, but I agree that Option B appears to be excluded under the Act, and I can't see any described amendments and waivers that (on a permanent basis rather than in national emergencies) would allow it. The wording of the Article's sub-section Merchant Marine Act of 1920#Failure to accomplish stated purpose implies that this is indeed not done (either in this specific example, or generally), and is a logistical and economic drawback for all concerned.

The section immediately following mentions recent efforts to reform or repeal the Act, so you might websearch those efforts to see if relevant texts confirm or otherwise shed light on the question. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.66.229.169 (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goods on an internationally moving ship that have not been unloaded are still in bond; they have not passed customs, and therefore may be considered to not violate the Jones Act. More usefully, it would be logical (economical) to only make one stop in California, and so opt to move the goods from Oakland to LA (Long Beach) by road or rail. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The service route is invariably Taipei – Xiamen – Yantian – LA – Oakland – Taipei. I doubt the company would want to change the schedule in the (unlikely) case there happens to be no cargo to be picked up in LA. Note they could opt to call in general on just one US port on their route and have cargo from or to the other port shipped over land. Apparently, however, that is not more economical. --Lambiam 20:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]