Speaking of Congestion ....

[Anonymous]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Port%20Congestion

A little-known fact: The West Coast container ports operate essentially on bankers' hours. And the railroads have to manage to meet the "9 to 5/Mon.-Fri" peaks. One implication (simply as one example): BNSF's Cascade tunnel "capacity constraint" led to reopenening Stampede Pass. But the "constaint" wasn't absolute train count. Rather, it was train count during the peak port hours. Imagine the costs if the PRB mines loaded only 40 hours a week.

[Junctionfan]

That explains alot. Why the hell did the seaport close at night time. Various ships arrive with containers at all hours of the day and night time. Seaports should operate like airports -24 hours a day. I wish someone had told me that earlier so I could included it in past threads. Thanks for the link to the article, I understand a little more now what the railroads are going through. Are the intermodal facilities 24-7 operations?

[Anonymous]

Per BNSF Intermodal Facilities Guide: SIG (Seattle International Gateway): 8-5:30, M-F.
(http://www.bnsf.com/business/iabu/pdf/facilities.pdf) South Seattle, the domestic facility, is open 24-7. The Los Angeles facilities are open 24-7, but handle both domestic and international.

[Junctionfan]

What about UP? If you had to deal with the seaports as a transportation company, would you be satisfied with them?

[Junctionfan]

I believe the shiping companies must be instructed to operate longer by the government. The shiping companies must also hire extra workers for the shifts as well. Seaports for sure are even more important than the railroad which is likely why the workers have such a strong union as the employer is likely over confident in his power and thinks he can do what ever he likes to the workers.

Incidentally I and my family are extreme pro union people. My family has quite a history. My great grandfather in Scotland, fought for rights long before even unions were formed. My grandmother organized the food services at Brock University into the CUPE local. She also was vice-president of the food services' local and than chief steward for a good while. My mother was also chief steward and steward of the same food services. My grandmother's brother John Irving, was President of the Millwright's Union of Ontario and was something in the carpenter's union. I can't remember what though-I think he managed their finances. I too have marched in picket lines with the teacher's unions against a really bad government bill that I read and had to keep a dictionary with me to sort through the B.S.

I am glad you don't follow the stupid propoganda about unions being bad. I believe fast food chains like Mc Donalds should be better organized as well as retail chains like Wal-Mart in particular.

[Anonymous]

Mark! Who said anything about unions being un-American? And who said the ILWU was opposed to night and weekend work? The fact is, the ports operate 8-5, M-F and the railroads must adapt their marketing and operations accordingly. Clearly, the railroads have chosen to adapt, but that comes with significant costs.

I wonder, though, when volumes decline (because of railroad congestion due to inadequate returns; because of diversion to alternative routes such as Suez and Panama; and diversion to alternative ports such as Prince Rupert), will ILWU labor rates decline? Or will labor rates remain high, but jobs disappear? The experience of the railroad unions give a clue, I surmise.

The comments of the trucker VP are curious in my mind. Driver rates have been going up consistently for several years. J.B. Hunt began the latest round, and Schneider, et al have done the same. Poor quality drivers? Gosh, how did the railroads manage to be marginalized by an industry with such poor help? Little doubt, it's actually easier to "manage" in a unionized industry ... just buy 'em off as did Stuart Saunders ... and blame the union bosses for the resulting mess.

[BaltACD]

So long as the West Coast port interests think it is cheaper to work the docks on banker hours it will continue to occur. The Ship owners who have the exoense of having their economic livelyhood sitting idle (at the tune of up to $1M a day - cost of the vessels principal & interest and crew expenses) are the only interests that can force waterfront to be open longer hours....and collectively they do have the power to force this outcome, or move their primary ports of call.

Like everything else port openings are economic decisions that are made to fit the needs of all the players. Port congestion is a political problem, not a facilities problem.

[Junctionfan]

Well Mark the government is the law makers so if one doesn't exist they make a law that will say they can. That is how.

How am I recharacterizing your opinion. Also am I not allowed to agree with you and give my opinion. I don't recall questioning you as a journalist and I sure don't remember accusing you as a propagandist. The only person who said the govenment should empower the unions would have been me and even than I didn't say that. I said the shipping companies which I meant to say seaports should hire the extra workers for the shifts. I have never intentionally tried to disrespect you and I don't intend to in the future as your opinions mean alot to me. I too have my opinions and am not afraid to share them as my views are my own I wish you would stop misconstruing my comments as being disrespectful. I honestly don't understand what I did wrong.

[Junctionfan]

Speaking of conjestion, I read an article from the Canadian Press from August 27 about CP's capacity problems. CP is going to do alot of double tracking in western Canada mainly as soon as Ottawa says they won't try to make the line open access. Rob Ritchie said that "you can't expect us to put money in and then bait and switch". CP plans include the addressing of conjestion concerns between Revelstoke to Salmon Arm B.C, Calgary to Edmonton Alberta, Brooks Alberta to Maple Creek Saskatchewan and Moose Jaw Saskatchewan to Minneapolis. This will allow them to increase traffic by 25%.

[MP57313]

Interesting thread. Not much to add, though on a (Port of LA) harbor cruise last year we asked the crew about the ILWU; the port lock-out was still a recent memory then. The crew explained that it was specifically the clerks of the ILWU that were the strongest ones...they worked the "banker's hours" and resisted computeriztion of their jobs, among other things. The clerks ultimately prevailed when the lock-out ended.

[Tangent] The 9/13/04 issue of Business Week has a cover story on the US organized labor market. Andy Stern (SEIU) has a plan to re-strengthen unions by consolidating the existing 60 unions into 15 or 20 mega-unions to increase their clout. It is not certain that he can get other union leaders to help make this happen...

[jeaton]

Wanted to bring this back up with a question. The History Channel's "Modern Marvels" did a show on Long Beach and I was left with the impression that ship off-loading/loading operations were around the clock. Did I miss something? Is the entire operation 9 to 5 or just some parts?

I also wnated to bring back something I mentioned before. In responding to the STB, Norfolk Southern expressed the opinion that this year's import peak may be lower than past years because importers have recognized capacity problems with both railroads AND container ships. Their research indicated that movement actually started much earlier this year Of course this would account in part for year-to-date being higher. It will be interesting to see where the year to year comparisons are for the next several weeks.

Jay

[Anonymous]

Before the ILWU longshoreman in America were literally worked to death. The West coast went on strike in 1934 for union recognition. Workers were attacked and slain just as WWI veterans had been on the Washington DC mall during the “Bonus march”. San Francisco went on a general strike in support of longshoreman and stopped all business in the city for 3 days.

This bit of history you won't get on Fox news explains why longshoreman aren't so willing to compromise on hours and safety.
http://www.ilwu19.com/history/1933.htm

[Anonymous]

Jay, your question about around-the-clock operations. I have no direct knowledge about this, but the article linked to at the beginning of this thread says 17% of port volume is handled in off-hours at the request of some major importers. Target was quoted as being one of those.

[Junctionfan]

Why would the ILWU mind if the government instructed the seaports to hire extra workers as too form addition shifts to decrease waiting times for trains and trucks so they don't all operate at the same time causing conjestions on the roads and rails.

The current workers at seaports that work at the bank hours wouldn't be effected as they are already the day shift /shifts. If they are to operate 24-7, they will need to hire workers for night shift / shifts. The ILWU would likely not care as long as the night shift was treated fair and the same as the dayshift. The only ones who would kick up hell would be the seaports for digging into their profits.

I have to ask, since 9-11, would it have been advisable to have the seaports to stay open longer as it would take customs longer to inspect the cargo for illegal contraband and terrorist materials, (bombs, anthrax, operatives)? I would have thought that with the added security measures, intermodal flow would have been "logged jammed" because of the seaport security and so they would need extra people to help speed things along.
Plus if there is such a growing intermodal flow rate, you would have thought the seaports should have hired extra workers than to keep up with it.

You don't need to be an expert to realize that the seaports could help reduce conjestion of the roads and rails, if they opened up longer than bank hours so the trucks and trains could make inbound and outbound movements sooner than later.

[Anonymous]

I was under the impression that competition between ports was very intense. If one port is more efficient, won't the ships go there? What does a port have to gain by forcing ships to "take a number"? Can a railroad demand service from a port? Can a shipper demand service from a port?

I don't know much about any of this, but after reading the comments so far, it looks like everybody's looking for a simple answer, and the more I think about all of this, the more complicated it seems to get. It seems obvious to me that focusing on one aspect of all of this does not accomplish much, and trying to understand all of it would take a lot of time and patience.

Does port's operating hours have a direct effect on railroad traffic? probably so.

Are their current operating hours hurting railroads? I don't know, but bickering about unions is not the answer.

[Anonymous]

Several factors decide which port is most compettive. Oakland wiped out San Francisco because they led the way in containers. Then LA/Long Beach blew past Oakland because stack trains were too tall for the Sierra tunnels and Oakland can only handle 11 or 12 meter draft ships. Seattle and Vancouver save a day crossing the Pacific. Ports are now wondering how or if they will be able to handle 21 meter draft Malacca Max ships with triple the tonnage of the current generation. These monsters will probably get 2 ports on the West coast and the rest will close or be shadows of what they are now.

[jchnhtfd]

What a lovely thread! I have just one question for Mark: Can we who read these things get graduate credit for reading your stuff? The University of Trains, perhaps?

A minor aside... with regard to shipping time at sea: as Mark has noted elsewhere, and as I have noted, within very broad limits the actual transit time at sea is irrelevant; what is considerably more important is that ship A carrying container B arrive on the day it is expected to arrive, and that container B arrive at company C in East Podunk, Ohio, on the day it is expected to arrive. Thus not only does a port such as LA not suffer because of extra distance, it benefits because of very very reliable railroad service; my own personal opinion is that Prince Rupert may benefit the same way, although that remains to be seen.

Before someone catches me out on it -- there was one cargo, 150 years ago, where transit time DID matter: tea, and the result was some of the most beautiful creations on man, not to mention at least one of the most stirring races and 'photofinishes' that has ever happened (Ariel and Taeping, literaly in a dead heat up the English Channel under full sail...)

[Anonymous]

As of 30 years ago the Harbor Island terminal in Seattle got one switch a day from the railroad that was there then. So, even if they did operate 24 hours a day they would have to stack containers for 16 hours because they didn't have any cars to put them on. I have no idea whether that has changed.

[dldance]

Congestion is not just impacting the ports. I just crossed SE Idaho and Wyoming. Saw 2 to 8 UP trains backed up on the main line at each major yard or junction.

[Anonymous]

It may not be exactly common to this subject, but I would like to share my memories of Los Angeles's and Norfolk's ports from when I was in the navy.

Fifty miles out to sea, beyond the eyes of anybody on land, are buoys Chesapeak #1, and LA#1. The first one I saw as a non rated seamen many times on lookout watch, The second one I saw only once, when I was a reservist in San Diego as a Quartermaster Seamen, on weekend training. They are both very large structures, made of concrete, rising maybe a hundred feet from the ocean, they look much like an oil derrick. It's always amazing and exiting to see these buoys because when you are there, you can see dozens of very large ships coming and going from all directions, all this makes the operations department very busy. These bouys can be seen for quite a distance at sea, and always seeing Chesapeak #1 felt reassuring after having been away from home.

At any rate, In the middle of the ocean, you only see other ships once in a while. And, also in port, you only see ships that are pier side. But, out at the bouy, you can see all ships coming and going congregating on a single point, then you realize the volume of traffic is staggering!

[BaltACD]

Los Angeles congestion eases
CONGESTION at Los Angeles/Long Beach has eased slightly, with 62 ships in port this morning. That includes 28 ships at anchor, more than half of them container ships. Congestion peaked on Saturday night, when 76 ships were in port, with 33 at anchor. That represented a new high for the ports since late June, when the current congestion problem first began. More container ships are having to go to anchor now, for at least a day, and many ships are required to sit idle at their berths for four shifts (48+ hours) before their allocation number comes up, and labour can be assigned. Hence, the overall turnaround time for some of the ships in port is now running at seven or eight days - about twice the normal range of 3 to 4 days. Adding to the problem of congestion, more ships are scheduled to arrive than depart over the next several days. In addition, today's Labour Day holiday will see ships backing up because there is no labour to handle their cargoes.
Source - Lloyd's Register - Fairplay web links