That may be the main reason they want to drop the Interstate age from 21 to 18
The problem isn't so much the lack of drivers as the lack of good companies willing to pay drivers a wage commensurate with the long hours, weeks away from home, etc. Salaries haven't kept up with inflation the last 25 years, or more.
That makes sense. I have not seen a add to "Drive a Big Rig" on late night TV in awhile.
Convicted OneQuestion 3: How would we ever cope if it was war and not greed (and/or) incompetence clogging ocean trade?
International trade based on the consumer generally constricts severely during wartime.
tree68 Backshop People who keep large sums of money in banks are fools. Your emergency fund of several months to a year or so is (all you need. When I hear the interest rates that organizations I'm familiar with are getting on their savings accounts (they can't really invest in the stock market, etc), I'm almost amazed that the banks aren't charging for the privilege of holding the money...
People who keep large sums of money in banks are fools. Your emergency fund of several months to a year or so is (all you need.
When I hear the interest rates that organizations I'm familiar with are getting on their savings accounts (they can't really invest in the stock market, etc), I'm almost amazed that the banks aren't charging for the privilege of holding the money...
Shhhh. Don't give them ideas.
One of my vices is Diet Coke. Used to be able to find it (2 ltr) on sale for $0.88 to 0.99. Now it's up to over $2.00 and sales are 3 for $5.00 (=1.66/bottle ).
Electroliner 1935 tree68 Backshop People who keep large sums of money in banks are fools. Your emergency fund of several months to a year or so is (all you need. When I hear the interest rates that organizations I'm familiar with are getting on their savings accounts (they can't really invest in the stock market, etc), I'm almost amazed that the banks aren't charging for the privilege of holding the money... Shhhh. Don't give them ideas. One of my vices is Diet Coke. Used to be able to find it (2 ltr) on sale for $0.88 to 0.99. Now it's up to over $2.00 and sales are 3 for $5.00 (=1.66/bottle ).
Diet Coke?
Can't you get the same taste experience for much less money by licking a galvanized metal fence post?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic Diet Coke? Can't you get the same taste experience for much less money by licking a galvanized metal fence post?
Convicted OneMy first hand experience is dated,.. going back to my involvement in warehousing in Oakland early 90's. But there was always a surplus of unwanted empties there, as well, The prevailing rule of thumb at the time was, if they could sell an empty box for $250. they were money ahead versus the cost to send it back to Asia empty.
Wouldn't it cost more that $250 (plus the cost of shipping?) for a replacement container in Asia for the next shipment?
Euclid TWO QUESTIONS: How long will it take to upgrade the ports to meet the demand surges we now know are possible?
TWO QUESTIONS:
How long will it take to upgrade the ports to meet the demand surges we now know are possible?
Figure 15 - 20 years. What they really need is to do something like what Rotterdam has done, expand out into the ocean. They need more land and they need to reconfigure the whole harbor. As a first step they need to merge the two separate Port Authorities into one. Each city would get ownership based on the current relative sizes of each port. Then get started on the Environmental Impact Report and the redesign based on reclaiming land from the Pacific Ocean. Reconfigure the berths so that the largest ships currently in use could easily reach their berths and provide a turning basin so that the ships would not need to back out very far. Next you would need to automate all of the terminals at least to the standard of the ECT Euromax Terminal in Rotterdam. The biggest problem with the Ports of LA/LB is that they were developed piecemeal over the years. By contrast the Port of Rotterdam was blessed by two things for the Dutch skills at reclaiming land from the North Sea, and second by World War 2, which totally destroyed the port giving them the ability and the need to start from scratch.
How long will it take for the supply chain to completely collapse if the current demand spike continues without the ports being upgraded?
Here is the new proposal by the LA Ports to force waiting ships to move 150 miles off shore while waiting to dock. Reducing pollution that moves onto land is one of the objectives. Yet the video says pollution produced will rise for ships anchoring further out because they will be in the storm zone and will have to remain with full power on standby to maintain position in the stormy weather.
The video says that the basic motive for this change is the imporoved "optics" of the public not seeing ships waiting to unload, and thus not perceiving a port backlog.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqDRmI5UvfA
EuclidHere is the new proposal by the LA Ports to force waiting ships to move 150 miles off shore while waiting to dock. Reducing pollution that moves onto land is one of the objectives. Yet the video says pollution produced will rise for ships anchoring further out because they will be in the storm zone and will have to remain with full power on standby to maintain position in the stormy weather. The video says that the basic motive for this change is the imporoved "optics" of the public not seeing ships waiting to unload, and thus not perceiving a port backlog. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqDRmI5UvfA
How far down is the ocean floor 150 miles off shore? Is it deep enough that anchors don't even reach bottom?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Plus that far away from shore no way to get fresh food or water to the crew. So they basically become prison ships for their crew while waiting to unload.
BaltACD Euclid Here is the new proposal by the LA Ports to force waiting ships to move 150 miles off shore while waiting to dock. Reducing pollution that moves onto land is one of the objectives. Yet the video says pollution produced will rise for ships anchoring further out because they will be in the storm zone and will have to remain with full power on standby to maintain position in the stormy weather. The video says that the basic motive for this change is the imporoved "optics" of the public not seeing ships waiting to unload, and thus not perceiving a port backlog. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqDRmI5UvfA How far down is the ocean floor 150 miles off shore? Is it deep enough that anchors don't even reach bottom?
Euclid Here is the new proposal by the LA Ports to force waiting ships to move 150 miles off shore while waiting to dock. Reducing pollution that moves onto land is one of the objectives. Yet the video says pollution produced will rise for ships anchoring further out because they will be in the storm zone and will have to remain with full power on standby to maintain position in the stormy weather. The video says that the basic motive for this change is the imporoved "optics" of the public not seeing ships waiting to unload, and thus not perceiving a port backlog. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqDRmI5UvfA
I don't know how deep they could anchor. But the guy with the video said that the ships would need to be with all power on line in order to frequently adjust their positions due to the wind drift there being continuous from north to south. So that suggests that maintaining their positions by anchoring may not be possible due to ocean depth or other reasons.
The USS Nimitz (CVN68) has just over 1000' of anchor chain on each anchor, as an example.
There are several spots well off LA/LB that would permit anchoring, but there are spots that ore over 1,400 feet deep...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
MidlandMikeWouldn't it cost more that $250 (plus the cost of shipping?) for a replacement container in Asia for the next shipment?
As I qualified earlier, that was 30 years ago, and according to the guys selling them, ...no
I had a conversation here with mr Hemphill on that very question 15 +/- years ago, and he generally agreed. I guess it's not cheap to send them back empty?
I can verify that I bought one, and the guy selling them had many more he'd liked to have sold at the time.....and they were NOT beat-up 'leakers'.
CMStPnPInternational trade based on the consumer generally constricts severely during wartime.
My main thought was that the current dilemma is a result of factors we at least believe are under our control to fix. But if the international picture deteriorated, even through no cause of our own... and long term shipping disruption was a result, then we could easily end up back in the very same predicament no matter how much money we throw at our ports.
Put another way, perhaps there is a valuable lesson to be learned from the current state of affairs.
Add to that, the worm-on-the-hook supporting the current model was always "savings". Now that it appears the elements who once made that a reality have now decided to cut a bigger slice out for themselves, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate priorities?
I ponder that there may have been a string of veiled falsehoods we were wooed with when we were told that paying money to raise bridges, deepen harbors, and expand tunnels was a pot of gold in waiting.
Cheaper merchandise, but at what cost? Didn't someone once warn us about that "vast sucking sound"? The manufacturing jobs left, and now those lower prices appear ready to follow.
We were enticed with the prospect of "good paying port jobs" making up for the losses in manufacturing,.. but now people are insisting that our only option is to spend even more money automating the operation of the ports? Do I hear that sucking sound again?
Then there was the promise that once those off shore manufacturing economies matured, then foreign demand for US manufactured finished goods would evolve. How has that one played out?
Perhaps something like this was in the plans, all along? Not to build a tangent, so much as a hypothetical parallel, but I think back to how inexpensive natural gas was back when a majority of residences were still heating with coal. Gas was trying to build market share. Once coal was dispatched as the first choice, then the escalations of gas prices followed.
Perhaps we were wooed into a "garden of earthly delights" with cheap transportation that no one intended to be the permanent business model. The low prices were just a transition phase anomaly?
tree68The USS Nimitz (CVN68) has just over 1000' of anchor chain on each anchor, as an example. There are several spots well off LA/LB that would permit anchoring, but there are spots that ore over 1,400 feet deep...
The rule of the thumb for the scope of an anchor chain is that it should be at least five times the depth of water to avoid pulling the anchor out of the bottom as the ship drifts. So 1000 feet of chain lets you anchor in 200 feet of water. At that point the chain is all the way out - "at the bitter end" as the squids put it
"bitter end
The rule of the thumb is that the scope of the anchor chain should be six times the depth of water, so the anchor doesn't pull out of the bottom as the ship drifts. Thus 1000 feet of anchor chain will allow you to anchor in 200 feet of water - at that point, all the chain is out - "at the bitter end" as the squids put it.
"bitter end (plural bitter ends)
The bitter end means the very end.The bitter end is a nautical term. The bitt end (or bitter end) refers to the final part of the anchor rope near to where the rope is fixed to the ship’s deck. Usually marked with coloured rags, the bitter end gets its name from the bollards (or bitts) on the deck to which the anchor rope was tied. When the sailors lowering the anchor came across the rags on the bitter end, they knew there was no more rope left, meaning the water was too deep to set anchor. To go to the bitter end means to go to the very end (i.e., right to end last few yards of the anchor rope)."
The modern US Navy paints the last shot (90 feet - 15 fathoms) of chain red and the next to last yellow as warnings to the anchor detail
"This is congestion on a classic scale"
We've been here before. It's time for a democratic president to follow the example of his predecessor a century ago during another crisis. Nationalize, except not just the railroads this time, the whole dang transportation industry. Yes, the USRA lives !! What could possibly go wrong with the all wisw government running things?
Euclidwas dependent on the reliable over-the-ocean supply chain.
Hardly a revelation. And what made it work, I recall Greyhounds saying long ago on mentioning a book, was how cheap transportation had become. Clearly that has changed. How cheap container transport will be after recovery (which has already started) is unknown.
BEAUSABRE"This is congestion on a classic scale" We've been here before. It's time for a democratic president to follow the example of his predecessor a century ago during another crisis. Nationalize, except not just the railroads this time, the whole dang transportation industry. Yes, the USRA lives !! What could possibly go wrong with the all wisw government running things?
USRA actions would have no affect on the foreign flagged container ships that are the genesis of the supply waiting to enter the US.
BaltACDUSRA actions would have no affect on the foreign flagged container ships that are the genesis of the supply waiting to enter the US.
But don't you see? It would clear the ports of the cargo that is clogging them, allowing those ships to enter and discharge their cargo, eliminating any problems due to ocean shipping. QED
BEAUSABRE BaltACD USRA actions would have no affect on the foreign flagged container ships that are the genesis of the supply waiting to enter the US. But don't you see? It would clear the ports of the cargo that is clogging them, allowing those ships to enter and discharge their cargo, eliminating any problems due to ocean shipping. QED
BaltACD USRA actions would have no affect on the foreign flagged container ships that are the genesis of the supply waiting to enter the US.
So your USRA action is going to give container terminals additional ground to land the boxes by stealing the land from the owners that adjoin the container terminals.
You could have every intermodal car in existance double stacked out of LA/LB and you would still have vessels waiting their turn to dock.
Is there an internet symbol for "Sarcasm Follows?" ?
Turns out there is. I should have inserted an upside down smiley face. "Commonly used to convey irony, sarcasm, joking, or a sense of goofiness or silliness."
https://emojipedia.org/upside-down-face/
Something I'm gonna have to remember from now on.
Anyway, by all accounts the USRA was a disaster (standard designs excepted) and I don't think USRA 2.0 would be any better, despite Biden's claims the Feds are going to fix everything at the ports in time for Christmas
This would actually be USRA 3.0. 2.0 created Conrail and did a decent job.
Backshop, you're right and they did do a good job - aided by deregulation
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.