Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 514 posts

Re: Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

#491

Post by booleangate »

smileysteve wrote: post #488
myself248 wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those 2-high zoning laws aren't new, are they? Presumably the port would've architected its systems to work within all sorts of constraints, come they from physics, or business, or regulation. The fact that one of them can easily be relaxed is immaterial to their failure to account for it in the first place.

Presumably, the regulation had reasoning. Likely unsightfulness. But also likely danger. Will the port's insurer cover damages when a 3 or 4 high stack falls?

Unsightliness maybe, but also California is no stranger to earthquakes. Stacking up to 6 high sounds like a deadly and expensive game of dominos.

Re: Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

#492

Post by bart_spoon »

HenryKissinger wrote: post #377
IronWolve wrote: post #267

The ceo of flexport rented a boat and toured the area and reported on issues people saw and reported to him. Very informative. Tweet thread @ https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1451543776992845834 Or threadreader https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1451543776992845834.html

Some of these comments make sense, but this guy loves hyperbole. > This is a negative feedback loop that is rapidly cycling out of control that if it continues unabated will destroy the global economy. No, the global economy won't be destroyed because of backed up cargo ships in LA/Long Beach. Don't be ridiculous Ryan.

It’s not just LA and Long Beach though. Similar problems are happening at a lot of major ports, at least in the US.

Re: Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

#493

Post by bart_spoon »

micro_cam wrote: post #15

Does this mean it is a cheap time to buy empty shipping containers?

On the contrary, they are insanely expensive right now. Too many empty shipping containers in on particular area means too few everywhere else that wants them. Shipping containers prices have skyrocketed.

Re: Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

#494

Post by maxharris »

eecc wrote: post #423
jerry1979 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those who didn't see the 5 points, I've copied them below from here https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1451543776992845834 1) Executive order effective immediately over riding the zoning rules in Long Beach and Los Angeles to allow truck yards to store empty containers up to six high instead of the current limit of 2. Make it temporary for ~120 days. This will free up tens of thousands of chassis that right now…

Funny how free-market, small-government, deregulation, rhetoric flies out of the window when own profit maximization short-terminism falls apart and everyone starts invoking centrally coordinated state intervention. I wonder if some governmental bureau tasked with coordinating this market hasn’t been shuttered in the last couple years to some lobbyist great success…

Wasn't this mess made by the government's regulations in the first place?

Re: Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

#495

Post by azornathogron »

yblu wrote: post #490
unethical_ban wrote: post #293

* Own the bottleneck of your business. * The most capital intensive process of your business should be the bottleneck. * When you find a bottleneck not of your making, overwhelm it.

> The most capital intensive process of your business should be the bottleneck. Can you explain what this means? You find the bottleneck, then invest the most capital to improve it? Or whatever you're investing the most is the bottleneck? Or something else?

I'm not a business person, but I assume it means this:

Say you run a factory making widgets, and the process has several steps. One of the steps requires a very expensive machine. That step is the most capital intensive. You want that machine to always be running at its maximum throughput. You do not want it to be idle waiting for some other step, otherwise that big capital investment is being wasted. When the machine is at maximum throughput then it is also your bottleneck.

Hence, you want the bottleneck to be at the most capital intensive process in the business, to maximise the productivity of your capital.

Re: Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

#496

Post by robocat »

Related response by opendna “I checked into the claims in this port thread. While the facts are broadly correct, the policy response is not. I'm going point to some other possible choke-points, suggest solutions, and explain why some of the suggestions are counter-productive.”

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1452064336726290434.html

Re: Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

#497

Post by robocat »

schainks wrote: post #323
ilwu_member wrote: post #275

I am a member of ILWU 13. A couple thoughts after reading the comments: The zoning change is for TEU storage outside the port. The port itself was not subject to that rule. The Port of Los Angeles is a landlord and is not directly involved in operations. Private companies, such as APM, EverPort, and others, rent piers/berths and are responsible for the actual operations and logistics. Some speculation: recently I’ve…

Is someone paying for ships to do this or are they doing their own calculations and realizing it’s cheaper for them to leave fast?

It might be other forces driving their decision. Maybe the ships are booked and are already late to pickup next load with penalty clauses for delay, or the port has other costs that mean it wants to speed up getting the next ship unloaded.

Re: Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

#498

Post by aeternum »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #54

I thought that Flexport CEO's tweet stream was really great - had a ton of insightful, first hand information and made the problem very clear. Especially import was the feedback loops showing how the system was essentially deadlocked, in the classical sense of the term.

He didn't really address why there are so many unclaimed empties though. That seems like the real issue. Stacking them higher might work temporarily, but isn't the real problem the empties themselves.

Perhaps no one wants to ship them back because it's not economical?

Re: Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

#499

Post by KptMarchewa »

booleangate wrote: post #491
smileysteve wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably, the regulation had reasoning. Likely unsightfulness. But also likely danger. Will the port's insurer cover damages when a 3 or 4 high stack falls?

Unsightliness maybe, but also California is no stranger to earthquakes. Stacking up to 6 high sounds like a deadly and expensive game of dominos.

They can be stacked higher on a container ship when full. And ships are subjected to what someone could think of as a "quake" - waves.

Re: Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

#500

Post by fragmede »

The_Amp_Walrus wrote: post #385
babypuncher wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please no more CEOs running for president. The government is not a business.

The government is not a business, but people can adapt, learn and re-purpose their skills. I think that the key, mistaken, assumption that you're making in your pushback is that general competence does not exist: people who are good at business are hyper-specialised for that environment and their skills will not carry over to governance. I think some people are really good at very general, cross-domain skills and sho…

Skills yes, but not their worldview. The fundamental duty of government to provide for its people compared to business' insatiable need for profit makes them incompatible.

There is no way for a food stamp program to generate a profit - that's entirely opposite from the point of it! Closer to home, you can tell when corners are getting cut for budget reasons that are penny-wise and pound foolish in a department at a businesses that treats departments that don't generate profit as a cost center, eg the IT department.

Businesses also have the luxury of firing poor workers. Government has no such luxury with their poor.

Post reply on HN