> There was a rule in the Port of Los Angeles saying you could only stack shipping containers two containers high. This is incorrect. There was a zoning rule which affected truck yards in Long Beach and Los Angeles. Truck yards. Not the port itself. As stated in the linked tweets actually. But if you don't believe that you can just google an image of the Port of Los Angeles from let's say 2019 and count how high the…
An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles
141–150 of 316 posts
Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the CEO has a different level of understanding of logistics compared to the major. They may be looking at the same port, but they see different things. The CEO saw bottlenecks like Neo sees the Matrix
Why doesn't the mayor of a city with one of America's most important ports call in experts like this the second trouble started? It was this easy and he never bothered to ask the experts?
Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why doesn't the mayor of a city with one of America's most important ports call in experts like this the second trouble started? It was this easy and he never bothered to ask the experts?
> Why doesn't the mayor of a city with one of America's most important ports call in experts like this the second trouble started? It was this easy and he never bothered to ask the experts? Because we pay our politicians terribly low compared to other leadership positions. Our best leaders have gone to Facebook / Google to make better ads. It makes no sense for a 18-year-old going into college to study political theo…
Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why doesn't the mayor of a city with one of America's most important ports call in experts like this the second trouble started? It was this easy and he never bothered to ask the experts?
> Why doesn't the mayor of a city with one of America's most important ports call in experts like this the second trouble started? It was this easy and he never bothered to ask the experts? Because we pay our politicians terribly low compared to other leadership positions. Our best leaders have gone to Facebook / Google to make better ads. It makes no sense for a 18-year-old going into college to study political theo…
My lowest paid manager makes $250k.
Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles
#145No, I think the news isn't being shared because it doesn't stoke fear, greed, or anger. The economics of the news causes people in those industries to (consciously or subconsciously) prioritize headlines which stoke fear, greed, or anger. "We solved a problem" doesn't stoke any of that.
Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
From Ryan Peterson's description, it was more that there was no space left to unload full containers from ships or empties from trucks to then pick up a full one from the ship. In essence container grid lock.
Yep. Both the rx and tx buffers were full and the port was dropping packets. (There were both container ships waiting to offload and trucks waiting to offload full and empty containers, respectively.) Now that buffer size has been increased, there is more bandwidth to available to actually move containers. Since the spike is temporary, the problem has gone away. If we were permanently faced with more containers then,…
Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flexport's technology had nothing to do with this, though. The CEO literally took a boat ride around the bay and looked at what was happening + talked to some people. He did the thing everyone assumes public officials do, but who clearly are not doing.
I'm pretty sure the CEO knew beforehand and crafted a narrative.
Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles
#148Apropos the importance of building new container shipping ports in places that don’t have land scarcity, traffic, and well organized NIMBYs? Let me introduce you to the port of Prince Rupert in northern British Columbia. The port of Prince Rupert has 5 (as in “can be counted on one hand”) berths and transfers 1.2M containers per year. The port of Long Beach has 80 (yes, eight-zero!!!) berths and only transfers 8.1M c…
Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were supposedly trucks that couldn’t be loaded because they had no place to get rid of the empty container they currently had. So truck loading rate was low, not because of the speed of the workers and cranes, but because of the availability of the trucks. So this is supposed to allow the truck loading rate to go up by making it easier for trucks to become available. I don’t know if that will happen, but this i…
Increasing a buffer size can also make it look like the problem is solved temporarily when you really have a rate issue. It seems that filled containers are coming in at a faster rate than empty containers are going out. We've increased the buffer for empty containers at the dock but did we address the outgoing rate problem? Why wouldn't the buffer just fill again? I wonder if we've reached a point where manufacturin…
Cosco containers need to be returned to X, Maersk containers go back to Y, etc.
If you can't sort and aggregate your empties efficiently, you further slow down the rate of return.
Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles
#150> A bureaucrat insisting that stacked containers are an eyesore, causing freight to pile up because trucks are stuck sitting on empty containers, thus causing a cascading failure that destroys supply lines and brings down the economy. That certainly sounds like something that was in an early draft of Atlas Shrugged but got crossed out as too preposterous for anyone to take seriously. This is a little disingenuous. Fr…
In this case we do know the reason why: aesthetics. The side effects are just greater now, so out the rule goes.