Why are there no container ports for the Great Lakes, like there are on the East and West coasts of North America?Why is it only used for bulk cargo at the moment?
The great lakes have traditionally been natural resources and raw materials, export-based economies. The coastal ports have been finished goods and consume as well as export. You don't need shipping containers for taconite. You need it for ipads and motor vehicles.
>>1977621True, but couldn't you send smaller container ships through the seaway and have major container ports in Chicago, Toronto and Cleveland? Wouldn't that be better than trains and trucks having to send finished goods across the country, which is definitely more expensive?
>>1977628I don't think trains are used much for finished goods either except maybe cars and even there, trucks do a lot of it. Anyway I suppose if you order $1 million worth of laptops you'd probably rather get it a few days earlier even if it costs an extra $200. I just pulled those numbers out of my ass.
>>1977620Faster and cheaper to offload at a coastal port and put freight on trains or trucks to get it to its destination.
>>1977620Why is lake huron/georgian bay devoid of ports? Parry sound has a decent harbour and connected by rail and highway
>>1977628Port of Toronto is very smallIt's really just red path sugar and bulk cargo like salt and aggregate. Hamilton ON is a bigger port for steel manufacturing Those 3 ports on the Ontario side of lake Ontario are Hamilton Toronto and Oshawa, from west to east
The lakes freeze over for months every winter and the ships on it now have to lay up for the season at some port until everything thaws out
>>1977621>>1977634/thread
>>1977664nobody fucking lives there
>>1977664There used to be a few. Midland and Collingwood being the standouts, even having shipyards. Collingwood hasn't had a working port since the 90s, but Midland still gets grain carriers a few times a year. CSL Frontenac is wintering there RN.
>>1977691Same grain elevators as above few years ago.
>>1977691>>1977692Isn't it great that we can just buy cheap ships from china and destroy our domestic shipbuilding infrastructure to build some overpriced condos for retired lawyers from Toronto? Seems sustainable to me.
>>1977620It doesn't make financial sense to build container facilities and a fleet of small container ships that can fit through the locks. It's cheaper to unload at the major ports like New York, Savannah, and Montreal and transport the containers by rail to the midwest.
>>1977620>>1977628There's economies of scale for both port operations and container ships, as well as a desire on the part of shipping lines for flexibility in responding to market conditions. Seawaymax, the maximum size for vessels that can transit the St. Lawrence, is by far the smallest of the standard cargo ship sizes.So there isn't any demand or anything in place for such a container service.
>>1977724>SeawaymaxThat's enormous, imagine how unfucked our roads would be if that's what trucking is competing with and we could get rid of the trucks
>>1977694>The US tries to preserve its "domestic shipbuilding infrastructure" by requiring all shipping between two domestic ports to use US-built ships (the Jones Act)>US shipbuilders become pathetically inefficient because they have no competition and therefore zero reason to improve>It now costs literally five times as much to build a ship in the US vs. elsewhere>Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands suffer from increased shipping costs because of the ship shortage
>>1977724We don't want ocean going ships in the great lakes That's where all the invasive species came from. Most ships unload onto Lake freighters in Montreal then carry on in lake freightersYou also have to consider the Welland Canal and Detroit rivers for size of ships, not just the sea way
>>1977694The Canadian government keeps the Canadian shipbuilding industry busy by making major orders for new navy ships and ice breakers. It's just too costly to make orders for a fleet of ships in Canada without waiting 15 years. Chinese ships do the job and they keep the industry on land going.
>>1977828They keep two yards barely functioning with government orders, and there's no growth capacity for them because all the expertise and infrastructure has been thrown to the winds. >>1977735>We keep our ability and know how to make ships and have growth capacity for naval construction at the expense of increased shipping costs to some useless islandsI'd take that deal, and it seems so would the US government
>>1977724This just feels like an excuse for the laziness on the part of Canadian and US lawmakers to change the import levy laws and the Jones act making this impossible. Europe has much smaller ships than seaway max Great Lakes ships that transport cargo containers from Rotterdam and ship them through the river system like the Rhine. Imagine if Chicago/ Milwaukee were able to get container ships instead of being completely reliant on rails for goods.
>>1977974There's a 10 year back log US navy dry dock work.America's ship building has has become the UK's. The USA should stop focusing so much on the airforce because USA is like the UK's empire at it's peak but relying on the dutch ship yards.
>>1977735What ended up happening is that the USA bombed it's over seas competition, but then got fat & rested on it's laurels. Now the US steel refineries are generations behind their over seas competition.
>>1977974>Imagine if Chicago/ Milwaukee were able to get container ships instead of being completely reliant on rails for goods.What is the advantage? Boats are for bulk goods and it makes sense their cargoes travel slowly. But containers are generally finished goods and demand less time in transit. I think if it made economic sense to move containers around the Great Lakes, they would be doing it now.>>1977982>US steel refineries are generations behind their over seas competition.The US is still #4 in steel production globally. The trend in domestic steel production over the last couple of decades has been moving away from big diversified steel mills like Gary and Clarion and toward specialty mini-mills like those run by Nucor around the country. US steelmaking has gone through ups and downs and people have been saying it was finished since the 70s but it's still around and still big.
>>1978039Since 2014 the Port of Cleveland has received shipments from Dutch Spliethoff direct from Antwerp. It grew immensely after Covid supply chain bottlenecks at ports like Los Angeles and New York made Cleveland the smartest choice to ship. Right now the US and Canada's rail and road infrastructure is maxed out and needs time for maintenance. Shipping locally makes sense both economically and environmentally if done right. It could even be feasible to have Great Lake ships collect containers from the Port of Montreal instead of having to traverse the ocean in a smaller lake freighter, and lower risk of invasive species entry. The whole reason the Saint Lawrence Seaway was built is so that large lake ships could reach the Montreal port and beyond. It's been underutilized because both the Jones Act and Navigable Waters Act in Canada make international shipping inland extraordinarily restrictive.
>>1978039>The US is still #4 in steel production globally. The US has ~6 times the population of Korea, South, but only makes 22% more steel. The US was also generally a laggard in post-war modernization of steel, preferring instead useless protectionist measures. Not surprisingly, that was also its prescription (the Jones Act) for shipbuilding.
>>1978089>The US has ~6 times the population of Korea, South, but only makes 22% more steel.So? China outproduces the other top 10 steelmaking countries combined and then some. Doesn't mean I want the US to be more like China.
>>1977749There hasn’t been any major invasive species entrance since the 90s because ships are now required to empty ballast prior to entering the river. They also get inspected more than they used to. Meanwhile wood exports have allowed species like emerald ash borer and asian long horned beetles to destroy forests all over North America, we don’t ban all imports just because of that.
>>1978305>Meanwhile wood exports have allowed species like emerald ash borer and asian long horned beetles to destroy forests all over North America, we don’t ban all imports just because of that.We probably should.>>1978089> useless protectionist measuresThe steel mills and shipyards still exist where a free market would have off-shored them all ages ago. How is keeping long lead strategic industry out of the hands of your main rival useless?>>1978042>Saint Lawrence Seaway... underutilized That may be, but the Welland canal is near capacity already. St. Lawrence access only gets you as far as lake Ontario.
>>1977634how do the barges cheaply make their way to the coasts to be unloaded?
>>1978402>how do the barges cheaply make their way to the coasts to be unloaded?I was thinking of ships, not barges, coming across the Atlantic.
>>1978207So "they shipped all the steel jobs overseas" is wrong, but the quantitative and qualitative performance of the American steel sector is nothing impressive and the "generations behind" anon was closer to correct.
>>1978465No. Probably time to take your meds though
>>1978321China had a peak 7% market share of American steel imports, while still being behind Brazil. The concern with their overcapacity was it forcing down global steel prices, not so much grabbing market share. With ships especially, the Jones Act "protected" fleet is older and more expensive than comparable international ships. Even setting aside improvement incentives, the market isn't large enough to support a modern, high quality high productivity shipbuilding industry, meaning the US is forced to make do with a small number of aging uncompetitive yards, with all that entails in terms of output.
>>1977620The Jones Act.That's it. Every other post ITT is irrelevant.
>>1978468None of this is relevant, even if its inefficient they still exist. This is the goal, an inefficent yard can be modernized. A yard that has been destroyed and turned into condos cannot.Steel imports have remained low as a result of protectionist action, citing how low steel imports are confirms this, it does not refute it.
>>1977749Closing the Great Lakes over an invasive species problem mostly solved by mitigation and surveillance efforts while putting thousands of trucks on the road to do the same job is pants on head retarded. What kind of braindead thinking is it to shut down all salties just because idiots in the 1980s didn’t understand how to empty a ballast tank.
>>1977628He answered it correctly in first post retard. Stop.
>>1978930No he didn't. The Great Lakes used to be the main center of manufacturing and finished goods, and shipping made that possible. In 1973, container traffic on the Great Lakes was at it's peak, but declined with the region because of terrible policy. So his assertion it was only ever used for raw materials is absolutely bullshit. Maybe you retards should actually research before you act like the conversation is over.
>>1978989>>1977621 and >>1977634 sum it for you. Has it ever occurred to you that things fail because they're not demanded?>The Great Lakes used to be the main center of manufacturing and finished goods>used to beHm
>>1978996>US restricts international inland shipping and port hopping with the Jones Act >Also Foreign Dredge Act makes it impossible to expand port facilities because it needs Jones Act compliant dredgers, which are in short supply >US international cargo is slowly strangled into just New York and Los Angeles >Covid makes this even worse, to the point of ships being anchored for months waiting to offload >This is somehow good and not the least bit the fault of laws Even Congressional studies blames their dumb laws for leading to this situation. You can read the study here to illustrate just how inefficient the Jones Act is and it's impact on traffic on rail and road infrastructure. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44831.pdf
>>1979000>foreign-built coastal ship: 25 to 30 million dollars (1100 to 1300 dollars per ton)>US-built coastal ship: 190 to 250 million dollars (8300 to 11000 dollars per ton; eight times as expensive)holy kek
>>1979000There's just very little demand for the service you desire, no matter how much you keep injecting muh Jones Act into the conversation. It makes more sense to use coastal ports that can handle larger ships.
>>1979038Not if the ports are incapable of handling higher volumes and the rail and road infrastructure cannot handle higher capacity. And yes, The Jones Act does play a part, why wouldn’t it? It’s a ridiculous law and everyone in the industry besides ship builders want it.
>>1979081Sorry dude. There's just not that much demand for container traffic on the Great Lakes.>And yes, The Jones Act does play a part, why wouldn’t it?Because I haven't once mentioned cabotage.
>>1979089Well doesn't cabotage define whether something is viable or not?Imagine in a deregulated environment, a US company could purchase seaway max container ships from the international shipping market, and sail them in great lakes ports like Cleveland and Chicago. Currently if a corporation wanted to do that, they would have to build the fleet in the US, which would be an absolutely insane amount of money, take decades, and be cost prohibitive. These laws absolutely are the deciding factor as to why there are no more Great Lakes container ships. Even the US Great Lake Bulk Carrier fleet is considerably old because building new ones takes major amounts of capital.
>>1979038Not a single one of the largest container ships in the world has been built or operated by a US company, despite it being the world’s largest economy and center of commerce. Under your own logic, the US has no demand for container ships because there simply isn’t any domestic ships being made.>INB4 “well they’re all registered in Liberia or Hong Kong” They’re operated and headquartered in countries like China, Japan, South Korea, France, Germany, Spain, and The Netherlands, all major G20 countries that don’t have an exceptionalist take on global trade.
>>1979114>>1979173First of all take your meds. You sound schizophrenic.The container ship that currently serves the Port of Cleveland and sails to Europe is the Peyton Lynn C, flagged under Antigua & Barbuda, owned by a company out of the Netherlands, and was built in China in 2007. As I've been saying all along the service you are dreaming of exists, there's just not much demand for it.
>>1979184Jesus, you are thick. Currently the largest ships that >>1979173 outlined only can land in a single US port and cannot port hop. That means that they wait for days in a container ship traffic line for Los Angeles, and have to drop off cargo at an overloaded port and then have to sail to Vancouver because they are prohibited to go to San Francisco or Seattle to drop off more cargo. In an international shipping regime this is inefficient and dumb, post-Covid supply chain slowdowns made it nearly intolerable. in an internal waterway like the Great Lakes they become absolutely cost prohibitive. >Ship built in China has done more for Great Lakes container shipping than any US made ship Not a great argument for why The Jones Act US Made Ship provision isn’t stifling growth.
>>1979468You keep bringing up cabotage even though I am still not making any mention of it. You can ship containers straight to Europe from Cleveland right now. There's very little demand for it, though. If it was a great alternative, more shippers would utilize it.
>>1977694Do you know if the Port of Toronto will still be in service after this new neighborhood and park they're building?https://portlandsto.ca/project-details/I know they've already removed the rail connection across the Keating channel and into the portlands. There is still space south of the ship channel to have a small container depot, and hopefully they could reactivate the rail lines A container terminal port directly into toronto would be a good service. Also better infrastructure into the port lands will increase connectivity to the cruise ship terminal
>>1979481>there isn’t any demand for it >except the company that does do it despite obstacles>and the government agency saying if they changed the law it would induce demand Do you have reading comprehension problems? Did you not read the OP about WHY there is no container traffic? You’re just spouting the same old adage of “it it doesn’t exist, it’s just because” without any other explanation.
>>1979910>there isn’t any demand for itI said there's very little demand for it. Shipping containers out of the Great Lakes is clearly possible, as it happens right now. It's just that demand is very low for the service.
>>1979917>keeps mentioning Demand incessantly instead of understanding the problemShipping is a supply side economics problem, 85 million people already live in the Great Lakes region, there is absolutely demand for containers there, and rails are at maximum traffic capacity as it is. You keep mentioning demand but forget supply of seaway max container ships is very small and can’t be produced quickly given current US shipbuilding capacity. Why do you think Canada removed the tariffs on foreign ship building and has a reasonably sized fleet of ships while the US only built a single ship in 40 years?
>>1980307>there is absolutely demand for containers thereCorrect. Just very, very little demand. What this is really about is you seeing the market, being unhappy with it for your own reasons, and then insisting the market is wrong.>and rails are at maximum traffic capacity as it is. It's cheaper, faster, easier, and more beneficial to shippers to add rail capacity than it is to enlarge several sets of locks for what will still amount to a longer time in transit for shippers.>supply of seaway max container ships is very small and can’t be produced quickly given current US shipbuilding capacityIrrelevant. See >>1979184 again. This is information about the container ship that runs between Cleveland and Europe:>the Peyton Lynn C, flagged under Antigua & Barbuda, owned by a company out of the Netherlands, and was built in China in 2007
>>1977968>I'd take that deal, and it seems so would the US government>Since 1960, America's cargo fleet has fallen from 16% of the world's fleet to 0.2%.>The total number of cargo ships have gone from 3k to about 250.Holy shit you're a retard.
>>1980310Oh, you’re a rail shill who is arguing disingenuously that building multibillion dollar extensions in rail lines is somehow more efficient than… building a 740ft container ship from overseas. I actually gave you benefit of the doubt that you were actually trying to have a valid economic argument, but you’re just some rail autist who thinks trains can match a fucking ship. Jesus, you’re a waste of time and air to even argue with. Pound sand railtard.
>>1980663>regional hybrid>global hybridare we back dirigible bros?
>>1980663You can ship containers right now out of Cleveland for ports in Europe. There is hardly any demand for it, though.
>>1980669Are you a bot or something? You have repeated the same sentence this entire thread. Can you not actually speak in any other way than a robot? Why are there no US made ships, sir?
>>1979687Red Path and the aggregate operation will continue, the body of the portlands being developed has been vacant for decades anyway.
>>1980670>Why are there no US made ships, sir?Because going from Cleveland to Europe isn't cabotage
>>1980707You didn’t answer the question. Why are there no new Great Lakes ships being built in the US?
>>1980799>You didn’t answer the question.Incorrect>Why are there no new Great Lakes ships being built in the US?You've changed the point of argument from "Why can't you ship containers out of the Great Lakes?" to "Well why aren't those ships built where I think they should be?"I've answered both.
>>1980800No you didn’t. You’ve basically misidentified every issue with Great Lakes shipping to demand and historical revisionism when basically every expert report puts blame on The Jones Act for making it uneconomical for ships to transport containers in the Great Lakes. You couldn’t counter why Los Angeles and New York are overburned ports due to Jones Act restrictions, why every major container company is foreign instead of US run companies, why the current head of Spliethoff has said changes to the law and incentives would greatly increase shipping. you’ve had like 3 people in this thread try to correct you but you can only repeat 2 sentences and cannot elaborate your point at all. You also think adding rail capacity is cheap, which it isn’t. No one mentioning expanding the locks, only allowing foreign ships to compete like they do in the rest of the world that doesn’t have laws as restrictive as the Jones Act. Actually research the topic and stop spewing bullcrap.
>>1980803>No you didn’t.Yes I did. Btw, Jones Act provisions only apply to cabotage. It doesn't affect international shipping. So again, you can move cargo, specifically containers, to Europe from the Great Lakes, but shippers aren't demanding it.>You also think adding rail capacity is cheap, which it isn’t.I didn't say it was cheap, I said it was much cheaper and faster to do that than enlarging multiple locks in the Great Lakes.>only allowing foreign ships to compete like they do in the rest of the worldIf you're shipping from Cleveland to Europe, Jones Act laws do not apply since that is not cabotage. Thus, any seawaymax ship can make that transit. There's just little demand for it.>Actually research the topic and stop spewing bullcrap.MirrorWhat country are you from btw?
>>1980811NTA>I said it was much cheaper and faster to do that than enlarging multiple locks in the Great Lakes.Is this even true? at least with the locks they already own the real estate, buying up train corridors in developed areas is prohibitively expensive. >There's just little demand for it.Why is that the case? Are seawaymax ships inefficient for ocean crossings? does Cleveland have poor connections?
>>1980811You’re basically missed the entire point of regional shipping. You’re acting as if the Great Lakes region is an ocean, when it’s really just an inland waterway like the Mississippi, Rhine, Danube, or Yangtze . Yes ships can go from Europe to Cleveland, and they do, but they cannot go from multiple ports and drop off cargo like they do in European or Asian markets which is economical. That’s why you’re wrong, you’re misidentifying the problem and saying the source is just demand, when the reality is law passed in 1920 does not match the reality of 21st century container commerce and efficient offloading practices. The Covid supply chain issues were the first time this problem compounded into real economic issues and started conversations in congress that would traditionally stall because the big rail and truck corporations would kill it.
>>1980815Consider that new locks would be a publicly led and financed megaproject like the Big Dig and others (take your pick). They take years to complete and there is always a high cost to them for a variety of reasons. Railroads already own their real estate and nearly every ROW has room for two tracks (because years ago many mainlines were double tracked). Railroads can invoke eminent domain to get easements as well, although laws vary by state. So you've an enormous public works project akin to enlarging the Panama Canal, versus laying new tracks next on existing rail lines done by a private company without the usual public inefficiency.And remember that most of the cargo on the GL is bulk cargo which is already served with existing infrastructure well. So what's being proposed is spending enormous amounts of money on enlarging locks in the hope that service will follow - no guarantees. It could very well end up like the Tenn-Tom Waterway that was built in the 70s... the amount of traffic planners thought would materialize was wildly optimistic and it's underutilized today. That's why it's not going to happen, it's too much money and too risky compared to the alternatives.
>>1980820>but they cannot go from multiple ports and drop off cargo like they do in European or Asian markets which is economical.First you bring up Cleveland to Europe container service and you're once again changing your argument, now to include domestic shipping. It's too scattershot, and my arguments have all avoided cabotage. I'm talking strictly about international container traffic.If there was great demand for container service out of the Great Lakes to Europe, it would be evident by now. Shippers just don't want that as much as you do, and changing the Jones Act won't affect that (since it is not cabotage). Another issue that cannot be overcome with any amount of spending is winter weather on the Great Lakes. They are iced over for several months and the lakers will be laid up in port for that time. What shipper wants a service that isn't available for several months? Not many, as is the case today. Hauling containers on trucks and trains to ports on the coast is where the market is.
>>1980833>Isn't available for several months The Saint Lawrence Seaway is closed from January 5 to March 22nd, not several months (https://www.glc.org/dailynews/20240214-seaway-opening). This is a lot like many Baltic ports, which still take container ships despite the ice pause.Can you stop making disingenuous arguments and actually understand regional shipping economics? >Hauling containers on trucks and trains to ports on the coast is where the market is And perhaps that's why there is capacity issues at the ports that leads to delivery delays, which we are seeing in Los Angeles and New York into 2024 (https://www.freightwaves.com/news/congested-ports-choking-the-supply-chain)You're honestly not making any sense right now.
>>1980857>The Saint Lawrence Seaway is closed from January 5 to March 22ndThat's just the seaway. The amount of time the lakes themselves are closed can be several months. It varies each year, and that lack of availability is a problem coastal ports don't have.>and actually understand regional shipping economics? I've been clear that I am talking about international container traffic, which is what you started with as well.>And perhaps that's why there is capacity issues at the ports that leads to delivery delaysThat explains why ports are being enlarged and truck/train access to/from is being continually improved.>You're honestly not making any sense right now.Where are you from? I get the feeling it's not the US or Canada.
>>1980862No, it includes the Welland Canal, not just the Seaway, and the US and Canada have Icebreakers that clear the St Clair River.https://www.wellandtribune.ca/business/welland-canal-to-open-2023-shipping-season-on-march-22/article_46782d11-2092-5b2c-af14-e46fcf1fbf55.htmlYou're making things up trying desperately to have mental gymnastics to argue everything but The Jones Act is impacting shipping. You're not convincing anyone in this thread that you have a morsel of understanding of The Great Lakes. I also live on the coast of Lake Ontario in Western NY and have friends in the shipping industry, including Algoma in Canada. This thread was meant to understand what limitations there is to shipping, but you've made completely asspull arguments that contributed nothing to the thread. Honestly stop trying to act smart, you're not and it's showing because others in this thread keep calling you out. I didn't even reply to this thread for a week and saw how many called your bullshit out. >That explains why ports are being enlarged and truck/train access to/from is being continually improved.One more lane bro
>>1980865>No, it includes the Welland Canal, not just the Seaway, and the US and Canada have Icebreakers that clear the St Clair River.The SLS/Welland Canal, and St. Clair River are just small parts of the Great Lakes, which do shut down in the winter even with icebreakers. Lakers go into winter layups as a result of this.>Jones ActAgain, I'm not talking about cabotage and I've made that clear.>You're making things up>mental gymnastics>You're not convincing anyone>completely asspull arguments>Honestly stop trying to act smart>your bullshitIf you're this mad I think you lost>One more lane broNot an argument.
>>1980869You're making things up again right now, we have marine traffic showing ships moving right now. Once the seaway opens in March, traffic picks up even more. https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-85.0/centery:44.4/zoom:7You're honestly pathetic and it's sad to see you pretend to have any understanding of the great lakes. Seethe and cope Railshill.
>>1980877>You're making things up again right nowWinter layups are real. A cursory search of the subject reveals that this winter has been one of the mildest ever. https://www.fox21online.com/2023/12/22/port-of-duluth-superior-extends-season-to-its-latest-date-in-history/>we have marine traffic showing ships moving right nowIt also shows ships laid up for the winter.>You're making things up>You're honestly pathetic>it's sad to see you pretend>Seethe and copeProjection. Where are you actually from btw?
>>1980880Yes, many lay up for TWO months, and then shipping begins again. Do you honestly lack the simple language comprehension to understand that two months is not the same as several months. The Great Lakes are not the arctic sea, they are absolutely navigable in the colder months, but just financially prohibitive to invest in more icebreakers right now. You are a bad faith arguer and have some delusional thought processes. Stop trying to act smart, you're legit the dumbest person on this board right now.
>>1980884>Yes, many lay upExactly, commercial traffic ceases in the winter on the Great Lakes, which doesn't happen at coast ports. That's one explanation why coastal ports are preferred. They are available year-round.>you honestly lack the simple language comprehension>You are a bad faith arguer>have some delusional thought processes>Stop trying to act smart>you're legit the dumbest person on this boardVihaan please settle down, it's not a big deal if you were wrong.
>>1980910That means that the ships are able to operate for 83% of the year, which they perfectly do. Also look at the marine traffic map right now, guess which ships are currently operating? All CANADIAN ships, while the US cannot because the fleet is so bloody old that they cannot function in this weather. Lake Michigan has Canadian ships sailing while it's a totally US lake.How can you honestly argue in such bad faith about this topic when all the evidence points to a depleted US Jones Act fleet and congested supply chain situation. Why are you so adamant that the Jones Act has NO bearing on shipping costs and investment in regional shipping, when all the evidence and testimonies say it is.
>>1980916>That means that the ships are able to operate for 83% of the year, which they perfectly do.100% availability is better than 83% availability.>and congested supply chain situationThat's a global problem and it's not a new one. Port delays are way down from a few years ago when covid screwed everything up. Delays then could be weeks or months, now it's down to days in most ports in the world (which again, is normal).>Why are you so adamant that the Jones Act has NO bearing on shipping costs and investment in regional shippingBecause the Jones Act only applies to cabotage. I'm addressing your original argument about moving containers out of the Great Lakes to Europe, which is not cabotage.>so bloody oldYou're not from the US or Canada so why do you care?
>>1980941>83% is better than 100% Wow, expert analysis right there. Problem is Los Angeles right now has a traffic jam of ships waiting to offload and container parking times are very high meaning containers wait months to move anyways, so cargo isn’t moving fast there either. > I'm addressing your original argument about moving containers out of the Great Lakes to Europe, which is not cabotage.Again you’re not since regional shipping relies on port hopping for maximizing efficiency which currently no US ship can do. We’re talking about the feasibility of regionally moving containers from domestic ports to spread out traffic.You’re also a shill for railways and trucking, your opinion of my American nationality has no bearing on the fact you’re delusional that the current US port problem isn’t artificially produced by government. Also no, building a whole new rail line or highway isn’t affordable in the slightest, especially in NY or LA. The ports are not going to magically fix their problems by just adding another lane.
>>1980964>Wow, expert analysis right there.Yeah, 100% availability is way better than 83% availability.>Problem is Los Angeles right now has a traffic jam of ships waiting to offload and container parking times are very high meaning containers wait months to move anyways, so cargo isn’t moving fast there either.This is not new and it's not unique to the US. Pic rel. But port delays are typically under a week for major US ports, interestingly the inland port of Minneapolis has delays of >3 weeks.>Again you’re not since regional shipping relies on port hopping for maximizing efficiencyHow?>We’re talking about the feasibility of regionally moving containers from domestic ports to spread out traffic.You are talking about that. I'm not sure what that statement even means. However, I've been clear that I'm only referring to your original argument about moving containers from Great Lakes ports to Europe.>You’re also a shill for railways and truckingThey're just better for moving containers unless there is literally no land to for them to run on. Finished goods and perishables are time sensitive and inland waterways cannot compete there.>my American nationalityLol Vihaan>the current US port problem isn’t artificially produced by governmentI don't see how it is. Every port has a capacity limit, if traffic exceeds that there will be delays.>Also no, building a whole new rail line or highway isn’t affordableI didn't argue for that. I emphasized that capacity can be added to existing rail lines and highways. I touched on this in the first paragraph here: >>1980828
>>1980982>It’s the same as other ports US ports are ranked as some of the most inefficient and clogged in the world. (https://www.freightwaves.com/news/viewpoint-disruption-indicator-blames-us-ports-for-80-of-global-inefficiency/amp)Currently Los Angeles port is at 90% land capacity, when ideally it should be at 70% to maximize reasonable use. The point of regional shipping is ship-to-ship transfers at US ports would be possible, so you could move finished goods from China and Asia to other regional markets in the US instead of rails or trucking.In previous times, the Erie Canal enabled cargo movements from NYC, through the Hudson, into the Great Lakes, now it’s a heritage monument but the economics has always made sense If shipping is more efficient, then the main thing holding it back is the upfront costs of purchasing domestic ships.
>>1980990>US ports are ranked as some of the most inefficient and clogged in the world.Regardless, US port delays are comparable to other ports around the world.>The point of regional shipping is ship-to-ship transfers at US ports would be possible,Thus decreasing port capacity because they have to allocate existing capacity just to transload ships.>So you could move finished goods from China and Asia to other regional markets in the US instead of rails or trucking.Most container cargoes are finished or perishable goods and time sensitive. No consignor or consignee is going to favor that when trucks and trains are so much faster.>[The Erie Canal] is a heritage monument but the economics has always made senseHmm, wonder why it was abandoned.
>>1980992It still has the highest wait times and container storage length compared to other countries. Transloading a single ship is also faster and more efficient than multiple long trains, or thousands of trucks. Also it would allow for compartmentalizing the port, which would allow for faster access. China does it, so does Antwerp and Rotterdam. This isn’t a radical thing to do.
>>1980995>It still has the highest wait times and container storage length compared to other countries.No>Transloading a single ship is also faster and more efficient than multiple long trains, or thousands of trucks. Not at all, the port is double handling containers and has to devote slip space to ships it otherwise wouldn't need to, which must be taken away from ships coming across the ocean.>China does it, so does Antwerp and Rotterdam. This isn’t a radical thing to do.Now we're getting to the real problem, your inferiority complex due to being a foreigner. That's not a logistics problem, that's a (You) problem.
>>1980999Los Angeles port is now down 12.9% from it's peak in 2022, since the port's capacity issues led to alternative ports being used. The port didn't improve, ships just left because it became more unfeasible. https://labusinessjournal.com/featured/la-ports-4/>Not at all, the port is double handling containers and has to devote slip space to ships it otherwise wouldn't need to, which must be taken away from ships coming across the ocean.It's called specially designating cargo container parking for reship next to the dock, you don't need to make a separate spillway for two-way crane access, it's containers not windmill blades. You let one offload and then when it exits one comes to reload for a regional market. >Now we're getting to the real problem, your inferiority complex due to being a foreigner. That's not a logistics problem, that's a (You) problem.Imagine thinking someone is a foreigner because they point out how embarassing it is their country doesn't know how to perform simple hub shipping like Europoors or backwards China.
>>1981005>Los Angeles port is now down 12.9% from it's peak in 2022, since the port's capacity issues led to alternative ports being used. The port didn't improve, ships just left because it became more unfeasible.That's fine and expected. That's how things are supposed to work.>You let one offload and then when it exits one comes to reload for a regional market. And if you just moved them out on trains instead you wouldn't have to allocate cranes and dock space to putting things back on a ship—and that is presuming shippers and receivers would use a slower service for time-sensitive goods, like the kinds that come in shipping containers. There's a reason this doesn't happen in the US, rail and trucks are just better ways to move containers if they're an option.>Imagine thinking someone is a foreigner because they point out how embarassing it is their country doesn't know how to perform simple hub shipping like Europoors or backwards China.Assblasted foreigner confirmed.
>>1981009>And if you just moved them out on trains instead you wouldn't have to allocate cranes and dock space to putting things back on a ship—and that is presuming shippers and receivers would use a slower service for time-sensitive goods, like the kinds that come in shipping containers. There's a reason this doesn't happen in the US, rail and trucks are just better ways to move containers if they're an option.What the actual fuck are you talking about. Global and regional shipping is not final mile logistics that is time sensitive. American logistics companies are not shipping domestically because as anon >>1979002pointed out is it costs 8x more to buy a US made domestic transport ship than a foreign one. Also US shipmakers are so noncompetitive they US can't even make LNG tankers, nor oil tankers, so the US cannot ship oil products domestically at international rates. California needs to import from overseas because the US doesn't have the tanker fleet. So lets see what the Jones Act has done: >Merchant Fleet down from 250 ships to just 90 now>US used to have 450 shipyards, now it's 150 >Domestic shipping sucks >No US great lakes ships built since 1983 >No US cruise ships built since 1959 >The US loses nearly $100 billion in economic productivity because of this. Imagine being proud you're a retard. I'm American and you can go fuck yourself and this stupid Union law that fucks with the free market.
>>1981010>What the actual fuck are you talking about.Just read it again.>American logistics companies are not shipping domestically because as anon >>1979002pointed out is it costs 8x more to buy a US made domestic transport ship than a foreign one.Trucks and trains are faster, cheaper, and serve more customers anyway. Your dream of inland marine traffic is fine if you're moving bulk commodities to and from certain locations. Lots of barge traffic on rivers, for example.>Imagine being proud you're a retard.Non-argument.>fuck yourself and this stupid Union law that fucks with the free market.All laws fuck with the free market.
>>1981014>Just read it again Yeah, it's still makes no sense. >Trucks and trains are faster, cheaper >>1980663 again pic related shows that's not even remotely true. https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/money/2020/09/15/mississippi-river-port-of-memphis-ships-american-patriot-holdings/5682939002/Look at this proposal. A single Mississippi ship could do the job of 2375 trucks driving down the Interstate. If you could buy this ship from overseas it probably would already be doing that job, but the US shipbuilding industry as I just pointed out is in total atrophy and economically out of whack. Also do you not see the hypocrisy that rail and truck logistics can buy Volvo trucks and worldwide standard gauge cars, but shipping is absolutely protectionist?
>>1981019>Yeah, it's still makes no sense.Yes it does.>again pic related shows that's not even remotely true. That shows fuel efficiency, which doesn't debunk or address what I said.>Look at this proposal. Gadgetbahn 2020: River Edition>A single Mississippi ship could do the job of 2375 trucks driving down the Interstate.Or you could just put them on trains that already run up and down the Mississippi to gulf ports. As a bonus your cargo arrives at the port much faster. Seems more practical to do it that way.>Also do you not see the hypocrisy that rail and truck logistics can buy Volvo trucks and worldwide standard gauge cars, but shipping is absolutely protectionist?I'm fine with protectionism in this case.
>>1981022Anon, a road tire produces more friction on a surface area than a ship does with water. This isn't something revolutionary, that's what efficiency means. Fuel efficiency is a byproduct of movement efficiency. Cost/per km is how a company will decide which mode of transport is most viable. The extremely high fix costs to make a fleet of ships is why the US ship industry is so terrible. >Or you could just put them on trains that already run up and down the Mississippi to gulf ports. As a bonus your cargo arrives at the port much faster. Seems more practical to do it that way.A freight train can move 200 40' containers, this proposal can do 11x that. Maybe you could instead run the trains East West where there are less navigable waterways and have more with the excess capacity created by maritime shipping. >I'm fine with protectionism in this case.Most Americans aren't. The Big 3 lost the truck and car protectionism war, Japanese and European cars and trucks are here to stay. Same with railway equipment, and the industries have still flourished with innovation because of it, not despite it.
>>1981026>Anon, a road tire produces more friction on a surface area than a ship does with water.Irrelevant. What matters to shippers and receivers is the time in transit, availability, reliability, and of course THEIR cost. If fuel efficiency was the sole determinant of the final price to shippers, everyone would be using pipelines and ships and no one would move cargo by air or trucks. Even when ships are cheaper, the time in transit may not be acceptable to the shipper/receiver and another option is used instead.>A freight train can move 200 40' containers, this proposal can do 11x that.The train is much faster and trains can be added and removed from operations plans as needed without spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a ship.>Most Americans aren't.I said "in this case." I don't care about the Big 3, it's another scattershot argument. Most Americans don't know what the Jones Act is and don't care about it one way or the other.
>>1981030Irrelevant. What matters to shippers and receivers is the time in transit, availability, reliability, and of course THEIR cost. If fuel efficiency was the sole determinant of the final price to shippers, everyone would be using pipelines and ships and no one would move cargo by air or trucks. Even when ships are cheaper, the time in transit may not be acceptable to the shipper/receiver and another option is used instead.That's correct, but again, shippers having more options means exactly that, cheaper costs abroad. Apple for example does care about speed if they're launching a new product. They'll ship by Truck or Train because the product is expensive, small, and their need is for reliable delivery. But many products, like toilet paper, can products, and other major bulk consumer goods don't need train speeds, they are perfect for ships, and they can carry a lot. It would mean more available trucks, and rail space and lower their costs as well, since bulk consumer goods are now being shipped. Your analysis relies on treating every good as requiring fast logistics. Do you go to the post office and pay regular postage, or pay for the faster service? Well that's dependent on what you're sending. >I said "in this case." I don't care about the Big 3, it's another scattershot argument. Most Americans don't know what the Jones Act is and don't care about it one way or the other.Went right over your head. If the Jones Act was passed in 2020 instead of 1920 Americans would quickly notice just how much economic opportunity cost are being incurred. The justification of an act is not by how engrained it is but whether it's effective or not. In this case, Section 27 of the Jones Act has lost it's initial purpose.
>>1981033>Your analysis relies on treating every good as requiring fast logistics.I didn't say or imply that. Higher value goods, perishables, and finished goods (which are often but not always moved in containers) typically use faster methods of transportation. Bulk commodities typically do not. That's one reason why there's an insane amount of tonnage going up and down the Mississippi and its tributaries (and through the Great Lakes), it's just huge amounts of bulk cargoes and the transportation time is built into the schedules of shippers and receivers.>Went right over your head.I said I'm fine with protectionism in this case, referring to the Jones Act - not the Big 3, not the railroads, not 2020 vs. 1920 "what if" postulations
>>1981034Again, you clearly don't understand economics. Shipping containers move various goods, not just finished goods. Intermediate goods are also shipped in containers, such as vehicle parts, home supplies, building materials, various agricultural products, etc. These are NOT meant for fast logistics, and would prefer slower but lower cost systems to keep costs down. You're just conglomerating everything as either a raw material or a prepackaged store item and forgetting a significant % of the other industries that make up the US economy. >I said I'm fine with protectionism in this case, referring to the Jones Act - not the Big 3, not the railroads, not 2020 vs. 1920 "what if" postulationsI'd rather get rid of the Jones Act and see retards like you suck it up than have to continue and rely on CSX or Norfolk Southern not derailing and destroying another Rust belt town because they're too greedy and monopolistic to replace wheel bearings and maintain safety equipment.
>>1981036>Again, you clearly don't understand economics.Ok reddit>Shipping containers move various goods, not just finished goods. Intermediate goods are also shipped in containers, such as vehicle parts, home supplies, building materials, various agricultural products, etc. These are NOT meant for fast logisticsI didn't say they were, but they can be. All of those move on trains and trucks too. Vehicle parts are often JIT shipments, the receiver doesn't want them too early or too late.>I'd rather get rid of the Jones Act and see retards like you suck it up than have to continue and rely on CSX or Norfolk Southern not derailing and destroying another Rust belt town because they're too greedy and monopolistic to replace wheel bearings and maintain safety equipment."J-Just you wait anon, you'll see, you'll s-see!"
>>1981041It’s cheaper and more efficient to move by ship, I don’t know what to tell you. You can keep saying “nuh uh” but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s the most affordable way to move products. >>1981041>"J-Just you wait anon, you'll see, you'll s-see!"First time ever the Jones Act was waved for Puerto Rico in 2022. The current merchant fleet is mostly passed it’s service life with the cost to replace it domestically in the billions. From The Great Lakes to intrastate ships to Hawaii and Alaska, critical economic ships will start being decommissioned, and industries relying on them are going to push Congress for action. They have the option of subsidizing the replacement or liberalizing the industry, but change is inevitable. Put your head in the sand and act retarded, I don’t care. US shipbuilding is in decay and economic forces will make inner waterway shipping more viable when the current policy changes.
>>1979687Lafarge is making a killing on the Toronto condo and infrastructure boom with their aggregate products, they have no reason to ever leave. Cargill deicing also will stay there because it’s the city’s largest source of winter road salt. Unfortunately I think the rail lines are no longer possible since Metrolinx is looking to electrify the Lakeshore East line, and the Ontario Line is using the Keating rail bridge. The only rail being proposed right now is Quay East streetcars to Polson.
>>1977620>Why are there no container ports for the Great Lakes, like there are on the East and West coasts of North America?>Why is it only used for bulk cargo at the moment?"If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bicycle.:
Thunder Bay's port has really taken off again since the tariffs on new ships was ended. You're seeing the grain elevators constantly getting prairies foodstuff for export, meanwhile Potash and fertilizers are also doing pretty good and stable. Even the Keefer terminal is being used more, you always see them moving wind turbines, generators, and construction equipment on that side, a decade ago it was basically just an empty bay of the port. Getting rid of the tariff was one of the best decisions our shitty government has made in a while. I guess not even the CN/CP rail lobby couldn't justify killing shipping given it's vital necessity to the economy.
>>1981041>>1981060Damn, two tards having a fight on /n/, what a surprise. Bulk cargo and container cargo differences are moderate but the economic forces are still similar when you have the business case to show for it. The Great Lakes are very populated, generally wealthy, and they’re navigable to the oceans. In most regions of the world with the same conditions, container shipping would takes place. The Jones Act makes ships exorbitantly expensive for sure, and for shipping companies it is a major barrier to entry and expansion. No corpo in their right mind would buy ships at $400 million/ piece when you can buy them internationally at $30-50 million. The US however still can do trade with the international megaships just fine, those just can’t go through the Seaway and thus are locked at the coastal ports. Changing the Jones Act won’t magically bring ships to the lakes overnight, even with “porthopping”. The big problem is simply infrastructure. Los Angeles and New York are busy because they are the only ports with the sheer invested technology, manpower, and expertise to move goods effectively for their clients. If you wanted to turn Cleveland or Chicago into a viable container port, it would require a massive investment, most likely coming from the state and federal governments to simply build up the ports. Then you’d have to enhance the train junctions, rail yards, highways and roads, and more, just to move the containers to their end destinations. Lets not even mention that you’d be tearing up lots of the shoreline, which many in the region really covet and will fight tooth and nail to prevent losing. >pic related This is Newark-Elizabeth run by the New York port authority. It’s massive, and the supporting infrastructure to run it is equally immense. To do the same in a Great Lakes city in today’s dollars would cost immeasurable amounts of money. That’s discretionary spending most of the states don’t have right now.
>protectionism is bad when Americans do itEvery time
>>1982510>Damn, two tards having a fight on /n/, what a surprise.You actually proved my point. Thanks.
>>1982586>You actually proved my point. Thanks.No one gives a crap. You have some sad complex and sound like a redditor looking for validation.
>>1982598No need for you to get this mad
>>1982562It's not that protectionism is bad when americans do it, its that americans do protectionism badly.
>>1982562Given how bad every sector Americans try to "protect" turns out, yeah it is bad when Americans do it.
>>1982680>>1982694How many social credits do you get to shill for Chinese shipbuilders?
>>1982695A heavy tariff rather than an outright ban would give domestic ship builders an edge while forcing them to stay somewhat competitive.
>>1982562If Congress gave tax exemptions or subsidies to make ships and invest in upgrades, then putting a tariff on foreign ship purchases to keep it competitive, that would have been the more effective move. The current system is just leading to more shipbuilders closing and new orders dwindling.
>>1982695Tariffs don't actually make industries better, or give them modern equipment or production practice, especially when the theoretical market you're protecting isn't large or inelastic. Successful industrial policy ain't that simple, which puts it beyond the mental capability of the American.
>>1982721+10 social credits have been deposited into your account!>>1982730+10 social credits have been deposited into your account!
>>1980811Yes it does apply to international shipping - it, as written, requires any ship carrying cargo between two US ports (for example between Los Angeles to Seattle) to have been built in the US with US steel and staffed by US citizens. It eliminates the ability of an international ship to stop at multiple American ports and carry out cabotage if desired. So if a ship does not meet Jones Act requirements, and almost none of them do, they effectively cannot trade between US ports. International ships cannot do cabotage in the US BY LAW as opposed to not wanting to - almost all ships have to stop at one US port and go to another country immediately after.
>>1982738Jeez Xiang how many more social credits do you need??
>>1982742>t. American Maritime Partnership shill
Unrelated but has anyone journeyed on a Great Lake cruise in the summer? The Viking Octantis is basically always fully booked, so I guess it’s pretty good. It looks nice and modern, but a tad pricey. Sorry I know this is more of a topic for /trv/, just wanted to see if anyone has been before I drop a few grand on this.
>>1982562>protectionism is bad when Americans do it>protectionism is bad Yes
>>1983229I watched a video of a guy start from Toronto and ended somewhere in Wisconsin or Minnesota He came to Parry Sound where I'm from so I thought that was cool. Our port is basically exclusively used for salt, and "the island queen", a tour boat around the archipelago. We used to export cordite by ship to be packed in shells down east for the war effort
>>1983229>>1985400Here is the video https://youtu.be/E4X8mcrLdMM?si=8X3VCYXRdMDah7RThe Georgian Bay has spectacular scenerie imo
>>1985400>>1985401This is really helpful, thanks. It's actually impressive how much you can see on a cruise around the lakes. I want to visit Parry Sound because I've heard it has amazing summer sunsets. It's definitely on my list of locations to visit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yMc7nsrpt0
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/cuyahoga-ship-fire-1.7145431I love the Great Lakes bros
>>1985789>againkek
>>1980857>closed from January 5 to March 22nd, not several months>>1980884>lay up for TWO months, and then>two months is not the same as several monthsWhat definition of "several" are you using?Any normal human would say that is several months. It's ten weeks across a three month period.Even if you're some autist who claims "several means strictly more than two"... well, that's more than two.You might be delusional bro.
Another factor holding back container shipping on the Great Lakes that I haven't seen mentioned here, at least over the last 20+ years, is strict security requirements by the US government. Ports are required by the DHS to have capability to scan contents of a certain percentage of containers in order to be allowed to handle import and export business. The equipment is pretty expensive and Lakes ports have historically been focused on moving bulk materials like iron ore, coal, and grain anyway.For several years Cleveland was the only US port on the Lakes capable of handling containers and has had a monthly liner service to North Europe since 2014, the port of Duluth MN just gained ability to handle containers in 2022 and a third port at Monroe, MI (just south of Detroit) will be coming online this season, which is noteworthy because Ford plans to use it to ship vehicles to Europe starting this summer. So there's some momentum growing for container shipping on the Lakes and Seaway, and the market will likely grow as more ports are able to handle the cargo, but it's a slow process.There's also a Canadian company that wants to operate a service interchanging containers with larger ships at Halifax NS for seaborne transport to/from Seaway ports, which to me makes more sense than competing directly with the much larger vessels already serving the route between the US/Canada east coast and northern Europe. They bought a pair of ships (including the previously mentioned Peyton Lynn C) and planned to launch in 2020 but have been held up for several years now in a legal battle with their township govt over whether they have the right to handle containers at their port facility in Ontario, so remains to be seen whether the plan will come to fruition.
>>1986214>There's also a Canadian company that wants to operate a service interchanging containers with larger ships at Halifax NS for seaborne transportIs there not a facility at the Port of Montreal that does just this? Transfers goods from Lakers to Ocean going freighters?
>>1986214The only port in Ontario I would imagine could handle containers is the Port of Hamilton Toronto is pretty much all aggregate
>>1986214>their township govt over whether they have the right to handle containers at their port facility in OntarioWhere are they trying to set up?
>>1986252Sounds like Picton, unless it's north western Ontario
>>1986228There may be, I'm not positive. I've heard a bit about bringing containers between Montreal and Hamilton via barge but I don't know where things are at with that service>>1986229IIRC they want to serve Valleyfield, Picton (just outside Toronto), Port Colborne, Cleveland, Monroe, Thunder Bay, and Duluth>>1986252tl;dr a construction company bought a long-disused port at Picton, about two hours east of Toronto, that was used to ship iron ore way back in the day. They want to use it as a distribution point for containers into and out of Greater Toronto directly onto container ships thereby bypassing the congested rail network, but basically the neighbors don't want to deal with heavy truck traffic on their roads. The municipality is trying to stop them on the grounds it violates zoning code to use the port to store containers and the company says only the federal government can regulate port activity. It's been an ongoing fight for a few years now.>>1986253Yep, Picton is the one
>>1986266>PictonThe problem with Picton is there's no rail connection, also the highway 49 to connect it to highway 401 traverses Indian lands who have a history of disrupting infrastructure. There would need to be some agreement with the native band and highway improvements The terminal is also designed for bulk, pic related is the ship filling pit at Picton Terminals
>>1986315I agree the execution leaves something to be desired, seems like Hamilton or even Oshawa for access into the GTA would probably make more sense. They started blasting away the cliff face to create a more typical dock layout a few years ago but got an injunction to stop that too. I'm also not sure what they were thinking launching before they had zoning approval to handle containers at their home port, and when 3 of their 4 planned ports of call on the US side were at least 2-3 years from even being able to take containers. I do think the model is viable though
>>1986382They will need to build a lot of infrastructure Port of Oshawa seems viable, close to the 401 and has rail connection on the east pier Google maps shows the picton port under construction though. Maybe they know what they are doing
>>1985965>You might be delusional bro.You typically say a couple when referring to two months. It's hyperbolic to call a shutdown from January to March a several month closure. Here's a guide if you need one. https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/couple-few-several-use
>>1986440>Jan>Feb>MarchThat's more than two
>>19864412.5 months long mate. It's a couple month closure, and it's just so happens to be reopening tomorrow. This thread has been up for 2/3 the time it's been closed, it's not very long and it's hyperbolic to say it is.
>>1986443I'm not whoever said that. Just saying that>Jan>Feb>Marchis more than two
>>1986443The lower lakes didn't even freeze this year Port activities could have continuedOn that note are there any commercial ice breakers on the lower great lakes?
>>1986502There are 11 coast guard icebreakers on the Great Lakes and they typically operate on the Lower Great Lakes to allow for operations on Erie, Huron and Michigan. Funny enough the mission this year was cut short because of a lack of ice.
>>1986512The lower lakes are Erie and Ontario ;)
Thread themehttps://youtu.be/9vST6hVRj2A?si=x1Q06DYdosIfC3dG
>>1980862>The amount of time the lakes themselves are closed can be several months. It varies each yearThat sounds a lot like Baltic ports or Siberian ports.
Ships are back on the water again. The season has officially begun.
>>1986382I just searched up and Hamilton and Oshawa are the same port authority, wtf? They should add Clarkson and Toronto to the authority as well, they could actually be a stronger force and afford bigger upgrades with their pooled resources. Also building a container terminal in Oshawa would definitely help the GM plant and other local factories. No hate on Picton but it's not the preferable destination for a container port that serves a major metropolitan area.
>>1987897Hamilton and Oshawa make sense because they're both exporting ports for steel and automotive parts Toronto imports bulk construction material. Not sure what Clarington does desu
>>1986561hey don't joke about that, losing the fitz is like the holocaust for lakers
>>1977691>CSL Frontenac is wintering there RN.Saw her unloading the last of her grain yesterday, and this morning she turned her AIS back on. Must be about to leave.
>>1986561https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZSi__A5w1Q&list=OLAK5uy_nYB0rD9IbJyHi4Z-NlC9F3U-HPw3u0yq0&index=1
>>1988047White Squall is a big track
>>1988052Now it’s just my luck to have the watch, with nothing left to doBut watch the deadly waters glide as we roll north to the ‘Soo’And wonder when they’ll turn again and pitch us to the railAnd whirl off one more youngster in the galeBut I told that kid a hundred times “Don’t take the Lakes for grantedThey go from calm to a hundred knots so fast they seem enchanted.”But tonight some red-eyed Wiarton girl lies staring at the wallAnd her lover’s gone into a white squall
>>1980828>>1980982>end up like the Tenn-Tom Waterway that was built in the 70s... the amount of traffic planners thought would materialize was wildly optimistic and it's underutilized todayWhat? It's estimated that from 1996-2008 the waterway provided $43 billion in economic impact, 137,000 jobs, and also is the main transport route for 2/3 of recoverable US coal reserves. It also removed 284,000 trucks off the road every year. If anything this project seems successful despite the government putting up roadblocks for shipping. https://www.tenntom.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/TTW_Economic_Impact0309.pdf
>>1989035>If anything this project seems successfulIt was successful in that it was completed
>>1989116Same could be said for the Welland Canal bypass>Construction started in 1967, opened in 1973 >13.4km replacement was made to bypass Welland. Rails and roads were frequently interrupted when draw bridges had to be raised. >Widened the channel an extra 120 ft >Built two replacement tunnels as well so traffic would not be interrupted>Cut 30 minutes off passing the canal, allowing higher traffic flows through the canal>Whole project cost $188 million CADIf this project happened today it would take 15 years, and cost $20 billion minimum. Don’t we have better technology, resources and logistics? It’s genuinely terrifying how impossible infrastructure is to build nowadays.
>>1989214>If this project happened today it would take 15 years, and cost $20 billion minimum.The is true for all infrastructure projects, we can't build anything anymore.
>>1979468>Not a great argument for why The Jones Act US Made Ship provision isn’t stifling growth.Also no argument why its not stifling growth. Why do we want a bunch of bums showing up at our ports saying they have a right to dump stuff? Also it protects the national interests in having a shipping industry.
>>1989470>Why do we want a bunch of bums showing up at our ports saying they have a right to dump stuff?You have no idea what the jones act is do you?> it protects the national interests in having a shipping industry.By requiring the ships be built in the US the cost of doing shipping within the US increases massively. This makes internal shipping less competitive which means it gets less business, leading to less demand for domestic ships. this is an endless death spiral.Having cabotage laws requiring the ships be owned and operated domestically is fine - many countries have this. But requiring them to use ships built in utterly uncompetitive domestic yards leading to massively increased costs for domestic shipping to the extent it's economically unviable is retarded.
>>1989470>it protects the national interests in having a shipping industryThat would be true if the US shipbuilding industry was thriving. Instead it’s in atrophy, yards keep closing, and supply cannot match demand. The US shipbuilding industry only accounts for 0.2% of the global market, despite being the world’s largest economy. At the current rate of retirement of old ships and lack of new replacements, the US will lack a domestic shipping industry, hurting many ports and driving more dependence on foreign trade sales instead of interstate, which is counterintuitive to the national interest. >sourcehttps://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12534
>>1989546>Policy Considerations>If Congress were to seek a more robust commercial shipbuilding sector, heavy worldwide subsidization, dim profitability, and deeply-rooted federal programs would raise questions on how to proceed. Okay. So how should we proceed? I read here the phrase "dim profitability" and it raises questions on how a domestic industry will be viable.
>>1989546At the moment and from the table you seem to suggest a shipbuilding gap with China, but considering the apparently robust production of Japan and S. Korea and the EU the numbers seem balanced. What does the "whole economy" look like? They build ships, we load them with grain and natural gas. What is the problem again? We build only a handful of ships (that can be built elsewhere, cheaper) and we should be building more? Does that make economic sense? It would seem opening the market would make domestic manufacturing less competitive- "more competitive" is just an article of faith in "open markets", even while costs may fall in the short term, long range prediction is hard.What effects would it have on the market, where some shipbuilding is done in most states: would a more highly competitive industry drive consolidation and thus drive down compeittion in the long run which has happened in other industries, consolidation of the type S. Korea recently blocked between Daewoo and Hyundai? What is the politcal, social, and capital effects of having the relatively small markets for boatbuilding cannibalized by larger markets?
>>1989565The US was the world’s largest shipbuilder during WW2, it was not the Jones Act that did this, but absolute wartime necessity that did. The US decline in shipbuilding relative to China, Japan, South Korea, and Europe is due to congressional ineptitude and not market forces. Why is Boeing a major aircraft manufacturer but US shipbuilders are in decline? Because congress invested heavily in aeronautics while not restricting competition, allowing American manufacturers to produce better aircraft which defeated their competition, not by saying “no Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, or foreign made plane over US soil”. The US arguably was able to industrialize due to having waterways, and ships are still the most cost-effective way to move materials and goods. According to the OECD, the US would gain $150 billion/ year in economic activity by liberalizing cabotage and ending the Jones Act. This is not including the decreased congestion it would put on the highways as trucks are not needed. There are various case studies exemplifying how interstate demand is not being met by Jones Act vessels, thereby replacing suppliers with imports from other countries. >Massachuetts and New England receives about 20% of it’s natural gas demand through LNG. Despite the US being the world’s largest supplier of LNG, they cannot ship it to their own country’s ports since US shipyards lack the expertise to make LNG tankers, and they would also be too costly compared to foreign manufacturers. Therefore, New England has to buy LNG from Russia. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/tanker-carrying-liquefied-natural-gas-from-russias-arctic-arrives-in-boston/2018/01/28/08d3894c-0497-11e8-8777-2a059f168dd2_story.html#
>>1989596Whose payroll are you on?
>>1989597>explains how law is stupid >whose payroll are you in Interesting, the Jones Act has some of the strongest lobbying groups in Washington DC. No one questions why our politicians haven’t once touched it. I guess those $350 million ships and navy contracts have to pay for something.
>>1989599>DeflectionShill confirmed.
>>1989601>No Argument >Calls other shills Brainlet or agitprop?
>>1989602Shills get so mad when they get found out
>>1989603>projecting this hard >attempting to derail this hard Make an actual argument or be quiet.
>>1989609Just tell us who is paying you to care this much about this bullshit
>>1989614>”No, don’t talk about transportation policy on the transportation board” Why are you this interested to derail?
>>1989632You're getting extremely defensive
>>1989633Are you here to contribute or to spam?
>>1989636I'm shitposting, you're shilling
>>1989644>makes an post on the transportation board about shipping in the US>”no you are a shill. Who do you work for?” Please schizopost somewhere else. If you have an argument for why the Jones Act is actually really good then you are free to do so.
>>1989648Caring this much about an obscure law could be indicative of schizophrenia, but more than likely you have a direct financial benefit from it
>>1989651>Caring this much about an obscure law could be indicative of schizophreniaAsking for a shitty law to be changed is not shilling anon. And yes, I get indirect financial benefit by repealing a law that is making transport more expensive.
>>1989596>This is forbidden technology in America Pathetic
>>1989660>Asking for a shitty law to be changed is not shilling anon.Yes it is
>>1990116>Any post I don't like is shilling Only retards cannot counter-argue and have to thread derail.
>>1990149I'm not derailing the thread, you are with unending shilling. Do you think Mayor Pete browses /n/?
>>1990150You're getting upset about Congressional reports calling congressional laws stupid. Are the writers of the report also shills? > Do you think Mayor Pete browses /n/?Answering your own question here. There isn't shilling on a slow board like /n/ you insufferable faggot. This is an autism board and you're getting upset about being schooled by an autist. Go back to >>>/pol/ if you want to call people shills.
>>1990151>and you're getting upset about being schooled by an autistProjection
>>1990152You're a mental dullard, I'm an autismo. We are not the same.
>>1990153More projection
>>1990158>The vocabulary of an ESL calls projection An inability to speak in full sentences is a sign of smaller mental capacity
>>1989564>Canada and Mexico shipping to US up 300% from 1960-2014>Most of the products shipped are raw materials >Meanwhile US material shipping to itself is down 44% If this was true, then US coastal and great lakes shipping would be thriving at the same pace as the US economy, but it isn’t. >>1982730>78.7% of US shipbuilding is military That explains the lazy defense industry shill calling everyone a chink and speaking like a /k/ fag.
>>1990159You didn't ask this question in the maritime general thread, wonder why? Because it's obvious you're a shill and you'd be laughed out of there.
>>1990422You only reply when there’s a new post made. Very curious why that is. You took a whole day to reply? You’re so obviously a derail fag that it’s funny. Actually try and keep up fag, and actually counter-argue.
>>1990424>You only reply when there’s a new post made.Mirror
>>1990425You reply to me after a whole day. Whose the pathetic one. Also you obviously don’t visit maritime general because people there actually can discuss, you can only post single sentence responses.
>>1990427You won't visit it because you're scared
>>1990431>this level of understanding of Chan culture Do you understand what the purpose of QTDDTOT is? Of course you don’t, you’re a derail shill not interested in actual discussion. You only post when I post. BTW thanks for bumping dimwit, you’re only boosting exposure to others.
>>1990434>you’re only boosting exposure to others.Even with the exposure I bring you no one cares
>>1990439You obviously care because you keep replying. Why are you so needy for my attention?
>>1990440I'm pointing out how obvious your shilling is. You're welcome.
>>1990443>attempts to thread derail >doesn’t understand board culture >speaks like a newfag with buzzwords and one sentence replies You glow so hard man. Which lobby group pays you so little for such low effort posting? American Maritime Partnership? US Shipbuilders council? BAE systems?
You can always tell when the seethe guy comes online because within like 10 minutes everything on page 1 is nothing but him raging over something
>>1979173>pic Not a single one of these container ships can fit in The St Lawrence Seaway, they are not relevant to the discussion of Great Lakes container shipping. The largest container ship companies aren’t going to find the financial justification to make Seaway max container ships. Also they don’t want to pay transit fees to go through the seaway when they can just ship to a coastal port for less.
>>1990448>>1990449Why are you taking more than a whole day to reply to >>1990533?
>>1990819You literally cannot stop seething, it's hilarious. At least the other person is actually intelligent enough to retort. >>1990533You can do what most European states do and have a Major hub port like Montreal be the place for mega ships, and then have a system of barges/smaller ships like >>1977974 shows. The main reason this hasn't already happened is because, again, it's extraordinarily expensive to contract these to American shipyards, which is the main financial barrier to entry. Additionally, despite USMCA giving duty exemptions on rail and truck traffic, marine traffic carrying containers would have to pay a duty at both the Canadian port of handling, and the US port of arrival, so short-hop shipping is priced-out. These are laws that can be changed, they're not set in stone like some people here suggest.
>>1990449>the seethe guy>>1990913>You literally cannot stop seethingThat's you buddy
>>1990936>”I’m not seething! I’m not seething! You’re seething!”Such a sperg. Sad!
>>1990947Nope. You are though.
>>1990948Try harder to derail next time sweetie. You’re not even trying anymore.
>>1990952You should try harder desu. I'm at my best.
>>1990955If this is your best, it’s pretty pathetic. You’re too retarded to converse with.
>>1990956You are actually
>>1990957>”No you!”Braindead
>>1990959At least I'm not too much of a pussy to ask questions in the maritime general
>>1990962>Again the shill shows lack of chan literacy Holy fuck you shill, lurk more. Lets see the type of questions in Maritime General>>1989968>>1990674>>1989781It’s a thread mostly about work, not a long-run forum on policy issues. That’s what making threads are for you fucking retard.
>>1990963You're scared and needed an echo chamber. That's not what you got, however.
>>1990964>Thinks they can pretend to be a oldfag who understands board culture>so obvious they’re a newfag that they have to go behind “no u” posting endlessly to spam >Thinks they can make anyone do anything Man, they don’t pay you people much, do they?
>”No, we need to protect American shipping! It’s for National Security! that’s why we need the Jones Ack!”
>>1990965>>1990966Not sure why you're shilling here.
>>1990967Go ahead and link this thread to maritime general. Do it fag.
>>1990968You're the one getting paid, you do the work
>>1990969Who’s the scared one now? Do it, you’re the one who’s insisting it.
>>1990970I insisted you do it
>>1990971>shill now scared of doing the thing they wanted Jesus, you AMP shills suck so badly.
>>1990973Whose payroll are you on? Might as well come clean.
>Even US Navy secretaries now realize how behind they are to literally everyone Reminder the US has a GDP 14x to South Korea but cannot produce even close to their shipbuilding.
>>1990974I work for Autism Inc. You’re an AMP shill. Admit it. You work for a lobbyist organization.
>>1990976Mirror.
>>1990985Keep crying.
>>1990985>>1990966>>1990975Any opinions on these articles? A paid shill will not argue. He only seeks to misdirect and derail. If you are not a paid shill, you will actually in good faith prove my arguments are incorrect.
Can you two just get a room and fuck each other already? The foreplay has gone on for too long
>Jones act>Jones act>Jones actDoes Canada have an equivalent that makes this impossible there too?
>>1991053Bot
>>1991103The Canadian version is the Coasting Trade Act. It has the same stipulation about Canadian flagged vessels getting preference in-between domestic ports, but in 2010 they removed tariffs on foreign-made ships, so Canada has a respectable fleet now. Also it’s more permissive of foreign-flagged ships to perform coastal trading if no Canadian flagged vessel is available, the US only allows it by Presidential waiver.
Holy fuck, why is there a /pol/ack who is calling everyone a chink? Stay on your containment boards, and jannies need to do their job.
>>1991199Could there be a market in making ports on the canadian side of the border and then doing the last mile to the american side on trucks or trains?
I randomly clicked on this board just to see if theres actually people talking about something so autistic as transportation, and this is the first thing I see.
>>1993731The best place to do that would probably be near Windsor. The rail infrastructure already exists, and they're near major US population centers (Detroit, Chicago, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Cincinnati). Obviously developing the port, politics, labor constraints, and getting seaway-max container ships are the major impediments. We'll definitely not see any hurry to do anything with the current politicians in charge.
