To recap, Vancouver has a slight edge in certain factors like the cost of transiting terminals, they have more large super-post-Panamax cranes, they have slightly better rail delivery rates through state-subsidized Canadian National Rail, slightly better productivity, and they get a break of about $100 per container on Harbor Maintenance Tax. And they have massive plans for expansion.
One of the most obvious things we can do to improve our competitive position is to improve our productivity, and having modern, state of the art equipment would make it a lot easier. The slight edge Vancouver enjoys in productivity could easily be attributed to the fact that they’ve spent a lot of money upgrading their cranes and yard equipment.
Continue reading “What can Port of Tacoma do to become more competitive with the Canadian ports?”
According to a report prepared for Port Metro Vancouver (PMV), their Container Traffic Forecast (which again, I encourage everyone to read), they predict that West Coast container volumes will increase between 3.4% and 5.7% per year through 2030. Based on that, they’re forecasting their share of the traffic will provide increases for PMV from 3.51 million TEUs in 2014 to 7.02 million TEUs in 2030.
According to the report, they believe they will capture the lion’s share of this work because:
“…Vancouver is considered to have a better competitive position than its immediate competitors – Prince Rupert, Seattle, and Tacoma – based on a review of the following criteria:
- Physical capability of the terminals;
- Planned development of capacity;
- Productivity of the terminals;
- Cost of transiting the terminals;
- Delivered costs to Central Canada and the US Midwest;
- Intermodal capacity;
- Import/export balances;
- Suitability as a regional hub; and
- Existing customer base.
Continue reading “Port Metro Vancouver or Port of Tacoma? Who’s got the edge?”
I read a really good book recently, on the evolution of container shipping: The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger, by Marc Levinson. It’s a great book. Anyone interested in understanding the Port of Tacoma and/or the shipping business should read it.
One of the things that struck me was how quickly the shipping world transitioned from “breakbulk” cargo to containers. Breakbulk was where everything was all shipped individually, or more recently, on pallets. It’s the same basic system that’s been used for hundreds of years. A breakbulk ship might take a week or more to unload, as everything was taken off piece by piece. But put the same amount of cargo in containers and the ship could be unloaded in just hours. The cost savings from containerization were enormous. In the mid-50’s, the world was breakbulk; by the start of the 70’s, container shipping was big business.
It wasn’t an easy transition at all; the push to containerize was very contentious with many, diverse elements of the industry including the unions fighting it. The ports as a whole were very skeptical – transitioning to working containers was quite an expensive proposition because of the specialized equipment necessary.
A few forward-looking ports including Tacoma decided to take the plunge, investing heavily in container cranes and handling equipment. Many other ports did not, believing breakbulk would prevail.
Continue reading “Port of Tacoma – moving boldly into the future, or sliding into oblivion?”
Self determination is really important to Americans. That is after all, why we fought the Revolutionary War — so the American people could decide their own fate, not King George and the English aristocracy.
Well it’s obvious some people in Tacoma have forgotten that.
Most elected leaders in this democracy would err on the side of the democratic process. If a sufficient number of citizens were riled up about any particular issue to qualify an initiative for an election, the leaders would typically champion that as our democracy at work, and then abide by the results. That is what a democracy is all about. Rule for the people, of the people and by the people.
Except in Tacoma. In Tacoma, when the common people have the sheer effrontery to challenge the supreme wisdom of their elected leaders, the leaders go to court and file massive lawsuits to beat and club and force the people into submission.
The lawsuit brought jointly by the Port of Tacoma, the The Chamber of Commerce, the EDB and now the City of Tacoma against the Save Tacoma Water organizers unmasks the dictatorial, authoritarian style of our current elected leaders.
Continue reading “An open letter to the Tacoma City Council and Port Commissioners”
This current presidential election will be perhaps the single most important event the United States has faced in a hundred or more years. Never before has there been such a wide range and disparity between the different candidates. Never before has there been so much at stake.
This is where we decide if we’re a representative democracy or an oligarchy.
What has our country come to?
The answer is that there have been some very fundamental, mostly gradual changes in recent years that brought us to where we are now. The biggest single, most disastrous event was the advent of the Citizen’s United, Supreme Court decision. This is where the oligarchs – the 1%, truly took over control of our country.
As President Jimmy Carter observed about Citizen’s United,
“It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now [the United States is] just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over.”
It’s true. If someone dumps massive amounts of cash into a politician’s campaign, they do expect results. The politicians are not dummies, they know what’s expected. And they have a vested interest to keep the money coming in, so they work diligently to protect the interests of the people who bankrolled them. Continue reading “To be, or not to be…”
There’s been a discussion lately about the viability of Click. It seems the Cable TV business is losing money – in part through the rising costs of programming content, and partially because of the way the city cooks their books, writing off capital construction costs of the network.
The wholesale internet business – where Click sells wholesale bandwidth to the three local ISP’s (Rainier Connect, Advanced Stream and Net-Venture) is making a whopping 60% profit!
Click’s idea is that the internet sales should subsidize the cable TV operation. To me, that’s stupid.
Continue reading “Click! Networks should get out of the cable TV business”
C-Net’s Maggie Reardon wrote another PR-release, fluff piece for Comcast on the issue of the Comcast-Netflix peering/extortion issue.
In this supposed, “learned” explanatory piece, Ms. Reardon details all the thousand reasons Comcast embodies all that is goodness and right and how NetFlix is a horrible bandwidth hog, free-lunch expectant monster! Yeah, right.
Here’s the piece: C-Net article: Comcast vs. NetFlix
It’s obvious who’s paying Maggie’s salary. So I called her on it.
Yes Maggie, it’s obvious you are indeed a shill for the Telco’s.
A few years back, Ed Whitacre, who at the time was the CEO of AT&T, came up with the bright idea of creating a new revenue stream for his company.
He wanted to charge Google and others like them for connecting to his end users. “They’re not gonna ride our pipes for free” was his battle cry. There was a great deal of negative publicity and a huge outcry. And so Whitacre’s plan went down in flames.
But it wasn’t forgotten. Continue reading “Another Love Letter to Marguerite Reardon…”
C-Net’s Marguerite Reardon’s at it again, with a new piece on the goodness of the FCC’s proposed rules on “Open Internet.” http://www.cnet.com/news/fccs-position-on-net-neutrality-hasnt-changed/
She spends the whole article mouthing soothing platitudes from the talking points Comcast prepared for her.
I can’t believe anyone is so stupid as to believe these rules won’t terribly harm consumers. So I can only guess that Maggie’s on Comcast’s payroll. I felt strongly enough about it to leave the comment below on the C-Net website:
This article, coming on the tails of Ms. Reardon’s magnificent piece rationalizing the unbearable goodness of the TWC – Comcast merger has me utterly convinced that Ms. Reardon’s 100% on Comcast’s payroll.
She regurgitates Comcast’s and Wheeler’s talking points, 1,2, 3 right down the line, without any measure of objectivity.
But of course, Ms. Reardon. The FCC rules will change nothing. We can rest easy. Continue reading “FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules Would Break the Internet”
Marguerite Reardon of C-Net wrote an opinion piece suggesting the Comcast-TWC merger would be a good thing.
I wrote the following response:
Maggie Reardon has obviously sold her soul to Comcast. Her opinion piece is an embarrassment. It looks like most of it was copied verbatim from a Comcast press release.
I’ve never had TWC, but I have had Comcast and they have what can only be termed as horrible customer service. If TWC is worse, so be it, but to consider going to Comcast as an upgrade is simply asinine.
As far as Comcast being an innovator: if I had to name one single entity that’s holding back progress it’d be Comcast. The ostensible public face of Comcast is as phony as a three dollar bill. The truth is they are fighting progress tooth and nail, pouring truly obscene amounts of money into lobbying and PR, all bent to protect their failing business model – they are after all, predominantly a cable TV business. And the Internet is changing the world, and is in the middle of making cable TV obsolete.
Just like the automobile changed the world, making horses and livery stables obsolete, the Internet is changing the way the world gets its content. Continue reading “Comcast – Time Warner Cable Merger Is Bad News For Consumers”