4 ms·

a) the comments on this are unhinged b) why can't the ships go to Oakland or Seattle? There's probably a reason, but it seems like an obvious alternative.

sxates 6y ago
Given the dozens of ships anchored in the bay, I'm not sure Oakland has spare capacity either.
- wahern 6y ago
  Well, 1 dozen, at least: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-122.4/centery:37.7/zoom:11 https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-122.4/cen... (Only counting the green dots, which represent cargo vessels.)
  - sxates 6y ago
    Thanks for sharing this link, I had been looking for something like this!
mike_d 6y ago
Oakland, Seattle, and Tacoma (the only other west coast options) are tiny by comparison. LA/Long Beach handles 25% of all imports to the US. Based on some quick research it looks like some shippers are even routing containers from Asia as far away as Houston.
secondstring 6y ago
I couldn't tell whether you meant on HN or on the article, so I went back to see if the article had a comment section. ... I wish I hadn't
- guyzero 6y ago
  I meant the article comments as you discovered.
teebs 6y ago
As others say, it's about the size of the port. But it's not only that those ports can't handle more ships - it's also that many of the ships in operation are so big they can't fit in smaller ports. I know that Oakland, for example, is always going to be second tier because it's just not possible to send the largest container ships into the San Francisco Bay without rebuilding a lot of the port to handle much bigger ships - dredging, larger cranes, larger docks. This phenomenon is because larger ships are more efficient, and ocean shipping is a super competitive, low-margin business (during normal times) like the airline industry, so in order to eek out a tiny profit, ocean lines consolidate and build bigger and bigger ships, which further drops prices. These ships can only actually go to a handful of megaports around the world, though. Another factor is the infrastructure that exists at the ports - you need to do something with the cargo once it gets on shore. LA/Long Beach has invested in big, efficient terminals for trucks and trains to get loaded quickly and move cargo out of the port in big volumes. Source: I used to work at Flexport on ocean shipping, so I have a general understanding of the industry
- CameronNemo 6y ago
  Why can't larger ships be unloaded onto smaller ships at sea? Then those smaller ships would have access to a wider net of ports. Like a river flooding out across a delta before it reaches the ocean, but in reverse.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    That would require building the infrastructure in the form similar to a oil rig out there to facilitate the transfer. This infrastructure would only be valuable or even necessary for perhaps 2-3 months every 5 years. Who would ever finance that?
  - walrus01 6y ago
    only the very tiniest of container ships have their own cranes onboard, anything above the tiniest size is entirely dependent on shore handling cranes. also moving cargo between two ships floating around at sea is dangerous and difficult, giant ships are not meant to hold position parallel to each other in the open ocean (or indeed closely parallel to anything) without the assist of many tugs. a "geared" (with crane) container ship looks like this, and even so it would be a very risky move to use the crane to do anything other than load a container to/from a wharf while the ship was firmly moored to it. https://www.google.com/search?q=geared+container+ship&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ALeKk00tG1Js_ztCLFMGD95T72oWIz7dlQ:1611208223479&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi1-MauqqzuAhXQKDQIHf5fDrUQ_AUoAXoECBYQAw&biw=1680&bih=953&dpr=2 https://www.google.com/search?q=geared+container+ship&client...

sxates 6y ago

Given the dozens of ships anchored in the bay, I'm not sure Oakland has spare capacity either.

wahern 6y ago
Well, 1 dozen, at least: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-122.4/centery:37.7/zoom:11 https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-122.4/cen... (Only counting the green dots, which represent cargo vessels.)
- sxates 6y ago
  Thanks for sharing this link, I had been looking for something like this!

mike_d 6y ago

Oakland, Seattle, and Tacoma (the only other west coast options) are tiny by comparison. LA/Long Beach handles 25% of all imports to the US. Based on some quick research it looks like some shippers are even routing containers from Asia as far away as Houston.

secondstring 6y ago

I couldn't tell whether you meant on HN or on the article, so I went back to see if the article had a comment section. ... I wish I hadn't

guyzero 6y ago
I meant the article comments as you discovered.

teebs 6y ago

As others say, it's about the size of the port. But it's not only that those ports can't handle more ships - it's also that many of the ships in operation are so big they can't fit in smaller ports. I know that Oakland, for example, is always going to be second tier because it's just not possible to send the largest container ships into the San Francisco Bay without rebuilding a lot of the port to handle much bigger ships - dredging, larger cranes, larger docks. This phenomenon is because larger ships are more efficient, and ocean shipping is a super competitive, low-margin business (during normal times) like the airline industry, so in order to eek out a tiny profit, ocean lines consolidate and build bigger and bigger ships, which further drops prices. These ships can only actually go to a handful of megaports around the world, though. Another factor is the infrastructure that exists at the ports - you need to do something with the cargo once it gets on shore. LA/Long Beach has invested in big, efficient terminals for trucks and trains to get loaded quickly and move cargo out of the port in big volumes. Source: I used to work at Flexport on ocean shipping, so I have a general understanding of the industry

CameronNemo 6y ago
Why can't larger ships be unloaded onto smaller ships at sea? Then those smaller ships would have access to a wider net of ports. Like a river flooding out across a delta before it reaches the ocean, but in reverse.
- zaroth 6y ago
  That would require building the infrastructure in the form similar to a oil rig out there to facilitate the transfer. This infrastructure would only be valuable or even necessary for perhaps 2-3 months every 5 years. Who would ever finance that?
- walrus01 6y ago
  only the very tiniest of container ships have their own cranes onboard, anything above the tiniest size is entirely dependent on shore handling cranes. also moving cargo between two ships floating around at sea is dangerous and difficult, giant ships are not meant to hold position parallel to each other in the open ocean (or indeed closely parallel to anything) without the assist of many tugs. a "geared" (with crane) container ship looks like this, and even so it would be a very risky move to use the crane to do anything other than load a container to/from a wharf while the ship was firmly moored to it. https://www.google.com/search?q=geared+container+ship&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ALeKk00tG1Js_ztCLFMGD95T72oWIz7dlQ:1611208223479&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi1-MauqqzuAhXQKDQIHf5fDrUQ_AUoAXoECBYQAw&biw=1680&bih=953&dpr=2 https://www.google.com/search?q=geared+container+ship&client...