A. Citizen: SC Port Problems
Over the last several months, I have received several e-mails which may be of interest to you. AttacYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
Over the last several months, I have received several e-mails which may be of interest to you. AttacYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
16 comments
Very interesting information. Looks like we need to dRedge deepeR
Dredging deeper does not solve the bridge height problem.
Very interesting information. Looks like we need to dRedge deepeR
Dredging deeper does not solve the bridge height problem.
The author does not mention the increase in containers coming to the East Coast through the Suez Canal. This is likely to be more significant than the new Panama Canal, and is already bringing larger vessels. On the other hand, in support of the author’s point, West Coast ports are unlikely to passively allow shipping lines to bypass their facilities, and consequently will offer lower rates to retain shippers. Meanwhile, the US will continue to pour tax dollars into the indiscriminate deepening of every East Coast port with a harbor deeper than a mud puddle, under the theory of massive job increases and skyrocketing GDP, none of which will materialize. The winners will be the international shipping companies, who will be able to negotiate below cost (aka publicly-subsidized) deals with state-owned (and in the case of SC, fully state-operated) ports. The authors comments about the lack of attention to land-side infrastructure are completely on target.
Mr. Beach:
Ships currently coming to the East Coast through the Suez Canal are much smaller than the New Panamax vessels referred to by Mr. Stott. Also, because of the HMTF, U.S .West Coast Ports are concerned more with Canada and Mexico stealing business than East Coast ports stealing business.
Simply not true. Three post-panamax ships called on Charleston last week … all through the Suez Canal. In fact, this takes place several times each week. And to your assertion below, bridge height is not an issue. Care to enlighten us more?
Dana, what is CCL’s position (if any) regarding the state ownership versus private ownership debate with regards to Charleston’s port facilities?
The author does not mention the increase in containers coming to the East Coast through the Suez Canal. This is likely to be more significant than the new Panama Canal, and is already bringing larger vessels. On the other hand, in support of the author’s point, West Coast ports are unlikely to passively allow shipping lines to bypass their facilities, and consequently will offer lower rates to retain shippers. Meanwhile, the US will continue to pour tax dollars into the indiscriminate deepening of every East Coast port with a harbor deeper than a mud puddle, under the theory of massive job increases and skyrocketing GDP, none of which will materialize. The winners will be the international shipping companies, who will be able to negotiate below cost (aka publicly-subsidized) deals with state-owned (and in the case of SC, fully state-operated) ports. The authors comments about the lack of attention to land-side infrastructure are completely on target.
Mr. Beach:
Ships currently coming to the East Coast through the Suez Canal are much smaller than the New Panamax vessels referred to by Mr. Stott. Also, because of the HMTF, U.S .West Coast Ports are concerned more with Canada and Mexico stealing business than East Coast ports stealing business.
Simply not true. Three post-panamax ships called on Charleston last week … all through the Suez Canal. In fact, this takes place several times each week. And to your assertion below, bridge height is not an issue. Care to enlighten us more?
Dana, what is CCL’s position (if any) regarding the state ownership versus private ownership debate with regards to Charleston’s port facilities?
We will bring them all in because we have the water now, will get more water, and the Ravenel Bridge is plenty high. He is wrong.
We will bring them all in because we have the water now, will get more water, and the Ravenel Bridge is plenty high. He is wrong.
oh the concept that the ravenel bridge is not high enough….lets just assume that its not, the citizens of charleston are already losing their minds over cruise ships messing up the skyline, can you imagine what the response to a freighter that cant get under the cooper river bridge would be like.
oh the concept that the ravenel bridge is not high enough….lets just assume that its not, the citizens of charleston are already losing their minds over cruise ships messing up the skyline, can you imagine what the response to a freighter that cant get under the cooper river bridge would be like.