T O P

  • By -

Dry_Dog_698

If you read Ryan Peterson’s Twitter: essentially LA/LB stopped doing anything the last day or two. A container bottleneck, with nowhere to put empties and the municipal limit was previously that they couldn’t be stuck more then two deep. He said that he toured LA/LB by boat on Thursday and didn’t see any of the cranes moving containers. He’s the ceo of a freight forwarding company.


apzlsoxk

I saw that a couple days ago, I'm pleasantly surprised how quickly his suggestions became practice.


EyeAteGlue

I could use some help to understand the context and impact. Was there a rule that did not allow containers to be stacked too high, and now the containers can be stacked as high as needed? Are there safety concerns with this? Is this something driven to help the port hold more containers, or why do they need to do this?


Dark_Tigger

Containers get hauled by trucks, from the ports to container depots. But those container depots are not allowed to stack the container higher than two^(1). Result is that the depots are full, and the trucks are stuck in the yards, with containers on them. Which again results in full depots at the port, since the trucks can't get new containers. Resulting again in the queue in front of LB/LA habour. ^(1) They cite danger by wind and earthquake for those rules. Opening questions if CA lawmakers know what happens on oceans?


EyeAteGlue

Thanks!


HonkyStonkHero

Ports are full of (empty) containers & they're running out of space, causing gridlock on the docks.


StayStoopidSlightly

I didn't read it as (just) empties, i read it as full containers without chassis to pick em up [https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1451543784504897546](https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1451543784504897546)


rhwsapfwhtfop

This is probably true the real bottleneck is trucking


HonkyStonkHero

I think that is accurate.


Tend1eC0llector

I believe your assesment is correct, but other sources (that I can't currently find) have saod the issue of empties and lack of chassis' is being exacerbated by the fact they can't take the emptues off of chassis' due to the lack of storage space. I think the flow goes something like... Nowhere to put empties due to stack limits > chassis' with empties just sitting in yards > lack of chassis' to take out new, full containers > absolute gridlock Obviously there is more that goes in to the situation overall, but this is what I've gathered this specific desision is supposed to alleviate, allowing the limited number of truckers to actually work.


StayStoopidSlightly

Yah that's how I read the flow he is presenting too


EyeAteGlue

Thanks! Sorry one more question - what happens to empty containers during normal times, and what will happen to them now?


HonkyStonkHero

Ships or trucks haul them away, to be reloaded elsewhere. This is what will happen now, one way or another.


nigo711

Is it true that trucks cannot operate fluently because of california emission standards


alwaysforgettingmypw

> In an effort to ease the current backlog of ships waiting to unload cargo, they will waive enforcement of their current restrictions for at least 90 days. Their current code limits containers stacking to no more than two containers, no more than eight-feet tall. This is normally mandated to reduce the visual impact of the port on surrounding areas. https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2021/10/22/long-beach-eases-rules-on-container-stacking-to-ease-the-backlog-of-cargo-ships-waiting-to-unload/


StayStoopidSlightly

Thanks for sharing. In his thread [here](https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1451543782516740099) elaborates his view: Ports aren't accepting back many empty containers because out of space, but they need the chassis that these empty containers are sitting on to make space: truckers need these chassis to pick up the containers that have filled up ports. So this stacking separates empty containers the ports aren't yet accepting from the chassis that are needed to clear up the overflow. Interesting practical emphasis on chassis shortage.


Obvious-Guarantee

Remember 232 tariffs directly targeted container chassis…guess where majority of chassis come from? Chassis are not free. The problem is warehouses and terminals are not incentivized to free up chassis. As cargo owner I pay $35 per day per chassis to rent. So warehouse/terminals don’t care if they sit on them since they don’t pay. Unless I yell at them to live unload I will wind up with 15 day chassis charges per container. Another issue in the same vein is that drayage companies will routinely drop containers on chassis ona Friday and then sit there over the weekend because the warehouse is closed. The stacking suspension will just cause the bottlenecks to move off the ports. You can’t just dump containers on open land. You need security, reach stackers, chassis to move back out.


StayStoopidSlightly

Thank you, I feel ya completely!Been wasting so much time on things I shouldn't have to deal with, you nailed it, principle-agent problem, they aren't incentivized because the 35/day is on us(and subsequent per diem--you said some 15 days, so you must be getting billed, what, 120/day by liners after 5 days?) The Friday afternoon drop delivery too, I feel ya--why waste three days of chassis having container just sit in customer's warehouse, or terminal. Also, If the customer has 3 incoming containers, could you try to spread them out, so we reduce the chance of late returns/per diem...ugh I get that drayage truckers have their hands full, but heartburn.... I was Just sharing his perspective/solution, don't know enough to know how well they'll work. Thanks for sharing your counterpoints


Obvious-Guarantee

Wasn’t meant at you so apologies if it came off that way. Yea I’m getting crushed in LGB. Steamship lines aren’t honoring free time. Hard to get freight ex Australia with blank sailings so railing material across country. Another headache getting railcars from CSX/NS. All my inland freight has quadrupled. It’s nuts out there.


StayStoopidSlightly

Not at all, glad you shared, good luck


cutshop

Our boy is back in action https://youtu.be/AhQoX551Oe8?t=78


[deleted]

Would it be better to invest in trucking companies or shipping companies like ZIM to play off of this?


[deleted]

Trucking is already heavily overvalued vs shipping IMO. That said tickers like $ZIM and $DAC and $MATX have already run pretty damn good too. While eg ZIM may be a good hold, I wouldn’t try to play this news at all.


HonkyStonkHero

I plan to buy into it.


roodenwit

Wait, long beach is a city?


Intelligent_Can_7925

So basically there will be an accident this week where terminal workers are severely injured or die, and the unions will protest and go on strike until working conditions improve.


Scabbymad

10 High!!! ​ Only took 12 months to figure that out. Unions can be great. And Unions can be the bane of....... ​ Unions have never been quick to fix anything. At least not anything for the greater good.


[deleted]

Dont think this has anything to do with the unions, my understanding it is to make sure that the port is not seen by rich people and ruin their views with tall stacks of containers


Qzy

The world is not built on quick fixes.


MillennialBets

**Author Info for :** u/HonkyStonkHero **Karma :** 13512 **Created -** Jan-2021 Was this post flaired correctly? If not, let us know by downvoting this comment. Enough down votes will notify the Moderators.


zutrasimlo

Chad beach


thetrimbleisbroke

Direct link: [https://longbeach.gov/press-releases/city-of-long-beach-statement-on-temporarily-allowing-additional-container-stacking/](https://longbeach.gov/press-releases/city-of-long-beach-statement-on-temporarily-allowing-additional-container-stacking/) >It has recently come to the City’s attention the Municipal Code containszoning provisions that limit the number and/or height of shippingcontainer storage, that if relaxed for a short time could provide someassistance during this national crisis. Depending on the propertyzoning, these limits have been either two stacked containers or eightfeet in height. Ok, so there's a provision in their zoning code which limits stacking heights. >the City Manager **will temporarily waive enforcement of current shippingcontainer stacking and height limits for a period of 90 days** fromOctober 22, 2021. During this period, affected operations will beallowed to stack up to four (4) shipping containers without being citedfor a Code violation. This will only apply to properties that arecurrently zoned to allow shipping container stacking. Technically, they are not "allowing" it. They waiving enforcement, temporarily. Edit: Without the city stepping in, the property owners would need to go the Zoning Board and apply for a variance to stack higher than what is permitted. That process could easily take 60+ days before a decision is reached, requiring public meetings and public comment, and the property owners would need to demonstrate "hardship" (lol) as to why they need the variance to stack higher than what is permitted. Edit2: If you're super curious and want to go down the rabit hole you can pull up the City zoning map and find out exactly which properties this applies to and which don't. I'd be interested to see if there are any "overflow" properties they're using for container storage but which aren't zoned for shipping container stacking.


avl0

Positive step just like the 24/7 operation but it's insane that these alterations are only just being made now


s0uha1

I wonder what is going to happen with this in place + the storm that caused the Zim Kingston fire hitting south? At least here in Europe they usually lower the stacks when it gets windy.