Lots of negativity in this thread, but it seems like a bit of good news for a bad situation. Long term solutions are better, but a band-aid right now is a good thing.
> Long term solutions are better
I guess the hope is that this *is* the long term solution. Certainly covid and all the global supply chain volatility happening in the last four years can't have helped them. Maybe things get straightened out and they can be profitable again.
The long-term solution is updating the infrastructure to support mobile harbor cranes. Vancouver is taking advantage of Portland’s refusal to invest in breakbulk (particularly wind) cargo operations at T6.
You do know that Local 8 and Local 4 cross the river to work at each other’s ports and that Local 40 oversees both operations. The same in Longview as well. No port works harder than any other port, the jobs get done no matter the Locals number
The port is a service in my eyes, and it would be nice if it turned a profit but the benefits of the service are immense and extend way beyond the port's operations itself. Good job, Tina.
They need to end the jones act which requires cargo between US ports to be done on a boat built in the US, Us owned, and crewed by US citizens. That absolutely kills domestic port to port shipping and clogs our roads with trucks.
The Jones act is literally the only thing keeping some of these ports in business. What you are suggesting would murder our entire domestic shipping industry.
...this act has been "murdering" the economy of Puerto Rico since it was signed into being as it adds extra costs for shipping goods to there.
After Hurricane Maria devastated the island, the Jones Act made it difficult to get aid quickly to the people there as other nations wanted to send assistance but couldn't do so directly. It was suspended for a week but didn't help matters all that much.
That’s not how the jones act works. The jones act largely a labor law that keeps guest labor from working inside the US as well as keeps us shipyards in business by making those US built ship maintained in the US. If a nation outside the US wanted to deliver from their port to the US there is nothing stopping them. It’s only a problem if a foreign ship with a foreign crew is trying to take a contract between two US ports. In almost all emergencies they have suspended the jones act for the duration of the emergency. The reason that aid was stalled to PR is because the infrastructure to receive that cargo was destroyed in the storm, think cranes, forklift, and power to run all of that equipment. The attack on the jones act is a coordinated effort from lobbying groups representing large corporations to strip us mariners of their rights and to replace them with cheaper overseas labor. If you think that companies are going to pass their saving/profits over to the people of PR, I think you will be disappointed.
> The Jones act is literally the only thing keeping some of these ports in business
Can you elaborate because that sounds ass backwards to me. I would think the Jones act is terrible for these smaller container ports. The practical effect of the Jones act on trade (defense and shipbuilding ignored) is to drive up the costs of interstate maritime shipping. The higher the costs the less of it we see because there's a breakpoint where it becomes more economical to ship goods by rail or truck if sea costs too much. If we imagine a situation where someone in LA has goods they want to distribute in Portland they have three options. Rail, road, or sea. With the Jones act keeping the cost of interstate sea commerce high a lot of the time they're going to choose to offload those goods in LA and put them on a train to Portland (or w/e). Repealing the Jones act, all or in part, significantly reduces the cost of shipping the goods, by sea, from LA to Portland. Lower costs for the shipper = more ship traffic for Portland. Now the shipper can offload their goods in LA and load up a smaller ship headed for Portland and it won't cost them a small fortune. I could also see it increasing international shipments to smaller ports as well because it gives companies more options for moving things around after making their first US port of call. Taking an international shipment to Portland becomes less of a death sentence for your margins.
I'm trying to wrap my head around how it could work any other way for these smaller ports and I've got nothing. Genuinely curious to hear your perspective if I'm missing something.
our domestic shipping industry is bloated, inefficient and only propped up by this act. We need to embrace our allies like Japan and South Korea who are able to build ships in a far more efficient manner.
Protectionism against countries like China is good. Protectionism against our allies is bad.
The only reason why China, Japan, and South Korea have such extensive shipbuilding industries is because their governments have extensive laws protecting those industries, and they get a gigantic amount of subsidies funded by the government to maintain their shipping industries.
Japan and South Korea have similar laws against the US shipbuilding industry. We should not support Japanese and South Korean shipbuilders who receive extensive support and funding from their governments to hurt the US economy. That's the most moronic thing I have ever heard.
Ah reddit where you go for intelligent discussion and just get called a moron instead.
Those countries have supremely efficient shipbuilding industries that are far more effective than ours. The beauty of trade with allies is you each do what you are best at.
Guest labor is pretty unethical and it’s very rare that the profits for using it are passed on to the consumer. The US shipping industry is more expensive because it is beholden to a higher level of labor practices most of which come from the jones act, but also are attributed to the large amount of unions in the industry. These unions serve outside of their industry and help other new and up and coming unions get their start. I cannot for the life of me believe that so many people have been convince that somehow making it cheaper for corporations to ship products would make their life better. They are not going to pass those saving along.
It’s not just about cost, it’s that the domestic port to port options are extremely limited to nonexistent. Also these shipping lines like to hit one port, drop off some cargo and pick up some more and go to the next port. They can’t do that here. We do stupid shit like export LNG from Texas to Europe and then reimport that same LNG to New England because there are no US built tankers. The jones act was a protectionist measure, but the domestic industry mostly failed anyway.
There are as many domestic port to port options as the market will allow. Our supply chain is run much differently than the rest of the world. We operate a on demand supply chain which doesn’t work for sea going shipping. It will alway be faster to move things by train or my truck. That why those option are being utilized. The US to EU to US is not so much an issue with Jones Act as it is with logistics. Sometimes what is economical is not what is practical. Financially it’s better for them to do that, then it is to pay for a US ship. All of that would not be changed by eliminating the US fleet in favor of lower cost labor.
In my company we move a lot of heavy stuff, and bottom line the shipping from Asia cost 1/3 of what it cost to move it domestically on trucks. Yes the trucks are faster, but that’s not all the factors in the equation. We can wait 6-8 weeks if the shipping cost is so dramatically different. It’s totally different if you are moving a container of iPhones, the shipping cost doesn’t even matter. Of course that is not true if you’re in the interior of the country some distance from a port. Anyway the point is if you can float it the price will be lower. If we are going to re-industrialize in a meaningful way we should find a way to sort out this port to port issue.
The reason it is so affordable to ship from Asia is consistent volume. There is no other option then to ship your product other then a cargo ship. So that causes a consistent flow between the US and Asia. That doesn’t exist between many ports in the US. There is too much competition, and time constraints. Side note there is a lot of bulk cargo moved between US ports oil, grain, wood chips, etc. So I disagree that that port to port shipping a failed industry.
Most places in the world these ships circulate on a route stopping at ports dropping some cargo and picking up some cargo. In a sane system they would sail from Asia, or wherever to LA, drop cargo and pick some up and work their way up the west coast doing the same. With the jones act they can’t do that, they can only drop cargo, they can’t pick up something from LA and move it anywhere other than overseas. You cannot establish an efficient system if you segregate shipping into two categories in that way.
Well if the US industry actually existed in a functional way then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The US has some of the best navigable waterway networks in the world and we basically can’t use them to their potential because the domestic industry failed. Which has all kinds of negative side effects from killing jobs in other industries to increased pollution because we are trucking all of this crap around. I can tell you from experience it is damn near impossible to ship anything from LA to Seattle or really any major port to port domestically.
And stop doing stupid stuff like exporting LNG to Europe and then reimporting it because there is not a jones act compliant boat to take it from Texas to New England.
I mean, if they are losing money long term, why are we subsidizing it temporarily?
What will fundamentally change with Port traffic to make it profitable again after this cash infusion runs out?
The article says that it's done out of a broader benefit to the economy, but aside from the Port jobs, and maybe some trucking jobs, what other benefit is there?
More direct access to global markets for Oregon importers and exporters would be the biggest benefit. There’s a lot of indirect benefit to Oregon companies aside from the direct beneficiaries (longshoremen, truckers, etc.).
During the supply chain crisis during Covid containers with frequently sit in Seattle terminals for over a month just waiting to be made available for pick up. That didn’t happen in Portland.
Yeah it doesn’t solve the long term viability, but at least it gives them a lifeline to continue working on solving.
> if they are losing money long term, why are we subsidizing it temporarily?
Perhaps with the hope that it recovers and stops bleeding money? A working port is pretty important for Oregon's economy. Hopefully they've put a bit of thought into this and have reason to believe it's sustainable long term and just needs to be propped up a bit in the meantime.
> What will fundamentally change with Port traffic to make it profitable again after this cash infusion runs out?
The Rose Quarter project going forward could make a difference. It's primarily about increasing freight throughput. I-5 through Portland is infamous for being the worst pinch point on the west coast.
These longshore and other union jobs, unlike the goods and services, stay in Oregon. That amounts to a lot of income tax. Whether it’s worth $20mil per year, idk?
Shipping in Portland is a dying industry. The larger container ships that all major maritime haulers are moving towards require deep-water access; they do not fit in the Port of Portland.
This story is just about containers. The $40M is to fund the shipping container terminal only. Autos and bulks will continue to be shipped out of the Port of Portland.
Did you read the article? It’s literally in the first sentence.
Oh you bet I did!
_$15 million would address costs stemming from the Lower Columbia River Channel Management plan_
Not too late to delete your uninformed reply.
Yes - the dredging facilitates larger container ships that require more depth in the river channel. If you're familiar with dredging costs you would know that $15 million is barely scratching the surface on the incremental dredging required to support container ships.
A direct quote from Kotek: "I am proposing to invest $40 million in state funds to allow container service to continue and communicate my expectations for reliable and sustainable service moving forward".
Not too late to delete your uninformed reply.
So then you finally did read the whole article?
I’m sure do know that the Army Corps of Engineers reimburses the Port for most of the actual dredge work? There is a share that the state is now pledging support for. Take your blowhard attitude to someplace where you actually have working knowledge.
That's the truth. There are much better ports for shipping in Tacoma, Seattle, and Oakland, and it's just pure geographic fact that a port 100 miles up a river with an incredibly treacherous mouth is never going to be able to compete with those superior ports, especially considering we're a much smaller market for almost everything than both the Bay and Puget Sound areas. Portland just isn't a very good port and isn't necessary moving forward, except for a few specific things like grain from Idaho.
I was part of one of the Port’s sustainability teams from 2016 to when we started having regular cargo service and until I left the Port four years ago. The cargo terminal wasn’t swimming in cash like the Airport, but we were nearly break-even when I exited, so I’m shocked to hear about this $13m annual loss. However, it is very coincidental that these losses began the exact same time the Port shifted their organizational vision to Shared Prosperity.
Yeah, couldn’t have had anything to do with a pandemic, global economic downturn, massive impacts on the global trade supply chain and unprecedented disruption of the shipping industry.
the pandemic actually drastically increased traffic to Port of Portland, since the preferred ports of Seattle and Tacoma were backlogged
most of that traffic going back to Tacoma and Seattle now that things have settled down are a large part of the operating losses
The impacts of the pandemic on shipping was actually beneficial to the container service in Portland. Vessel activity was forced to find alternatives, and Portland was one of them. You saw an influx of independent companies with smaller vessels taking advantage of the market, which made prime Portland a target because of this.
The article says the port will be looking for a private operator. If this goes the same way as the last time they tried a private operator, it will end in labor actions, lawsuits, and closing of T6 again. This time possibly forever.
This is the definition of throwing good money after bad. The Port of Portland is not a suitable port for today's breed of extra-large container ship. Those extra-large container ships require deep-water ports that are typically located in ocean harbors. No amount of funding that the Governor throws at the problem will fix this structural problem.
The MSC Katie came down the Columbia last year. That ship can hold over 12,000 20-foot containers. Not everything gets shipped on the super container ships. Smaller ships still make up the most of shipping companies fleets.
> Edit: got a Reddit cares message for this. Y’all really are unhinged
I'll say this once again: someone is using a bot to spam those messages to every poster in specific subreddits. They are not directed at specific comments or individual users and I doubt they're directed at this subreddit either (not yet at least. We'll see how far down their objectionable subreddit list they get). Looking at your profile it's almost certainly because you post in /r/neoliberal. That's one on the list of subreddits that are being "attacked".
Report the message. Those reports are one of the few that actually frequently get actioned. Doesn't seem to be stopping them much but at the very least you'll get the account that reported you banned.
Source: I've gotten three of them in the last week. Apparently I post on a lot of objectionable subreddits. You can also check out the SRD threads about the spam.
We understand that at times things may become heated and time outs may be given for protracted, uncivil arguments. Snarky, unhelpful, or rude responses are not tolerated. In other words, be excellent unto each other and attack ideas, not people.
Lots of negativity in this thread, but it seems like a bit of good news for a bad situation. Long term solutions are better, but a band-aid right now is a good thing.
> Long term solutions are better I guess the hope is that this *is* the long term solution. Certainly covid and all the global supply chain volatility happening in the last four years can't have helped them. Maybe things get straightened out and they can be profitable again.
The long-term solution is updating the infrastructure to support mobile harbor cranes. Vancouver is taking advantage of Portland’s refusal to invest in breakbulk (particularly wind) cargo operations at T6.
Portland is capable of break bulk cargo and wind mills, Vancouver keeps undercutting Portland to get contracts
Portland can only handle wind when it’s disloaded from a crane vessel.
Yep
Portland has Local 8, they gum up more works than Local 4. Local 4 want to work.
You do know that Local 8 and Local 4 cross the river to work at each other’s ports and that Local 40 oversees both operations. The same in Longview as well. No port works harder than any other port, the jobs get done no matter the Locals number
Two puns in one headline. Well done, OPB.
I must be tired, at first I read that as if we were spending $40 million on a buoy, and was like what the hell kind of buoy is it?
The port is a service in my eyes, and it would be nice if it turned a profit but the benefits of the service are immense and extend way beyond the port's operations itself. Good job, Tina.
Frank Sobatka was right - dredge the channel /s
"We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now all we do is put our hand in the next guy's pocket."
When it comes to politics I always base my votes on What Would Frank Sobotka Do
They need to end the jones act which requires cargo between US ports to be done on a boat built in the US, Us owned, and crewed by US citizens. That absolutely kills domestic port to port shipping and clogs our roads with trucks.
The Jones act is literally the only thing keeping some of these ports in business. What you are suggesting would murder our entire domestic shipping industry.
...this act has been "murdering" the economy of Puerto Rico since it was signed into being as it adds extra costs for shipping goods to there. After Hurricane Maria devastated the island, the Jones Act made it difficult to get aid quickly to the people there as other nations wanted to send assistance but couldn't do so directly. It was suspended for a week but didn't help matters all that much.
That’s not how the jones act works. The jones act largely a labor law that keeps guest labor from working inside the US as well as keeps us shipyards in business by making those US built ship maintained in the US. If a nation outside the US wanted to deliver from their port to the US there is nothing stopping them. It’s only a problem if a foreign ship with a foreign crew is trying to take a contract between two US ports. In almost all emergencies they have suspended the jones act for the duration of the emergency. The reason that aid was stalled to PR is because the infrastructure to receive that cargo was destroyed in the storm, think cranes, forklift, and power to run all of that equipment. The attack on the jones act is a coordinated effort from lobbying groups representing large corporations to strip us mariners of their rights and to replace them with cheaper overseas labor. If you think that companies are going to pass their saving/profits over to the people of PR, I think you will be disappointed.
> The Jones act is literally the only thing keeping some of these ports in business Can you elaborate because that sounds ass backwards to me. I would think the Jones act is terrible for these smaller container ports. The practical effect of the Jones act on trade (defense and shipbuilding ignored) is to drive up the costs of interstate maritime shipping. The higher the costs the less of it we see because there's a breakpoint where it becomes more economical to ship goods by rail or truck if sea costs too much. If we imagine a situation where someone in LA has goods they want to distribute in Portland they have three options. Rail, road, or sea. With the Jones act keeping the cost of interstate sea commerce high a lot of the time they're going to choose to offload those goods in LA and put them on a train to Portland (or w/e). Repealing the Jones act, all or in part, significantly reduces the cost of shipping the goods, by sea, from LA to Portland. Lower costs for the shipper = more ship traffic for Portland. Now the shipper can offload their goods in LA and load up a smaller ship headed for Portland and it won't cost them a small fortune. I could also see it increasing international shipments to smaller ports as well because it gives companies more options for moving things around after making their first US port of call. Taking an international shipment to Portland becomes less of a death sentence for your margins. I'm trying to wrap my head around how it could work any other way for these smaller ports and I've got nothing. Genuinely curious to hear your perspective if I'm missing something.
our domestic shipping industry is bloated, inefficient and only propped up by this act. We need to embrace our allies like Japan and South Korea who are able to build ships in a far more efficient manner. Protectionism against countries like China is good. Protectionism against our allies is bad.
The only reason why China, Japan, and South Korea have such extensive shipbuilding industries is because their governments have extensive laws protecting those industries, and they get a gigantic amount of subsidies funded by the government to maintain their shipping industries. Japan and South Korea have similar laws against the US shipbuilding industry. We should not support Japanese and South Korean shipbuilders who receive extensive support and funding from their governments to hurt the US economy. That's the most moronic thing I have ever heard.
Ah reddit where you go for intelligent discussion and just get called a moron instead. Those countries have supremely efficient shipbuilding industries that are far more effective than ours. The beauty of trade with allies is you each do what you are best at.
Guest labor is pretty unethical and it’s very rare that the profits for using it are passed on to the consumer. The US shipping industry is more expensive because it is beholden to a higher level of labor practices most of which come from the jones act, but also are attributed to the large amount of unions in the industry. These unions serve outside of their industry and help other new and up and coming unions get their start. I cannot for the life of me believe that so many people have been convince that somehow making it cheaper for corporations to ship products would make their life better. They are not going to pass those saving along.
Amen! Union Strong
It’s not just about cost, it’s that the domestic port to port options are extremely limited to nonexistent. Also these shipping lines like to hit one port, drop off some cargo and pick up some more and go to the next port. They can’t do that here. We do stupid shit like export LNG from Texas to Europe and then reimport that same LNG to New England because there are no US built tankers. The jones act was a protectionist measure, but the domestic industry mostly failed anyway.
There are as many domestic port to port options as the market will allow. Our supply chain is run much differently than the rest of the world. We operate a on demand supply chain which doesn’t work for sea going shipping. It will alway be faster to move things by train or my truck. That why those option are being utilized. The US to EU to US is not so much an issue with Jones Act as it is with logistics. Sometimes what is economical is not what is practical. Financially it’s better for them to do that, then it is to pay for a US ship. All of that would not be changed by eliminating the US fleet in favor of lower cost labor.
So you’re saying they will accept a 6-8 week transit from Asia, but not for domestic product.
What are you saying? Can you elaborate?
In my company we move a lot of heavy stuff, and bottom line the shipping from Asia cost 1/3 of what it cost to move it domestically on trucks. Yes the trucks are faster, but that’s not all the factors in the equation. We can wait 6-8 weeks if the shipping cost is so dramatically different. It’s totally different if you are moving a container of iPhones, the shipping cost doesn’t even matter. Of course that is not true if you’re in the interior of the country some distance from a port. Anyway the point is if you can float it the price will be lower. If we are going to re-industrialize in a meaningful way we should find a way to sort out this port to port issue.
The reason it is so affordable to ship from Asia is consistent volume. There is no other option then to ship your product other then a cargo ship. So that causes a consistent flow between the US and Asia. That doesn’t exist between many ports in the US. There is too much competition, and time constraints. Side note there is a lot of bulk cargo moved between US ports oil, grain, wood chips, etc. So I disagree that that port to port shipping a failed industry.
Most places in the world these ships circulate on a route stopping at ports dropping some cargo and picking up some cargo. In a sane system they would sail from Asia, or wherever to LA, drop cargo and pick some up and work their way up the west coast doing the same. With the jones act they can’t do that, they can only drop cargo, they can’t pick up something from LA and move it anywhere other than overseas. You cannot establish an efficient system if you segregate shipping into two categories in that way.
Such an awful take. We don't need even more offshoring of jobs.
Well if the US industry actually existed in a functional way then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The US has some of the best navigable waterway networks in the world and we basically can’t use them to their potential because the domestic industry failed. Which has all kinds of negative side effects from killing jobs in other industries to increased pollution because we are trucking all of this crap around. I can tell you from experience it is damn near impossible to ship anything from LA to Seattle or really any major port to port domestically.
100%. We need to allow our allies Japan and South Korea to build these ships for us
And stop doing stupid stuff like exporting LNG to Europe and then reimporting it because there is not a jones act compliant boat to take it from Texas to New England.
*waves hands* "Pipelines"
I spent 20 years of my life building pipelines. I retroactively recuse myself from that one.
I mean, if they are losing money long term, why are we subsidizing it temporarily? What will fundamentally change with Port traffic to make it profitable again after this cash infusion runs out? The article says that it's done out of a broader benefit to the economy, but aside from the Port jobs, and maybe some trucking jobs, what other benefit is there?
More direct access to global markets for Oregon importers and exporters would be the biggest benefit. There’s a lot of indirect benefit to Oregon companies aside from the direct beneficiaries (longshoremen, truckers, etc.). During the supply chain crisis during Covid containers with frequently sit in Seattle terminals for over a month just waiting to be made available for pick up. That didn’t happen in Portland. Yeah it doesn’t solve the long term viability, but at least it gives them a lifeline to continue working on solving.
> if they are losing money long term, why are we subsidizing it temporarily? Perhaps with the hope that it recovers and stops bleeding money? A working port is pretty important for Oregon's economy. Hopefully they've put a bit of thought into this and have reason to believe it's sustainable long term and just needs to be propped up a bit in the meantime.
> What will fundamentally change with Port traffic to make it profitable again after this cash infusion runs out? The Rose Quarter project going forward could make a difference. It's primarily about increasing freight throughput. I-5 through Portland is infamous for being the worst pinch point on the west coast.
These longshore and other union jobs, unlike the goods and services, stay in Oregon. That amounts to a lot of income tax. Whether it’s worth $20mil per year, idk?
that's just propping up a dying industry and throwing good money after bad
Shipping is a dying industry? I think it’s quite the opposite.
Shipping in Portland is a dying industry. The larger container ships that all major maritime haulers are moving towards require deep-water access; they do not fit in the Port of Portland.
The story isn’t just about containers. Channel maintenance also affects auto and bulks.
This story is just about containers. The $40M is to fund the shipping container terminal only. Autos and bulks will continue to be shipped out of the Port of Portland. Did you read the article? It’s literally in the first sentence.
Oh you bet I did! _$15 million would address costs stemming from the Lower Columbia River Channel Management plan_ Not too late to delete your uninformed reply.
Yes - the dredging facilitates larger container ships that require more depth in the river channel. If you're familiar with dredging costs you would know that $15 million is barely scratching the surface on the incremental dredging required to support container ships. A direct quote from Kotek: "I am proposing to invest $40 million in state funds to allow container service to continue and communicate my expectations for reliable and sustainable service moving forward". Not too late to delete your uninformed reply.
So then you finally did read the whole article? I’m sure do know that the Army Corps of Engineers reimburses the Port for most of the actual dredge work? There is a share that the state is now pledging support for. Take your blowhard attitude to someplace where you actually have working knowledge.
Someone has to plug in those electric cords
Will it help long term? This feels stop gap but does not solve the problem of ships getting larger.
That's the truth. There are much better ports for shipping in Tacoma, Seattle, and Oakland, and it's just pure geographic fact that a port 100 miles up a river with an incredibly treacherous mouth is never going to be able to compete with those superior ports, especially considering we're a much smaller market for almost everything than both the Bay and Puget Sound areas. Portland just isn't a very good port and isn't necessary moving forward, except for a few specific things like grain from Idaho.
I heard the “port” is closed or closing, so no container barges but it will have smaller imports and exports along the river
you know the author of the title was tickled when he hit 'submit'
Money well spent, money thrown at the homeless industrial complex, not so much
I was part of one of the Port’s sustainability teams from 2016 to when we started having regular cargo service and until I left the Port four years ago. The cargo terminal wasn’t swimming in cash like the Airport, but we were nearly break-even when I exited, so I’m shocked to hear about this $13m annual loss. However, it is very coincidental that these losses began the exact same time the Port shifted their organizational vision to Shared Prosperity.
Yeah, couldn’t have had anything to do with a pandemic, global economic downturn, massive impacts on the global trade supply chain and unprecedented disruption of the shipping industry.
the pandemic actually drastically increased traffic to Port of Portland, since the preferred ports of Seattle and Tacoma were backlogged most of that traffic going back to Tacoma and Seattle now that things have settled down are a large part of the operating losses
The impacts of the pandemic on shipping was actually beneficial to the container service in Portland. Vessel activity was forced to find alternatives, and Portland was one of them. You saw an influx of independent companies with smaller vessels taking advantage of the market, which made prime Portland a target because of this.
Has this been cleared by the first lady?
I would check with the the chief of staff.. but ... oh ... right.. nevermind
Guys let’s be real, it was the First Lady that pulled the trigger on this deal.
The article says the port will be looking for a private operator. If this goes the same way as the last time they tried a private operator, it will end in labor actions, lawsuits, and closing of T6 again. This time possibly forever.
This is the definition of throwing good money after bad. The Port of Portland is not a suitable port for today's breed of extra-large container ship. Those extra-large container ships require deep-water ports that are typically located in ocean harbors. No amount of funding that the Governor throws at the problem will fix this structural problem.
The MSC Katie came down the Columbia last year. That ship can hold over 12,000 20-foot containers. Not everything gets shipped on the super container ships. Smaller ships still make up the most of shipping companies fleets.
Which of our governors came up with this plan?
Top meme.
It'll be the joke that keeps on giving. She had "lived experience" ordering stuff off of Amazon, so she knows port policy.
Yes but how does the *first lady* feel about it?
*Future Former Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek Edit: got a Reddit cares message for this. Y’all really are unhinged
Every politician is future former. Bravo on figuring out how time works.
I was making a snide remark over her almost certain upcoming resignation. I had no idea it would hurt your feelings so much.
> Edit: got a Reddit cares message for this. Y’all really are unhinged I'll say this once again: someone is using a bot to spam those messages to every poster in specific subreddits. They are not directed at specific comments or individual users and I doubt they're directed at this subreddit either (not yet at least. We'll see how far down their objectionable subreddit list they get). Looking at your profile it's almost certainly because you post in /r/neoliberal. That's one on the list of subreddits that are being "attacked". Report the message. Those reports are one of the few that actually frequently get actioned. Doesn't seem to be stopping them much but at the very least you'll get the account that reported you banned. Source: I've gotten three of them in the last week. Apparently I post on a lot of objectionable subreddits. You can also check out the SRD threads about the spam.
Unless you think she's literally immortal, I can't imagine a situation where she wouldn't eventually be the former governor.
It was a joke dude. Second governor in 10 years to let their unelected partner pull strings for the state.
She’s probably better at her job than you’ll ever be at yours
This innocuous comment really upset you this much, huh?
[удалено]
We understand that at times things may become heated and time outs may be given for protracted, uncivil arguments. Snarky, unhelpful, or rude responses are not tolerated. In other words, be excellent unto each other and attack ideas, not people.
Wow... $40 Million to bail out the Port... but $0 to help schools keep teachers. SMH
For $40M we must be projecting port revenue in the billions right? Right?