Hi, AfDers and Friends,
Certainly one of the most important decisions soon to be made locally concerns the building of the Columbia River Crossing, a proposed 12 lane bridge across the Columbia River with a $12 billion dollar price tag.
One lenses by which to view this question is that afforded by the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). The SPP is commonly referred to as Super-NAFTA, and sometimes by the American political right wing as the North American Union. It is a hand shake deal between the chief executive officers of the United States (Bush), Mexico (Fox and now Calderon) and Canada (Martin) which by design is never to be voted on by Congress.
Whichever way you look at it, SPP is a corporate takeover of North America, consolidating the trade and harmonizing the rules/regulations of the three nations in order to make more profits by bringing ever increasing amount of goods into the United States from China and elsewhere. The SPP's mantra is more, more and still more.
All that "more" means larger ports, more roads and more infrastructure to distribute it. Part of the infrastructure "more" is The Columbia River Crossing. Designed to reduce the "bottlenecks" on both sides of the Columbia, major proponents of have been the trucking and freight companies who want to move freight into and from the Portland port as well as from other west coast ports for distribution throughout the US. The I-5 corridor is one of the Super-NAFTA highways, redirecting the American highway system from a east-west system to a north-south system.
Recently there was a meeting in Tacoma of the Northwest Intermodal Conference focused on the needs of freight movers and the development of Northwest ports. A report of that meeting including comments by the President of SSA Containers follows. Note his comments about the opportunities for NW ports if they speed up unloading of containers (more stuff) in competition with California ports (ports which are maxed out in terms of ability to expand) or with the Suez or Panama Canals. What he didn't mention is the on-going development of deep water ports on the west coast of Mexico which compete, using non-union labor, with the highly unionized California ports. A further component of this picture is the effort to have low cost Mexican trucks on American highways carrying goods direct from low cost Mexican ports.
The SPP advances by a series of small moves (of coarse, $12 billion dollars is not so small) directing our focus on the local needs, but never focusing on the larger picture. That larger picture includes a reconstruction of our transportation and distribution system to facilitate the importation of more and more goods from Asia and the distribution of energy "products" from Canada (oil from tar sands, natural gas and water)and Mexico (water, electric power and oil) to feed the American "market."
It is a global world; Portland needs to decide if they want to enable the corporate profiteers or actually focus on building a locally focused economy. The Columbia River Crossing proposal is one major piece of that puzzle. (Another piece is the Liquefied Natural Gas terminals proposed for the Columbia River).
David e. Delk, Alliance for Democracy - Portland Chapter 503 232 5495 www.afd-pdx.org
http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/business/2008/05/27/are_shippers_wanting_to_avoid_west_coast
Tuesday, May 27th, 2008
Are shippers wanting to avoid West Coast ports?
Posted by Kelly Kearsley
The Cunningham Report has an interesting article today regarding remarks made by Seattle-based SSA President Ed DeNike at last week's Northwest Intermodal Conference.
SSA Containers President Ed DeNike said last week that the Pacific Northwest ports have an opportunity to expand their business in Interior Point Intermodal cargo if "they don't blow it." That's why his company is spending "a lot of money to build a grand terminal at the Port of Tacoma," according to the report.
SSA has partnered with the Puyallup Tribe of Indians to build a container terminal on the east side of the Blair Waterway.
DeNike told folks attending the Northwest Intermodal Conference in Tacoma that his company's customers are looking for ways to avoid calling at West Coast ports, whether it's by going through the Panama Canal or the Suez Canal, the Cunningham Report says.
DeNike noted the increasing cost of moving cargo through Southern California and various pending fees per container.
He also made mention of needing to increase the labor productivity in Tacoma, The Cunningham Report says.
Here's the rest of the story:
Customers are also demanding better productivity, he said. His company is having to guarantee a minimum number of lifts per hour in order to get shipping lines to commit to a contract. The penalty for coming up short is the loss of the contract, he said.
DeNike said he expects SSA to sign an agreement with a major Asian shipping line next month for its terminal at the Port of Seattle. That 20-year deal will include a productivity guarantee, he said.
In the Port of Tacoma, where dockworkers take breaks onboard ships, that becomes a problem. In fact, SSA Marine - which has partnered with the Puyallup Indians tribe to build a private terminal at the port - has talked to union leaders about the need to speed up the process, he said.
Lifts at container terminals average about 30 to 32 per hour at the Port of Long Beach, 35 to 37 at the Port of Oakland, 30 to 31 at the Port of Seattle, 25 to 27 at the Port of Portland, and 25 to 26 at the Port of Tacoma, he said.
Ports America Group VP Walter Romanowski agreed that there is a long-term opportunity for the Pacific Northwest Ports. He noted that it takes six years to get through the environmental process in Southern California and that East Coast and Gulf Coast ports are using the opportunity to expand their business.
Port of Seattle Seaport Director Charlie Sheldon said the Southern California ports and the Pacific Northwest ports operate in different economic environments. He cited the 2005 elasticity study done for the Southern California Association of Governments by Rob Leachman of UC Berkeley.
The Leachman study found that Southern California could charge up to a $200 fee per 40-foot container without losing significant business as long as the money was spent to help smooth out the flow of cargo. Sheldon said they hired Leachman to do a similar study for the Pacific Northwest. He found that a $60 per 40-foot container fee would result in a 30 percent loss of cargo.
© Copyright Tacoma News, Inc.
|