Posted by trod on October 16, 2007 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The greenies are grasping for for straws again.mr.beach needs to find someone else and something better to do with his time you can only cry wolf so much.the port or port expansion is not the culprit of the terrible traffic in the Charleston area.unrestricted community housing developments are the only problem he and his cronies really have is that its not putting money into their pockets .like houses would.how many real estate agents , land developers ect, are the ones whom support mr.beach?the old navy base is perfect fit for expansion .no destruction of habitat of the ring neck google eyed would pecker or some other varmint.oh no wait next they'll be saying its destroying the habitat of the ever loved wharf rat, alley cat, sea gull and our beloved palmetto bug.

Posted by truthseeker on October 16, 2007 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder what the real relationship was between the SPA and Parish?

This is a fun read about the ports authority-

www.fitsnews.com

Posted by icbmman on October 16, 2007 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said, trod. Beach and his idiotic organization continue to cry about anything new that would benefit the economy and industries of the Charleston area, and they just need to shut up. Their desperation is now completely revealed by using the strategy of character assassination of an individual who made the recommendation to expand the port. The problem is that hundreds of business and community officials ALSO think that the port should expand, and the old Navy base is the best location to do it.

Beach and the CCL have been the ball and chain around the growth and economy of Chas as well as common sense infrastructure projects for so long, so it is time to just ignore them. Their stupidity has kept US 17 from being widened in between Jacksonboro and Beaufort for 20 years (WTF?!?!), and as a result, more people have DIED. Traffic remains a problem because common sense widening and adding of roads have been prohibited by the CCL. The organization has also hindered city areas from being brightly lit at night, emboldening criminals to run free and undetected.

Bottomline, the CCL is an obtuse group of imbeciles that have interfered with Charleston's progress long enough. I ask that people quit giving money to this useless association and ignore their senseless drivel.

Posted by truthseeker on October 16, 2007 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, who hired the clown in the purple suit to do our state's only economic analysis of a billion dollar state project?

Posted by beespencer on October 16, 2007 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It doesn't take much to see that SPA need more space for cargo

Posted by truthseeker on October 16, 2007 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is a shame Sen. Ravenel has retired. He would get to the bottom of this.
Why aren't our elected leaders asking for an investigation?

Posted by SuzieQJones on October 16, 2007 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is this about an interest-free loan for $76,000? If the State Port is state (taxpayer?) money, why were they lending it interest free to a private entity? Guess I don't see the connection...geeze, now I wonder if CSU and/or the Ports and/or Al Parish were all in on this mess. Wish Bill O'Reilly were here, he'd figure out the connection.

Posted by trod on October 16, 2007 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually suzieq thats a misconception that beach and his cronies like to push.actually the port cleared/made close to 48 million this last fiscal year or at least thats what they printed in their magazine76000 not a great deal of money for them .but they reinvested this money in equipment yada yada ect.you wont see a state investigation for several reasons.#1all port expenditures over a few hundred dollars have to be approved by the port board on which a few members were appointed by the governor himself.#2all of the state port employees contribute to the state retirement system which desperately needs the money even though its own board took employee's off state insurance to private insurance a few years back.#3the state likes to dig its fingers in federal funds that the quasi state port receives for various reasons dredge homeland security ect.thats just a few reasons you'll never get an investigation.just as they recently paid for three studies of their employees pay.yes 3 studies why you ask because two said they were under paid and the third said overpaid by a dollar or so per hour for the industry you'll never hear of that though.they finally bought their answer they wanted.ass the old saying goes theres the right way the wrong way then theres the port way......

Posted by truthseeker on October 16, 2007 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

they made 46 million bucks -wow!!! i wonder what that equals as a profit margin per container before taxes ? do you have any idea?

Posted by jnot on October 16, 2007 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think the point was that 76k was a lot of money, i think the point is that the SPA financed the study that they then used in their ads to push expansion, first for the Global Gateway and now for the new terminal.

Posted by icbmman on October 16, 2007 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Regardless of the studies, the fact is that the port NEEDS expansion. Savannah has already surpassed Chas in terms of tonnage, and Jacksonville is poised to be more competitive since it just approved port expansion for their city. Chas has to compete if it wishes to remain an important port for the East Coast.

What I don't get is how these other cities seem to have an easier time growing and getting things approved while my hometown is stifled by incredibly short-sighted individuals.

Posted by truthseeker on October 16, 2007 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I know what u are saying there icbmman. I think as long as the current spa management team is in place nothing will get built. It is truly painful to watch, isn't it? These other port towns are building first class terminals complete with on site rail docks to ease their traffic concerns. have you seen that new Maersk terminal in Virginia? Do you think we can compete with that -it didn't cost their taxpayers hardly anything and its a first class automated terminal.

And do you get the feeling that no one is really in charge of our state's port planning?

Posted by trod on October 16, 2007 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes there is a state{ your governor} appointed board that controls all the ports expenditures and ventures made up of business men which several of have absolutely nothing to do with he maritime industry{they had to approve the study anything over 500 dollars has to be approved by the spa board}.the port board should be made up of entirely maritime leaders not owners of private businesses non maritime related[ie the governors friends} . the local people and chamber of commerce in Charleston that create nothing but tourism related minimum wage jobs that line their pockets is sickening .savanahs port is supported by its people and local chamber of commerce as well as its state. they are smart enough to know a strong port will bring jobs in manufacturing distribution ect closer to the region. we can only hope ours relies the same before its too late.maybe our leaders will wake up and quit answering the call of mr beach and the ccl personal witch hunt of scspa.

Posted by RTC on October 16, 2007 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The SPA funds itself through revenues from the companies that do business with the port. No taxpayers money is used. The port however pays the state 6% tax on every dollar earned.
As far as Ravenel is concerned he was most vocal at stopping Daniel Island from being developed, so that he could get his hands on some of the property to build houses and such (stated in the P&C when all the stop developement was going on).
CCL/Beach are a bunch of windbags with nothing better to do than b--ch about what they cannot control or do not "think" is good for us/them.
As for Parrish, did anyone know years ago that the man was a crook?
Please, more people than one can imagine rely on the port for their livelihood. Lots of info regarding the port can be obtained through the FIA, but the P&C is too left to let the public know anything good about the port.

Posted by truthseeker on October 16, 2007 at 8:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That is interesting trod . I never knew the spa board approved the parish expenditure - interest free loan. anything over 500 bucks has to be approved by the board?

i always wonder how come the spa never did just let a private terminal set up shop down in jasper? if our state needs more container handling capacity , and this private u.s. company wants to do it all for us , does any one see the harm in that potential solution?

Posted by truthseeker on October 16, 2007 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey RTC- what is the FIA??

Posted by Horratio on October 16, 2007 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course the SPA knew Parish was a crook. And a patsy.. No respectable economist would have come up with such a crock. That’s exactly why they hired him. That plus they knew they could pay him off in gnomes.

Even after Parish was handcuffed and playing in his great pumpkin pajamas the SPA was touting his bogus numbers to politicians and other media. They never retracted anything. Still don’t. In fact they took his numbers and rewrote the study results to further embellish his findings. I just read this crap in the Business Journal last month. This time they extrapolated out 50 years. After hearing Byron Miller's response about this study today, he ought to be in the poky next to Al.

No matter whether you are for or against more port expansion in Charleston, you gotta hate this kind of fraud. A state agency cooking numbers to get tax money?

The very top SPA executives are guilty. They should be out. They wouldn't know the truth if it came out and fired them.

Yeah, the port is important but they do benefit from Billions of taxpayer money. Just the access road is 600 million. 100's of millions for dredging. It is insulting when people say they don't use taxpayer money. Sure we need the port and taxpayers should subsidize responsible infrastructure for them but they have a responsibility to the taxpayers because of this. They have violated that responsibility. The state deserves better from them.

And, as a matter of fact, I'm not thrilled about 7000 more trucks on i26 every day because of this expansion (port’s study numbers). Traffic is already choking us. We don't need it here. We should keep the port we got, but expand at Jasper. The rich, fat cat SPA guys who inherited their cushy jobs and are pushing this down our throats will still make plenty with the current HUGE PORT…

Why not let expansion go to Jasper where people want it, they can have rail, closer to I95 and Atlanta, split costs with GA, coordinate ports with GA so we don't underbid each other and get better pricing from the global (non American) shipping conglomerates, AND SPARE CHARLESTON.

Posted by RTC on October 16, 2007 at 10:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

FIA= Freedom of Information Act.

Posted by trod on October 17, 2007 at 1:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I imagine unless its written onto the yearly budget as x amount of dollars for this that ect.i know the last few years everything over 500 bucks has to be board approved.but i am not 100% sure that this occurred after that policy was enforced.as for the job numbers related to the port are a lot higher than the anti port crowd would like to admit and probably not as high as the port projects but from just what i can see your talking 5000 to15000 jobs in the charleston area that are port related or benefit from it the port is no bigger crooks than the ccl mr beach and developers are they both pay and get the studies they want which are crocks also as you put it and its not much different than the bull that the ccl comes up with either.as far as traffic is concerned id be more worried about the 20-40 thousand car trips that are going to occur because of over development.the trucks are spread out all day and a lot of them are local drivers who will be sitting in rush hour also after getting off of work in their own cars theres really not an abundance of trucks during rush hour compared to the middle of the day.but i guarantee you half of the 20-40 k cars will be in at rush hour.we need infrastructure to be built for 10000to 20000 additional car trips a dayat least .and our local port isn't huge land mass wise they just move a lot of containers quickly.the most productive port in the usa.as for the predictions for the next 10 plus years with the widening of the panama canal.the port in north charleston and a port in jasper will be needed.you have a lot of west coast ships sitting for weeks to be unloaded that will be able to fit the canal wick will save them a week or more worth of fuel alone.

Posted by Horratio on October 17, 2007 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't get the argument that port overdevelopement with 7ooo more truck trips PER DAY is ok since we have residential overdevelopement too with too many more car trips per day too? Seems to me all the more reason to stop port overdevelopement and residential overdevelopement too. I can agree with you that we also need to reign in residential and other overdevelopement. Your logic here is like saying that you're already getting too fat so its ok to go ahead and eat more candy bars.? Makes since to you? Not me.

And don't you think more port overdevelopement then fuels more residential developement and compounds our biggest problem? Of course you do. I keep hearing all the grandiose indirect spinoff developement that occurs from more port and I even believe half of it. But that still compounds the problem.

Posted by Horratio on October 17, 2007 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And as far as comparing the ethics of studies from a small non profit environmental group with a budget of peanuts to that of the SC State Ports Authority with annual revenues of about 100 million; an agency for whom taxpayors have donated valuble waterfront land tax free; to whom the public entrusts 100's of millions of our taxpayer money for infrastrucure; an agency which actually can condemn your land if they deem its best for their very narrow purpose of growing port and economy;--well I beg to differ on your conclusion that its ok for the SPA to cook up numbers and give false representations in order to more easily get what they want.Even if some small non profit does it. Which by the way, I haven't seen any CCL consultants in jail for fraud and falsifying documents to a federal agency. Have you? If so , please tell us about it.

When a small non profit brings out a study, no one takes them serious anyway. They have to struggle to be heard and sometimes what they say is even true.

But people used to trust the SPA.We should have confidence we can trust major studies done by our state agency. Now thanks to your insight, we know we have to assume the SPA tells us the same garbage as any other pro bussiness growth chamber of commerce cheerleader.

But we have every right to expect better of them. I don't trust my tax dollars with the ccl or Dana beach. I have to trust them with the SPA. They continually violate that trust and laugh about it because no one can fire them. That is the true travesty here.

And you might want to live in a big metropolus with all the deisel pollution, traffic and crime that Charleston will become but I would prefer to take Charleston in a better direction. Three or 4 million people may be fine for Charlotte or Atlanta or even for Sav if they want it but that will be a tragedy here.

Just because the port is good doesn't mean we have to keep expanding it. Charleston has enough port and more port just fuels us further into overdevelopement. We have plenty of port jobs and, with the forseeable maritime growth that you predict, they are not in any danger.Which city do you want your kid's kids to grow up in?

Posted by trod on October 17, 2007 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I personally don't think either the port or housing developments should be stopped.i do think our local leaders should be building roads that fit projected growth for the next 15-20 years not 10 years behind like they do.as for both parties studies they lean the way that party wants which is no big surprise.i would have had the port develop Daniel island but only on condition that they gave up the north charleston port the, navy base Columbus street terminal and part of union pier.keeping the cruise line part it brings tourists whom help our fellow citizens lively hood.i never said it was ok to cook numbers.im not saying they dont cause pollution either but they have made great strides to cut it down.i mean anyone can see ports will grow world wide more people consume more goods ect.i gotta get some go juice{coffee}will finish this in a bit.

Posted by trod on October 17, 2007 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The whole thing is if our leaders would have been building roads like they should have instead of petty projects we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.as well as the local greenies not wanting new highways built to sustain the traffic not to mention a safe quick hurricane evacuation route.i do think the port needs expansion but i also think we need the infrastructure to handle the traffic.this is a direct result of our local leaders not doing their job for decades.

Posted by icbmman on October 17, 2007 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, ya'll, an excellent discussion here. All of you have made some terrific points.

Horratio, I want my kids to grow in a thriving, prosperous city that has many different opportunities to choose from for future careers, but also with a high quality of life. The bottomline is that no city is prosperous if its growth is stagnant. Go to some small towns in the state that have basically remained the same in terms of population, and you will see what I'm talking about. As a city, you're either growing or dying.

I understand your concerns with the SPA continuing to use numbers from Parrish, but math is math. Manipulating numbers to get the best result is practically a tradition of doing business. Regardless of who did the study, the results would probably be similar, and regardless of the STUDIES, looking at other ports and their expansions demonstrate that Chas better grow, or it will suffer a similar fate to struggling ports like Georgetown and Brunswick. Alot of good it is for Georgetown to have such a beautiful landscape when not many people live there since there are no jobs!

Truthseeker, very good point about Virginia's port expansion. Their new Norfolk facility indeed makes our port an obsolete system. As far as the new Jasper facility, I think the SPA didn't want a private firm to build there, because they know that they CAN'T compete with the private industry! They're so strangled with bureaucracy and inefficient decision making, the private port would hurt them significantly.

Posted by jnot on October 17, 2007 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

icbmman... the thing i took away from watching the press conf. video on their site is not that the numbers were manipulated, but that they were the wrong numbers. the study wasn't about the impact of a new port but what would happen if the port went away altogether. there was some analogy about road building that i didn't quite get but the point wasn't that they finessed the numbers the point was that they asked the wrong question. i'm sure the port has some sort of possitive affect on my life in some way shape or form, but i'd be a lot more comfortable with the expansion if someone would do a study that explained that to me, not just tried to make up crap so their own lives improved with the better cash-flow.

Posted by truthseeker on October 17, 2007 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Parish/CSU study was based on what would happen if the S.C. ports completely shut down in 2002 and we never built another port for the next 33 years. By asking the wrong question, you could show a lot of jobs lost in our state.

the problem is why did our state agency go along with this con man's logic when in reality we had the choice of letting a private company basically double our state's port capacity at little cost to the taxpayer. they did not study that option but chose the doomsday scenario- and hoped no one would question it. Why ?

Posted by trod on October 17, 2007 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well the fact that you wouldn't want competition to hurt your business.even though it is a quasi state entity it is a business and the idea is to make money while providing good service to your customers.the other company is not the state port it is ssa.it would only handle lines that use its stevedoring services under a bid contract several lines run their own operations on port property .which are not affiliated with ssa or the scspa .you would actually have to be in the business to understand it all its complicated to explain things aren't as easy as they seem.mearsk ,evergreen cosco and acs all run their own operation with only one of them tied to ssa{acs}mearsk runs its own and evergreen and cosco lines are run by another company named Ceres.the port handles several lines their selves while still using and working with all of theses company's to a degree.so to say it would double our state ports capacity wouldn't be true it would only be business for a private company . as close to Georgia as it would be would probably fall under Georgia's local union for work there by taking a lot of jobs from south Carolinians im not sure what he mileage limits are in their unions contract so im assuming its close to or just like our own hear in Charleston so this may not be entirely accurate.

Posted by Horratio on October 17, 2007 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is wrong for a state agency to use a bogus study and purposefully misrepresent the results of the bogus study in order to secure more taxpayer money from our legislators. Even if they feel their pet project is important to them, they are just plane wrong for doing it. And its not the first time the current top SPA execs have done this. In fact they show a consistent pattern of it. They need to go because at this point they actually hurt the port industry. There is a serious credability problem here. Some " honorable" people in port related bussiness know this is very dishonorable stuff. They know it is wrong but they continue to allow it to happen because it helps their industry and pocket book. Not only is that selfish,but because they continue to turn a blind eye for reasons of personal greed or fear, it makes them just as guilty.

I am sorry but you don't have to have continual port growth and continual residential developement to have a healthy and vibrant city with a multitude of job choices and a high quality of life. In fact , when you reach a certain point,you must control over growth in these areas in order to fulfill that dream. It may be difficult for some of you to comprehend, but there are numerous healthier sustainable areas of growth that have nothing to do with out of proportion port growth or runaway residential developement.

BTW, comparing estuary micro ports like Georgetown and Beaufort to real port destinations is just idiotic. Those ports, geographically, are in a different category and not realistic major terminals. To insinuate that they died because they didn't expand is just plan dumb. Charleston port is in no danger of whithering and dying if it doesn't grow. It will continue to do just fine. Even better than most since it has all the automatic taxpayer support. And if a private company can do it better and cheaper, why not let them do it better and cheaper? Then we all win. Come on this is America for Petes sake.

Posted by trod on October 17, 2007 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Most studies that have been done either for or against the port are stretched and far fetched to say the least.point is you are antiport period and i am proport period .as ports go you are either growing or you are shrinking.your exactly right it shouldn't be runaway growth thats why the port was denied Daniel island and should be granted to build at the old navy base a smaller less intrusive terminal than the global gateway that was planned for years at the blessing of your local politicians after the navy yard closed until it became obvious that the ravenel real estate ventures and friends could make a bunch of money off that land which is one of the main reasons it wasn't developed or are we naive enough to believe our politicians really care what we think please.if they cared what was happening to us wed have adequate roads right now and our children would have had new buses long ago.as for doing it cheaper nope not cheaper or better the equipment operators at the port and the ila workers are the reason Charleston is a force because of their productivity.ships sit less time at the dock in Charleston period which is cost effective for all involved.no one and i mean no one puts as many containers an hour on or off ships as Charleston which is due to our local labor force if others could do it they would have.pride is what drives the charleston labor.

Posted by Horratio on October 17, 2007 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thats fantastic. Then you have absolutly nothing to fear from a larger private port in Jasper County that doesn't require tax money. Or, if the state feels it best to shun the ssa, then develope Jasper with GA but split the cost AND coordinate Chas and SAv so they don't underbid each other. Either way with that, the state gets all the port expansion it needs for the next mellinium, and we can save the navy base for a time after we get the road improvements we need.

BTW I have tremendous respect for what the crane opertaors can do, and I am absolutly not anti port. I am anti current SPA executives because of how they have acted over the past 10 years. We deserve better. Although we have fast crane times and ship turn around, the containers sit forever in the yard. Whats up with that? Frankly, I am not aware of any "studies" done by "the greenies" Can you show me some? The only other studies I have seen were done for the eis by SPA or for CORP.

We do disagree on the need for expansion in Charleston. We also disagree that ports must expand or shrink. That just doesn't make any sence. In fact if there were a greater shortage of terminals, all ports could charge a more reasonable fee than the pitiful returns they now get per container. Supply/demand is a real concept. If the Chas port didn't grow physically, that doesn't mean it would shrink. It means the facilities we have now would be busier than ever and the Chas port would, on paper, look even more effecient because each birth would be utilized more often.

Posted by beespencer on October 17, 2007 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What about the logistics center coming to Santee? I think it would help some of the overcrowding at the SPA in the future. But the state need the address the highway issue with the increase traffic from the port to Santee.

Posted by truthseeker on October 17, 2007 at 11:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

a good healthy dialogue gentlemen. what about just leasing out the terminals here in Charleston to private companies like the top 2 ports do on the west coast? Just cut S.C. taxpayers a check every month for using the terminals - so much a box with a minimum amount of return per year per berth per acre?

It would be the same jobs and same activity - the SPA would not have to make up their little silly parish reports and the silly wasteful advertising all around the state.

Let the taxpayers clip coupons and let the private market fund and operate the facilities.

If we were in a fiscally conservative state this could happen!

Posted by truthseeker on October 17, 2007 at 11:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

a good healthy dialogue gentlemen. what about just leasing out the terminals here in Charleston to private companies like the top 2 ports do on the west coast? Just cut S.C. taxpayers a check every month for using the terminals - so much a box with a minimum amount of return per year per berth per acre?

It would be the same jobs and same activity - the SPA would not have to make up their little silly parish reports and the silly wasteful advertising all around the state.

Let the taxpayers clip coupons and let the private market fund and operate the facilities.

I sure wish we were in a fiscally conservative state this could happen!

Posted by trod on October 18, 2007 at 1:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Not anti port my mistake i misinterpreted you.well the contain the port websites links are not functioning there were several things that were misrepresented there a few years ago.but to see if there there still the links must work ill try them again tomorrow.but to be fair most of anything they linked that i had proof wasn't true they changed in a week or so.but there were still a few that weren't.they do lease the yards to mearsk acs cosco and evergreen.they just charge for equipment/operator rental use to these guys .as for charges they do charge company's after a container{box} has been sitting there for more than a few days and it increases for everyday after.realistically there stacking the boxes as high as they can 7 high on empty s and 4 and 5 high on loads .im sure north Charleston has a rail link maybe they could say an ex amount of containers must be moved by rail like20- 25 percent or something .that would surly cut the truck trips by close to a couple of thousand less than originally thought.

Posted by trod on October 18, 2007 at 1:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OH yeah im not rereading but heres something some asked or mentions. "In other port capacity news, the governors of Georgia and South Carolina announced an effort to explore cooperative development of a marine terminal in Jasper County on the South Carolina side of the Savannah River." just an fyi

Posted by charleston on October 18, 2007 at 4:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Horratio, thanks for your comments I share your perspective. The trident county area needs a breather to refocus on what it envisions for itself in ten-twenty years. I don't buy the fear pitch that the port must grow in order to be viable, quite the contrary.

Posted by truthseeker on October 18, 2007 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is the www.containtheport.com link someone mentioned

quite a bit on parish on this site fyi

Posted by icbmman on October 18, 2007 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I must say that this has been the best discussion on a comment board in the P & C. Very productive and informative.

That being said, Horratio, I don't recall that I degraded any of your arguments as being dumb. As a matter of fact, you're completely wrong with those comments. Geographically, Port Royal has a better harbor and closer to I-95 than Chas is. The problem is that more money was not invested into expansion. Touche, Georgetown may have been a bad example, but what proves my point is looking at other port cities. ALL of them are expanding, because the economy is becoming more globalized. Imports and exports are increasing at higher levels each year, and every port is prepared to take in these ships. What is stupid is for the port of Charleston to do just carry on with business as usual. That's just not good business sense.

The cities and state governments should quit diddling and start infrastructure construction to improve traffic and the quality of life in the metro area, no doubt. But you can't dictate to a business to stop growing.

I do like truthseeker's idea...privatization would help untie some of the bureaucracy in the port.

Posted by trod on October 18, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Truth seeker i cant get the archives link to work there at that site but there is plenty of parish stuff on front page.the other crud that they were spewing evidently was taken down.did it work for you i may need to try it in explorer instead of mozilla .

Posted by Horratio on October 18, 2007 at 10:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Very Sorry Ichman, For a moment I thought you said this:

Posted by icbmman (anonymous) on October 16, 2007 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said, trod. Beach and his idiotic organization continue to cry about anything new that would benefit the economy and industries of the Charleston area, and they just need to shut up.

Posted by Horratio on October 18, 2007 at 11:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And to put it as nicly as I can, The port at Port Royal didn't close because they didn't expand. They closed because the people there didn't want it anymore.Not just didn't want it to expand. Didn't want it at all. You have to ask yourself why.

Look I know you are employed by a Port industry. A fine industry. And I also appreciate the dialogue.

But the argument that the port in Charleston must continually expand or it will all just some how have to shut down is just wrong.

It will continue to do fine without expansion. Your argument says if it doesn't expand it just dies. Not only is such an argument completly unfounded, but what happens in 20 years when that port is full. Will it die then? So whats the use? It can't expand after the Navy base. So in your eyes its going to die 20 years from now anyway? So lets save the trouble and just close it all now right? Well I'd prefer to keep it around. If the current people can't seem to keep the port healthy without expansion, than there are plenty of others who can.

No we all know the port will do fine if it doesn't expand. We all know traffic will be signifiacantly worse if it does. Air pollution will also be dramatically worse but I don't expect you will buy into any of that. Point is, because you feel your personal wealth is tied to this port expansion, you are willing to sacrifice those things for yourself and everyone else in Charleston. And I understand that completly. But I don't work for the port, so I am not willing to sacrifice traffic and pollution and uncontrolled growth of the city I love for your pocket book.

And So we agree to disagree. Its pretty much that simple.
I wish you peace and understanding and wish the same for myself.--HH

Posted by icbmman on October 18, 2007 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ah, parsing arguments, are we? I stand true to that statement. I made a legitimate observation on Beach and his organization, and I backed up my analysis with some rather common sense knowledge that most OTHER cities seem to realize. My point with you is that I think I made a legitimate observation with other ports, and you called my argument dumb...which it really isn't, if you think about it. I did concede on the Georgetown port. BTW, what proof do have for your statement that if the Chas port does not expand, it will not "die" or suffer economic loss? What is acceptable to you then, maintaining the status quo?

Common sense...such a rare, precious commodity these days.

Posted by icbmman on October 18, 2007 at 11:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, I'm in the healthcare industry in Columbia. Again, your logic defies common business sense. Here's the bottomline: if Chas does not expand and prepare itself for future port growth, it will eventually be passed over for quicker, bigger, and more viable ports along the East coast. Ask any shipping company, and they'll admit it. No SUCCESSFUL business has ever remained successful maintaining its status quo and not changing or expanding.

I guess we'll agree to disagree. Thanks.

Posted by Horratio on October 19, 2007 at 12:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Columbia? Oh good, you wont have to worry yourself with our traffic or air pollution. So glad your kids get to grow up the way you wanted. Health care industry? Good, Your kids will have a much better chance of not getting deisel induced asthma in Columbia than mine.

But why would ships pass us up if we were quicker, more effecient, cost competitive? We can be all that without expansion. Nothing can expand forever. That's death too.

If we are running out of port space on the east coast, shipping companies will need every birth they can get. Especially the convenient and effecient ones like Charleston.

So if we eventually grow from the current 40% capacity to maximal capacity, what would we care if some ships pass us by? We are at maximal capacity! Be Happy to reach maximal capcity. Lets celebrate! Lets raise our rates! Lets make more money per container than any other port so we can pay those great crane operators more! Meanwhile, the other ports that grew too fast will be making less per container because of higher overhead. Those poor operators wont make near as much. Our workers will be able to work fewer hours and make more money because we are at maximal capacitty/utilization/effeciency.

I feel i have a little common sence too. I even have a little bussiness sence. And I believe in the law of supply and demand. At least when private industry is allowed to do its thing.

I agree with you about bussiness having to adapt and change to stay successful. For the past 60 years the staus quo in the port industry has been to force big expensive expansions, heavily subsidized by the taxpayor, instead of implementing greater effecincies. With the power of the government behind you, it was easier to expand than become effecient. That has been the staus quo.Get half full, its time to expand again by golly.

Now its time to change. The cities who figure that out first will have the most viable ports AND the most livable cities. The ones that don't are stuck with neither.

Posted by trod on October 19, 2007 at 5:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ILL get some solid numbers today.before i post again.charleston is actually getting a few new/expanded services from savanah.but im not sure what or how much .theres a difference between max capacity and max working capacity.

Posted by truthseeker on October 19, 2007 at 6:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Trod,
What capacity do you think the Charleston port is currently operating at now? 90% of maximum capacity ? 50% ? Give us some help here with some solid numbers. That would be good for everyone to know.
Thanks

Posted by icbmman on October 19, 2007 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Horratio, if you think Cola is so good, you want to switch homes with me? I actually don't like it up here. Chas is my hometown, and I grew up West Ashley without any problems with pollution. Cola is landlocked, gets hotter than hell, consistently posts WORSE air quality than Chas (seabreezes always help), and the traffic is horrendous here because nobody knows how to drive. Cola was rated as the worst place to drive in the nation by Men's Journal. My kids would get bored up here because there is no beach, no major rivers, and hardly any pools to swim in!

Your last post makes you sound more like an extreme alarmist, unless you have diesel-induced asthma or if your kids do. But if you live close to the ports and industry plants, that will probably happen: your risk goes up. Maybe you should move to other parts of Chas like West Ashley, James Island, Johns Island, or even Mt. P. It sounds like you're equivocating the traffic and pollution of Chas with LA, which is just ridiculous, IMO. Have you been to LA? Go there sometime, and I think you'll change your mind about Chas.

Posted by Horratio on October 19, 2007 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, sorry about Columbia.

I love Charleston but I'm not sure I'll be able to say that 20 years from now. Of course if I'm still alive, I'll be ooold and it wont matter for me. But I would love to think my kids' kids will think its still a beautiful place to live in their day. In order for that to happen it is up to us now and here. Its what we decide today. We had it great growing up here. Don't we have a responcibility to be sure we can pass it on that way?

We are looking more like Columbia every year (or Charlotte or Anywhereville concrete spagetti sprawl).

Actually Charleston air is gettig worse. Apparantly much of the Pollution in LA actually is port related. Just google LA port air pollution and you will be amazed. My fear is that we are headed that way. Doubling ship and truck volume here over the next 20 years sure aint going to help.

Yes the people closest to ships/ports/highways are most effected by the pollution but it also hangs over the whole city for days. If you come over the Ravenel Bridge, you can see the brown haze hanging over West Ashly now already. The sea breeze of late afternoon in summer months aint enough and often doesnt make it more than a few miles inland. Asthma rates in children are directly related to this. Some people just dont wont to admit it yet. Its like where smoking hazards warnings were 20 years ago. It takes a long time for idustry to admit to these effects.

Posted by trod on October 19, 2007 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It actually fluctuates daily and weekly.im still figuring the numbers to get you a percentage on average but it is not maxed out im guessing 75% or so and its going to go up some soon a few services from savanah are coming back.maxed out isn't good it hampers the ability to move cargo around to get to other cargo.85%to90% is fine but 100% is death. as well as makes it congested which will bring the operation to a crawl if not totally stopped.actually Horratio the port has been updating cranes from diesel to all electric which draws electricity on the up hoist and produces electricity on the way down.also have been updating equipment that is more fuel efficient .yeah theres some pollution but its been cut in half if not more .i wonder how much the papermill produces out of curiosity.

Posted by Horratio on October 19, 2007 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I certainly applaud those moves. Although negligable in terms of port pollution, it is certainly important to change out the deisel motors in the cranes for the sake of the crane operator and yard workers.

The SPA has also anoounced cleaner fuel for the yard lifts.

Both good moves but the real sorce of pollution is the ships, tugs and trucks and the port industry had been fighting tooth and nail against any regs on those.

Honestly, I'm not sure about the paper mill but my guess is that diesel from ships, trucks, as well as regular car exhaust are by far the biggest contributors locally. The ships are suppose to switch from bunker burning to cleaner burning fuels in port but as you know they often dont bother. Even their cleaner burnibg version is pretty bad--Still many times worse than the exhaust from deisel trucks which is many times worse than cars.

Regionally the biggest impact, would be the coal power plants. Of course to meet the demand for all our wonderful growth, SC looks to be building another one of those too. The maritime industry is all for it. The raw coal is shipped through Charleston too. Its all a big cycle which keeps fueling the problem exponentially. All the more reason to keep our port strong without physically expanding here any further.

When we reach 80% capacity, we should start raising our rates. I don't care how many teu's savannah or jacksonville move. So what if they move more than us. If we are already at maximal effecient capacity, who cares. We should be glad to steer our excess their way. We already won if we are nearing capacity. Time to increase the profit margin.

Its not about how many containers you move. Its how much you make on each container you move.

Or for the whole equation, its the amount you make on each container X the number of containers handled divided by the cost you create to the quality of life of the community.

In our case the denomenator has already risen to maximal allowed impact, so lets work on the numerator. Work on increasing the volume handled to that sweat spot of 85 %, then start increasing the charges per container.

Thats how we all win.

Posted by trod on October 20, 2007 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

they have raised rates i think its only 4-5 days before they charge fees per box then each additional day it gets higher and higher which is reasonable .well you figure its about 6k or so an hour per crane just to operate a ship all labor included in this figure and 10k for a berth for 24 hrs.you have to be somewhat efficient thats why services are leaving savanah for here they cant get the containers out to the customers in a timely fashion .you move more you have room for more which equals more$$.your efficiency go hand and hand with your profit as well as the closer you get to max capacity the more dangerous it is for your employees .no offense you may not care how many a teus are moved but the shippers and everyone else envolved do.as for ship burning fuel bunker fuel burns dirty and is a very black smoke .the grayish light smoke is the inshore stuff.

Posted by Horratio on October 21, 2007 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No offence taken. I appreciate your explanations. But I think you misunderstood my point.

Of course I agree that higher effeciency=higher profit.
Its important for each birth to maximize effeciency. Teu's per hour matter.

But a shipping company only cares about their own teu's. They don't care if Chas does 1.6 million teu's per year and Sav does 2.1 million. There not going to say "oh where going to SAV because they did mopre total teus eventhough chas is faster and more effecient and saves us money". As long as you handle their teu's more effeciently, they will come here.

And as you reach max capacity, it means you are so good and everyone wants to come here. You are in high demand so guess what so guess what ? You raise your handling rates! You make more per teu. All port workers make more money. Nad do so with less negative impact. And shipping compnies will pay it too. Why? Because if you turn them around in 18 hours and it takes sav 30 hours they still save a huge pile of money even if you charge them more per container.

The only way you can mess up is building too much terminal space all up and down the east coast. Thats exactly what the forign shipping companies want. Then they didtate the price to you. If you got 3 extra berths at 20% capacity, you gotta charge less to atrract those ships to try to make overhead and just hope you can break even.

More teu's per hour = more money.

But total number of teus done at the whole port per year does not necessarily determine that you are making more money. And eventually, growing too big and jamming up how fast trucks het out will choke into youe effeciency and even if the port workers have quick turn arounds, if the trucks can't get the containers out, the total port effeciency drops. So growing to big for a community could decrease effecincy too.

Posted by Horratio on October 21, 2007 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, sorry about all those typo's. I was rushing to get out this morning and typing too fast and couldn't proof.