>>1980964>Wow, expert analysis right there.Yeah, 100% availability is way better than 83% availability.
>Problem is Los Angeles right now has a traffic jam of ships waiting to offload and container parking times are very high meaning containers wait months to move anyways, so cargo isn’t moving fast there either.This is not new and it's not unique to the US. Pic rel. But port delays are typically under a week for major US ports, interestingly the inland port of Minneapolis has delays of >3 weeks.
>Again you’re not since regional shipping relies on port hopping for maximizing efficiencyHow?
>We’re talking about the feasibility of regionally moving containers from domestic ports to spread out traffic.You are talking about that. I'm not sure what that statement even means. However, I've been clear that I'm only referring to your original argument about moving containers from Great Lakes ports to Europe.
>You’re also a shill for railways and truckingThey're just better for moving containers unless there is literally no land to for them to run on. Finished goods and perishables are time sensitive and inland waterways cannot compete there.
>my American nationalityLol Vihaan
>the current US port problem isn’t artificially produced by governmentI don't see how it is. Every port has a capacity limit, if traffic exceeds that there will be delays.
>Also no, building a whole new rail line or highway isn’t affordableI didn't argue for that. I emphasized that capacity can be added to existing rail lines and highways. I touched on this in the first paragraph here:
>>1980828 