The San Joaquin Valley grasslands, miles from the ocean or any navigable river, might seem an odd place to put a port. But there, along Interstate 5 just north of the Grapevine, sits the Tejon Industrial Complex. Resembling a gargantuan freeway rest stop, the sprawling warehouse park calls itself an "inland port" and is one of several ambitious efforts throughout Southern California to relieve chronic congestion at the Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors.
The high desert towns of Victorville, Palmdale and Lancaster are among those similarly trying to position themselves to grab some of the region's growing cargo business and bring in steady jobs. Right now, inland ports are little more than a regional planning concept in which cargo-processing complexes would hug freeways, rail lines and airports instead of waterways. Such operations would differ from warehouse complexes or industrial parks because of the transportation and shipping services offered to tenants, such as a dedicated rail line or luxe trucker amenities.
Although most of the freight would still flow through the Southern California seaports, recurring logjams would be eased by swiftly moving cargo containers from crowded harbor terminals where the boxes commonly sit for days, proponents say.
But shipping lines and retailers, among others, are skeptical about the concept, wondering whether it would ease congestion or merely add another step. "We understand the urgent need to find ways to accommodate the anticipated growth of cargo, and inland ports could well be part of that solution," said Tupper Hull, spokesman for the Pacific Merchant Shipping Assn., which represents the ocean carriers and terminal operators that move more than 90% of the containerized cargo in the U.S. "But the concern is simply that every time you touch a container, the cost and the price of the goods inside goes up. The goal is to touch them as few times as possible."
I'm glad you mentioned that. Perhaps the hardest hit will be for companies that have very little to do with oil.jaws wrote:As income falls, the proportion of luxury goods consumed falls much faster than that of necessities. The first thing people are going to cut back on are expensive vacations, gourmet coffee and other staples of the service economy.....
cube wrote:I'm glad you mentioned that. Perhaps the hardest hit will be for companies that have very little to do with oil.jaws wrote:As income falls, the proportion of luxury goods consumed falls much faster than that of necessities. The first thing people are going to cut back on are expensive vacations, gourmet coffee and other staples of the service economy.....
Let's use my favorite example Starbucks. I've mentioned in an earlier thread that the cost of oil makes up a very small percentage of Starbuck's expenses. The cost of fossil fuels necessary to spray the coffee fields with fertilizer and pesticides is negliable compared to a $3 cup of coffee. Sure you can argue there are more expenses like transportation and electricity to run the espresso machine...but even if you nickle and dime everything out the cost of oil is still a drop in the bucket.
However once PO hits the first thing people are going to cut back on are the "unnecessary" things in life and with that said Satrbucks is probably on the top of the "marked for death" hit list. It should be noted that there are always going to be rich people who will maintain a certain lifestyle no matter how bad the economy gets because they have more money then they know what to do with it. But going to Starbucks is a "middleclass luxury". I think the middle class will be the hardest hit when PO looms around the corner.
I remember back in the late 80's to early 90's when going to nite clubs was the "popular" thing to do. "Clubbing" was the term used. That was were you were suppose to "pick up" girls and usually that meant paying for some overpriced drink at the bar.ohanian wrote:.....
What you meant to say is that in the post Peak Oil world, the way to pick up girls is to drink coffee in Starbucks and to buy the girls plastic mugs of coffee in Starbucks.
Because only people who drives red porche can afford to drink coffee in Starbucks in the future.
eastbay wrote:In this order:
1. Air travel
2. Auto manufacturing
3. Tourism
4. Everything else will start crumbling together soon afterwards.
Why? No more cheap oil.
EastBay
JoeW wrote:eastbay wrote:In this order:
1. Air travel
2. Auto manufacturing
3. Tourism
4. Everything else will start crumbling together soon afterwards.
Why? No more cheap oil.
EastBay
I understand the logic, but disagree with #2. I think that big increases in gasoline expenses for commuters will result in windfall profits to automakers who can take SUVs as trade-ins for small cars. The gap between large car prices and small car prices will decrease.
And guess what? The large cars ain't gettin' any cheaper.
If you have ever read Dr. Seuss's "The Sneetches," you will get the idea. Just because carmakers get big profits out of SUV's right now doesn't mean that they can't get big profits out of small cars in the future.
Real life example:
Bob currently pays $450/mo for his Ford Extortion (15mpg, he drives 1500 miles/month). Gasoline suddenly spikes to $3/gallon and he is now paying $300/mo for gasoline, making his total monthly auto expenses $750/mo. Because of the crazy fuel expense, it makes sense to trade in the Extortion for the new Ford Sensible, which gets 30mpg (thereby saving him $150/mo in gas!) even if the transaction results in a monthly payment of $550. He would still be saving $50/mo.
There could even be a scenario where someone's monthly gasoline savings equal the payment on the trade-in. The money you save in gas could pay for the car.
As oil becomes a more valuable commodity, so too will efficient transportation.
I see your logic but I'd have to dissagree. Once PO hits the first thing people are going to do is try to minimize their expenses. I see 3 options for the average person:JoeW wrote:.......
I understand the logic, but disagree with #2. I think that big increases in gasoline expenses for commuters will result in windfall profits to automakers who can take SUVs as trade-ins for small cars. The gap between large car prices and small car prices will decrease.
And guess what? The large cars ain't gettin' any cheaper.
If you have ever read Dr. Seuss's "The Sneetches," you will get the idea. Just because carmakers get big profits out of SUV's right now doesn't mean that they can't get big profits out of small cars in the future.
......
cube wrote:3) Buy a used compact car. You save on the car and on the gas.
I think option 3 will be the most popular. If PO were to hit tomorrow anybody who has a 1994 honda civic hatchback for sale will have something to smile about.
I don't see a bright future for auto makers. The profit margins on a smaller car like a hybrid is just not as sweet as an SUV even though the two cars may be priced the same.
Sunspot wrote:We're gonna attack Iran, seemingly. Or Israel is. Iran produces about 5% of the world's oil. If that gets knocked off the market for any period of time, prices will skyrocket, and the economy(s) will crash.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests