Proposed cost increase to transit Panama Canal

[mat jam]

I assume the main reason is due to decreasing ship traffic and decreasing revenues. Every corp, org, country, is bankrupt. Do not believe the news. We are in a major worldwide downturn and it will only get worse. And the drama playing out in the news is just cover. Everyone is resorting to outright highway robbery. It has been apparent for some time but this year is just plain in your face.
You should try and enjoy things while you can cause it is going to get very real and in your face in short order.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by mat jam

I assume the main reason is due to decreasing ship traffic and decreasing revenues. Every corp, org, country, is bankrupt. Do not believe the news. We are in a major worldwide downturn and it will only get worse. And the drama playing out in the news is just cover. Everyone is resorting to outright highway robbery. It has been apparent for some time but this year is just plain in your face.
You should try and enjoy things while you can cause it is going to get very real and in your face in short order.

Except...here in the real world in Panama ship transits are up as is revenue.

[mat jam]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

Except...here in the real world in Panama ship transits are up as is revenue.

You mean a slight uptick from a major downturn?

Suggest you study the larger picture.

[Boatguy30]

Regardless of who "owns" the canal. Yacht fees have increased substantially faster than ship fees.

My guess is they can only operate the new panamax locks are an economic loser and they have to exploit the stuff they never paid for to stay afloat.

[ahun]

Money making exercise? All the transiting yachts put together (there is a reliable statistic, about 800) make hardly as much money for the canal as two big ships do. Some of those pay half a million in US dollars, with not much more trouble caused.
Not that I am pro increase, just sayin'

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

Regardless of who "owns" the canal. Yacht fees have increased substantially faster than ship fees.

My guess is they can only operate the new panamax locks are an economic loser and they have to exploit the stuff they never paid for to stay afloat.

Yachts account for a fraction of both traffic and revenue. They could quadruple the fees for small boats and it would make no tangible difference in Canal financials.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Brewgyver

And well they should, as they're new, not designed 120ish years ago. But 40% of the volume of the new locks is MORE THAN 100% of the old locks! So, if they had the same number of cycles, the canal would now be dumping more than twice as much fresh water as it used to. Of course, this doesn't account for displacement variables.

Ever since I was a kid, I wondered how the canal could operate on 100% gravity-fed fresh water, it was astounding. The truth is, it couldn't, on an unlimited basis, in any given few years, with the rainfall variable. The canal had water shortages back in the 1930's, barely 20 years into operation, that required the construction of another dam to create an additional reservoir.

Does it help to make up facts?

[AiniA]

My experience with the PC was overwhelmingly positive. We ended up only paying the $800, it would have been $3000 if we were 18" longer. I wonder what the 50'+ fee will be with this proposal. They could have made it less bureaucratic (but provided fewer jobs) by eliminating the admeasuref and even the advisors. I have done the St Lawrence Seaway and Welland Canal locks which are almost as big and more numerous and you do not use or need an advisor. Both of our advisors were hours late. The first day's guy was helpful, the second day guy asked how the first day went. When we said it was fine he settled in with his newspapers and pretty much ignored us. Because he and his colleagues on the other two boats were so late we missed our freighter. The advisor has us motor sailing to catch up but that did not work. We did the last three locks with just the three sailboats.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by mat jam

You mean a slight uptick from a major downturn?

Suggest you study the larger picture.

Let me guess, the finacials posted by the Panama Canal Authority are just part of a massive misinformation scheme?

[Brewgyver]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Does it help to make up facts?

What do you think I made up? The info is out there, not hard to find. And by info I NO NOT mean quoting newspaper articles.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by Brewgyver

What do you think I made up? The info is out there, not hard to find. And by info I NO NOT mean quoting newspaper articles.

The old locks are 110' wide and 1050' long. To raise or lower anything by a foot takes 110X1050X1=115,500 cubic feet of water. The new locks are 180' wide by 1400' long. To raise or lower anything by a foot in them will use 180X1400*1=252,000 cubic feet of water. Both locks have to raise/lower the same total number of feet.
If you take 40% of 252,000 you get 100,800. You will observe that 100,800<115,500, which is the volume for every foot raised/lowered in the old locks. So in fact "40% of the volume of the new locks is MORE THAN 100% of the old locks" does not appear to be a factually correct statement, based on math and all.

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by Brewgyver

Did you read the whole article? Like the part about the other end of the rainfall spectrum, in the same decade, with the lakes overflowing from too much rain? That's why these matters are looked at using averages over longer periods of time. Also, it was pointed out that the drought was mainly affecting the expansion locks, where there are no smaller boats at all, and this thread is about those smaller boats.

Yes, I did and did you know that Climate Change, Global Warming, is causing more extremes in weather. More droughts, more floods, stronger hurricanes and the list goes on. It doesn't matter what the average rainfall is if it all comes down in a deluge and ends up running off.

The article was more about the ships having to reduce their loads so as to not run aground and my comments were about the raise in fees to cruising boats as a result of (maybe) the climate crises.

Cheers.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Brewgyver

What do you think I made up? The info is out there, not hard to find. And by info I NO NOT mean quoting newspaper articles.

The part I bolded is not a fact.

[Brewgyver]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

The old locks are 110' wide and 1050' long. To raise or lower anything by a foot takes 110X1050X1=115,500 cubic feet of water. The new locks are 180' wide by 1400' long. To raise or lower anything by a foot in them will use 180X1400*1=252,000 cubic feet of water. Both locks have to raise/lower the same total number of feet.
If you take 40% of 252,000 you get 100,800. You will observe that 100,800<115,500, which is the volume for every foot raised/lowered in the old locks. So in fact "40% of the volume of the new locks is MORE THAN 100% of the old locks" does not appear to be a factually correct statement, based on math and all.

The new locks are larger in all three dimensions, including depth, to accommodate deeper draft vessels, not just longer and wider. The new locks are almost 50% deeper. So, even though the elevation gain remains the same, and not 100% of the lock's volume is lost in the cycle, I suspect that my claim is accurate.

[Brewgyver]

Originally Posted by Paul L

The part I bolded is not a fact.

The part you bolded was a conditional statement, note the word "IF"

And given that the aim of the new locks is to greatly increase the number and size of ships that can and will use the canal, it's a pretty safe bet that that increased traffic, and the additional locks, are a bigger factor on the fresh water consumption than the occasional drought.