> In a review of 351 container ports around the globe, Los Angeles was ranked 328, behind Tanzania's Dar es Salaam and Alaska's Dutch Harbor. The adjacent port of Long Beach came in even lower, at 333, behind Turkey's Nemrut Bay and Kenya's Mombasa
What's the point of naming those other ports? Like "oh we're so bad we're worse than freaking Kenya!". It's ironic.
Those are poorer countries, especially Kenya. It would be expected that they would have a harder time financing the infrastructure spending necessary to create and maintain highly efficient ports. I find it instructive to compare their ports with those of a wealthier country like the US.
I would expect the wealthiest nation on earth to naturally have some advantages over a third world country like Kenya. More resources, education, infrastructure, etc...
The point of naming those ports is to put the inefficiency of US ports into context for the lay-reader.
> I would expect the wealthiest nation on earth to naturally have some advantages over a third world country like Kenya. More resources, education, infrastructure, etc...
Indeed. I had the pleasure of standing on the bridge [1] of a freighter in Tanga once as cement was loaded. (Tanga is a port roughly halfway between Mombasa and Dar es Salaam.) They didn't have containers or cranes. They loaded the cement by sliding bags down a ramp, covering their mouths with shirts to reduce dust inhalation.
Mombasa and Dar must be more modern than Tanga, as they are on a list of container ports. Still, I would expect them to be far behind California in terms of infrastructure.
[1] edit: actually, quarter deck, maybe? It wasn't the enclosed part. I don't know ship terms.
It's been a considerable time since any comparable event in a US port. Galveston (1947) and Port Chicago (1944) come to mind, both military cargos, during wartime.
What's the point of naming those other ports? Like "oh we're so bad we're worse than freaking Kenya!". It's ironic.