If We Want Jax to Thrive Then We Must Support JAXPORT

[brucef58]

Quote by Dr. Jaffe copied verbatim:  In terms of the estimated costs and benefits, one must keep in mind that Martin Associates, as well as the peer review by a UNF economist of the Martin Associates model, was paid for by Jaxport. These are neither independent nor are they cost-benefit analyses. They are economic impact studies commissioned by an entity that uses the numbers to support its lobbying efforts at obtaining public taxpayer support.

Dr. Jaffe:

Are you suggesting that you colleague Dr. Mason sold out to JAXPORT?  Is he willing to injure his academic standing to support a study that did not use the proper methodology?  If this is true for Dr. Mason, then is not true that your numbers and data were keyed in to specifically get a result that would oppose further dredging?  Have any of your arguments included census data that Florida is growing to 23 million people by 2020.  That is an increase in population of almost 8.5 %.  That demand needs to go somewhere.
Every port on the east coast has some issue to growing their number of TEUs handled.  JAXPORT has the resources, land and ability to overcome these issues better than any other port with the exceptions of Halifax and Freeport, both of which are in other countries.

[brucef58]

Yes many appropriations are made in a FY such as 2013 and the funds are then held by either the state of the authority until the project is completed.  I am not certain but it is likely the other $32 million went to rebuilding the Blount Island docks which are 50 years and in need of serious repair.

[brucef58]

Quote by Ocklawaha: 90% of TEUs are 40' long, exactly 2x the length of their namesake (so 90% of the containers being shipped would actually be 2 TEUs).  Other lengths are 45' and longer, some are 20'.  So then TEUs become a fraction.  I'd say the namesake is irrelevant at this point.

The TEU is unit of measurement.  Most containers go on a standard trailer chassis and are 53' and if they are of the standard height would be 2.65 TEUs (this varies and is not always the case).  There are containers that are 20' and then if you have ever watched an FEC train they have many containers that are 1/2 the standard trailer height or less.  When they are handles by the port their size is recorded and then they go into statistics.

[Ocklawaha]

Yes and no Simms, the name is not irrelevant, of course there still are many 20' foot standard containers = TEU. However the TEU is more a measure of a space for a box 20' long, not so much the box itself, thus ship capacity is measured in TEU's. Larger Containers are not a standard size either, sometimes running 40' sometimes 45', there are other considerations such as 'high cube', refrigerated and other special containers, a business that will continue to grow as the shift continues.

This was my quote, the 90% quote was from Simms.

This feels like a cheap shot, or is it just my sensitivities???

Simms, you say horrible grammar, improper points, fallacies in the argument, and uneducated opinion played off as fact. Which is simply unfair and unjust, I defer to Mark Twain:

"Anyone who can only think of one way to spell a word obviously lacks imagination."
― Mark Twain

"I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing."
― Mark Twain

"Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld."
― Mark Twain

Twain, like Steve Jobs, was a disobedient boy (his mother described him as "very wild and mischievous") who hated school.

My wife attended OK State with me, English is not her first language though she speaks it with a barely discernible accent. She also has a rare learning disability which is something like auditory dyslexia as well as the visual type. Yet this gal made the 'Who's Who' of American Colleges and Universities for literally blowing away (She is Colombian after all) the competition and challenges of school. Quite simply, she is brilliant, but you would be challenged by her written words. No one has to be an English major to plan a walkable downtown, or a word crafter to understand the in's and outs of JAXPORT. To attack and degrade the argument of this gentleman based on your standard of grammar, improper points, fallacies in the argument, as uneducated, speaks volumes of your tolerance of others. 

[riverkeepered]

Mr. Fouraker - If you have not done so, I would encourage you to read the Mason report.   Dr. Mason's answers to the questions posed to him by Jaxport begin with an very important and telling statement: "Presuming that the inputs of the model are valid..."  This phrase or a similar one is used several times in the report.   Even if you accept the validity of the methodology used by Martin, no one has evaluated the inputs that went into the projections, including Dr. Mason and the Port. The quality and accuracy of the modeling is only as good as the inputs.

In addition, many of Martin's previous studies have received significant criticism from many qualified sources.  Dr. Jaffee could easily elaborate and provide references, if you are interested. 

Also, if you read the trade publications, Jacksonville is rarely mentioned in the same breath as New York, Norfolk, Charleston, Savannah, Miami, and even Baltimore.  That is because all of these ports are either deeper, more efficient, have secured funding, or have much better infrastructure and distribution centers.

Experts also identify minimum criteria for a post-Panamax ready (PPR) port: "channel depths of 15m (50 ft) with sufficient width and turning basin; cranes capable of loading and unloading the larger vessels; and docks engineered to handle the new, bigger cranes."  Four East Coast ports will be PPR by 2015 - Norfolk, Baltimore, Miami, and New York.  Charleston is planning to be PPR soon after.  (http://www.cre.org/memberdata/pdfs/north_american_port_analysis.pdf)  Jacksonville will probably never be 50ft and is a long way off from having the cranes and docks necessary to handle the larger ships.

Savannah has a logistics infrastructure that is superior to its competitors and is closer to Atlanta, a key distribution hub. They also have 9 Post-Panamax and 16 Super Post-Panamax cranes in operation and an unrivaled network of distribution centers (http://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/port-savannah/new-super-post-panamax-cranes-operational-port-savannah_20131024.html). The Georgia legislature has also already put aside $231 million for the dredging.

Charleston will be 50-feet, and "has the industry's most efficient loading and unloading operation, with 43 crane moves an hour, according to Colliers (Savannah is close behind at between 40 and 42 moves)."   (http://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/port-savannah/new-super-post-panamax-cranes-operational-port-savannah_20131024.html)  The Port has 8 Super Post-Panamax cranes and 10 Post-Panamax cranes.  Charleston has received a commitment from the state of S.C. to fund the entire $300 million cost, if federal funding doesn't come through.   The Port is also currently building a new $700 million terminal.

Miami will be 50-feet and has 6 Super Post-Panamax cranes and is investing $2 billion in infrastructure improvements, including on-site intermodal rail service and the Tunnel project to expedite truck traffic.

Baltimore is 50-feet, has 4 Super Post-Panamax cranes (7 Post-Panamax), and is constructing a 70-acre, $90 million dollar intermodal facility with CSX. http://businessfacilities.com/feature-story-racing-to-be-ready-u-s-ports-prepare-for-post-panamax-era/

Norfolk is 50-feet, all of its berth are also 50-feet, and has 8 Super Post-Panamax cranes.  The port "contains the APM Terminals in Portsmouth—the most technologically advanced container terminal in the world" and "construction of Craney Island Marine Terminal is underway "that will more than double the existing throughput capacity of the Port." Norfolk also "currently has service by two Class I railroads, Norfolk Southern and CSX" http://businessfacilities.com/feature-story-racing-to-be-ready-u-s-ports-prepare-for-post-panamax-era/  and CSX is currently building the $850 million National Gateway (http://www.nationalgateway.org/) that will increase the use of double-stack trains and help connect the Mid-Atlantic ports to the critical Midwestern markets.   In addition, Norfolk Southern is building the $150 million Heartland Corridor to facilitate more efficient travel from Norfolk to Chicago and Columbus and the $2.5 billion Crescent Corridor between New Jersey and New Orleans.

Savannah (60), Charleston (56), Norfolk (54), and New York (52) all rank in the top 15 ports of the Americas in berth productivity.
http://www.joc.com/sites/default/files/u59196/Whitepapers/Port_productivity/portProductivity_whitepaper.pdf

As you know, productivity and efficiency is the name of the game. 

Meanwhile, Jacksonville must first spend $38 million to fix Mile Point before doing anything else and lags far behind in infrastructure and funding. I think losing Hanjin was a big setback, as well.

There is also no guarantee that shippers will find the all-water route via the Canal cheaper or more advantageous than landing cargo on the West Coast and transporting it by rail across the country.  The land bridge is still faster, and the Canal tolls are expected to increase once again to help pay for the $5 billion expansion (they have already doubled in the last five years). Also, the West Coast Ports are pouring billions into upgrading infrastructure, becoming even more efficient. 

The Caribbean might also likely become a transshipment distribution center. The Bahamas and Jamaica are both making major investments, with the Chinese dumping millions into their distribution centers. 

Based on their research, Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue and Dr. Theo Notteboom, professors at Hofstra University and the University of Antwerp, stated: "While what is known is fairly straightforward, such as the operational characteristics of the expanded canal, it is by far supplemented by what remains uncertain—namely trade flows, shipping network configurations, and the growth of the amount of transshipment in the region." http://www.inboundlogistics.com/cms/article/panama-canal-expansion-changing-the-channel/

The bottom line is that there are too many unknowns regarding future supply chain flows and distribution and too many competitors vying for a limited amount of potential business.   With every major port on the East Coast spending hundreds of millions if not billions on infrastructure improvements, they could be engaging in a race to the bottom.  A glut of PPR ports could drive down port fees, resulting with the shippers in the driver's seat and most of the benefits and many of the ports at less than capacity with loads of debt.  This could also result in a huge waste of federal and local taxpayer dollars, since we don't need every port to be PPR.

Many experts say we only need 2-3 deep water ports on the East Coast.  When there are so many other ports with significant competitive advantages over Jax, and we have not done our due diligence to thoroughly analyze the business case for the deepening, we must ask ourselves, "Is it worth the significant environmental risk and the enormous cost?"

[finehoe]

...for literally blowing away (She is Colombian after all)...

teehee 

[riverkeepered]

While the Corps claims little impact will occur from changes in salinity, their own Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) explains the harm that is likely to occur.

"The deepened channel will allow a greater volume of seawater to penetrate up the St. Johns River. This could result in:
•   Increased tidal amplitude within the river and adjacent marshes
•   Increases in salinity within the estuary which could:
        o   Impact freshwater wetlands and submerged aquatic vegetation in areas of increased salinity.
        o   Change community composition and diversity of plant and animal communities in areas of increased salinities.
        o   Shift the location of optimal salinities for those species with salinity preferences.
•   Change water residence times, which in conjunction with salinity changes could:
        o   Alter plankton species composition and growth patterns.
        o   Alter dissolved oxygen dynamics in the river main channel" (p. 170)

The bottom line is that salinity will move farther upstream, adversely impacting hundreds of acres of wetlands and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAVs) and further stressing numerous trees in some sections of the river and its tributaries, such as Julington Creek and Ortega River.

The Corps minimizes these ecological impacts, but the EIS contains inconsistencies and questionable statements that call into question the accuracy of the models used to make the predictions.

The Corps-commissioned Independent Expert Peer Review (IEPR) underscores these concerns in their July 2013 Report:

•   Use of different salinity models for the main stem versus the tributary evaluations makes evaluating salinity effects very difficult.
•   The analysis and presentation of salinity results in the General Reevaluation Report II (GRR2) provide an incomplete understanding of the impacts of channel enlargement.

The IEPR goes on to say, "In essence, changing models reduces confidence in the earlier decision to us EFDC and, therefore, reduces confidence in its results."

In addition, the models estimate the exact same impact to wetlands (394.57 acres) and submerged aquatic vegetation (180.5 acres) for every depth analyzed (44, 45, 46, 47, and 50-ft deep channel).  This clearly demonstrates the limitation of the models.

While it is true that salinity levels naturally change by drought, etc., these changes are acute and the river biota is adapted to them. The project-related increases are chronic; i.e., long-term. They shift the baseline condition to a higher-saline regime such that acute, short-term natural changes in salinity have greater impact. In addition, forested wetlands are impacted by very small changes in salinity and those impacts may take years to see.

Once the damage is done to wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation and fisheries, it is done.  The Corps has offered no plan to mitigate for such damage and has even said that they will only "consider" taking action if they can attribute the impacts to the Port dredging.   Unfortunately, the Corps has admitted that it would be extremely difficult to ever pin the damage on the dredging due to all of the "background noise in the system" (sea level rise, drought, etc.).

Many other shortcomings exist in the environmental (and economic) analysis that has been conducted by the Corps.   This is partially due to the fact that President Obama fast-tracked the EIS, shaving 14 months off of the process and compromising the ability of the Corps to thoroughly evaluate this project.

You can learn more about the environmental concerns and read the comments submitted by St. Johns Riverkeeper regarding the EIS at - http://www.stjohnsriverkeeper.org/blog/get-the-facts-about-dredging-proposal-/.

[brucef58]

Ms. Rinaman,  I have to disagree on several points, so I guess we will agree to disagree.  Charleston has the US 17 Bridge to the east of two of its three port facilities.  It also has wetlands or development on all of its lands except maybe 200 acres including Drum Island.  This is maybe enough land to add 2 million TEUs. 

If you look at the Elba Island in the Savannah River, you will see that the channel passes very close to the LNG dock.  If a ship that is three football fields long loses control near an LNG tanker, it is a recipe for disaster.  In addition, there is no space for the port of Savannah to expand.

Regarding the channel, Savannah has a 33 mile one lane channel from the port to deep water and JAXPORT has a 13 mile two lane channel to deep water.  There is no doubt that Mile Point is being fixed and once the dredging has been completed on the 47' channel, JAXPORT will be able to handle 45' draft ships.  This puts us in a head to head completion with Savannah and with us having much better channel access to Blount Island and even New Berlin, JAXPORT is a position to win that battle.

It should be noted that the JAXPORT deepening, as a part of the Waterways bill, has been approved by both Houses and signed into law by President Obama.  While the funds are not appropriated there is approval for Florida to spend the money and then request reimbursement.   There is no reason unless the economy completely collapses that Florida should not be able to front the $684 million.

It should also be noted in the Martin and Associates Report that JAXPORT was competitive in shipping from Hong Kong to Atlanta, as well as, Singapore to Atlanta.  If a post Panamax Jacksonville versus a post Panamax Savannah, we are still competitive based on the report.

In sending containers across the United States.  Coming into the West Coast is several hundred to well over one thousand dollars more expensive. 

On the Caribbean Trans-shipment centers, the cost of lightening (yes I know this a tanker and not a container term) cargo to smaller ships is more expensive than shipping directly to the east coast.   

The Florida Ports Council estimates due to a lack of land that Miami will not be able to handle beyond 1.3 million TEUs.  The council also estimates that Port Everglades is at its maximum capacity. 

The issues with these four ports and difficulty in expansion leaves no room for very many additional TEUs to come into or out of (to serve China's emerging middle class the with US goods) Southeastern US. 

We have rail service to Blount Island and are completing the Intermodal Center in New Berlin.  This will give us an edge over many other ports in intermodal transfers.

I need to go and will discuss this further later.

BT: Was your father-in-law on the JTA Board when I served on the Citizens Committee on the ASE in the 80s?

Thanks for the dialog,

Bruce

[simms3]

Yes and no Simms, the name is not irrelevant, of course there still are many 20' foot standard containers = TEU. However the TEU is more a measure of a space for a box 20' long, not so much the box itself, thus ship capacity is measured in TEU's. Larger Containers are not a standard size either, sometimes running 40' sometimes 45', there are other considerations such as 'high cube', refrigerated and other special containers, a business that will continue to grow as the shift continues.

This was my quote, the 90% quote was from Simms.

This feels like a cheap shot, or is it just my sensitivities???

Simms, you say horrible grammar, improper points, fallacies in the argument, and uneducated opinion played off as fact. Which is simply unfair and unjust, I defer to Mark Twain:

"Anyone who can only think of one way to spell a word obviously lacks imagination."
― Mark Twain

"I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing."
― Mark Twain

"Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld."
― Mark Twain

Twain, like Steve Jobs, was a disobedient boy (his mother described him as "very wild and mischievous") who hated school.

My wife attended OK State with me, English is not her first language though she speaks it with a barely discernible accent. She also has a rare learning disability which is something like auditory dyslexia as well as the visual type. Yet this gal made the 'Who's Who' of American Colleges and Universities for literally blowing away (She is Colombian after all) the competition and challenges of school. Quite simply, she is brilliant, but you would be challenged by her written words. No one has to be an English major to plan a walkable downtown, or a word crafter to understand the in's and outs of JAXPORT. To attack and degrade the argument of this gentleman based on your standard of grammar, improper points, fallacies in the argument, as uneducated, speaks volumes of your tolerance of others. 

I have both a high and low tolerance for various things, all mutually exclusive, of course.  When one submits an editorial to a major city's newspaper and to a major city's most prominent web forum, one has to be prepared to receive extreme criticism.  One way to reduce criticism is to make sure that what one submits reads really really well and is devoid of glaring grammatical, spelling, or other blatant errors.  If grammar, spelling, and general writing are not one's strong suit, then perhaps a peer review or two is well warranted before submitting to the general public.

It's obvious that this standard process was not followed.  The author submitted a counterpoint without proper editing or fact checking, so it's insultingly easy to pick apart and isn't worthy of a front page article on this website or a place on the FTU's editorial page.

His argument reads like a mediocre reply post on a web forum, not a front page piece.  As I mentioned before, it reads like he went out one night to the bars, came home empty-handed, maybe had a few vodka redbulls, decided he had nothing better to do than check Metrojacksonville, came across the Sierra Club independent piece opposing dredging, and decided to almost incoherently bang out an argument against.  Except this argument was made for the FTU and for a front page piece on this site.

That deserves to be shot down hard not only on merit and fact/argument, but also on structure, effort, and style.

[brucef58]

Ms. Rinaman, I do not deny that there will be changes to the river due to salinity increases, in fact I admitted it is possible in my arguments.  If the USACE, State of Florida and JAXPORT find that changes occur, then we should hold their feet to the fire and make sure that mitigation occurs.

We surely have a record of the salinity changes from each of the previous deepening projects since the 1970s.  The previous changes in the subaqueous surfaces and water volume could be plugged into a model based on how a 47' main channel will impact the river bed and future water volume.  This should tell us the how the 7' difference in depth of the main channel and the lesser increases to the river bank will impact salinity.

As the higher salinity water spreads into tributaries, marshes and upstream, the amount of salt should be diluted.  This again can be calculated mathematically.  The USACE calculation of an additional .2 PPT at the Acosta may by low.  Since I do not know the volume of the tributaries and marshes and am making a rough estimate of the water volumes in the main channel, I calculated (for mile 20 from the mouth of the river) a .36 PPT increase at the peak of a three foot high tide.  As the tide runs out this would decrease to about .18 PPT.

[riverkeepered]

This is actually Jimmy, the Executive Director.   

The outcome of the Corps' models, like Martin's, are dependent on the inputs.  We have questions about some of the assumptions that drive the results.  The models are averaging out the impacts and don't have the sensitivity to determine the extent of the damage.  The Corps is just planning to monitor (calling it mitigation) to test the accuracy of the models.  In other words, they are planning to use our river as a guinea pig.    Bruce says we should hold their feet to the fire after the fact, but it will be extremely difficult to prove the dredging was the primary cause of impacts, and I can assure you that NO ONE will be willing to step up and assume responsibility. 

[thelakelander]

So why is anyone referring back to a paper which admits that is only theoretical in the first place?

To build public and political support to get taxpayers fund a +$1 billion expenditure. Same old story used for decades to push stuff through locally.....jobs, jobs, jobs.

[riverkeepered]

I thought this was an interesting e-mail that I received from Dan Norfleet, a port watchdog and frequent critic of Martin.

With no disrespect intended to Mr. Fouraker, his opinion piece is full of numerous fundamental factual misstatements as well as unfounded assumptions.  I won't rebut each and every one, but would like to hit a few of the highlights.

First, obtaining federal authorization to dredge to 50 feet is a time consuming and expensive proposition.  Mr. Fouraker must have missed this news.  You need $400 Million for the project Dr. Martin wants to you to hire his buddies to build.  And the State and the Feds are not going to give you this money.

Second, as the good folks in Gulfport, Mobile, Southport, and Palm Beach will tel you, Dr. Martin's economic projections don't withstand scrutiny.  And if you carefully read Dr, Mason's "Peer Review," you will see that it's not what it purports to be and does not say what Mr. Fouraker says it says.

And third,  as I have previously indicated, 47 feet of depth is not enough to accommodate NPX and larger vessels of a type that Dr. Martin wants to target while at the same time the present depth is sufficient for many Post-Panamax vessels.

In other words, you are as deep as you need to be, but unlikely to be able to dredge as deep as you want to be.

Changing the subject slightly, the plan to move the RO-RO operations East of the Napoleon Bonaparte Bridge makes sense.  However, that is a new idea that is not part of Dr. Martin's strategic plan.  Dr. Martin's plan for JaxPort is the same for Gulfport, Baltimore, Southport, Palm Beach, Tampa, Mobile, and about 195 other ports:  "pay me and my friends a bunch of money that you don't have and once your run out of money, I will be somewhere else."

Someone please introduce Mr. Fouraker to Howard Page, R. K. Johns, Anita Lee, Col. Al Willis, John Murawski, Dr. Clower, and Dr. Ashar.  Maybe they can set him straight.

Regards,

Dan Norfleet

[Ocklawaha]

I have not seen the full reports but the idea that Savannah is ahead of us doesn't seem to jive with the Savannah, GA and SC media. Denials, lawsuits, and myriad roadblocks seem to be plaguing the Savannah River project, including string up cadmium in the channel. Savannah's river is about ½ as wide as ours and turning a post Panamax might be something like trying to spin the USS George Bush around between the Acosta and Main Street Bridges... nice trick!

The way I see it, Jaxport does indeed = jobs. Perhaps not on the scale we'd like to see, but if we're 47-53' deep and Savannah isn't, we will once again surpass them. That really could mean thousands of jobs. Our problems are not simply depth though; we simply must build that belt railway and not give it away to CSX, NS or FEC. Operate it ourselves as the JAXPORT BELT RY, or bid out the rights to a neutral company so everyone has access to Blount Island.

Further improvement in the access would be achieved by Lakelander's 'S' line through the Northside, the one that has now dropped off the TPO/JTA/FDOT/COJ radar because it is spelled STREETCAR FROM 6 am until 12:01 a daily. Screw the freight access for FEC and multi-rail access to Talleyrand Terminals. We may be home to CSX, but at the moment we are also home to the FEC (though I suspect that may change with the AAF office tower in Miami, all because we plan to eat 8 city blocks that could be developed into the same thing, with a dysfunctional JRTC). We simply MUST step up our game and I hope JAXPORT reads this. LEAD FOR GODS SAKE AND QUIT FOLLOWING!

[Tacachale]

Well stated. It should be stated that a major factor in the growth of Savannah and Charleston's ports is the fact that Georgia and South Carolina are willing to throw everything they've got at them. In Florida, JAXPORT has competition from 13 ports, several of which have much more effective leadership in their port authorities and their local governments. If that changed in Jacksonville, our logistical advantages would become much more apparent.