Firm building Miami tunnel seeks more money months before starting to drill
Excerpt:
"According to officials familiar with the project, the tunnel boring machine operates better when it cuts through solid rock. But MAT experts say they have found the limestone under Biscayne Bay to be extremely porous, and gaps in the rock need to be filled..."
"[Even before this]..FDOT denied a MAT request to disburse emergency reserve funds to cover the cost of a modification to the tunnel boring machine so it can work properly in the limestone subsoil."
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/07/2304438/firm-building-miami-tunnel-seeks.html
So they are building a $1B tunnel to their port, but we can't even get ours dredged so that it can even operate at it's max potential?
Who is funding that? FDOT?
Quote from: acme54321 on July 08, 2011, 10:54:33 AM
So they are building a $1B tunnel to their port, but we can't even get ours dredged so that it can even operate at it's max potential?
Who is funding that? FDOT?
Its a public private partnership with FDOT and the concessionares.
This really highlights our competitive advantages locally. We don't need a $1Bn tunnel, we just need a short rail spur put in by CSX and some inexpensive dredging done. Meanwhile, we're still arguing while Miami already dredged their port and has a transport tunnel halfway built to completion. I guess JaxPort was too busy soliciting bribes from crooked contractors to actually work on, you know, the PORT.
QuoteMeanwhile, we're still arguing while Miami already dredged their port and has a transport tunnel halfway built to completion. I guess JaxPort was too busy soliciting bribes from crooked contractors to actually work on, you know, the PORT.
Which is why our dreams of a post-panamax port will probably never happen. Miami is way ahead of us. If the state is going to throw money to ports, it will be Miami. Rick Scott just allocated 77MM to Miami in March.
Miami and FEC also worked together to land federal money for a new rail intermodal facility at Miami's port. They also have the money in hand to dredge down to 50 feet. We still need to come up with around $800 million for these things, in addition to getting federal approval. Needless to say, they started their planning on these things years ago. We should probably have a contingency plan, just in case we lose this post-panamax race.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 08, 2011, 11:29:13 AM
Miami and FEC also worked together to land federal money for a new rail intermodal facility at Miami's port. They also have the money in hand to dredge down to 50 feet. We still need to come up with around $800 million for these things, in addition to getting federal approval. Needless to say, they started their planning on these things years ago. We should probably have a contingency plan, just in case we lose this post-panamax race.
Perhaps we should just embrace the smaller ships that we have now and focus on improving our current port facilities (better rail access etc.) rather than focusing on attracting post-panamax ships. The smaller ships are not going to become obsolete. By improving our current facilities we could attract more of these ships.
I'd agree that our dreams of a post-panamax port could/should never happen. But here's the rub...we have a HUGE opportunity presented by the "loss" of the USEC container terminal dredging race. The confluence of interstates, railroads, and the port that we have here are not our only competitive advantages where logistics/commerce is concerned. If you look at the other major ports on the USEC with which we compete, we have something they don't...a relatively large amount of undeveloped riverfront industrial land which is already along the major channel.
Tom Scholl (the guy that just opened the new $150m Keystone facility in Talleyrand) has been talking to Abraham Zion about his property along Heckscher. Herb Peyton/Gate own another big chunk along Heckscher where the Gate Biofuels plant was/is supposed to go. The Bostwick Family Trust property is up there also.
IMO, as the other ports focus on containerization (and remain ahead of us in that race), we should be digging in our heels to solidify our Caribbean and Central/South America trades (these do not need super deep water, as the vessels they operate are smaller), and working hard on developing JAXPORT as the primary port on the USEC for non-containerized goods. Bulk products (like the coal & aggregate Keystone, Cemex, and JEA are doing), project cargo (like is done at Blount Island some now...think oversize/high value products), breakbulk cargo (poultry for export like at Talleyrand, lumber, steel, etc.), cars, and liquids (refined petro-products, chemicals, etc.).
We need to leverage the space we have, since we already have access to it and it's a built-in competitive advantage. Holding our breath for Federal funds to dredge and then *hoping* that the deep water is sufficient enticement to support investment is NOT ENOUGH.
QuoteWe need to leverage the space we have, since we already have access to it and it's a built-in competitive advantage. Holding our breath for Federal funds to dredge and then *hoping* that the deep water is sufficient enticement to support investment is NOT ENOUGH.
+100
Great points. For example, Savannah's river is 42' deep and their port is significantly larger than ours. Even if we never get between 45-50' deep, there is still a significant opportunity to grow.
Why is that tunnel boring company surprised that Florida is on a limestone sponge. They are either trying for more money after getting the bid or they are not competent to do the job. Smells like three day old fish to me.
Quote from: Dog Walker on July 08, 2011, 01:58:17 PM
trying for more money after getting the bid
Noooooooo...that sort of thing
never happens in
Florida...
Quote from: bornnative on July 08, 2011, 11:39:41 AM
I'd agree that our dreams of a post-panamax port could/should never happen. But here's the rub...we have a HUGE opportunity presented by the "loss" of the USEC container terminal dredging race. The confluence of interstates, railroads, and the port that we have here are not our only competitive advantages where logistics/commerce is concerned. If you look at the other major ports on the USEC with which we compete, we have something they don't...a relatively large amount of undeveloped riverfront industrial land which is already along the major channel.
We need to leverage the space we have, since we already have access to it and it's a built-in competitive advantage. Holding our breath for Federal funds to dredge and then *hoping* that the deep water is sufficient enticement to support investment is NOT ENOUGH.
Cool except that your argument misses the single biggest logistical reason why we are destined for "superport" status, not to mention several smaller reasons.
In the Post Panamax era, those ships that you think are going to Savannah (they're not BTW) or Charleston could call on Miami or Tampa. Any cargo going beyond Florida, let's say to the industrial midwest for example must travel 360 miles of rail before ever clearing JACKSONVILLE. Why pay to send your cargo through Jacksonville on the train when you can place it on the ground IN Jacksonville? That 360+ miles of Florida's peninsula is redundant mileage. HOWEVER, if your shipping to Cincinnati, Detroit, Cleveland, Indy, St. Louis, or Chicago and your shipment has any priority on it then you'd be crazy to keep it on a vessel beyond Jax where rail mileage is going to remain about the same, and you'd just be adding a day to your delivery times. Because we are the western most port on the Atlantic Ocean (under Columbus OH) with two rail PRIMARY MAINLINES lines shooting straight north into the midwest. Ever look at a railroad map of South Carolina? Easy to see you won't ship it through there. North Carolina? Same story. The log jam doesn't break until you reach Norfolk, Newport News which DOES have direct access to the midwest via rail but with costly seaborne time delays.
No port to the south or west has the rail to midwest that we have without coming through Jax anyway! No port to the north has the geographical location to spit cargo nearly straight north on primary mainlines through the Atlanta-Chattanooga mountain passes that we have.
No port has the former national port director at the helm of their port authority except Jaxport. That's a position that is peppered with connections, both professional and political and it's exclusively ours.
That Savannah River is far too narrow to handle Post Panamax shipping, and both Savannah and Charleston have a very negative LONG lane in from the sea to the port. Ours is much shorter. Savannah is currently riding a boom brought on by the state of Georgia investing half it's budget in a State Port, it's a card house. ...Not even the depth game will win it for them, because it is possible that post Panamax shipping can get into Jax at 42'-45' depending on loading. We've got all the room they need.
Lastly, we are the sole Atlantic port offering a landlord arrangement. Most Pacific Ports use this system, where the land is leased to the shipping companies and they are free to do business as they see fit. Go to Georgia, Carolina's or Maine for that matter and you'll use their facilities, their people, their dock, and their schedule... Not so in Jaxport.
I have every confidence that the cards are stacked in our favor, and baring Georgia offering free access, we're in position to retake Savannah's lead in TEU's. Hold a steady course for 50' depth, and meanwhile make hay of our unique God given advantages in logistics, nobody else is close. OCKLAWAHA
I heard from a pretty reliable source that if the goal is to get Asian goods to the Midwest, its cheaper to head to West Coast ports and put the containers on rail. The East Coast has the same benefit with European goods. I guess, we're counting on the west coast ports running out of capacity and none of our East Coast competitors improving their own facilities.
Nevertheless, we still need to find a way to come up with about a billion in funding within the next five to ten years if we want to have a real chance at this post panamax race. I'm skeptical that we'll get there without having to significantly raise local taxes. Thus, I wonder if we should focus more on European and Caribbean markets as well as bulk cargo?
One more reason not to plan on smaller ships...
SHIPS MAGAZINE:QuoteCOASTERS: Worrying time for upriver UK ports
Wednesday, 23 March 2011 16:10
The 1,412dwt coaster Martin, seen on the river Thames, is an ideal size for upriver ports, but most coasters of this size are in the twilight of their careers.
Over recent years the size of vessels operating between the UK and the near continent has increased. This, together with the fact that many smaller vessels have been sold or scrapped after reaching the end of their lives, has posed problems for many of the UK’s upriver ports and wharves, which are often too small to be able to handle the new, larger coastal cargo vessels.
The main problem is that the draught of many vessels, such as the 4,470dwt Trans Frej operating on the Pal Line service to Goole from Swedish ports, is too great. She often has to lighten at Hull or Immingham before sailing up the Ouse because of her fully-laden draught. Such diversions eat into operating costs; in effect the ships have outgrown the ports, and the line may have to move to Hull.
Many of the latest designs, such as the popular Damen Combi Coaster 3850, will fit into the locks at Goole, but have a fully-laden draught of over 5m, and so the port must rely on older coasters, such as the 1,412dwt Martin. However, these do not carry as much cargo and thus have to make more trips. Coasters such as Martin, useful for small parcels of cargo, are getting old, and such vessels are not being replaced as they reach the end of their working life.
OCKLAWAHA
Post Panamax is as large as they come. I don't think its smart to plan on smaller ships but there's a wide variety of small and large that we can accommodate and market to right now. By the same token, I don't think its smart to to swing for the fences every time, we're up to bat. Perhaps, it may be more feasible to hit a single, double, triple, steal a base or go for an inside the parker. You can still win a game that way.