I will admit; I'm impressed with the announcement made by the Obama Administration (this isn't a political post) that the study that precedes deepening the JaxPort Channel will be completed a year early.
Like we all know and have discussed, this is vital to Jacksonville's future economic growth.
Logistics guys... is this a matter of "if" or "when"? I haven't gotten my hopes up on this project because I've been told by people involved in this project that there are too many ports in FL vying for the same federal dollars. However, it sounds like the Administration and Secretary of Transportation are quite focused on 5-7 cities, including Jacksonville.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Savnnah-River/i-jQDDTJW/0/M/P1570999-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Savnnah-River/i-5jzN8kD/0/M/P1580081-M.jpg)
I don't think these guys are worried. The big issue still there is coming up with the hundreds of billions and getting final approval to dredge before all of our competition does. All this appears to be is a study.
You mean hundreds of millions I hope...
My bad. Hundreds of millions. I haven't had my morning coffee, lol.
This is a matter of 'When' not 'if'. Stephendare and myself had a one to one talk with John Mica, john proceeded to explain that only Miami and Jacksonville were in the federal books as a 'super port'. There are likely more super ports in other regions but it looks like we will eventually have that 'port of dreams'.
The Iwo Jima and other carriers that call on Jacksonville will take care of the first few miles into the river channel. The study no doubt involves questions like, 'Do we take this to Blount Island or all the way to Talleyrand or Commodore's Point?' Do we get 45 feet, 48 or perhaps 50 feet? Does the FDOT/JTA Dames Point Bridge or the JEA power lines stop this project somewhat short of our goal? The new Panamax ships have a 190 feet above the waterline 'air draft,' due to the bridge at Balboa, Panama. Dames Point Bridge clearance is only 175 feet, Matthews Bridge is 152 feet. So entry into our 'inner harbor' including the new multimodal terminals is pretty much restricted to something below 175 feet. If the channel is deep enough the ships can ride lower in the water and clear the power lines and Dames Point, there probably isn't enough demand or room to include the Matthews. Either way the ships will pass within inches of our bridge.
Savannah's biggest challenge when it comes to the larger ships is the width of their river channel....turns out there's basiacally no room to turn the ships around.
I've read some comments by the port authority that this project could be privately funded. Is there a consensus about whether we are on time or lagging behind on this project so maybe private funding should be looked into?
The consensus is we're lagging several years behind in planning, gaining approval and obtaining funding for dredging.
Fix Mile Point first here, then we can worry about the dredging, first things first here.
I'd just like to see the expansion of the port bring jobs to the area, fill up all those empty warehouse buildings on the north end of town and bring some economic growth to this place.
Quote from: mtraininjax on July 19, 2012, 11:16:52 PM
Fix Mile Point first here, then we can worry about the dredging, first things first here.
Agreed
Are there any environmental challenges to this project? Friends of the Manatee? Society for bottom feeding fish? Herons Heroes?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 20, 2012, 01:02:17 PM
Are there any environmental challenges to this project? Friends of the Manatee? Society for bottom feeding fish? Herons Heroes?
I'm sure there will be once the Army Corps report is completed and made public...there is much concern about the effect dredging would have on river life
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 20, 2012, 02:00:27 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 20, 2012, 01:02:17 PM
Are there any environmental challenges to this project? Friends of the Manatee? Society for bottom feeding fish? Herons Heroes?
I'm sure there will be once the Army Corps report is completed and made public...there is much concern about the effect dredging would have on river life
Is there an ETA on the report?
So far it looks like the only possible opposition at this time comes from the RiverKeeper...
http://m.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-05-17/story/riverkeeper-will-look-closely-effect-proposed-army-corps-plan-dredge-st
Quote
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Riverkeeper will look closely at effect of proposed Army corps plan to dredge St. Johns River
By David Bauerlein
St. Johns Riverkeeper battled long, hard and unsuccessfully against withdrawing water from the river to supply Central Florida utility customers.
On Tuesday, representatives of the environmental nonprofit will attend a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers meeting about a different man-made change â€" the plan to dredge Jacksonville’s harbor for bigger cargo container ships.
For now, the group is taking a neutral stance while waiting for results of a study that will unfold over the next year.
“It’s going to have an impact on the river, and we have to better understand what that impact is,†Riverkeeper Lisa Rinaman said.
The Army Corps won’t release any findings at the Tuesday meeting, scheduled for 6:30 p.m. at the Jacksonville Port Authority’s cruise terminal at 9810 August Drive. The focus will be on the environmental model the corps intends for its study of how a deeper channel could affect marine life.
“There are so many unknowns at this point that it’s hard to put your finger on it,†said Paul Stodola, a corps biologist working on the study.
The corps is in the midst of studying the costs and benefits of deepening the 40-foot ship channel to a depth of up to 50 feet. JaxPort estimated the cost of deepening would be in the range of $600 million, though the expense will depend on the depth.
In addition to evaluating the economic benefits of a deeper channel in moving cargo through the port, the corps will examine the environmental impact. The study will determine salinity changes on the river as a result of more saltwater from the ocean flowing into a bigger harbor and pushing saltier water further upstream. In places where salinity rises, the study will analyze the effect on marine life and riverbottom grasses that need fresher water.
The corps plans to use an environmental model the St. Johns River Water Management District applied to the river during a four-year study about the impact of water withdrawals.
That report, released in February, found the river could serve as a supply source without causing significant environmental harm.
The actual impact hasn’t been measured.
Corps officials say the district’s study provides a solid foundation.
“It’s not a generic model,†Stodola said. “It’s a model that was developed specifically using data from the St. Johns River for the St. Johns River.â€
Rinaman also supports using the district’s study, provided the corps examines dredging in light of factors such as water withdrawals and droughts.
The water management district did some analysis of harbor dredging and determined salinity would rise the most in a section from the Dames Point bridge to the Main Street bridge downtown.
But that segment of the river already is salty enough that increasing the salinity wouldn’t impact an environmental resource, said Peter Sucsy, a district scientist.
The district’s final report examined a 50-foot channel depth along a 20-mile distance from the mouth of the river to the Talleyrand terminal area.
The Corps' dredging study will cover a 14-mile distance from the mouth of the river to just west of the Dames Point bridge. The Corps will examine various depths between 40 feet and 50 feet.
The corps plans to finish a draft report on deepening the harbor in 2013. The report would then go through a series of reviews, and the best-case scenario for authorizing and funding the project would start dredging in early 2017.
^Who's to say that the dredging might not have a bigger impact than the withdrawals? We should all wait for the results. I personally am not sold with the thought that we must do whatever it takes to increase the prominence of JaxPort- at any and all costs- both monetary and environmental. But speaking out against increasing JaxPort is basically sacrilege in this city.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 20, 2012, 02:16:51 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 20, 2012, 02:00:27 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 20, 2012, 01:02:17 PM
Are there any environmental challenges to this project? Friends of the Manatee? Society for bottom feeding fish? Herons Heroes?
I'm sure there will be once the Army Corps report is completed and made public...there is much concern about the effect dredging would have on river life
Is there an ETA on the report?
that's what the announcement was about...the study will be finishe3d next year instead of 2014
Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 20, 2012, 01:02:17 PM
Are there any environmental challenges to this project? Friends of the Manatee? Society for bottom feeding fish? Herons Heroes?
Where's Faye?
Going as far as Blount Island shouldn't be a big deal, pushing on to MOL/Hanjin will be more involved, on to Talleyrand involves a much longer channel. Consider too that Jaxport has identified Nichol's Creek as a possible Cruise Terminal. I think that might involve more messing with the wetlands then the EPA or Riverkeeper might be able to stomach.
I agree with TUFSU that Savannah has a huge Achiles Heal, in a channel that is so narrow that is barely over 1,000 feet across.
Whereas:
Those Panamax Ships?
Length
Over all (including protrusions): 950 ft (289.56 m). Exceptions:
Container ship and passenger ship: 965 ft (294.13 m)
Tug-barge combination, rigidly connected: 900 ft (274.32 m) over all
Other non-self-propelled vessels-tug combination: 850 ft (259.08 m) over all
Width (beam)
Width over outer surface of the shell plating: 106 ft (32.31 m). General exception: 107 ft (32.61 m), when draft is less than 37 ft (11.3 m) in tropical fresh water.
Draft
In tropical fresh water 39.5 ft (12.04 m). ACP uses the freshwater Gatun Lake as a reference. The salinity and temperature of water affect its density, and hence how deep a ship will float in the water. When the water level in Lake Gatún is low during an exceptionally dry season the maximum permitted draft may be reduced.
Air draft
190 ft (57.91 m) measured from the waterline to the vessel's highest point; limit also pertains to Balboa harbor. Exception: 205 ft (62.5 m) with passage at low water at Balboa is possible.
But now there is the POST PANAMAX SHIPS and this is what Jacksonville, Savannah, Tampa, or Port Canaveral would have to deal with:
(http://www.derindusunce.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/panamax1.jpg)
Post Panamax length of 1,200 feet won't fit in Savannah's River, Cocoa's turning basin or Tampa's long, narrow, 43' foot channel. If we go to 45 or 50 feet depth, Tampa could be out of the game too. Currently Port Tampa has 3 container cranes, Port Canaveral has 1 portable crane, Port Everglades has 9, Port Miami has 16 container cranes - 4 are Post Panamax. Jaxport has EXACTLY the same amount of berths and container cranes, as Charleston - 18, but our TEU capacity is 5790 more then Charleston. Jaxport's new intermodal terminal will include 2 new Post Panamax cranes, these will be added to the 6 Post Panamax cranes operating at Dames Point. All in all, I don't think our tardiness is going to be a huge negative, we already have the ability to kick ass.
Then there is the JTA project known as 'The Dames Point Bridge' which has a Clearance below of only 53.34 meters (175 feet) Meaning a post Panamax ship will have to ride low in the water to clear the bridge, or we'll be paying for a lift! BTW New York is having to raise the height of the bridge blocking their channel. Cost? Over a Billion dollars.
The 175' vertical clearaince could be a problem here - but at least we have major port facilities seaward of the "choke point". Tampa Bay's Sunshine Skyway Bridge has the same 175' vertical limit, and it sits across the mouth of the bay.
Tampa and port canaveral arent even trying to get in the game....maybe port manatee (OUTSIDE SUNSHINE SKYWAY)
Many believe that the post Panama ships will only end up going to roughly three East Coast ports. Two of those will be New York and Norfolk. That leaves Jax to battle it out with Charleston, Savannah, Port Everglades, Miami, etc. We're behind all of these places, in terms of dredging planning, approval and working for funding. Someone is going to spend a ton of money and still get left out of the game. My hope is that we develop an alternative game plan. There's a lot of opportunity out there, even without spending $800 million to dredge.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 21, 2012, 08:37:46 AM
Many believe that the post Panama ships will only end up going to roughly three East Coast ports. Two of those will be New York and Norfolk. That leaves Jax to battle it out with Charleston, Savannah, Port Everglades, Miami, etc. We're behind all of these places, in terms of dredging planning, approval and working for funding. Someone is going to spend a ton of money and still get left out of the game. My hope is that we develop an alternative game plan. There's a lot of opportunity out there, even without spending $800 million to dredge.
Ehhh... I'm not ready to throw in the towel.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 21, 2012, 07:56:22 AM
....maybe port manatee (OUTSIDE SUNSHINE SKYWAY)
Looks like Port Manatee is north of i-275 (Sunshine Skyway Bridge) as well.
Quote from: Jaimen on July 21, 2012, 03:43:39 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 21, 2012, 07:56:22 AM
....maybe port manatee (OUTSIDE SUNSHINE SKYWAY)
Looks like Port Manatee is north of i-275 (Sunshine Skyway Bridge) as well.
yeah..my bad...there is talk about buiding a new cruise terminal south of the bridge...got them confused
Quote from: downtownjag on July 21, 2012, 11:16:36 AM
Ehhh... I'm not ready to throw in the towel.
Dredging doesn't necessarily mean we win just like not dredging doesn't mean we lose. However, history has proven it's not wise to put all your eggs in the same basket. Thousands of jobs can be created even without spending $800 million to dredge. So hopefully, we're not planning with a post-panamax or bust mentality. Let's hope JAXPORT isn't playing checkers while half the East Coast plays chess.
Containers are not the only solution, go check out the port, go and research Keystone Industries, HQ'd in SW Florida, yet Tallyrand is a huge site for them and they bring in coal and other aggregates. JaxPORT can be a great Agg destination, we can swap containers for Agg with Miami and be in great shape as an offering for growth in Florida and the SE. We don't need to spend a billion dollars to become the largest Agg port in Florida.
Miami has been green-lighted by the Governor for the new Panamax containers, only one so far in the state, so we are already behind Miami.
QuoteBut speaking out against increasing JaxPort is basically sacrilege in this city.
Not really, speaking out against the US Navy would bring a far worse a wet noodle lashing! :P