From the Trains Newswire:
CSX picks Mount Claire site for Baltimore intermodal
Published: September 12, 2012
BALTIMORE â€" CSX has chosen a site the Mount Claire neighborhood of Baltimore's southwest side for its new intermodal facility, reports the Baltimore Sun. The project would allow CSX to bypass the Howard Street Tunnel that runs under downtown by locating its primary intermodal facility south of the constricting tunnel.
The site is just south of Interstate 95 near Washington Blvd. and the communities of Morrell Park and Wilhelm Park. It is a former Baitlmore & Ohio Railroad yard that sits just north of Curtis Bay Jct. and is approximately 2 miles from the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Museum, which resides in the railroad's former Mount Claire Shops.
The site is one of four the railroad looked at within the city of Baltimore. The approximately 70 acre parcel of land is already owned by the railroad.
CSX would truck in or operate trains of single stacks import containers from the city's Seagirt Marine Terminal. The railroad would then assemble trains of double stacked containers at the Mount Claire location for further shipment south and west.
The project is expected to cost approximately $90 million and be open in May 2015 for the projected opening of the enlarged Panama Canal.
What does Baltimore have that we don't??? Let's see:
The Seagirt Marine Terminal stands as a working monument to the innovative and progressive spirit of the Port of Baltimore.
Opened in 1990, Seagirt features the latest in cargo-handling equipment and systems. The design behind this high-tech facility stems from one simple principle: keep the cargo moving. Seagirt is operated by Ports America Chesapeake under a 50-year public-private partnership signed in 2010 with the MPA. Under the agreement, Ports America is constructing a new 50-foot container berth to be accompanied by four state-of-the-art super Post Panamax cranes. The project is scheduled to be completed in August 2012. At that point, the Port of Baltimore will be only the second East Coast port with both a 50-foot channel and a 50-foot berth, allowing it to accommodate some of the largest container ships in the world.
If Jacksonville was to match every progressive move made by every metropolis, it would be a world class top tier city, and there are only a handful of those is the US. At some point these 'them compared to us' threads get silly IMO. Good news for B-More, but I don't feel any reason to be pessimistic in Jax because of this news.
I think the key here is not to consider this a slight on Jacksonville. It's further acknowledgement that perhaps our dreams of dredging the river to 50' and becoming a post panamax hub are misplaced. The way things are shaping up, the majority of the East Coast's ports are well ahead of us in this fight. We can't even maintain the grass on our highways so you can forget about us finding a way to come up with $800 million in the next year or two (that's not even mentioning getting approval for something like that). Thus, it may not be a bad idea to develop an alternative economic strategy that still allows for port growth without absolutely having to make the river 48' to 50' deep.
Stringer Bell would have made a killing off that if he hadn't of messed with Omar.
Maybe Jaxport can serve a niche those other ports can't once they become the go-to for Post Panamax ships (which some believe is a false reality because it often still makes more sense to unload on the west coast and ship by rail to the east).
Quote from: simms3 on September 20, 2012, 09:08:46 AM
Maybe Jaxport can serve a niche those other ports can't once they become the go-to for Post Panamax ships (which some believe is a false reality because it often still makes more sense to unload on the west coast and ship by rail to the east).
Besides if we would make this junk that comes from China here in the States we won't need these Panamax Ships at all would we?
Quote from: simms3 on September 20, 2012, 09:08:46 AM
Maybe Jaxport can serve a niche those other ports can't once they become the go-to for Post Panamax ships (which some believe is a false reality because it often still makes more sense to unload on the west coast and ship by rail to the east).
I've argued this point for several years, as have others from within (and without) Jaxport's walls. The focus on developing container-only terminals here in Jax is misguided, given where other USEC ports are in the development cycle.
We have something here that most other ports on the USEC don't have, which are large undeveloped tracts of waterfront industrial property with relatively straightforward ownership structures. The Zion and Bostwick Trust properties off Heckscher are prime real estate for private terminal development. Tom Scholl, one of the principals of the new-ish Keystone Terminal in north Talleyrand, even mentioned developing a "superport" on one of those sites during the grand opening ceremony for Keystone. Savannah has the proposed Jasper Terminal, but if you do a little googling on it, you can see what a mess it becomes when 2 state ports authorities try to "cooperatively" develop something.
Here's the rub - bulk, breakbulk, project, and commodity cargoes aren't sexy, they don't make for good PR stories, and the economics of them are too hazy (as compared to containers & cars) to fully support grant requests or bond issues for large-scale terminal development. These are the cargoes that get marginalized when most ports repurpose existing dock space to make way for containers and cars. These are also the cargoes that are most responsive to "service" ports, versus "capacity" ports.
We should be working hard to take the lead in the cargo classes where we have natural advantages. We have built an advantage in automobile movements, but we will never catch up to Norfolk, Baltimore, Charleston, or Savannah in containers. The economics and the geography of our river just won't support it.
**off my soapbox
Count me in as a fan of the concept of growing our bulk, breakbulk, project, and commodity cargoes with what we already have, as opposed to hinging our economic bet on spending hundreds of millions to dredge in hopes of landing post panamax ships. At the end of the day, there's billions to be made by simply better utilizing the assets and resources already in our possession.
Lake,
I don't think there is a direct relationship between upgrades at Jaxport and mowing the grass on COJ parkways, here is what Jaxport says about themselves and funding. (from the website) Also, they have been pretty clear in the press that they want post-Panamax traffic. Also CSX made a major upgrade in their E-W ROW west of Balitmore ("Heartland Corridor") that allows them to get post Panamax container traffic west much faster than before.
It really comes down to does Jaxport really want to compete in that space?
Expansion Plans
As JAXPORT plans the development of a new intermodal container transfer facility at Dames Point, a wide-ranging effort is underway to enhance infrastructure at Blount Island and Talleyrand terminals with new equipment and upgrades to wharves, rail and terminal areas.
JAXPORT and CSX Corp. are developing an intermodal container transfer facility, or ICTF, at Dames Point to facilitate the direct transfer of containers between vessels and trains. The U.S. Dept. of Transportation recently awarded JAXPORT a $10 million grant toward the development of the facility, and the State of Florida Dept. of Transportation has allocated $20 million to fund the project. Forecast to open as early as 2014, the new facility will complement existing on-dock rail facilities at JAXPORT’s Talleyrand and Blount Island terminals and will further enhance the competitiveness of the TraPac Container Terminal.
To improve existing infrastructure and equipment, JAXPORT’s capital improvement program includes installation of two new 50-long-ton New Panamax container cranes â€" completed in Fall 2011 â€" as well as upgrades to wharves, on-dock rail and terminal pavement areas. Over the next several years, the authority is looking to invest more than $1.25 billion in infrastructure, including $600 million targeted for harbor deepening projects. At Dames Point, plans continue for the development of the Hanjin Container Terminal, a new, 90-acre facility to be constructed adjacent to the state-of-the-art, 158-acre TraPac Container Terminal. Both terminals offer shippers unprecedented containership access between Jacksonville and ports throughout Asia, particularly as the Panama Canal’s new locks open to Post-Panamax vessels later this decade.
Meanwhile, the TraPac Container Terminal features capacity to handle approximately 1 million TEUs annually, which benefits South Atlantic shippers looking to streamline their supply chains. Since the TraPac terminal opened in 2009, many retailers and 3PL firms have begun to take advantage of the global container services offered at the facility. In addition, more than 10 million square feet of warehousing and distribution space has been developed in Northeast Florida over the last few years, solidifying Jacksonville’s role as the major distribution focus among South Atlantic shippers.
JAXPORT will need the City to help them get the amount of cash needed to dredge to 48-50'. At some point taxpayers will have to decide what they want to pay more for. Everybody from JTA and the libraries to JAXPORT needs more cash.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 20, 2012, 06:25:30 PM
JAXPORT will need the City to help them get the amount of cash needed to dredge to 48-50'. At some point taxpayers will have to decide what they want to pay more for. Everybody from JTA and the libraries to JAXPORT needs more cash.
Wouldn't the dredging come from a federal grant along with the revenue they get from the new dock fees? I am struggling to understand why COJ would have to come up with the cash for the dredging? The St John's is a Federal Waterway from the Isaiah Hart to Mayport. Everything I have read has hinged on Mica, Brown, Scott, Graham, Rubio to tie the dredging funding in with the appropriations for a nuclear Mayport. If it wasn't for the Virginia Coalition and the hangers on in Norfolk, it would have been a done deal by now.
When I was on the Mayor's transition team, JAXPORT officials gave us a couple of presentations of their future plans and vision and it certainly involved lots of city money. The feds are broke, so many places are using local money for various economic projects instead of waiting decades for hopes of handouts.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 20, 2012, 10:46:13 PM
When I was on the Mayor's transition team, JAXPORT officials gave us a couple of presentations of their future plans and vision and it certainly involved lots of city money. The feds are broke, so many places are using local money instead of waiting 20 years for hopes of handouts.
Are any of the Jaxport presentations available anywhere? It would be interesting to see where they forsee COJ money coming in to play. As a state chartered entity, I am curious why they can't use more of their own revenue abilities to meet the needs in the sight of empty federal hands.
One of the issues that is pretty well documented is the relative disadvantage facing COJ/Jaxport versus most other USEC ports due the lack of a state port authority in Florida. When Charleston needs to pursue federal funding, the literally have the entire state delegation, top to bottom, at their disposal to support the effort via South Carolina State Ports Authority. Likewise for Savannah with the Georgia Ports Authority (Brunswick and Savannah do not compete for cargo - Brunswick is a niche port).
When Jacksonville wants to find funding to dredge, which is an incredibly expensive proposition to begin with, it is effectively on its own and in competition with the state-backed ports to the north as well as the other 13 deep water ports in Florida. This relative disadvantage is one of the reasons that Paul Anderson was selected as the new Jaxport CEO - his past history working as a MARAD administrator was perceived as a great benefit given Jaxport's stated strategic priority to pursue expansion via dredging, which Jaxport/COJ simply cannot afford to self-fund.
From a dredging perspective, we are fortunate that we have Mayport Naval Station at the mouth of the St. Johns. The Navy, through it's own DOD appropriations, maintains the channel depth from the Mayport basin out to the sea buoy, which is several miles less that Jaxport/COJ has to find funding to dredge and maintain.
Spuwho: the Jaxport presentations should be in the public domain somewhere. I saw them during the transition, but saw them elsewhere during Jaxport's PR blitz on the subject of dredging and the Mile Point fix back in the spring. I'll try to find a link and post it up for you.
Quote from: spuwho on September 20, 2012, 10:52:35 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on September 20, 2012, 10:46:13 PM
When I was on the Mayor's transition team, JAXPORT officials gave us a couple of presentations of their future plans and vision and it certainly involved lots of city money. The feds are broke, so many places are using local money instead of waiting 20 years for hopes of handouts.
Quote from: spuwho on September 20, 2012, 10:52:35 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on September 20, 2012, 10:46:13 PM
When I was on the Mayor's transition team, JAXPORT officials gave us a couple of presentations of their future plans and vision and it certainly involved lots of city money. The feds are broke, so many places are using local money instead of waiting 20 years for hopes of handouts.
Are any of the Jaxport presentations available anywhere? It would be interesting to see where they forsee COJ money coming in to play. As a state chartered entity, I am curious why they can't use more of their own revenue abilities to meet the needs in the sight of empty federal hands.
Are any of the Jaxport presentations available anywhere? It would be interesting to see where they forsee COJ money coming in to play. As a state chartered entity, I am curious why they can't use more of their own revenue abilities to meet the needs in the sight of empty federal hands.
I'd have to go back and dig to see if I kept the handouts from June 2011. However, you don't need those to see that city money will be needed to help JAXPORT achieve its goals. JAXPORT didn't fund the recent widening of Heckscher Drive. They also won't be fully funding the rail improvements needed to achieve their long term vision.
QuoteSheffield said the goal is to build the new railroad connection with public money so both CSX and Norfolk Southern can use it because ports are more successful when at least two railroad companies are competing for cargo service.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-09-15/story/prospect-railroad-line-being-built-through-northside-has-residents-edge
It will be a community effort and that includes community money.
Roads (if local) and any other infrastructure I can see COJ footing some of the bill unless its a state or US route, then their are other sources.
The CSX work is being paid for by the SunRail Orlando deal, where the money paid out by the state to CSX is being plowed back into the Jaxport project, so they are covered.
I agree on the "ports commission" issue when compared to a Savannah or Charleston, they are each states sole ocean port, so they get all of the attention respectively. Florida is nearly surrounded by water, but not all the ports in Florida have access to muti-modal transport. Charleston has a significant rail bottleneck and is reliant on Atlanta as a hub for distribution. Savannah has a dredging issue more significant than Jacksonville.
But back to the issue at hand, I am just trying to find out what COJ is on the hook for on the Jaxport initiatives. Why would Jaxport be a better investment of dollars then a Baltimore for example, why would a shipper prefer Jaxport over another deep water port farther up the coast?
JAXPORT can't grow without investments in infrastructure needed to support that desired growth. So surrounding roads, utilities, railroad investments become a part of the mix to. In addition, many communities are finding that if they want to compete economically, they can't rely only on limited federal funding. When time is of essence, it becomes important to incorporate a mix of funding sources to spend up implemention. In JAXPORT's case, we're already years behind most of our peers in the post Panama race. If this is an area we'd really like to compete in, we can't afford to sit and wait a decade or two, in hopes of possibly winning federal dollars to fund many of these initiatives 100%. Throwing local money into the mix is a sure fire way to reduce the desired timeline.
Here are some of the numbers that shippers will be looking at when choosing a port. I've used a rounded vessel speed of 14 knots, though most vessels are capable of 20-30 knots, the average cruising speed is actually a bit less then 14. Consider too that the distance from San Francisco to the east coast will add at least 2,700 rail/highway miles to the shipment and these miles may or may not delay the shipment based on how fast the cargo is trans-loaded. These miles will also be at a premium price and could involve extensive drayage.
You can see from this list that JACKSONVILLE does indeed have an advantage over ports to our north.
Port of loading: Hamburg, GERMANY
Port of discharge: Jacksonville, US
Distance: 4175 nautical miles
Vessel speed: 14 knots
Time: 12 days 10 hours
Port of loading: Hamburg, GERMANY
Port of discharge: Baltimore, US
Distance: 3819 nautical miles
Vessel speed: 14 knots
Time: 11 days 9 hours
Port of loading: Hamburg, GERMANY
Port of discharge: San Francisco, US
Distance: 8323 nautical miles
Vessel speed: 14 knots
Time: 24 days 19 hours
ADVANTAGE - BALTIMORE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Port of loading: Recife, BRASIL
Port of discharge: Jacksonville, US
Distance: 3603 nautical miles
Vessel speed: 14 knots
Time: 10 days 17 hours
Port of loading: Recife, BRASIL
Port of discharge: Baltimore, US
Distance: 3729 nautical miles
Vessel speed: 14 knots
Time: 11 days 2 hours
Port of loading: Recife, BRASIL
Port of discharge: San Francisco, US
Distance: 6428 nautical miles
Vessel speed: 14 knots
Time: 19 days 3 hours
ADVANTAGE - JACKSONVILLE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Port of loading: Buenaventura, COLOMBIA
Port of discharge: Jacksonville, US
Distance: 1876 nautical miles
Vessel speed: 14 knots
Time: 5 days 14 hours
Port of loading: Buenaventura, COLOMBIA
Port of discharge: Baltimore, US
Distance: 2290 nautical miles
Vessel speed: 14 knots
Time: 6 days 20 hours
Port of loading: Buenaventura, COLOMBIA
Port of discharge: San Francisco, US
Distance: 3375 nautical miles
Vessel speed: 14 knots
Time: 10 days 1 hours
ADVANTAGE - JACKSONVILLE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Port of loading: Hong Kong, HONG KONG
Port of discharge: Jacksonville, US
Distance: 10538 nautical miles
Vessel speed: 14 knots
Time: 31 days 9 hours
Port of loading: Hong Kong, HONG KONG
Port of discharge: Baltimore, US
Distance: 10952 nautical miles
Vessel speed: 14 knots
Time: 32 days 14 hours
Port of loading: Hong Kong, HONG KONG
Port of discharge: San Francisco, US
Distance: 6033 nautical miles
Vessel speed: 14 knots
Time: 17 days 23 hours
ADVANTAGE - SAN FRANCISCO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Port of loading: Darwin, AUSTRALIA
Port of discharge: Jacksonville, US
Distance: 10635 nautical miles
Vessel speed: 14 knots
Time: 31 days 16 hours
Port of loading: Darwin, AUSTRALIA
Port of discharge: Baltimore, US
Distance: 11049 nautical miles
Vessel speed: 14 knots
Time: 32 days 21 hours
Port of loading: Darwin, AUSTRALIA
Port of discharge: San Francisco, US
Distance: 7069 nautical miles
Vessel speed: 14 knots
Time: 21 days 1 hours
ADVANTAGE - SAN FRANCISCO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Port of loading: Port Elizabeth, SOUTH AFRICA
Port of discharge: Jacksonville, US
Distance: 7288 nautical miles
Vessel speed: 14 knots
Time: 21 days 17 hours
Port of loading: Port Elizabeth, SOUTH AFRICA
Port of discharge: Baltimore, US
Distance: 7415 nautical miles
Vessel speed: 14 knots
Time: 22 days 2 hours
Port of loading: Port Elizabeth, SOUTH AFRICA
Port of discharge: San Francisco, US
Distance: 10080 nautical miles
Vessel speed: 14 knots
Time: 30 days 0 hours
ADVANTAGE - JACKSONVILLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Port of loading: Yokohama, JAPAN
Port of discharge: Jacksonville, US
Distance: 9204 nautical miles
Vessel speed: 14 knots
Time: 27 days 9 hours
Port of loading: Yokohama, JAPAN
Port of discharge: Baltimore, US
Distance: 9617 nautical miles
Vessel speed: 14 knots
Time: 28 days 15 hours
Port of loading: Yokohama, JAPAN
Port of discharge: San Francisco, US
Distance: 4530 nautical miles
Vessel speed: 14 knots
Time: 13 days 12 hours
ADVANTAGE - SAN FRANCISCO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ocean Distances from the Atlantic side of the Panama Canal.
BALTIMORE - 1904
NORFOLK - 1781
WILMINGTON - 1609
CHARLESTON - 1563
SAVANNAH - 1564
JACKSONVILLE - 1513
TAMPA - 1213
PENSACOLA - 1342
MOBILE - 1371
NEW ORLEANS - 1396
GALVESTON - 1403
CORPUS CHRISTI - 1549
PORT OF MIAMI SAVES 324 MILES (ICW) FROM THE JACKSONVILLE DISTANCES BUT ADDS 351 RAIL MILES.
Any word on the Zion - Keystone deal? Looks like Keystone is planning something big, and Keystone is big enough to make it happen. Meanwhile I understand the JPA has started the process of condemning 185 acres of ZION property NW of the Blount Island Terminal. I suspect part of this is for the new Cruise Terminal (which will do absolutely NOTHING for downtown if they locate it on the north side of the St. Johns and north of the Trout River).
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=12622.0
Quote from: Ocklawaha on September 21, 2012, 10:44:16 AM
Here are some of the numbers that shippers will be looking at when choosing a port. I've used a rounded vessel speed of 14 knots, though most vessels are capable of 20-30 knots, the average cruising speed is actually a bit less then 14. Consider too that the distance from San Francisco to the east coast will add at least 2,700 rail/highway miles to the shipment and these miles may or may not delay the shipment based on how fast the cargo is trans-loaded. These miles will also be at a premium price and could involve extensive drayage.
You can see from this list that JACKSONVILLE does indeed have an advantage over ports to our north.
The list is nice but it doesn't dive into the intangibles that truly determine the validity of shipping into one port verses another. For example, you mention shipping products into Miami would mean you'd have to get them on rail through Jacksonville to get out of the state. What if the product being shipped isn't bound for out of state? Also, in certain cases it makes sense to ship by rail from the West or Gulf Coast to access the Midwest. When it comes to Jax, Savannah, Charleston and Norfolk, what role does having a variety of rail carriers play? Furthermore, does incentives play a role in attracting businesses to use one port over another? If so, how do we compare with some of our peers in this arena?
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7260/7562261986_42affe68df_z.jpg)
It now appears that improved dockside rail and the ITF are part of the plan at JAXPORT.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 21, 2012, 03:51:31 PM
Quote from: Ocklawaha on September 21, 2012, 10:44:16 AM
You can see from this list that JACKSONVILLE does indeed have an advantage over ports to our north.
The list is nice but it doesn't dive into the intangibles that truly determine the validity of shipping into one port verses another. For example, you mention shipping products into Miami would mean you'd have to get them on rail through Jacksonville to get out of the state. What if the product being shipped isn't bound for out of state?
Good point Lake, and Florida is certainly an attractor state for most chemicals, oil, foods and manufactured goods. This fact has kept the railroads which serve Florida in high cotton when other carriers were in their death throes. There is plenty of room for Jaxport to continue to carve out a niche in the localized markets, even if we don't dominate them.
QuoteAlso, in certain cases it makes sense to ship by rail from the West or Gulf Coast to access the Midwest.
Certainly, especially from much of the Orient when speed is money, when it's not, the east coast becomes more attractive due to cost difference of ship/long haul truck, or ship/long haul rail compared to ship/local truck or ship/local rail.
QuoteWhen it comes to Jax, Savannah, Charleston and Norfolk, what role does having a variety of rail carriers play?
This directly effects not only the price of the rail shipments (competition) but has a huge effect on the price of truck-load shipments. In a study called "Assessing Economic Impacts Of Railroad Abandonments On Rural Communities," states "Truck rates are generally not competitive with rail in the absence of rail access." Compared to Savannah or Charleston, Jacksonville is uniquely situated on the railroad map with a selection of carriers and mainlines that radiate to virtually every major market east of the Mississippi. Norfolk, Baltimore and points north have some long torturous grades between them and the industrial heartland.
QuoteFurthermore, does incentives play a role in attracting businesses to use one port over another? If so, how do we compare with some of our peers in this arena?
Incentives play an important role, but just how we stack up to our peers will require more research and perhaps a Q and A with our port director.
QuoteCompared to Savannah or Charleston, Jacksonville is uniquely situated on the railroad map with a selection of carriers and mainlines that radiate to virtually every major market east of the Mississippi. Norfolk, Baltimore and points north have some long torturous grades between them and the industrial heartland.
Where JAXPORT has targeted its expansion plans, CSX is the only rail carrier. If we don't find a way to get multiple rail carriers into these new terminals, what's the negative impact, in terms of competing with the other ports?
Huge, and it's only going to get worse once the entire international shipping community understands the '3 railroads' mentioned in the Jaxport literature actually means one railroad offering a 2-5 day connection to the other 2 or you better get ready for substantial drayage.