Savannah has the green light and the money to dredge their harbor to 47 feet. Project is anticipated to be completed in 2016.
QuoteA federal judge cleared the way Wednesday for construction of the $652 million Savannah Harbor deepening, a project considered vital to the Port of Savannah’s ability to compete for customers.
QuoteDeal recently signed a fiscal 2014 state budget that includes $50 million in bonds for the project, bringing the state’s total commitment to $231 million.
The harbor will be deepened from 42 feet to 47 feet to better accommodate the larger container ships that will be plying the Panama Canal when its expansion is completed in 2015.
The Savannah project is due to be finished by the end of 2016.
full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2013/05/29/savannah-harbor-project-clears-legal.html
So ..... you think that will take away from Jacksonville's quest to increase port activity?
Jax. will also be getting permission from Army Corp of Engineers to go to 47 feet....problem is the Feds will only pay 80% of the dredging to 45 feet....the other 20% and 100% of teh extra 2 feet need to be funded by others
Quote from: Overstreet on May 30, 2013, 02:13:41 PM
So ..... you think that will take away from Jacksonville's quest to increase port activity?
Of course! This clearly shows that time doesn't stand still while we dream locally. Norfolk is already 50, Savannah and Miami are approved with funding already in place, Charleston's already deeper and NYC is NYC.
I actually think JAXPORT's dreams for deeping the river are pie-in-the-sky. I've felt that way, since they came and did a dog and pony show for the Mayor's Transportation Transition Team a couple of years ago. That presentation had just as many holes and far fetched dreams as the crazy BRT plan JTA was attempting to sell when I moved to town a decade ago. What really stood out to me is that numbers boasted did not appear to remotely consider the impact of other competitor's improving their infrastructure.
Jaxport channel deepening will cost $733 millionhttp://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2013/05/30/jaxport-channel-deepening-will-cost.html
With that said, I see opportunities for growth without spending $733 million
($383 million we'll have to pay locally) to arrive a couple of years late to the post panamax party. If this were a competition among East Coast boys to win the girl, by the time we arrive at the door with roses, she'd already be married with two kids and another on the way.
I don't think we're in the race anymore, perhaps thanks in part to our Governor putting all of our marbles into Miami... Gee, ever think that spiffy new port with the FEC connection and the 350 mile haul to Jacksonville may be somehow linked to a private railroad suddenly willing to 'take a bath in red ink' running passenger trains?
Bottom line for the long haul though requires us to maintain that channel at M/L the going depth at the other like ports. Reason? How many 135' coastal steamers have you seen tied up in town? NONE. Economics are rapidly killing off the current crop of 'Jaxport' size vessels and to sit back and allow ourselves to focus an increasing effort on an ever decreasing amount of shipping is sducidal.
We have to at least be close or equal to maintain our rail hubs, distribution, trucking and myriad other industries. My thesis is not however that we must do so today or tomorrow, but we need to be aware that the window of opportunity with the ships we currently handle is slowly closing.
Corps claim 45' brings the most ROI. To get to 47', we have to pay for the difference out of pocket. We can barely keep our library doors open. Since no one wants to raise taxes, how long do you think it will take to come up with $383 million? If we could come up with that much cash, is dredging the river the best thing we could do with that?
^ good point Lake...here's what I think we need to be on the lookout for....the new Regional Transportation Commission (and related Regional Transportation Business Alliance) advocating for regional tax increase to support the port....at the potential expense of things like commuter rail
Well if it ever comes to that you'll be deciding between jobs and convenience.
Ideally we get both. I think the key here Lake is we could use 45' as a mid point on our way to 47' and ultimately 50'.
Just think - if Jax could develop a burgeoning job market, a niche in particular, and keep growth confined to the same developed area rather than expand outward or lose out to SJC, then the tax basis would grow, and the infrastructure commitment to pay for the growth would be kept at a minimum, and the city, outside of issuing bonds, probably could raise the tax dollars necessary for all these wonderful things, thus furthering the economy and the hypothetical "boom".
Quote from: Ocklawaha on May 30, 2013, 09:06:52 PM
Well if it ever comes to that you'll be deciding between jobs and convenience.
Ideally we get both. I think the key here Lake is we could use 45' as a mid point on our way to 47' and ultimately 50'.
To get to 45', we'd still have to come up with nearly $200 million in local cash and hope that it doesn't take another decade for the feds to approve funding the rest.
^This JBJ article addresses my last post. If we can find $400 million in local cash under the pillow tomorrow and Congress catapults funding to Jax over every other city, we'll arrive at the party
seven years later! This dream gets more fuzzier and unrealistic with every updated article.
QuoteBest case: Jacksonville shipping channel would be 47 feet by 2021
Best case, the Port of Jacksonville will have its channel deepened to 47 feet by 2021 or 2022.
That’s if Congress authorizes the deepening and then funds it ahead of other competing port projects. And, if the Jacksonville Port Authority can raise $383 million of the total projected $733 million cost.
But, Jason Harrah, project manager for the Army Corps of Engineers, said dredging at Jaxport would likely begin in 2017 and take five or six years to complete.
Before construction can start, Congress will have to pass the Water Resources Development Act, legislation used to authorize Corps projects. A 2013 WRDA bill has passed the Senate, but doesn’t include language yet for the Jaxport deepening, Joe Miller, senior director of facilities development for the port, said.
If the bill gets passed, and if the Jaxport project is in it, the federal Office of Management and Budget would then need to decide if the project’s benefit to cost ratio was high enough to put the matter before Congress for funding. Right now, Savannah’s deepening project has a higher score that Jacksonville’s, Harrah said.
Also, other port projects cost less. To deepen Savannah’s channel from 42 feet to 47 feet will cost $652 million. The Port of Miami will be deepened to 50 feet at a cost of $180 million.
full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2013/05/30/best-case-jacksonville-shipping.html
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-05-30/story/deepening-jacksonville-ship-channel-would-cost-733-million
Lake, we are not out of the game the day they swing open the gates on Post Panamax ships. This will be an evolutionary process such as when the railroads went from steam to diesel. Over a 20 year period we'll witness the smaller ships slowly disappear as the new ones come online. This is why I don't think it's critical that we have the channel ready on opening day. Fact is, 2021 might be a better position then those planned for 2017 +/-.
We also might consider an alternative solution, where our port might operate container berths along the north side of the river between Atlantic Shipyard and the jetty's. Link this narrow landing strip by rail to the Blount Island complex and the Panamax would be as close to the sea as they will be in Miami.
I believe allowing our port to cease to be a competitor is an economic death knell to our city. I would expect slow but massive job loss from many of our highest paying blue collar industries, rail and transportation companies pulling up stakes and mass vacancies. It will be as if someone pulled the plug and the lights all go out, 'Call it Portrmageddon.' It won't be instant, but it won't be pretty either.
Ock, unfortunately, I don't share your optimism. I also don't believe we're "out of the game" if we don't get to 47'. The "game" and positions within it are pretty diverse. Just because you may not have the arm to be a Quarterback, doesn't mean you can't succeed at being a running back, tight end or linebacker. Perhaps you don't have the skill to be Lebron but you can still be an effective Paul George in the league, as opposed to a couch potato.
If anything, I believe our future is bright. We just need to determine and invest in achieving and excelling at our realistic niches. So, I see no need to put all of our economic eggs in one huge and expensive risky basket. Especially, when we still don't even know what the negative impacts on the river's ecological system will be.