If We Want Jax to Thrive Then We Must Support JAXPORT
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/775817142_MEgHs-M.jpg)
Bruce A Fouraker, a contributing Writer and Editor with Masters of Industry Magazine and lifelong Jacksonville resident, presents an opposing response to the Sierra Club's opposition in dredging the St. Johns River.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2014-jun-if-we-want-jax-to-thrive-then-we-must-support-jaxport
Fail. Needs serious editing before becoming a prominent opinion piece. TEU stands for Twenty Foot Equivalent, not "trailer" foot equivalent. The name is now irrelevant to an average container's length, but the name still stands.
I really want to be on Bruce's side on this, but if I had to make a quick decision on whether or not to dredge and all I had to go off of was Jessica Fessenden's (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2014-may-the-port-to-nowhere-#.U42BFPldVxI) eloquently written May 13 piece about the Port to Nowhere, or this piece, the choice would be pretty clear in my mind: there is no reason to dredge.
I also can't imagine that salinity is measure in 'parts per thousand'. That makes no sense. As someone who grew up on the river, I can attest that when dredging has occurred in the past, the water I water-skied in tasted saltier and people caught more salt-water fish off of their docks. The two events may be coincidental and not related.
Too many dollars and cents thrown around as purported fact here.
Let me quote a small section of this editorial here, and not to be too critical, but as someone who has even submitted editorials to the FTU in years past when I was "closer" to Jacksonville, I don't think I, even in my frequent haste, would want this sort of thing reprinted for the public (maybe if I typed this after coming home alone from the bar at night at 3 AM in a drunken rant, so long as it's 'Anonymous'...not to say I'm not describing past events in my life as they relate to my typing relationship with this site, hehe):
QuoteWhile some Post Panamax Ships will have a 50 foot draft, the majority being built and designed will have a 45 draft. Thus, the 47 foot channel designed to handle 45 feet drafts and leave 2 feet of water under the keel (bottom) of the ship.
• Regarding the time to project completion. If the project is fast tracked it could be finished in four years and we could have fully loaded post Panamax Ships calling on JAXPORT.
Oh yea? Says who?
I'm sure that with ACOE involved it will create no more environmental damage than did straightening the Kissimmee River, draining the Everglades, digging the Cross Florida Barge Canal, and be as effective as the New Orleans levee system.
I would love to know in what year FDOT funded JAXPORT at $98 million. I believe Mr. Fouraker may be confusing JAXPORT with the entire state port system.
The st johns river is fucked with this movement towards more depth..with a port so far inland..I dont see how we are more important than other cities actually on the coast...where is the real science?
Deepening the channel sounds very logical and cost-effective to me, we have a great location and easily accessible port and associated land facilities. We need to regain our edge. I agree with the article.
This opinion piece deserves serious comment if for no other reason than I am referenced, my discipline of sociology is devalued, and my last name is misspelled (the author left off an 'e' – so I have been disenvoweled, once again).
In order to assess the value of this dredging/deepening project to the city and region one must extend beyond the narrow, abstract, and technical models used by most (not all) economists and venture into the real world. As an economic sociologist, I understand the value of incorporating the insights of other disciplines – including economics – but also politics, public administration, geography, transportation & logistics, and urban planning. If you confine yourself to economics as conventionally practiced, you would be unable to conduct a comprehensive and accurate analysis of the port logistics economy, or be able to evaluate the wisdom of this project.
If one does the necessary multidisciplinary research based on real data, and actual experiences and conditions of other ports, projects, and the industry, and then asks whether the investment of what will be at least $1 billion dollars, with a local share of at least $400 million, will yield the claimed returns on investment, they will logically conclude that the likelihood is minimal at best.
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.
As I have noted in many other places, these numbers should be interpreted with great caution and skepticism. The best and most comprehensive study of cost and benefit figures for megaprojects such as the St Johns River deepening conclude that cost/benefit estimates are not only highly and systematically misleading, but best explained by "intentional strategic misrepresentation". The research points to the following equation as the standard formula to garner public support and project approval:
(PROJECT/PUBLIC APPROVAL)= (underestimate costs) + (overestimate revenues) + (undervalue environmental impacts) + (overvalue economic development effects)
There is no reason to assume that the St Johns dredging project will deviate from this pattern. Like all such projects there are powerful interests that stand to gain from this massive public investment. To ignore this political dynamic, which would tend to be overlooked by a purely economic analysis, is to leave oneself open to being manipulated and duped.
Many questions have been raised about the number of jobs that will be presumably be generated by this project. One of the problems in assessing the claims is due to the fact that Martin Associates, whose numbers are used by proponents, does not reveal or share its model and/or data. However, I have already reported in other research how Martin job numbers have been inflated and misused by Jaxport (consult link below). But don't take the word of a sociologist, an independent (not paid for by Jaxport) peer review of the first draft of the USACE report on the project conducted by Battelle, that included job numbers generated by Martin Associates, concluded that: "The Regional Economic Development (RED) benefits are incorrectly attributed to the harbor deepening and therefore overemphasize regional benefits of the Jacksonville Harbor Project."
What about the quality of jobs? This question has received far too little attention, so I am glad that the author of the editorial has raised this issue. Unfortunately, this too has been calculated in a way that grossly inflates the compensation in this sector of the local economy. Martin Associates once reported an average annual income of around $43,000. The author here has raised this further to $53,000. Both of these figures are laughable.
The first problem is reporting the average (mean) rather than the median for annual income. This is a violation of a basic statistical principle. The second problem is taking the total income for all workers of selected Jaxport tenants (the Martin approach) and then dividing by the total number of workers. This yields an average (rather than median) based on a limited number of port logistics sector workers.
The more widely acceptable way to determine compensation levels associated with the port economy is to access the Bureau of Labor Statistics/Occupational Employment Statistics for the economic sector that includes Transportation and Material Moving Occupations. Using these data from May 2013 indicates that the median annual income for workers in this sector in Duval County is $28,538. This translates into a median hourly wage of $13.78. According to the calculations for Duval County, a living wage for a working adult with one child is $19.71.
If one focuses specifically on the jobs associated with the port logistics economy, 61% of the total is accounted for by three occupations -- Laborers and Freight, Stock Material Movers (34%); Heavy and Tractor Trailer Drivers (21%); Packers and Packagers (6.4%). The median annual income for these three positions is $28,395. This assumes fulltime year-round work which is increasingly unlikely for owner-operator truck drivers (who are paid by the container, not the hour) and warehouse/distribution center workers (who are increasingly hired through temporary employment agencies).
In short, as all studies have indicated, port logistics is not a high wage industry.
Even if the deepening project is approved, fully funded, and completed on schedule the probability of achieving the desired and projected outcomes is minimal. This is due to a number of factors:
• John Martin, the President and CEO of Martin Associates, has said that after the deepening to 47' feet Jaxport would then have to conduct an intensive marketing campaign in order to capture cargo from other ports
• Port competition on the East Coast is intense and there are other ports that currently hold huge advantages over Jaxport that are already moving far more cargo -- such as Miami, Savannah, Charleston, Norfolk, and NY/NJ. All of these ports are making their own investments in deeper channels and/or new infrastructure to sustain and improve their relative position in the East coast port hierarchy.
• By all indications, there will not be enough cargo and shipping business to justify the number of East coast ports dredging deeper channels and harbors. Not every East coast port can be the "first in/last out" – and if everyone tries we will be, and are currently, engaging in environmentally destructive and financially costly competition. The net result will be massive overcapacity and underutilization.
• One development indicating both the troubled state of the shipping industry and the uncompetitive position of Jaxport is the formation of container shipping alliances. The most significant is the P3 Alliance joining of Maersk, Mediterranean Shipping Co, and CMA-CGM into a huge container shipping oligopoly. The P3 Alliance has disclosed its proposed shipping lanes and ports of call -- Jaxport is not among them. They have selected Miami, Savannah, Charleston, Baltimore, Norfolk, Newark, and Freeport.
• Even at 47 feet, fully-loaded container vessel entry to Jaxport terminals for the largest post-Panamax and New Post-Panamax ships will not be possible due to the requirement for 50' of water draft and 180-190' of air draft. The Dames Point Bridge has an air draft of 175'.
For further information on the port economy check out the Ports Project at UNF at:
http://www.unf.edu/coas/cci/ports/
David Jaffee
Professor of Sociology
University of North Florida
Preach!
I stand by the opinions expressed in my original article, and would only add that the opinions here are filled with many "shoulds." Shoulds are irrational. They only lead to a later discussion of how we didn't see something coming, except we do see it coming. Our writer states that dredging to 47 feet is necessary, but the ships who will use jaxport at 47 feet can use jaxport now, we do not have the capability to reach the level necessary for a successful dredging project. An environmentalist at heart, I oppose JaxPort for economic reasons. I am an active member of Sierra Club, yes, and we oppose JaxPort, but I am also a public school teacher as as such am someone who is constantly confronted with today's youth and thoughts of our future. JaxPort is a bad idea for our future. The jobs and salaries which are inflated here are jobs that require a massive upfront payment from the people of Jacksonville, and it is a bad investment on our part. Salinity issues, habitat destruction, all of that aside-- JaxPort is a poor economic investment.
Dr. Jaffee, I appreciate your comments. Your experience and expertise is greatly appreciated throughout the community, even if that is not evident in this opinion piece.
I wish I had the time right now to refute all of the inaccuracies in this piece. Unfortunately, the writer, our Chamber, and many local leaders have simply accepted the conclusions of the environmental and economic reports that have been completed by the Corps and Jaxport's consultant without question or scrutiny. It is ironically the environmental groups and Dr. Jaffee who are the ones being fiscally conservative, demanding that the economic projections and viability of the project be thoroughly vetted, in addition to the environmental impacts. Thankfully, Dr. Jaffee has been diligently studying the economics of the proposed dredging for several years and has exposed many of the fallacies and shortcomings of the analysis.
We all want Jacksonville to thrive, but let's not risk the health of our river and hundreds of millions of dollars that we don't have chasing what may ultimately be a pipe dream. Sometimes you have to face reality and focus on being the best that you can be and not what you want to be. I guess our leaders aren't so concerned when they are rolling the dice with taxpayers' dollars, instead of their own.
Okay, I'll bite on this, you are a 'Professor of Sociology' and I a old railroad planner. Point-Counter Point.
Quote from: djaffee on June 03, 2014, 11:40:23 AM
• John Martin, the President and CEO of Martin Associates, has said that after the deepening to 47' feet Jaxport would then have to conduct an intensive marketing campaign in order to capture cargo from other ports
As does every other world port.
Quote• Port competition on the East Coast is intense and there are other ports that currently hold huge advantages over Jaxport that are already moving far more cargo -- such as Miami, Savannah, Charleston, Norfolk, and NY/NJ. All of these ports are making their own investments in deeper channels and/or new infrastructure to sustain and improve their relative position in the East coast port hierarchy.
We are number 13 in the USA and hold a on and off lead in automobiles. We 'own' the container business but dropped the ball with the Sealand fiasco. We are also positioned better then Miami, being 300+ miles closer to markets. The western most port in the USA. The first port coming north from the ditch that has access to the west via rail. Better railroad service and trackage then Miami, Savannah, Charleston or Norfolk. We DO have a product.
Quote• By all indications, there will not be enough cargo and shipping business to jtify the number of East coast ports dredging deeper channels and harbors. Not every East coast port can be the "first in/last out" – and if everyone tries we will be, and are currently, engaging in environmentally destructive and financially costly competition. The net result will be massive overcapacity and underutilization.
Until business ticks up again and historically it will happen. This isn't a capacity issue per-se, though that plays a big role, this is a ship economy issue. As I've said again and again, the ships currently calling with a 8,000 container capacity are going to be blown away by 18,000 container Post-Panamax ships. Think one trip Hong Kong to Jaxport is equal to two of the older ships. Miami will sell a quicker return to Hong Kong (for example) 300 miles closer to the canal then the next major port, JAXPORT. This will buy the shipping companies one extra round trip per year or a bonus of 18,000 containers. We on the other hand can sell speed, speed west, northwest, and northward. We are not under New York on that globe, we are under Cincinnati, a certain advantage.
Quote• One development indicating both the troubled state of the shipping industry and the uncompetitive position of Jaxport is the formation of container shipping alliances. The most significant is the P3 Alliance joining of Maersk, Mediterranean Shipping Co, and CMA-CGM into a huge container shipping oligopoly. The P3 Alliance has disclosed its proposed shipping lanes and ports of call -- Jaxport is not among them. They have selected Miami, Savannah, Charleston, Baltimore, Norfolk, Newark, and Freeport
.
Colliers International doesn't think we're out of this game. If they selected Savannah or Charleston they can unselect them, it's a matter of value added services and better rail. Around 1960 'another catastrophic environmental disaster' was planned for Jacksonville. It was called 'The Kansas City-Florida Parkway.' Today it's know as the embryonic Interstate-22, a multi-modal corridor bringing the American west to our door. With a bit of push, it could still happen and if it does, we'll blow Savannah's light out. MLK northwest could = I-22 along the NS to Valdosta and beyond. As an aside, the Savannah channel has more problems then we do and has also fallen behind, stumbled and fought over this thing, we're not alone.
Quote• Even at 47 feet, fully-loaded container vessel entry to Jaxport terminals for the largest post-Panamax and New Post-Panamax ships will not be possible due to the requirement for 50' of water draft and 180-190' of air draft. The Dames Point Bridge has an air draft of 175'.
Professor of Sociology
University of North Florida
Simple, you create terminals east of the bridge, including extending the JAXPORT railroad east along Hecksher Drive to a terminal as close to the shipping lanes as Port Canaveral or Fernandina. This also solves your largest complaint, and if held tight to the road would have minimal environment effect. I think it would be a net gain.
Quote from: simms3 on June 03, 2014, 04:15:17 AM
Fail. Needs serious editing before becoming a prominent opinion piece. TEU stands for Twenty Foot Equivalent, not "trailer" foot equivalent. The name is now irrelevant to an average container's length, but the name still stands.
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.
QuoteI also can't imagine that salinity is measure in 'parts per thousand'. That makes no sense. As someone who grew up on the river, I can attest that when dredging has occurred in the past, the water I water-skied in tasted saltier and people caught more salt-water fish off of their docks. The two events may be coincidental and not related.
Ditto, but the river has little fall in it's 200 miles M/L, so tidal action brings in the saltwater anyway, then takes it back out.
QuoteI, even in my frequent haste, would want this sort of thing reprinted for the public (maybe if I typed this after coming home alone from the bar at night at 3 AM in a drunken rant, so long as it's 'Anonymous'...not to say I'm not describing past events in my life as they relate to my typing relationship with this site, hehe):
While some Post Panamax Ships will have a 50 foot draft, the majority being built and designed will have a 45 draft. Thus, the 47 foot channel designed to handle 45 feet drafts and leave 2 feet of water under the keel (bottom) of the ship.
• Regarding the time to project completion. If the project is fast tracked it could be finished in four years and we could have fully loaded post Panamax Ships calling on JAXPORT.
Oh yea? Says who?
This feels like a cheap shot, or is it just my sensitivities??? ;)
Quote from: Ocklawaha on June 03, 2014, 11:12:33 PM
Quote from: simms3 on June 03, 2014, 04:15:17 AM
Fail. Needs serious editing before becoming a prominent opinion piece. TEU stands for Twenty Foot Equivalent, not "trailer" foot equivalent. The name is now irrelevant to an average container's length, but the name still stands.
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.
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.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on June 03, 2014, 11:12:33 PM
This feels like a cheap shot, or is it just my sensitivities??? ;)
Your sensitivities. Horrible grammar, improper points, fallacies in the argument, and uneducated opinion played off as fact. The setup for this article was that this was some well known guy who ran a magazine and sent this in to the FTU editorial board. I think it's laughable, at best. He needed a peer review X3
before submitting it up to both this heavily read website and the FTU.
BTW, I know who Dr. Jaffee is as I went to school with his kids. Well respected name in the community. His arguments are also reasonable and well argued.
The points FOR dredging are epic fails against their counterpoints. This coming from a guy (me) who was all for expanding the port and capitalizing on that business. It should not be difficult to win me over as I was already a proponent. Now, I'm not. The arguments against have been laid out in such a superior manner as to make them difficult to overcome.
Dr. Jaffe,
The claim that 50 feet will automatically be the new draft is wrong and if it is correct we can easily go to 52 feet in the future on this 13 mile stretch of river. There are many container ships that have a 45 foot draft and this business is available to Jacksonville.
Yes the Dames Point Bridge is 175 feet, regarding Tra-Pac, they choose that location knowing the bridge was there. As stated in my article and shown in the accompanying photo the Blount Island location is to the east of the Dames Point Bridge. The JEA lines can be raised to 264 feet or buried well under the riverbed to allow 200 feet of vertical clearance. With a power line you must allow a 20 percent sag for overheating and an additional 20 feet for a 225KV energy field. Thus, the 64 foot additional height to allow 200 feet of vertical clearance. If this is done, Blount Island can handle the 180 to 190 feet of "air space". If the lines are buried the vertical clearance becomes unlimited.
Blount Island currently has a great deal space (at least 50%) taken up by Ro/Ro mostly automobiles. This type of cargo does not require a 47 channel. Brian Taylor would like to eventually move this cargo to east of where it currently sits, possibly to somewhere along Talleyrand.
I certain that you are an excellent Sociology Professor and I believe the Sociology is an important academic subject. My point was the Paul Mason (your colleague) is a well respected economist. He is well respected in his field. Dr. Mason knows the methodology in collecting the data needed to run economic models. He understands the models used and certainly was fair and unbiased in his Peer Review.
If you made a point in Sociology and Dr. Mason said you were wrong, I would consider you the expert. In this case I trust Dr. Mason's work in his field. In the case of an economics study Dr. Mason and Martin and Associates win the argument.
In response to Mr. Simms, the technical term is trailer equivalent unit (TEU). It is a twenty foot container size. There are containers that are smaller than a TEU and containers that are much larger. The last fiscal year JAXPORT handled over 930 thousand of these units. The Martin and Associates Report which again was peer reviewed by well respected Economics Professor Paul Mason states that if the port is not deepened the number of TEUs handled will fall to about 732 thousand.
Regarding Salinity levels. In most locations the oceans are considered to have a salinity level of 3.5%, in scientific terms this would be measured in parts per thousand (PPT). A level of 3.5% is equal to 35 PPT (this was taught at the Marine Science Center even way back in 1970). According to the USACE Report the salinity level at the Acosta Bridge can range from just over 2 PPT to 11 PPT according to the amount fresh water flowing downstream (mainly created by rainfall) and the level of the tides. Based on the fact that we are adding 1.1 billion cubic feet of water at higher salinity level and that the river, related marshes and tributaries before mile twenty contains well over ten billion cubic feet of water, the salinity level should not based on the math increase very much to the south of the Acosta Bridge.
To tufsu1: Lake Ray stated emphatically in front of the Southside Business Men's club that his legislation provided $98 million to JAXPORT IN FY 2013. The entire FDOT budget for ports that year was $288 million. Part of that was for the Mile Point fix and part of that was New Berlin Intermodal Facility. The rest was for various other projects.
There was a comment about the septic tank and gasoline tank leakage. The leaky septic tank issue is serious, according to Paul McElroy CEO of JEA it would cost an average of $18,000 per tank to hook up Jacksonville's 65,000 septic systems to our city sewage system, the cost is $1.17 billion. If we turned to a gray water system for irrigation and agriculture this is estimated to be another $1.3 billion. It is now time for the citizens of Jacksonville to decide whether or not was want to go to the next level of clean water. If we do remember this will cost $2.5 billion; though the septic system would be paid through a surcharge on the property owners tax bill or some sort of monthly billing.
To the Riverkeeper: If you have a scientific report that contradicts the USACE report on salinity level increases, please forward it to me. I will glad to read the report and if it provides a compelling reason to not dredge you may pull me over to your side? If there is just a mind set of we do not what will happen, then your side needs to step back and evaluate what will happen using the data regarding the river and the impact of past dredging projects.
In doing so remember that the 40 foot deepening was Talleyrand and the 47 foot project will only be to just west of New Berlin.
The dredging has been a part of the local plans since Neil was Riverkeeper. Why did you not do your own EA to determine if the project
Quote from: brucef58 on June 04, 2014, 09:43:30 AM
To tufsu1: Lake Ray stated emphatically in front of the Southside Business Men's club that his legislation provided $98 million to JAXPORT IN FY 2013. The entire FDOT budget for ports that year was $288 million. Part of that was for the Mile Point fix and part of that was New Berlin Intermodal Facility. The rest was for various other projects.
The Mile Point fix is around $36 million and the state is funding $30 million for the intermodal facility. Where is the other $32 million? Plus, these appropriations were spread out over more than one FDOT fiscal year (evidenced by the fact the intermodal facility didn't even start construction until 2014 and Mile Point hasn't started yet).
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on June 03, 2014, 11:12:33 PM
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.
QuoteThis 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:
Quote"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. ;)
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?"
Quote from: Ocklawaha on June 04, 2014, 11:10:48 AM
...for literally blowing away (She is Colombian after all)...
teehee 8)
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-/.
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
Quote from: Ocklawaha on June 04, 2014, 11:10:48 AM
Quote from: Ocklawaha on June 03, 2014, 11:12:33 PM
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.
QuoteThis 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:
Quote"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.
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.
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.
QuoteSo 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.
I thought this was an interesting e-mail that I received from Dan Norfleet, a port watchdog and frequent critic of Martin.
QuoteWith 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
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!
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.
QuoteAndrew Miller, executive director and legal counsel of the Public Trust Environmental Legal Institute of Florida, the organization that's filed the lawsuit, joined Melissa Ross for more on what the group is hoping to accomplish with the suit.
20 minute discussion with Melissa Ross. Look to the bottom of the article.
http://news.wjct.org/post/local-nonprofit-sues-jaxport-release-dredging-study-documents (http://news.wjct.org/post/local-nonprofit-sues-jaxport-release-dredging-study-documents)
Quote from: Ocklawaha on June 05, 2014, 11:20:38 AM
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.
Savannah is ahead of us. Their project was approved by USACOE first and their state government is prepared to pay for the project without Federal help if need be. And if you haven't noticed, we have our own share of lawsuits.
I also disagree with your assertion that we would be ahead of Savannah if we dredge. Right now they are 3x larger than JaxPort. Not even the rosiest projections have us growing that much.
Finally, the economic projections (jobs) done for each port assumes that competing ports do nothing. That isn't realistic at all. Fact is if several ports dredge, the econmomic gains will be shared and therefore diluted quite a bit.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on June 05, 2014, 11:20:38 AM
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.
TUFSU1 Did you READ my post? I didn't assert that we would be ahead of them, simply that if we go deep and for some reason they don't, then we can regain our lead. Either way it won't be overnight.
The Savannah dredging may begin by the end of the year. Despite what Jaxport has said, we are not on the same track and Savannah is prepared to move forward very soon.
http://wjcl.com/2014/05/21/savannah-harbor-dredging-could-begin-by-years-end/
Even if the Savannah dredging doesn't happen for some unforeseen reason, Jax still has a LONG way to go to catch Savannah.
Jax handled 926,809 TEUs in 2013, while Savannah had 3,038,000.
In 2012, Jacksonville ranked 7th in TEU container volume among the 8 East Coast ports that are trying to attract larger ships, and we lost market share in the first quarter of this year, while our closest competitors, Savannah and Charleston, gained share.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2014/05/30/jaxport-loses-market-share-in-first-quarter-while.html?page=all
Many industry experts cite the need for only 2-3 deep water ports on the East Coast to handle the larger ships. As Jaxport's own consultant John Martin said, ""The large ships can't call multiple ports. Carriers lose all economies of scale once they start doing milk runs."
If this rings true, you can see how difficult it will be for Jacksonville to ever move into the top tier of East Coast ports. We already lag way behind many of our competitors in terms of infrastructure upgrades, financial support, and current TEU volume.
Then, throw in the significant risk to our river's health and the enormous costs associated with this project, and it becomes very difficult to justify the viability or the wisdom of pursuing the dredging.
Ron Littlepage raises additional concerns in his recent column worth considering too.
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/ron-littlepage/2014-06-10/story/ron-littlepage-dredging-proposal-still-raises-questions
Savannah and Brunswick do get all of Georgia's support, whereas Jax has a lot of other ports in Florida to share resources in the state. I see no way JaxPORT can compete with Savannah and Georgia. It is foolish, absolute insanity to think that JaxPORT, already 1/3 the size of cargo of Savannah thinks they can do it better.
So why fight the tape? Partner with Savannah and Brunswick and build a stronger regional system to take on Miami and Tampa, Charleston and others.
Interesting outcome at Wednesday's Port Task Force as recounted by Ron Littlepage:
QuoteWhile explaining the breadth of Crowley's operations — $2 billion in annual revenue, 5,300 employees (including 932 in Northeast Florida) and a fleet of 260 vessels with a strong business in Puerto Rico, Central America and the Caribbean — task force member Pete Carpenter cut to the chase and asked about dredging the channel.
"The fact of the matter is 47 feet doesn't impact us," Gilliam said. "It's not important for our business."
The current 40-foot channel is sufficient for the ships they use and for new ones they are building.
That leads to another question.
The position of JaxChamber is basically that without deeper water JaxPort will wither and die.
Considering Gilliam's statement, is that true?
Most of Crowley's business and nearly half of all of Jaxport's is with Puerto Rico.
Another company that was selected by Jaxport to speak, Bedrosians, only employs 24 people.
http://members.jacksonville.com/opinion/ron-littlepage/2014-06-19/story/ron-littlepage-dredging-concerns-are-deep-st-johns-itself?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JacksonvillecomOpinion+(Jacksonville.com%3A+Opinion (http://members.jacksonville.com/opinion/ron-littlepage/2014-06-19/story/ron-littlepage-dredging-concerns-are-deep-st-johns-itself?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JacksonvillecomOpinion+(Jacksonville.com%3A+Opinion)
Aside from the fact that this channel deepening project will have a pretty drastic impact on the river, an impact that has been totally glossed over, for little to no economic benefit, it is still refreshingly funny and sad to see how poorly Jacksonville handles...everything:
http://jacksonville.com/business/columnists/2015-02-17/story/mark-woods-jacksonville-port-consultants-writings-say-race (http://jacksonville.com/business/columnists/2015-02-17/story/mark-woods-jacksonville-port-consultants-writings-say-race)
Quote"Integration has proven to be as bad as inter-marriage; it dumbs down America. Perhaps God separated us for a reason." – Herbert M. Barber Jr. in his 2012 self-published book, "Fall of a Nation: a Biblical Perspective of a Modern Problem"
Let's start there, so that maybe the next time a city considers paying Barber $60,000 to analyze the economic benefits of a port or anything else, someone will do a quick Google search and have an idea of what they are getting when they hire the Savannah, Ga.-based consultant who founded Xicon Economics.
It only gets better from there. And, at the risk of Jacksonville taxpayers giving this guy more money, you would do yourself well to pick up a digital copy of his book. It is amazing. For the reader who found Mein Kampf a little
too lenient.
That guy is a nut, but what is the worry about dredging the river another 5 feet? It's already 50-60 feet deep through pretty much all of downtown, and in the 40s the rest of the way to mayport. What's another few feet in a couple shallow spots going to ruin, exactly? Not being argumentative, just honestly curious. In terms of dredging this is a big project distance-wise, but not in terms of depth, they're not taking it from 20 to 40, it's maybe a 10% or less difference.
While I agree that the environmental impact of dredging to 47 feet is one that perhaps can be mitigated in other ways, what does concern me most and turns me against the dredging no matter what is the financial impact. It appears to me, as just an average Joe, that the cost benefit simply is not really there and this is indeed a case of if we dredge it they will not come.
I keep finding myself wondering if the people pushing for the dredging are elated in some way to those that will make those millions off of the dredging itself. I fear the only profit that will ever be made from the dredging will be from the actual work of dredging, never from having the deeper channel.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on February 19, 2015, 06:20:03 AM
That guy is a nut, but what is the worry about dredging the river another 5 feet? It's already 50-60 feet deep through pretty much all of downtown, and in the 40s the rest of the way to mayport. What's another few feet in a couple shallow spots going to ruin, exactly? Not being argumentative, just honestly curious. In terms of dredging this is a big project distance-wise, but not in terms of depth, they're not taking it from 20 to 40, it's maybe a 10% or less difference.
The additional depth will change river hydraulics in those areas as well as drive the salt "wedge" further upstream. While salinity in the river fluctuates with tide, weather, and season, there is an average salinity level along the river from the mouth up to where it is completely fresh. This deepening basically pushes that wedge further upstream. Additionally, the deeper channel (and subsequent larger vessels) will result in larger wakes. In areas where the shoreline is closer to the channel, you would see increased erosion of the bank. You could see wetland loss or threats to upland infrastructure where it is located on a bank near the channel.
Now, all of that is certainly not a dealbreaker. Much of it can be mitigated for, particularly if the benefits are significant. However, the problem in this case is, because Obama has fast-tracked all these port deepenings, the typical environmental impact investigations have been skipped or glossed over. Add to that the fact that the economic benefits are based on Jax receiving new traffic, even though we will still be competing with all the other nearby ports, all of which are ahead of us in this process. And the Army Corps has said going to -47 ft will only have a marginal benefit to -45 ft. And we still won't be set up for New Panamax vessels (-50 ft or greater).
Basically, the process has been forced through without due consideration, all because Obama and Rick Scott have absolutely not vision for the country (or state's) infrastructure. Every port is getting a half-measure improvement, instead of a few logistically important locations getting the job done right. So we're looking at about a billion dollars (52% from local sources) upfront and then continued maintenance dredging (eventually 50% local), and we don't have a good idea of the economic or environmental impact. It's just an example of bad governance.
I'm opposed to the dredging not only because the environmental impacts are uncertain, but also because the financial burdens far outweigh the economic benefits. We are struggling to pay our pension obligations and provide basic services, we can't even maintain the lights on the bridge, so why entertain the idea of pumping so much money into deepening our port? Even if we had that extra money sitting around unused, we could make much more of an impact on Jacksonville's future by using it to fix downtown or implement better public transit instead of making our river deeper, something that may or may not cause permanent damage to our environment.
I have followed this a bit and can see that the narrative from local leadership (past and present) is that we 'must do the dredging'.
It is ingrained to where it's almost like it's a forgone conclusion that its going to get done. It's just a matter of when and how much to raise the property tax rate to pay for it. That will be the next phase, so look for the trial balloon on that part coming soon.
I personally think it's way too much money to spend on a project with such dubious potential. And, as has been mentioned above, the only people guaranteed to make money on it are the dredging companies and related entities.
But it goes to show how the political machine works in this town. Get enough power people (you know who they are) to keep saying how we need something (i.e.: the scoreboard at Everbank for instance) and it eventually happens.
But with the city's infrastructure falling apart as well as non payment (for years) of the pension plans I just can't see spending billions now on deepening a river that perhaps will result in bigger ships coming in to port.
Time for someone in a leadership position to take a stand and say we gotta get our house in order before we spend taxpayers money going after another high end bauble.
Just my $.02
If you are interested in voicing your opinions and concerns about the dredging proposal -- on any side of the issue -- please attend the Town Hall Forum on March 9th at UNFs University Center from 6-9 pm. Free and open to the public.
The forum will be modeled after a genuine town hall meeting. The format will be an "open mike" for members of the public attending to express their views and/or ask questions of those in attendance who represent different perspectives on the project. These representatives will not make formal presentations but will be available to respond to questions and concerns. We will have a moderator.
We have invited representatives from the sponsoring organizations as well as the Mayor's Port Task Force, the Jax Chamber, the Army Corps of Engineers, The Sierra Club, and any other organizations/businesses that can contribute to an informed public on this important policy matter.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-02-17/story/unf-hosts-mar-9-town-hall-meeting-st-johns-river-dredging-proposal?utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JacksonvillecomsNewsSportsAndEntertainment+%28Jacksonville%27s+Most+Recent+Headlines+-+Jacksonville.com+and+The+Florida+Times-Union%29&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner
The town hall forum will be co-sponsored by The Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work, UNF; The Ports Project, UNF; The Riverkeeper, and the Northeast Florida Center for Community Initiatives, UNF.
A megaproject that would probably end up costing a $1 billion and would significantly impact the health of our river needs to be thoroughly vetted by the public and our community leaders. Thanks to Dr. David Jaffee and UNF for helping to facilitate community dialogue and providing citizens with an important opportunity to have their voices heard. I hope the house is packed on March 9. This may be the public's best chance to get answers and be heard.