QuoteJaxPort officials have quietly crafted a scaled-back option to dredge the St. Johns River that comes with a smaller price tag but would also fall short of delivering a deeper channel to the TraPac terminal, Jacksonville's best window to Asian trade and the mega ships it will bring.
The trimmed option — according to public records and confirmed by JaxPort officials last week — would reduce the original 13-mile dredge to 11 miles, slashing the overall cost from more than $700 million to about $511 million, which JaxPort officials believe could make it a more enticing investment as they lobby the federal government to share the cost.
But the proposal also adds layers of uncertainties: Tenants, including TraPac, would have to be shuffled between terminals, meaning JaxPort could face a sensitive and potentially difficult series of agreements and balancing acts.
With rival ports along the East Coast scrambling to compete for larger and larger cargo ships that need deeper harbors, finding money and starting the project to deepen the river from 40 feet to 47 feet as quickly as possible has become increasingly urgent. Jacksonville is already behind Miami and Savannah in port deepening.
The proposed 11-mile dredge is, at this stage, only an option JaxPort is exploring.
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-07-11/story/pursuit-federal-money-jaxport-considers-scaled-back-cheaper-dredging
This modified plan sounds pretty similar to what Gulftainer proposed back in 2012. At the time, the local response was "we're not interested."
QuoteThe Jacksonville Port Authority has turned down a proposal by an international shipping firm seeking to lease 100 acres at Blount Island for a cargo terminal that would have been one of the port's biggest.
Gulftainer Co. Ltd. also said it would spend around $250 million in Jacksonville if it built a terminal here, according to state Rep. Mike Weinstein.
But JaxPort officials notified Gulftainer this week the company's proposal does not fit into the authority's plans.
The 754-acre Blount Island, east of the Dames Point bridge, is occupied by existing tenants. JaxPort officials said the authority is in the early stages of putting together a strategic plan for developing all the port authority's property.
Weinstein, R-Jacksonville, said JaxPort missed an opportunity because Gulftainer considered Jacksonville its No. 1 choice. He said the port should have looked for ways to accommodate Gulftainer's needs by possibly moving some tenants from Blount Island to other port-owned property.
"This was their first choice and if they don't come here, they're going to take that same level of investment and [cargo] tonnage somewhere else on the East Coast," he said. "It won't be Florida. We're the only Florida port Gulftainer was considering.
Weinstein said Gulftainer told him the $250 million would pay for projects such as new cranes, helping to foot the bill for deepening the ship channel and raising the JEA power line spanning the river to allow passage of bigger cargo container ships.
He said given the magnitude of Gulftainer's proposal, he's disappointed the port didn't vigorously enter into negotiations.
Gulftainer "brought in a half dozen people from all over the world to make this presentation, and all they got back was a fax saying we're not interested," Weinstein said.
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/business/2012-06-01/story/jaxport-turns-down-250-million-deal
Here we go again, the classical 'We can't have Disney so lets built a ferris wheel,' approach.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 12, 2015, 01:09:52 PM
Here we go again, the classical 'We can't have Disney so lets built a ferris wheel,' approach.
except this time the vast majority of citizens aren't at all interested in having Disney
No but when the worlds shipping is too big for our port and we get bypassed, watch them howl!
I thought that the idea in Folio was interesting. http://folioweekly.com/LETS-NOT-DREDGE-THE-RIVER,12941
I'm surprised that they didn't say "19 Things we should do instead of dredging the river". Gotta love Folio's award winning journalism....
Well I (and the rest of the railroad industry) might have been with him on the Jetty area terminals and rail line but when he crossed over to the south side of the river and brought in rail car barges, we all fell off the train laughing. Yes it WAS done and still is in a few remote locations... And NO it won't be done again anytime soon! Keep it north of the river and its a great and workable idea.
I'm proud that Jaxport has figured this out. We can never dredge the St Johns River to fit the largest cargo ships like the Barzan ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barzan_%28ship%29 and why should we.
The port of Jacksonville is relevant, although it may not be for the reasons you'd think.
While the port is scrambling to deepen the shipping channel in preparation for larger ships brought by the Panama Canal expansion, K.C. Conway, a port analyst and senior vice president for credit risk management at SunTrust Bank, argued that there are other, equally important ingredients to port success.
Jacksonville happens to excel at many of them."If you ask Volkswagen and Maersk if Jacksonville is relevant, the answer is yes," Conway said, referring to the major investments both companies made to Jacksonville this year.
Conway's claim is that the supply chain is changing drastically. Yes, Southern California is the nexus for most port and supply chain activity, but that is shifting to the East Coast, where 70 percent of the nation's population lives.
And while having a deeper port wouldn't hurt Jacksonville, Conway said, lacking a deep port is not a deal breaker: The nation's fourth-busiest port, Savannah, is also one of the shallowest.
That doesn't mean to let up on the issue.
"Keep pressure on your Legislature," Conway told the Business Journal after his presentation at a NAIOP luncheon, "and keep your options open. But it's really everything else you're doing."
That everything else includes major issues in the supply chain, including the growth of on-shoring, either to Mexico or even to the United States. That could shift freight from the West Coast, which specializes in Asia trade. In fact, Conway said, freight could start moving from the Western Hemisphere as more and more goods are manufactured in North America.
Other innovations, such as Jacksonville's energy market, will be a huge game changer: As ships adopt liquefied natural gas, Jacksonville is one of the leading, and only, fuel stops.
"If you're the gas station," Conway said, "you will be a key link." Florida has really had the potential to be a supply chain hub for a long time. Not only does it have the fourth-largest share of the country's GDP, but it's in the Southeast, the largest growing region in the country.
Conway said Florida counts for much more than some might think.
"If you put all of Florida's TEUs [twenty-foot-equivalent unit containers] together, you would have more than the No. 3 port, New York," Conway said. "You just have to work synergistically and determine what's of strategic importance."
And for that, he said, Jacksonville has a strong argument.
"You have to rank ports differently," he said. "Look at what ports are luring new users and expanding shipping service. If you look at VW and Maersk, they say Jacksonville. If Jacksonville is so insignificant, why did they choose it?" http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2015/06/23/responding-to-criticisms-outside-economist-says.html?ana=twt
Great points by Conway, concerning "everything else" other than dredging for the largest ships. Another interesting observation is the one about combining all of Florida's TEUs together is more than NY's port. Perhaps, it's not the end of the world if Miami's channel is 50 ft and ours is not.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2015, 11:25:50 AM
Great points by Conway, concerning "everything else" other than dredging for the largest ships. Another interesting observation is the one about combining all of Florida's TEUs together is more than NY's port. Perhaps, it's not the end of the world if Miami's channel is 50 ft and ours is not.
Of course it's NOT! We could also have more smaller ships come in for loads to deliver goods fastest to islands in the Caribbean. Lets have the cargo that comes by Semi stop here in Jacksonville Florida. Instead of driving it to Miami to be shipped out. Jaxport isn't dying anytime soon. I also don't want the St Johns River to be so screwed up that fishing takes a major hit.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 12, 2015, 06:04:50 PM
No but when the worlds shipping is too big for our port and we get bypassed, watch them howl!
We and you just need to adjust to a scaled down port. And Screw the other Ports. Even if we could dredge the St Johns River to 50 feet we still couldn't get a lot of these ships in. The dames Port Bridge would have to be moved up. God what a waste of money this all would be. Just because we can't be like Savannah, Charleston, Miami etc etc etc. Who Cares.
We're in this position because of lack of local leadership on the port question. It's a rare case where the state and our federal reps have been on top of it and our own leaders haven't. Florida has too many ports and it needs to pick winners and losers. With our location and rail connection, there's absolutely no reason we should be one of the losers.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 13, 2015, 11:42:12 AM
We're in this position because of lack of local leadership on the port question. It's a rare case where the state and our federal reps have been on top of it and our own leaders haven't. Florida has too many ports and it needs to pick winners and losers. With our location and rail connection, there's absolutely no reason we should be one of the losers.
BS we are not losers. JAXPORT exports more automobiles then anybody else including Miami. We are the Winners!
We're losers when it comes to dredging. Dredging is already underway in Miami.
Miami isn't really what we're competing with. Miami's worth doing because the metro itself is so huge, but it's stupid to ship nationwide cargo there (you'd have to put it on trucks and trains and take it through Jacksonville anyway). My understanding is that for its portion, the state is/would be committed to both projects, but our local leadership at the city and the port have dropped the ball. Our real competition for outgoing cargo is Savannah and Charleston; if we can quit tripping over our own two feet, we can compete with those.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 13, 2015, 12:50:11 PM
My understanding is that for its portion, the state is/would be committed to both projects, but our local leadership at the city and the port have dropped the ball. Our real competition for outgoing cargo is Savannah and Charleston; if we can quit tripping over our own two feet, we can compete with those.
I disagree. Expansion at both of those ports is almost 100% paid for by their respective state government. As you noted in another post, the problem in Florida is picking winners and losers. The state has to spread its $ over 5 major ports and 10 others, meaning that in reality nobody wins big.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 13, 2015, 12:50:11 PM
Miami isn't really what we're competing with. Miami's worth doing because the metro itself is so huge, but it's stupid to ship nationwide cargo there (you'd have to put it on trucks and trains and take it through Jacksonville anyway). My understanding is that for its portion, the state is/would be committed to both projects, but our local leadership at the city and the port have dropped the ball. Our real competition for outgoing cargo is Savannah and Charleston; if we can quit tripping over our own two feet, we can compete with those.
At what cost to the St Johns River & Jaxport itself. We just got VW away from Brunswick Ga. I would rather drop the ball as you believe we have then to screw up the St Johns River....................................
Quote from: Tacachale on July 13, 2015, 12:50:11 PM
Miami isn't really what we're competing with. Miami's worth doing because the metro itself is so huge, but it's stupid to ship nationwide cargo there (you'd have to put it on trucks and trains and take it through Jacksonville anyway). My understanding is that for its portion, the state is/would be committed to both projects, but our local leadership at the city and the port have dropped the ball. Our real competition for outgoing cargo is Savannah and Charleston; if we can quit tripping over our own two feet, we can compete with those.
We've been losing that competition for quite a while. Both of those ports (and Norfolk) are pretty far ahead of us already and in terms of planned dredging activity and funding. We can dredge and we still won't make up much ground without addressing the supply side of things. Unfortunately, much of it has nothing to do with Jax.
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 13, 2015, 01:02:57 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 13, 2015, 12:50:11 PM
My understanding is that for its portion, the state is/would be committed to both projects, but our local leadership at the city and the port have dropped the ball. Our real competition for outgoing cargo is Savannah and Charleston; if we can quit tripping over our own two feet, we can compete with those.
I disagree. Expansion at both of those ports is almost 100% paid for by their respective state government. As you noted in another post, the problem in Florida is picking winners and losers. The state has to spread its $ over 5 major ports and 10 others, meaning that in reality nobody wins big.
That is accurate, but by that token Miami doesn't have an advantage over us as far as the state goes, for this and other reasons. Though our lack of local leadership has put us behind.
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 13, 2015, 01:14:36 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 13, 2015, 12:50:11 PM
Miami isn't really what we're competing with. Miami's worth doing because the metro itself is so huge, but it's stupid to ship nationwide cargo there (you'd have to put it on trucks and trains and take it through Jacksonville anyway). My understanding is that for its portion, the state is/would be committed to both projects, but our local leadership at the city and the port have dropped the ball. Our real competition for outgoing cargo is Savannah and Charleston; if we can quit tripping over our own two feet, we can compete with those.
At what cost to the St Johns River & Jaxport itself. We just got VW away from Brunswick Ga. I would rather drop the ball as you believe we have then to screw up the St Johns River....................................
It doesn't have to screw up the river.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2015, 01:27:12 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 13, 2015, 12:50:11 PM
Miami isn't really what we're competing with. Miami's worth doing because the metro itself is so huge, but it's stupid to ship nationwide cargo there (you'd have to put it on trucks and trains and take it through Jacksonville anyway). My understanding is that for its portion, the state is/would be committed to both projects, but our local leadership at the city and the port have dropped the ball. Our real competition for outgoing cargo is Savannah and Charleston; if we can quit tripping over our own two feet, we can compete with those.
We've been losing that competition for quite a while. Both of those ports (and Norfolk) are pretty far ahead of us already and in terms of planned dredging activity and funding. We can dredge and we still won't make up much ground without addressing the supply side of things. Unfortunately, much of it has nothing to do with Jax.
Yes, we're falling behind, but there's no reason we couldn't catch up to Charleston and Savannah. We have other advantages neither of those ports do. There's just been too much navel gazing and fatalism while we get left in the dust.
Well we will wait and see whats to come. But I'm glad Jaxport is slowing down and looking at other ways to make Jaxport work better then Savannah & Charleston.
I'm interested in learning about our advantages. One advantage I think we have that there's not much attention being paid to, is the possibility of direct rail service between the port and CSX, NS and FEC. Everything I've seen so far, only focuses on improving connectivity with CSX. That puts us at a disadvantage against ports that provide their users with multiple rail carriers.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 13, 2015, 01:38:13 PM
That is accurate, but by that token Miami doesn't have an advantage over us as far as the state goes, for this and other reasons. Though our lack of local leadership has put us behind.
The Miami dredging was far less expensive than ours...and almost entirely paid for by the state and feds
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 13, 2015, 03:36:35 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 13, 2015, 01:38:13 PM
That is accurate, but by that token Miami doesn't have an advantage over us as far as the state goes, for this and other reasons. Though our lack of local leadership has put us behind.
The Miami dredging was far less expensive than ours...and almost entirely paid for by the state and feds
That's also true, but my point is as far as the state portion of the funding goes, Miami doesn't/didn't have any special advantage over Jaxport. One reason is that all Florida's state funding is diluted across 15 ports, Miami included. Another is that the state recognizes that a port in Miami isn't going to have the same potential for nationwide distribution. It primarily serves South Florida rather than the wider region, but it's still worth investing in as it's so huge.
However, their port authority and local government was on the ball and got things off the ground while we're still sitting here.
Miami's argument is that it's the closest US port to the Panama Canal. Utilizing the FEC, the belief is that FEC/NS will deliver your goods faster than taking your cargo ship further up the east coast. Instead, you can make a stop and head back to the Pacific. Over the course of a year, going that route, you'd be able to make more trips and ship more. I don't know if things will work out this way, but this is what I heard in a presentation about their positioning a few months back.
This behind other ports argument is silly, we aren't talking going post panamax depth (50'), only to 47'. In light of that, we aren't even in competition for those ships. What we can be in competition for are the smaller, more agile shippers like SeaLand.
This was data collected as part of a grant application for the port of Miami I helped write. It is about a year and a half old.
"Maersk is using SeaLand to build a new brand in North America targeting customers who need to ship less than 500 containers a year. This represents 50 percent of the intra-American market based on a market survey they received last year. The new US subsidiary will have similar structure to Maersk Line's other regional carriers, including intra-Asia carrier MCC Transport and intra-European carrier Seago Line.
SeaLand will use the FTZ in Doral known as the Miami Free Trade Zone to transship between Europe and Latin America. Maersk Line will begin the transition of its Intra-Americas business to SeaLand in a phased approach throughout 2014. Maersk Line currently operates ships in the range of 2,500 and 3,500 TEUs in the market, and the plan is for SeaLand to start by acquiring this Maersk Line network, and to build the organization around this."
With 50% of shipping customers shipping less than 500 containers a year, the growth market is the smaller vessels anyway. Why not focus on that market?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2015, 04:14:40 PM
Miami's argument is that it's the closest US port to the Panama Canal. Utilizing the FEC, the belief is that FEC/NS will deliver your goods faster than taking your cargo ship further up the east coast. Instead, you can make a stop and head back to the Pacific. Over the course of a year, going that route, you'd be able to make more trips and ship more. I don't know if things will work out this way, but this is what I heard in a presentation about their positioning a few months back.
Yes, that's Miami's argument. The opposing argument is that get it anywhere out of the state requires 300 miles+ of train and truck travel, which is somewhat faster but much more expensive than just leaving it on the ship and going to Jax, especially considering all trains and most trucks have to go through here anyway. However, Miami's so large they need a port that size just to serve their region of the state, so it's almost a moot point. At any rate, it looks like the state is (and always was) prepared to come through with their part of the money for Jaxport.
Another position I've heard is that more than likely, post panamax ships will only end up frequenting 3 or so Atlantic ports....one of which will be New York. That leaves everyone else fighting for the other spots. I don't remember off hand (much of this was discussed back in 2011....crazy how time flies and we're still in the same situation, btw) but Norfolk is already 50', and a few others (ex. Savannah/Charleston/Miami) are well ahead, as far as dredging is concerned. Then there are those who believe, it will still be cheaper and quicker to use expanding west coast ports to ship east by rail.
Then, no one is really talking about what the Gulf Coast ports are doing. Yet, Houston is spending $700 million to modernize and dredge its channels for entry into this game.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Mammoth-cranes-signify-new-era-for-Port-of-Houston-6244622.php
It will be interesting to see how things play out. The worst would be spending $500 million to a billion, and not getting anywhere near the ROI that's being talked about locally.
^ New York, Norfolk, and either Charleston, Savannah, or Jax.....an argument repeated by our boosters is that Jax is the most western city on the east coast, providing easy access to the midwest....sorry but Savannah and Charleston can serve that better...and honestly, shipments to the Great Lakes region are likely to come from/go to Norfolk or NYC
Quote from: ben america on July 13, 2015, 05:25:59 PM
This behind other ports argument is silly, we aren't talking going post panamax depth (50'), only to 47'. In light of that, we aren't even in competition for those ships. What we can be in competition for are the smaller, more agile shippers like SeaLand.
This was data collected as part of a grant application for the port of Miami I helped write. It is about a year and a half old.
"Maersk is using SeaLand to build a new brand in North America targeting customers who need to ship less than 500 containers a year. This represents 50 percent of the intra-American market based on a market survey they received last year. The new US subsidiary will have similar structure to Maersk Line's other regional carriers, including intra-Asia carrier MCC Transport and intra-European carrier Seago Line.
SeaLand will use the FTZ in Doral known as the Miami Free Trade Zone to transship between Europe and Latin America. Maersk Line will begin the transition of its Intra-Americas business to SeaLand in a phased approach throughout 2014. Maersk Line currently operates ships in the range of 2,500 and 3,500 TEUs in the market, and the plan is for SeaLand to start by acquiring this Maersk Line network, and to build the organization around this."
With 50% of shipping customers shipping less than 500 containers a year, the growth market is the smaller vessels anyway. Why not focus on that market?
I believe this is what Jaxport is going to do.
QuoteWe're in this position because of lack of local leadership on the port question. It's a rare case where the state and our federal reps have been on top of it and our own leaders haven't. Florida has too many ports and it needs to pick winners and losers. With our location and rail connection, there's absolutely no reason we should be one of the losers.
With the aggregate load, Keystone Coal, LNG, and the auto biz, Jax can do well, play to its strengths. Only so much Federal money to go around to 14 Florida Ports, and I've said this all along, build solutions with local ports, Savannah, Brunswick that Miami cannot accomplish. Jax has great highway and railway options that Miami cannot offer, so play to the strengths and what you do best at now.
QuoteCritics call Jaxport's proposal to deepen shorter span of St. Johns a 'desperate' move
The Jacksonville Port Authority's consideration of a truncated deepening project — which would only span 11 miles of the St. Johns River rather than 13 — has some prominent critics of the project questioning whether dredging is still worth the effort.
Shortening the project by two miles would save nearly $200 million, which could make it more attractive for federal funding. But ending the deeper channel at Blount Island rather than Dames Point would require the tenant most in need of deeper water — TraPac, whose terminal at Dames Point handles containers from Asia — to relocate to Blount Island.
Doing so would kick off a cascading effect, with other tenants needing to move in turn. The logistical gymnastics may reaffirm the questions critics have been positing since its authorization was fast-tracked.
Full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2015/07/14/critics-call-jaxports-proposal-to-deepen-shorter.html
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2015, 08:06:44 AM
QuoteCritics call Jaxport's proposal to deepen shorter span of St. Johns a 'desperate' move
The Jacksonville Port Authority's consideration of a truncated deepening project — which would only span 11 miles of the St. Johns River rather than 13 — has some prominent critics of the project questioning whether dredging is still worth the effort.
Shortening the project by two miles would save nearly $200 million, which could make it more attractive for federal funding. But ending the deeper channel at Blount Island rather than Dames Point would require the tenant most in need of deeper water — TraPac, whose terminal at Dames Point handles containers from Asia — to relocate to Blount Island.
Doing so would kick off a cascading effect, with other tenants needing to move in turn. The logistical gymnastics may reaffirm the questions critics have been positing since its authorization was fast-tracked.
Full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2015/07/14/critics-call-jaxports-proposal-to-deepen-shorter.html
I find these Critics to be wrong IMO. Do an intimate domain on the people living across from Dames Point and turn that area into a new Trapac site? Wait Reed Island should be the new Trapac site then build a bridge for the employees and trucks to come and go from the island and hook the bridge into the dames point bridge. Or remove the Dames point bridge with one for a higher span?
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 13, 2015, 06:37:13 PM
^ New York, Norfolk, and either Charleston, Savannah, or Jax.....an argument repeated by our boosters is that Jax is the most western city on the east coast, providing easy access to the midwest....sorry but Savannah and Charleston can serve that better...and honestly, shipments to the Great Lakes region are likely to come from/go to Norfolk or NYC
There are some issues in this.
Port of Charleston & Savannah has a single track supplier of rail (CSX) and all freight out of this dock has to traverse the Atlanta rail hub, where it has to be humped and sorted for its destinations. It is not a one drop delivery. Jacksonville does not have this limitation,
NS has been improving their Norfolk transit times with their "Gateway" project which has been adding capacity between Virginia ports and their midwest yards in Ohio and Kentucky.
CSX has had an ongoing capex spend to increase capacity on their direct route between Jacksonville & Chicago. The problem is they want to route everything between the two cities via Queeensgate Yard in Cincy, which is overwhelmed. For reasons unknown they have been reluctant to use alternate routing.
The other item of note is knowing where the domestic shipper hubs are in Florida.
Orlando is a major UPS hub. There is no hiding the fact that FEC is going to leverage the AAF line between Port Canaveral or Miami and the new Orlando yard and freight center that is about to be built.
Asian shippers take 2-3 years to align their containers to meet a new rail delivery requirement. A good example was the Port of Indianapolis. They used to get Asian goods via Chicago by truck. After several years of working the details, CN and Indiana Railroad finally worked a deal where cargo was staged in China, shipped to Prince Rupert, BC (not Long Beach, CA) and shipped directly to the Senate Avenue Yard in downtown, This took off 2-3 weeks of shipping time off the delivery.
The other issue Asian shippers have is where can they make the most money on return loads. They hate sending empty containers back to Asia, Where in the Eastern US has the best opportunity to have "return"? Jacksonville, with access to 2 trancon rail providers probably has the best option for return. Volkswagen certainly thinks so, that's why they picked us. Offload the imported VW's and parts, load up the US made ones and head to Europe. The ship will always generate revenue.
Indianapolis is surprising people because they are generating way more "return" than anyone expected. Soy, Farm and wood products going back to Asia makes it a very profitable exercise for all involved. Savannah has a large return because they export farm and wood products. There are several wood additive products made in Georgia that are exported to Europe to help their power generation plants reduce emissions.
Jacksonville can't just think about what is coming in the door. They also have to think how easy they are getting it "out the door".
Overall, cutting the spend on the dredge makes me concerned on any shortcuts taken on remediation.
Quote from: spuwho on July 14, 2015, 03:36:03 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 13, 2015, 06:37:13 PM
^ New York, Norfolk, and either Charleston, Savannah, or Jax.....an argument repeated by our boosters is that Jax is the most western city on the east coast, providing easy access to the midwest....sorry but Savannah and Charleston can serve that better...and honestly, shipments to the Great Lakes region are likely to come from/go to Norfolk or NYC
There are some issues in this.
Port of Charleston & Savannah has a single track supplier of rail (CSX) and all freight out of this dock has to traverse the Atlanta rail hub, where it has to be humped and sorted for its destinations. It is not a one drop delivery. Jacksonville does not have this limitation,
NS has been improving their Norfolk transit times with their "Gateway" project which has been adding capacity between Virginia ports and their midwest yards in Ohio and Kentucky.
CSX has had an ongoing capex spend to increase capacity on their direct route between Jacksonville & Chicago. The problem is they want to route everything between the two cities via Queeensgate Yard in Cincy, which is overwhelmed. For reasons unknown they have been reluctant to use alternate routing.
The other item of note is knowing where the domestic shipper hubs are in Florida.
Orlando is a major UPS hub. There is no hiding the fact that FEC is going to leverage the AAF line between Port Canaveral or Miami and the new Orlando yard and freight center that is about to be built.
Asian shippers take 2-3 years to align their containers to meet a new rail delivery requirement. A good example was the Port of Indianapolis. They used to get Asian goods via Chicago by truck. After several years of working the details, CN and Indiana Railroad finally worked a deal where cargo was staged in China, shipped to Prince Rupert, BC (not Long Beach, CA) and shipped directly to the Senate Avenue Yard in downtown, This took off 2-3 weeks of shipping time off the delivery.
The other issue Asian shippers have is where can they make the most money on return loads. They hate sending empty containers back to Asia, Where in the Eastern US has the best opportunity to have "return"? Jacksonville, with access to 2 trancon rail providers probably has the best option for return. Volkswagen certainly thinks so, that's why they picked us. Offload the imported VW's and parts, load up the US made ones and head to Europe. The ship will always generate revenue.
Indianapolis is surprising people because they are generating way more "return" than anyone expected. Soy, Farm and wood products going back to Asia makes it a very profitable exercise for all involved. Savannah has a large return because they export farm and wood products. There are several wood additive products made in Georgia that are exported to Europe to help their power generation plants reduce emissions.
Jacksonville can't just think about what is coming in the door. They also have to think how easy they are getting it "out the door".
Overall, cutting the spend on the dredge makes me concerned on any shortcuts taken on remediation.
Excellent post, spuwho.
Thanks for the details and explanation, spuwho. Definitely helped my understanding immensely.
I'm pretty sure the Port of Savannah's ICTF is tied into both CSX and NS already.
QuotePort of Charleston & Savannah has a single track supplier of rail (CSX) and all freight out of this dock has to traverse the Atlanta rail hub, where it has to be humped and sorted for its destinations.
Norfolk Southern ships from the Charleston port as well.
Quote from: spuwho on July 14, 2015, 03:36:03 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 13, 2015, 06:37:13 PM
^ New York, Norfolk, and either Charleston, Savannah, or Jax.....an argument repeated by our boosters is that Jax is the most western city on the east coast, providing easy access to the midwest....sorry but Savannah and Charleston can serve that better...and honestly, shipments to the Great Lakes region are likely to come from/go to Norfolk or NYC
There are some issues in this.
Port of Charleston & Savannah has a single track supplier of rail (CSX) and all freight out of this dock has to traverse the Atlanta rail hub, where it has to be humped and sorted for its destinations. It is not a one drop delivery. Jacksonville does not have this limitation,
NS has been improving their Norfolk transit times with their "Gateway" project which has been adding capacity between Virginia ports and their midwest yards in Ohio and Kentucky.
CSX has had an ongoing capex spend to increase capacity on their direct route between Jacksonville & Chicago. The problem is they want to route everything between the two cities via Queeensgate Yard in Cincy, which is overwhelmed. For reasons unknown they have been reluctant to use alternate routing.
The other item of note is knowing where the domestic shipper hubs are in Florida.
Orlando is a major UPS hub. There is no hiding the fact that FEC is going to leverage the AAF line between Port Canaveral or Miami and the new Orlando yard and freight center that is about to be built.
Asian shippers take 2-3 years to align their containers to meet a new rail delivery requirement. A good example was the Port of Indianapolis. They used to get Asian goods via Chicago by truck. After several years of working the details, CN and Indiana Railroad finally worked a deal where cargo was staged in China, shipped to Prince Rupert, BC (not Long Beach, CA) and shipped directly to the Senate Avenue Yard in downtown, This took off 2-3 weeks of shipping time off the delivery.
The other issue Asian shippers have is where can they make the most money on return loads. They hate sending empty containers back to Asia, Where in the Eastern US has the best opportunity to have "return"? Jacksonville, with access to 2 trancon rail providers probably has the best option for return. Volkswagen certainly thinks so, that's why they picked us. Offload the imported VW's and parts, load up the US made ones and head to Europe. The ship will always generate revenue.
Indianapolis is surprising people because they are generating way more "return" than anyone expected. Soy, Farm and wood products going back to Asia makes it a very profitable exercise for all involved. Savannah has a large return because they export farm and wood products. There are several wood additive products made in Georgia that are exported to Europe to help their power generation plants reduce emissions.
Jacksonville can't just think about what is coming in the door. They also have to think how easy they are getting it "out the door".
Overall, cutting the spend on the dredge makes me concerned on any shortcuts taken on remediation.
I disagree with this statement of yours "Jacksonville can't just think about what is coming in the door. They also have to think how easy they are getting it "out the door"." Is this a guess on your part? Or based on fact.
(http://www.nscorp.com/content/nscorp/en/shipping-options/intermodal/why-norfolk-southern-intermodal/port-connectivity/_jcr_content/mainpar/image.img.jpg/1422460829850.jpg)
http://www.nscorp.com/content/nscorp/en/shipping-options/intermodal/why-norfolk-southern-intermodal/port-connectivity.html
Interesting map from a midwestern logistics hub:
(http://rickenbackerinlandport.com/files/rail/lck-rail-map-fa.jpg)
http://rickenbackerinlandport.com/files/rail/lck-rail-map-fa.jpg
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 14, 2015, 04:52:17 PM
Quote from: spuwho on July 14, 2015, 03:36:03 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 13, 2015, 06:37:13 PM
^ New York, Norfolk, and either Charleston, Savannah, or Jax.....an argument repeated by our boosters is that Jax is the most western city on the east coast, providing easy access to the midwest....sorry but Savannah and Charleston can serve that better...and honestly, shipments to the Great Lakes region are likely to come from/go to Norfolk or NYC
There are some issues in this.
Port of Charleston & Savannah has a single track supplier of rail (CSX) and all freight out of this dock has to traverse the Atlanta rail hub, where it has to be humped and sorted for its destinations. It is not a one drop delivery. Jacksonville does not have this limitation,
NS has been improving their Norfolk transit times with their "Gateway" project which has been adding capacity between Virginia ports and their midwest yards in Ohio and Kentucky.
CSX has had an ongoing capex spend to increase capacity on their direct route between Jacksonville & Chicago. The problem is they want to route everything between the two cities via Queeensgate Yard in Cincy, which is overwhelmed. For reasons unknown they have been reluctant to use alternate routing.
The other item of note is knowing where the domestic shipper hubs are in Florida.
Orlando is a major UPS hub. There is no hiding the fact that FEC is going to leverage the AAF line between Port Canaveral or Miami and the new Orlando yard and freight center that is about to be built.
Asian shippers take 2-3 years to align their containers to meet a new rail delivery requirement. A good example was the Port of Indianapolis. They used to get Asian goods via Chicago by truck. After several years of working the details, CN and Indiana Railroad finally worked a deal where cargo was staged in China, shipped to Prince Rupert, BC (not Long Beach, CA) and shipped directly to the Senate Avenue Yard in downtown, This took off 2-3 weeks of shipping time off the delivery.
The other issue Asian shippers have is where can they make the most money on return loads. They hate sending empty containers back to Asia, Where in the Eastern US has the best opportunity to have "return"? Jacksonville, with access to 2 trancon rail providers probably has the best option for return. Volkswagen certainly thinks so, that's why they picked us. Offload the imported VW's and parts, load up the US made ones and head to Europe. The ship will always generate revenue.
Indianapolis is surprising people because they are generating way more "return" than anyone expected. Soy, Farm and wood products going back to Asia makes it a very profitable exercise for all involved. Savannah has a large return because they export farm and wood products. There are several wood additive products made in Georgia that are exported to Europe to help their power generation plants reduce emissions.
Jacksonville can't just think about what is coming in the door. They also have to think how easy they are getting it "out the door".
Overall, cutting the spend on the dredge makes me concerned on any shortcuts taken on remediation.
I disagree with this statement of yours "Jacksonville can't just think about what is coming in the door. They also have to think how easy they are getting it "out the door"." Is this a guess on your part? Or based on fact.
What facts on profit would you like?
Oceanic shippers love it when they bring in containers full, and they can bring the containers back full. If a port can provide more full containers in return as opposed to empties, that makes that port more profitable to them and one they want to service.
My point is, the more Jacksonville fosters exports, just as much as imports, makes us collectively a more desirable port to work with.
The Port of Indianapolis is a perfect example. Once shippers realized how many containers could come back full it became a no brainer.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2015, 05:11:10 PM
(http://www.nscorp.com/content/nscorp/en/shipping-options/intermodal/why-norfolk-southern-intermodal/port-connectivity/_jcr_content/mainpar/image.img.jpg/1422460829850.jpg)
http://www.nscorp.com/content/nscorp/en/shipping-options/intermodal/why-norfolk-southern-intermodal/port-connectivity.html
Good map and interesting. I read a story last year about shippers bellyaching that CSX only had a single track main between Charleston and Atlanta and it was causing heartburn because products were getting delayed in the Atlanta classification yard constantly. The article said that NS was a "non-player" in Charleston port logistics. Guess it was wrong or "non-player" just meant the presence wasn't very strong.
From what I can tell, NS is a bigger player for containers at Savannah. The NS facility at Charleston's Marine Terminal is primarily for automobiles. It would benefit JaxPort to somehow attempt to find a way to establish an intermodal yard with direct access to not only CSX, but also NS and FEC.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2015, 05:41:01 PM
From what I can tell, NS is a bigger player for containers at Savannah. The NS facility at Charleston's Marine Terminal is primarily for automobiles. It would benefit JaxPort to somehow attempt to find a way to establish an intermodal yard with direct access to not only CSX, but also NS and FEC.
NS does have a direct access to Jaxport. NS trains run everyday to deliver fuel additives, autoracks for Toyota and other rail cargo. The trains leave Simpson Yard at Old Kings Road and run parallel to US 1 20th street aka MLK Blvd. All the way to the Genesee & Wyoming short line railroad. Also known as Talleyrand Terminal Railroad "The TTR was acquired by Genesee & Wyoming in 1996." Then Norfolk Southern takes it's own rail freight and delivers it to chemical companies in Longbranch. And very soon once the new railroad tracks are in place to Keystone Properties. CSX also takes just about the same route to deliver it's rail freight to Jaxport but it comes from their main yard in Moncrief. And FEC freight is delivered over the St Johns River both by Norfolk Southern & CSX. Norfolk Southern in the near future is changing the layout of its Simpson Yard. And the semi's that drop off and pick up trailers easier for them to get into the new yard. Jacksonville isn't asleep when it comes to moving freight.
NS and FEC don't have access to the Dames Point or Blount Island terminals. Dredging is only being considered for those two, not Talleyrand.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 15, 2015, 08:52:14 AM
NS and FEC don't have access to the Dames Point or Blount Island terminals. Dredging is only being considered for those two, not Talleyrand.
JAXPORT is what you said Lake! You didn't say Dames Point or Blount Island in your other post! Anything past the Dames Point Bridge shouldn't be dredged unless it's just general maintenance dreding. It's to bad when they built the DPB they should have thought about the Future of shipping in Jacksonville Florida. But just like one of my favorite quotes "People are always shouting they want to create a better future. It's not true. The future is an apathetic void of no interest to anyone. :o
Forgive me. I figured we were way past that conversation locally, when it came to the issue of port expansion, dredging in hopes of more container traffic, etc. Sometimes I forget that some of us have been discussing this on the forums longer than others. The port rail access situation was heavily debated back around 2010-2011 or so. Here's an article from 2011 about this from Norfolk Southern's perspective:
QuoteNorfolk Southern wants a bigger piece of Jacksonville
Norfolk Southern Corp. wants to grow their business in Jacksonville, but the railroad company is at a geographical disadvantage to CSX Corp., a company executive said.
Steven Evans, assistant vice president of ports and international for Norfolk Southern (NYSE: NSC), said the company has no plans to actively oppose a rail hub for the port at Dames Point, but Norfolk Southern is blocked out because it has no rail lines to Dames Point or to Blount Island.
"This puts us at a pretty big disadvantage," he said.
Full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2011/11/10/norfolk-southern-wants-to-grow-in.html
Since CSX is the local company, I can see how politics could play a role on some levels. However, when thinking about competition with other regions for more TEUs, ports that offer customers more options for moving freight are better off than those that don't.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 15, 2015, 09:24:13 AM
Forgive me. I figured we were way past that conversation locally, when it came to the issue of port expansion, dredging in hopes of more container traffic, etc. Sometimes I forget that some of us have been discussing this on the forums longer than others. The port rail access situation was heavily debated back around 2010-2011 or so. Here's an article from 2011 about this from Norfolk Southern's perspective:
QuoteNorfolk Southern wants a bigger piece of Jacksonville
Norfolk Southern Corp. wants to grow their business in Jacksonville, but the railroad company is at a geographical disadvantage to CSX Corp., a company executive said.
Steven Evans, assistant vice president of ports and international for Norfolk Southern (NYSE: NSC), said the company has no plans to actively oppose a rail hub for the port at Dames Point, but Norfolk Southern is blocked out because it has no rail lines to Dames Point or to Blount Island.
"This puts us at a pretty big disadvantage," he said.
Full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2011/11/10/norfolk-southern-wants-to-grow-in.html
Since CSX is the local company, I can see how politics could play a role on some levels. However, when thinking about competition with other regions for more TEUs, ports that offer customers more options for moving freight are better off than those that don't.
CSX one day could be bought out by BNSF, CN, or even Norfolk Southern. This I would put money on. :)
Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 15, 2015, 10:36:13 PM
Quote from: spuwho on July 14, 2015, 03:36:03 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 13, 2015, 06:37:13 PM
^ New York, Norfolk, and either Charleston, Savannah, or Jax.....an argument repeated by our boosters is that Jax is the most western city on the east coast, providing easy access to the midwest....sorry but Savannah and Charleston can serve that better...and honestly, shipments to the Great Lakes region are likely to come from/go to Norfolk or NYC
There are some issues in this.
Port of Charleston & Savannah has a single track supplier of rail (CSX) and all freight out of this dock has to traverse the Atlanta rail hub, where it has to be humped and sorted for its destinations. It is not a one drop delivery. Jacksonville does not have this limitation,
NS has been improving their Norfolk transit times with their "Gateway" project which has been adding capacity between Virginia ports and their midwest yards in Ohio and Kentucky.
CSX has had an ongoing capex spend to increase capacity on their direct route between Jacksonville & Chicago. The problem is they want to route everything between the two cities via Queeensgate Yard in Cincy, which is overwhelmed. For reasons unknown they have been reluctant to use alternate routing.
This isn't quite accurate, NS has on dock rail facilities in the Port of Savannah, a new container yard just 4 miles away, a ICTF in the port, and they serve Garden City, Ocean and Port Wentworth Terminals. Their Brampton Yard is located right down at the Port where trains can be made up or broken down according to a customers needs.
The new Jasper Ocean Terminal will be constructed on recovered dredged materials along the Georgia-South Carolina border some ten miles downstream from the Port of Savannah's Garden City Terminal. The terminal will be based on state-of-the-art green technology and will be able to accommodate new generations of cargo vessels (ships to 12.6 thousand TEUs) that need a minimum 48.2-meter (158-foot) width and a depth of 15.2 meters (50 feet). The new Jasper Ocean Terminal will have infrastructure of over 600 hectares, and it will have ten berths with road and rail access.
Absolutely no reason to hump anything in Atlanta, humping loaded COFC and TOFC cars is frowned upon anyway and most are clearly labeled 'DO NOT HUMP', this because the cars tend to lose their loads after going over the hump and into the bowl where violent couplings can and do take place. Consider the cars no standard length also restricts the use of retarders on these cars thus most railroads seeing such a car on the Hump Track would pull it onto the sluff track and flat switch it into the proper train... You'll owe Whirlpool a hell of a lot less money that way. BTW much of the Florida traffic is humped in Waycross on the CSX but intermodal traffic is a different animal.
Jacksonville's yards like Atlanta and Charleston are flat and require a locomotive to drill the cars in and out to the proper tracks. As of today, I'd give Savannah a better score and it currently has the shortest time to Memphis and many other points on the NS system and a hell of a lot better/comprehensive rail access.
ALL MAPS / NS SHOWN IN RED
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/MaritimePorts/Ships-and-Ports/i-CkSPnkg/0/L/Voila_Capture%202015-07-15_08-42-05_PM-L.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/MaritimePorts/Ships-and-Ports/i-TG4tpkb/0/L/Voila_Capture%20AAA2015-07-15_08-29-59_PM-L.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/MaritimePorts/Ships-and-Ports/i-mqVk8Cx/0/L/Voila_Capture%202015-07-15_08-44-13_PM-L.jpg)
Charleston also has good rail access with BOTH NS and CSX via neutral terminal companies, something I've been preaching in JAXPORT forever. "General Notes about the Rail Service: The South Carolina Railway Commission provides rail service in the state with CSX and Norfolk Southern as the two major rail carriers. Each terminal in Charleston is operated by an independent rail service which feeds these terminals. These independents transfer railcars from the individual terminals to the two major carriersí offsite locations.
Independents:
PUC - Columbus Street and Union Pier
Port Terminal Railroad - North Charleston
East Coast Berkeley Railroad - Wando area"
NS maintains a mainline into the Charlotte area and over the mountains to the north and west in the new National Gateway Project.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/MaritimePorts/Ships-and-Ports/i-cv2gPMk/0/L/Voila_Capture%202015-07-15_08-46-01_PM-L.jpg)
Overall map.
Finally your puzzlement over the CSX routing? This is due to the way trains are made up and dispatched, each train is carefully weighed, tonnage + gradient + curvature determines the number of locomotives + track condition for adhesion and incident free/claim free shipping plays into the game as well. The former L&N over the Birmingham - Nashville route is a hell of a rough mountain railroad. If they are moving a lot of coal or aggregates through there, they may want to shift TOFC/COFC onto a different line. The science behind that is the railroads match track structure to loads to keep it all as flexible as possible without taking it too far, needless to say there is a huge gulf between a train of loaded coal hoppers and a train of containers carrying washers and dryers.
It's been many years since I rode over that line, but the last time I did, I got off the train and promptly puked!
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on July 15, 2015, 09:47:25 AM
CSX one day could be bought out by BNSF, CN, or even Norfolk Southern. This I would put money on. :)
I expect CSX to jump in bed with 'Uncle Pete' and together they will seek a Canadian suitor. NS, KCS and maybe even our beloved FEC will end up in the Santa Fe camp also seeking a Canadian suitor. Though none of this may take place in exactly this order.
TraPac on board as JaxPort explores cheaper, scaled-back dredging optionQuoteTraPac, a major JaxPort tenant and key driver behind the push to dredge the St. Johns River, said it is fully behind port officials as they explore a scaled-back option deepening the river that would significantly reduce the cost of the project.
That option — which JaxPort officials confirmed last week to the Times-Union — would also reduce the current 13-mile dredging plan down to 11 miles, stopping it short of the Dames Point bridge and terminal, which houses TraPac.
That means the company, which is the port's major window into the growing Asian trade market and the mega ships it promises, would have to move from its current location east to the Blount Island terminal.
The company, a forceful local advocate for dredging, appears unconcerned by the prospect of moving.
"We have always said that a deeper harbor is a critical component of our competitiveness worldwide, allowing us to fully serve the bigger ships already calling on our JaxPort terminal and enabling us to increase our contributions to the region's economy," reads a statement provided by TraPac general manager Dennis Kelly.
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/2015-07-19/story/trapac-board-jaxport-explores-cheaper-scaled-back-dredging-option
Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 12, 2015, 06:04:50 PM
No but when the worlds shipping is too big for our port and we get bypassed, watch them howl!
Check today's Florida Times Union 7/20/2015 "TraPac supports dredging Plan B" and then Eat Crow!
I may be wrong here, but if TriPac moves to Blount Island a lot of the FDOT Heckshear Drive/ I 295 exit work will have been wasted. Also, not sure how the new intermodal terminal will work as well. How short sighted is this by everyone involved.
They'd have to build another one on Blount Island or drive freight from Blount onto Heckscher to reach the one under construction. When everything is all said and done, you spend less on dredging about a lot more on everything else. Either way, you're coming out of a lot of cash.
Quote"It's definitely doable," said Lake Ray, a state representative and civil engineer.
Ray said there are significant logistics questions that would come with moving a facility like TraPac's, such as relocating other facilities to make room for it. (He said TraPac chose Dames Point in the first place because it had greenfield space, so the terminal could be built from the ground up.)
Moving TraPac would also mean infrastructure improvements to wherever it would be moved to Blount Island — reinforcing the pavement to handle the number of containers TraPac would handle, establishing its operations in a new location, finding storage space for the containers.
Other issues, like what will be done with container cranes TraPac installed at Dames Point, also have potential solutions. For one, Ray said, the cranes can be moved to Blount Island — not an easy task, given their weight, but possible. But there are also plans by the port to invest in new cranes for Blount Island anyway.
There have also been questions about the port's new intermodal container transfer facility, which is being built at Dames Point in part to offer easy access to TraPac. Ray said not only is the ICTF easily accessed through a quick drayage trip over Heckscher Drive, but could also open up the opportunity to build another one at Blount Island someday.
It also leaves an opportunity for others to use the Dames Point property.
"In the long term," Ray said, "it doesn't mean the port loses the functionality of the TraPac property. There are a number of port users that will not and do not need the deeper draft, but could use the ICTF."
Full article: http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2015/07/17/shortened-river-deepening-plan-has-supporters-but.html
This article was in the WSJ, but behind the paywall. They re-posted it here: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ports-policy-barnacled-bad-law?utm_content=buffer263dd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ports-policy-barnacled-bad-law?utm_content=buffer263dd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
I've been following this subject, but I guess I haven't completely kept up with it. Is this true - has anyone heard of this?
QuoteBut authorities at some ports, including Jacksonville, Fla., and Mobile, Ala., have complained about being unable to get U.S. dredgers to even bid on projects, as these companies are operating at full capacity.
I don't recall hearing it discussed much but it's possible that I overlooked this aspect of the conversation.