Per Trains:
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/03/22-georgia-ports-touts-another-record-month-of-cargo (http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/03/22-georgia-ports-touts-another-record-month-of-cargo)
Georgia Ports touts another record month of cargo
(http://trn.trains.com/~/media/images/news-wire/2017/02-february/imagehandlerashx.jpg?h=400&la=en&mw=600&w=600)
SAVANNAH, Ga. – The Georgia Ports Authority logged its busiest February in 2017 after moving 2.94 million tons of freight across all of its dock facilities during the month. The 10 percent increase in traffic was led primarily by an uptick in container tonnage.
According to the port agency, container tonnage expanded more than 14 percent to more than 330,000 20-foot equivalent units for the month.
The agency's Savannah Ocean Terminal also logged a more than 9 percent increase in breakbulk cargo for the month, led by linerboard, iron and steel, and automotive shipments.
The Georgia Ports Authority manages the Port of Savannah, Port of Brunswick and other support facilities. CSX Transportation, Norfolk Southern, and Genesee & Wyoming's Savannah Port Terminal Railroad provide rail service to the Georgia port facilities.
Hmm, all that growth and business without dredging the Savannah River first? Is there something that Jax can learn and apply from the Savannah experience, in the event of us needing a "Plan B"?
^^^I agree that we can learn some things from SAV. Unfortunately FL is so oversaturated (unlike the one horse state GA), with all of these other port powerhouses in the state of FL competing with Jax. Jaxport seems like it definitely has a ceiling where it can only do so much; not saying that improvements will not make it more successful.
http://businessinsavannah.com/bis/2017-02-23/portside-gpa-marks-busiest-january-record
Since the expanded Panama Canal opened:
"The ports of New York/New Jersey, Norfolk and Savannah each had 31 calls from 10,000-plus TEU vessels between July 1 and Dec. 31 last year. Charleston saw seven of the big ships during the same time period, while Jacksonville and Miami had none."
Curtis Foltz, ED of Georgia Port Authority, seems to have had it right in 2013: "Foltz believes most liners will choose three ports: New York because of its enormous consumer base, Norfolk because it rules the geographic sweet spot midway between New York and the Southeast ports, and either Charleston or Savannah. Miami is considered the outsider because its location is too far removed from major population centers other than south and central Florida."
Makes sense and it's something I've heard prior to Brown becoming mayor.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 24, 2017, 11:03:21 AM
Makes sense and it's something I've heard prior to Brown becoming mayor.
Ock had made a similar remark, shippers prefer an extra cheaper day or two by boat, then save the 2 days by more expensive rail.
I just read that new CSX CEO Hunter Harrison is closing the 2nd hump yard in Atlanta, which served as an overflow yard to relieve hump congestion for incoming from Jacksonville and Savannah. It will be interesting to see how that impacts (or doesn't) the flows out of Savannah.
Also South Carolina has approved a 2nd inland port at Greer. With the other in Spartanburg, it means it will relieve load and sort congestion near the dock in Charleston.
The one thing that Savannah, Norfolk and Port of NY/NJ have that Jacksonville is still working on, and that is exports. Savannah exports a great deal of raw materials (mostly wood products) to Europe.
We like to think of ourselves as "America's Logistics Center," but it simply isn't true. According to the "The Great Port Mismatch" from the Brookings Institution and JPMorgan Chase & Co., Jacksonville is not even one of the top 25 port complexes in the U.S. in terms of total exports and imports by value. However, seven other metropolitan areas on the East Coast made the list, including all of Jacksonville's major competitors.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/BrgksSrvyGCIFreightNetworks.pdf
However, that doesn't mean that our port won't continue to be successful. We just have to accept the fact that every port doesn't need deep water and just by having it doesn't mean that you will attract the big ships. We have a bright future, but it just may be as a cascade or niche port. Nothing wrong with that.
I'm in Norfolk now. Their port is massive in comparison.
I really believe we can compete with Savannah and Charleston to at least take some of the business. We may be competing with other Florida ports as well, but there is a sweet spot we have yet to find which can increase the containers/imports/exports coming through here. It is literally an hour difference between the trip to JAX --> ATL and SAV --> ATL by truck and into the interior south. We can compete.
This is what Norfolk thinks about Savannah, Charleston and Jax as competition....
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Norfolk-March-2017/i-Zwgf3L3/0/XL/20170325_125404-XL.jpg)
According to AAPA American Association of Port Authorities Jacksonville ranks as follows:
35th in total trade tonnage
24th in Import Tonnage
35th in export tonnage
30th in total foreign trade tonnage
http://www.aapa-ports.org/unifying/content.aspx?ItemNumber=21048
http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/Statistics/2015%20U.S.%20PORT%20RANKINGS%20BY%20CARGO%20TONNAGE.xlsx
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 27, 2017, 10:45:26 AM
According to AAPA American Association of Port Authorities Jacksonville ranks as follows:
35th in total trade tonnage
24th in Import Tonnage
35th in export tonnage
30th in total foreign trade tonnage
http://www.aapa-ports.org/unifying/content.aspx?ItemNumber=21048
http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/Statistics/2015%20U.S.%20PORT%20RANKINGS%20BY%20CARGO%20TONNAGE.xlsx
Thanks for that. There's also the fact that our port has been losing ground not because of any natural disadvantage, but lack of movement on the part of local officials when our competition pressing forward. There's also the fact that Puerto Rican trade isn't typically counted among imports and exports as it isn't international; moving that from the domestic column to the international column would also show a clearer picture of the kind of business our port does (for now).
This is where I think the environmentalists and anti-port activists do a disservice. They always complain about JAXPORT exaggerating the impact that deepening the river would have, but then they turn around and exaggerate the negatives, effectively writing an obituary for our port and the thousands of blue collar jobs it provides. Basically no one is giving a true picture of what's going on.
Quote from: Tacachale on March 27, 2017, 11:29:32 AM
There's also the fact that our port has been losing ground not because of any natural disadvantage, but lack of movement on the part of local officials when our competition pressing forward.
They'd rather throw money at attracting minimum-wage jobs to EverBank Field than high-wage unionized jobs at the port.
Quote from: finehoe on March 27, 2017, 02:35:24 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 27, 2017, 11:29:32 AM
There's also the fact that our port has been losing ground not because of any natural disadvantage, but lack of movement on the part of local officials when our competition pressing forward.
They'd rather throw money at attracting minimum-wage jobs to EverBank Field than high-wage unionized jobs at the port.
Pretty sure they can do both...lol. You should go to a game finehoe... you might have fun...
I am more than willing to take my environmentalist hat off and look at this simply as a Jacksonville native and concerned taxpayer. It still doesn't add up. While I am no big fan of corporate incentives, at least you have some idea of the number and type of jobs you can expect and there is the opportunity for clawback provisions to help protect taxpayers should the employer fail to live up to their end of the bargain.
With the dredging, we must invest nearly $1 billion with absolutely no assurance that the big ships will come. When you look at our prospects of taking market share from Savannah and Charleston, we are clearly betting against the odds. The time has come to accept reality and quit trying to be something we are not and will never be - a first-in, last-out port. That ship sailed in the 1990's when Savannah recognized its advantages and started investing heavily in distribution centers, cranes, roads, intermodal, and all the infrastructure necessary to be a top tier port.
Even if you think it is still possible for us to take share from our competitors, consider this. Dale Lewis, a retired Director of Strategic Analysis for CSX, has been conducting an extensive analysis of the dredging economics. Here is what he found:
"To reach its cash-flow goals, Jaxport's plan requires 100% container growth in the first 9 years after dredging. This would be a huge, rapid change. Over the last 3 to 5 years, Jaxport's container business has grown 1% per year. Jaxport's growth plan is 1 Million TEU's per year (55%) higher than the Army Corps of Engineers' demand estimate. This additional 55% growth would have to come from taking 1 Million annual TEUs of market share away from ports in other states....To succeed, Jaxport would have to capture a much larger share from these ports than it does today, capture it quickly, make sure that it grows and then hold on to it for more than 25 years. This level of competitive performance would be more than triple anything ever accomplished by any Florida container port. It takes a billion dollars to make the attempt." Are you willing to make that bet? More importantly, do you have confidence in Jaxport's team to make that bet for you?
I don't. Instead, let's consider a much more realistic bet with far less risk - let's be the best "cascade ready", niche port. We already have a successful port and will continue to prosper if we will capitalize on our strengths. The recent news about the new LNG tanks and the new Dominican Republic service added by Trailer Bridge are examples of the niche markets that offer growth opportunities for Jaxport. And, both are examples that don't require deep water.
By the way, the high-wage union jobs everyone likes to focus on are going by the wayside. ILA jobs have been in decline for decades due to increased productivity, primarily from automation. The unions continue to fight fully automated terminals, but some already exist and more are to come. Also, a report was released by the White House in December of 2016 that said "A bulk of the jobs come from heavy trucking, which the report estimates will see 80% to 100% of nearly 1.7 million drivers' jobs automated." For the most part, the job growth opportunities associated with ports have been in the distribution centers. These are primarily warehouse jobs with many being part-time, seasonal, and low-wage with limited to no benefits.
Quote from: spuwho on March 24, 2017, 12:57:02 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on March 24, 2017, 11:03:21 AM
Makes sense and it's something I've heard prior to Brown becoming mayor.
Ock had made a similar remark, shippers prefer an extra cheaper day or two by boat, then save the 2 days by more expensive rail.
maybe so, but Ock has been a major supporter of dredging - and also of SR 9B (I-795) as a more direct route connecting the port and points south.
Quote from: riverkeepered on March 28, 2017, 10:05:34 PM
The time has come to accept reality and quit trying to be something we are not and will never be - a first-in, last-out port. That ship sailed in the 1990's when Savannah recognized its advantages and started investing heavily in distribution centers, cranes, roads, intermodal, and all the infrastructure necessary to be a top tier port.
So Savannah can bet big on the future but we cannot?
I think the fact that Norfolk lists Jax as one of its competitors is a good sign, even if to just show its advantage. There is always a happy medium somewhere, but I promise you, there is no reason Jax cannot compete on this one. Also, Miami, Port Everglades, and Savannah are all attempting to dredge. I think it is funny that Jax should be the only one wondering if it can compete.
http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/03/03/dredge-ready-savannah-port-tests-georgias-clout-in-trumps-washington/
Quote from: riverkeepered on March 28, 2017, 10:05:34 PM
I am more than willing to take my environmentalist hat off and look at this simply as a Jacksonville native and concerned taxpayer.
I doubt that's possible for someone whose handle is "riverkeepered" ;)
Quote from: riverkeepered on March 28, 2017, 10:05:34 PM
It still doesn't add up. While I am no big fan of corporate incentives, at least you have some idea of the number and type of jobs you can expect and there is the opportunity for clawback provisions to help protect taxpayers should the employer fail to live up to their end of the bargain.
With the dredging, we must invest nearly $1 billion with absolutely no assurance that the big ships will come. When you look at our prospects of taking market share from Savannah and Charleston, we are clearly betting against the odds. The time has come to accept reality and quit trying to be something we are not and will never be - a first-in, last-out port. That ship sailed in the 1990's when Savannah recognized its advantages and started investing heavily in distribution centers, cranes, roads, intermodal, and all the infrastructure necessary to be a top tier port.
This is what I'm talking about regarding exaggeration. Unless things changed in the last year and a half or so, the project isn't estimated at "nearly $1 billion", it's $680 million. Of that, around $200 million is the local contribution, the rest is state and federal money. That's still taxpayer dollars, but it's already committed, and will be spent on
something if it isn't spent on our port. In other words, it's our money that will be funneled to some other project, most likely far outside of Jacksonville.
Savannah only got where they are by years of investment, whereas we sat on our hands and got surpassed. There's no reason it wouldn't work here if we got serious about investing and tightening the ship, but we'll only know if that's the right path to follow if people start talking about it in more realistic terms. To me, the real question is whether we can really raise the $200 million in local money and whether the port is the best use of the money if we do. There you have to factor the jobs and economic impact versus the opportunity cost, environmental damage, etc. Unfortunately, no one on either side is really asking that question.
Quote from: riverkeepered on March 28, 2017, 10:05:34 PM
Even if you think it is still possible for us to take share from our competitors, consider this. Dale Lewis, a retired Director of Strategic Analysis for CSX, has been conducting an extensive analysis of the dredging economics. Here is what he found:
"To reach its cash-flow goals, Jaxport's plan requires 100% container growth in the first 9 years after dredging. This would be a huge, rapid change. Over the last 3 to 5 years, Jaxport's container business has grown 1% per year. Jaxport's growth plan is 1 Million TEU's per year (55%) higher than the Army Corps of Engineers' demand estimate. This additional 55% growth would have to come from taking 1 Million annual TEUs of market share away from ports in other states....To succeed, Jaxport would have to capture a much larger share from these ports than it does today, capture it quickly, make sure that it grows and then hold on to it for more than 25 years. This level of competitive performance would be more than triple anything ever accomplished by any Florida container port. It takes a billion dollars to make the attempt." Are you willing to make that bet? More importantly, do you have confidence in Jaxport's team to make that bet for you?
I don't. Instead, let's consider a much more realistic bet with far less risk - let's be the best "cascade ready", niche port. We already have a successful port and will continue to prosper if we will capitalize on our strengths. The recent news about the new LNG tanks and the new Dominican Republic service added by Trailer Bridge are examples of the niche markets that offer growth opportunities for Jaxport. And, both are examples that don't require deep water.
Yes, the port supporters have exaggerated the probably impact the port improvements would have. It doesn't mean that the impact it does have won't still be significant.
The suggestions you're making of becoming a "cascade ready niche port" would be a step back from even where we are. Ie, we'd likely lose business and jobs we already have, not because of technological changes or natural disadvantages of our port, but because we've decided we just don't want to compete anymore.
Quote from: riverkeepered on March 28, 2017, 10:05:34 PM
By the way, the high-wage union jobs everyone likes to focus on are going by the wayside. ILA jobs have been in decline for decades due to increased productivity, primarily from automation. The unions continue to fight fully automated terminals, but some already exist and more are to come. Also, a report was released by the White House in December of 2016 that said "A bulk of the jobs come from heavy trucking, which the report estimates will see 80% to 100% of nearly 1.7 million drivers' jobs automated." For the most part, the job growth opportunities associated with ports have been in the distribution centers. These are primarily warehouse jobs with many being part-time, seasonal, and low-wage with limited to no benefits.
I'm sorry, but this is just fatalism. Jobs will be lost to automation across the country, but Jacksonville is also losing them to other ports, and that's just because we aren't competing. Or perhaps we shouldn't invest in
any blue collar jobs anymore because the robots will eventually just take them all.
Quote from: FlaBoy on March 29, 2017, 10:18:58 AM
I think the fact that Norfolk lists Jax as one of its competitors is a good sign, even if to just show its advantage. There is always a happy medium somewhere, but I promise you, there is no reason Jax cannot compete on this one. Also, Miami, Port Everglades, and Savannah are all attempting to dredge. I think it is funny that Jax should be the only one wondering if it can compete.
http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/03/03/dredge-ready-savannah-port-tests-georgias-clout-in-trumps-washington/
I don't think Jax is the "only one" that should be worrying. I believe several ports need to better define exactly what are they competing for and how to best exploit their core advantage. The key to me is not putting all your eggs in one basket. If you can't get down to 48 or 50 feet, it's not the end of the world. You just have to find your niche. So a viable Plan B or C is just as critical as a Plan A, imo.
QuoteThis is what I'm talking about regarding exaggeration. Unless things changed in the last year and a half or so, the project isn't estimated at "nearly $1 billion", it's $680 million. Of that, around $200 million is the local contribution, the rest is state and federal money.
The total projected by the Army Corps is $766 million. However, the Corps is notorious for underestimating the cost of dredging projects. For instance, the Corps projected in 2003 that the most recent St. Johns River dredge (about five miles of the harbor from 38 to 40 feet) to cost $16.4 million. When it was completed in 2010, the cost ran to $64.8 million. Of that $766m to dredge to 47-ft., Jaxport is responsible for coming up with $383 million. However, this does not include the infrastructure upgrades that are in Jaxport's strategic plan that would be necessary to handle the larger ships. These costs are in excess of $200 million.
QuoteI promise you, there is no reason Jax cannot compete on this one.
There are actually lots of reasons. For one, most of the anticipated shift in market share from West Coast to East Coast ports has actually already occurred. According to a 2016 CBRE report, "Much of the cargo that could be transferred from West to East Coast delivery has already shifted." So, Jaxport would have to take existing market share from other ports in the Southeast. Savannah has all of the necessary infrastructure to efficiently move goods to market and have a cost advantage over Jacksonville in reaching Atlanta and other major consumption markets due to their location. Miami also has a cost advantage reaching the lower half of the state of Florida, where most of the Florida consumers reside. They also already have 50-feet of water and the post-Panamax cranes and other necessary infrastructure in place. Jacksonville is not a competitor with Norfolk. They service different markets.
The reality is that carriers don't need every port to have deep water. Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't mean it is a wise investment or that it will pay off.
According to Jaxport consultant John Martin, "The large ships can't call multiple ports. Carriers lose all economies of scale once they start doing milk runs."
Instead, they will select the small number of strategically located ports that have the necessary infrastructure to get goods to major consumption markets as quickly and efficiently as possible. Unfortunately, Jacksonville doesn't appear to be on this short-list.
Also, remember what it would take for Jaxport to justify this investment. According to Dale Lewis, a local retired logistics expert:
"To reach its cash-flow goals, Jaxport's plan requires 100% container growth in the first 9 years after dredging. This would be a huge, rapid change. Over the last 3 to 5 years, Jaxport's container business has grown 1% per year. Jaxport's growth plan is 1 Million TEU's per year (55%) higher than the Army Corps of Engineers' demand estimate. This additional 55% growth would have to come from taking 1 Million annual TEUs of market share away from ports in other states....To succeed, Jaxport would have to capture a much larger share from these ports than it does today, capture it quickly, make sure that it grows and then hold on to it for more than 25 years. This level of competitive performance would be more than triple anything ever accomplished by any Florida container port. It takes a billion dollars to make the attempt."
Considering the inherent advantages of our closest competitors and the rapid growth that would be necessary, it just seems like it is time for Plan B.
Quote from: riverkeepered on March 29, 2017, 04:00:42 PM
QuoteThis is what I'm talking about regarding exaggeration. Unless things changed in the last year and a half or so, the project isn't estimated at "nearly $1 billion", it's $680 million. Of that, around $200 million is the local contribution, the rest is state and federal money.
The total projected by the Army Corps is $766 million. However, the Corps is notorious for underestimating the cost of dredging projects. For instance, the Corps projected in 2003 that the most recent St. Johns River dredge (about five miles of the harbor from 38 to 40 feet) to cost $16.4 million. When it was completed in 2010, the cost ran to $64.8 million. Of that $766m to dredge to 47-ft., Jaxport is responsible for coming up with $383 million. However, this does not include the infrastructure upgrades that are in Jaxport's strategic plan that would be necessary to handle the larger ships. These costs are in excess of $200 million.
You're correct that the estimate is currently $766 million rather than $680 (which is still not a billion). Of this, the feds would cover half, $380 million; local and
state money would cover the rest. As I said above, the federal and state money is money we've already paid that would go to some other project, probably well outside of Jacksonville.
For years the state has been clear it will commit to the project if the locals can get their act together. That seems unlikely to change at least through Governor Scott's tenure. The local contribution for the deepening is estimated in the neighborhood of $200 million dollars. Of course it doesn't take into account additional costs brought on by more business, but that's putting the cart before the horse. More business of any kind will require upgrades, as we're behind on them as it is.
Perhaps the Army Corps' estimates are off as you say. But exaggerating what the estimates are from the other side isn't helping.
Quote from: riverkeepered on March 29, 2017, 04:00:42 PM
QuoteI promise you, there is no reason Jax cannot compete on this one.
There are actually lots of reasons. For one, most of the anticipated shift in market share from West Coast to East Coast ports has actually already occurred. According to a 2016 CBRE report, "Much of the cargo that could be transferred from West to East Coast delivery has already shifted." So, Jaxport would have to take existing market share from other ports in the Southeast. Savannah has all of the necessary infrastructure to efficiently move goods to market and have a cost advantage over Jacksonville in reaching Atlanta and other major consumption markets due to their location. Miami also has a cost advantage reaching the lower half of the state of Florida, where most of the Florida consumers reside. They also already have 50-feet of water and the post-Panamax cranes and other necessary infrastructure in place. Jacksonville is not a competitor with Norfolk. They service different markets.
The reality is that carriers don't need every port to have deep water. Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't mean it is a wise investment or that it will pay off.
According to Jaxport consultant John Martin, "The large ships can't call multiple ports. Carriers lose all economies of scale once they start doing milk runs."
Instead, they will select the small number of strategically located ports that have the necessary infrastructure to get goods to major consumption markets as quickly and efficiently as possible. Unfortunately, Jacksonville doesn't appear to be on this short-list.
Also, remember what it would take for Jaxport to justify this investment. According to Dale Lewis, a local retired logistics expert:
"To reach its cash-flow goals, Jaxport's plan requires 100% container growth in the first 9 years after dredging. This would be a huge, rapid change. Over the last 3 to 5 years, Jaxport's container business has grown 1% per year. Jaxport's growth plan is 1 Million TEU's per year (55%) higher than the Army Corps of Engineers' demand estimate. This additional 55% growth would have to come from taking 1 Million annual TEUs of market share away from ports in other states....To succeed, Jaxport would have to capture a much larger share from these ports than it does today, capture it quickly, make sure that it grows and then hold on to it for more than 25 years. This level of competitive performance would be more than triple anything ever accomplished by any Florida container port. It takes a billion dollars to make the attempt."
Considering the inherent advantages of our closest competitors and the rapid growth that would be necessary, it just seems like it is time for Plan B.
Much of this is apples to oranges. Miami isn't really a competitor in the way Savannah and Charleston are. Ships will never go into Miami to serve anywhere but southern Florida; they'd have to put the goods on trucks or trains that mostly go through Jacksonville anyway. It's still a viable port because there are so many people within that one region. But Jacksonville is the best positioned port in Florida for serving a wider area - we're the farthest north and have the best rail and highway connections.
There's no particular reason that Jacksonville would not have similar success to Savannah and Charleston if it committed to similar investment. Charleston is an example of a port that fell off, went way behind, and then rebounded when it performed its investments (and when competitors like us dropped the ball). Neither have any real natural advantage over Jacksonville.
Seems like those two are pooling their resources together:
QuoteGeorgia, South Carolina ready to take steps toward joint port
Georgia and South Carolina are ready to start spending some real money to build the $5 billion Jasper Ocean Terminal planned for a scrubby patch of South Carolina dirt and sand 15 miles below downtown Savannah.
The Georgia Ports Authority is expected to dedicate $7.5 million Monday for environmental studies for the hoped-for port that wouldn't open for at least a decade. South Carolina legislators have already ponied up their share. In three years the states will need to kick in an additional $50 million to $100 million each for engineering, design and further environmental work.
Taxpayers are already spending about $1 billion deepening harbors and upgrading terminals and roads at the ports of Savannah and Charleston. The construction and maintenance price tag for all three ports could top $9 billion over the next 15 years, though not all costs would be borne by taxpayers.
http://www.myajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/georgia-south-carolina-ready-take-steps-toward-joint-port/O0aL4tdRWgyeANEkepbcMK/
Letter in today's T-U from former CSX CEO Pete Carpenter - http://jacksonville.com/opinion/letters-readers/2017-03-29/thursday-lead-letter-second-thoughts-dredging-river
The problem with the port is perfectly illustrated by Norfolk's clever poster. We've now been talking about dredging for so long with no action that by the time we get it done, the competitors will have already gone to a new class of ship with deeper draft. The life cycle on port improvements is shortening, and if you want to be a player you can't talk about everything for 5 years first. By the time you fire up the first dredge it's already passed you by.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 30, 2017, 09:20:23 AM
By the time you fire up the first dredge it's already passed you by.
Later this month, Savannah will have 26 of the massive cranes necessary to handle the Post-Panamax ships. This is more than any other U.S. terminal. "The new shipping alliances, which set sail beginning Saturday, will have some 35 vessels serving the Port of Savannah weekly – the most of any East Coast port," he said.
http://savannahnow.com/news/2017-03-30/portside-new-ship-shore-cranes-coming-online-gpa-s-garden-city-terminal
Last year, Jaxport purchased and installed 3 at a cost of $37.6 million. Their long-term plan is to have a total of 10.
Savannah has 24. Jax currently has 18. We are not as far behind them as you are making it out to be.
Quote from: riverkeepered on April 01, 2017, 01:16:28 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on March 30, 2017, 09:20:23 AM
By the time you fire up the first dredge it's already passed you by.
Later this month, Savannah will have 26 of the massive cranes necessary to handle the Post-Panamax ships. This is more than any other U.S. terminal. "The new shipping alliances, which set sail beginning Saturday, will have some 35 vessels serving the Port of Savannah weekly – the most of any East Coast port," he said.
http://savannahnow.com/news/2017-03-30/portside-new-ship-shore-cranes-coming-online-gpa-s-garden-city-terminal
Last year, Jaxport purchased and installed 3 at a cost of $37.6 million. Their long-term plan is to have a total of 10.
I'm sorry, but this is more obfuscation. The article explains that Savannah will have 26 cranes this year: 6 of the new huge Post-Panamax cranes and 20 "Neo-Panamax" cranes. Jaxport has 18 cranes, 3 of the biggest Post-Panamax cranes (http://www.jaxport.com/corporate/major-growth-projects/100-gauge-cranes) that just became operational in December, and 15 others (//http://).
For context, Miami has 6 of the biggest cranes, Houston has 4, Charleston, Mobile, and Tampa have 2 each, and neither Port Everglades or New Orleans has any yet to my knowledge. So yeah, we're not so far behind as all that.
The problem is that most of the 18 cranes you refer to cannot handle the bigger Post-Panamax ships.
However, Savannah has 6 Post-Panamax (17 containers across) cranes and 20 Super Post-Panamax (22 containers across) cranes, with 4 more expected to arrive in 2018. Only, the 3 Jaxport just received are this big and can reach 17 or more containers across.
So, yes Jaxport is way behind, in not only dredging, but also infrastructure.
The size of your crane doesn't matter as much as how you use it... ;)
Lol, that's a feel good phrase used when you're lacking. It falls short when the competitor has the combination of confidence, size and knows how to use them. Everybody can't be a foot-long. If you're working with a Vienna sauage, it doesn't mean you're completely out of the game. But don't bring a wiener to a sword fight either. You'll just have to develop a Plan B to compensate for your short comings!
Quote from: riverkeepered on April 05, 2017, 09:14:58 PM
The problem is that most of the 18 cranes you refer to cannot handle the bigger Post-Panamax ships.
However, Savannah has 6 Post-Panamax (17 containers across) cranes and 20 Super Post-Panamax (22 containers across) cranes, with 4 more expected to arrive in 2018. Only, the 3 Jaxport just received are this big and can reach 17 or more containers across.
So, yes Jaxport is way behind, in not only dredging, but also infrastructure.
Incorrect, again. Savannah will have only 6 of the cranes that can handle 22 containers (the new ones). The rest cannot handle 22 containers
http://www.gaports.com/Media/PressReleases/TabId/379/ArtMID/3569/ArticleID/98/Four-New-Panamax-cranes-arrive-at-the-Port-of-Savannah.aspx
As I said, Jaxport has 3 of these cranes (and plans for a total of 10). The number similar to or exceeds the number at most other Southeastern ports (but obviously not Savannah). No doubt we are behind the curve in infrastructure, but not nearly as far back as you're trying to make it appear. I'm afraid your desire to see the dredging thwarted is causing you to say things that are simply untrue.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 06, 2017, 06:50:41 AM
Lol, that's a feel good phrase used when you're lacking. It falls short when the competitor has the combination of confidence, size and knows how to use them. Everybody can't be a foot-long. If you're working with a Vienna sauage, it doesn't mean you're completely out of the game. But don't bring a wiener to a sword fight either. You'll just have to develop a Plan B to compensate for your short comings!
Ok that's like 5 mixed metaphors in 1 post. Go home Lake, your dick-crane-sword-sausage-sandwich is drunk.
LMAO!
;D ;D ;D
Speaking of Jaxport and Plan Bs, we have none....Let's hope those 3am infomercial magic grow cream products work....
QuoteDespite Gulliford's concerns about the port needing a back-up plan if the federal money doesn't come through, Green doubled down on the port's intention to deepen the river.
"By no stretch of the imagination do we have a 'Plan B,'" Green said. "I can't tell you what this project means to the vitality of the port, the community and the citizens here in Jacksonville."
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2017-04-06/city-councilman-raises-concerns-about-port-deepening-project
^Unfortunately we sat around for so long that both our big hitters are out of Congress, and it will be trickier for two newbies, including one from Tallahassee, to secure the federal funding. If the feds don't cover their half, the project and/or the local coffers could be in trouble, but that's a bridge to be crossed when we get to it. JAXPORT hasn't even released its current funding plan yet.
I've been saying for years that the question we really should ask ourselves is, assuming the federal and state funding goes through, would it really be worth the local expense of $200 million or so to dredge the river? We could do a lot of things with that kind of money. There are massive opportunity costs in either direction: if we spend on the dredging, that's $200 million we don't have to spend on other things, but if we don't spend, our port will fall farther and farther behind competitors to the point that it's almost pointless to even have it. Unfortunately we have no clear sense of the economic impact the dredging would have, as both the Army Corps of Engineers reports and anti-port activists' claims are exaggerated. Waiting to answer these questions until we know if the promised federal money is available is putting the cart before the horse, but unfortunately few on any side of the debate are even bothering to ask them currently.
Ock had this down years ago.
Shippers would rather spend an extra day at sea then pay more to use rail out of Miami or any Florida port.
Jacksonville offers a bypass to east coast rail congestion going west and to Chicago. But its cheaper to port at Norfolk.
QuoteIncorrect, again. Savannah will have only 6 of the cranes that can handle 22 containers (the new ones). The rest cannot handle 22 containers.
You aren't reading the press release correctly. You have it backwards. The release says the 6 can span 17 containers, and the others are New Panamax. New Panamax cranes have a 22 container reach.
I agree with you on the need to assess the value of this investment as compared to other local needs and opportunities for economic development.
This is also interesting from yesterday's AJC -
"The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimated that ongoing work to deepen the harbor's shipping channel from 42 to 47 feet will cost $973 million, or $267 million more than expected."
http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/04/05/price-tag-for-deepening-savannahs-port-balloons-by-38-percent/
Quote from: riverkeepered on April 05, 2017, 09:14:58 PM
The problem is that most of the 18 cranes you refer to cannot handle the bigger Post-Panamax ships.
However, Savannah has 6 Post-Panamax (17 containers across) cranes and 20 Super Post-Panamax (22 containers across) cranes, with 4 more expected to arrive in 2018. Only, the 3 Jaxport just received are this big and can reach 17 or more containers across.
So, yes Jaxport is way behind, in not only dredging, but also infrastructure.
Obviously. Why would we order cranes for ship sizes we cannot currently facilitate? Did Savannah? No.
The dredging and larger cranes go hand in hand.
Quote from: Tacachale on April 06, 2017, 09:33:29 AM
There are massive opportunity costs in either direction: if we spend on the dredging, that's $200 million we don't have to spend on other things, but if we don't spend, our port will fall farther and farther behind competitors to the point that it's almost pointless to even have it.
I do agree that a real conversation on this issue has yet to be had. However, I seriously doubt the extreme here. There's growth opportunities out there outside of competing for Post Panamax containers with Savannah and Charleston. We're going to lose that one even if we do dredge. Like Norfolk, they have some advantages in place that we'll never overcome (short of them getting taken out by a Cat 5). With that said, there's pros and cons for both dredging and not dredging. It would be good for a local conversation to finally materialize before an ultimate decision either way is made.
It appears that Savannah is setting another new record....
QuoteSavannah port dredging jumps nearly 40%; now approaching $1 billion, Congress only OK'd $709 million
SAVANNAH, Ga. | Deepening the shipping channel to the Port of Savannah is now expected to cost taxpayers a whopping $973 million, a price tag that's 38 percent higher than the federal government's previous estimate.
The Army Corps of Engineers updated its cost estimate for the massive dredging project last month, Russell Wicke, a spokesman for the agency's Savannah district office, said Wednesday. The last time the Corps estimated the project's total cost in 2014, the anticipated price was $706 million.
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/metro/2017-04-06/savannah-port-dredging-jumps-nearly-40-now-approaching-1-billion
Savannah Port:
1. Concentrated a long time ago on containers - Not automobiles
2. It is GA really only port - How many ports compete against JAXPORT in FL
3. I drive by the port almost weekly. They do things FAST and on the cheap - Container stacking for instance and they double the size of the intermodal yard in half the time it took JAXPORT to build. They don't worry how it looks, ie blacktop will due.
Another record - http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2017/04/11/georgia-ports-set-tonnage-record-for-march.html
And this....
Fed OKs groundbreaking collaboration between Georgia, Virginia ports
http://savannahnow.com/news/2017-04-10/fed-oks-groundbreaking-collaboration-between-georgia-virginia-ports
Hmmm...those guys are so far ahead, in addition to being better leveraged financially and being in more advantageous physical locations. We don't even know if we can pay to dredge and they've moved on to collaborating how to further set themselves apart from rest.
It's not bad to at least have a....
(http://deananddena.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Plan.B.jpg)
Just saying....
What just happened with the increased estimate for the cost to dredge the Savannah River could actually hurt Jacksonville at both the local and federal level. With the financial burden of the pension problem, the City Council members are likely already nervous about the prospect of also funding a highly speculative and extremely expensive port expansion project. The Army Corps' poor track record of accurately projecting the cost of these mega-projects should give them pause, and Savannah's cost increase will only add to their consternation. Based on what we have seen, the price tag to dredge the St. Johns is only going up.
Even though Savannah will now need an additional $267 million, the Army Corps also dialed up their Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) from 5.5 to 7.3. This is the highest BCR of any dredging project in the country and over 2 1/2 times higher than Jacksonville's BCR, which is 2.7. Since they are already underway with their dredging, the local share has already been fully funded by the Georgia legislature, the BCR is so high, and they are growing at such a phenomenal rate, I would assume that their stock among federal lawmakers has only gone up. They clearly make the most sense from a taxpayer investment standpoint.
I agree - time for Plan B.