Unbelievably, after JaxPort increased the City's storm water vulnerabilities*, risked the river's ecosystems and spent hundreds of millions for a dredging project, it now appears that it may not be fully useful for its intended purpose.
That is, and only partially so at that, unless tens of millions more are spent to raise JEA's power lines over the river which has, amazingly, up to now, never been addressed. Further, the Dames Point Bridge remains a height limitation for some ships.
Just another example of our local Authorities manipulating City leaders and citizens to get their way on projects with grandiose plans, false urgency to short circuit appropriate due diligence, input and debate and prostituted consultant projections - only to lead to later catastrophic failures, broken promises, finger pointing scandals and taxpayers holding the bag.
Many questioned the value of the dredging for many reasons and here we are with a major failure to address those concerns properly. This is a fine example of what JTA also appears to be doing with the AV/Skyway. We should expect a similar outcome... or worse.
Between JPA, JTA and JEA, I am trying to figure out if there is a competition between them to be the most incompetent and manipulative :-[.
QuoteJaxport: JEA must raise power lines over river if port is to attract larger vessels
The Jacksonville Port Authority is pushing to have the high-voltage power lines over the St. Johns River raised, a multimillion dollar project it says is necessary to fully benefit from the harbor deepening project to be completed next year.
The 175-foot height restriction imposed by the lines means the port will struggle to lure larger ships that would otherwise be attracted by what will soon be deeper water in the shipping channel, Jaxport Chief Operating Officer Fred Wong said.
"The only way we can optimize the use of that channel is to use larger and deeper vessels," Wong told the Business Journal in an interview. "The more constraints you end up pulling off of there, the better it is for the carriers when they're planning services for the future."....
....If the height restriction is not eliminated, Wong said, the port would still be behind competitors like Savannah even after the deepening project was complete. Savannah can accept ships with masts going up to 185 feet...
....The port's push comes three years after dredgers began work on deepening the shipping channel, the culmination of years of political fighting to get permission and money for the $410 million project.
The need for more space above the water — known in the trade as "air draft" — was not envisioned as part of the project when the port embarked on the deepening work, which it has long argued is necessary to remain competitive....
...."Raising the power lines to increase the air draft is essential to allow the larger vessels to safely traverse the newly deepened channel and call on the Blount Island Marine Terminal," the port said in the information packet sent to JEA.
But it is unclear who would pay for the work.
"That would be the million-dollar question our executive leadership is discussing," Wong said.....
....For the port, the answer to that question comes with some urgency. Millions have already been spent on the deepening: The federal government has put $192 million into making the river deeper, with the state chipping in $140 million and the city ponying up $70 million.
While that work won't be for naught if the lines aren't raised, Peek said, without the elimination of the height restriction, the port won't fully have the benefits that a deeper shipping channel has long promised....
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2021/05/12/jaxport-air-draft-jea-wires.html?ana=e_jac_bn_breakingnews_breakingnews&j=90559804&t=Breaking%20News&mkt_tok=NjczLVVXWS0yMjkAAAF9AU5Lxki1hCp_u79MNVb-7jhJRPdrHxigK_FeAqk4fZEO5e-oCOd-BKGlSvo-0V1xXzHx562QSq0Fev2aTnyJTbhxKToc3Bh9-ipjmSw9KJp_iJvT14I (https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2021/05/12/jaxport-air-draft-jea-wires.html?ana=e_jac_bn_breakingnews_breakingnews&j=90559804&t=Breaking%20News&mkt_tok=NjczLVVXWS0yMjkAAAF9AU5Lxki1hCp_u79MNVb-7jhJRPdrHxigK_FeAqk4fZEO5e-oCOd-BKGlSvo-0V1xXzHx562QSq0Fev2aTnyJTbhxKToc3Bh9-ipjmSw9KJp_iJvT14I)
* Coincidentally, Nate Monroe wrote a column today on this very subject:
QuoteNate Monroe: A century of dredging has left Jacksonville vulnerable to storm surge, study finds
The agency budgeted no money for environmental mitigation or for increased flood-protection, and city officials, who are now laudably more engaged on issues like climate change and resiliency — the city's capacity to withstand storms — have so far shown no interest in putting real money behind efforts to counteract the damage being done by constantly deepening the river.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/nate-monroe/2021/05/12/nate-monroe-dredging-has-made-jacksonville-vulnerable-storm-surge/5046306001/ (https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/nate-monroe/2021/05/12/nate-monroe-dredging-has-made-jacksonville-vulnerable-storm-surge/5046306001/)
I don't think this is only the government's fault. Businesspeople like CSX's former CFO advocated for the dredging years ago:
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/city-has-catching-do-rail-service
QuoteHe said the location of Jacksonville's port, which is actually much farther west than other East Coast ports, gives Jacksonville a competitive edge because freight transport by water is cheaper. That should appeal to businesses that are looking to transport freight inland through a Florida port.
"Jacksonville's the only port in Florida where it makes economic sense," Eliasson said.
However, he believes Jacksonville will have to invest in the port, including the proposed dredging project to deepen the harbor channel to 47 feet.
"We really, until the last five or six years, haven't focused on our port, but we're really going to have to make some investments," Eliasson said.
"If we're going to be competitive, we're going to have to invest in our port infrastructure," he said. "You can't survive long term on 41 feet."
Quote from: marcuscnelson on May 12, 2021, 06:47:37 PM
I don't think this is only the government's fault. Businesspeople like CSX's former CFO advocated for the dredging years ago:
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/city-has-catching-do-rail-service
QuoteHe said the location of Jacksonville's port, which is actually much farther west than other East Coast ports, gives Jacksonville a competitive edge because freight transport by water is cheaper. That should appeal to businesses that are looking to transport freight inland through a Florida port.
"Jacksonville's the only port in Florida where it makes economic sense," Eliasson said.
However, he believes Jacksonville will have to invest in the port, including the proposed dredging project to deepen the harbor channel to 47 feet.
"We really, until the last five or six years, haven't focused on our port, but we're really going to have to make some investments," Eliasson said.
"If we're going to be competitive, we're going to have to invest in our port infrastructure," he said. "You can't survive long term on 41 feet."
Lot's of people, particularly those who stood to benefit financially, such as CSX that serves the port, have supported this project. And just as many or more opposed it. Weighing in on the dredging like this is fine but it is just a high level opinion/wish and certainly shouldn't be taken that such individual would necessarily endorse the project had they had full knowledge of the details. I would also venture to say that if CSX had been asked to contribute millions toward this project as a beneficiary of it, they might have been more circumspect in how they supported it. And, no way they would invest in dredging the river if they knew ships couldn't take advantage due to height limitations. It's also easy to support something when you have no skin in the game and can't be held accountable for the results.
In the end, the responsibility and accountability solely falls to the leadership of the Port to do proper due diligence to determine the ROI, feasibility, risks, benefits, etc. for a project like this and to execute a plan that delivers on the promises made to gain approval. In gathering public support, they also should be fully transparent and honest about their findings, decision making process and the full scope and impact of the project.
I don't see that happening here based on this story. Further, I am concerned that, over time, this project also won't deliver with respect to promises about its economic benefits*, accentuating damaging storm surge or negatively impacting the ecosystem of the river.
This height issue being swept aside up until now is just another example, to me, of a manipulative process to get things done, opposition be damned, and then say "oops" later when there is no turning back and we citizens are thus extorted. As stated earlier, the Skyway is another such example.
*If the economic benefits are so certain, the Port user fees should cover the full cost of the dredging without taxpayer subsidies.
I'm guessing that raising the power lines was NOT in the Environmental Impact Statement, or the documents used to calculate the cost:benefit ratio of the dredging. It does, however, weaken the port's argument to dredge west of the Dames Point Bridge - it is not getting any higher.
How would raising power lines help? Dames Point Bridge only has 175 foot clearance.
Quote from: Lostwave on May 13, 2021, 09:36:41 AM
How would raising power lines help? Dames Point Bridge only has 175 foot clearance.
The article mentions the blount island terminal which is east of the dames point. The power lines in question are about 1.5 miles east of the bridge.
Quote from: Lostwave on May 13, 2021, 09:36:41 AM
How would raising power lines help? Dames Point Bridge only has 175 foot clearance.
There are about 6900 feet (1.3 miles) of wharf along Blount Island west of the JEA power lines. Blount Island east of the power lines is part of the USMC facility and unavailable for JaxPort activity.
Quote from: Lostwave on May 13, 2021, 09:36:41 AM
How would raising power lines help? Dames Point Bridge only has 175 foot clearance.
The current dredging project ends at the bridge. The TraPac, breakbulk, ro/ro and cruise terminal West of the Dames Point will continue to service their current ship capacities. Most of the larger ships (and any Post-Panamax ships over a 165ft draft height) are being processed at the SSA terminal East of the bridge, on Blount Island. The SSA terminal just received large berthing upgrades and of course the deeper shipping channel. The power lines split Blount Island in half... East of the power lines is the USMC/BMC terminal, and West of the power lines is the SSA terminal.
Its curious that JaxPort is pushing JEA for this based on two events- JaxPort losing the CHA CGM service that called on the SSA terminal it shared with Charleston, Savannah, Norfolk and New Jersey, and the Hapag-Lloyd EC service that called on the TraPac terminal... and JaxPort's desire to purchase JEA's former NGS property (which has terminal access within the Blount Island channel).
The loss of the CMA CGM service had more to do with consolidation in the shipping industry, which happens from time to time (particularly at a time when global shipping trade is contracting due to the year-plus-long pandemic)... and doesn't appear to have anything to do with container volume or draft capabilities. Hapag-Lloyd shifted some of the container volume to another line that calls on TraPac. While there is a net decrease in container volume, its really negligible due to the increase in containers on the other East Coast Loop line at TraPac. JaxPort has gained and lost these type of routes for decades due to the ebbs and flows of the trade industry and specific business flows of individual companies.
Also really skeptical of JaxPort's desire for JEA's property. There seems to be a lot of smoke, on this issue.
Just think of the money that could have been saved if some time in the 1950's or so, the port had been moved to the Mayport area. No need to dredge (which has been done more than once), no need to have a super tall bridge over the St. Johns. No need to raise the power lines. Probably would have saved a billion dollars.
I guess? Not sure what value there is to thinking about it now. It's been 70 years, the port is where it is, and we have to deal with it.
Quote from: vicupstate on May 13, 2021, 10:21:29 AM
Just think of the money that could have been saved if some time in the 1950's or so, the port had been moved to the Mayport area. No need to dredge (which has been done more than once), no need to have a super tall bridge over the St. Johns. No need to raise the power lines. Probably would have saved a billion dollars.
From an historical perspective, it probably made sense well over a hundred years ago to put the port where the people, factories and commodities were, i.e. where it is now. Connecting rail access was there and back then, too, ships, being a fraction of today's sizes, probably could mostly navigate the river with minimal man-made "improvements." Most certainly, there were no concerns about height restrictions due to bridges or power lines 8). (FYI, our first bridge, the original Acosta, built in the 1920's was inland of the mid-century port facilities that stretched into the heart of Downtown. Additionally, even it had a lift span to accommodate taller boats headed down river.). Resilience from hurricanes might have also been a concern.
While maybe "ideal" in theory, I am not sure Mayport could handle the size of the port in terms of wharf frontage and slips unless they could take over Mayport NAS's real estate which is likely never to happen in the next several lifetimes. Even then, I am not sure if the size of the the Navy's ship basin matches up to the infrastructure at JaxPort.
As for the rest of Mayport, we couldn't even figure out how to get a single cruise ship ported there. A big issue, aside from water-side and land-side assets, is access. There is no easy way out of Mayport to the rest of the world and no way the Beaches community would want trucks coming their way. Ironically, decades ago, I believe Mayport had a rail connection that ran down what is now Beach Blvd. but we also forsook that opportunity.
^ Good summary of why the port is where it is.
Just a note about rail access, there was also a rail line through Arlington directly to Mayport. The Wonderwood bridge over Greenfield Creek and Pablo Creek (Intracoastal Waterway) follows the old Jacksonville, Mayport, and Pablo RR causeway (JM&P, aka "Jump Men and Push" due to reported unreliability). As I recall, part of JTA's permit to build the bridge required them to remove some of the causeway, to re-open natural water flows.
I understand the historical reasons for the port being where it is, but imagine if in the '90's when Naval facilities all over the country were closed, Mayport had been closed instead of Cecil. Move the port to Mayport. Ships would port virtually next to the open Ocean. Surely that beats the situation with Savannah. No need to dredge or raise power lines. No worries of Dames Point for the cruise ships. The Wonderwood connector made Mayport a lot more accessible, which presumably would have been built sooner under this scenario. I know its water under the bridge (pun intended) but if you could turn back time, it would make a lot of sense in many ways.
Quote from: vicupstate on May 13, 2021, 12:47:27 PM
I understand the historical reasons for the port being where it is, but imagine if in the '90's when Naval facilities all over the country were closed, Mayport had been closed instead of Cecil. Move the port to Mayport. Ships would port virtually next to the open Ocean. Surely that beats the situation with Savannah. No need to dredge or raise power lines. No worries of Dames Point for the cruise ships. The Wonderwood connector made Mayport a lot more accessible, which presumably would have been built sooner under this scenario. I know its water under the bridge (pun intended) but if you could turn back time, it would make a lot of sense in many ways.
I understand your point but you must consider that the likelihood of that scenario was close to zero.
They made a mistake closing Cecil here and it was the only base that they closed and then voted to reopen again (basically, an admission of their mistake). Unfortunately, for the Navy, the community had already moved too far forward with converting it to civilian use and the costs and public support did not lend to its reopening.
Given that poor decision by the Navy, it would have been far worse and likely also more impactful locally, if they closed Mayport (not that it was ever considered). Aside from Newport News, the Navy really has no other place on the Eastern seaboard where they could likely duplicate or transfer Mayport's assets and advantages (including ones you cite for JaxPort that apply equally to the Navy*), especially taking into account location and proximity to Jax NAS and Kings Bay. The Navy is deemed to be over-concentrated in Norfolk (Norfolk is considered by many a "Pearl Harbor" risk) and, to this day, held back only by politics, the Navy has expressed interest in re-basing aircraft carriers at Mayport, its only real alternative.
* There aren't many ships that draft more than an aircraft carrier, above or below the water line, so, clearly, the Navy is looking at the same issues JaxPort is and they likely have even fewer options so the ocean-side port is even more critical to them.
Mayport is far too small to accomodate all of that.
And if if the area was big enough, it require some serious reworking of mother earth to be able to offer even half as many berths. Dredging in comparison is a breeze.
Total bs to get uppity over dredging's contributions. If you don't want to get flooded, don't build where Jacksonville is located.
It's built at sea level and, especially the core, drained swamp and flat as hell. It would be have all the same problems and vulnerabilities regardless of dredging.
Even better --> Instead of pissing away 1/2 a BILLION on robo buses that can't see black people ( probably why they're running them in Riverside and not Grand Am, eh? ).... how about we put that into a seawall?
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on May 14, 2021, 12:14:42 PM
Total bs to get uppity over dredging's contributions. If you don't want to get flooded, don't build where Jacksonville is located.
It's built at sea level and, especially the core, drained swamp and flat as hell. It would be have all the same problems and vulnerabilities regardless of dredging.
Even better --> Instead of pissing away 1/2 a BILLION on robo buses that can't see black people ( probably why they're running them in Riverside and not Grand Am, eh? ).... how about we put that into a seawall?
If you want to stick your head in the sand about how dredging has drastically affected the river flow over the past several decades.... there are many sandbars newly created on Browns Creek from the latest dredging efforts... that go along with sandbars stretching from Clapboard Creek to as far down as Mill Cove from previous dredging efforts... in which you can choose from.
Yeah, it's been well covered locally in the past about how the dredging has negatively impacted the fishing industry around Mill Cove.
After they dredged alligator cut back in the day mill cove has basically filled in.
Quote from: acme54321 on May 14, 2021, 02:37:05 PM
After they dredged alligator cut back in the day mill cove has basically filled in.
Then dredging there is required... The river is an economic engine... always has been. If not for the shipping Jax would be a swampy backwater. Yes... there are environmental impacts. Pick your poison. Walk along the Riverwalk anywhere and start counting all the litter and trash lining the river... Your litter and trash.
Some letters yesterday combating the concerns on dredging. No mention of the power lines.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/2021/05/15/letters-readers-why-cant-citys-projects-get-off-ground/5092379001/
QuoteDredging story doesn't factor in development
I read with interest the column by Nate Monroe titled, "Dredging has made Jacksonville, vulnerable to storm surge." Monroe quotes from a new study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research to make his points. However I noticed that the study did not appear to take into consideration population growth and all the land development along with changes to the drainage systems over the last one hundred years but focused only on the dredging of the river. That is the problem these days with new studies that the media reports on. Do they really look at all the variables involved when they come to their conclusions or are they just out there to push a certain narrative or prove a certain point that is advantageous to them?
Calvin Johnson, Jacksonville
QuoteMonroe ignores the economics of dredging
Nate Monroe's story ignores the economics of river dredging. Jacksonville is in competition with Savannah, Charleston and recently Brunswick for imports particularly automobiles. A silted in St Johns River would render Jacksonville a veritable and literal backwater that would make the city irrelevant in almost any context.
John Ekdahl, Ponte Vedra Beach
Bad Deals get Worse.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 14, 2021, 05:13:33 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on May 14, 2021, 02:37:05 PM
After they dredged alligator cut back in the day mill cove has basically filled in.
Then dredging there is required... The river is an economic engine... always has been. If not for the shipping Jax would be a swampy backwater. Yes... there are environmental impacts. Pick your poison. Walk along the Riverwalk anywhere and start counting all the litter and trash lining the river... Your litter and trash.
If the port is such an economic driver, why don't the user fees pay for the dredging? And, some would argue the natural river and its preservation is more of an economic driver than destroying it and only having the port to show for it. Aside from the beaches, Jax's most valued real estate is on the banks of our waterfront and I would imagine, along with the associated property taxes, could rival the value of the port. That doesn't include ancillary businesses such as tourism, boating, fishing, cruising, etc. that derive income from the river. Add the value of the environmental and resiliency benefits to the community and surrounding lands plus as a drainage basin and source of water supplies and I think it is clear the port moves down a few more notches.
The river... from Buckman to the ocean is about as "natural" as I 95... The banks are artificial... it is and has been heavily populated and polluted for a hundred years. It has been dredged multiple times over the past hundred years. Heavy shipping traffic once extended all the water to Green Cove Springs.
Dredging to Jaxport or all the way to downtown really shouldn't be an issue...
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on May 24, 2021, 12:38:20 PM
If the port is such an economic driver, why don't the user fees pay for the dredging?
Ports long ago - rightly or wrongly - became a public good in this country. I'd be happy for that to be different but I haven't seen any hope for that sort of change coming anytime soon.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on May 24, 2021, 12:38:20 PM
And, some would argue the natural river and its preservation is more of an economic driver than destroying it and only having the port to show for it. Aside from the beaches, Jax's most valued real estate is on the banks of our waterfront and I would imagine, along with the associated property taxes, could rival the value of the port.
Considering 1/3 of the regions GDP is generated by the port, take that away and what happen to all that value?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on May 24, 2021, 05:26:19 PM
The river... from Buckman to the ocean is about as "natural" as I 95... The banks are artificial... it is and has been heavily populated and polluted for a hundred years. It has been dredged multiple times over the past hundred years. Heavy shipping traffic once extended all the water to Green Cove Springs.
Dredging to Jaxport or all the way to downtown really shouldn't be an issue...
As they say, two (or more) wrongs don't make a right. And, there is much that is good still left with the river. Further, like the outcomes from the Everglades restoration, fisheries moratoriums, enforced environmental regulations, etc. much can be restored with remedial actions. The significant removal of pollution since the 1960's is just one example of that.
We are also supposed to have protective entities like the St. Johns River Water Management District, DEP, etc. although, unfortunately, Rick Scott de-fanged and mostly dismantled their abilities to execute their missions and DeSantis has only a little bit put them back together, at best.
The issue, right on top, about the dredging, is I see it as the Port's potential version of JTA's Skyway. They build it and almost nobody comes. There are many people questioning the business need for the dredging and what the ROI will ultimately be. The power line height issue is just another log on this fire. If this turns out to be so, we will be going economically backwards as we will have obtained a negative Port ROI and impaired the viability of the river.
I'm not endorsing "two wrongs". I am choosing the economic engine that is the StJohns River from downtown to the ocean. We are a major seaport and the seaport like most includes a River that requires dredging.
Lessee... Mississippi River... dredged. Savannah River... dredged. Panama Canal... dredged. Sues canal dredged. Every River seaport in Europe... dredged.
Comparing the port to the Skyway? C'mon man!
Quote from: acme54321 on May 25, 2021, 09:48:13 PM
Comparing the port to the Skyway? C'mon man!
Read my post again. I'm comparing the dredging project (not the entire Port) to the Skyway.... and only then if we spend hundreds of millions to deepen it and the ships we deepened it for don't show up in the expected numbers. If that happens, then yes, it would mirror the Skyway story. We shall see soon enough...
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on May 25, 2021, 11:57:06 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on May 25, 2021, 09:48:13 PM
Comparing the port to the Skyway? C'mon man!
By not dredging we KNOW which ships will never come...
Read my post again. I'm comparing the dredging project (not the entire Port) to the Skyway.... and only then if we spend hundreds of millions to deepen it and the ships we deepened it for don't show up in the expected numbers. If that happens, then yes, it would mirror the Skyway story. We shall see soon enough...
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on May 25, 2021, 11:57:06 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on May 25, 2021, 09:48:13 PM
Comparing the port to the Skyway? C'mon man!
Read my post again. I'm comparing the dredging project (not the entire Port) to the Skyway.... and only then if we spend hundreds of millions to deepen it and the ships we deepened it for don't show up in the expected numbers. If that happens, then yes, it would mirror the Skyway story. We shall see soon enough...
By not dredging we
KNOW which ships will never come... 8)
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on May 25, 2021, 11:57:06 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on May 25, 2021, 09:48:13 PM
Comparing the port to the Skyway? C'mon man!
Read my post again. I'm comparing the dredging project (not the entire Port) to the Skyway.... and only then if we spend hundreds of millions to deepen it and the ships we deepened it for don't show up in the expected numbers. If that happens, then yes, it would mirror the Skyway story. We shall see soon enough...
LOL. So deepening the port is equivalent to spending hundreds of millions to convert the skyway to an elevated road for little unmanned cars? OK.
Quote from: acme54321 on May 26, 2021, 09:17:45 AM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on May 25, 2021, 11:57:06 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on May 25, 2021, 09:48:13 PM
Comparing the port to the Skyway? C'mon man!
Read my post again. I'm comparing the dredging project (not the entire Port) to the Skyway.... and only then if we spend hundreds of millions to deepen it and the ships we deepened it for don't show up in the expected numbers. If that happens, then yes, it would mirror the Skyway story. We shall see soon enough...
LOL. So deepening the port is equivalent to spending hundreds of millions to convert the skyway to an elevated road for little unmanned cars? OK.
Again, that is not what I said. I will try to spell it out for you: The original Skyway was built based on studies that said if they build it people will use it a lot. Never happened. The dredging was done because people said large ships will use it a lot. If that fails to happen, then the Skyway will be a perfect analogy to the dredging.
If you still don't get it, please consider that your support for the dredging may be precluding your ability to see things from another perspective. If so, I can't assist any further.
No one uses the skyway.
On the other hand, the port is one of the larger in the country. Does 5 times more than Tampa. Is the 2nd busiest auto port in the nation.
1/3 of our region's GDP - our lives - is created thanks to the port.
Like the no one that rides the Skyway, absolutely bupkiss of GDP is driven by The Skyway.
When someone sees a comparison between something worthless with something that's got so much value if you removed it, you'd tear the region apart......... well, one is maybe being a bit too stubborn and missing the plot.
No one, not even JTA, is willing to die on skyway mountain.
QuoteOn the other hand, the port is one of the larger in the country. Does 5 times more than Tampa. Is the 2nd busiest auto port in the nation.
1/3 of our region's GDP - our lives - is created thanks to the port.
But it is ALREADY in that position WITHOUT the dredging. What does the dredging ADD or what loss does it prevent?
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on May 26, 2021, 04:13:09 PM
When someone sees a comparison between something worthless with something that's got so much value if you removed it, you'd tear the region apart......... well, one is maybe being a bit too stubborn and missing the plot.
I don't know what is so hard to see here. I am not talking about the Port, just the incremental dredging. The dredging to 47 feet was for the sole purpose of accommodating Panamax ships. If they don't show up after the dredging, the several hundred million dollars spent to increase the depth for those ships and the ancillary negative impacts on the river will be for naught. That would mimic our "investment" in the Skyway.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on May 26, 2021, 12:25:42 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on May 26, 2021, 09:17:45 AM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on May 25, 2021, 11:57:06 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on May 25, 2021, 09:48:13 PM
Comparing the port to the Skyway? C'mon man!
Read my post again. I'm comparing the dredging project (not the entire Port) to the Skyway.... and only then if we spend hundreds of millions to deepen it and the ships we deepened it for don't show up in the expected numbers. If that happens, then yes, it would mirror the Skyway story. We shall see soon enough...
LOL. So deepening the port is equivalent to spending hundreds of millions to convert the skyway to an elevated road for little unmanned cars? OK.
Again, that is not what I said. I will try to spell it out for you: The original Skyway was built based on studies that said if they build it people will use it a lot. Never happened. The dredging was done because people said large ships will use it a lot. If that fails to happen, then the Skyway will be a perfect analogy to the dredging.
If you still don't get it, please consider that your support for the dredging may be precluding your ability to see things from another perspective. If so, I can't assist any further.
I get what you are saying, I just don't agree that the anything to do with the Skyway is a good comparison to keeping one of our city's main economic drivers competitive.
And while we wring our hands...
https://www.live5news.com/2021/05/26/huge-ship-arrives-port-savannah/
Looks like... "If you build it... they will come..."
In the very limited terms, what longtimer is saying as "they did a study that projected these numbers and it didn't happen" part is valid. It's a thing. It's true.
But it's not important nor insightful. No one in JAX took transit before the skyway, there was nothing like it in the city and really nothing much in the nation. It was a pure guess.
IN the case of Jacksonville and it's ports, the city has existed from day #1 because of shipping and ports. It's always been here and been a big, big part of Jacksonville.
Dedreging is an incremental change. Poeple mover was a desperate hail mary.
Well, looking down from the power lines..... in general " Fiasco" mode.....
Fishermen are looking forward to ...... possibly......either a Good Thang or a Bad Thang.......newly constructed River Habitat Deep Holes. Deeper water. How will the " Fishery" ' Fair' ?
Will the Big Redfish incline towards the new Deep? ( I would).
A good study for Dr. Quinton White .... River Keeper.....et al.
After all, now the study is only about the result, rather than conceived change of course.
TraPac scaling back due to ships not clearing power lines and the Dames Point Bridge at the port. And, now add not having the equipment to handle larger ships. So much for "thinking ahead." Dredging clearly will not be enough.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2021/06/28/trapac-jacksonville-terminal-to-close-on-fridays.html?utm_source=st&utm_medium=en&utm_campaign=me&utm_content=ja&ana=e_ja_me&j=24289452&senddate=2021-06-28
Quote
TraPac — Jacksonville's first Asian container terminal — scales back service
....Now, TraPac has announced that its facility will be closed on Fridays "due to reduced volume in Jacksonville." A TraPac official confirmed to the Business Journal that the change in service began June 19.
...The reason: The flow of cargo into TraPac has fallen: In June, a group of shippers known as THE Alliance cut one of two ships that had called at the terminal, a side effect of the shippers changing the size of vessels they have in service on the route....
The larger ships that would otherwise call at TraPac are unable to get there because of transmission lines over the river and the Dames Point Bridge both limiting how tall ships can be, the depths of the shipping channel precluding large, fully loaded ships from entering and the terminal having equipment that cannot efficiently deal with the larger shipping vessels that have become more common, a port spokeswoman said.
In 2014, the largest ships expected to call at Jaxport were expected to carry the equivalent of 9,000 containers
But ships have continued to get bigger: The widening of the Panama Canal — which began in 2007 — brought into service ships carrying 10,000 to 14,000 containers, while ships transiting the Suez Canal carry up to 20,000 containers.
The port authority has been pushing to get JEA to raise the power lines over the river, saying it is necessary to fully benefit from the multimillion-dollar deepening project....
No one in the business ever said dredging was going to be enough.
Didn't earlier posts point out that the cost of raising the power lines wasn't included in the USACOE calculation of cost/benefit factors?
If it was known that this was an essential public cost, shouldn't it have been included? Why wasn't it?
^Because the plan was always to nickel and dime the costs of what was needed. If the full cost was known upfront, approval and public acceptance would have been more difficult to obtain.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on June 29, 2021, 10:36:17 AM
No one in the business ever said dredging was going to be enough.
They certainly implied it if they didn't explicitly say it given that they didn't address the impact of the bridge and power line heights and any shortcomings of equipment on the docks as part of the dredging approval process. Surely, some one/people at the Port knew these issues would have to be eventually addressed to extract the full value of the dredging going back to the very start of bringing up this project.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 29, 2021, 01:24:33 PM
^Because the plan was always to nickel and dime the costs of what was needed. If the full cost was known upfront, approval and public acceptance would have been more difficult to obtain.
Right, bait and switch. Or low ball, get the commitment and then hold the taxpayer hostage as they can't afford to undermine the value of what has already been spent when all the real costs become apparent.
We saw this same "business model" with the stadium and the courthouse. JEA is experiencing it with the nuclear reactors in Georgia. A favorite trick of contractors and politicians/agency heads. Yet, elected officials fall for it over and over, just like Charlie Brown trying to kick Lucy's football. Look for it again on the U2C project.
He U2C will be the grand finale ;)
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 29, 2021, 03:21:28 PM
They certainly implied it if they didn't explicitly say it given that they didn't address the impact of the bridge and power line heights and any shortcomings of equipment on the docks as part of the dredging approval process. Surely, some one/people at the Port knew these issues would have to be eventually addressed to extract the full value of the dredging going back to the very start of bringing up this project.
Bridge clearance has always been a known limitation. Always. Savannah, Brunswick, et al. have similar issues. IIRC Savannah's dredging has allowed for ships that are too big to to fit under that US 17 bridge downtown. Just because you don't have that, does not mean the dredging doesn't provide value.
You do things in iterations. The dredging allows for bigger ships. As bigger ships come, you work on putting the next piece in place.
And it's not just the bridge, the port itself, the cranes, the storage space, et al all factor into the size of the ship that's going to come.
TraPac + their customers will experiment with what works + doesn't work. If the ship made it to the port, then whatever cover story they use, the physical environment allows for it. The trick is does it make sense given the market. Are they better off using that ship to ship from China - EU? Or better using Halifax or Houston instead of Jacksonville. There's a lot of factors in play.
^ I don't have a problem with stepped improvements. I do have a problem when someone knows the whole game plan but withholds substantial parts of it or the risks to getting a full return on investment until the plan is underway and it can't be reversed or salvaged if the later parts can't be fully accomplished. It's called full disclosure and government entities doing these types of projects should be held to the same strict standards public companies are required by the SEC to live up to in terms of disclosing business risks, the competitive landscape and operational/financial trends. No one likes surprises.
The JaxPort approach damages the credibility of the acting party which may ultimately impair their ability to get approval for future requests. This is part of the parallel with JTA's advocacy for the Skyway/U2C.
Just because they didn't have a copy of their master plan FedExed to your doorstep doesn't mean there aren't plans. Please, that's a pretty preposterous claim.
Again, you do things in pieces. Dredging is needed regardless of bridge raising, et al. Things like Bridge raising just enable that next class, that next size of ship.
First, you get those 6,500 TEU vessels to come on a regular basis on various routes. Then you work on put things in place for the next phase.
Nate Monroe does a great job summarizing why the port dredging is a fiasco in the making. Either the dredging is totally inadequate to host the largest ships the Port claimed to be going after or it was a sneaky first step to suckering taxpayers and JEA ratepayers to (a) pay for a second dredging to 50 feet from 47 feet and (b) raising JEA power lines from 175 feet to 200 feet over the river at a cost of $100+ million.
Typical Jax underhanded dealing and transparency. Just like with JTA and the AV's and JEA and its plans to sell itself. Truly scandalous. The appointed boards of these agencies are nothing but rubberstamps and totally politicized. When is the last time one of these boards rejected a staff plan? It is clear that no one is looking out for the citizens of Jacksonville.
QuoteCOMMENTARY | Jacksonville Port Authority officials have for months circulated a study they believe demonstrates that a series of high-voltage transmission lines that cross far above the St. Johns River are a navigational hazard to massive cargo ships that could one day use Jacksonville's port terminals.
Convincing the federal government to consider the lines a safety hazard could ultimately force JEA to raise them, bury them or move them — a risky endeavor that could cost ratepayers in Northeast Florida as much as $100 million depending on what option is selected.
"With larger vessels being phased in, the transmission lines will create a safety risk that would limit the number of vessels that can enter the Jacksonville Harbor, reducing our economic competitiveness," Eric Green, Jaxport's CEO, wrote to the U.S. Coast Guard in August. "Removing this restriction will eliminate all future safety impediments."
But a closer look at JaxPort's study shows the alleged threat to be far more speculative than Green's letter suggests.
The study simulated the arrival of two ships that are far larger than any that have ever called on JaxPort. The ships, if they were fully loaded, would also need favorable tides or deeper water even after the completion of a current dredging project that will create a 47-foot shipping channel.
And, remarkably, the study simulated the arrival of those massive vessels in a St. Johns River with 50 feet of water, three feet deeper than the current project, slated for completion in about a year, is set to go.
The smaller of the two vessels simulated — a ship that can hold 14,000 20-foot cargo containers (or, a 14,000 TEU vessel) — drafts at 47.5 feet, meaning a fully loaded vessel of that size would have to wait for favorable tides even after completion of the current 47-foot dredging project.
Even with the 50 feet of water the study assumed, the largest of the two vessels JaxPort simulated — an 18,000 TEU ship — drafts at 52.5 feet, so it was only simulated navigating through the channel at high tide with an additional 5 feet of water added.
The largest vessel to have ever called Jacksonville was the Kota Pekarang in 2019, which is smaller than 12,000 TEU.
In short, even if JaxPort officials hope to one day see such large ships, the study they've been circulating provides dubious evidence that there is an urgent or perhaps even long-term safety need to raise JEA's transmission lines — a project that itself could take years to complete. And it assumes removing the lines is one of only a few barriers to prosperity.
In reality, even with 47 feet of water, JaxPort would remain poorly suited to handle an 18,000 TEU vessel and less than ideal for a 14,000 TEU ship of the dimensions it modeled. It would also still have to compete for that expanded business with better situated and larger ports along the East Coast.
In answers to follow-up questions provided after this column initially posted, JaxPort argued the study "validates" that a 47-foot channel is "adequate" to accommodate 14,000 TEU ships and "up to 18,000 TEUs under certain tidal and loading conditions."
But the study didn't examine a 47-foot river; it only considered a 50-foot St. Johns shipping channel, so the port authority's assertion the study made any conclusions about a 47-foot river is simply not convincing.
What the study actually seems to suggest is that the $484 million dredging project underway is probably inadequate if JaxPort leaders truly intend to pursue 18,000 TEU vessels in the future. It reads more like an initial effort to lay the groundwork for a future ask.
Answers a port spokesperson provided also point out that ships often don't arrive fully loaded, meaning they require less than their maximum draft. "A harbor depth that's close to — or at — the vessel's Design Draft would typically only be necessary for a port to be a first or last port-of-call for a fully loaded vessel — not for ports in the middle of a service string rotation," the statement said.
JaxPort officials disagreed when I asked them whether it was correct to interpret the study as an indication they're already eyeing a 50-foot dredge.
"Our focus is completing the 47-foot deepening project through Blount Island so that we can provide the community with the project's return on investment as soon as possible," the authority said in a statement.
JEA's high-voltage transmission lines sit 175 feet above the river, which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has previously determined provided more than enough air draft to accommodate the largest vessels that will call on JaxPort terminals after the completion of the 47-foot dredging project. JaxPort's study, however, now says the transmission lines must provide nearly 200 feet of air clearance, based on the analysis of the two ship designs it modeled.
JaxPort says in the years since the Army Corps made its original finding, nearly a decade ago, "ships have grown much faster than anyone in the industry could have anticipated."
But there were critics who believed the Army Corps had understated the pace of growth in the size of vessels being built. The St. Johns Riverkeeper explicitly challenged that U.S. Army Corps finding in federal court. A ports analyst working with the Riverkeeper said in 2017 the Army Corps' 47-foot dredge study relied on outdated information about vessel size and composition. Both the Army Corps and JaxPort defended that finding in court.
If the Army Corps had determined at the time the lines needed to be raised, it would have added cost to the dredging project, potentially throwing off the slightly favorable cost-benefit analysis and jeopardizing the project's ability to attract federal funding. That's one reason why some critics believe the Army Corps made some of the questionable choices it did when studying the project: Strip it down and make it appear as cheap as possible.
Now, however, as the project is underway, those hidden costs could be emerging: Among them, the issue of whether JEA's lines need to be higher.
It's worth pointing out Asian trade — which requires deep water — makes up less than 30 percent of JaxPort's core business. Trade with Puerto Rico and the Caribbean and automobile shipping — which have long been JaxPort's bread and butter — don't need such depths. Yet dredging has consumed enormous amounts of taxpayer money and generated public controversy.
Even with deeper water, JaxPort officials will have to convince industry players to include Jacksonville in more Asian trade business with aggressive marketing. Big ships won't arrive on their own.
Success on that front is far from a sure thing.
Asaf Ashar, the ports analyst who worked with the Riverkeeper and (accurately) warned the Army Corps was using outdated vessel information, said in a report that Jacksonville is a "secondary" port and will likely "remain a secondary port, with or without dredging." He questioned the theory that some of the largest ships being made today would ever have interest in calling Jacksonville before bigger ports in Savannah, Charleston, Miami, New York and Norfolk.
"In fact, despite the dire prediction (by a JaxPort consultant) that the 'Asian market will likely disappear ... by 2015,' JaxPort's Asian cargo has been steadily growing, even with the existing channel," he wrote.
Ashar suggested JaxPort will continue to benefit from "feedering": When a shipper takes some of the cargo dropped off at a bigger port by a bigger vessel and transports it to a smaller secondary port with a smaller vessel.
Notably, the U.S. Army Corps' initial recommendation was to dredge only to 45 feet; JaxPort requested the additional 2 feet.
I asked JaxPort whether it had any indication the massive ships it modeled in its study — the 14,000 and 18,000 TEU vessels that require more than 175 feet of air clearance — have any known plans of calling JaxPort in the future. A spokesperson didn't respond with any specifics, saying only that one of its terminal operators has made significant investments in modernizing Blount Island and wouldn't have done so if "they didn't expect to see more ships and increased cargo volumes."
The bottom line
JEA already helps pay for city services through an annual contribution to City Hall's general fund that exceeds $115 million. Above and beyond that, there are civic efforts JEA should and does participate in, including help extending water lines to some of Jacksonville's oldest neighborhoods and removing failing septic tanks that can pollute waterways.
Subsidizing port operations, however, should not be on that list. A church on the Westside, a nonprofit in the Northwest, a restaurant in Mandarin, a family off Hodges: These people and institutions should not have to pay for a project that will benefit private interests more than they already have.
The port was circumspect when I asked if they expected JEA ratepayers to pay to raise or bury the transmission lines. Talks between the two agencies are ongoing.
Perhaps JaxPort officials truly believe they can turn their secondary port into a major player. Maybe they've had visions of 18,000 TEU vessels anchored offshore. If they believe it strongly enough, they can find a different way to pay for it.
Raiding Jacksonville's public utility on such speculation should be a non-starter.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/nate-monroe/2021/10/15/jaxport-dubiously-calls-jea-power-lines-st-johns-river-safety-hazard-nate-monroe/8452308002/
Raising the power lines to 200' would open up about one mile of berths along the south face of Blount Island that are west of the power lines. The channel between Blount Island and Dames Point is only 40' - so it would also have to be dredged to 50' to gain the full benefit of raising the power lines. How much will this cost? The western side of Dames Point would still be inaccessible due to the 175' clearance of the Dames Point Bridge. How many hundreds of millions would increasing its clearance cost?
Madness. Madness.
1/3 of the regions wealth comes from those ports.
Do y'll really want to risk kiling that all over a few feet?
What would be nice is if JaxPort, JEA, COJ, FDOT, ACOE, etc., were upfront about all the costs and impacts associated with expanding the port. These incremental reveals of, "Oh, the deepening is a good start, but we really need to raise the power lines ... raise the bridge ... build a new rail line to the railyards west of town ... deepen the Blount Island channel ... make the channel even deeper ..."
Quote1/3 of the regions wealth comes from those ports.
LOLZ, wut?!!?
Quote from: Charles Hunter on October 23, 2021, 11:00:35 PMThe western side of Dames Point would still be inaccessible due to the 175' clearance of the Dames Point Bridge. How many hundreds of millions would increasing its clearance cost?
That number would probably have a B behind it the way things cost these days.
Quote from: acme54321 on October 26, 2021, 03:48:09 PM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on October 23, 2021, 11:00:35 PMThe western side of Dames Point would still be inaccessible due to the 175' clearance of the Dames Point Bridge. How many hundreds of millions would increasing its clearance cost?
That number would probably have a B behind it the way things cost these days.
Wouldn't you have to rebuild the bridge or go the tunnel route? I don't think you're fixing the 175ft thing easily.
Apparently, the power lines were discussed and determined not to be an obstacle back in 2017 before the dredging began, though even the quote from JaxPort then left the door open to them changing their mind in the future:
QuoteThe transmission lines aren't as visible as the nearby Dames Point bridge, but the cables are just as much of a restriction on the size of cargo ships that can sail under them on the way to unload at Jacksonville's port.
JaxPort officials, who are pursuing a $484-million river deepening project so Jacksonville can handle the next generation of jumbo-sized cargo ships, say the power lines don't pose an obstacle to their push to compete with other Southeast ports that also are deepening their harbors.
"As far as we're concerned, impacts down the road, maybe," JaxPort spokeswoman Nancy Rubin said. "Right now, the largest ships will be accommodated at Blount Island quite nicely."
https://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2017-07-21/power-lines-across-river-won-t-short-circuit-quest-bigger-ships-jaxport-says (https://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2017-07-21/power-lines-across-river-won-t-short-circuit-quest-bigger-ships-jaxport-says)
Sounds to me like raising or burying the power lines is something they might need to pursue someday, not near term, so they could be testing the temperature of the water on the request to strategize for the real ask down the road.
Quote from: Steve on October 26, 2021, 04:16:35 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on October 26, 2021, 03:48:09 PM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on October 23, 2021, 11:00:35 PMThe western side of Dames Point would still be inaccessible due to the 175' clearance of the Dames Point Bridge. How many hundreds of millions would increasing its clearance cost?
That number would probably have a B behind it the way things cost these days.
Wouldn't you have to rebuild the bridge or go the tunnel route? I don't think you're fixing the 175ft thing easily.
Yeah the only way you're fixing that is with a new bridge. I guess they could reuse part of the southern approach ;D
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on July 23, 2021, 11:10:41 AM
Just because they didn't have a copy of their master plan FedExed to your doorstep doesn't mean there aren't plans. Please, that's a pretty preposterous claim.
Maybe you could share the master plan that you are so sure exists to this extent. As a governmental entity, such plans, if they actually exist, are public information so you should be able to request it for sharing with us. We await with bated breath. Make sure they date back to before the dredging and weren't just recently "updated" to cover these issues. And, again, if they exist why were they not more publicly transparent as we taxpayers are paying for this and are entitled to be in the know.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on October 26, 2021, 01:02:53 PM
1/3 of the regions wealth comes from those ports.
Let me guess, another third is generated by the Jaguars and the last third by autonomous vehicles ;D. Please provide the source for this. By the way, previous studies the Port produced to justify the dredging with their "economic impact" have been greatly discredited for counting impacts that are not attributable solely or at all to the Port or just overblown with unreasonably optimistic assumptions of the present or projections of the future (taking a cue from JTA doing the same for the Skyway/AV projects or JEA doing the opposite to try and support its sale).
I wonder how JaxPort compares to Savannah after reading the below. These are amazing numbers. From talking to people in the know, Savannah is far more active right now that Jacksonville. Not even close.
QuoteSavannah leads nation in tenant demand for warehouses, vacancy near historic lows
Georgia's largest coastal city leads the nation in tenant demand, a trend that should continue into the new year, industry experts say.
The nearly 25 million square feet of demand for warehouse space in Savannah is coming mostly from companies that need between 50,000 square feet and 1.5 million square feet, according to a third quarter report from Jones Lang LaSalle (NYSE: JLL). Savannah was the fourth-busiest port in North America during the first half of 2021 and broke records for total container volumes.....
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2021/11/09/savannah-industrial-market-leases-vacancy-tenant.html?utm_source=st&utm_medium=en&utm_campaign=ae&utm_content=ja&ana=e_ja_ae&j=25641361&senddate=2021-11-09
I'll find the link but yea....it isn't close. Port of LA and Long Beach are by far 1 and 2. NY/NJ is the #1 on the east coast, with Savannah comfortably in second. I want to say they're about 3X us, but not 100% sure.
The Jacksonville industrial sector is doing quite well, both in terms of vacancy and rent growth. That said, I can believe that Savannah's port is breaking farther away from Jax. Savannah is a huge strategic growth opportunity for the whole state of Georgia while Florida splits its expenses between a number of ports and leaves Jacksonville competing with South Florida.
Not surprised at all. Savannah is more strategically positioned and funded. Same goes for Charleston and Norfolk. We'll always play second fiddle to them. There's still economic opportunity playing second fiddle though, so not all is lost.
I would think Savannah long and skinny river channel would be a disadvantage compared to Jaxport... they must have dredging issues also...
I was in Savannah this past week and the amount of cargo ships (and cargo) that flow in and out of their port is far, far more than ours. They are, I think, the 4th busiest port in the US.
Only thing we compare to their port is access to a major interstate. They have a deeper channel, more cranes to handle cargo to get the ships offloaded and loaded with containers, suspension bridge has more vertical clearance than ours so overall they are going to get the new business that is available. They are handling ships with over 10,000 TEUs with ease.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 10, 2021, 06:06:30 AM
I would think Savannah long and skinny river channel would be a disadvantage compared to Jaxport... they must have dredging issues also...
Deeper river, no statewide competition for funding, better positioned for shipping goods into the south and midwest.
Clearly they need to dredge... so much opposition to dredging here but they decided long ago that the opportunities and advantage of dredging far outweigh the opposite...
Dredging is part and parcel to having a seaport... they ALL dredge. Stop the hand wringing and get on with it...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 10, 2021, 07:30:39 PM
Clearly they need to dredge... so much opposition to dredging here but they decided long ago that the opportunities and advantage of dredging far outweigh the opposite...
Dredging is part and parcel to having a seaport... they ALL dredge. Stop the hand wringing and get on with it...
BT, you continue to overlook the issues with dredging starting with environmental damage to the river (which is also an offsetting economic issue), increased storm flooding and potentially a very weak business case as a result of issues noted by others when comparing JaxPort to Savannah or other competitors. An approach to dredge at all costs is absurd. It should only be done when it is clear that the benefits clearly offset the costs. In the opinion of many, its the opposite conclusion, that the costs far outweigh the benefits. If so, any rational person would not have authorized this most recent dredging.
If Savannah, as our nearest significant competitor, has advantages over JaxPort that cannot be overcome, for whatever reason, then we should focus on what we can do that fits the circumstances we have here. Everyone knows not every port can be a "super port." It appears we may have already lost the game to be such a super port so why keep pursing it at great costs?
Not "overlooking" anything. How presumptuous of you. I simply don't share your level of concern regarding environmental impacts of dredging vs advantages... The mouth of the St John's has been dredged repeatedly over many decades... and will likely continue for decades to come.
Apparently you do not have the same environmental concerns for the Savannah river...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 11, 2021, 08:19:35 AM
Not "overlooking" anything. How presumptuous of you. I simply don't share your level of concern regarding environmental impacts of dredging vs advantages... The mouth of the St John's has been dredged repeatedly over many decades... and will likely continue for decades to come.
Apparently you do not have the same environmental concerns for the Savannah river...
There are limits to everything. How deep do we dredge before you say enough? Environmental damage and storm surge increase with every dredge. And, what advantages are there if the port fees don't cover the costs (the real proof of economic viability) and/or the ships they are dredging for don't show up as projected for whatever reason?
As to any other port dredging impacting the environment, I would have similar concerns. I don't have a full time job monitoring such ports but that doesn't mean that I don't have the same concerns. How presumptuous of you!
Viability? If you want viability you better get modernizing and dredging... yesterday. Ships aren't going to get smaller and there aren't going to be fewer of them. More and bigger...
https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-ports-problem-decades-making
QuoteThe Jones Act and the Foreign Dredge Act (which requires barges transporting dredged material to be Jones Act‐compliant) dramatically raises the cost of dredging U.S. ports—dredging that they need to accept more, bigger, and fuller ships. Heritage's Nick Loris elaborates:
The depth and width of the shipping channels determine what size and how many vessels can travel through a shipping channel. Even a seemingly small amount of additional depth to accommodate the weight of a larger vessel exponentially creates value. Just one inch of water depth results in the ability to import and export millions of dollars' worth of more cargo. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "With one more inch of depth in a port, a cargo ship could carry about 50 more tractors, 5,000 televisions, 30,000 laptops, or 770,000 bushels of wheat."
The lack of depth in many shipping channels also forces bulk carriers to "light load," or carry less than a full load, because they cannot travel with full loads at existing depths. Because light‐loading is inefficient, it increases transportation costs per unit of good transported—and consequently raises prices for U.S. exporters. If a port cannot accommodate a larger, heavier ship, that cargo ship will divert to a deeper port first.
Viability? As discussed herein, it is not just about the depth of the river. It's also about our competitors' assets and abilities, how much actual demand there really is for such infrastructure and our own limits, such as our geography and the height of the Dames Point bridge and power lines, that will cause us to fall short of the stated goals. Again, all to be factored in with financial, environmental and storm related offsets.
There clearly is not demand for a dozen or more of these Panamax ports so why have so many? Indications are we are not going to be one of the ports that makes the cut and we need to be honest about that.
Hmmm... shorter trip up the river to the port... confluence of I-10 and I-95... major railway hub... those sound like advantages rather than limitations. Power lines... big deal... dredging easy... bridge height is an issue to be overcome.
Didn't take long for Nate Monroe to find the next "authority" scandal.
Now it's JaxPort and the power lines as I highlighted almost a year ago in starting this thread. The plot thickens and, ironically, it involves JEA once again. Port officials backroom dealing, spinning and maybe lying -echoes of what happened at JEA. And, no transparency as they try to cover their tracks. One would have thought they would have learned a lesson from JEA.
My position: If the Port can't pay for its own needs with user fees paid by for-profit companies using the port, why should the taxpayers? The user fees are the best indicator of the economic value that is derived from the improvements and if the fees don't cover the cost or more for the improvements then clearly the ROI isn't there and the improvements are not worthy of being done.
These agencies also need to learn that once they lose credibility on an issue, they are likely going to lose that issue too. Why can't they be upfront and candid with the public they are supposed to serve? Special interests in charge once again.
[Emphasis added]QuoteNate Monroe: U.S. Army Corps contradicts bumbling JaxPort officials in feud with JEA
COMMENTARY | The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has not decided whether a series of high-voltage JEA transmission lines crossing 175 feet above the St. Johns River must be raised, an agency spokesperson told the Times-Union this week, notably contradicting months of assertions made by Jacksonville Port Authority officials amid an increasingly bitter conflict with the city utility.
JaxPort is scrambling to put punishing political pressure on JEA to capitulate to its demands that ratepayers in Duval, St. Johns and Nassau counties finance a risky, complicated, multi-million dollar project to raise the transmission lines — something both Army Corps and port officials said for years was unnecessary even as they embarked on a high-profile project dredging the river to attract larger and larger cargo ships to Jacksonville.
The port has done a complete about-face, however, and has been unsuccessfully applying behind-the-scenes pressure to a succession of JEA leaders to raise the lines, having come to the conclusion the ships they hope to see calling on JaxPort once its 47-foot dredging project is complete will need more air clearance after all.
Bizarrely, after the port advocated the opposite view for years, JaxPort CEO Eric Green now characterizes the transmission lines as a near-existential threat to his agency's future.
He and his colleagues are furious their secret talks with utility leaders have never resulted in an agreement, going as far as making an appeal to Gov. Ron DeSantis this month to intervene in the impasse. This week, port board member Jamie Shelton also revealed he has asked the city's Office of General Counsel to determine whether it can use its extraordinary power to issue a binding legal opinion to resolve the conflict — presumably one that would force JEA customers to pony up for the port's project.
In their desperation, however, JaxPort officials have overreached.
JaxPort has often put the Army Corps at the center of its argument about the transmission lines: The federal agency, port officials have repeatedly told city and state officials, has told JEA the lines "must be raised to eliminate any unreasonable obstruction of the free navigation of the St. Johns River."
It might be a compelling argument but for a simple problem: It's not true.
"The district is presently discussing the matter internally and has requested additional information that will be assessed before formulating a position or decision," an Army Corps spokesperson told the Times-Union.
Agency officials "don't have a target date for when a determination may be made."
That unhurried posture is a remarkable departure from the kind of frenzied, desperate appeals JaxPort has made, and it directly contradicts the port's efforts to cast JEA officials as rogue actors brushing off an immediate safety issue in the river.
In fact, it was the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that issued the permits decades ago allowing JEA to build the towers and hang the lines across the river at their current 175-feet height, and that permit remains valid. Those six powerlines — ranging between 138,000-230,000 volts — are critical pieces of JEA's electric system, and moving them is not just costly but risky: A failure could lead to blackouts in large parts of the city.
Port, Army Corps had no problem with JEA lines
It's hard to understate how dramatic a reversal it would be were the Army Corps to formally require JEA to seek a new permit for more air clearance, as the port wants.
In its lengthy study of the 47-foot dredging project in 2012, the Army Corps definitively concluded neither the powerlines nor the Dames Point Bridge posed air clearance issues for the ships most likely to call on JaxPort following completion of the deepening project.
The Army Corps and JaxPort stood by those findings for years, even as they were challenged in federal court in 2017 by the St. Johns Riverkeeper, the local environmental watchdog.
The Riverkeeper warned U.S. District Judge Marcia Morales Howard that the Army Corps failed to adequately study the air-clearance issue and theorized that failing was deliberate. In truth, the group said, the Army Corps punted on the question to keep the cost of the dredging project artificially low to help it qualify for federal funding under a cost-benefit formula used by the government. Including the costs of raising the powerlines and the bridge, the Riverkeeper alleged, would have turned that calculation "upside down."
The local dredging project's standing to qualify for federal funding was already marginal even with the pared-down project, so there was little room to include such necessities like powerlines and environmental mitigation — for which the Army Corps had originally budgeted tens of millions of dollars before abruptly changing course and effectively zeroing it out (the major driver of the Riverkeeper's frustration).
Still, the Army Corps and JaxPort stood by their assessments: The powerlines were just fine where they were.
The same year the Riverkeeper filed suit, in 2017, the Jacksonville City Council was weighing whether it would help fund the dredging project, and council members wanted the port to offer a full accounting of the true costs: Would there be more pieces coming down the road that would cause headaches later? The city had been burned repeatedly in the past by hidden project costs that only emerged after fronting an initial investment.
The JEA lines specifically came up during those discussions.
"As far as we're concerned, impacts down the road, maybe," a JaxPort spokeswoman said about JEA's transmission lines in August of that year. "Right now, the largest ships will be accommodated at Blount Island quite nicely."
That view was apparently short-lived: The port has recently dated its discussions over the powerlines to be about five years old, meaning the agency was in federal court and in the court of public opinion arguing one thing while pushing for something markedly different in behind-the-scenes talks with utility leaders.
Recognizing this awkward dissonance, the port settled on a new argument: The lines don't need to be raised because of the dredging project, per se, but because they might one day pose a navigational hazard to a hypothetical ship of hypothetical measurements that hypothetically could be interested in calling on the port.
That is a novel conception of a "navigational obstruction," at least as far as any reasonable person might think of one. An obstruction is something like a sunken vessel in the channel — something abruptly placed in the way that shouldn't be. But a piece of massive infrastructure permitted by the Army Corps that has been in place for decades? JaxPort might consider that a limitation — and perhaps it's one that, at JaxPort's own cost, could be removed — but a limitation isn't an imminent danger to vessels navigating the waterway.
JaxPort's duplicity doesn't end with dredging lawsuit
It's not clear where JaxPort officials came up with the idea that the Army Corps has demanded JEA raise its lines, but it's a talking point the agency has repeatedly invoked.
Shelton, the JEA board member, told DeSantis in a letter earlier this month the federal agency had "advised" JEA the lines were an "unreasonable obstruction."
In a draft memorandum of understanding drawn up late last year, intended to help spur JEA to begin the project, metadata show a JaxPort official struck language offering an accurate summary of events — that the Army Corps had been merely notified about the results of a study on the lines — and inserted in its place a line that the Army Corps had "notified" JEA the lines "must be raised," precisely the thing the agency spokesperson contradicted this week.
That falsehood was also repeated a few years ago by former JEA executive Herschel Vinyard, who had been working on an undisclosed plan to raise the lines for the port. In a particularly odd episode, Vinyard handwrote a proposal on paper committing the utility to raising the lines, asserting the Army Corps said such a thing was necessary (the statement was no truer two years ago than it is today, a spokesperson told us at the time).
Vinyard texted photos of the proposal to his executive assistant to type up.
The result was an undated, unsigned policy paper appearing to commit JEA to doing what Green had been pushing for, and it took some time for utility officials who came along after Vinyard — who was pushed out amid a reckoning following the controversial tenure of CEO Aaron Zahn — to figure out the mysterious document's origins.
The port's obfuscations don't end there.
In a bid to seek a quick end to the fight, the port now wants the city's Office of General Counsel to weigh in. The city's charter gives OGC the power to issue binding legal opinions to resolve disputes between agencies — so theoretically the office could resolve this in the port's favor.
But there is no legal dispute between JEA and JaxPort for OGC to resolve.
The legal issues are between JEA and the agency that granted JEA the permit to hang the powerlines across the river: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If the Army Corps decides the lines must be raised, JEA has legal remedies available to challenge that, if it so chooses. But it's only the Army Corps that gets to make that call. The port is merely a spectator in that process.
The dispute between JEA and JaxPort is one of policy and of politics, and those are areas in which OGC does not get to pick winners and losers.
The policy issue the port is advocating is that JEA should voluntarily agree to raise the lines — "voluntary" because its current permit remains valid unless or until the Corps says otherwise. On top of that, the port wants JEA to voluntarily agree to pay for the project.
That is hardly the reasonable middle ground cash-poor JaxPort has claimed it's seeking: It's an entirely one-way deal — and one the port has tried to strike in behind-the-scenes negotiations that could cost ratepayers across Northeast Florida tens of millions of dollars. The port's frustrations those secret talks have dragged on too long smacks of tone-deafness: The public has never been engaged to weigh in on this important policy consideration, and the port has, until recently, only reluctantly and timidly acknowledged what it's been up to.
JaxPort is seeking to have no skin in the game on its own gambit.
The port doesn't even seem certain how high it wants JEA to raise the lines. Some documents reference 197 feet; others 205 feet; others still 215. The Port of Savannah, which has utterly crushed JaxPort in competition for years, has clearance of 185 feet; it's hard to imagine Jacksonville's beta-port really needs more than alpha Savannah to thrive.
All four come with different price tags, ranging between $30-40 million or considerably more.
Despite all this duplicity, JEA officials have generously offered voluntarily asking the Army Corps for a new permit to raise their power lines, absorbing the risk and providing the port the policy outcome it is demanding. JEA leaders have simply drawn a redline on using ratepayer money to finance that project.
Now that is a bargain JaxPort ought to jump at.
Nate Monroe is a metro columnist for the Florida Times-Union. His column regularly appears every Thursday and Sunday. Follow him on Twitter @NateMonroeTU.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/nate-monroe/2022/03/31/nate-monroe-u-s-army-corps-contradicts-jaxport-jea-feud-high-voltage-lines-st-johns-river/7226391001/?utm_source=jacksonville-News%20Alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news_alerts&utm_term=news_alert&utm_content=FLORIDA-JACKSONVILLE-NLETTER01
More on the JaxPort growing fiasco... maybe turning into our next scandal:
John Baker, former Port board member, now on the JEA board, sides with JEA, while, as Monroe points out, the Port stews in its own contradictions, or as he calls it, lies.
QuoteNate Monroe: With collapse of shell games, JaxPort loses its leverage in fight with JEA
COMMENTARY | An influential member of the JEA board of directors said Tuesday he stands behind the utility's CEO in refusing to use ratepayer money to finance an expensive and risky project Jacksonville Port Authority officials have long demanded: Raising the height of six high-voltage transmission lines that cross the St. Johns River.
John Baker, a former member of the port's board of directors and a current member of JEA's board, said he was sympathetic to the port's plight and agreed the lines needed to be raised, otherwise, the $410 million project deepening the river from 40 to 47 feet would "literally be wasted."
But, he said, "I think (JEA CEO Jay Stowe) has been very steadfast and very correct in saying JEA's ratepayers should not be paying for it."......
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/nate-monroe/2022/04/05/nate-monroe-jaxport-loses-leverage-jea-feud-over-power-lines-st-johns-river-florida/9469430002/?utm_source=jacksonville-News%20Alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news_alerts&utm_term=news_alert&utm_content=FLORIDA-JACKSONVILLE-NLETTER01
They don't pay Nate Monroe enough. Where would we be without him?
Also we got one thing Savannah does not>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Jaguars!
Dredging for dredging sake is a bad idea.
Putting the JaxPort fiasco in perspective by Mark Woods... sadly, business "as usual" in Jax.
QuoteMark Woods: JaxPort transmission lines saga gives a sense of deJEA vu
....the JaxPort saga that is playing out now — that apparently has been playing out behind-the-scenes for years — sure has some familiar threads.
There are past accusations of trying to push a massive project across the finish line by conveniently not including some dollar figures and potential risks — accusations that now seem prescient and pertinent.
There's a lack of public involvement with something that, if JaxPort has its way, could involve tens of millions of dollars from the public.
There are documents that raise questions, including one written by a former JEA executive.
There are conflicting narratives from the port.
There's an argument built with a key piece that it turns out had a fundamental flaw: It wasn't true.
There's the portrayal of something being an existential matter, something that not only needs to happen but needs to happen quickly. Not exactly a JEA "death spiral," but a familiar sense of "do this now or face dire consequences."
With JEA, it was layoffs and skyrocketing bills. With Lot J, the loss of an NFL team. With this, the loss of business to other ports.
And there's the reaction to this being scrutinized by the Times-Union — and criticized in commentaries by Nate Monroe.
Try to discredit and intimidate the messenger. Get particularly mad at Nate (get in a long line). Take an approach that makes you wonder: Did they not learn anything from watching how JEA mishandled the attempted sale?....
....There are ample reasons to be skeptical and cynical about much of what has happened in the last five years in this city. This is the era of Mayor Lenny Curry tweeting about chess, moving pieces around some real-life boards, playing his own games with local agencies — from the Kids Hope Alliance to JEA.
So much has happened in the last five years that it's easy to forget that before those controversies, there was what happened at JaxPort.
At a hastily called JaxPort board meeting in March 2017, the chairman said the port and CEO Brian Taylor had "agreed to part ways." The most stinging criticism of Taylor came from a board member with close ties to the mayor. But not only was the departure mysterious and the timing odd — with the port authority nearing one of the largest projects in its history — there never was a clear accounting of what led to the resignation of Taylor, a former maritime executive hired to shepherd along the dredging.
The board unanimously voted to make senior government affairs director Eric Green the interim CEO. And in September 2017, the board unanimously named Green permanent CEO.
About two months later, Curry appointed Green's wife to the JEA board. As board chair, April Green helped push for the sale of the public utility, but by the time Aaron Zahn was being pushed out as CEO, she was apologizing to employees and the public, memorably saying at a meeting that she was resisting swearing when she said, "This was a ... show."
While JEA has been the biggest of these shows, there have been numerous ones. The common threads are money, power and political games. It's a combination that, among other things, attracts nosy reporters....
....There are plenty of reasons to appreciate the port's long history in Jacksonville and to support its future.
But that doesn't mean it should be immune to scrutiny and, yes, maybe even some caustic commentary. And while this latest saga focuses on the transmission lines above the river, it doesn't delve into the much bigger issue below those lines — one that started long ago but continues today.
We've dramatically altered the river.
Again and again, in the name of jobs and economic growth, we've ignored the environmental and economic consequences.
We're making our city more vulnerable to climate change, storm surges and flooding.
Some would say that is an existential threat.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/mark-woods/2022/04/08/jacksonville-port-authoritys-saga-jea-power-lines-feels-familiar/7225603001/
Keep shining a light into the dark shadows of local government.
History of the container ship...
https://hakaimagazine.com/videos-visuals/in-graphic-detail-the-rise-of-the-shipping-container/
^ Interesting, thanks for the share, BridgeTroll
A friend, a descendent of commercial fishermen, regularly fishes Mill Cove and the St. Johns River. He was telling us that, since they started adding river-deepening dredge spoils on Quarantine Island (the big one under the Dames Point Bridge), the river grasses along the shoreline are dying. River grasses are where fish spawn. If the grasses die, there will be fewer fish. He has tried unsuccessfully tried to get the interest of various regulatory agencies.
^ River grasses are also what manatees need to feed on. See the impact of losing river grasses in Indian River starving thousands of manatees.
JaxPort will pay 100% of the estimated $42 million to raise the power lines (translated, the taxpayers will pay, not the JEA rate payers).
JEA will do the construction.
Still looking for the first Panamax ship they are doing all this for to show up. Anyone seen one yet?
QuoteJaxPort and JEA line up plan to raise power lines so mega-ships have more clearance
axPort and JEA have aligned on a plan for raising power lines spanning the St. Johns River by 2026 so the high-voltage cables won't pose an aerial obstacle to mega-sized cargo ships coming to Jacksonville.....
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2022/06/27/jea-and-jaxport-plan-raise-power-lines-allow-bigger-cargo-ships/7727520001/?utm_source=jacksonville-NewsAlert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news_alerts&utm_term=news_alert&utm_content=NFTU-FLORIDA-JACKSONVILLE-NLETTER01
There are currently two post-Panamax shipping services that are calling on JaxPort- the Amerigo and ZIM lines. They have been entering the port not fully loaded due to channel and height restraints.
I was very critical of the cost/benefit of the port deepening in the past. I will give credit to JaxPort in that they have found alternative funding strategies (most notably, the $100mm investment from SSA), replaced TraPac (thereby eliminating the need to extend the channel deepening), and are now moving forward with increasing the JEA line heights.. all without what was feared to be massive subsidies from Duval taxpayers. There have been times when JaxPort has tried to get a deeply discounted price on JEA's Northside generating station property, or have asked JEA ratepayers to pay for power line modifications, or come to City Council and asked for further taxpayer assistance... and those institutions didn't lay down, and JaxPort responded by thinking more creatively. I think that for an independent authority that has certainly deserved criticism in the recent past.. they deserve credit for having responded to those challenges in much more productive and more fiscally responsible ways.
There is zero doubt that the channel deepening has caused significant impacts on the river. Have the mitigation efforts been strong enough? I think the answer is unequivocally, no. More work is needed.
But the very real expectation that Duval taxpayers would be footing North of $500mm in funding for port deepening within the past decade.... turned out to be much less. JaxPort deserves credit for that.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on June 19, 2022, 08:54:55 AM
^ Interesting, thanks for the share, BridgeTroll
A friend, a descendent of commercial fishermen, regularly fishes Mill Cove and the St. Johns River. He was telling us that, since they started adding river-deepening dredge spoils on Quarantine Island (the big one under the Dames Point Bridge), the river grasses along the shoreline are dying. River grasses are where fish spawn. If the grasses die, there will be fewer fish. He has tried unsuccessfully tried to get the interest of various regulatory agencies.
Unfortunately, Mill Cove has been dying as a fishery for 50+ years now because of dredging effects. There are some that think that Bird Island could become a significant yacht basin. I have a feeling that would be the last death knell for the Cove. I remember as a kid, fishing in the cove in a little skiff (at the time, I lived off Nichols Creek) and there was almost a night and day difference in the salinity around Blount Island, and the Cove. Nowadays, there is so much mud that depending on the tide there's only like 2-4 feet of water running between those sandbars and there is near-ocean-water salinity... the water just doesn't flow well enough to flush out all that gunk that enters the cove from the river
Quote from: fieldafm on June 27, 2022, 04:24:59 PM
There are currently two post-Panamax shipping services that are calling on JaxPort- the Amerigo and ZIM lines. They have been entering the port not fully loaded due to channel and height restraints.
I was very critical of the cost/benefit of the port deepening in the past. I will give credit to JaxPort in that they have found alternative funding strategies (most notably, the $100mm investment from SSA), replaced TraPac (thereby eliminating the need to extend the channel deepening), and are now moving forward with increasing the JEA line heights.. all without what was feared to be massive subsidies from Duval taxpayers. There have been times when JaxPort has tried to get a deeply discounted price on JEA's Northside generating station property, or have asked JEA ratepayers to pay for power line modifications, or come to City Council and asked for further taxpayer assistance... and those institutions didn't lay down, and JaxPort responded by thinking more creatively. I think that for an independent authority that has certainly deserved criticism in the recent past.. they deserve credit for having responded to those challenges in much more productive and more fiscally responsible ways.
There is zero doubt that the channel deepening has caused significant impacts on the river. Have the mitigation efforts been strong enough? I think the answer is unequivocally, no. More work is needed.
But the very real expectation that Duval taxpayers would be footing North of $500mm in funding for port deepening within the past decade.... turned out to be much less. JaxPort deserves credit for that.
We share common sentiments about the port dredging, environmentally and economically speaking. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few years but I fear greater environmental (including storm) impacts than the Army Corps concluded and economic activity falling (possibly far) short of what JPA sold this project on.
Too add, as mentioned before, its not just harm to fishing grounds but also to grass beds that support the manatee food chain.
LOL, Port now expecting a drop in revenues and traffic, just in time for completion of the hundreds of millions spent on dredging, $100 million dock improvements and, now, $42 million to raise JEA lines. I realize the investments are taking the long view but I am again wondering if that view is all the bed of roses JPA paints.
No worries, CEO gets 10% salary increase, more increases in years to follow, increased bonus opportunity to 35% and 5 year contract extension. Taxpayer dollars hard at work subsidizing JPA and its "customers."
If you believe the Kool-aid served to us, JaxPort has unique advantages including location, climate, facilities, cost of doing business, tax advantages, etc. so not sure why we have to seduce customers with incentives in the millions and more. This disease to please is not unlike DIA paying developers to "buy" our publicly owned Downtown riverfront that any other City would either hold on to or extract premium deals for the City, not the developers.
QuoteBeset by both inflation and supply chain challenges, the Jacksonville Port Authority said it anticipates revenue falling next year even as its expenses see double-digit percentage growth.
"We are going into a year that is very challenging for us," Jaxport Chief Financial Officer Beth McCague said Monday. "We are seeing challenges to our revenue and at the same time we are facing a period of inflationary expenses."
In a budget unanimously approved by the board, Jaxport foresees expenses in the upcoming fiscal year growing by 14.75% compared to this fiscal year, to $42.3 million. Revenue, meanwhile, will shrink by 1.67%, to $58.9 million.
Cruise revenue is expected to bounce back after the pandemic-caused lull — but the projected $3.4 million is just a fraction of the port's revenue mix.
Containers, which are the port's main revenue sources, are slated to fall 4.63% over this year, to $28.5 million, while auto revenue will fall 5.76%, to $13.9 million.
"We are not excited about a drop in revenue, and we hope our sales team can rise to the occasion," said board Vice Chairman J. Palmer Clarkson.
Revenue will also be impacted by moves the port says it is taking for future growth, including the relocation of Southeast Toyota Distributors to Blount Island and Ceres taking over operations at the Dames Point Marine Terminal.
The increase in expenses is driven by double-digit percentage increases in salaries and services and supplies, such as vehicle and equipment fuel. Salaries will grow by 14.68%, to $14.8 million, while services will grow 42.89%, to $6.9 milllion.
The salary line includes a 10% pay hike for Jaxport CEO Eric Green, who on Monday had his contract extended for five years. That extension comes with his salary being bumped to $440,400 in the upcoming fiscal year, and by another 5% in the following year.
Green will also have the opportunity to earn bonus pay up to 35%, compared to the previous cap of 25%.
"This contract is a vote of confidence from the board of directors that they're very happy with the way things are being run here at the port, which is very humbling for me being a native of Jacksonville," said Green, who will be 62 when his contract expires in 2027. "Having the opportunity to possibly retire here in Jacksonville is huge for me."
As well as the $58.9 million operating budget, the Jaxport board also approved a $261.3 million capital improvement budget.
That includes $45 million for Southeast Toyota Distributors to move from two properties it has in the Talleyrand area to 88 acres at the Blount Island Marine Terminal. The company will be taking over the space that Wallenius Wilhelmsen Solutions now occupies, signing a lease for 25 years, plus three five-year extensions.
The port also budgeted $30 million to pay for the raising of power lines over the St. Johns River, a project the port says is necessary to attract larger cargo ships.
How to pay for the project — which is expected to cost between $33.5 and $54.4 million — has been a point of contention between Jaxport and JEA. On Monday, the Jaxport board approved an agreement to "fund all activities by JEA" that are necessary to raise the lines.
The agreement comes out of a meeting between the port and the utility earlier this month. In that meeting, according to a summary by staff, JEA committed to raising the transmission lines at no cost to itself while Jaxport agreed to secure 100% funding for the project.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2022/06/27/jaxport-on-course-for-challenging-year-ahead.html?utm_source=st&utm_medium=en&utm_campaign=me&utm_content=JA&ana=e_JA_me&j=28213568&senddate=2022-06-29
Nate Monroe picking up on themes I posted previously here...
[Emphasis added]Quote
JaxPort's power play over JEA power lines sinks
This was a humbling week for the Jacksonville Port Authority.
Peel back the agency's typical bluster and it's right there: JaxPort officially ended its campaign to force JEA customers to finance a $42 million project raising high-voltage transmission lines that span the St. Johns River. Instead, the port has committed to finding the money necessary to finance the risky project, billed as a way to remove an aerial obstacle for megaships that may one day use the shipping channel...
....To bolster its case, the port ran a baloney simulation showing the transmission lines posed a navigational hazard to a hypothetical vessel capable of holding 14,000 20-foot cargo containers (or a 14,000 TEU vessel) — a far larger ship than the largest that has ever called on JaxPort, which has been unable to substantiate its speculation a vessel of such size ever plans to use its terminals....
.....The "compromise" was nonetheless a remarkable move for the pauper port, not just because it was a humiliating retreat but also because agency officials revealed this week JaxPort is expecting a "very challenging" fiscal year, the Jacksonville Business Journal reported, including a decrease in revenue from containers and its auto business.....
.....Dredging, it turns out, wasn't quite the silver bullet port officials have been hawking for more than a decade.
The Army Corps also skates on this agreement.
If JaxPort is to be believed, the federal agency clearly botched an important call: In its original study of the 47-foot dredging project, the Army Corps concluded the transmission lines didn't need to be raised.
The agency — joined by the port — stood by this assessment for years, even after a local environmental watchdog challenged the dredging study in federal court and called that specific finding into question. Nothing has really changed since that court fight except JaxPort's rhetoric about the transmission lines.
This put both agencies in an awkward position. No one wanted to state the obvious: By JaxPort's own logic, the near-$400 million dredging project — the long-sought ticket to salvation — would be utterly wasted if the lines aren't raised.....
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/nate-monroe/2022/07/01/jea-power-lines-jaxports-power-play-sinks/7784684001/?utm_source=jacksonville-NewsAlert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news_alerts&utm_term=news_alert&utm_content=NFTU-FLORIDA-JACKSONVILLE-NLETTER01
FDOT is pledging half of a $45 million wire-raising project, and the city is planning to loan and grant the other half, plus a $5 million line of credit. Any overruns are the port's problem.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/fdot-pledges-dollar22-5-million-for-jaxport-effort-to-raise-power-lines-over-st-johns
The cost of raising the JEA wires amounts to about $45 to $50 of taxpayer taxes for every Duval County man, woman and child on top of the hundreds of millions more in taxpayer dollars for the dredging that supposedly didn't need the wires raised in the first place. All this to subsidize fees for private ship lines and other interests using or living off of the port.
At best, if this has a real economic payback, these expenses should be bonded or loaned to JPA to be repaid with port revenues (like what the Airport Authority manages to do with the airport expansion). Since that isn't happening, one has to assume this is money down the drain like so many failed City funded projects.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/record-tying-cargo-ship-joins-jacksonville-rotation
Quote"We are thrilled that the recent investment in the harbor deepening project has so quickly created opportunities for larger vessels to serve the port, Florida, and the nation," said Jared W. Perdue, Florida secretary of transportation.
The ship that came into Jaxport has an average draught of 11.4M, which I think could have fit within the pre-dredging depth. Is that correct? Fully loaded down it could not come to Jaxport, but it still can't because its max draught is over 48 ft. Time to dredge again!
https://www.fleetmon.com/vessels/zim-usa_9945473_8430291/
The deception by the Port to get the dredging approved is scandalous. Aside from questionable economic and environmental modeling, they have gone from no need to raise the power lines to the dredging is not worthy without raising them. And, waited to after the dredging was committed to do the 2020 study regarding the power lines? Looks like they suspected/knew but didn't want to confirm until there was no turning back from the dredging underway.
QuoteThe Jacksonville City Council approved $27.5 million in financing for the Jacksonville Port Authority's push to raise six high-voltage transmission lines over the St. Johns River to give additional clearance to large ships coming into the Blount Island Marine Terminal....
....JaxPort says the JEA-owned power lines over the Fulton Cut St. Johns River Crossing need to be raised from 175 feet above high tide level to 225 feet to get the benefit of its four-year, $420 million harbor-deepening project....
....The power lines were installed in 1982. In December 2020, JaxPort and St. Johns Bar Pilot Association conducted a simulation that found large ships would need a minimum 197 feet of clearance to safely navigate under the power lines....
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/city-council-passes-dollar27-5-million-financing-package-for-jaxports-push-to-raise-power-lines