QuoteThe Jacksonville Port Authority board today decided to withdraw its request for City Council to support building a cruise terminal in Mayport Village.
JaxPort spokeswoman Nancy Rubin said the board's vote means the port authority will not ask the council to put a Mayport cruise terminal into the updated master plan for the port.
She said JaxPort also will seek to withdraw legislation that would have rezoned waterfront land in Mayport Village for a cruise terminal.
She said the board wants more time to see how the global economic downturn will affect the port. She said the board could still come back and decide to renew its effort to put the cruise terminal in Mayport.
In the meantime, Carnival Cruise Lines would continue offering cruise service out of Jacksonville from a site on Dames Point west of the Dames Point bridge.
http://www.jacksonville.com/business/2009-03-02/story/jaxport_board_pulls_back_from_mayport_cruise_terminal
WOW... Well congratulations Ron Littlepage and Mayport!! You got what you wanted. I am sure "Historic Mayport" will continue its historic trend towards prosperity... ???
I believe this owes less to the efforts of the Mayport residents group as to the delay in development of the Hanjin container terminal, due to the economic crisis. Until Hanjin needs the land on which the current cruise terminal sits, the port can continue accomodating the smaller cruise ships that call there, and will not have to seek funding for the Mayport terminal, which would be a challenge in this environment.
Maybe so but it really does not matter. It is what they wanted.
What I have taken from JPA's publicity is that Mayport is the only acceptable site left for a modern cruise terminal east of the Dames Point Bridge so I suspect they will be back with a vengeance.
By owning the land and creating an expectation that a cruise port is still in the offing, JPA has succeeded in forcing anyone involved with Mayport to take their plans into account. (It's like trying to sell your house when there is a possibility of an interstate running along your backyard. No one is going to act like it isn't going to happen even if the plans are on hold.) As time drags on, there will be more people than not tethered to JPA's plans which will have the effect of dissolving, diluting, and/or offsetting the existing opposition. Since JPA is no longer in a hurry, in a few months or years from now, they will be in a much improved tactical position.
Hmmm... wonder what it would it take to cost effectively raise the Dames Point bridge? How high would it have to go to last many more years to come? Would that give the Port a lot of new options for both cargo and cruise traffic?
Quote from: jaxtrader on March 02, 2009, 03:14:13 PM
I believe this owes less to the efforts of the Mayport residents group as to the delay in development of the Hanjin container terminal, due to the economic crisis. Until Hanjin needs the land on which the current cruise terminal sits, the port can continue accomodating the smaller cruise ships that call there, and will not have to seek funding for the Mayport terminal, which would be a challenge in this environment.
I doubt that...Hanjin still wants to move forward but may not use all of the site at first...I'm willing to bet that JaxPort couldn't get the financing right now and decided that they could use another temporary site.
To quote myself from the other Mayport thread ...
Quote from: Charles HunterWith JaxPort dropping efforts to move the cruise terminal to Mayport, what does this mean for Hanjin? One of the reasons to move to Mayport was JaxPort sold (gave?) the land where the cruise terminal is now to Hanjin. The cruise terminal had to move soon to give them time to build the Hanjin container terminal. Does this mean Hanjin will be delayed? Or do we just get out of the cruise business when it is time to build their port?
Raising the Dames Point bridge? I'm guessing you'd have to go to more than 200' to have any long term benefit. The current bridge is 175'. Back in the 1980s, it cost about $140 million (almost total guess) to build the current bridge. I don't see how you could make the road taller without making the towers holding the cables taller. If I remember the info from the public meetings on a new Mathews bridge (same height as existing), they were in the $300 million range - and the river is narrower there. So, I'd guess you'd be looking at something on the high side of a half-billion to get 25 or so more feet of clearance. Money that doesn't exist. Then you'd still have to raise the JEA transmission lines.
Thanks, Charles.
I am now curious about JEA's power lines. Do all power lines like this have to be aerial when they encounter water? Or could they be buried? What happens in other ports with rivers or water crossings?
If you put a new bridge in context of billions of port and cruise business, maybe it would still be worth considering. It's a damn shame that it stands as another example of our City's lack of foresight and "the gang that couldn't shoot straight" way of doing things. Port interests warned everyone that this would happen and here we are. Where were our valued consultants on this job? If they said something and we didn't listen, why did we hire them? If they said it wasn't an issue, why did we hire them?
First Coast News just reported on it - with a logo over the screen saying that the cruise terminal = jobs and money, and quoted the JaxPort study saying the cruise terminal will create 5,000 jobs. How many jobs has the current terminal created?
I'm guessing the 175' for the bridge came about because the JEA lines were already there at that height. JTA originally proposed a lower bridge (cheaper to build), and the port and Coast Guard got them to make it the current height.
QuoteI'm guessing the 175' for the bridge came about because the JEA lines were already there at that height. JTA originally proposed a lower bridge (cheaper to build), and the port and Coast Guard got them to make it the current height.
Here are my recollections: JTA built the bridge. It was planned to be paid with tolls when budgeted and then the voters eliminated tolls during the process. Money always being an issue, the lower and CHEAPER bridge was built because the good ol' boys wanted the bridge built sooner than later (a higher and more expensive bridge would take longer to approve, fund, and build.) [They also had to watch the costs because if they were too high, the originally projected toll charges would have to be higher and this would reduce the traffic demand undermining the need to build the bridge altogether.] so they could cash in on that cheap northside land they speculated on based on the bridge coming on line.
The port interests (that's mainly the private sector businesses) were never supportive of the bridge due to both it's height and location and vocally and aggressively fought it. The current height was a forced compromise, but never ideal, and still represented a loss to the maritime community - they just couldn't get it higher as needed. Remember, the Jax Shipyards were still open then, and they helped lead the charge because they knew it would be a detriment to their future business. The Coast Guard, Army Corps, etc. likely bowed to political pressure as they were all concerned about the bridge's location, aside from the height issue, in the river originally.
I don't recall JEA lines being a factor regarding the bridge height. That would appear to be the tail wagging the dog. I am not sure when the present power line configuration was constructed but, likewise, I suspect opportunities to solve clearance issues have been missed there as well. I am sure if the bridge were higher, we would be able to solve the power line issue if that was all that remained.
In the end, that is what we got: a bridge specified by politicians - and it now shows.
I can't remember the numbers, but I've heard "tens of millions" just to raise the JEA lines. But certainly a manageable number if the DP were higher, and the goal was for the power lines to match a taller (from the beginning, raising the current one is a non-starter) bridge.
I'm pretty sure the power lines pre-date the bridge.
Hmmm ... wonder where (or if) one could find transcripts of the Coast Guard hearings?
Dames Point Bridge Info...
http://www.mikestrong.com/dames/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dames_Point_Bridge
http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=358971
I am not surprised, and think it is a safe and smart move.
The crying of saving our "historic and quaint" fishing village is terribly overused. Mayport has no charm left at all and is hardly quiet with Mayport copters flying around. These people just don't want to adjust to the idea of a cruise terminal actually IMPROVING your area. Most people only know of Mayport for 4 things: Sun cruz, the ferry, seafood, and weather observations.
The terminal will come at some point, and it will take some pain, but in the long run, Mayport will reap the rewards of a terminal.
Spot on RN
Quote from: Charles Hunter on March 03, 2009, 06:16:33 AM
I can't remember the numbers, but I've heard "tens of millions" just to raise the JEA lines. But certainly a manageable number if the DP were higher, and the goal was for the power lines to match a taller (from the beginning, raising the current one is a non-starter) bridge.
I'm pretty sure the power lines pre-date the bridge.
Hmmm ... wonder where (or if) one could find transcripts of the Coast Guard hearings?
Here is a big chunk of them Charles: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/788/788.F2d.705.85-3178.html
I'd still like to know if it can be raised in place???????OCKLAWAHA
Just got off the phone with the Chairman of the BRIDGE ENGINEERING ASSOCIATION in New York. http://www.bridgeengineer.org/
DAMES POINT:
Because it is not a suspension bridge but a cable stayed bridge, the cables are directly attached to the deck. IT CAN BE RAISED to a higher elevation. In general terms it would require a complete study. The center would have to be disassembled and the approaches cut back to a point where a new approach grade could lift off from the lower trestle sections. He said it would be easier then deepening the channel but would probably cause a traffic outcry. In lay terms they would shim the bridge up another 25 feet. Towers and bents (piers) can be extended in a variety of materials. Some new filler sections would need to be built to compensate for the new height=distance, but then the whole thing could be reassembled. Worlds greatest Erector set? (JAX-FACT: Did you know the ceiling of the Jacksonville Terminal was 125' above the floor?)
LEE STREET VIADUCT:
Yes, I know, you ALL call it the Park Street Viaduct over the railroad yards in front of Jacksonville Terminal (that building mistakenly called the "Prime Osbourne") but then most were not alive to read the beautiful engraved monument that was built into the original LEE STREET SPAN along with it's poetic dedication so "The the people of Jacksonville may pass."
Built WAY TOO LOW, Trains need 23' min, and it's only got 16'. PIECE of cake as far as raising it IF it sits on bearings, if not the job becomes more complex. (I don't think it does - real foresight there DOT!) In any case it's another remove the panels and raise/shim the bents, place a filler for extended height=distance and reassemble. At least here a temporary bridge or RR crossing would work as a detour while the work takes place. Cheaper then a new bridge. He knew of the land by the terminal and that DOT/JTA had the FEC dig out by cutting into the old tunnels and LOWERING their mainline to get under this new bridge. "OH NO THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT!" "Terrible" etc... Imagine 300,000 cubic yards of fill dirt and 2,100 pilings driven 70 feet into the ground just to fill in that swamp. Oh yeah, now guess what? THAT IS JUST FOR THE OLD PART of the station grounds, the little stucco arched remains on Bay Street. It once had a train-shed, a huge roof that covered all the boarding tracks and extended from 1/5 of a mile from Lee Street. A hurricane took care of the shed in 1894 and flooded the entire area neck deep in water.
SO WHAT?
So if we allow JTA to convince anyone else to remove the rest of the fill dirt from over the old tunnels and yard we'll be back to the 1894 ground level. They already got FEC to lower their only connections to the world and for commuter rail they want all the fill removed. So if you plan to travel by AMTRAK or COMMUTER RAIL in Jacksonville some rainy day in the future, you better wear scuba gear.
OCKLAWAHA
QuoteDAMES POINT:
Because it is not a suspension bridge but a cable stayed bridge, the cables are directly attached to the deck. IT CAN BE RAISED to a higher elevation.
Great info, Ock. This is the type of "out of the box" thinking this town needs to adopt to begin "elevating" (no pun intended, honest!) the community.
I doubt in a million years you would ever get JTA or FDOT to even think this was possible or check out it's feasibility. It's just not the textbook way of doing things. Once again, it will take the port interests, maybe led by JPA, to make the case if this is worth pursuing.
JPA v. JTA: That's a faceoff we could probably sell tickets to! 8)
JPA vs JTA - maybe even better'n Guns 'n' Hoses!!!
Ock - did your engineer give you a cost estimate, or a time to complete (that is, time the DP Bridge is closed to auto traffic)? Sounds like it would a fun project to watch happen!!!
Ock2 - I think it was the City that lowered the Lee Street Viaduct, primarily to improve the view of the old terminal front from downtown, and secondarily to improve access from Lee Street (or maybe it was the other way around?).
^That's funny. So the viaduct was lowered to create a view that ended up being blocked by the Acosta Bridge's ramps?
Quote from: Charles Hunter on March 03, 2009, 10:43:14 PM
JPA vs JTA - maybe even better'n Guns 'n' Hoses!!!
Ock - did your engineer give you a cost estimate, or a time to complete (that is, time the DP Bridge is closed to auto traffic)? Sounds like it would a fun project to watch happen!!!
Ock2 - I think it was the City that lowered the Lee Street Viaduct, primarily to improve the view of the old terminal front from downtown, and secondarily to improve access from Lee Street (or maybe it was the other way around?).
OCK 1 - Well from what he said, "much quicker, cheaper, simpler then the channel dredging project." My guess is it's somewhere between a very expensive repair and a whole new bridge. He did suggest that bridge consultants be brought in to look at the various methods that could be used. Look at the long term pay off - Rebuilt 200' Dames point/Broward Bridge + NEW MATTHEWS at maybe 200' also, and Panamax Ships could nestle right into the Comodore Point area. Cleared of old warehousing and having Bay Street extend east into a terminal would make for one hell of a location for a cruise terminal. Just add SKYWAY and STREETCAR and jump back and watch projects bloom that would dwarf "The Shipyards".
OCK 2 - You are probably right (the first guess) about it being city hall that wanted the "view" to be perfect from the Landing to the gates of Jacksonville Terminal. The whole point of the new Water Street extension was to bring it to the terminals door for aesthetics. Then wrap the whole thing up in a extreme underbuilt and poorly located convention center. The old Viaduct was destroyed along with it's monument (does this city value ANYTHING historic?). Then arms were twisted at the Florida East Coast - cha ching - cha ching - bodda biff - bodda boof and we lowered the tracks 8' to the original marsh level. Then along comes JTA-USDOT-FDOT with the new East Coast Corridor, Sunset Limited, Amtrak Expansion, Jacksonville Commuter Rail and Florida-Georgia regional rail concepts and oops, we have a bridge in the way. JTA's consultants told me, "Oh don't worry we'll put the entire rail yard in a concrete tub..." All the while visions of the New Orleans 9Th Ward and Katrina were dancing in my head. I'VE SEEN THE PHOTOS OF OUR STATION AFTER THE 1894 STORM - before the ground was filled, and it ain't pretty. Can't you just see all those NS, CSX and FEC transfer freights and all our new passenger trains stopping to open a flood gate to get out of our terminal? All for what? So we can keep a bridge that is already blocking progress, keep a convention center that ought to be someplace else, and replace an already built tunnel concourse system with a stupid ugly overhead skywalk above the tracks and OVER the back of the station all the way to Bay Street. MY GOD HOW STUPID!
AND... For the few hold outs that don't think we're that BIG DOG RAIL HUB? Well how about this from the USDOT. Freight Flow Map Florida Region. Still think our passenger station will fail? HEE HEE!(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/CRITICAL%20Maps/RAILROADFLOWFL.gif)
Quote^That's funny. So the viaduct was lowered to create a view that ended up being blocked by the Acosta Bridge's ramps?
Yes Lake, that's why... JAKE and the CofC were VERY concerned about "image". Sadly the engineers for this same new Acosta Bridge, discovered that the historic JACKSONVILLE TRACTION COMPANY car barns in Brooklyn, had somehow gotten in the way of the Riverside Avenue off ramps. As a result they "HAD TO" be blown down... But not before JTA HAULED 3 DUMP TRUCK LOADS of uniforms, badges, scrapbooks, ledgers, ticket punches, logos, photos, maps etc... to the Northside landfill. Amazing how all that history just jumped in the way of "progress". Oh and after the last bus had left the old barns (which were used for years as the JTA bus garage) and the last brick was torn off the walls, they came in and removed the tracks that were still in the pavement inside the building. I honestly got physically ill over this outrage and they didn't even call the JHS or RAP or anyone else to ask if they wanted the "stuff."OCKLAWAHA
so freight rail and pssenger rail are now the same thing?
Considering that if Amtrak restores even once-daily service on these routes, or the traffic that we had prior to Katrina then these same lines (about 1/2 the point of my post) light up, and clearly mark Jacksonville as the center of a major hub. If Amtrak restored 500 trains per day on every line coming in and out of the State + every branchline or spur within the state, Orlando would still only have one mainline IN and the SAME mainline OUT. As for branchlines? Well they would have a train to Mount Dora!
Trains are not airplanes, are not ships, are not buses, trains do not use the airline inspired hub-and-spokes system you seem so fond of. All of this "State Expert" talk of bullet trains whizzing in and out of Orlando International Airport direct to MICKEY MOUSE and Tampa, use imaginary tracks, on imaginary railroads. Hell Orlando doesn't even have abandoned right-of-ways preserved. While I do think Central Florida Commuter Rail will see success, and eventual expansion and perhaps someday a merger into a regional Central Florida-Northeast Florida joint system, I see no prospects for a success with an Orlando Airport - Tampa Airport bullet train.
I have lived on Central near Lake Eola, on Michigan in Winter Park, Colonial Grande in Heathrow, Knotting Hill in Lake Mary, 25Th Street in Sanford, and Leland in Deltona. Believe me or Lakelander when we both say NOBODY is going to drive to Orlando International to catch a rocket sled to Tampa International. Stepping on an Amtrak train in Winter Park, and off in Downtown Tampa, at the regular cruise speed of 79 MPH would be faster AND cheaper, so would I-4.
Amtrak is captive to the freight railroads, so if you want to find where the multiple high speed tracks, great signal systems, yards, crew bases, repair facilities, work force and rail savvy population is, just follow the freight.
OCKLAWAHA
Converting a thread discussing PASSENGER Cruise SHIPS into one discussing PASSENGER RAILROADS! Quite a trick, Ock. A new kind of alchemy. LOL. ;D
Ock...I'm not disagreeing with you....but here are some facts
1. Disney promises to put its tourists on the train (vs. their buses)....that's a lot of riders
2. Those same tourists may choose to go to Miami and/or Tampa (many already do)....and take the train
3. OIA already serves as a central point for statewide meetings...I go to at least 3 a year and drive every time
4. Jax can be a hub for freight because cities like ATL don't have seaports....the same doesn't apply for passenger rail
So, for the FINAL time....I agree that Jax. can be a hub for passenger rail TO and FROM Florida....but it makes very little sense as a hub for travel WITHIN Florida....the demographics speak for themselves.
I'm not arguing here, it's a matter of concept. We won't have a rail "HUB" for intra-state travel. Just won't happen. If it does it will be an end point city IE: Miami, Tampa, Jax.. Trains just don't run into and out of hubs on short or medium distance runs. For example the Capital Corridor - San Joaquins - Altamonte Express in California all run "baby bullet" trains yet there is no "hub". No trains HAVE to run through Richmond before getting to XXX . The hubs, if you want to call them that are the places where connections to other routes are made, but again end points. Oakland, Sacramento, Stockton. One can make connections in each of these cities, but none have much in the way of regional rail except maybe Stockton.
OCKLAWAHA
So is a Hub where trains would tend to change direction as opposed to where people change trains?
'Hub' is not a term that is used in railroading. Terminal (terminus.. end of the line) or station (run through) are the correct terms. A railroad is definitely not a hub and spoke network.
Chicago and several other cities may look like 'hubs' but that is not how they operate.