If We Want Jax to Thrive Then We Must Support JAXPORT

[TheCat]

Andrew Miller, executive director and legal counsel of the Public Trust Environmental Legal Institute of Florida, the organization that's filed the lawsuit, joined Melissa Ross for more on what the group is hoping to accomplish with the suit.

20 minute discussion with Melissa Ross. Look to the bottom of the article.

http://news.wjct.org/post/local-nonprofit-sues-jaxport-release-dredging-study-documents

[tufsu1]

I have not seen the full reports but the idea that Savannah is ahead of us doesn't seem to jive with the Savannah, GA and SC media. Denials, lawsuits, and myriad roadblocks seem to be plaguing the Savannah River project, including string up cadmium in the channel. Savannah's river is about ½ as wide as ours and turning a post Panamax might be something like trying to spin the USS George Bush around between the Acosta and Main Street Bridges... nice trick!

The way I see it, Jaxport does indeed = jobs. Perhaps not on the scale we'd like to see, but if we're 47-53' deep and Savannah isn't, we will once again surpass them.

Savannah is ahead of us.  Their project was approved by USACOE first and their state government is prepared to pay for the project without Federal help if need be.  And if you haven't noticed, we have our own share of lawsuits.

I also disagree with your assertion that we would be ahead of Savannah if we dredge.  Right now they are 3x larger than JaxPort.  Not even the rosiest projections have us growing that much.

Finally, the economic projections (jobs) done for each port assumes that competing ports do nothing.  That isn't realistic at all.  Fact is if several ports dredge, the econmomic gains will be shared and therefore diluted quite a bit.

[Ocklawaha]

The way I see it, Jaxport does indeed = jobs. Perhaps not on the scale we'd like to see, but if we're 47-53' deep and Savannah isn't, we will once again surpass them.

TUFSU1 Did you READ my post? I didn't assert that we would be ahead of them, simply that if we go deep and for some reason they don't, then we can regain our lead. Either way it won't be overnight. 

[riverkeepered]

The Savannah dredging may begin by the end of the year.  Despite what Jaxport has said, we are not on the same track and Savannah is prepared to move forward very soon.
http://wjcl.com/2014/05/21/savannah-harbor-dredging-could-begin-by-years-end/

Even if the Savannah dredging doesn't happen for some unforeseen reason, Jax still has a LONG way to go to catch Savannah.

Jax handled 926,809 TEUs in 2013, while Savannah had 3,038,000.

[riverkeepered]

In 2012, Jacksonville ranked 7th in TEU container volume among the 8 East Coast ports that are trying to attract larger ships, and we lost market share in the first quarter of this year, while our closest competitors, Savannah and Charleston, gained share. 
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2014/05/30/jaxport-loses-market-share-in-first-quarter-while.html?page=all

Many industry experts cite the need for only 2-3 deep water ports on the East Coast to handle the larger ships.  As Jaxport's own consultant John Martin said, ""The large ships can't call multiple ports. Carriers lose all economies of scale once they start doing milk runs." 

If this rings true, you can see how difficult it will be for Jacksonville to ever move into the top tier of East Coast ports.  We already lag way behind many of our competitors in terms of infrastructure upgrades, financial support, and current TEU volume. 

Then, throw in the significant risk to our river's health and the enormous costs associated with this project, and it becomes very difficult to justify the viability or the wisdom of pursuing the dredging.   

Ron Littlepage raises additional concerns in his recent column worth considering too.
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/ron-littlepage/2014-06-10/story/ron-littlepage-dredging-proposal-still-raises-questions

[mtraininjax]

Savannah and Brunswick do get all of Georgia's support, whereas Jax has a lot of other ports in Florida to share resources in the state. I see no way JaxPORT can compete with Savannah and Georgia. It is foolish, absolute insanity to think that JaxPORT, already 1/3 the size of cargo of Savannah thinks they can do it better.

So why fight the tape? Partner with Savannah and Brunswick and build a stronger regional system to take on Miami and Tampa, Charleston and others.

[riverkeepered]

Interesting outcome at Wednesday's Port Task Force as recounted by Ron Littlepage:

While explaining the breadth of Crowley's operations — $2 billion in annual revenue, 5,300 employees (including 932 in Northeast Florida) and a fleet of 260 vessels with a strong business in Puerto Rico, Central America and the Caribbean — task force member Pete Carpenter cut to the chase and asked about dredging the channel.

"The fact of the matter is 47 feet doesn't impact us," Gilliam said. "It's not important for our business."

The current 40-foot channel is sufficient for the ships they use and for new ones they are building.

That leads to another question.

The position of JaxChamber is basically that without deeper water JaxPort will wither and die.

Considering Gilliam's statement, is that true?

Most of Crowley's business and nearly half of all of Jaxport's is with Puerto Rico.

Another company that was selected by Jaxport to speak, Bedrosians, only employs 24 people.

http://members.jacksonville.com/opinion/ron-littlepage/2014-06-19/story/ron-littlepage-dredging-concerns-are-deep-st-johns-itself?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JacksonvillecomOpinion+(Jacksonville.com%3A+Opinion

[PeeJayEss]

Aside from the fact that this channel deepening project will have a pretty drastic impact on the river, an impact that has been totally glossed over, for little to no economic benefit, it is still refreshingly funny and sad to see how poorly Jacksonville handles...everything:
http://jacksonville.com/business/columnists/2015-02-17/story/mark-woods-jacksonville-port-consultants-writings-say-race

"Integration has proven to be as bad as inter-marriage; it dumbs down America. Perhaps God separated us for a reason." – Herbert M. Barber Jr. in his 2012 self-published book, "Fall of a Nation: a Biblical Perspective of a Modern Problem"

Let's start there, so that maybe the next time a city considers paying Barber $60,000 to analyze the economic benefits of a port or anything else, someone will do a quick Google search and have an idea of what they are getting when they hire the Savannah, Ga.-based consultant who founded Xicon Economics.

It only gets better from there. And, at the risk of Jacksonville taxpayers giving this guy more money, you would do yourself well to pick up a digital copy of his book. It is amazing. For the reader who found Mein Kampf a little too lenient.

[ChriswUfGator]

That guy is a nut, but what is the worry about dredging the river another 5 feet? It's already 50-60 feet deep through pretty much all of downtown, and in the 40s the rest of the way to mayport. What's another few feet in a couple shallow spots going to ruin, exactly? Not being argumentative, just honestly curious. In terms of dredging this is a big project distance-wise, but not in terms of depth, they're not taking it from 20 to 40, it's maybe a 10% or less difference.

[strider]

While I agree that the environmental  impact of dredging to 47 feet is one that perhaps can be mitigated in other ways, what does concern me most and turns me against the dredging no matter what is the financial impact.  It appears to me, as just an average Joe, that the cost benefit simply is not really there and this is indeed a case of if we dredge it they will not come.

I keep finding myself wondering if the people pushing for the dredging are elated in some way to those that will make those millions off of the dredging itself.  I fear the only profit that will ever be made from the dredging will be from the actual work of dredging, never from having the deeper channel.

[PeeJayEss]

That guy is a nut, but what is the worry about dredging the river another 5 feet? It's already 50-60 feet deep through pretty much all of downtown, and in the 40s the rest of the way to mayport. What's another few feet in a couple shallow spots going to ruin, exactly? Not being argumentative, just honestly curious. In terms of dredging this is a big project distance-wise, but not in terms of depth, they're not taking it from 20 to 40, it's maybe a 10% or less difference.

The additional depth will change river hydraulics in those areas as well as drive the salt "wedge" further upstream. While salinity in the river fluctuates with tide, weather, and season, there is an average salinity level along the river from the mouth up to where it is completely fresh. This deepening basically pushes that wedge further upstream.  Additionally, the deeper channel (and subsequent larger vessels) will result in larger wakes. In areas where the shoreline is closer to the channel, you would see increased erosion of the bank. You could see wetland loss or threats to upland infrastructure where it is located on a bank near the channel.

Now, all of that is certainly not a dealbreaker. Much of it can be mitigated for, particularly if the benefits are significant. However, the problem in this case is, because Obama has fast-tracked all these port deepenings, the typical environmental impact investigations have been skipped or glossed over. Add to that the fact that the economic benefits are based on Jax receiving new traffic, even though we will still be competing with all the other nearby ports, all of which are ahead of us in this process. And the Army Corps has said going to -47 ft will only have a marginal benefit to -45 ft. And we still won't be set up for New Panamax vessels (-50 ft or greater).

Basically, the process has been forced through without due consideration, all because Obama and Rick Scott have absolutely not vision for the country (or state's) infrastructure. Every port is getting a half-measure improvement, instead of a few logistically important locations getting the job done right. So we're looking at about a billion dollars (52% from local sources) upfront and then continued maintenance dredging (eventually 50% local), and we don't have a good idea of the economic or environmental impact. It's just an example of bad governance.

[Jtetlak]

I'm opposed to the dredging not only because the environmental impacts are uncertain, but also because the financial burdens far outweigh the economic benefits. We are struggling to pay our pension obligations and provide basic services, we can't even maintain the lights on the bridge, so why entertain the idea of pumping so much money into deepening our port? Even if we had that extra money sitting around unused, we could make much more of an impact on Jacksonville's future by using it to fix downtown or implement better public transit instead of making our river deeper, something that may or may not cause permanent damage to our environment.

[marksjax]

I have followed this a bit and can see that the narrative from local leadership (past and present) is that we 'must do the dredging'.
It is ingrained to where it's almost like it's a forgone conclusion that its going to get done. It's just a matter of when and how much to raise the property tax rate to pay for it. That will be the next phase, so look for the trial balloon on that part coming soon.

I personally think it's way too much money to spend on a project with such dubious potential. And, as has been mentioned above, the only people guaranteed to make money on it are the dredging companies and related entities.

But it goes to show how the political machine works in this town. Get enough power people (you know who they are) to keep saying how we need something (i.e.: the scoreboard at Everbank for instance) and it eventually happens.

But with the city's infrastructure falling apart as well as non payment (for years) of the pension plans I just can't see spending billions now on deepening a river that perhaps will result in bigger ships coming in to port.

Time for someone in a leadership position to take a stand and say we gotta get our house in order before we spend taxpayers money going after another high end bauble.

Just my $.02

[djaffee]

If you are interested in voicing your opinions and concerns about the dredging proposal -- on any side of the issue -- please attend the Town Hall Forum on March 9th at UNFs University Center from 6-9 pm.  Free and open to the public.

The forum will be modeled after a genuine town hall meeting. The format will be an "open mike" for members of the public attending to express their views and/or ask questions of those in attendance who represent different perspectives on the project.  These representatives will not make formal presentations but will be available to respond to questions and concerns. We will have a moderator.

We have invited representatives from the sponsoring organizations as well as the Mayor's Port Task Force, the Jax Chamber, the Army Corps of Engineers, The Sierra Club, and any other organizations/businesses that can contribute to an informed public on this important policy matter.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-02-17/story/unf-hosts-mar-9-town-hall-meeting-st-johns-river-dredging-proposal?utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JacksonvillecomsNewsSportsAndEntertainment+%28Jacksonville%27s+Most+Recent+Headlines+-+Jacksonville.com+and+The+Florida+Times-Union%29&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner

The town hall forum will be co-sponsored by The Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work, UNF; The Ports Project, UNF; The Riverkeeper, and the Northeast Florida Center for Community Initiatives, UNF.

[riverkeepered]

A megaproject that would probably end up costing a $1 billion and would significantly impact the health of our river needs to be thoroughly vetted by the public and our community leaders.   Thanks to Dr. David Jaffee and UNF for helping to facilitate community dialogue and providing citizens with an important opportunity to have their voices heard.  I hope the house is packed on March 9.  This may be the public's best chance to get answers and be heard.