JaxPort considers scaled-back, cheaper dredging plan

[tufsu1]

My understanding is that for its portion, the state is/would be committed to both projects, but our local leadership at the city and the port have dropped the ball. Our real competition for outgoing cargo is Savannah and Charleston; if we can quit tripping over our own two feet, we can compete with those.

I disagree.  Expansion at both of those ports is almost 100% paid for by their respective state government.  As you noted in another post, the problem in Florida is picking winners and losers.  The state has to spread its $ over 5 major ports and 10 others, meaning that in reality nobody wins big.

[The_Choose_1]

Miami isn't really what we're competing with. Miami's worth doing because the metro itself is so huge, but it's stupid to ship nationwide cargo there (you'd have to put it on trucks and trains and take it through Jacksonville anyway). My understanding is that for its portion, the state is/would be committed to both projects, but our local leadership at the city and the port have dropped the ball. Our real competition for outgoing cargo is Savannah and Charleston; if we can quit tripping over our own two feet, we can compete with those.

At what cost to the St Johns River & Jaxport itself. We just got VW away from Brunswick Ga. I would rather drop the ball as you believe we have then to screw up the St Johns River....................................

[thelakelander]

Miami isn't really what we're competing with. Miami's worth doing because the metro itself is so huge, but it's stupid to ship nationwide cargo there (you'd have to put it on trucks and trains and take it through Jacksonville anyway). My understanding is that for its portion, the state is/would be committed to both projects, but our local leadership at the city and the port have dropped the ball. Our real competition for outgoing cargo is Savannah and Charleston; if we can quit tripping over our own two feet, we can compete with those.

We've been losing that competition for quite a while. Both of those ports (and Norfolk) are pretty far ahead of us already and in terms of planned dredging activity and funding. We can dredge and we still won't make up much ground without addressing the supply side of things. Unfortunately, much of it has nothing to do with Jax.

[Tacachale]

My understanding is that for its portion, the state is/would be committed to both projects, but our local leadership at the city and the port have dropped the ball. Our real competition for outgoing cargo is Savannah and Charleston; if we can quit tripping over our own two feet, we can compete with those.

I disagree.  Expansion at both of those ports is almost 100% paid for by their respective state government.  As you noted in another post, the problem in Florida is picking winners and losers.  The state has to spread its $ over 5 major ports and 10 others, meaning that in reality nobody wins big.

That is accurate, but by that token Miami doesn't have an advantage over us as far as the state goes, for this and other reasons. Though our lack of local leadership has put us behind.

Miami isn't really what we're competing with. Miami's worth doing because the metro itself is so huge, but it's stupid to ship nationwide cargo there (you'd have to put it on trucks and trains and take it through Jacksonville anyway). My understanding is that for its portion, the state is/would be committed to both projects, but our local leadership at the city and the port have dropped the ball. Our real competition for outgoing cargo is Savannah and Charleston; if we can quit tripping over our own two feet, we can compete with those.

At what cost to the St Johns River & Jaxport itself. We just got VW away from Brunswick Ga. I would rather drop the ball as you believe we have then to screw up the St Johns River....................................

It doesn't have to screw up the river.

Miami isn't really what we're competing with. Miami's worth doing because the metro itself is so huge, but it's stupid to ship nationwide cargo there (you'd have to put it on trucks and trains and take it through Jacksonville anyway). My understanding is that for its portion, the state is/would be committed to both projects, but our local leadership at the city and the port have dropped the ball. Our real competition for outgoing cargo is Savannah and Charleston; if we can quit tripping over our own two feet, we can compete with those.

We've been losing that competition for quite a while. Both of those ports (and Norfolk) are pretty far ahead of us already and in terms of planned dredging activity and funding. We can dredge and we still won't make up much ground without addressing the supply side of things. Unfortunately, much of it has nothing to do with Jax.

Yes, we're falling behind, but there's no reason we couldn't catch up to Charleston and Savannah. We have other advantages neither of those ports do. There's just been too much navel gazing and fatalism while we get left in the dust.

[The_Choose_1]

Well we will wait and see whats to come. But I'm glad Jaxport is slowing down and looking at other ways to make Jaxport work better then Savannah & Charleston.

[thelakelander]

I'm interested in learning about our advantages. One advantage I think we have that there's not much attention being paid to, is the possibility of direct rail service between the port and CSX, NS and FEC.  Everything I've seen so far, only focuses on improving connectivity with CSX. That puts us at a disadvantage against ports that provide their users with multiple rail carriers.

[tufsu1]

That is accurate, but by that token Miami doesn't have an advantage over us as far as the state goes, for this and other reasons. Though our lack of local leadership has put us behind.

The Miami dredging was far less expensive than ours...and almost entirely paid for by the state and feds

[Tacachale]

That is accurate, but by that token Miami doesn't have an advantage over us as far as the state goes, for this and other reasons. Though our lack of local leadership has put us behind.

The Miami dredging was far less expensive than ours...and almost entirely paid for by the state and feds

That's also true, but my point is as far as the state portion of the funding goes, Miami doesn't/didn't have any special advantage over Jaxport. One reason is that all Florida's state funding is diluted across 15 ports, Miami included. Another is that the state recognizes that a port in Miami isn't going to have the same potential for nationwide distribution. It primarily serves South Florida rather than the wider region, but it's still worth investing in as it's so huge.

However, their port authority and local government was on the ball and got things off the ground while we're still sitting here.

[thelakelander]

Miami's argument is that it's the closest US port to the Panama Canal. Utilizing the FEC, the belief is that FEC/NS will deliver your goods faster than taking your cargo ship further up the east coast.  Instead, you can make a stop and head back to the Pacific.  Over the course of a year, going that route, you'd be able to make more trips and ship more. I don't know if things will work out this way, but this is what I heard in a presentation about their positioning a few months back.

[ben america]

This behind other ports argument is silly, we aren't talking going post panamax depth (50'), only to 47'. In light of that, we aren't even in competition for those ships. What we can be in competition for are the smaller, more agile shippers like SeaLand.

This was data collected as part of a grant application for the port of Miami I helped write. It is about a year and a half old.

"Maersk is using SeaLand to build a new brand in North America targeting customers who need to ship less than 500 containers a year. This represents 50 percent of the intra-American market based on a market survey they received last year. The new US subsidiary will have similar structure to Maersk Line's other regional carriers, including intra-Asia carrier MCC Transport and intra-European carrier Seago Line.

SeaLand will use the FTZ in Doral known as the Miami Free Trade Zone to transship between Europe and Latin America. Maersk Line will begin the transition of its Intra-Americas business to SeaLand in a phased approach throughout 2014. Maersk Line currently operates ships in the range of 2,500 and 3,500 TEUs in the market, and the plan is for SeaLand to start by acquiring this Maersk Line network, and to build the organization around this."

With 50% of shipping customers shipping less than 500 containers a year, the growth market is the smaller vessels anyway. Why not focus on that market?

[Tacachale]

Miami's argument is that it's the closest US port to the Panama Canal. Utilizing the FEC, the belief is that FEC/NS will deliver your goods faster than taking your cargo ship further up the east coast.  Instead, you can make a stop and head back to the Pacific.  Over the course of a year, going that route, you'd be able to make more trips and ship more. I don't know if things will work out this way, but this is what I heard in a presentation about their positioning a few months back.

Yes, that's Miami's argument. The opposing argument is that get it anywhere out of the state requires 300 miles+ of train and truck travel, which is somewhat faster but much more expensive than just leaving it on the ship and going to Jax, especially considering all trains and most trucks have to go through here anyway. However, Miami's so large they need a port that size just to serve their region of the state, so it's almost a moot point. At any rate, it looks like the state is (and always was) prepared to come through with their part of the money for Jaxport.

[thelakelander]

Another position I've heard is that more than likely, post panamax ships will only end up frequenting 3 or so Atlantic ports....one of which will be New York.  That leaves everyone else fighting for the other spots. I don't remember off hand (much of this was discussed back in 2011....crazy how time flies and we're still in the same situation, btw) but Norfolk is already 50', and a few others (ex. Savannah/Charleston/Miami) are well ahead, as far as dredging is concerned. Then there are those who believe, it will still be cheaper and quicker to use expanding west coast ports to ship east by rail. 

Then, no one is really talking about what the Gulf Coast ports are doing. Yet, Houston is spending $700 million to modernize and dredge its channels for entry into this game.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Mammoth-cranes-signify-new-era-for-Port-of-Houston-6244622.php

It will be interesting to see how things play out. The worst would be spending $500 million to a billion, and not getting anywhere near the ROI that's being talked about locally.

[tufsu1]

^ New York, Norfolk, and either Charleston, Savannah, or Jax.....an argument repeated by our boosters is that Jax is the most western city on the east coast, providing easy access to the midwest....sorry but Savannah and Charleston can serve that better...and honestly, shipments to the Great Lakes region are likely to come from/go to Norfolk or NYC

[The_Choose_1]

This behind other ports argument is silly, we aren't talking going post panamax depth (50'), only to 47'. In light of that, we aren't even in competition for those ships. What we can be in competition for are the smaller, more agile shippers like SeaLand.

This was data collected as part of a grant application for the port of Miami I helped write. It is about a year and a half old.

"Maersk is using SeaLand to build a new brand in North America targeting customers who need to ship less than 500 containers a year. This represents 50 percent of the intra-American market based on a market survey they received last year. The new US subsidiary will have similar structure to Maersk Line's other regional carriers, including intra-Asia carrier MCC Transport and intra-European carrier Seago Line.

SeaLand will use the FTZ in Doral known as the Miami Free Trade Zone to transship between Europe and Latin America. Maersk Line will begin the transition of its Intra-Americas business to SeaLand in a phased approach throughout 2014. Maersk Line currently operates ships in the range of 2,500 and 3,500 TEUs in the market, and the plan is for SeaLand to start by acquiring this Maersk Line network, and to build the organization around this."

With 50% of shipping customers shipping less than 500 containers a year, the growth market is the smaller vessels anyway. Why not focus on that market?

I believe this is what Jaxport is going to do.

[mtraininjax]

We're in this position because of lack of local leadership on the port question. It's a rare case where the state and our federal reps have been on top of it and our own leaders haven't. Florida has too many ports and it needs to pick winners and losers. With our location and rail connection, there's absolutely no reason we should be one of the losers.

With the aggregate load, Keystone Coal, LNG, and the auto biz, Jax can do well, play to its strengths. Only so much Federal money to go around to 14 Florida Ports, and I've said this all along, build solutions with local ports, Savannah, Brunswick that Miami cannot accomplish. Jax has great highway and railway options that Miami cannot offer, so play to the strengths and what you do best at now.