JaxPort board pulls back from Mayport cruise terminal

[thelakelander]

The 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

[BridgeTroll]

WOW... Well congratulations Ron Littlepage and Mayport!!  You got what you wanted.  I am sure "Historic Mayport" will continue its historic trend towards prosperity...

[jaxtrader]

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.

[BridgeTroll]

Maybe so but it really does not matter.  It is what they wanted.

[stjr]

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?

[tufsu1]

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. 

[Charles Hunter]

To quote myself from the other Mayport thread ...

With 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.

[stjr]

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?

[Charles Hunter]

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.

[stjr]

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.

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.

[Charles Hunter]

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?

[BridgeTroll]

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

[reednavy]

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.

[JeffreyS]

Spot on RN

[Ocklawaha]

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