Former Jaxport CEO Speaks: Instability drove him to Tampa

[thelakelander]

Paul Anderson explains why he left JAXPORT and mentions something about the Panamax race that hasn't been mentioned to date in Jacksonville's dredge the river push....

Anderson said lack of certainty is what brought him to Tampa.

He hadn't considered the job when former Tampa Port Authority CEO Richard Wainio announced his resignation in June. Anderson said he and his wife, Sarah, a law clerk for a federal judge, were trying to buy a house in Jacksonville then. But the deal fell through in August.

"My wife was heartbroken," he said. "She loved the house and so did I."

Then, he said, business leaders from Tampa approached him about the CEO job here. Anderson would not identify them.

Then he started to re-evaluate Jaxport. The board was churning through leaders, Anderson said, sending the "wrong signal" to the port's global customers. "Institutional knowledge" was being lost.

"I had five board chairmen in 18 months," Anderson said. Tampa was a "better opportunity," he said, in "a larger metropolitan area."

The Tampa Port Authority had something else he wanted: a stable board.

"I saw stability here," Anderson said. "At this point in my career, I'd like to have stability."

The key will be transshipment.

When the Panama Canal expansion is completed — the date is now 2015 — gargantuan ships that can carry 12,500 or more containers will be able to sail through the canal. But while a handful of ports like the Port of Miami are vying to serve those ships, many cannot. The Port of Tampa is one of them.

But many of those "Post Panamax" ships will be unloaded at an intermediate point onto smaller ships, which will complete delivery. Hence, transshipment.

Those are the container ships for which Tampa can — and must — compete. They'll likely dock in the Caribbean, transfer their containers to smaller ships, then sail for the United States.

"A little-known fact to the public is that Panama is spending almost as much on transshipment facilities on either end of the canal (as they are on expanding the canal)," Anderson said. "So they can handle these larger ships, then drop off to the smaller ships.

"That's what we would go after."

full article: http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/new-port-director-is-tampas-missing-piece/1271287

[tufsu1]

        

[spuwho]

5 Board Chairs in 18 months? I would leave to if my boss changed that much. If your management doesn't have a commitment to JAXPORT, why should he?

I was worried that this was a reflection on JAXPORT leadership, after reading this, I was right. 

Reflection?.....more like an indictment.

[Ocklawaha]

But many of those "Post Panamax" ships will be unloaded at an intermediate point onto smaller ships, which will complete delivery. Hence, transshipment.

Those are the container ships for which Tampa can — and must — compete. They'll likely dock in the Caribbean, transfer their containers to smaller ships, then sail for the United States.

"A little-known fact to the public is that Panama is spending almost as much on transshipment facilities on either end of the canal (as they are on expanding the canal)," Anderson said. "So they can handle these larger ships, then drop off to the smaller ships.

I disagree that there is some great market developing for smaller ships. It's all about costs and sending your goods to Colon, unloading them, shipping them to Panama City over the Panama Railway, then reloading them in Panama City and send them off to Tampa or Jacksonville.  Even with largely automated loading and unloading, that's going to kick the price way up and consume an extra few days. This will go head to head with three other opportunities. Not to mention that the smaller ships are much more expensive to operate.

The railroads once moved manufactured goods almost exclusively in box cars over a network that tapped nearly every community in the United States.  When trailers and containers came along the box cars and the branchlines started to disappear. Today most branchlines are gone and box cars are dedicated to specialty industrial customers. This is exactly the same thing that is now happening on the seas, we either act or we are out of the game.

1.  The Port of Lazaro Cardenas will be able to accommodate Post-Panamax traffic, which can reach the U.S border in 36 hours. Only 200 miles further than LA routing, and is served by the Mexican railroad TFM, which is now owned by The Kansas City Southern Railroad (KCSM), which has a direct link to U.S railroad network. KCS stretches from Chicago and Kansas City south to New Orleans, Houston and Mexico. They are investing millions in the Port of Lazaro Cardenas and due to the cost differential this could become more popular then the US or Canadian Pacific Ports. Thus they can sell Capacity, Time and Cost, and come away a winner.

2.  Shipment through ports such as Long Beach/Los Angeles, Oakland, Portland, Seattle and Vancouver, which are becoming fully automated. New rail projects like the Alemeda Corridor can get these shipments out of the port and across the country
It takes about 3.8 days to connect Los Angeles and Chicago and an additional 2.8 days to connect Chicago to New York, (in 1909 'The New York Mail' made the Seattle-NYC trip in 4 days!). Alternatively, the Vancouver - Chicago connection takes about 6 days with the new Prince Rupert - Chicago link that can be done in about 4 days because of the lack of congestion, both at the port and along the long distance rail corridor.  From Singapore it takes 36 days to reach New York using the Panama Canal sea route. The average figure is about 21 days between any point in Asia and the East Coast. The same journey takes 19 days if the Landbridge is used (Double-stack rail transport using the Seattle-Chicago-New York rail routes). On average, transport services between the East Coast of the United States and Pacific-Asia are reduced from 6 days to 2 weeks depending on the case. The North-American Landbridge is also competing for a market share of the traffic between Europe and Asia. It requires for maritime shippers on average from 5 to 6 weeks to service the harbors of Tokyo and Rotterdam. With the Landbridge, this time is reduced to about 3 weeks with an 6 days railway journey across North America. 
This route will cost more then the all sea route.  This is the very route that has propelled the western railroads to the very top of the American Transportation Food Chain!

3. Lastly the all sea route via Post Panamax ships SAMPLE SHIPMENT TIMES:  Canton to Jacksonville  10,823 takes 18 days at sea @ 24.5 knots (Post Panamax Cruising Speed). That same container sailing from Canton to Long Beach travels 6,446 and takes 11 days at sea. If this shipment is going to New York it will spend 6.6 days on a train for a total of 17.6 days. By running the numbers you quickly start to see a pattern.  We are just so-so competitive for shipments from the Orient to the northeast, and not competitive for shipments to the western states, but our trump card is the industrial midwest and Mississippi/Tennessee/Ohio valley states. Jacksonville is nearly due south of Cincinnati, Ohio which is to say we are 567 miles WEST of New York City. We have the superior rail connections via either the CSX or NS route directly via Atlanta and Chattanooga as well as superior connections to cities like Birmingham and Memphis. We are also the only Atlantic Seaboard Terminal of the Triple Crown Road-Railer Trains.  No matter how you cut the cake, Miami and Tampa are a 2 day rail journey
south of us while the water route to Jacksonville is only 1.1 days more. That 350 miles M/L can be taken off of the bill when they ship through Jaxport. THAT and South America/Africa/European trade, is what JPA should be chasing. To quote a one-time Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce Ad.  "Ask any Atlantan the way to the Port..." JAXPORT.

[spuwho]

I saw this today....18 to 20 days from Shanghai to Indianapolis via Prince Rupert.

Per Progressive Rail

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/intermodal/article/CN-Indiana-Rail-Road-to-launch-intermodal-service-targeting-Asian-traffic--34881#

CN and the Indiana Rail Road Co. (INRD) have forged an agreement to build an intermodal terminal in Indianapolis and jointly offer Indiana importers and exporters an all-rail option for moving containerized products to and from Asia.

The new facility is under construction near INRD's existing Senate Avenue Terminal in downtown Indianapolis. The intermodal terminal will begin receiving empty containers June 15; an on-site agricultural products containerized export loading facility will be in service about the same time, CN and INRD officials said in a joint statement. The first import train is expected to arrive in late June.

"This all-rail service will reduce transit times and improve transportation consistency for Indiana importers, making their supply chains more competitive," said Jean-Jacques Ruest, executive vice president and chief marketing officer for CN, which maintains service-level agreements with ports it serves in Prince Rupert and Vancouver, British Columbia.

The Class I estimates that through the new joint service, containerized import goods will flow in about 18 to 20 days from port loadings in Shanghai and Qingdao, China, and Busan, Korea, to INRD's Senate Avenue Terminal.

"Anyone who drives Interstate 65 between Indianapolis and Chicago knows what a bottleneck it is. [This] service will offer a more reliable, consistent and environmentally friendly movement of goods that is less susceptible to costly weather and congestion delays," said INRD President and Chief Executive Officer Tom Hoback.

[thelakelander]

I disagree that there is some great market developing for smaller ships. It's all about costs and sending your goods to Colon, unloading them, shipping them to Panama City over the Panama Railway, then reloading them in Panama City and send them off to Tampa or Jacksonville.  Even with largely automated loading and unloading, that's going to kick the price way up and consume an extra few days. This will go head to head with three other opportunities. Not to mention that the smaller ships are much more expensive to operate.

The railroads once moved manufactured goods almost exclusively in box cars over a network that tapped nearly every community in the United States.  When trailers and containers came along the box cars and the branchlines started to disappear. Today most branchlines are gone and box cars are dedicated to specialty industrial customers. This is exactly the same thing that is now happening on the seas, we either act or we are out of the game.

What does "act" mean?  If it means coming up with the cash to dredge the river to Blount Island and get that particular terminal served directly by more than one railroad company, then we're out the game. To me, it reads as if there are niche markets out there than that every little port on this side of the country is not going to become a major player in the post panamax game.

To quote a one-time Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce Ad.  "Ask any Atlantan the way to the Port..." JAXPORT.

Outside of a slick Jax advertising campaign, ask an Atlantan now and they'll tell you Savannah.  With the Midwest in mind, what are Gulf Coast ports in TX, LA, MS & AL doing to compete?

[Ocklawaha]

For those that don't know what this conversation is about, we are discussing the new class of ocean container ship which will carry over 62% of all container traffic world wide by 2030.

Florida has a lot of ports, but in this game only 3 matter.

Here is our current position in the US Port TEU race. The 20-foot container, referred as a Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit (TEU), is the industry standard reference, and cargo volume and vessel capacity are now commonly measured in TEUs. The current maximum container capacity of 4,800 to 5,000 TEUs is referred to as Panamax. Ships capable of carrying up to 7,000 to 8,000 TEUs are referred to as post-Panamax. New Panamax ships, capable of carrying 12,000-13,000 TEUs will begin using the new locks and enlarged canal to access east coast ports.

Our need to act means to push hard for deepening the channel and expanding rail connectivity.  It is entirely conceivable that we could extend the channel to Talleyrand. As for us not being in the game, we already are in the game, Jacksonville still has some time to get to work on our Port infrastructure as the Panama Canal won't be completed until mid 2015.

Post-Panamax ships already make up 16 percent of the world's container fleet today but carry 45 percent of the cargo. Post-Panamax vessels will make up 62 percent of total container ship capacity by 2030. We can't afford to miss this opportunity, even if we come along a bit late in the game (we won't be the only ones in this position). Otherwise to continue to 'improve' or pour money into JAXPORT by focusing on small ships puts us in the position of having an increasing investment with a diminishing return.
 

These are the only ports that really matter to us as potential competition.
 







Jacksonville's greatest strength rests on it's railroad network, port and geographic location.  BTW, Savannah lacks 2 things that we have, 1.) a wide river and 2.) a choice of principal rail routes west or northwest.

There is an old saying about rats abandoning a sinking ship, actually the phenomenon is that the rats abandon a ship BEFORE it sinks (like, how do they know?) and watching JAXPORT recently as continues to destroy any confidence in the management of this city certainly poses the question.

[thelakelander]

Our need to act means to push hard for deepening the channel and expanding rail connectivity.  It is entirely conceivable that we could extend the channel to Talleyrand. As for us not being in the game, we already are in the game, Jacksonville still has some time to get to work on our Port infrastructure as the Panama Canal won't be completed until mid 2015.

I don't think you realize how close 2015 is.  If you want to be in position for something coming in two years, we should have secured the approval, funds, and started dredging already.  If you have not achieved any of these things and still have no clue how to come up with the $600 million to $1 billion in funding needed, you're not going to be ready in 2020, much less 2015. 

Also, where did the maps come from?  The third map doesn't even have Charleston, nothing illustrates Port Everglades,  and the first suggests Tampa is a post panamax port. Tampa isn't a post panamax port according to Anderson.  It appears, they've decided to focus on a niche market without worrying about dredging to 50' or wondering what to do with the Sunshine State Skyway.  Also, the second to last graphic indicates Houston is already dredging.  If you want to get access to the Midwest markets, why not Houston instead of going up the East Coast to JAXPORT?

[tufsu1]

actually Lake, the first map implies that Port Citrus (which doesn't even exist) is the big port on the west coast of FL

[Ocklawaha]

Our need to act means to push hard for deepening the channel and expanding rail connectivity.  It is entirely conceivable that we could extend the channel to Talleyrand. As for us not being in the game, we already are in the game, Jacksonville still has some time to get to work on our Port infrastructure as the Panama Canal won't be completed until mid 2015.

I don't think you realize how close 2015 is.  If you want to be in position for something coming in two years, we should have secured the approval, funds, and started dredging already.  If you have not achieved any of these things and still have no clue how to come up with the $600 million to $1 billion in funding needed, you're not going to be ready in 2020, much less 2015.

 

Oh I realize it's very close, but I'm not too concerned with having the depth the moment the first ship slides through the canal.  In spite of all of the hype, this isn't a horse race, it really doesn't matter how fast we get there, so long as we are headed in the right direction.  BTW if the canal follows the usual Panama/Colombia build time, it won't be open in 2015, and 16 is doubtful. LOL. We simply need to focus like a laser beam to get'r done as soon as we can secure funding.

Also, where did the maps come from?  The third map doesn't even have Charleston, nothing illustrates Port Everglades,  and the first suggests Tampa is a post panamax port. Tampa isn't a post panamax port according to Anderson.  It appears, they've decided to focus on a niche market without worrying about dredging to 50' or wondering what to do with the Sunshine State Skyway.  Also, the second to last graphic indicates Houston is already dredging.  If you want to get access to the Midwest markets, why not Houston instead of going up the East Coast to JAXPORT?

Houston-Jacksonville-Savannah are all within the same time window, so if we're talking schedules directly from the Orient then they are pretty much the same. Houston has great railroad connections north to Dallas and KC but not so much toward Tennessee. We have two superior railroad lines 'Heavy signaled main lines' to Atlanta, Montgomery, Birmingham, Memphis, Chattanooga, Nashville etc. then either Savannah or Houston. New Orleans would beat us on the Memphis route and it would be about a 50/50 deal to Birmingham.

Hong Kong - Key West = speed 24.5 kn = 10,289 miles = 17.5 days transit time
Hong Kong - Tampa = speed 24.5 kn = 10,447 miles = 17.8 days transit time
Hong Kong - New Orleans = speed 24.5 kn = 10,638 miles = 18.1 days transit time
Hong Kong - Houston = speed 24.5 kn = 10,763 miles = 18.3 days transit time
Hong Kong - Jacksonville = speed 24.5 kn = 10,740 miles = 18.3 days transit time
Hong Kong - Savannah = speed 24.5 kn = 10,798 miles = 18.4 days transit time
Hong Kong - Wilmington = speed 24.5 kn = 10,844 miles = 18.4 days transit time


The point is, that small ship niche market is going the way of the coastal schooner, Junk, or tramp steamer.  The cost of operation and the economies of scale favor the Post-Panamax ships.

The one possible stumbling block with Tampa and Jacksonville are the bridges and the JEA Power Lines, both the Sunshine Skyway and the Dames Point have only 175' feet of clearance below. The 215 foot goal in New York Harbor seems to be something Florida might want to look at somewhere down the road. If a ship clears Balboa, Panama at low tide, it could have an air draft of 205 feet, normal air draft of Post Panamax Ships is 190 feet.

On the Bayonne Bridge in New York the roadbed will be raised to 215 feet, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey announced yesterday, nixing the costlier alternative of replacing the existing span.

The iconic bridge must be raised from its current clearance height of 151 feet by 2014, when an expanded Panama Canal will allow larger ships through on their way to East Coast ports.

Port Authority Deputy Executive Director Bill Baroni said the bi-state agency, which operates the bridge, estimates the cost of raising the roadbed will be between $1 billion and $1.3 billion. Replacing the bridge would cost about $4 billion, Baroni said.

The maps and some of the data comes from 'Colliers International - White Paper' 'NORTH AMERICAN PORT ANALYSIS AUG. 2012' http://www.colliers.com/en-US/US/~/media/Files/MarketResearch/UnitedStates/Colliers_PortReport_2012q2_final.ashx?
campaign=Colliers_Port_Analysis_NA_Aug-2012


Data: 'US Army Corps of Engineers'
'PORT AND INLAND WATERWAYS MODERNIZATION: PREPARING FOR POST-PANAMAX' VESSELShttp://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/docs/portswaterways/rpt/June_20_U.S._Port_and_Inland_Waterways_Preparing_for_Post_Panamax_Vessels.pdf


'Bureau of Economic and Business Research'
'INTERMODALISM, PANAMA CANAL EXPANSION, AND FLORIDA’S PORTS'
http://www.bebr.ufl.edu/articles/economic-analysis/intermodalism-panama-canal-expansion-and-florida-s-ports

JACKSONVILLE HAS SUPERIOR RAIL LINKS
Savannah-Atlanta Railroad Lines:




Jacksonville-Atlanta Railroad Lines:

[thelakelander]

Our need to act means to push hard for deepening the channel and expanding rail connectivity.  It is entirely conceivable that we could extend the channel to Talleyrand. As for us not being in the game, we already are in the game, Jacksonville still has some time to get to work on our Port infrastructure as the Panama Canal won't be completed until mid 2015.

I don't think you realize how close 2015 is.  If you want to be in position for something coming in two years, we should have secured the approval, funds, and started dredging already.  If you have not achieved any of these things and still have no clue how to come up with the $600 million to $1 billion in funding needed, you're not going to be ready in 2020, much less 2015.

 Oh I realize it's very close, but I'm not too concerned with having the depth the moment the first ship slides through the canal.  In spite of all of the hype, this isn't a horse race, it really doesn't matter how fast we get there, so long as we are headed in the right direction.  BTW if the canal follows the usual Panama/Colombia build time, it won't be open in 2015, and 16 is doubtful. LOL. We simply need to focus like a laser beam to get'r done as soon as we can secure funding.

It doesn't seem like this is a kiddie sporting event where scores aren't being taken and every participant gets an ice cream cone when its all said and done.  There's not enough money to go around for necessary improvements to all East Coast ports vying, so there will be winners and losers.  Right now, we're years behind the others and can't even maintain a functional board.

Also, post panamax ships aren't going to heading to every port that makes improvements to accommodate them.  This is going to end up a lot like the downtown revitalization races that saw cities investing in convention centers to big for their market, aquariums, and festival marketplaces.  You'll have some winners and some losers.  If our plan is to kick rocks for another 10 years, we lose.  However, that doesn't mean major economic gains can't be had elsewhere.

Also, where did the maps come from?  The third map doesn't even have Charleston, nothing illustrates Port Everglades,  and the first suggests Tampa is a post panamax port. Tampa isn't a post panamax port according to Anderson.  It appears, they've decided to focus on a niche market without worrying about dredging to 50' or wondering what to do with the Sunshine State Skyway.  Also, the second to last graphic indicates Houston is already dredging.  If you want to get access to the Midwest markets, why not Houston instead of going up the East Coast to JAXPORT?

Houston-Jacksonville-Savannah are all within the same time window, so if we're talking schedules directly from the Orient then they are pretty much the same. Houston has great railroad connections north to Dallas and KC but not so much toward Tennessee. We have two superior railroad lines 'Heavy signaled main lines' to Atlanta, Montgomery, Birmingham, Memphis, Chattanooga, Nashville etc. then either Savannah or Houston. New Orleans would beat us on the Memphis route and it would be about a 50/50 deal to Birmingham.

So in your opinion, there are at least two major ports, already light years ahead of us that basically offer the same advantages that we would if we had our act together.  Then, there's always the possibility that a chunk of goods will still be shipped by rail from the West Coast.

The point is, that small ship niche market is going the way of the coastal schooner, Junk, or tramp steamer.  The cost of operation and the economies of scale favor the Post-Panamax ships.

I haven't seen that point made and don't agree with it.  As long as there are parts of the world that have millions of people living in them that can't accommodate the biggest thing out there, there's still a need for trade. Also, the focus with Post Panamax has been on Asian trade. What about the other markets?  Is there opportunity for more trade in Europe, the Middle East and Caribbean, for example?  In addition, are there growth opportunities here for bulk and roll on/roll off?

The one possible stumbling block with Tampa and Jacksonville are the bridges and the JEA Power Lines, both the Sunshine Skyway and the Dames Point have only 175' feet of clearance below. The 215 foot goal in New York Harbor seems to be something Florida might want to look at somewhere down the road. If a ship clears Balboa, Panama at low tide, it could have an air draft of 205 feet, normal air draft of Post Panamax Ships is 190 feet.

On the Bayonne Bridge in New York the roadbed will be raised to 215 feet, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey announced yesterday, nixing the costlier alternative of replacing the existing span.

Only another reason why it makes sense to have a viable plan B that still leads to economic prosperity when this dream finally goes up in smoke locally. The State already gave Miami the money they needed for dredging, so at least one port in the state can accommodate them......IF they even come there, which remains to be seen at this point.  Tampa doesn't have a stumbling block because it appears they are not in the race for the post panamax.  They see economic gains to be made in other areas of trade and shipping. 

[cline]

There's not enough money to go around for necessary improvements to all East Coast ports vying, so there will be winners and losers.  Right now, we're years behind the others and can't even maintain a functional board.

This.  Getting post-panamax ships here is a pipe dream that we don't need to be chasing.  We're already late to the party.  And no, small ships aren't going away.  We can still make our port attractive for them.  We don't need to spend a billion dollars dredging and destroying what's left of our river for this.  It is not worth it.

[fsujax]

^^I actually tend to agree. I do wish we had more cruise options though.

[tufsu1]

^^I actually tend to agree. I do wish we had more cruise options though.

so spend money on a new cruise terminal instead of dredging....surely some cruise ships in Miami / Fort Lauderdale, Savnaah, and/or Tampa will be displaced by growing their port's freight business.

[Ocklawaha]

Lake your argument negates the value of containerization. Those smaller ports that serve smaller ships are going the way of the dodo bird. The container on moves to the nearest port that can handle Post Panamax on the railroad or highways.

The proposed Kenyan Lamu super port will be able to handle post-Panamax vessels because of its deep natural channel — 18 metres in depth— and will be the largest port on the continent, serving as a trans-African port.

It will serve Kenya, the East African Community, Southern Sudan, Ethiopia, the Central Africa Republic, DR Congo, Congo-Brazzaville and Chad. It's not that the republic's of east central Africa don't have ports, Ethiopia, Congo, Democratic Republic Congo etc. have their own ports. But Kenya will serve them from the new Lamu super port.

The 'also ran' ports that do not or cannot handle Post Panamax represent that ever increasing investment for a ever decreasing return.  A Post Panamax ship at only 51% utilization has the same cost per TEU as a current ship has at 81% utilization (UNC data).  It's going to get harder and harder to find investors willing to flush their money at pre-Panamax ships and terminals.  Panamax to a large extent is the death knell of the current freighter fleet.

You will see and we have already seen a huge investment in rail and highway improvements which allow these super ports to serve a much greater area. Current US plans include 11 ports for conversion and Jacksonville is one of them. The ship change will not be overnight which buys us another 15 years M/L.