Dredging Jaxport? 9 Points You Should Consider

5. Dredging and Jobs.

Jaxport and other proponents of port expansion and dredging/deepening have repeatedly emphasized jobs and job creation as a primary benefit of the port. As noted above this is not a factor included in the technical analysis conducted by the Army Corp in recommending, and approving, the deepening of the St Johns River to 45 and 47 feet, respectively. However, the report does make reference to “Regional Economic Benefits” but this topic consumes a meager one page of a 338 page report. On this single page the all-important matter of jobs is addressed. This is the only place in the entire report that makes reference to what Jaxport officials claim is the best reason to support the port expansion project.

The report states the following: “The increased traffic with deepening at JAXPORT is expected to provide RED benefits as follows: Create 22,748 for the 45 foot NED plan or 34,508 for the 47 foot LPP new private sector port jobs in Jacksonville”

As noted, these numbers are not based on an independent analysis conducted by the Army Corp. Rather the Army Corp relies on numbers produced by Martin Associates, a port consulting firm hired by Jaxport. More specifically, these numbers are taken from a table included in a Powerpoint presentation to Jaxport by Martin Associates. As stated and presented above, these figures are a gross misrepresentation of the data included in the tables. They would suggest that the deepening to 45 feet will generate 22,748 new private sector port jobs while the deepening to 47 feet will generate 34,508 new private sector port jobs. But, in fact, the accurate figures based on the Martin Associates data are 841 and 5587, respectively. This colossal discrepancy between the reported and actual numbers is due to either inexcusable unprofessional carelessness or deliberate deception.

Further, the Army Corp use estimates for 2035 rather than 2020. Obviously, the shorter time frame would represent a more credible estimate than the highly uncertain 22-year projection. Again, the only possible explanation is that the 2035 figures would communicate a more significant, though highly exaggerated, employment gain designed to convince the public of the wisdom of the project.

Finally, the job numbers provided by Martin Associates that are cited in the Army Corp report have not been subjected to any peer review or independent assessment as to their validity. As it turns out, there is no information available on the procedures used by Martin Associates that would allow one to evaluate the economic impact methodology. Therefore, even the “corrected” figures of 841 and 5587 jobs could be highly questionable or based on questionable assumptions. But thus far no one has seen any report providing the techniques used to derive these estimates. Again, under such conditions, why would the Army Corp accept these figures and include them in a section under Regional Economic Benefits?

6. Jaxport and Jobs.

As it turns out, the pattern of misrepresentation on the economic impact of the port has been an ongoing practice by both Jaxport, and those promoting port expansions. Ever since Martin Associates completed an economic impact study in 2009, port proponents have claimed that the port supports 65,000 jobs.

This number is not manufactured. It is, in fact, included in the economic impact study but it includes not just direct jobs, induced jobs, and indirect jobs but also what are called “related jobs”.

The related jobs should not be included and the Martin Associates study even includes the following admonition: “It is to be further emphasized that when the impact models are used for planning purposes, related jobs should not be used to measure the economic benefits of a particular project. Related jobs are not estimated with the same degree of defensibility as direct, induced and indirect jobs. Therefore, only these three types of job impacts should be used in evaluating port investments.”

But Jaxport has consistently included the related jobs in its claims about the economic impact of the port, as have others who champion the port such as the Mayor of Jacksonville. One reason Jaxport has probably been reluctant to remove related jobs is that they account for wholly 66% or 42,647 of the 65,000 total. The number that should have been used is 22,353. (Again, I hesitate to label this the “correct” figure because there is good reason to believe that these job numbers, as calculated by Martin Associates are based on assumptions that may inflate their level).