Author Topic: JAXPORT: The Numbers Aren't What You Think They Are!  (Read 6478 times)

Metro Jacksonville

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2644
    • MetroJacksonville.com
JAXPORT: The Numbers Aren't What You Think They Are!
« on: July 18, 2013, 03:11:05 AM »
JAXPORT: The Numbers Aren't What You Think They Are!



A report by The Northeast Florida Center for Community Initiatives at University of North Florida's Department of Sociology and Anthropology suggests economic and job creation numbers at JAXPORT may be misleading to the general public.  Here is a snippet from that report and link back to the full document.

Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-jul-jaxport-the-numbers-arent-what-you-think-they-are

Noone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4061
Re: JAXPORT: The Numbers Aren't What You Think They Are!
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2013, 03:53:41 AM »
Thanks MetroJax for the update and information.
Was on the water yesterday and noticed 7 barges rafted up north of Exchange Club Island. Up from the two or three that I've seen in the past. Just an observation.
Need to finish reading the report.
But right now I oppose the blasting and increasing the depth to 47'

mbwright

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: JAXPORT: The Numbers Aren't What You Think They Are!
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2013, 08:42:27 AM »
I think it is very good to know the actual break down.  What are the current Direct jobs, is this up or down from 2009? 
With regards to future port business and jobs, is there any reason why a shipping company would choose Jacksonville over any of the other ports?  Even if we did go to 47' depth at great expense? 

JayBird

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1045
  • Back in home state - After living in Jax 10 years
Re: JAXPORT: The Numbers Aren't What You Think They Are!
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2013, 10:02:54 AM »
Quote
The recent experience of Savannah is instructive as it is further along than JAXPORT in the effort to dredge and deepen its channel to accommodate the large container vessels. Like Jacksonville, Savannah has a channel that is too shallow at 42 feet and thus is working through the process with the Army Corp of Engineers to have the Savannah River dredged to 50 feet. It is worth noting that this relatively shallow depth has not prevented Savannah from being the fastest growing port in the U.S. over the past decade and far surpassing Jaxport in total container throughput. This suggests that channel depth is not the only consideration when shippers and carriers make decisions about where to move their cargo, though some believe this factor will increase in importance.

The Corp has recently given preliminary approval for the Savannah project, but only up to 47 feet based on their cost-benefit calculations. In addition, as part of the review process, the Corp has conducted one of the only economic impact studies of the Savannah port. One of its conclusions is quite striking: “no additional cargo volume through Savannah Harbor as a result of the proposed harbor deepening”.

And to think I looked at Savannah as a role model for JaxPort. This is a great report for those that have the time to read it all. Definitely shows, in my opinion, that Mile Point project is way more vital and cost beneficial to the future of the port.
Proud supporter of the Jacksonville Jaguars.

"Whenever I’ve been at a decision point, and there was an easy way and a hard way, the hard way always turned out to be the right way." ~Shahid Khan

http://www.facebook.com/jerzbird http://www.twitter.com/JasonBird80

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32027
    • Modern Cities
Re: JAXPORT: The Numbers Aren't What You Think They Are!
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2013, 10:31:41 AM »
It is a great report.  It echos what I heard a few weeks ago from a consultant working with FEC and the Port of Miami.  Even if we don't end up dredging to 47 -50', there's still a ton of growth potential, as Savannah has clearly proven.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

Ocklawaha

  • Phd. Ferroequinology
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10438
  • Monster of Mobility! Ocklawaha is Robert Mann
    • LIGHT RAIL JACKSONVILLE
Re: JAXPORT: The Numbers Aren't What You Think They Are!
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2013, 10:10:02 PM »


This conclusion won't float. The larger ships with deeper draft are not calling on the ports in the southeast yet, so naturally there has been no traffic slump with the economies of larger ships taking their business elsewhere. We're not there yet, but the day is coming.




This may well be true of Jaxport too, the flip side of this is without the ability to handle the worlds new surface fleet there will eventually be NO CARGO VOLUME moving through either port. Deepen or die, it's as simple as that.

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32027
    • Modern Cities
Re: JAXPORT: The Numbers Aren't What You Think They Are!
« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2013, 08:06:42 AM »
So you don't think we'd see any growth if we don't figure out how to dredge down to 48'-50'?  In your mind, is this just Jax specific or do you think all ports that don't get that deep for a certain component of shipping will die?

Also, you saw the same presentation I did at the North Florida TPO last month.  Sounds like you disagree with the opinion of the consultant for FEC.  He listed several reasons why Savannah has become the fastest growing East Coast port that had nothing to do with channel depth. What's your take on his opinion on Savannah and FEC's strategy with South Florida's ports?
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

Ocklawaha

  • Phd. Ferroequinology
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10438
  • Monster of Mobility! Ocklawaha is Robert Mann
    • LIGHT RAIL JACKSONVILLE
Re: JAXPORT: The Numbers Aren't What You Think They Are!
« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2013, 10:14:49 AM »
So you don't think we'd see any growth if we don't figure out how to dredge down to 48'-50'?  In your mind, is this just Jax specific or do you think all ports that don't get that deep for a certain component of shipping will die?

Let's start by making it clear we are talking about port related growth. I believe that Jaxport and any other port that fails to keep up with the industries choice of vessels will ultimately go the route of St. Augustine. The smaller ships currently calling at Jaxport will be bumped to secondary services, with fewer and fewer vessels in each passing year. Eventually these ships will join the galeón cargo vessels in the scrapheap of eternity.

Quote
Also, you saw the same presentation I did at the North Florida TPO last month.  Sounds like you disagree with the opinion of the consultant for FEC.  He listed several reasons why Savannah has become the fastest growing East Coast port that had nothing to do with channel depth. What's your take on his opinion on Savannah and FEC's strategy with South Florida's ports?

No disagreement at all, in fact we chatted this up to some length at the end of the presentation and he agrees with me that the industry is undergoing another (sail to steam?) historic change. The value added concept worked great for Savannah, but it too will stall and eventually began to sink if they don't open the door for the larger ships that will be taking over. The reinvention of Miami by the FEC RY is going to make it tough for any more northernly east coast port, but in this respect we are in a better location the many others to offer something unique. We've got the superior rail connections west and northwest, connections no other Florida port can have and Savannah doesn't have.

The new Post Panamax ships will likely continue to call on several ports to load or off-load, but again, like railroads before them, that too is likely to slowly  be consolidated into fewer, larger, mega-terminals. We either are one, or we are not, but we need to understand by saying no, we are standing on the beach waiting to sight that last galeón as she sails up a river too shallow, and under a bridge and power lines too low.

Note my use of 'slowly' and 'eventually,' this is why I'm not in sync with having to have 50' the day the canal opens, we've got time, 10-30 years certainly, 50-100 doubtful, beyond that NOT A CHANCE. This is evolutionary so putting dates on it is silly for those on either side of the argument.

If_I_Loved_you

  • Guest
Re: JAXPORT: The Numbers Aren't What You Think They Are!
« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2013, 01:02:14 PM »
Lets look at this another way? The Port of Long Beach CA is right on the Pacific Ocean with a 76-foot-deep channel to handle a new generation of large vessels. And the Naval Station Mayport is right on the Atlantic Ocean. With all the budget cuts and the fact we may never get the Nuclear Aircraft Carrier we were once promised? If the U.S. Government turned N.S.M. back to the people of Florida. We would then have a new easier way to deepen the St Johns River at it's mouth into the old Naval Station Mayport so the Monster new Post Panamax ships could dock. And not have to deepen the St Johns river all the way to Blount Island and beyond? Sure Heckscher Drive would have to be made into a Major roadway with four to six lanes to move the truck traffic coming and going into the New Port and back out to I-295. A bridge or tunnel would also have to be built to get the truck traffic from Mayport over to Heckecher Drive. The area would change but we would have another port in which those "New Post Panamax Ships" could call Jacksonville home.

JayBird

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1045
  • Back in home state - After living in Jax 10 years
Re: JAXPORT: The Numbers Aren't What You Think They Are!
« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2013, 01:35:55 PM »
I disagree, as much as VA wants to hold onto aircraft carriers based in the Atlantic, they simply won't. Right now there is construction on the pier at Mayport to accommodate a nuclear capable carrier. No matter how much money lobbyists throw at VA, it comes down to simple logic. An enemy can detonate a ship in the Chesapeake Bay or the Bay Bridge Tunnel and trap every ship in port. CT cannot handle a carrier, opening up the reserve base in Brooklyn has deemed not fiscally beneficial, rightfully. And talk of basing major operations out PR have gone no where. A new command operation for these new Littoral class ships, basically a computerized ship with only about 90 crew has been established here.  in addition to a new, smaller than Predator drone that has been being tested out of JAXNAS, I would say Mayport has a long future ahead for the US Navy. JaxPort would cease to exist before the Navy IMO.  And for budget needs, they can close several smaller ports in New England for greater savings. Mayport plays a very large role in the US Navy around the world.
Proud supporter of the Jacksonville Jaguars.

"Whenever I’ve been at a decision point, and there was an easy way and a hard way, the hard way always turned out to be the right way." ~Shahid Khan

http://www.facebook.com/jerzbird http://www.twitter.com/JasonBird80

Ocklawaha

  • Phd. Ferroequinology
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10438
  • Monster of Mobility! Ocklawaha is Robert Mann
    • LIGHT RAIL JACKSONVILLE
Re: JAXPORT: The Numbers Aren't What You Think They Are!
« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2013, 01:42:04 PM »
Same thing could be accomplished running a 7 mile rail spur out along the north side of Hecksher and creating a container terminal between Atlantic Shipyards and the Ferry Landing. Yes it takes out 20 or so houses, but it might be the lowest price answer without more extensive damage to the river.

If_I_Loved_you

  • Guest
Re: JAXPORT: The Numbers Aren't What You Think They Are!
« Reply #11 on: July 19, 2013, 02:06:42 PM »
Same thing could be accomplished running a 7 mile rail spur out along the north side of Hecksher and creating a container terminal between Atlantic Shipyards and the Ferry Landing. Yes it takes out 20 or so houses, but it might be the lowest price answer without more extensive damage to the river.
Good Idea!

If_I_Loved_you

  • Guest
Re: JAXPORT: The Numbers Aren't What You Think They Are!
« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2013, 08:44:02 PM »

Maersk Give Details of Emma Maersk Incident
Monday July 15, 2013

Maersk Line's 15,500 twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) capacity containership Emma Maersk will return to service on the Asia-Europe route on July 18, five months after being damaged in an accident, Seatrade Global reports.

The newest edition of Maersk Line's Maersk Post magazine offers details of the February incident, in which a propeller tore loose from the ship, making a hole in the hull.

"Alarms were ringing all around us," said the vessel's chief engineer, Michael Sort.

"There was a large hole and water was pouring in.

"We could not stop it, but we went in, reached into the water and opened the suction valves for the pumping system.


    Alarms were ringing all around us

Michael Sort, Chief Engineer, Emma Maersk


The water eventually rose to a height of 16 metres, half filling the engine room, but, with the help of a sudden change in the wind direction, Captain Marius Gardastuvo and his crew manoeuvred the ship into the Suez Canal Container Terminal (SCCT).

The hole in the ship was repaired at SCCT, and Emma Maersk was then towed to Fincantieri's Pallermo yard, where the ship was fully repaired and trials were carried out.  http://shipandbunker.com/news/world/588080-maersk-give-details-of-emma-maersk-incident

And in other news on this same website:

Aft Part of MOL Comfort Sinks with 1,500 Metric Tonnes of Fuel Oil Onboard
Thursday June 27th 2013

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. (MOL) says the aft part of the containership MOL Comfort sank today in the open sea at 16:48 JST, 11:48 Dubai time, near 14'26"N 66'26"E at a water depth of about 4,000m.

About 1,500 metric tonnes of fuel oil was estimated to be aboard in the tanks of the aft part, but no large volume of oil leakage is confirmed at this moment.

MOL said that approximately 1,700 containers aboard the aft part sank with the vessel section, some of which are confirmed floating near the site.

MOL added that patrol boats it has in the area are monitoring the situation, checking for oil leakage and floating containers.

The fore part of the vessel is being "stably towed" toward the Arabian Gulf.

MOL Comfort broke into two parts last week after it suffered a crack amidships during inclement weather around 200 nautical miles off the coast of Yemen.  http://shipandbunker.com/news/world/729684-aft-part-of-mol-comfort-sinks-with-1500-metric-tonnes-of-fuel-oil-onboard

My point for showing these two stories is just because we can build these Container Ships bigger don't bet your life they are going to be safer?  Here is more info on the MOL Comfort http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOL_Comfort

If_I_Loved_you

  • Guest
Re: JAXPORT: The Numbers Aren't What You Think They Are!
« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2013, 10:03:42 PM »
Policy Initiative Spotlight: Teddy’s Big Ditch Grows Deeper

by Steven J. Markovich
March 11, 2013

This summer, a billion-dollar project will begin to raise the road deck of the Bayonne Bridge that links Staten Island to Jersey City, and provides access to Manhattan via the Holland Tunnel. The project is not being undertaken because of safety concerns about the current bridge, but rather to allow larger container ships to pass underneath it and reach the Port of New York and New Jersey. It’s just one of several port projects in anticipation of the widening of the Panama Canal.

By early 2015, the Panama Canal is scheduled to complete a $5.25 billion expansion project that began in 2007 to widen and deepen existing navigational channels to allow larger ships to traverse the isthmus, and construct new sets of locks to increase capacity.

The scale of global trade has increased remarkably since Theodore Roosevelt championed the U.S. effort to build the canal. From 1915 to 2012, tonnage to cross the 48-mile link increased from 5 million to 334 million. Today, the largest ships that can cross the isthmus are the so-called panamax vessels that can carry 4,500 shipping containers. The expansion project—the largest undertaken since the canal opened in 1914—will allow post-panamax vessels carrying nearly three times that cargo to make that journey.

It’s an important development for global commerce. Post-panamax ships have lower shipping costs; per container costs are more than 50 percent less than a panamax ship. While post-panamax vessels account for only 16 percent of the global container fleet, they already carry 45 percent of cargo, with those shares projected to respectively grow to 27 and 62 percent by 2013.

Analysts say the canal’s expansion will be a particular boon to the shipment of liquefied natural gas (LNG). LNG tankers are too large to pass through today’s Panama Canal. With the Sabine Pass LNG export terminal expected to open in Louisiana in 2015, and other terminals proposed, the expansion project is well-timed to aid the flow of natural gas from shale fields in the United States to Asian energy markets where the price for this resource is several times higher. Some experts estimate the canal expansion could reduce shipping costs on this route by $1 per million BTU.

CFR Senior Fellow Michael Levi explained the benefits of a wider Panama Canal to LNG trade in a study published last year with the Brooking Institution’s Hamilton Project: “LNG tankers departing the Gulf of Mexico or the East Coast of the United States currently need to travel all the way around South America to reach Asia, adding considerable cost to their trips and eroding potential gains from trade.”

The project has also prompted intranational competition. Los Angeles/Long Beach (LA/LB) is the nation’s largest port, handling 40 percent of U.S. cargo traffic. But with the canal expansion, eastern ports could potentially take up to a quarter of LA/LB’s business, so the port authority has planned $6 billion of upgrades, part of the $46 billion in upgrades to U.S. ports funded by public or private sources over the next five years.

Today, just four U.S. ports are ready for post-panamax ships: Norfolk in the east and LA/LB, Oakland, and Seattle in the west. Colliers predicts another four will be post-panamax ready by 2015: Baltimore, New York, Miami, and Houston. The infrastructure investments at these ports and others such as Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans, range from dredging waterways and adding cranes, to preparing intermodal support networks, including railways modifications for the increased height of double stacked containers.

The raising of the Bayonne Bridge is one of seven port projects the Obama administration announced it would help expedite last summer, the first set of more than 40 infrastructure projects to be fast-tracked for review by executive order. The president said the “commitment to move these port projects forward faster will help drive job growth and strengthen the economy.”

Still, Robert Puentes, a transportation expert at the Brookings Institution stressed the need for greater federal leadership on this issue, perhaps in developing a comprehensive freight policy like many other nations. “I can’t see the federal government picking winners and losers” he said in a New York Times interview, but “they could provide a little more guidance — where right now they are providing none.” http://blogs.cfr.org/renewing-america/2013/03/11/policy-initiative-spotlight-teddys-big-ditch-grows-deeper/

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32027
    • Modern Cities
Re: JAXPORT: The Numbers Aren't What You Think They Are!
« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2013, 08:48:31 AM »
Hmmm, I wasn't aware that Baltimore and Houston were also ahead of Jax in this post panamax race....
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali