Dredging Jaxport? 9 Points You Should Consider

[Metro Jacksonville]

Dredging Jaxport? 9 Points You Should Consider



As the debate over port deepening continues Professor David Jaffee, Ph.D, offers 9 points for Jacksonville taxpayers to consider before supporting this billion dollar initiative for Jaxport.

Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-feb-dredging-jaxport-9-points-you-should-consider-

[vicupstate]

But, in fact, the accurate figures based on the Martin Associates data are 841 and 5587, respectively.

Is this the number of jobs created for 2020 (as opposed to 2035)?

Very interesting and compelling read. I'd like to see JAXPORT's response.  I fear that the article above is the more accurate version of reality, as it fits the mold of 'expenses to the taxpayers, profits to private business' that is so common, it seems. 

Imagine what $700mm could do if spent differently for infrastructure, and economic development.

[PeeJayEss]

Sadly, it doesn't make a difference.
Brown is for it, Jaxport is for it, Scott is for it, Obama is for it. There's no stopping this train of bad governance.

[NaldoAveKnight]

It's better than what's going on in Miami.  Throw in the ridiculous All Aboard Florida folks who want to ship all the containers up the east coast of Florida, with track improvements paid for by the tax payers in the name of passenger traffic from Miami to Orlando.  Nobody is going to take a train from Miami to Orlando, that's absurd.  Jax is much better positioned from a logistical standpoint of moving the containers out on trains and trucks to the rest of the country through I-10 and I-95.  The train network coming out of Jax is extensive and covers all of the states east of the Mississippi.

Basically it boils down to this, if the dredging doesn't happen in Jax it will happen in Miami and then we will have hundreds of long trains per week rolling through the heart of Jax, stopping traffic, blasting their horns at all hours, and not adding anything to the community.  While the overall benefit of more port jobs is dubious considering the huge cost of the dredging project, the alternative is not appealing.

[tufsu1]

Sadly, it doesn't make a difference.
Brown is for it, Jaxport is for it, Scott is for it, Obama is for it. There's no stopping this train of bad governance.

Actually, the President did not include the dredging in his proposed budget.  And there is still the small issue of securing hundreds of millions of local dollars.  Unless Gov. Scott plans on paying for the local share with state dollars, this is far from a done deal.

[tufsu1]

Nobody is going to take a train from Miami to Orlando, that's absurd. 

really?  Have you seen the ridership projections done for any of the rail proposals in Florida over the last 25 years.  The Miami-Orlando leg is the sweet spot for ridership and revenue.

[djaffee]

I would like to add a couple qualifiers to the piece above that was written in the Summer of 2013. While most of the points remain fully applicable to the present situation, there are a couple of revisions I would make.

First, the U.S. Army Corps report I refer to in #5 was the first draft of the report. The final draft removed any mention of job projections as a result of the deepening project.   

Second, in #6 the 65,000 job number used by Jaxport and other officials has been recently increased to 132,599 based on, again, adding the “related jobs” category that now accounts for 82% of the total number of jobs.  The same problem identified with this practice for the 65,000 jobs has now become more severe and misleading.

But most important, let me invite all interested citizens to attend a town hall meeting on the dredging to be held Monday, March 9th at the Adam Herbert University Center at UNF from 6-9 pm. 

The forum will be modeled after a genuine town hall meeting. The format will be an “open mike” for members of the public attending to express their views and/or ask questions of those in attendance who represent different perspectives on the project.  These representatives will not make formal presentations but will be available to respond to questions and concerns. We will have a moderator.

Representatives from the following organizations and stakeholders have been invited to attend: Jaxport, the Mayor’s Port Task Force, the Jax Chamber, the Army Corps of Engineers, The Sierra Club, Tra-Pac, the Mayor’s Office and any other organizations/businesses that can contribute to an informed public on this important policy matter.  Representatives from the co-sponsoring organizations will also be present.

The town hall forum will be co-sponsored by The Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work, UNF; The Ports Project, UNF; The Riverkeeper, and the Northeast Florida Center for Community Initiatives, UNF.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-02-17/story/unf-hosts-mar-9-town-hall-meeting-st-johns-river-dredging-proposal?utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JacksonvillecomsNewsSportsAndEntertainment+%28Jacksonville%27s+Most+Recent+Headlines+-+Jacksonville.com+and+The+Florida+Times-Union%29&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner

David Jaffee

[NaldoAveKnight]

Nobody is going to take a train from Miami to Orlando, that's absurd. 

really?  Have you seen the ridership projections done for any of the rail proposals in Florida over the last 25 years.  The Miami-Orlando leg is the sweet spot for ridership and revenue.

It makes perfect sense to pay over $100 for a ticket, drive to the train station, wait for the train to leave, get transported to a station that is far away from your destination, take a bus to a stop that is closer to the ultimate destination, walk the final leg of the journey.  Heaven forbid there's luggage involved.  Or just spend $20 on gas for an entire carload of passengers and arrive where you want and when you want.

Oh I forgot...it's the SWEET SPOT!
 

[tufsu1]

^ oh but it isn't $20.  The full cost of operating a car is over $0.50 per mile.  So the trip by car would cost more than $100 each way.

What makes the train trip any different than flying?  There will be access to local transit as well as car rental agencies at the stations. 

[Redbaron616]

One thing is not going to happen regardless of whether the river gets dredged or not. American manufacturing is not going to make a comeback. I read a story recently about a company that wanted to make something here. They couldn't find a "parts" manufacturer that would make small batches at a time. They would have to commit to a lot more production in advance then they were comfortable with. In China, there are lots of small manufacturers that will do smaller batch jobs with no problem. So-called Free Trade has eroded our manufacturing base and once it is gone, it isn't likely to ever come back. All those stories about American manufacturing coming back are mostly anecdotal. For everyone coming back, two are leaving. Beware of when both parties endorse something like Free Trade because you know for sure that the country has been sold down the river.

[riverkeepered]

Basically it boils down to this, if the dredging doesn't happen in Jax it will happen in Miami

Dredging in Miami is already underway and they are doing a fine job of destroying the coral reefs in Biscayne Bay.  http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2014/10/miami_deep_dredge_environmentalists_win_battle_but_not_war_as_blasting_cont.php

Miami is also going to 50 feet, the depth many analysts have said is one of the criteria of being a post-Panamax ready port.

Savannah is set to start dredging and has already received a commitment of funding from the Georgia legislature.  Savannah is already the fastest growing port in the country, currently move three times as much cargo as Jax, and they were included in the President's budget.  Charleston is going to 52 feet and is also in the budget.

The bottom line is that Miami is funded and the dredging is already underway.  The other major East Coast ports are also better positioned and much farther ahead of Jax in the process, too.   

We might want to start giving serious consideration to Plan B. 

[thelakelander]

^I believe we should have been seriously considering a Plan B years ago.

[wsansewjs]

I must question the quote in the main article:

If consumer goods were actually produced in the United States, the ports would be far less important.

You mean...

If consumer goods were actually produced in the United States, the ports would be far MORE important to export.

-Josh

[PeeJayEss]

I must question the quote in the main article:

If consumer goods were actually produced in the United States, the ports would be far less important.

You mean...

If consumer goods were actually produced in the United States, the ports would be far MORE important to export.

-Josh

We import more goods than we export. If consumer goods that we get from Asia (textiles, electronics, shitty plastic things) were manufactured in the US, ports would be less important. We would simply stop importing those things, we wouldn't start exporting cheap manufactured goods all over the world. Of course, we wouldn't just up and start producing those goods, they are still cheaper to have them made in Asia (cheap labor) and then shipped to the US. If we weren't subsidizing port infrastructure, it might not be so cheap to import those goods. I believe that is the main point of what you quoted. Of course, it is also very simplistic as the system we have is not exactly free-trade, so we have barriers in place for shipping (tariffs, Jones Act, etc) at the same time as we are subsidizing this infrastructure.

[xplanner]

Good to see a reasoned, intellectual analysis that recognizes facts which have been overwhelmed by the PR blitz. And let's not forget, while we merrily spend tax dollars to subsidize foreign shipping, that the real industry metric used to decide how much port business you  get is container movements. How many containers can you offload an hour and how quickly can we have that ship back underway? That's the real number we need to look at, and it is driven by cross the dock infrastructure and labor efficiencies, not channel depth at all.