Downtown Riverfront - Mill Ruins Park - Waterworks

Downtown - North Loop - Mill District - Elliot Park - Loring Park
acs
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1375
Joined: March 26th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Postby acs » June 10th, 2015, 9:19 am

So tell me, if this is really about the lowest cost way to keep the carp out, then why did the DNR already spend $16 million to retrofit the Coon Rapids Dam specifically to keep the carp out?

http://www.startribune.com/coon-rapids- ... 200542641/

Again, i'm not necessarily opposed to cutting off navigation at the falls. The economic argument for closing the locks is a far more reasonable one that should have been at the forefront of the debate. All those that are in favor better not complain when there's more industrial development along the river in St. Paul and Savage (west side flats I'm looking at you: http://finance-commerce.com/2015/06/for ... -for-2-9m/). That's the price we will have to pay so the park board can expand their already broke empire. Oh, and the city most definitely fought for this, Wagenius admits as much in the original article.

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1099
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am
Location: Sommerset Knolls

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Postby mplsjaromir » June 10th, 2015, 9:50 am

Congress is unpredictable, it was rather stunning that the law passed as quickly as it did. The DNR wasn't going to the Upper Mississippi's ecological balance in the hands of Congress.

I don't see the Park Board as simultaneously a cunning body that can impose its will on national politicians and as a body that can't handle a municipal park system.

Viktor Vaughn
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 607
Joined: July 10th, 2012, 6:37 pm

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Postby Viktor Vaughn » June 10th, 2015, 9:55 am

acs wrote:So tell me, if this is really about the lowest cost way to keep the carp out, then why did the DNR already spend $16 million to retrofit the Coon Rapids Dam specifically to keep the carp out?

http://www.startribune.com/coon-rapids- ... 200542641/

Again, i'm not necessarily opposed to cutting off navigation at the falls. The economic argument for closing the locks is a far more reasonable one that should have been at the forefront of the debate. All those that are in favor better not complain when there's more industrial development along the river in St. Paul and Savage (west side flats I'm looking at you: http://finance-commerce.com/2015/06/for ... -for-2-9m/). That's the price we will have to pay so the park board can expand their already broke empire. Oh, and the city most definitely fought for this, Wagenius admits as much in the original article.
Redundancy. There's no guarantee either of these barriers will work.

The city fought for this, but Wagenius is just not going to be able to move our dysfunctional
Congress to action under some nefarious plot to expand Mpls park land.

gpete
Union Depot
Posts: 334
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 9:33 am
Location: Seward, Mpls

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Postby gpete » June 10th, 2015, 10:00 am

Surprised nobody has speculated about the Consortium's involvement in this yet.

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3785
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Postby Wedgeguy » June 10th, 2015, 10:52 am

gpete wrote:Surprised nobody has speculated about the Consortium's involvement in this yet.
YEs, the consortium as all of Congresses ears you know. Especially those right wingers at one of their prayer meetings.

User avatar
Anondson
Capella Tower
Posts: 3643
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Postby Anondson » June 10th, 2015, 11:35 am

So. When do the Lower St. Anthony locks get closed. Are they even still operational?

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5649
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Postby MNdible » June 10th, 2015, 1:23 pm

Yes, bizarrely the lower locks are still operational and there's no current plans to change that. Since there's no industrial users between St. Paul and the lower locks, we'll be spending millions of dollars keeping these locks operational for pleasure cruises.

gpete
Union Depot
Posts: 334
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 9:33 am
Location: Seward, Mpls

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Postby gpete » June 10th, 2015, 1:58 pm

Yeah, Lower St Anthony and Lock and Dam 1 (Ford Dam) will both still be operating...

HuskyGrad
Landmark Center
Posts: 257
Joined: May 13th, 2013, 8:11 pm

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Postby HuskyGrad » June 10th, 2015, 2:08 pm

MNdible wrote:Yes, bizarrely the lower locks are still operational and there's no current plans to change that. Since there's no industrial users between St. Paul and the lower locks, we'll be spending millions of dollars keeping these locks operational for pleasure cruises.
I would presume they're operational still for the barges being used on the bridge projects upstream.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5649
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Postby MNdible » June 10th, 2015, 2:25 pm

That would make sense, but then you'd think they would just come out and say that.

Gman12
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 119
Joined: May 16th, 2013, 12:35 pm
Location: Capital of the North

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Postby Gman12 » June 10th, 2015, 3:09 pm

It seems like if you close one, you would close the other since they are right next to each other. There is no place to go in between them.

diddy
Block E
Posts: 4
Joined: March 27th, 2015, 2:27 pm

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Postby diddy » June 10th, 2015, 3:51 pm

There is basically NO portage option around Ford Dam since the river runs through the gorge at that point. I'm glad that Lock and Dam #1 will remain open and it's imperative that it remains so. Again, from a paddling perspective, it will be nice to have the Lower SAF lock remain open to cut the portage down once there's a put-in spot below the Upper SAF Lock. As it stands the portage is just over 1.5 miles long. With the Lower SAF Lock open, tour boats will also still be able to have views of the St. Anthony Falls. I haven't taken a hard look at the cost-benefit of keeping it open for these purposes, but there are definitely good reasons to keep it open.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5649
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Postby MNdible » June 10th, 2015, 4:28 pm

Wouldn't the road that runs parallel to and services the Ford Lock and Dam work as a serviceable portage (with perhaps some minor improvements that would be much cheaper than keeping the locks operational)?

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7721
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Postby mattaudio » June 11th, 2015, 11:45 am

Does this affect future express ferry service between DT St. Paul and DT Minneapolis? ;)

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4729
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Postby David Greene » June 11th, 2015, 9:52 pm

What are folks' thoughts on removing the lock? It would take another act of Congress I guess. How likely is that? Does the Corps of Engineers really want to keep spending money on it?

If it is removed, we should restore the Stone Arch Bridge. Does anyone know if the original stone blocks were saved after being removed for the truss section? Stored in a warehouse somewhere, perhaps? Not likely but one can hope.

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 3618
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: The Gateway

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Postby Silophant » June 11th, 2015, 10:26 pm

I generally don't support removing infrastructure that would be nearly impossible to get back if we eventually wanted to. We might not currently think that there will ever again be a time when a navigable upper Mississippi is more important than an uninfested upper Mississippi, but if we wanted to in the future, a long-decommissioned, decaying lock would be way easier to put back into service than a totally removed one.

That being said, if it was done as part of a project to rebuild the dam in such a way that we had an actual waterfall again, instead of a waterslope, I would wholeheartedly support it.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4592
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Postby FISHMANPET » June 11th, 2015, 10:35 pm

History isn't just stuff that happened before 1900. As beautiful and unique as the bridge is, I think part of it's charm is that those aren't the reasons it was built. It was built as an active rail bridge. There have been multiple modifications made to it over its history to make sure it could continue to serve that purpose, up to and including removing two arches to allow ships to pass through.

The bridge and the locks were tools of commerce (well, the locks maybe not so much, but at least that was the intention!), and they're certainly a part of the area's history.

History isn't just some imagined faux-victorian ideal. It's the stuff that happened, from the beginning of time to now and continuing until the end of the time. The good, the bad, it's all history.

And besides, I actually enjoy the industrial juxtaposition of the steel truss with the arches.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4729
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Postby David Greene » June 11th, 2015, 11:21 pm

I'm not so much concerned about preserving history from 1900. I just think the truss and mismatched stone/concrete is god-awful. I see your point about seeing something as it's evolved (one of the reasons I love the Mill City Museum, in fact). However, in this case aesthetics cry out to me to restore the graceful arches.

I would not, by the way, be in favor of restoring the two concrete-lined arches that collapsed due to flooding. The reinforcement looks good enough and there's value in preserving the history of that event.

How realistic is it that we'll ever use the lock again, given that it doesn't allow navigation that much farther upriver? I mean, if society collapses and we're transporting people and goods primarily by water again, we're not going to be able to fix a decrepit lock anyway. And if society doesn't collapse, road or rail is more flexible. If we're spending a significant amount of money maintaining the lock, there's a crossover point at some time where paying to remove it now is cheaper than maintaining it.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4729
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Postby David Greene » June 11th, 2015, 11:27 pm

Silophant wrote:That being said, if it was done as part of a project to rebuild the dam in such a way that we had an actual waterfall again, instead of a waterslope, I would wholeheartedly support it.
I've often thought about that. How would we make an actual waterfall again? The apron is there because the falls had moved upriver far enough that it was about to become rapids. To maintain the falls you'd have to put material all the way down through the sandstone to harder rock. Would concrete even hold up to that much water power? Remember, we're talking about hundreds and, if we're lucky, thousands of years of water continuously slamming into whatever material we use.

It would be nice to restore Spirit Island as well.

Online
seanrichardryan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3871
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Contact:

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Postby seanrichardryan » June 11th, 2015, 11:30 pm

Spirit was quarried to nothing and the falls collapsed. All you'd get is tumbling rapids. Now the smaller falls on the otherside of Hennepin Island, those could work. Just as Xcel energy to get their station out of the way.
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.


Return to “Minneapolis - Downtown”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest