Page 6 of 13

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Posted: June 10th, 2015, 9:19 am
by acs
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.

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Posted: June 10th, 2015, 9:50 am
by mplsjaromir
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.

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Posted: June 10th, 2015, 9:55 am
by Viktor Vaughn
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.

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Posted: June 10th, 2015, 10:00 am
by gpete
Surprised nobody has speculated about the Consortium's involvement in this yet.

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Posted: June 10th, 2015, 10:52 am
by Wedgeguy
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.

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Posted: June 10th, 2015, 11:35 am
by Anondson
So. When do the Lower St. Anthony locks get closed. Are they even still operational?

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Posted: June 10th, 2015, 1:23 pm
by MNdible
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.

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Posted: June 10th, 2015, 1:58 pm
by gpete
Yeah, Lower St Anthony and Lock and Dam 1 (Ford Dam) will both still be operating...

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Posted: June 10th, 2015, 2:08 pm
by HuskyGrad
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.

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Posted: June 10th, 2015, 2:25 pm
by MNdible
That would make sense, but then you'd think they would just come out and say that.

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Posted: June 10th, 2015, 3:09 pm
by Gman12
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.

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Posted: June 10th, 2015, 3:51 pm
by diddy
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.

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Posted: June 10th, 2015, 4:28 pm
by MNdible
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)?

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Posted: June 11th, 2015, 11:45 am
by mattaudio
Does this affect future express ferry service between DT St. Paul and DT Minneapolis? ;)

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Posted: June 11th, 2015, 9:52 pm
by David Greene
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.

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Posted: June 11th, 2015, 10:26 pm
by Silophant
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.

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Posted: June 11th, 2015, 10:35 pm
by FISHMANPET
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.

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Posted: June 11th, 2015, 11:21 pm
by David Greene
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.

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Posted: June 11th, 2015, 11:27 pm
by David Greene
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.

Re: Upper Mississippi -- No Locks For You

Posted: June 11th, 2015, 11:30 pm
by seanrichardryan
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.