Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

Post a reply


BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF

Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Maximum filesize per attachment: 3 MiB.

Expand view Topic review: Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

Re: Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

by Guest » May 3, 2018, 8:42 am

If they are delivering to a U.S. port Canadian vessels will pay the Harbor Maintenance Fee. Thunder Bay would be the exception.
"If the mode of transportation is via ship a Harbor Maintenance Fee (HMF) is collected by U.S. Customs & Border Protection. HMF is .125 percent of the value of the commercial cargo shipped through identified ports. "

Icebreaking is a wash as both sides pool their resources to provide the best coverage with the resources they have.

It seems a better method would be to charge similar to the Seaway where all vessels are charged based on the cargo and those funds are dedicated to lock maintenance and upgrades. The reality would likely be the politicians use those fees as a slush fund for other government waste like they have used the HMF.

Re: Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

by Guest » May 3, 2018, 7:45 am

Canadian ships do pay U. S. Harbor Tax Fees. In addition, the user pay system for Canadian ships also includes payments towards icebreaking fees and service fees (ATONS) on the Canadian side to which the U. S. lakers are exempt.

Re: Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

by paulbeesley » May 3, 2018, 6:44 am

On the question of who pays for what.

If I am not mistaken Canadian ships pay an Icebreaking Service Fee to CCG (read: tax) while US ships get free icebreaking from the Canadian Coast Guard and Canadian taxpayers foot that bill.

Re: Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

by Guest » May 2, 2018, 6:48 pm

The users of the locks do pay for them. It is called the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund it is a tax collected to fund the operations and maintenance of Army Corps of Engineers Coastal infrastructure which the Great Lakes is apart of. Secondly the US Coast Guard does not maintain the navigation channels, harbors, piers and locks on the Great Lakes. The US Army Corps of Engineers maintains all federal navigation channels and harbors and the locks in Sault Ste. Marie.

The free loaders in the system are the Canadians and the Recreational Boats. Tell them to pay there fare share.

http://www.greatlakesports.org/issues/h ... rust-fund/

Re: Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

by Ben » May 2, 2018, 8:42 am

Building a new Poe sized lock is back in the news:
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opini ... /34453621/

Question:
If there were a long time closure of the Poe lock, presumably there would be some footers isolated both above and below the locks. How much time would it add to a shipment of a full footer cargo from say Duluth to Burns Harbor, to have the cargo transloaded from a footer directly to two seaway sized freighters above the locks, then transloaded directly into another footer below the locks? An additional three days?
Obviously this would be a last resort if feasible at all, just curious.

Re: Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

by A guest » August 20, 2017, 5:42 pm

In the meantime, will they at least get the Soo webcams up and running please????

Re: Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

by ed » August 20, 2017, 12:49 pm

Russ wrote:
Your position that "let the users pay for it" is rather short sighted - especially since you are already one of the users".

the U S taxpayer has subsidized the operating costs at the Soo whether they reap it's benefits or not. a good example is the Canadian boats which bring Canadian grain to Canadian markets during the Canadian harvest ! foreign boats transport all types foreign made windmill parts, dump foreign made steel into U S markets, and the U S taxpayer gets to foot the bill.

Most states that charge a toll for using their roads have great road systems. the users pay for these roads. it's time we learn this fact.

The belief that the operating costs at the Soo are only a small part of our federal budget ( yes, the taxpayers fund this budget ) is part of the reason every person in the U S now pays such high taxes ! our great lakes navigation system is maintained by our U S coast guard, at taxpayer expense, mainly for the benefit of commercial users.

It's time we get our heads back on our shoulders and demand that the users of these U S federal funded locks pay their fair share.
you use it - you help pay - period !

Re: Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

by Brian Ferguson » August 18, 2017, 7:46 am

There's no government agency that's not going to use ALL it's budget by September 30th. Even though we praise efficiency it seems the role of a government department is to secure as much funding as possible each year and you don't get increases by leaving money on the table at the end of the financial year. I've worked in government offices where they've bought 2 years worth of copier paper, new chairs, and even held "development lunches" to try and kill off a surplus. The Corp of Engineers is no different if they didn't use every last dollar it'd go someplace else. Also taxes never sunset or die they live on.

The best example is the "Johnstown Flood Tax" Flood tax in PA.

The Pennsylvania General Assembly passed an emergency temporary 10% alcohol tax, intended to help with clean up, recovery, and to assist victims of the last Johnstown Flood of 1936. In 1963 it was raised to 15% and in 1968 it was raised to 18%. and although the object of the tax was achieved 80 years ago the tax lives on.

Re: Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

by Guest » August 17, 2017, 11:20 pm

hausen wrote:
Guest wrote: Name all these Canadian ships that have been dry docked and re-powered at Bay Shipbuilding. (Not counting the CN owned Great lakes Fleet...of course)
If memory serves, CSL Niagara, Rt. Hon. Paul J. Martin, CSL Laurentien, and CSL Assiniboine were all repowered at Bayship roughly during the period from 2012 - 2015.

Excellent! Our slow plan to chain the Canadians to us is coming to completion!! :)

Re: Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

by Russ » August 17, 2017, 6:59 pm

ed wrote:
Let the users pay for it - not the taxpayers.

I can't say it much better than Duluthian said it earlier. The only thing I can add is that if the government doesn't spend the tax dollars to keep the Soo Locks operational, that will not decrease your taxes. The government will keep the same tax rate, the same tax dollars, and just spend them on something else!

Your position that "let the users pay for it" is rather short sighted - especially since you are already one of the users".

Re: Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

by A guest » August 17, 2017, 6:51 pm

Ok let the users pay for it. That's a goal to work toward but that's not how our tax and infrastructure system works -yet. I agree users should pay and the cost is passed along to customers who pass the cost along to their customers. but since shipping is competing with rail and road shipping those users need to be paying as well. Railways have been built with subsidies and grants and the roads are relatively free to the trucks. Governments everywhere are bending over backwards to provide free infrastructure leading to and from new industries. mostly in truck routes.[/quote]

Free to trucks?? Obviously you know little as to what monthly state and federal fees, licensing and inspection charges, and insurance that are required of running a truck before it can even go on the road.

Re: Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

by ed » August 17, 2017, 6:43 pm

Users pay a fee for using the Welland canal and when the U S operated the Panama canal a fee was charged ! now we want to build a new redundant lock at the Soo and let everyone use it for free ? like I said 'you use it - you pay' -- not the taxpayers.

Re: Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

by Guest » August 17, 2017, 4:56 pm

Canadian shipyards did not become uncompetitive because Canada started allowing foreign builds into Canadian flag. the foreign builds have only been allowed in for the past few years. The demise of Canadian shipyards started started 25 year earlier with the end of shipbuilding subsidies and the high costs that would require 40 years to pay off a ship. As the ship yards got less work they employed staff on an irregular basis making them even less efficient and then lost all know-how. Some of that 25 year demise is directly a result of competing with the protected U.S. yards.
Ship repair and ship building should be a topic at the NAFTA negotiations. The U.S. yards are at an unfair advantage they're guaranteed work and slacker environmental standards for sand blasting and painting keep them rolling with regular efficient staff.
Protectionist policy looks after some of today's workers but it does harm to everyone of the future. To remain internationally competitive in the future you can't pretend you don't have to compete today.

Re: Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

by Guest » August 17, 2017, 3:39 pm

ed wrote:Let the users pay for it - not the taxpayers.
Ok let the users pay for it. That's a goal to work toward but that's not how our tax and infrastructure system works -yet. I agree users should pay and the cost is passed along to customers who pass the cost along to their customers. but since shipping is competing with rail and road shipping those users need to be paying as well. Railways have been built with subsidies and grants and the roads are relatively free to the trucks. Governments everywhere are bending over backwards to provide free infrastructure leading to and from new industries. mostly in truck routes.

Re: Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

by hausen » August 17, 2017, 3:14 pm

Guest wrote: Name all these Canadian ships that have been dry docked and re-powered at Bay Shipbuilding. (Not counting the CN owned Great lakes Fleet...of course)
If memory serves, CSL Niagara, Rt. Hon. Paul J. Martin, CSL Laurentien, and CSL Assiniboine were all repowered at Bayship roughly during the period from 2012 - 2015.

Re: Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

by Howard Sprague » August 17, 2017, 2:04 pm

Guest wrote: Name all these Canadian ships that have been dry docked and re-powered at Bay Shipbuilding. (Not counting the CN owned Great lakes Fleet...of course)
Off the top of my head...

CSL Laurentian
Paul J. Martin
Kaministiqua
Michipicoten

All have been drydocked or spent time at Bay Shipbuilding.

If you want to go to other US yards too:

Donjon has drydocked the CSL Niagara, Frontenac and Atlantic Huron for repairs/surveys, and has also had the Thunder Bay and CSL Laurentien, as well as CSL Niagara for layup. They have also drydocked and done cargo hold work on Robert S. Pierson, drydocked Kaministiqua, and done work on Tecumseh.

Ironhead in Toledo has drydocked several of the Lower Lakes boats, including Tecumseh.

That's just off the top of my head and I'm sure there are more I'm forgetting.

Re: Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

by Duluthian » August 17, 2017, 2:03 pm

hausen wrote:
ed wrote:Let the users pay for it - not the taxpayers.
We all benefit from waterborne commerce. We are all the users (end beneficiaries of what the ships carry), or put another way the users (shipping companies) are providing fundamental services to the economy that we all use. Our cars, appliances, buildings, roads, bridges, rail lines, fuels, and food products are made most easily and cheaply available because their supply chains involve moving goods by water. Waterborne transportation is far and away the most fuel-efficient, least wasteful, and least intrusive way of moving large amounts of goods.

We, the taxpayers, benefit from the Great Lakes navigation system and support it through the general fund. This arrangement of toll-free waterborne commerce has been a foundational principle in the United States. That notion is employed to the greatest effect on the Great Lakes, a system with hundreds of miles of deep open water upon which ships travel unimpeded. The Lakes have just a proportionately small amount of mileage at choke points where travel relies on federally-maintained channels and locks. This is an ideal situation, where a relatively small amount of work and funding on the federal government's behalf at just a few key points is leveraged into a system where large, efficient deep draft ships can reach 2,000 miles into the industrial heart of North America.

Meanwhile, state and federal governments spend gigantic amounts of taxpayer money subsidizing one of the least efficient, most dangerous, and most wasteful modes of transport: surface roads. The money spent on maintaining or improving Great Lakes locks and channels is a drop in the bucket compared to road construction and maintenance expenditure, and Lakes ships are pound-for-pound tens or hundreds of times better at moving freight than road vehicles. Meanwhile our road system is sprawling, wastes precious fuel, wastes precious land area unnecessarily, causes death and serious injury to civilians on a massive scale, and is deeply subsidized by taxpayer money. Ships can't go everywhere of course and roads, cars, and trucks have their place, but the amount of subsidy funding and attention given to roads vs. waterways is wildly out of balance.

Taxpayer money gets much better bang for the buck when it's spent on supporting water transport. If we are really concerned about spending tax dollars wisely and cutting spending where its wasteful, a new Poe-sized lock is small fry compared to road spending, and that's where your attention would have the most impact.
Bravo, hausen! Perfectly articulated.

Re: Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

by hausen » August 17, 2017, 1:21 pm

ed wrote:Let the users pay for it - not the taxpayers.
We all benefit from waterborne commerce. We are all the users (end beneficiaries of what the ships carry), or put another way the users (shipping companies) are providing fundamental services to the economy that we all use. Our cars, appliances, buildings, roads, bridges, rail lines, fuels, and food products are made most easily and cheaply available because their supply chains involve moving goods by water. Waterborne transportation is far and away the most fuel-efficient, least wasteful, and least intrusive way of moving large amounts of goods.

We, the taxpayers, benefit from the Great Lakes navigation system and support it through the general fund. This arrangement of toll-free waterborne commerce has been a foundational principle in the United States. That notion is employed to the greatest effect on the Great Lakes, a system with hundreds of miles of deep open water upon which ships travel unimpeded. The Lakes have just a proportionately small amount of mileage at choke points where travel relies on federally-maintained channels and locks. This is an ideal situation, where a relatively small amount of work and funding on the federal government's behalf at just a few key points is leveraged into a system where large, efficient deep draft ships can reach 2,000 miles into the industrial heart of North America.

Meanwhile, state and federal governments spend gigantic amounts of taxpayer money subsidizing one of the least efficient, most dangerous, and most wasteful modes of transport: surface roads. The money spent on maintaining or improving Great Lakes locks and channels is a drop in the bucket compared to road construction and maintenance expenditure, and Lakes ships are pound-for-pound tens or hundreds of times better at moving freight than road vehicles. Meanwhile our road system is sprawling, wastes precious fuel, wastes precious land area unnecessarily, causes death and serious injury to civilians on a massive scale, and is deeply subsidized by taxpayer money. Ships can't go everywhere of course and roads, cars, and trucks have their place, but the amount of subsidy funding and attention given to roads vs. waterways is wildly out of balance.

Taxpayer money gets much better bang for the buck when it's spent on supporting water transport. If we are really concerned about spending tax dollars wisely and cutting spending where its wasteful, a new Poe-sized lock is small fry compared to road spending, and that's where your attention would have the most impact.

Re: Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

by Guest 3 » August 17, 2017, 12:57 pm

The Jones Act is NOT about Transportation Policy. It is about National Security. The US ship building industry is one of the major reason that the allies won both world Wars. There was victory in Europe because we could build ships faster than the Germans could sink them.
Keeping the capacity and skill need for shipbuilding is vital. It would be a terrible idea to out source that to the most likely enemy for the next global war.

Re: Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

by Shipwatcher1 » August 17, 2017, 11:23 am

ed wrote:Let the users pay for it - not the taxpayers.
The users are taxpayers.
As also stated previously, the govt. spends to the tune of almost $4 trillion and here we are worried about something that is less than $1 billion.
True, the heyday of the shipping industry is long since gone, but does that mean we let the infrastructure continue to age?

Top