Boatnerd Discussion Forum

I'm glad it's not my job to "sell" the idea of improving or even maintaining the Seaway. In Minnesota more lakes are discovered with invasive species from the Great Lakes every year. I spend time at a friend's cabin on Lake Huron and the residents are angry that they can no longer walk barefoot on the beach because of the zebra mussel shells. To them the Seaway and salt water ships are the villain. Is that fair or sensible? Maybe not but how do you convince them that the Seaway is really beneficial? Even the "Green" true believers like the efficiency of ships but do not like their emmissions or the risk of more invasive species introductions. I think we've done a good job of cleaning up ballast water but it is too late. That barn door should have been closed years ago, and now we have New York State proposing ridiculous regulations and there is no public outcry to oppose them because people are angry. Yes, shipping and related industires provide jobs, but how many? St Paul used to be a "railroad town" and most people knew or were related to someone who worked for the railroads or a related industry. Now there are so few railroad employees here that very few people know even one, so the public gets more isolated from the job that railroads do and are not likely to support them. I suspect the same is true with the shipping industry in many Great Lakes ports. Why should the public (non-boatnerds) support building a new lock at the Soo when there hasn't been a new footer built in 30 years? Evidently, Canadian shipping companies could not or would not order new tonnage from Canadian yards even with a punitive 25% tarrif on imports. Shipping is not perceived as a growth industry. Please know that I support the industry, but Angie is right, the problems it faces in "selling" its message to the public go far beyond any perceived political biases of our media outlets.

With all due respect, griping about political viewpoints or perceived biases in the media (regardless of the side) does nothing to address the issue. The reality is the Seaway simply cannot accommodate the majority of vessels operating worldwide today, & traffic is down, with little hope for a sustainable surge in the future. As such, the question is what can we do to fix that problem? I don’t think the answer lies in who uses what outlet as a forum for their political soapbox.

Interesting counterpoints, I suggest you send this in as a letter to the editor.

Anyone else catch the news report today that quoted the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article referencing "pre-World War II-sized ships" regarding modern saltwater ships? What a crock. The MSJ has always been a liberal newspaper, but politics notwithstanding, to mis-quote a verifiable reference is wrong. Yes some ships are smaller than T-2 tankers from WWII, but these new ships are far more advanced technologically than anything the US or Canadian companies are sailing on the lakes today, with the tankers a possible exception. To my knowledge, the only ships in WWII that can approach a 730'x75' ship would be an aircraft carrier or Iowa-class battleship, which were very few and far between.

The newspaper article also fails to mention the comparison between lock size and depth. Could the Canadian and US governments increase lock size to accommodate the modern mega-container ships? Sure, but would the system handle the 50'+ drafts required? No. Is the Seaway still viable in it's current state? Yes. One only has to look at the windmill components or refinery equipment over the past few years to realize there is a market for the Seaway and its ships. Fortunately the grain market this fall will reclaim some lost tonnage since 2008, even though it is short term. The Seaway faces an uncompetitive disadvantage to road and rail transport of container shipping due to the various duties, taxes and fees imposed by shippers - which ultimately get passed on to the consumer. The "green" movement of late helps to alleviate some of these concerns, but it doesn't reduce or eliminate them.

The Seaway is constrained by having two nations control the daily and long-term operations, maintaining the system, and deciding its ultimate course. With New York state imposing its own pollution control standards it is certain for failure. I am first to agree that shipping companies must consistently upgrade their fleets, but one has to look at the profit margins of said companies. Coal and iron ore do not rake in millions per shipment. They make money, sure, but not at a scale that justifies a new ship every ten years, or let alone retrofitting a 1950s era ship with technology that does not exist. Grandfather clauses are a bygone thing, though requiring shippers to utilize the most efficient and modern equipment (which may or may not be practical or even exist yet) is a stretch. Recently moves have been taken to modernize the US fleet through conversion to modern engine plants, but it appears that few in the media are interested in reporting on these success stories, but rather to capitalize on the fact that ships 50+ years old are still sailing.

Everybody can always find two or more sides to every argument. It seems that unless you are willing to preach "green" and "modern" technology, you are nothing but a voice, a whisper of the various Internet forums, with a hatchet to bury. Unless people correct media outlets and voice their concerns, the "...access to the world is through technology and through airports. It's not water." crowd will win out and our hobby of shipwatching will be a forlorn subject, not to mention many people's livelihoods and careers.

Just my two cents as a Great Lakes ship enthusiast and a current sailing merchant mariner.