Calumet Grounding and a new Poe Lock

[Guest]

To address the security concerns raised by Brian, how about changing the Act to allow the use of foreign built vessels by US shipping companies but keep all other aspects of the Act the same ? That would make these ships domestically owned and flagged and restricted to GL trading routes. This is what has happened in Canada and it allowed renewal of the fleet at lower costs than domestic shipbuilding.

Although the last part of your statement is true, it also seems that the Canadian fleet has been having to send many of their ships into U.S. shipyards such as Bay Shipbuilding for dry docking and repowerings. What Canadian shipyards are still active on the lakes?

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)

[Guest]

Let the users pay for it - not the taxpayers.

I think only the railways pay for their infrastructure. Air, water and road transportation systems are largely paid for by the taxpayer.

[Guest]

To address the security concerns raised by Brian, how about changing the Act to allow the use of foreign built vessels by US shipping companies but keep all other aspects of the Act the same ? That would make these ships domestically owned and flagged and restricted to GL trading routes. This is what has happened in Canada and it allowed renewal of the fleet at lower costs than domestic shipbuilding.

Although the last part of your statement is true, it also seems that the Canadian fleet has been having to send many of their ships into U.S. shipyards such as Bay Shipbuilding for dry docking and repowerings. What Canadian shipyards are still active on the lakes?

Port Weller

[ed]

Let the users pay for it - not the taxpayers.

[Guest]

To address the security concerns raised by Brian, how about changing the Act to allow the use of foreign built vessels by US shipping companies but keep all other aspects of the Act the same ? That would make these ships domestically owned and flagged and restricted to GL trading routes. This is what has happened in Canada and it allowed renewal of the fleet at lower costs than domestic shipbuilding.

Although the last part of your statement is true, it also seems that the Canadian fleet has been having to send many of their ships into U.S. shipyards such as Bay Shipbuilding for dry docking and repowerings. What Canadian shipyards are still active on the lakes?

[Harry]

That would make absolutely no sense to down size. The reason to build 1000 footers was to maximize tonnage per trip and to reduce cost per ton. Even some of the new tug barge combinations are to big for the MacArthur lock. The Canadian vessels are in a completely different trade and need to be able to utilize the seaway as many of the US vessels have no need to be able to transit the seaway. Also the "footers" aren't outdated equipment wise. A freshwater vessel can last a long time. Many of the Canadian vessels being replaced saw some saltwater activity or use in the salt trade which the "footers" do not.

It might not make sense to downsize ships if you are a fleet owner and the taxpayers are funding your infrastructure, but if you are a government and are setting transportation policy, it should be seriously looked at. Traffic growth stalled years ago on the Lakes. And smaller crews and more efficient hulls and engines have made Seaway Max size vessels just as efficient, if not more so than the 1000 footers.

Yes, freshwater vessels can last a long time. So did 1950's American cars in Cuba. Both happened because external forces had a major influence on economic decisions that owners must regularly make. I'm not saying that the Jones Act needs to be scrapped, but it certainly has had negative repercussions. There is no doubt in my mind that the reason the US has one of the oldest commercial fleets in the world is due to the Jones Act. I also doubt there is any business-minded fleet owner in the world that actually prefers to run 40 year old ships over 5 year old ones.

I've felt for sometime now that the best course of action would be to build the next replacement lock at the Soo to Seaway dimensions, and commit to never building anything larger in the future. Then take the substantial savings from building a smaller lock and put that towards renovations of the MacArthur and Poe Locks. That would provide redundancy for the smaller vessels and improve the reliability of the Poe for a long enough period of time that the larger vessels could operate well into the future.

I don't know who/what gives you the idea that a modern seaway max boat is just as efficient as a 1000 footer, but that is inaccurate. Crew size has shrunk on the footers too. And they have an economy of scale that a seaway size boat cannot overcome.

It's strange that a ship can be "efficient" when it runs around empty half the time.

[Guest]

To address the security concerns raised by Brian, how about changing the Act to allow the use of foreign built vessels by US shipping companies but keep all other aspects of the Act the same ? That would make these ships domestically owned and flagged and restricted to GL trading routes. This is what has happened in Canada and it allowed renewal of the fleet at lower costs than domestic shipbuilding.

[Herman]

Ask people in Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska..etc, who have to pay three times as much to get anything shipped to them from the USA because of the Jones Act, if they care about great lakes shipping.

[hugh3]

At one time if you became sick or injured on a vessel you were put off at the next port (wherever in the world you may be) and responsible for your own upkeep and recovery. The Jones Act made the shipping company responsible for the seaman's recovery, transportation and welfare. There are many different parts of the Jones Act other then the ones mentioned before.

[Guest]

All,
Like Brian, i tend to prefer less gov't amd it's spending. I get torn when the new lock gets brought up as the gov't is spending borrowed money. However, there are a couple reasons that could rationalize tHe cost. First, it is a small amount of money in the fed budget.. the bulk is entitlements. Until those get brought under control, the arguement about balanced budgets is pointless. The second is s is one project that generates revenue. The shipping and steel companies and their employees pay taxes. I realize that the amortization may take a long time, but it would,be intersting tomsee real numbers on the poe. Lastly the jones act in place for national securiy reasons. I realize at any military contract must be domestic, but i seriously doubt that any shipyard would survive without the jones act. My $0.02.
Tom

[Pazzo]

Brian Ferguson... Bravo!! Well stated and very realistic!

[Up North George]

That would make absolutely no sense to down size. The reason to build 1000 footers was to maximize tonnage per trip and to reduce cost per ton. Even some of the new tug barge combinations are to big for the MacArthur lock. The Canadian vessels are in a completely different trade and need to be able to utilize the seaway as many of the US vessels have no need to be able to transit the seaway. Also the "footers" aren't outdated equipment wise. A freshwater vessel can last a long time. Many of the Canadian vessels being replaced saw some saltwater activity or use in the salt trade which the "footers" do not.

It might not make sense to downsize ships if you are a fleet owner and the taxpayers are funding your infrastructure, but if you are a government and are setting transportation policy, it should be seriously looked at. Traffic growth stalled years ago on the Lakes. And smaller crews and more efficient hulls and engines have made Seaway Max size vessels just as efficient, if not more so than the 1000 footers.

Yes, freshwater vessels can last a long time. So did 1950's American cars in Cuba. Both happened because external forces had a major influence on economic decisions that owners must regularly make. I'm not saying that the Jones Act needs to be scrapped, but it certainly has had negative repercussions. There is no doubt in my mind that the reason the US has one of the oldest commercial fleets in the world is due to the Jones Act. I also doubt there is any business-minded fleet owner in the world that actually prefers to run 40 year old ships over 5 year old ones.

I've felt for sometime now that the best course of action would be to build the next replacement lock at the Soo to Seaway dimensions, and commit to never building anything larger in the future. Then take the substantial savings from building a smaller lock and put that towards renovations of the MacArthur and Poe Locks. That would provide redundancy for the smaller vessels and improve the reliability of the Poe for a long enough period of time that the larger vessels could operate well into the future.

I don't know who/what gives you the idea that a modern seaway max boat is just as efficient as a 1000 footer, but that is inaccurate. Crew size has shrunk on the footers too. And they have an economy of scale that a seaway size boat cannot overcome.

The Max Seaway vessels even the very newest crew size are no smaller than a Footers and carry almost 1/2 the cargo. The cost per ton per crew pre manning cost per fuel cost doesn't compare on a cost per ton per trip. The only advantage a seaway max vessel has is the ability to transit the seaway. Which is not needed by most vessels in the domestic trade.

[hugh3]

Very well put Brian!

[Brian Ferguson]

Forgive me because this is kind of an essay.

I'm usually pretty Libertarian so the less Government involved the better but after working on the lakes I've concluded the Jones Act makes more sense and does more good for the Great Lakes then the ocean. Much like others have stated the shipbuilding and repair industry would all but disappear from the lakes if the Jones act were to be repealed.

The main thing I wanted to hit on is- I've read that people believe the Jones act has stunted shipbuilding on the lakes and that companies are forced to suffer with aging ships and this is simply not true. The explosive rate of ship building in the early and mid-20th century was mainly due to improvements in technology and infrastructure (harbor, locks, and channels) that allowed the fleets to up-size. In a span of 70 years the max sized ship able to navigate the lakes increased form 5000gt to 36000tons, that's over 7x's bigger. Shipbuilding in the last century was needed just to keep up with the developments.

With the Poe Lock complete maximum size was officially established. The Merchant Marine act of 1970 was the last "Cash for Clunkers" that allowed fleets catch up to that max limit. Throw in the steel slump and the ensuing purge of excess tonnage created by the Footers and other new builds (a modest sized post 1970 new build replaced two 600' ships) and you have the real reason for the slowing of shipbuilding on the American side. We're kind of at a point now where we’re trying figure out how long a hull can last given proper upgrades and I guess the Lee A. is the guinea pig. Now it's more of a question of how long the machinery can function rather than the hull remain profitable (unless you're hauling salt that stuff will kill even a middle aged ship i.e. Algoway/Rail/Agawa Canyon).

Finally, and as I said before I'm not a fan of Big Brother always having his hands in the mix but the Jones Act at plays a solid role in environmental and homeland security at least here on the lakes. You're dealing with the same handful of fleets that meet standard regulations and allow a higher level of monitoring of personnel both on ship and shore. Without that we'd have a fleet of foreign flagged mercenaries who could be on the lakes one month then on the other side of the Earth a few weeks later. We've seen this with the salties that do visit. A ship will commit some sort of infraction (environmental, navigational, ect) and when it's time to hand out the penalty it becomes a “who’s on first” act trying to find out who the responsible is. Vessels have been arrested and weeks are spent untangling leases, charters, and vessel agent agreements, and in the meantime the crew becomes a group of un-vetted refugees. It's also plausible that our enemies could exploit a completely transient merchant fleet. I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist but infiltration “like” this was attempted by the Germans in WWII to attack strategic industrial and transportation sites like Alcoa plants in TN, The Hells Gate Bridge in NY, and Horseshoe Curve in PA. The Soo Locks were also heavily guarded. One rouge sailor with an ill-advised agenda could cause a lot of issues for American Industry.

This is just my long winded way of saying the Jones Act has done more good than harm for the Lakes.

[Guest]

That would make absolutely no sense to down size. The reason to build 1000 footers was to maximize tonnage per trip and to reduce cost per ton. Even some of the new tug barge combinations are to big for the MacArthur lock. The Canadian vessels are in a completely different trade and need to be able to utilize the seaway as many of the US vessels have no need to be able to transit the seaway. Also the "footers" aren't outdated equipment wise. A freshwater vessel can last a long time. Many of the Canadian vessels being replaced saw some saltwater activity or use in the salt trade which the "footers" do not.

It might not make sense to downsize ships if you are a fleet owner and the taxpayers are funding your infrastructure, but if you are a government and are setting transportation policy, it should be seriously looked at. Traffic growth stalled years ago on the Lakes. And smaller crews and more efficient hulls and engines have made Seaway Max size vessels just as efficient, if not more so than the 1000 footers.

Yes, freshwater vessels can last a long time. So did 1950's American cars in Cuba. Both happened because external forces had a major influence on economic decisions that owners must regularly make. I'm not saying that the Jones Act needs to be scrapped, but it certainly has had negative repercussions. There is no doubt in my mind that the reason the US has one of the oldest commercial fleets in the world is due to the Jones Act. I also doubt there is any business-minded fleet owner in the world that actually prefers to run 40 year old ships over 5 year old ones.

I've felt for sometime now that the best course of action would be to build the next replacement lock at the Soo to Seaway dimensions, and commit to never building anything larger in the future. Then take the substantial savings from building a smaller lock and put that towards renovations of the MacArthur and Poe Locks. That would provide redundancy for the smaller vessels and improve the reliability of the Poe for a long enough period of time that the larger vessels could operate well into the future.

I don't know who/what gives you the idea that a modern seaway max boat is just as efficient as a 1000 footer, but that is inaccurate. Crew size has shrunk on the footers too. And they have an economy of scale that a seaway size boat cannot overcome.

[Mr Link]

That would make absolutely no sense to down size. The reason to build 1000 footers was to maximize tonnage per trip and to reduce cost per ton. Even some of the new tug barge combinations are to big for the MacArthur lock. The Canadian vessels are in a completely different trade and need to be able to utilize the seaway as many of the US vessels have no need to be able to transit the seaway. Also the "footers" aren't outdated equipment wise. A freshwater vessel can last a long time. Many of the Canadian vessels being replaced saw some saltwater activity or use in the salt trade which the "footers" do not.

It might not make sense to downsize ships if you are a fleet owner and the taxpayers are funding your infrastructure, but if you are a government and are setting transportation policy, it should be seriously looked at. Traffic growth stalled years ago on the Lakes. And smaller crews and more efficient hulls and engines have made Seaway Max size vessels just as efficient, if not more so than the 1000 footers.

Yes, freshwater vessels can last a long time. So did 1950's American cars in Cuba. Both happened because external forces had a major influence on economic decisions that owners must regularly make. I'm not saying that the Jones Act needs to be scrapped, but it certainly has had negative repercussions. There is no doubt in my mind that the reason the US has one of the oldest commercial fleets in the world is due to the Jones Act. I also doubt there is any business-minded fleet owner in the world that actually prefers to run 40 year old ships over 5 year old ones.

I've felt for sometime now that the best course of action would be to build the next replacement lock at the Soo to Seaway dimensions, and commit to never building anything larger in the future. Then take the substantial savings from building a smaller lock and put that towards renovations of the MacArthur and Poe Locks. That would provide redundancy for the smaller vessels and improve the reliability of the Poe for a long enough period of time that the larger vessels could operate well into the future.

[guest]

While there are a few things about the Jones Act that I don't like, it remains true that the act must be preserved. If the act were removed, we would loose most of our shipyards because it is cheaper to build in China etc. Look at what happened in Canada. There is hardly a ship yard operating in the entire country. Cargoes would be hauled on foreign flag vessels and the American fleet would disappear. In a time of war or national emergency, we would be unable to move cargoes and personal as required because we would have no ships to do so. The act should be looked at and adjusted from time to time. Some parts of the act may be top restrictive and need adjustment. It is true that the act is restrictive but it is there to protect our shipping industry, our shipping jobs and our Nation. Think carefully about that before you throw that protection away.

Just because a ship is foreign made doesn't make it foreign flagged. US companies would still own the ships they ordered.

None of Canada's new ships are foreign flagged.

[Up North George]

i didn't know The Jones Act was in charge of construction costs!

It isn't. To claim it is is completely dishonest.

I won't speak for the original poster, but I took that comment to mean that because of the Jones Act, the US fleets continue to use the 1000 footers and other Poe Lock only ships well past their prime, repowering and modernizing them instead of outright replacement, like the Canadian fleets are doing. If new ships were built, they could be downsized to Seaway Max dimensions, therefore providing redundancy at the Soo. And allowing a smaller lock to be built if and when construction ever happens.[/quote

That would make absolutely no sense to down size. The reason to build 1000 footers was to maximize tonnage per trip and to reduce cost per ton. Even some of the new tug barge combinations are to big for the MacArthur lock. The Canadian vessels are in a completely different trade and need to be able to utilize the seaway as many of the US vessels have no need to be able to transit the seaway. Also the "footers" aren't outdated equipment wise. A freshwater vessel can last a long time. Many of the Canadian vessels being replaced saw some saltwater activity or use in the salt trade which the "footers" do not.

[Jerry at Duluth]

While there are a few things about the Jones Act that I don't like, it remains true that the act must be preserved. If the act were removed, we would loose most of our shipyards because it is cheaper to build in China etc. Look at what happened in Canada. There is hardly a ship yard operating in the entire country. Cargoes would be hauled on foreign flag vessels and the American fleet would disappear. In a time of war or national emergency, we would be unable to move cargoes and personal as required because we would have no ships to do so. The act should be looked at and adjusted from time to time. Some parts of the act may be top restrictive and need adjustment. It is true that the act is restrictive but it is there to protect our shipping industry, our shipping jobs and our Nation. Think carefully about that before you throw that protection away.

[ralph]

i didn't know The Jones Act was in charge of construction costs!

It isn't. To claim it is is completely dishonest.

Dredging
operators and marine contractors are subject to Jones Act legislation and are required
to utilize US registered, and documented vessels, for any domestic activity.

Everything involved in that new lock would fall under the Jones Act.