The AAR and Mississippi navigation (was: "comedy act....")

[MichaelSol]

While environmentalism has increased the cost of energy, it would be rather riduculous to suggest that environmentalism alone is responsible for the increase in the cost of energy over the past few decades.  The basic laws of economics (such as supply and demand) have also had a factor.  So has inflation.

The real cost [using gross domestic product price deflators adjusted to year 2000] of  electricity, cents per kilowatt hour:

1960, 2005

Residential: 12.4, 8.4

Commercial, 11.4, 7.74

Industrial, 5.2, 4.97

I am not sure which law of supply and demand is responsible.

So, Mr. Sol, why did you select my statement to comment on, when it was futuremodal who stated that energy costs had doubled.  It seems that your figures would be a better response to his claim. 

Without wanting to get too deeply enmeshed in the discussion, my thought was to your point that the laws of supply and demand appear in your remark to justify higher costs. It looks to me that increasing demand has resulted in lower costs. That is the more typical response to a long-term demand curve involving a significant technological component to production. Your reference to "basic laws of economics" caught my eye only in the sense of asking -- which one?

As with railroading, in the face of increasing demand, productivity improvements drive prices down, not up. Indeed, the more demand, the greater the impact of productivity improvements.

And of course, price did go down, not up.

 

 

[MichaelSol]

And how is it for the last 10 years?

1995, 2005, "Real costs" -- that is, adjusted for inflation.

Residential, 9.12, 8.40

Commercial, 8.35, 7.74

Industrial, 5.06, 4.97

Real prices stopped their general fall in 1970, began a negligible but general climb, then a significant climb, 1975-1985, when those prices began to fall again.

Historically, electric power costs have declined. The period 1970-1985 represents an anomaly.

There may be a case. The Clean Air Act was passed in 1970.

1970, 1985

Residential, 8.0, 10.60

Commercial, 7.6, 10.43

Industrial, 3.6, 7.13

[Datafever]

Are you trying to tell us that this cost difference (as delivered to the end user) is purely due to inflation or the laws of economics?

No, that isn't what I said.  I merely mentioned that those factors cannot be discounted.  I wasn't even trying to claim that environmentalism didn't have a role.  I was merely responding to your statement that environmentalism was entirely responsible for the increase in energy costs. 

[Anonymous]

While environmentalism has increased the cost of energy, it would be rather riduculous to suggest that environmentalism alone is responsible for the increase in the cost of energy over the past few decades.  The basic laws of economics (such as supply and demand) have also had a factor.  So has inflation.

The real cost [using gross domestic product price deflators adjusted to year 2000] of  electricity, cents per kilowatt hour:

1960, 2005

Residential: 12.4, 8.4

Commercial, 11.4, 7.74

Industrial, 5.2, 4.97

I am not sure which law of supply and demand is responsible.

And how is it for the last 10 years?

And did increased economies of scale in generation, distribution have anything to do with this time period?  Technological improvements?

Shall we compare cost of generation for same size facilities during this same period?

[n012944]

And as much as it makes you uncomfortable, for credibility's sake a comparison of railroads to barges is apt in terms of relative government aid.  Since you admit that all modes receive subsidy of some kind or another, would you mind contacting the AAR to remind them of that fact?  Thanks.

In the original quote from the AAR that you posted, no where did the AAR say that railroads do not receive public aid.  It said barges costs are low because their right of way is maintained by the goverment.  There is nothing wrong or a lie about that statement.

Bert

Then would it be just as *honest* for the prez of the barge company to have said "we might lose some business to increasingly subsidized railroads"?

There is nothing wrong or a lie about that statement either.

As long as you keep the word "might" in there, you are correct.  My dog "might" drive my car today, but I doubt it.

 

Bert

[Anonymous]

For example, we all agree that the cost of energy (electricity, gasoline, diesel) has basically doubled over the last few decades, right?  Can anyone here refute the notion that such a doubling is entirely due to environmental costs imposed on the US by supposedly well-meaning politicians and their pressure groups? 

While environmentalism has increased the cost of energy, it would be rather riduculous to suggest that environmentalism alone is responsible for the increase in the cost of energy over the past few decades.  The basic laws of economics (such as supply and demand) have also had a factor.  So has inflation.

It would appear that you have gone overboard in trying to blame environmentalism. 

Really?

Do you even know the background into our current petroleum "supply and demand" conundrum?  We in the US haven't been allowed to fully explore, drill, extract, refine, et al petroleum from within our own borders in places we know oil reserves exist (aka ANWR, California coast, Florida coast, etc).  Consequently, we've gone from having 30% of our oil imported to having more than 60% of our oil imported.  With greater dependence on imported oil comes greater incidence of market manipulation by OPEC, George Soros, Hugo Chavez, et al.  With geopolitical manipulation comes more and more price speculation - futures markets have gone out of control, oil goes from $35 a barrel to $70 a barrel (and no, you can't attribute that doubling to inflation!).

Instead of only stratching the surface in regards to current oil prices (e.g. blaiming OPEC and Big Oil), dig further to find out why we are in such a position of being manipulated.  ANWR has reserves that are estimated to match what we import from the Middle East, reserves off California and Florida are even larger, but we still can't get to it.  And why is that?  (Hint:  It starts with a big green "E").

Compare the cost of baseline nuclear, hydro, and coal fired electricity generation with the cost of the so-called "eco-freindly alternatives" e.g. solar, wind, renewables.  The former average under $25 MW, the latter over $50 MW (sans subsidies).  Are you trying to tell us that this cost difference (as delivered to the end user) is purely due to inflation or the laws of economics?  Of course not.  It is clear that "eco-freindly" energy costs twice as much as standard baseline energy.  And we haven't even calculated the cost increase of those baseline sources due to environmental regs!  Put it all together, and the picture becomes much clearer - there is a substantial cost to environmental regs, costs that apparently go unnoticed to average citizens or are attributed to other goings-on.

The question then becomes - Do the added costs of such regs become mitigated by the so-called social benefits of such regs?  Take the new arsenic regs - we went from allowing 50 ppm to only allowing 10 ppm.  If no one was dying or othewise suffering from the 50 ppm regs, why was it so imperative to reduce the allowable amount to 10 ppm?  One thing was clear - billions of dollars were spent to meet these new regs.

Again, the costs of meeting eco-regs are very real, the benefits of eco-regs are theoretical at best.

What I have attempted to challenge folks here on is to estimate the actual physical costs of an act such as the simple act of removing a few cubic feet's worth of silt from a river bottom, then compare that unmitigated cost with the actual final cost of the same action.  If nothing else, it's a good mental exercise for one to contemplate.

 

[Datafever]

While environmentalism has increased the cost of energy, it would be rather riduculous to suggest that environmentalism alone is responsible for the increase in the cost of energy over the past few decades.  The basic laws of economics (such as supply and demand) have also had a factor.  So has inflation.

The real cost [using gross domestic product price deflators adjusted to year 2000] of  electricity, cents per kilowatt hour:

1960, 2005

Residential: 12.4, 8.4

Commercial, 11.4, 7.74

Industrial, 5.2, 4.97

I am not sure which law of supply and demand is responsible.

Also, nice of you to use deflated figures when I specifically also included inflation as a cause of the increase of energy prices.  Thank you for proving my point. 

[Datafever]

While environmentalism has increased the cost of energy, it would be rather riduculous to suggest that environmentalism alone is responsible for the increase in the cost of energy over the past few decades.  The basic laws of economics (such as supply and demand) have also had a factor.  So has inflation.

The real cost [using gross domestic product price deflators adjusted to year 2000] of  electricity, cents per kilowatt hour:

1960, 2005

Residential: 12.4, 8.4

Commercial, 11.4, 7.74

Industrial, 5.2, 4.97

I am not sure which law of supply and demand is responsible.

 

So, Mr. Sol, why did you select my statement to comment on, when it was futuremodal who stated that energy costs had doubled.  It seems that your figures would be a better response to his claim. 

[MichaelSol]

While environmentalism has increased the cost of energy, it would be rather riduculous to suggest that environmentalism alone is responsible for the increase in the cost of energy over the past few decades.  The basic laws of economics (such as supply and demand) have also had a factor.  So has inflation.

The real cost [using gross domestic product price deflators adjusted to year 2000] of  electricity, cents per kilowatt hour:

1960, 2005

Residential: 12.4, 8.4

Commercial, 11.4, 7.74

Industrial, 5.2, 4.97

I am not sure which law of supply and demand is responsible, the one that says demand creates higher prices, or the one that says demand creates more supply and lower prices.

 

[Datafever]

For example, we all agree that the cost of energy (electricity, gasoline, diesel) has basically doubled over the last few decades, right?  Can anyone here refute the notion that such a doubling is entirely due to environmental costs imposed on the US by supposedly well-meaning politicians and their pressure groups? 

While environmentalism has increased the cost of energy, it would be rather riduculous to suggest that environmentalism alone is responsible for the increase in the cost of energy over the past few decades.  The basic laws of economics (such as supply and demand) have also had a factor.  So has inflation.

It would appear that you have gone overboard in trying to blame environmentalism. 

[Anonymous]

And as much as it makes you uncomfortable, for credibility's sake a comparison of railroads to barges is apt in terms of relative government aid.  Since you admit that all modes receive subsidy of some kind or another, would you mind contacting the AAR to remind them of that fact?  Thanks.

In the original quote from the AAR that you posted, no where did the AAR say that railroads do not receive public aid.  It said barges costs are low because their right of way is maintained by the goverment.  There is nothing wrong or a lie about that statement.

Bert

Then would it be just as *honest* for the prez of the barge company to have said "we might lose some business to increasingly subsidized railroads"?

There is nothing wrong or a lie about that statement either.

At least the AAR guy could have acknowledged the existence of the Waterways Trust Fund, which does pay the good part of the de jure costs of river navigation.  The bad part of course is paid by the taxpayers, and that bad part is not the de facto costs of river maintenance, it is the de facto costs of environmentalism.

I stated that environmentalism amounts to roughly half the costs of navigation maintenance, and got lambasted by the lefties on this forum.  Yet those who aren't stuck on the notion of having their ideas prefabricated for them by the MSM and the Sierra Club can observe several trends in US industrial costs and make the connection to other industrial costs. 

For example, we all agree that the cost of energy (electricity, gasoline, diesel) has basically doubled over the last few decades, right?  Can anyone here refute the notion that such a doubling is entirely due to environmental costs imposed on the US by supposedly well-meaning politicians and their pressure groups? 

So if it's more acceptable to agree that energy costs have doubled due to environmentalism, why not apply the same common sense consensus to the costs of river navigation maintenance?  Or for that matter the cost of DM&E's PRB expansion project?

Here's a nice article that expresses this idea that so makes liberals cringe with denial...

The Toxicity of Environmentalism by George Reisman

http://www.mises.org/story/1927

 

[n012944]

And as much as it makes you uncomfortable, for credibility's sake a comparison of railroads to barges is apt in terms of relative government aid.  Since you admit that all modes receive subsidy of some kind or another, would you mind contacting the AAR to remind them of that fact?  Thanks.

In the original quote from the AAR that you posted, no where did the AAR say that railroads do not receive public aid.  It said barges costs are low because their right of way is maintained by the goverment.  There is nothing wrong or a lie about that statement.

 

Bert

[Anonymous]

And the reference to A.M. radio talk shows is based on the fact that you don't seem to let facts get in the way of your opinion - you cite things that disprove your point, but that doesn't bother you, you get worked up about minor things so much that you miss the big picture, and you ask questions that have already been asked and answered - if that doesn't sound like a talk radio host, I don't know what does.

There is no correlation between your definition of "A.M. radio talk shows" (what ever that is supposed to be - are you suggesting NPR is not as advertised, or what?) and what we are doing here, which is debating points of contention without the personal insults.

Just for the record (and for my own personal amusement), cite for me the points I made that were "disproved".

Did you disprove the contention that the EIS makes up the largest cost factor for maintenance dredging, and that the physical act of dredging itself is rather simple and low cost in and of itself?  Keep in mind that I readily admit that I can't prove it from the information sources availed to me, so will you also admit that you cannot also disprove it as such?

Did you disprove the contention that the AAR's Mr. White made a statement that implies a subsidy disparity between rail and barge modes?

Did you disprove that river travel is natural, or did you only suggest that modern day barging is not 100% natural?  Of course, I never said that barging is 100% natural, only that the concept of river travel is 100% natural.

Every transportation system since the begining of time has been subsidized by the government. 

Isn't that the point I made that you so sophomorically refered to as "A.M. radio talk show" stuff? 

BTW - Was Dan Rather of CBS an AM talk radio guy?  You know, the guy who forged documents about our President, and defends that action to this day?  You know, the network that doens't allow daily rebuttals of it's POV?  Ditto for ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC........Is Michael Moore an AM talk radio guy?  You know, the Canadian film maker who made a *documentary* about 9/11 chock full of outright lies, misstatements, and minced words?  Is Brian Ross of ABC an AM talk radio guy?  You know, the guy who made false statements about the Mark Foley case to affect the 2006 election, then amended his statements after the election?  Is James Hansen of NASA an AM talk radio guy?  You know, the guy who has falsified data concerning so-called climate change to affect public policy debate, then when the NAS chastized him on it, he claimed he was being "censored" by the Bush Administration?  How about Bill Moyers of PBS, is he an AM talk radio guy?  He is so blindly partisan even network TV won't let him host his own news show............................................................

Back to Square #1

My point is that barging by and large does pay more than it's fair share via user fees in the regular course of things sans environmental red tape.  Whether that can be said for specific sections of specific waterways is debatable - on the Columbia/Snake River system a tremendous amount of hydropower is produced by those dams, which if sold at market prices produces a profit over and above the cost of building and maintaining those dams, including the navigation system.  On the lower Mississippi nothing more than regular channel maintenance is required for navigation, with some one time changes to the channel necessary for modern day barging.  On the upper Mississippi (a navigation channel still in it's infancy relatively speaking) it is probaby a different story, one that includes some lost opportunities for revenue via low head hydropower potential that is currently undeveloped.

And as much as it makes you uncomfortable, for credibility's sake a comparison of railroads to barges is apt in terms of relative government aid.  Since you admit that all modes receive subsidy of some kind or another, would you mind contacting the AAR to remind them of that fact?  Thanks.

[penncentral2002]

And back to the beginning we go!

Now, I'll have you know that in fact, I have been educated as a Devil's Advocate and I am certified by the Commonwealth of Virginia to be a Devil's Advocate in all courts of the Commonwealth.  So as a certified Devil's Advocate, I can tell you that playing the Devil's Advocate is fun and all, but eventually you back yourself in a corner where you go from playing a Devil's Advocate to flogging a dead horse. 

And the reference to A.M. radio talk shows is based on the fact that you don't seem to let facts get in the way of your opinion - you cite things that disprove your point, but that doesn't bother you, you get worked up about minor things so much that you miss the big picture, and you ask questions that have already been asked and answered - if that doesn't sound like a talk radio host, I don't know what does. 

Every transportation system since the begining of time has been subsidized by the government.  That isn't going to change.  Every transportation system leads to some sort of environmental consequences.  That isn't going to change.  Even natural things such as rivers or harbors or mountain passes is going to require alterations to be suited for large scale transportation - that isn't going to change either.  EIS reports and other environmental regulations were required in response to the massive environmental damage that occurred in the past and the difficulties of holding responsible parties liable for their damage under CERCLA (many companies have gone bankrupt) - that isn't going to change either (it is a case where you literally pay now or pay way more later).  When the original action that damaged the environment was done by our government, we all get stuck holding the bill - that isn't going to change either.  What was done during the Gilded Age can't be undone - that isn't going to change either.  What can be done in the future can be changed - we don't have to do things the way they were done in the Gilded Age now that we know the consequences (e.g. Superfund sites, U.S. taxpayers being stuck for bills that could be paid using user fees, etc.).

[n012944]

[

If you are really concerned about "massive taxpayer subsidies" in developing the Mississippi River navigation system, shall we make a comparison of the railroad land grants to the appropriations for navigation during same said era? 

 

 

[Anonymous]

Do you really want to go down this path?

What percentage of Mississippi River navigation should we allocate as being "natural", and what percentage shall we designate as "unnatural"?

 

I think it should be very easy to allocate.  Any part of the river that needs to be altered, being a dredging operation or locks, for safe navigatioin of barges and the tugs that go with them, should be considered unnatural.  Most rivers, in their natural state, could not safely handle the size and amount of tugs that are using them now.

 

Bert

Exactly - or from a more historical view is to compare what type of navigation existed historically.  Of course, when you are talking to someone who ignores the obvious and constantly throws out red herrings, its pretty much impossible to make any ground.  Thus, merely pointing out to futuremodal that the type of navigation that exists on the inland river system today would not exist without massive taxpayer investments which cost a lot of money and environmental (and other) costs does no good, because he'll just throw out a new red herring. 

Hence, the new red herring is the EIS statements - while ranting about EIS statement costs as only being red tape may play well on AM talk radio where there is no opposing side present, it doesn't work with the real world.  See, the problem is that futuremodal will not concede that the actions of dredging a river initially and later are in fact the same action - so that navigation channel creation dredging and navigation maintanance dredging are the same - hence an EIS statement is required for both.  While railroad (or road for that matter) construction and railroad maintainance do not have the same environmental impacts.  The maintainance doesn't add any harm that is still there.  Also, remember that while a railline will have local impact, the water in your local river eventually flows into the ocean where ocean currents will carry it around the world or it will evaporate and fall as rain on you. 

BTW, futuremodal - go to the STB website and read any abandonment application - as you'd see, railroads are required to declare the environmental impact of abandoning a line - including whether line removal would have any effect on the environment.  Also check with the EPA about how many railyards got listed under CERLA as Superfund sites (including Potomac Yard in Alexandria, VA as one example).  EIS statements aren't red tape - they are a way to avoid spending a much larger sum of money later (not to mention health loss).  Sometimes you need to spend money to save money. 

(OT)  So, what's all this sudden reference to "AM talk radio" of late?  There's been a lot of throwing out this little catch-phrase by the far-lefties on this forum.  I was wondering if your Grand Master George Soros has issued new marching orders for the rank 'n file?  Just for the record, opposing views are always omitted from your mainstream news sources.

So how does that red herring taste when your side cooks it?

Back to the subject at hand.......

Penncentral2002:  If I may, I'll play a little Devil's Advocate for the benefit of your education.....

If you are really concerned about "massive taxpayer subsidies" in developing the Mississippi River navigation system, shall we make a comparison of the railroad land grants to the appropriations for navigation during same said era?  Or do you consider that an "apples and oranges" comparison? 

If you are really concerned about environmental costs, what about the permanent environmental damage caused by the haphazard methods of railroad construction during this era?  What about the legacy costs of fuel spills, et al?

Do not drainage conduits and streams run under railroad ROW while maintenance is being performed?  Do not those same streams flow into our lakes and rivers?

How much human waste has been jettisoned out of passenger trains directly onto railroad ROW's over the years?  How many creosite-soaked ties have been tossed aside into waterways during routine maintenance over the years?

Etc, etc, etc.

At least waterway dredging is taking what is already in the river and either moving it to another portion of the river or taking it out all together.  They're not adding anything potentially hazardous to the river, hence the wasteful illogic of requiring an EIS for regular maintenance.

Are you also oblivious to the need for synchronizing multi-modal interplay to optimize the nation's transportation network, at least for the benefit of US producers?  Remember, railroad companies are transportation companies.  Since railroad capacity is constrained right now while waterway capacity is ample, wouldn't it make sense to transload certain commodities on certian corridors from rail to barge for the benefit of the supply chain?  As far as I know, there is no law preventing railroad companies from operating in other modes, either directly or via an intercompany 3pl.

To get back to the statement of Mr. White of the AAR, it seems somewhat contradictory that an industry seemingly maxed out in capacity would be soliciting for business simply because it is being moved by barge.  If the railroad in question actually gets this business from the barge lines, I wonder what current railroad customer will suddenly be told that his business is no longer wanted, in order to make room for these new unit coal trains?  Indeed, if this scenario is a case of kicking out current business to make room for the new business, will it also be a case of inadvertently settling for a lesser revenue source?

And the coup d'grace - any bets that the railroad in question will eventually be soliciting the federal government for financial aid to help keep the tracks inline?  Current trends suggest that the answer is "yes".

 

BTW - do you guys sate your red herring, or do you prefer it poached?

 

[samfp1943]

OK, so let's shut the river down completely (And save all that money! And if we do, what effect will it have on the economy?). Who, exactly, is going to move that 15% of the nation's bulk cargo? The railroads are maxed out these days; there's more to move that ever before. Also, the railroads, and the nation, are east - west freight worlds, and the Western Rivers are a north - south freight world. There isn't a lot of rail capacity that paralells the river system to take up that 15% if you kill the river off. In short, the river is a minor threat to rail transport; take a look at your nearest federally built interstate highway for a bigger threat. And, you know, in the long run, rail and water transport will be laughing in comparison to trucking. Fuel will only get more expensive, and who uses the most fuel per ton/mile moved? It isn't rail and water, by a long shot.

At the risk of being accused of obsfucation, I thought that since the lower Mississipi is in discussion, a link to information about it might be appropriate:                        http://members.aol.com/americacruising/mississippi-lower.html    "Lower Miss. R."

Also, this web site referencing the McClellan-Kerr//Arkansas River [ Army Corps of Engineers ] Maintained Waterway to Tusla,OK...Highly $$$ intensive maintenance for little or very low usage.        http://members.aol.com/americacruising/arkansas.html

 

 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

FM apparently doesn't realize that an environmental impact statement is needed because the dredged material has to be put somewhere else and it may be a lot more than just mud.  The North Branch of the Chicago River has not been dredged for a while because the river bottom has absorbed a lot of toxic material from years of industrial activity and unregulated dumping of waste material.  Wherever the material gets dumped is going to have an adverse effect on the environment.

[penncentral2002]

Do you really want to go down this path?

What percentage of Mississippi River navigation should we allocate as being "natural", and what percentage shall we designate as "unnatural"?

 

I think it should be very easy to allocate.  Any part of the river that needs to be altered, being a dredging operation or locks, for safe navigatioin of barges and the tugs that go with them, should be considered unnatural.  Most rivers, in their natural state, could not safely handle the size and amount of tugs that are using them now.

 

Bert

Exactly - or from a more historical view is to compare what type of navigation existed historically.  Of course, when you are talking to someone who ignores the obvious and constantly throws out red herrings, its pretty much impossible to make any ground.  Thus, merely pointing out to futuremodal that the type of navigation that exists on the inland river system today would not exist without massive taxpayer investments which cost a lot of money and environmental (and other) costs does no good, because he'll just throw out a new red herring. 

Hence, the new red herring is the EIS statements - while ranting about EIS statement costs as only being red tape may play well on AM talk radio where there is no opposing side present, it doesn't work with the real world.  See, the problem is that futuremodal will not concede that the actions of dredging a river initially and later are in fact the same action - so that navigation channel creation dredging and navigation maintanance dredging are the same - hence an EIS statement is required for both.  While railroad (or road for that matter) construction and railroad maintainance do not have the same environmental impacts.  The maintainance doesn't add any harm that is still there.  Also, remember that while a railline will have local impact, the water in your local river eventually flows into the ocean where ocean currents will carry it around the world or it will evaporate and fall as rain on you. 

BTW, futuremodal - go to the STB website and read any abandonment application - as you'd see, railroads are required to declare the environmental impact of abandoning a line - including whether line removal would have any effect on the environment.  Also check with the EPA about how many railyards got listed under CERLA as Superfund sites (including Potomac Yard in Alexandria, VA as one example).  EIS statements aren't red tape - they are a way to avoid spending a much larger sum of money later (not to mention health loss).  Sometimes you need to spend money to save money. 

[Anonymous]

If you want a very nice, educational, totally enjoyable experience, drive down alongside the Mississippi from St. Paul to Dubuque.  You'll see some of the best scenic views in the Midwest,  you'll see lots of trains, and you'll see that there is absolutely nothing "natural" about commercial navigation on the upper Mississippi. 

It's amazing how often they've had to dam the river to permit barge transportation on that segment.  There are 25 "Lock and Dam" facilities between St. Paul and St. Louis.

I don't know the river miles between those cities - but from an old Official Guide I make the BNSF route, which pretty much runs along the river, at 624 miles.  So there's basically a lock and dam every 25 miles.  A 15 barge tow will, every 25 miles, have to stop, take itself apart, send eight barges through the lock, then seven more will go through with the towboat, then put itself back together.  All only to do it all again around 25 miles latter.

The only reason this inefficient river transportation system exists at all is that we get dinged for it on our income tax.  Despite our involuntary subsidization of railroad competition, the BNSF can take freight off the river.  Iron ore trains run along that riverbank hauling ore from Minnesota to steel mills near St. Louis and Birmingham.  In the past, under regulation, the government would have prevented the railroad from competing with the barges.  Now the trainloads of ore roll.

I disagree with Jay that it's OK for the Federal Government to spend our tax dollars in this manner.  He says it produces benifits so it's OK for the governement to spend money in this way.  And I'll agree that there are benifits from having the Mississippi open to commercial navigation above St. Louis. 

Where I disagree is that the costs of these benifits are more than the actual benifits.  It ain't worth it.  Although some certain individuals and corporations may benifit from the navigation, overall and in general we're all a little bit poorer because of the lock and dam system on the upper Mississippi.

I'm confident that the costs of keeping the Mississippi open for commercial navigation above St. Louis are greater than the benifits of keeping the Mississippi open for commercial navigation above St. Louis.  (and as for the Missouri River above St. Louis, 4getaboutit)

How do I know the costs outweigh the benifits.  It's simple.  If the benifits outweighed the costs the tows could be charged the full costs of maintianing the river for commercial navigation.  That ain't happening.  If it did, BNSF would start double tracking between Savanna and St. Louis.

Below St. Louis, it's a different river.  It might require some minor touch ups by the Army COE, but it's a wonderful avenue of commerce that requires no lock and dam system.

Aahhh, Ken.  I was wondering when you'd show up.  Glad to see your participation!

Question:  Do you really want to compare maintenance requirements of a heavy duty rail line with that of the Upper Mississippi?

[Anonymous]

No I'm not saying that an EIS in and of it's own sake means that there is environmental effects. You have to read it , y'know.

What I am saying and what is perfectly obvious is that when you make a waterway wider, deeper, obstruct it's natural flow, or place fill ,contaminated ot not, in a place where it was not before there are evironmental effects. These actions ARE evironmental effects and even if beneficial one must consider consequential and secondary effects. What could replacing rail,ballast, or ties do that isn't done already?

So you're saying there's no difference between initial augmentation and the subsequent regular maintenance of the updated channel?

BTW - I'm not saying that the initial actions don't deserve environmental scrutiny in the form of an EIS, but once they are established why should an EIS still be required for subsequent maintenance?

That would be like forcing the DM&E to provide the EIS for their new PRB rail line, then also requiring them to provide an EIS every time they perform maintenance.

BTW2 - I'm sure there are plenty of environmentalists who, if given the chance to opine, will find plenty of environmental impact from the simple act of reballasting, et al!  Reasonableness is not in their lexicon.

[zardoz]

You know, I really didn't want this thread to become a pro vs con regarding Mississippi River navigation!

Quite frankly, I rather wish that this thread had gone down this path.  I'm sure that it would have been better than the path that it is on. 

Yes, but what any of this have to do with man-made global warming?

[Anonymous]

So you admit you both enjoy and employ: The use of bitter, caustic, or stinging remarks expressing contempt, often by ironical statements; also, the language of such remarks.

Not surprising at all....guess contempt is your language of choice?

Thanks for explaining that to the rest of us, we would have never guessed it all on our own...

Please do...

From Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary -

sar'casm (sar'kaz'm), n.  1.  A keen or bitter taunt; a cutting gibe or rebuke.  2.  The use of bitter, caustic, or stinging remarks expressing contempt, often by ironical statements; also, the language of such remarks. -- Syn.  See WIT.

Glad to be of help.

[tdmidget]

No I'm not saying that an EIS in and of it's own sake means that there is environmental effects. You have to read it , y'know.

What I am saying and what is perfectly obvious is that when you make a waterway wider, deeper, obstruct it's natural flow, or place fill ,contaminated ot not, in a place where it was not before there are evironmental effects. These actions ARE evironmental effects and even if beneficial one must consider consequential and secondary effects. What could replacing rail,ballast, or ties do that isn't done already?

[greyhounds]

If you want a very nice, educational, totally enjoyable experience, drive down alongside the Mississippi from St. Paul to Dubuque.  You'll see some of the best scenic views in the Midwest,  you'll see lots of trains, and you'll see that there is absolutely nothing "natural" about commercial navigation on the upper Mississippi. 

It's amazing how often they've had to dam the river to permit barge transportation on that segment.  There are 25 "Lock and Dam" facilities between St. Paul and St. Louis.

I don't know the river miles between those cities - but from an old Official Guide I make the BNSF route, which pretty much runs along the river, at 624 miles.  So there's basically a lock and dam every 25 miles.  A 15 barge tow will, every 25 miles, have to stop, take itself apart, send eight barges through the lock, then seven more will go through with the towboat, then put itself back together.  All only to do it all again around 25 miles latter.

The only reason this inefficient river transportation system exists at all is that we get dinged for it on our income tax.  Despite our involuntary subsidization of railroad competition, the BNSF can take freight off the river.  Iron ore trains run along that riverbank hauling ore from Minnesota to steel mills near St. Louis and Birmingham.  In the past, under regulation, the government would have prevented the railroad from competing with the barges.  Now the trainloads of ore roll.

I disagree with Jay that it's OK for the Federal Government to spend our tax dollars in this manner.  He says it produces benifits so it's OK for the governement to spend money in this way.  And I'll agree that there are benifits from having the Mississippi open to commercial navigation above St. Louis. 

Where I disagree is that the costs of these benifits are more than the actual benifits.  It ain't worth it.  Although some certain individuals and corporations may benifit from the navigation, overall and in general we're all a little bit poorer because of the lock and dam system on the upper Mississippi.

I'm confident that the costs of keeping the Mississippi open for commercial navigation above St. Louis are greater than the benifits of keeping the Mississippi open for commercial navigation above St. Louis.  (and as for the Missouri River above St. Louis, 4getaboutit)

How do I know the costs outweigh the benifits.  It's simple.  If the benifits outweighed the costs the tows could be charged the full costs of maintianing the river for commercial navigation.  That ain't happening.  If it did, BNSF would start double tracking between Savanna and St. Louis.

Below St. Louis, it's a different river.  It might require some minor touch ups by the Army COE, but it's a wonderful avenue of commerce that requires no lock and dam system.

 

[n012944]

Do you really want to go down this path?

What percentage of Mississippi River navigation should we allocate as being "natural", and what percentage shall we designate as "unnatural"?

 

I think it should be very easy to allocate.  Any part of the river that needs to be altered, being a dredging operation or locks, for safe navigatioin of barges and the tugs that go with them, should be considered unnatural.  Most rivers, in their natural state, could not safely handle the size and amount of tugs that are using them now.

 

Bert

[TomDiehl]

And I am glad you remembered you called me a yahoo...although we perfer the proper title of ilk.

 

I never called you a "yahoo".  LC used the term in reference to me and a few others (with your subsequent post agreeing with him/her), and I turned it on him sarcastically by admonishing him for calling you and the other ilks "yahoos"...

...."except for Ed B"!

Do I really have to explain it to you?

Actually, LC didn't call anyone by name a "yahoo," he made a general statement. Since you took it as an insult, it must mean that you think of yourself as a yahoo.

You seem to continue to insist that LC was innocent in his yahoo statement.  Even if you blindly insist that he wasn't referring specifically to FM and others, then you at least should admit that he was referring to some that were posting to the thread in question.  So, whoever he was referring to, he was throwing out an uninvited insult.

My vision is fine, but I see we've found someone else that needs to work on his reading skills.

If you actually take the time to read what I posted and you quoted above, you'll see I said nothing about anyone being innocent. And if you refer back to page one of this thread, you'll also see that LC did NOT connect the term "yahoo" to any particular user name(s). The only connection was in someone's mind after the original post.

Which is exactly what I said above.

[Datafever]

And I am glad you remembered you called me a yahoo...although we perfer the proper title of ilk.

 

I never called you a "yahoo".  LC used the term in reference to me and a few others (with your subsequent post agreeing with him/her), and I turned it on him sarcastically by admonishing him for calling you and the other ilks "yahoos"...

...."except for Ed B"!

Do I really have to explain it to you?

Actually, LC didn't call anyone by name a "yahoo," he made a general statement. Since you took it as an insult, it must mean that you think of yourself as a yahoo.

You seem to continue to insist that LC was innocent in his yahoo statement.  Even if you blindly insist that he wasn't referring specifically to FM and others, then you at least should admit that he was referring to some that were posting to the thread in question.  So, whoever he was referring to, he was throwing out an uninvited insult.

[TomDiehl]

And I am glad you remembered you called me a yahoo...although we perfer the proper title of ilk.

 

I never called you a "yahoo".  LC used the term in reference to me and a few others (with your subsequent post agreeing with him/her), and I turned it on him sarcastically by admonishing him for calling you and the other ilks "yahoos"...

...."except for Ed B"!

Do I really have to explain it to you?

Actually, LC didn't call anyone by name a "yahoo," he made a general statement. Since you took it as an insult, it must mean that you think of yourself as a yahoo.