Conveyor Belt System to Move Cargo Around Great Lakes Locks Raises Questions
WASHINGTON — Members of Michigan’s congressional delegation raised concerns today that the Army Corps of Engineers may be considering an unorthodox alternative in a cost-benefit study that, if true, could potentially hurt the case being made for a new super-size navigational shipping lock at a key chokepoint on the Great Lakes.
U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and U.S. Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Zeeland) led the letter to Army Corps brass, again urging quick completion of a study into proposals to build a new shipping lock at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. But they also questioned reports that the Corps may be weighing the estimated $626-million cost of a new lock against that of a conveyor belt system around the so-called Soo Locks.
“It is our understanding that [the Corps] is reevaluating the [cost-benefit ratio] for this project by calculating the transportation rate savings based on an alternative mode of transporting commodities around the falls at the Soo Lock[s] using a [conveyor] belt system,” the letter read. “[T]his alternative has never been considered for other lock and dam projects."
The letter, which was also signed by 10 other members of the state’s congressional delegation, noted that historically cost-benefit studies for projects such as navigational locks have looked at the alternative costs involved in transportation of goods via rail or truck — not conveyor belts. “We therefore encourage [the Corps] to ensure that the … re-evaluation of the Soo Locks project is conducted in a manner that is consistent with other navigation lock and dam project evaluations.”
The concerns are being raised at a time when the proposal for a new lock that would be equal in size to the largest one already in operation at the Soo appears to be gaining momentum. Gov. Rick Snyder has urged the Corps to approve a second large lock, noting federal reports — first detailed in the Free Press nearly a year ago — that a failure of the 49-year-old Poe Lock could bring shipping to a virtual halt and potentially plunge the nation into recession, as iron ore shipments to steel mills could cease.
As recently as last month, a report produced for the U.S. Treasury Department indicated that a backup to the Poe Lock, which is the only one large enough to handle the 1,000-foot vessels that ply the Great Lakes loaded with iron ore pellets, is one of some 40 infrastructure proposals around the U.S. that could have “major economic significance.”
But the Corps, which operates the Soo locks, has long been a sticking point for the project: While there is enormous regional support — and the Treasury report suggested that the economic benefit could be two to four times the amount spent — a study done about a decade ago suggested that the project was not worth the cost.
Since then, however, other reports, as well as the one done by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and reported on by the Free Press, have indicated that the Corps in that earlier report wrongly assumed that trucks and or rail lines could serve as alternatives in the case of an unscheduled closure of the aging Poe, which has already shown the need for additional maintenance. The reports indicated that there were nowhere near enough trucks available to move Lake shipments and that the rail lines and freight capacity doesn’t exist.
A new Poe-sized lock to ward against failure of the current one was authorized by Congress as long ago as 1986, but funding has never been available to complete it. It became even more of a longshot after the Corps said the benefit wasn’t worth it some years back before this latest study was ordered.
The letter was prompted at least in part by comments made to members of Congress by some supporters of a new lock who said the Army Corps, in a meeting late last year, had mentioned the proposal for a conveyor belt, though it was not immediately known what outside groups, if any, might be behind such a plan.
Stabenow's office said that while she understands that the Corps in its cost-benefit study must consider all potential alternatives, that there are concerns that a conveyor belt is not a realistic or practical option at the locks, where vessels carrying as much as 70,000 tons of iron ore navigate a steep drop between Lake Superior and the St. Marys River on the way to Lakes Huron and Michigan. Huizenga's office also questioned whether such a proposal was realistic.
One problem, for instance, would involve figuring out how iron ore from western Lake Superior would get to the locks and what it would be loaded onto at the other end of the conveyor, if the Poe was out of commission, unless vessels were there at the ready.
As it stands, Corps personnel are still not expected to report back on a re-evaluation of the cost and benefits of a new lock until sometime next year, Corps officials recently told the Free Press, even though President Donald Trump has touted a new infrastructure program for the U.S.
Michigan’s legislators wrote Douglas Lamont, who is currently serving as the Army assistant secretary in charge of civil works and Lt. Gen. Todd Semonite at Army Corps headquarters in Washington, asking that “every step is taken to expedite the completion of this critically important analysis.”
The Corps did not immediately respond to the letter or questions from the Free Press regarding the conveyor belt proposal.
Besides Stabenow and Huizenga, the letter was signed by U.S. Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) as well as U.S. Reps. Jack Bergman (R-Watersmeet), Debbie Dingell (D-Dearborn), Dan Kildee (D-Flint Township), Brenda Lawrence (D-Southfield), Sandy Levin (D-Royal Oak), Paul Mitchell (R-Dryden), Dave Trott (R-Birmingham), Fred Upton (R-St. Joseph), and Tim Walberg (R-Tipton).
