4 ms·

IMO Missippi shipping good example of lack of commitment. Low water levels already curtailing barge activity. It's a massive effort, but not really sufficient.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> not really sufficient Our barge use is crippled by the Jones Act, not water levels. Make it lucrative to ship by barge and the incentives will get the levels back up.
- maxglute 2y ago
  Making shipping lucrative (which US should) can further increase utilization. Issue with Missippi traffic is existing shipping, i.e. those that operate under Jones, are already crippled by reduced water levels as result of heat/drought/climate change. So it's a water level issue, which translates infra commitment issue... not unlike the green belt. Climate change means you have to invest more just to stand still. E: Like don't get me wrong, internal waterways is a geographic blessing for US, but it also always required enormous/expensive (army) engineering efforts to keep it viable for modern operations (larger barges etc). It's one of those case where terraforming/technology has outstripped natural capacity, but it's possible to augment geography to facilitate more technology, but right now augmentation efforts are not sufficient, not just to improve through put, but to maintain it, because geography can decline.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > it's a water level issue, which translates infra commitment issue The point is with the Jones Act there isn't much value in barges. So other uses of the water are prioritised. Adding water doesn't have an ROI commensurate with alternative uses.
    - maxglute 2y ago
      The mississippi utilization priority is commercial traffic, which is prodominantly barge traffic for all sorts of critical bulk cargo. It's an extremely valuable waterway that can't be replaced by rail or truck. It's not about adding water, it's about dredging to maintain same water levels or building out infra to be more resilient to water level changes, in so far as Jones Act is concerned, along with Foreign Dredge Act, it limits non US ships from conducting maintainence, which precludes bidders like the Dutch who are much better / economical at maintaining water ways. The ROI is massive, but there exist lack of commitment to fix, at least with urgency that, which is in part legistlative.
- cassepipe 2y ago
  I didn't know about the Jones Act """ It requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on ships that have been constructed in the United States and that fly the U.S. flag, are owned by U.S. citizens, and are crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents """ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920
- lenkite 2y ago
  Jeez that act is ridiculous - the U.S. would sanction other nations for such a law on their books.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> not really sufficient Our barge use is crippled by the Jones Act, not water levels. Make it lucrative to ship by barge and the incentives will get the levels back up.

maxglute 2y ago
Making shipping lucrative (which US should) can further increase utilization. Issue with Missippi traffic is existing shipping, i.e. those that operate under Jones, are already crippled by reduced water levels as result of heat/drought/climate change. So it's a water level issue, which translates infra commitment issue... not unlike the green belt. Climate change means you have to invest more just to stand still. E: Like don't get me wrong, internal waterways is a geographic blessing for US, but it also always required enormous/expensive (army) engineering efforts to keep it viable for modern operations (larger barges etc). It's one of those case where terraforming/technology has outstripped natural capacity, but it's possible to augment geography to facilitate more technology, but right now augmentation efforts are not sufficient, not just to improve through put, but to maintain it, because geography can decline.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > it's a water level issue, which translates infra commitment issue The point is with the Jones Act there isn't much value in barges. So other uses of the water are prioritised. Adding water doesn't have an ROI commensurate with alternative uses.
  - maxglute 2y ago
    The mississippi utilization priority is commercial traffic, which is prodominantly barge traffic for all sorts of critical bulk cargo. It's an extremely valuable waterway that can't be replaced by rail or truck. It's not about adding water, it's about dredging to maintain same water levels or building out infra to be more resilient to water level changes, in so far as Jones Act is concerned, along with Foreign Dredge Act, it limits non US ships from conducting maintainence, which precludes bidders like the Dutch who are much better / economical at maintaining water ways. The ROI is massive, but there exist lack of commitment to fix, at least with urgency that, which is in part legistlative.
cassepipe 2y ago
I didn't know about the Jones Act """ It requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on ships that have been constructed in the United States and that fly the U.S. flag, are owned by U.S. citizens, and are crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents """ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920
lenkite 2y ago
Jeez that act is ridiculous - the U.S. would sanction other nations for such a law on their books.