urbanSTL

Arch_Genesis wrote:does anyone know how much power the river is capable of generating? I think it would be a great idea on the surface. We can use all the "free" energy we can get.

A massive amount, but you'd have to flood much of St. Louis, much of north St. Louis County, and most of the Metro East, to tap into even a tiny fraction of its potential.



It would be nice though if we could build a lock and dam somewhere south of downtown. It would be infinitely easier to develop the riverfront with a relatively constant river level. The electricity generated could help pay for it, but it isn't going to pay for itself, therefore the only way to justify it is/has been as a means to improve river transportation. Maybe if fuel costs continue to rise, there will be more demand for river transportation again, and there will be a need for an additional lock and dam at some point.

South of the Missouri there is no need for locks. That is the only reason dams are on the river to start with. Some do generate electric, but I don't think most of them do. Locks would unnecessarily slow down river traffic south of the Missouri. Which would end up causing more fuel usage on tow boats. It costs about 1 billion to put a lock and dam in anyway. Not worth the expense.



You'd be surprised at the level of traffic now.

jlblues wrote:

Arch_Genesis wrote:does anyone know how much power the river is capable of generating? I think it would be a great idea on the surface. We can use all the "free" energy we can get.

A massive amount, but you'd have to flood much of St. Louis, much of north St. Louis County, and most of the Metro East, to tap into even a tiny fraction of its potential.



It would be nice though if we could build a lock and dam somewhere south of downtown. It would be infinitely easier to develop the riverfront with a relatively constant river level. The electricity generated could help pay for it, but it isn't going to pay for itself, therefore the only way to justify it is/has been as a means to improve river transportation. Maybe if fuel costs continue to rise, there will be more demand for river transportation again, and there will be a need for an additional lock and dam at some point.

I have always thought the downtown riverfront would be more exciting if there were someway to accommodate larger pleasure craft (larger crusier boats). Navigating the Mississippi is a challenge as the current is so brisk and really, there are no destinations until you are north of the Alton lock. I would love to see shots of boats cruising on the river during a baseball or football game rather than the tired Huck Fin making a cruise.l

MattnSTL wrote:South of the Missouri there is no need for locks. That is the only reason dams are on the river to start with.

I think you have that reversed.



And it isn't that there is no need, there just isn't enough need to justify the expense.

MSU South Sider wrote:

jlblues wrote:

Arch_Genesis wrote:does anyone know how much power the river is capable of generating? I think it would be a great idea on the surface. We can use all the "free" energy we can get.

A massive amount, but you'd have to flood much of St. Louis, much of north St. Louis County, and most of the Metro East, to tap into even a tiny fraction of its potential.



It would be nice though if we could build a lock and dam somewhere south of downtown. It would be infinitely easier to develop the riverfront with a relatively constant river level. The electricity generated could help pay for it, but it isn't going to pay for itself, therefore the only way to justify it is/has been as a means to improve river transportation. Maybe if fuel costs continue to rise, there will be more demand for river transportation again, and there will be a need for an additional lock and dam at some point.

I have always thought the downtown riverfront would be more exciting if there were someway to accommodate larger pleasure craft (larger crusier boats). Navigating the Mississippi is a challenge as the current is so brisk and really, there are no destinations until you are north of the Alton lock. I would love to see shots of boats cruising on the river during a baseball or football game rather than the tired Huck Fin making a cruise.l

The Admiral used to cruise, so did the president. The Mississippi Queen used to cruise until it was shut down for being made entirely of wood.....

Magnatron wrote:The Mississippi Queen used to cruise until it was shut down for being made entirely of wood.....

The Delta Queen is the wood steamboat built in 1927 that will no longer be permitted to cruise. The American Queen and Delta Queen are still cruising this year into November, but apparently this is the last year. They are not accepting reservations for 2009, and the owner is looking to sell the entire line. It would be sad indeed if they shut down entirely.

jlblues wrote:

MattnSTL wrote:South of the Missouri there is no need for locks. That is the only reason dams are on the river to start with.

I think you have that reversed.

It can go either way. You need a dam to have a lock and you need a lock to have a dam. You don't need them south of the Missouri River because there is enough water flow. Why do you think none were ever built? Immense amounts of cargo are shipped by barge every year on the Mississippi without the need for locks south of the Missouri. Why would they be needed when they will only slow down river shipping. Barges line up at locks, sometimes for days.

MattnSTL wrote:

jlblues wrote:

MattnSTL wrote:South of the Missouri there is no need for locks. That is the only reason dams are on the river to start with.

I think you have that reversed.

It can go either way. You need a dam to have a lock...

Yes. But more accurately, you need a lock because you have a dam.

MattnSTL wrote:...and you need a lock to have a dam.

No.

MattnSTL wrote:You don't need them south of the Missouri River because there is enough water flow.

Not always. Remember the droughts of the 80s? Barge traffic on portions of the river south of St. Louis was severely restricted due to the low river level combined with sand bars, debris, and wreckage. Over the last two decades we have experienced the wetter extreme of the climate cycle, but that will inevitably shift back to the opposite extreme.



In any case, creating a navigable channel for commercial traffic is not the only reason why you might want a lock and dam on the any given stretch of river. As mentioned before, power generation is one. Riverfront and marina development, commercial port development, and improving access and usability for recreational uses of the river, are others.

MattnSTL wrote:Why would they be needed when they will only slow down river shipping. Barges line up at locks, sometimes for days.

The biggest cause of delays is that barge assemblies have outgrown the existing locks, so they now have to be split up and floated through the lock in smaller groups, then reassembled on the other side.



Incidentally, there was a proposal for a lock and dam on the Mississippi south of St. Louis about 15 years or so ago. I believe it was also on the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council long-term wish list, at one time - and maybe still is.

^Maybe, but centrally-located St. Louis is the 2nd largest metropolitan area and the largest rail hub on the Missouri, Mississippi, or Ohio Rivers. That isn't going to change because of one more lock and dam on the Mississippi, a lock and dam that would of course be designed to accomodate the largest barge assemblies and could have multiple locks.



The construction of a lock and dam south of St. Louis could actually significantly improve port operations. Currently, barge assemblies have to be split up, and tied up, at various locations along the river while they await loading and unloading, which becomes difficult at high or low river levels, is dangerous, and restricts river traffic.



A new lock and dam would make construction of a massive barge retention and loading/unloading facility off of the main river channel possible. Without the lock and dam, however, such a port would not be feasible, the design would be much more complex and it would have to be excavated much deeper to accomodate the wide range of river levels.



Such a port facility would allow the region to consolidate its port facilities, and all loading, unloading, transfer, and rail infrastructure. All of this, by the way, would free up a massive amount of riverfront land for other uses, such as trails, parks, marinas, museums, tourist attractions, and mixed-use residential development; land which at the same time will become a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to develop with a new lock and dam south of the city. This project could transform the region like nothing else.

There was a small mention of the NPS planning and Danforth in this months Planning Magazine. I'll have to check if it is online anywhere.