G

oing with the flow // Plans for the Minneapolis riverfront favor light industry and housing over
existing barge-dependent industries
Steve Brandt; Staff Writer
Publication ate! March "# $%%% Page! &$ Section! B'S()*SS *dition! M*+,-
Perhaps the first sign that the 'pper .arbor of Minneapolis
would fall well short of the drea/s of civic boosters arrived with
the first loc0age through the St1 2nthony 3alls loc0s in $%45# an
upstrea/ barge laden with 67& tons of 89-inch water pipe1
2fter the dedication of the loc0s# the barge :uietly slipped
bac0 downriver to unload at Savage# where its cargo was shifted onto
a truc0 to be hauled to Minneapolis1 2lthough Minneapolis boasted a
new harbor above its falls# it had no doc01
+he co/pletion of the two-loc0 extension of Mississippi
navigation fulfilled a drea/ of Minneapolitans to lift barges 69
feet to bypass the falls and its downstrea/ rapids1
2fter generations of lobbying# boosters in the $%7&s
predicted that the harbor would attract hundreds of acres of
factories to the upper waterfront to ta0e advantage of cheap barge
rates1 +he two loc0s# a new lower da/ and dredging to deepen the
river channel cost /ore than ;8&& /illion in today<s dollars1
(t was a /assive public wor0# /ore than four ti/es the cost of
another notable conte/porary# the original Metropolitan Stadiu/ in
Bloo/ington1
=et the harbor failed to deliver the factories and >obs that
had been predicted1 +hose businesses that did /ove in don<t /atch
for >obs and tax base the light industry favored by develop/ent
officials today1
So Minneapolis is starting to debate a vast shift in land use
for its riverfront above Ply/outh 2venue1 Such a shift would
threaten the future of river shipping in Minneapolis and the debate
9770198 HIT_10037761_42
Going with the flow // Plans f or the Minneaolis ri!er
"en#
raises the issue of whether the loc0s even will operate in the long
run1
+he tea/ of planners proposing this shift is wor0ing for the
Minneapolis Par0 and ,ecreation Board# .ennepin ?ounty# the city of
Minneapolis and the Minneapolis ?o//unity evelop/ent 2gency1 2
/aster plan will be proposed for adoption by those agencies later
this year# to be followed by @oning changes1
+he proposed riverfront /a0eover would unfold over several
decades1 (t would be /ost dra/atic on the west side# where heavy
industry would yield to housing# offices and light industry1 Par0s
would line both ban0s1
+he proposal would co/plete an evolution of the city<s
riverfront that began a century ago with the first of the par0ways
that line the gorge south of the 3ran0lin 2venue bridge1
More recently# the central riverfront up to Ply/outh 2venue
has yielded its vacant rail yards and /ills to a strip of par0s and
renovated buildings# sti/ulating new housing and offices1 2reas once
filled with factories# such as the south end of )icollet (sland# or
nearby Boo/ (sland# now offer tran:uil spaces for recreation1 +his
conversion has followed the river<s i/prove/ent fro/ an open sewer
to cleaner waters1
+he upper river plan doesn<t explicitly call for an end to
barge traffic through the loc0s1 But continuing the land conversion
upriver to the ?a/den Bridge threatens the long-ter/ river access of
the city<s few re/aining barge shippers1 +he draft riverfront plan
would relocate the/# plus so/e other riverside industry1
Businesses on the river
Aohn (saacs# president of 2/erican (ron B Supply ?o1# has been
a/ong the /ost outspo0en business owners :uestioning the plan1 CWe
are /uch /ore econo/ically viable on the river#C he said1
.is scrap business >ust south of the Dowry 2venue bridge sends
"& to %& barges a year downriver to steel /ills1 uring the
2pril-to-)ove/ber shipping season# %& percent of what he ships rides
a barge1 .e ships by rail during winter1
2/erican (ron is the s/allest of the four upper river shippers#
in ter/s of volu/e# shipping $8&#&&& to $5&#&&& tons annually1 E+he
fir/ pro>ected yearly river ship/ents of $7&#&&& tons in $%79 when
the navigation extension was being debated1F
2ny effort to relocate the fir/ is co/plicated by the fir/<s
lawsuit against the city# see0ing da/ages for the city<s delay in
issuing all per/its for 2/erican (ron to install its controversial
Gondirator /etal shredder1 +he shredder would allow the fir/ to
triple its tonnage# (saacs said# but /any neighbors already find the
noise of loading barges ob>ectionable1 Several co/petitors ship
fro/ St1 Paul# but (saacs said /oving there would distance hi/ fro/
suppliers of scrap1
CWe 0now for a fact# though# that we need to be on the river1
+hat<s a given1 +hat<ll never change1C
Aust downstrea/# ?a/as (nc1 is Minneapolis< largest river
shipper# last year i/porting "&&#&&& tons of sand# gravel and
crushed li/estone fro/ /ines below St1 Paul1 (ts yard already has
been /oved once for par0 develop/ent# when the fir/ was 0nown as
Shiely1 (n the /id-$%"&s# the par0 syste/ bought a for/er yard#
located >ust below the falls1
Barging rates cheaper
,iver shippers cite clear evidence that utili@ing barges
is the /ost energy-efficient# cost-effective way to /ove goods1
Shifting freight fro/ barges to truc0s or trains would increase fuel
use and e/issions# increase accident rates# add to highway
congestion# and consu/e /ore tires# a state study found1
*cono/ic studies also have found that river rates help 0eep
down rail rates for co//odities that can be shipped by either
/ethod1 CWe have the river# and the railroads 0now it#C said
(saacs# who is able to use that leverage in negotiating freight
rates1
2ccording to figures fro/ the '1S1 2r/y ?orps of *ngineers#
which runs the loc0s# scrap can be shipped fro/ Minneapolis to
2r0ansas# one 2/erican (ron /ar0et# for about ;" per ton less by
barge than by rail1 But the difference is only about ;814& per ton
for wheat sent to Douisiana# when all shipping costs are included1
-ther river shippers include the privately operated# city-owned
'pper .arbor +er/inal# opened five years after the loc0s# and its
neighbor# ce/ent i/porter .olna/ (nc1# which has re:uested a city
exe/ption fro/ a riverfront develop/ent /oratoriu/ so it can
increase annual tonnage by 67 percent1
.olna/ built on the harbor in $%49 for barge access# and if
that ceases# CWe<ll probably say goodbye to the city#C said facility
/anager Gen 3arrar1 .olna/ e/ploys six people in Minneapolis and
has an off-river ter/inal in Burnsville1
But these harborside businesses /ay be doo/ed by the nu/bers
i/portant to city officials and planners1 +he co/bined e/ploy/ent
of the three private shippers and the city ter/inal barely reaches
$&& people at pea0 periods# an average of about one wor0er per acre1
?ity develop/ent officials see0 >ob creation of at least one >ob
per thousand s:uare feet of plant in assisting light industry# an
e/ploy/ent density $6 ti/es that of shippers1 Moreover# property
values on the west ban0 north of 89th 2v1 )1# which includes the
river shippers# are far lower than the city-assisted light industry
develop/ent to the south1 +hose newer businesses between the
Ply/outh and Burlington )orthern bridges were set bac0 fro/ the
river# allowing public access1
(n contrast# planners have s0etched one redevelop/ent sche/e
for >ust the west ban0 of the river north of Dowry 2venue that would
add $#&5& housing units and 5"&#&&& s:uare feet of office-retail
space1 +hey esti/ate a co/bined /ar0et value of ;$"9 /illion#
yielding /ore than ;9 /illion in property taxes annually# co/pared
to about ;$1$ /illion now1 +hey say the entire redeveloped
riverfront could generate ;$& /illion annually in tax revenue1
But so/e have ridiculed the assu/ption of planners that people
will rent or buy high-density housing sandwiched between noisy
(nterstate .wy1 %9 and the do/inating ,iverside power plant across
the river1 +hose planners reply that housing would face downriver
to capture /ore of the river and the downtown s0yline1
,edeveloping the upper river is expected to cost at least ;9&&
/illion1 )orth of Dowry alone# the cost of ac:uiring land#
relocating businesses# and rebuilding streets and utilities has been
esti/ated at ;7" /illion - not including potentially expensive soil
cleanup and par0 costs1
+he draft river plan doesn<t explicitly call for ending barge
traffic1 But it urges nearly continuous ribbons of green for
recreation that would deny barges a doc01
(ronically# the drive to create the 'pper .arbor was rooted in
the river<s early 8&th century decline as a channel for co//erce
north of St1 Douis1 Grain and passenger traffic had shifted to
railroads# and the vast rafts of ti/ber floated downriver fro/
northern forests were gone with the trees1 -nly short-haul traffic
re/ained# despite a series of congressional actions that directed
the ?orps of *ngineers to create a 4-foot-deep channel1 *ven so#
the river >ust south of St1 Paul was shallow enough to cross by foot
in the fall# according to Aohn 2nfinson# the corps< district
historian1
+he sti/ulus to revive river traffic exploded out of a federal
railroad rate case in the $%8&s that essentially declared river
co//erce dead# allowing rail rates to double or triple1 Shoc0ed
shippers# led by those in Minneapolis and St1 Paul# lobbied for the
federal govern/ent to build a %-foot-deep channel1 But when they
succeeded in $%5&# the legislation o/itted the 'pper .arbor# leaving
the head of navigation the West Ban0 flats under Washington
2venue1
ebating the benefit
+he ?orps of *ngineers reco//ended several ti/es against
extending the channel above the falls# and :uestioning whether river
traffic would >ustify the cost1 (t restudied the issue in $%56# but
before it could finish# Minneapolis grain /erchants and
/anufacturers successfully lobbied ?ongress to authori@e the
extension1 World War (( delayed initial construction until $%9"1
(n $%79# with the lower loc0 and da/ /ostly co/pleted# ?ongress
directed that the corps review the pro>ect1 3or the next two years#
the city struggled to >ustify the pro>ect1
(nitially# when the anticipated econo/ic benefits of river
shipping were weighed by the corps against the entire cost of the
extension and its annual /aintenance costs# it found only 6" cents
of benefit for every ;$ spent1 But when only the cost of the
re/aining wor0 was considered# the benefit was ;$1841
?ity leaders painted an al/ost apocalyptic picture of >obs and
factories /oving away fro/ Minneapolis if the extension weren<t
co/pleted1 +hey feared that St1 Paul<s huge increase in river
shipping since $%9& would help it eclipse Minneapolis# where
shipping was stagnant1
'1S1 Sen1 .ubert .1 .u/phrey# who pushed repeatedly for
congressional appropriations for the pro>ect# predicted a new harbor
Cwill raise sharply the pace of industrial and /ercantile activity
throughout Minnesota and the entire )orthwest1C
es/ond Pratt# for $4 years a /e/ber of the Minneapolis ?ity
?ouncil<s ?o//erce and .arbors ?o//ittee# told ar/y engineers!
C+here were two things in those $4 years that ( can truthfully say
all the /e/bers of the ?ity ?ouncil agreed on! +hey were against
sin and for the co/pletion of the harbor pro>ect1C
3inally# in $%74# the corps reco//ended that the pro>ect be
finished1 +he /onth before the first barge passed through in $%45#
Dife /aga@ine excoriated the pro>ect as a Cglaring exa/ple of por01C
Worse# in the 84 years between the congressional authori@ation
and those first barges# there were i/portant transportation changes1
)ationally# the interstate highway syste/ was under construction#
favoring truc0 transport1 -n a regional level# the St1 Dawrence
Seaway opened a co/peting route1
Docally# another new barge route siphoned /uch of the grain
shipping the 'pper .arbor had been expected to capture1 ?argill
(nc1# which had built /ilitary shipping on the Minnesota ,iver
during World War ((# later began shipping grain fro/ a ter/inal in
Savage1 By $%79# ship/ents on the Minnesota ,iver already exceeded
the Minneapolis river tonnage1
2s the head of navigation# the Minneapolis harbor also is the
farthest fro/ /ar0ets1 +he $7-barge tows that sweep upriver to St1
Paul /ust be bro0en into two-barge tows to fit through the three
upper loc0s1
Well below capacity
By $%"5# 8& years after the new harbor opened# Minneapolis
shippers were using only 89 percent of ter/inal capacity1 )orthern
States Power# which once shipped hundreds of thousands of tons of
western coal annually through its ,iverside plant to be shipped by
barge to downriver power plants# switched to all-rail delivery1
Shipping has topped 8 /illion tons for the 'pper .arbor only
once in the past 8& years1 2 5-/illion-ton tonnage prediction was
used to sell the pro>ect1 +he corps says it<s hard to >ustify its
dredging and operating costs for anything below $ /illion tons a
year1 +hat doesn<t include the cost of the original capital
invest/ent and /a>or rehabilitation since then for the three loc0s#
about ;95& /illion in $%%% dollars1
But $ /illion tons is a theoretical threshold1 ennis ?in# the
corps liaison with Minneapolis# said he<s not aware of any precedent
for closing co//ercial loc0s# and said that such a decision would
probably be up to ?ongress1
CGnowing what we 0now now# we probably should not have built
the loc0s#C said Aerry 3ruin# a 'niversity of Minnesota
transportation econo/ist1
2 0ey initial decision influencing the riverfront<s develop/ent
will be whether the city closes its 5&-year-old ter/inal1 (t /a0es
/oney on operating expenses# but loses several hundred thousand
dollars annually when capital costs are included1 Bonds financing
its e:uip/ent will be paid off this year1
2nother i/portant factor to the city is that less than $&
percent of traffic through its ter/inal originates or is destined
for city locations# /eaning that Minneapolis bears the whole cost of
a facility while benefits are pri/arily outside the city# and even
the region1
Planners favor converting the ter/inal<s tax-exe/pt site to
housing that could pay an esti/ated ;667#&&& annually in taxes1
?losing the facility could cut shipping by "&&#&&& tons1
So/e river shippers contend that the debate over par0s vs1
shipping on the river edge can be co/pro/ised to allow both uses1
But so/e river-area residents argue that river shipping is
doo/ed1
C(t<s inevitable1 (t<s when you decide to nail the coffin
down#C said 3ran Gu/inga# a northeast Minneapolis activist who
praised planners for addressing neighborhood needs# and encouraged
residents of northeast and north Minneapolis at one public hearing
to spea0 up for the plan1 Ca/n it# we<re worth itHC she
exclai/ed1
,eshaping a riverfront
2 /aster planning process for the upper riverfront of
Minneapolis has rated areas along the Mississippi according to how
difficult they would be to redevelop1 +he latest draft of this plan
calls for shifting the river toward light industry# housing# offices
and par0s1
+onnage falls short
+he actual tonnage barged through the 'pper .arbor of
Minneapolis has fallen short of the volu/e of shipping predicted
when Minneapolis was lobbying for the pro>ect1
Minneapolis planning co//ission# $%56! $&15 /illion tons
Devel pro>ected by ?orps in $%7&s
to >ustify pro>ect! 5 /illion tons
Pea0 shipping year E$%67F! 815 /illion tons
$&-year shipping average E$%"%-$%%"F! $17" /illion tons
?orps bench/ar0 for $!$ benefit cost ratio! $ /illion tons
Dowest shipping year E$%"%F! 144 /illion tons
,ecipient */ail 2ddress!
Sender */ail 2ddress!
*/ail Sub>ect!
?o//ents to add to */ail!
$& of $7