Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When gasoline gets to $10 or so a gallon, then you may find more support for your ideas.
Briargate, I won’t speculate if your post was an jest or a serious consideration. It is less of a joke and more credible. This was excerpted from ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Canal#Freight_boats
Respectfully, Supposn
“There were some 42 commercial shipments on the canal in 2008, compared to 15 such shipments in 2007 and more than 33,000 shipments in 1855, the canal's peak year. The new growth in commercial traffic is due to the rising cost of diesel fuel. Canal barges can carry a short ton of cargo 514 miles (827 km) on one gallon of diesel fuel, while a gallon allows a train to haul the same amount of cargo 202 miles (325 km) and a truck 59 miles (95 km). Canal barges can carry loads up to 3,000 short tons (2,700 long tons), and are used to transport objects that would be too large for road or rail shipment.[10] Today, the system is served by several commercial towing companies.[36] In 2012, the New York State Canal System (which consists of the Erie Canal and a few smaller canals) was used to ship 42,000 tons of cargo.[37 “”.
Let’s update our nation’s rail, river, and canal transportation.
Good idea. Let's also repair/replace our many bridges and dams in poor condition, and start a project to get high-speed internet access available in every small town in America.
Infrastructure projects are expensive upfront, but pay big dividends on the back end.
Granted, most of them are pretty short, and are not much more than niche players. But that doesn't mean that they don't still serve a purpose. The one closest to where I live, the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal, is said to serve 40% of all shipping traffic to and from the Port of Baltimore. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a source that would give more information about that claim.
In any case, I'm sure that most people would agree that the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal still receive some usage, even in this day and age.
I have no idea what it's like in other regions, but in the SE/Atlantic Coast it seems the RR companies control the tracks and their right of ways. I could be wrong.
If I wanted to go to Chicago, times and prices of Amtrak and the Megabus would be similar.
If I wanted to go to Nashville, the Megabus would be a lot faster and cheaper.
To Atlanta, the Megabus is two hours faster and a fraction of the price. Flying would be cheaper than Amtrak.
It's more politically poplular than its given credit for, that's why. When they try to end it, enough local interests clamor to save it just a while longer. There's usually a big enough combination of Democrats and Western state Republicans to save it.
Ironically Amtrak was created to the squiggly light bulb of transportation - a transition. Nixon meant for it to let the passenger rail business phase out quietly with minimal political blowback. Ironically it got its fans and still holds on to this day.
The last thing you want is GOVERNMENT MEDDLING.
America once had the most canal mileage and the most railroad track mileage before it was DESTROYED.
Government has fouled up more things in America, by taxing (penalizing) one group and subsidizing another group.
If you want to see some REAL CHANGE, get government out of the way, end all taxation of labor and industry, and let Private Enterprise get the job done.
(Shucks, privately funded urban rail built thousands of miles of track, by hand, from 1890 - 1920)
The same can be said for canals.
There are also many candidates for improved navigable waterways.
If the Susquehanna River got the "TVA" treatment, the northeast would benefit greatly.
(Hydropower dams in the mountains, low head dams with locks in the lowlands)
Not only would we have a water route from the Great Lakes to the Chesapeake (assuming a few canals to the Finger Lakes were restored), but there would be HUGE economic boom, as hundreds of miles of river bank become available for waterfront homes, hotels, and industry. Boating, anyone?
Development could extend into the middle of Pennsylvania, via the West Branch.
Ditto, for the Southern Tier of NY, along the Chemung, Chenango, and other tributaries...MAYBE even make it navigable to Otsego Lake!
Moribund small towns would come alive, with barges, tow boats, recreational water craft, live aboards, retirees and migrant labor traveling up and downstream.
- - - -
Sigh
- - - -
Susquehanna River
Length: 444 miles (715 km)
Source: Otsego Lake, Cooperstown, NY
End: Chesapeake Bay
West Branch
The West Branch is 243 miles (391 km) long
From Carrolltown, PA to Sunbury, PA.
Assuming 90% of its shoreline is developed, with river frontage of 200 ft per lot, and you have the potential for : 32,646 lots @ $100K each = $3.2 billion
(5280 x .9 x 2 x (243+444))/200
Jetgraphics, your post contradicts itself. You contend the inadequate maintenance and updating of our public infrastructures is due to “government meddling” and you regard those infrastructures as net beneficial to our economy and society? You attribute much, (or are you implying a majority?) of our nations’ most economically critically beneficial infrastructures were created by essentially only non-government investment and support?
I’m among those contending the majority of those most economically critically beneficial infrastructures would not have been created (and may likely would not have and possibly not now exist), if they were not supported by some government funding or risk of government’s credit status. The inadequacy of our needed public infrastructures is due to inadequate government support of such public infrastructures. Specifically, that’s why USA’s rail and waterway transportation systems are comparatively 2’nd or 3d rate.
Why does Amtrak even exist?
If I wanted to go to Chicago, times and prices of Amtrak and the Megabus would be similar.
If I wanted to go to Nashville, the Megabus would be a lot faster and cheaper.
To Atlanta, the Megabus is two hours faster and a fraction of the price. Flying would be cheaper than Amtrak.
Sheerbliss, I’m among those asking why Amtrak, (which is as it should continue to be substantially self-supporting), is not enabled to fully support our nation’s economy? Why haven’t we enabled Amtrak to maintain and upgrade our nation’s rail track systems?
If we improved our nations railroad infrastructures, we’d reduce roadway traffic and vehicle emissions, power costs, enabling safer and quicker commutes to workers. Reducing the costs of USA intercity bulk shipping would reduce prices to USA consumers and somewhat reduce USA’s products’ disadvantages to cheaper foreign imported products and be of general net benefit to our nation’s economy.
Respectfully, Supposn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
… I’m among those contending the majority of those most economically critically beneficial infrastructures would not have been created (and may likely would not have and possibly not now exist), if they were not supported by some government funding or risk of government’s credit status. The inadequacy of our needed public infrastructures is due to inadequate government support of such public infrastructures. Specifically, that’s why USA’s rail and waterway transportation systems are comparatively 2’nd or 3d rate. …
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
