6 ms·

I am passionate about this issue because I think the US is failing to leverage an extremely valuable asset that could help bring manufacturing back to the state

I am passionate about this issue because I think the US is failing to leverage an extremely valuable asset that could help bring manufacturing back to the states, reduce highway traffic and cut co2 emissions. I believe the biggest infrastructure change the US could do is invest in a comprehensive inland terminal network. Europe is doing this. They have been working on strengthening hundreds of inland terminals. Check out this example linked below on google of terminal in Basel, Switizerland - literally in the middle of the continent[1]! Below is also a proposed project in Cincinnati, Ohio that never gained traction because of the issues with the Jones Act[2]. Imagine if every city along the Mississippi river network had a terminal like this. I want to stress that the real use of an inland terminal network like this isn't only for delivering finished goods from outside the US to the interior of the country. The real value is to further integrate manufacturing transportation networks between US states, Canada and Mexico. I think this opportunity will fail to be realized because of our dysfunctional politics in Washington and too many powerful lobbies. [1] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Swissterminal+AG+COBI/@47.5515469,7.642522,691m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Swissterminal+AG+COBI/@47.... [2] https://www.soapboxmedia.com/devnews/0605queensgateterminals.aspx https://www.soapboxmedia.com/devnews/0605queensgateterminals...

JAlexoid 4y ago
There's a big difference - US actually has a highly efficient rail freight network.
- Retric 4y ago
  The US’s rail network isn’t that different than the EU’s. The average freight rail trip in the EU are much shorter which makes rail less competitive relative to trucks. That has nothing to do with the rail network and is instead a function of EU’s economy. The difference in utilization largely comes down to geography and politics. America’s flyover states and high population coasts just fit rail really well.
  - JAlexoid 4y ago
    > The average freight rail trip in the EU are much shorter which makes rail less competitive relative to trucks. Which makes rail freight in US much more different, doesn't it? We cannot discount competitiveness when comparing rail networks in economics context. The fact that US rail freight is so much more efficient makes any argument for internal water based transport much less sound.
    - Retric 4y ago
      > Which makes rail freight in US much more different, doesn't it? It makes US rail less efficient vs EU rail, but more competitive compared to US trucking.
- crisdux 4y ago
  Sure, maybe that explains why Europe has made more progress with their inland transportation network. But what I said is still true. Transporting freight via river systems is cheaper and greener than using road and rail. The gap will widen as energy and transportation costs continue to increase. The United States has the largest internal waterways system in the world, and we basically only use it for bulk goods.
  - JAlexoid 4y ago
    I disagree that rail in US is much more polluting, than internal waterway transport. In Europe - yes, but not US.
    - noahtallen 4y ago
      I don’t understand: why would rail pollution be worse in Europe, which has electrification initiatives for even freight rail, than in the US, where the rail duopolies and monopolies use old diesel locomotives and never invest in meaningful system upgrades?
      - LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
        Oh, really? https://www.railway-technology.com/news/wabtec-union-pacific-locomotive-contract/ https://www.railway-technology.com/news/wabtec-union-pacific...
        noahtallen 4y ago
        Fair, but still diesel.
      - JAlexoid 4y ago
        Diesel electric engines are actually VERY efficient. Even the "old diesel" locomotives are still easily 40% efficient.
        noahtallen 4y ago
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  As does Europe?
  - mlindner 4y ago
    Europe's rail freight is not very efficient actually.
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      Isn't it? The thing is both you and the GP seem to be handwaving it. Efficient in what sense? Is freight rail in Europe slower, more expensive, dirtier, and if so how much? Or do they just measure/account for externalities differently? It doesn't require an essay to put assertions about efficiency in context.
- bell-cot 4y ago
  Ah. Depends on what you mean by "highly efficient". From both memory and a quick Google on "2022 u.s. railroad problems", there are plenty of major problems with the U.S. freight RR system. Especially if you try to assume that it has (or can easily add) a bunch of spare capacity. (Short version - each of the major U.S. freight RR's is more-or-less a monopoly in the part of the U.S. which it serves. If management relentlessly optimizes for profitability, and doesn't much care about customer service, shipping delays, sustainable staffing levels, etc... Well, I'm sure RR management has enjoyed some fat profit-sharing bonus checks.)
  - mlindner 4y ago
    Except those "monopolies" ship freight at drastically lower prices than their European counterparts. US rail has it's problems but freight rail is not one of them.
    - Retric 4y ago
      4/5th of EU rail traffic is passenger trains which changes a great deal about how each system operates. The EU actually has more track miles per person than the US and vastly more electrified lines, they even pay less for rail infrastructure projects etc, but freight traffic very much plays second fiddle. The US on the other hand allows for much heavier and slower freight trains. It’s very good at moving heavy stable bulk loads like coal and corn long distances, but less so about moving perishable goods. US freight trips to Mexico can take as long as 45-60 days but those trips are really cheap per ton/mile.
gnopgnip 4y ago
What does this look like in practice? Extending the port of Stockton to Fresno?
- larryliu 4y ago
  In California? Many badge terminals along Pacific coast. But it means much more for Eastern and Southeastern US where waterways are plentiful.
- crisdux 4y ago
  I think a better example would be the following. Let's take the perspective of cargo intended for a Honda plant in Ohio. This is a fictional illustration. The below voyage is impossible right now because of the Jones act. 1. River barge within the Mexican interior picks up a shipment intended for the Honda plant in Ohio. 2. Shipment is transferred to a larger vessel in Coatzacoalcos, Mexico for voyage to Houston Texas. 3. Vessel travels along the coast, which makes for a perfect transport waterway because of its shallow and calm waters. 4. Vessel stops in Houston. picks up and drops off containers at various terminals. 5. Vessel enters the Mississippi river system and continues to drop off and pick up goods throughout its voyage. 6. Our original cargo we care about, is offloaded in Cincinnati at the Queen City Ohio River Terminal and transferred to the rail network, ultimately for delivery at the Honda manufacturing plant outside of Columbus Ohio.
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    Isn't that journey possible if you just use an American flagged ship with a crew of Americans starting at Coatzacoalcos, Mexico? In the original article you linked [2] I didn't see any mention of how using Americans would be cost prohibitive. Which IIUC is to try to offload some of the costs of keeping a ship building industry onto private industry [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920#National_security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920#Na... [2]: https://www.soapboxmedia.com/devnews/0605queensgateterminals.aspx https://www.soapboxmedia.com/devnews/0605queensgateterminals...
    - deleted 4y ago
Terr_ 4y ago
> Imagine if every city along the Mississippi river network had a terminal like this. Alas, just this week the news [1] is that the Mississippi river's water-level has fallen low enough that existing docks and routes are having problems. So while it's an interesting vision, there are some risks with respect to reliable rainfall and water-usage. [1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/mississippi-river-approaching-record-low-water-levels-threatening-commercial-traffic-11665748981 https://www.wsj.com/articles/mississippi-river-approaching-r...

JAlexoid 4y ago

There's a big difference - US actually has a highly efficient rail freight network.

Retric 4y ago
The US’s rail network isn’t that different than the EU’s. The average freight rail trip in the EU are much shorter which makes rail less competitive relative to trucks. That has nothing to do with the rail network and is instead a function of EU’s economy. The difference in utilization largely comes down to geography and politics. America’s flyover states and high population coasts just fit rail really well.
- JAlexoid 4y ago
  > The average freight rail trip in the EU are much shorter which makes rail less competitive relative to trucks. Which makes rail freight in US much more different, doesn't it? We cannot discount competitiveness when comparing rail networks in economics context. The fact that US rail freight is so much more efficient makes any argument for internal water based transport much less sound.
  - Retric 4y ago
    > Which makes rail freight in US much more different, doesn't it? It makes US rail less efficient vs EU rail, but more competitive compared to US trucking.
crisdux 4y ago
Sure, maybe that explains why Europe has made more progress with their inland transportation network. But what I said is still true. Transporting freight via river systems is cheaper and greener than using road and rail. The gap will widen as energy and transportation costs continue to increase. The United States has the largest internal waterways system in the world, and we basically only use it for bulk goods.
- JAlexoid 4y ago
  I disagree that rail in US is much more polluting, than internal waterway transport. In Europe - yes, but not US.
  - noahtallen 4y ago
    I don’t understand: why would rail pollution be worse in Europe, which has electrification initiatives for even freight rail, than in the US, where the rail duopolies and monopolies use old diesel locomotives and never invest in meaningful system upgrades?
    - LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
      Oh, really? https://www.railway-technology.com/news/wabtec-union-pacific-locomotive-contract/ https://www.railway-technology.com/news/wabtec-union-pacific...
      - noahtallen 4y ago
        Fair, but still diesel.
    - JAlexoid 4y ago
      Diesel electric engines are actually VERY efficient. Even the "old diesel" locomotives are still easily 40% efficient.
      - noahtallen 4y ago
anigbrowl 4y ago
As does Europe?
- mlindner 4y ago
  Europe's rail freight is not very efficient actually.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Isn't it? The thing is both you and the GP seem to be handwaving it. Efficient in what sense? Is freight rail in Europe slower, more expensive, dirtier, and if so how much? Or do they just measure/account for externalities differently? It doesn't require an essay to put assertions about efficiency in context.
bell-cot 4y ago
Ah. Depends on what you mean by "highly efficient". From both memory and a quick Google on "2022 u.s. railroad problems", there are plenty of major problems with the U.S. freight RR system. Especially if you try to assume that it has (or can easily add) a bunch of spare capacity. (Short version - each of the major U.S. freight RR's is more-or-less a monopoly in the part of the U.S. which it serves. If management relentlessly optimizes for profitability, and doesn't much care about customer service, shipping delays, sustainable staffing levels, etc... Well, I'm sure RR management has enjoyed some fat profit-sharing bonus checks.)
- mlindner 4y ago
  Except those "monopolies" ship freight at drastically lower prices than their European counterparts. US rail has it's problems but freight rail is not one of them.
  - Retric 4y ago
    4/5th of EU rail traffic is passenger trains which changes a great deal about how each system operates. The EU actually has more track miles per person than the US and vastly more electrified lines, they even pay less for rail infrastructure projects etc, but freight traffic very much plays second fiddle. The US on the other hand allows for much heavier and slower freight trains. It’s very good at moving heavy stable bulk loads like coal and corn long distances, but less so about moving perishable goods. US freight trips to Mexico can take as long as 45-60 days but those trips are really cheap per ton/mile.

gnopgnip 4y ago

What does this look like in practice? Extending the port of Stockton to Fresno?

larryliu 4y ago
In California? Many badge terminals along Pacific coast. But it means much more for Eastern and Southeastern US where waterways are plentiful.
crisdux 4y ago
I think a better example would be the following. Let's take the perspective of cargo intended for a Honda plant in Ohio. This is a fictional illustration. The below voyage is impossible right now because of the Jones act. 1. River barge within the Mexican interior picks up a shipment intended for the Honda plant in Ohio. 2. Shipment is transferred to a larger vessel in Coatzacoalcos, Mexico for voyage to Houston Texas. 3. Vessel travels along the coast, which makes for a perfect transport waterway because of its shallow and calm waters. 4. Vessel stops in Houston. picks up and drops off containers at various terminals. 5. Vessel enters the Mississippi river system and continues to drop off and pick up goods throughout its voyage. 6. Our original cargo we care about, is offloaded in Cincinnati at the Queen City Ohio River Terminal and transferred to the rail network, ultimately for delivery at the Honda manufacturing plant outside of Columbus Ohio.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  Isn't that journey possible if you just use an American flagged ship with a crew of Americans starting at Coatzacoalcos, Mexico? In the original article you linked [2] I didn't see any mention of how using Americans would be cost prohibitive. Which IIUC is to try to offload some of the costs of keeping a ship building industry onto private industry [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920#National_security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920#Na... [2]: https://www.soapboxmedia.com/devnews/0605queensgateterminals.aspx https://www.soapboxmedia.com/devnews/0605queensgateterminals...
  - deleted 4y ago

Terr_ 4y ago

> Imagine if every city along the Mississippi river network had a terminal like this. Alas, just this week the news [1] is that the Mississippi river's water-level has fallen low enough that existing docks and routes are having problems. So while it's an interesting vision, there are some risks with respect to reliable rainfall and water-usage. [1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/mississippi-river-approaching-record-low-water-levels-threatening-commercial-traffic-11665748981 https://www.wsj.com/articles/mississippi-river-approaching-r...