4 ms·
I mean ok but why not just unload at any mexican or canadian port with a rail connection to US? Why go all the way down to bottom of mexico?
by jessriedel 3y ago
I mean ok but why not just unload at any mexican or canadian port with a rail connection to US? Why go all the way down to bottom of mexico?
- bobthepanda 3y agoBy ship is still by far the cheapest way of transporting cargo, and the proposed route would involve the shortest land distances. More importantly the Sierra Madre ranges are large geographic barriers throughout most of Mexico but are relatively flat in the area of the Chivela pass, where this rail line is.
- jessriedel 3y agoMy comment was discussing using the rail for access to the US, not for getting from one ocean to another.
- bobthepanda 3y agoMost of the US lives on the East Coast so at some point those mountains have to be crossed. The elevation of the plateau in between the Sierra Madres is no joke; Mexico City is at 7349 ft elevation.
- bluGill 3y agoThey can. However if the goal is the center of the US ports in Mexico may be closer (remember mountains cause are expensive to cross and so a straight line on a map may not be the best route). I'm not in logistics so I can't tell you all the considerations used to decide if they should stop in any particular port or not.
- bombcar 3y agoRight now the main thing controlling where the ships land is where they have ports that can receive their massive tonnage; places like Long Beach (16,618 TEU) or Houston (3,974 TEU). It's quite arguable that additional ports need to be built so that the ships can disperse cargo closer (or even farther, but more efficiently) to where it is going.