3 ms·
Well, this is a very fucked-up situation. When I was a child, during 80s, most of the Sicily / North Italy goods shipping was by train / boat, and we had good r
by antirez 2y ago
Well, this is a very fucked-up situation. When I was a child, during 80s, most of the Sicily / North Italy goods shipping was by train / boat, and we had good railways. Then a decision was made to favor trucks: I don't know why. So in general, yes, shipping goods via train was a lot better and less costly AFAIK. But politics play a role, as the trains where suppressed in Sicily with some agenda. In general companies shipping stuff from/to North with trucks are not in the cleanest hands. Note that trains can pass from Messina without huge issues as it was already made for decades. The train gets disassembled and put on the boat and assembled back on the other side, this happens many times every day. It is how it works right now. But in general, I believe that trains is what could give more sense to this project.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- thinkindie 2y agoBack then most of the trucks were made by IVECO, hence FIAT. This is the same reason highways are quite developed across Italy, while Milan is the only place with proper infrastructure in place for commuters. It's the same reason Turin had to wait until early 2000s (before the Olympics) to get an underground rail. The biggest issue with Sicily infrastructure is that most of the rail lines are single tracks, plus southern of Salerno you don't have high speed trains. Therefore the bridge itself cannot make much of an impact without fixing the infrastructure at both sides of the (hypothetical) bridge.