Comment by crisdux | Hacker News Reader

Comment by crisdux | Hacker News Reader

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....

[2] https://www.soapboxmedia.com/devnews/0605queensgateterminals...

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

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

I disagree that rail in US is much more polluting, than internal waterway transport.

In Europe - yes, but not US.

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?

Oh, really? https://www.railway-technology.com/news/wabtec-union-pacific...

Fair, but still diesel.

Diesel electric engines are actually VERY efficient.

Even the "old diesel" locomotives are still easily 40% efficient.

Ok, sure. But wouldn’t a large natural gas electric turbine be even more efficient?

The thing about electric motors is the energy source is abstracted. So even if you’re generating electricity with gas, it’s usually much more efficient than a small localized engine.

So I think my point stands, if EU is electrifying its networks, I don’t understand how the US could possibly be more efficient.

If you have a major spill on a river, to what area is the impact contained, versus if you have a major spill on land?

> Transporting freight via river systems is cheaper and greener than using road and rail.

True - so long as the navigable waterways reach the points which you need to ship from & to. And the cargo isn't particularly time-sensitive. And exceptional droughts do not lower the rivers so far that "navigable" is only on paper, and not on the no-longer-there water. That last issue is getting to be a major problem this year.

Edit: Also recall that in the northern parts of the U.S., even the largest navigable waterways may close down for a few months every winter, due to ice / winter storms / etc.

The largest waterway in the system also lacks water at the moment.

As does Europe?

Europe's rail freight is not very efficient actually.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

> 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-r...

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

In California? Many badge terminals along Pacific coast. But it means much more for Eastern and Southeastern US where waterways are plentiful.

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.

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#Na... [2]: https://www.soapboxmedia.com/devnews/0605queensgateterminals...

American crews are way more expensive than foreign crews, and even then there just aren't many Americans who want to go into sailing - it's a tough and sometimes dangerous job with a terrible work-life balance. It's a good way to escape third world poverty, but most Americans have better prospects.

And here is the real motivation. They want to replace trucking with external non-American salaried workers. No thanks. What a garbage position to take.

Yeah that is the problem I keep running into when justifying removal of the jones act. I am anti-jones act on a theoretical basis as part of a holistic plan to deregulate the industry and labor.

But it seems especially fucked up to keep US minimum wage / protections in place while simultaneously not requiring the same thing for foreign flagged corporations performing the same service in a domestic capacity. As you say it's basically saying "if the trucker is American, follow us labor laws. IF the trucker is foreign, race to the bottom." Except instead of trucker it's domestic ship crew flying under a different flag. In practice it's just as bad as protectionism except -- it's protectionism for foreign labor and indeed works against the goals of even the Cato institute. It's the ocean going equivalent of allowing that foreign owned gas station on American soil to go by a completely different set of labor laws than an American owned gas station on American soil. And I say that as someone who really hates the principle of the Jones Act on ideological grounds.

Personally I would just completely deregulate US shipping, eliminate maritime labor laws and protections, and then kill the jones act. Everybody gets to go on equal footing. But with the system we live in, without overhauling it significantly, the Jones Act does make sense on some level.

When people actually don't want to do a job - the answer isn't necessarily to close down the whole industry.

Right now carpenters are in very short supply. An hourly rate of a carpenter in Hudson Valley is higher than Senior Engineer at Meta.... and there's less carpenters...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com