Stands to reason that a Republican sympathizer would see digging endless canals as a better investment than using existing rails to better advantage.
Trucks are perfect for local deliveries.
Trains are perfect for high speed, efficient long distance hauling.
Canals are slow, expensive to build, and extremely inefficient.
High speed rail can achieve 200+ MPH
Trucks can do about 70MPH but must drive slower to conserve fuel.
Canals are good for about 4MPH.
Republicans are good for nothing.
Just as Demoncrats, (and watermelon liberatti) can't think in scales larger than one note !
Water - regardless of where in America you're at - is a vital issue. Whether its storm/runoff control or drought, water quality or storage its at the forefront of a lot of urban planning. Or don't you read the news Greger ? Canals, (not ala the Tombigbie or the Panama) but of a size more akin to those of the 18th and 19th centuries -cement lined with automated barges and locks - might serve to move both water and freight. (They could even be "green", i.e. powered by solar and fuel cell technology since speed isn't an issue.)
What "existing rails" ? Most local-serving roads have been abandoned or torn up ! And where is there a "heavy rail" engineered for 200 mph speeds ? Or freight cars either ? Any idea what it takes to engineer a "road" for that sort of load ?
Care to start building freight-capable roads into suburban areas ? Cost just as much for those ROWs as for a canal - with no "green benefit" - as a teaser either !
Sure we can "slow trucks down" to save fuel. Are you old enough to recall "Drive 55" ? Will that mantra really "save fuel" ? I don't think so. Or not nearly so much as the "cost" of the time lost doing so. If it did we'd still be "Driving 55" on highways engineered for safe travel at 75mph with vehicles meeting 1960 engineering standards !
Of course you could just agree with the Obama Administration and the ATA and decree all trucks become mobile 65mph roadblocks on the interstates. Care to estimate what the "cost" of that will be - in blood - with a 25mph + mix of relative vehicle speeds on the same roadway ? BTDTGTTS ! (NJDOT tried this scheme back in the Sixties. Lots of wrecks resulted.). The cars - and passengers - generally lost !
Alas, there are no "magic bullets" in anybody's ammo box ! Having made major strides in fuel efficiency, what remains is incremental - and increasingly expensive/unit "saved". If we're going to keep the industry capitalist, then "solutions" have to be economically viable. The proposal presented/threatened by the OA - like all of its other "economic solutions - isn't. >Mech
