Decline in the domestic water traffic has a large component due to the low-hanging fruit being plucked. In a developing economy, resource extraction and industry initially concentrates where the resources are the richest, the population is first centered, and the transportation in between the cheapest. Thus many of the first coal, iron ore, row crop, and forestry resources first attacked were as close to water as possible. An illustrative example was the first-pass trees extracted from the Puget Sound watershed, which quite literally were the trees that when cut down would fall directly into the water, resulting after a short time of a sort of bathtub ring around the sound. Next, the timber industry went after the trees that could be easily dragged downhill into the water, then the trees that could be carried by rail to tidewater, and so forth, ever further back into the hills, until eventually the haul to water was so far that the total land-water haul cost was so circuitous that it became cheaper to forgo the water portion altogether.
Looking now from the perspective of 200 years of industrial-level resource extraction in the U.S., the problem from the domestic water point of view is that much of the traffic it once hauled no longer exists in absolute terms (the coal or ore has been mined, or the forests cut-over), and since it was a simple, low-cost technology to begin with, there's very little opportunity to change technologies or reduce costs to compete with all-rail via longer truck or rail hauls from source to water.
Also, the large industrial base once centered around the Great Lakes and the upper Ohio-Illinois rivers has both dispersed throughout the U.S., following population growth and economic development elsewhere, and declined in overall volume as the demand for steel per capita has declined. Since the water bodies can't shift location, or repurpose themselves as readily as rail can shift between commodities and shipment size, water transportation declines.
This is not to take away from what Greyhounds has said about rate reductions since rail deregulation. What deregulation accomplished was not so much as to take traffic away from water, as to enable rail to solicit new traffic that never would have been available to domestic water to begin with. That was the fundamental concept that Washington understood in 1980, which is how Congress could turn back protests against rail deregulation from the domestic water industry. Where it's a head-to-head competition from a source near water and a destination near water, and the water is deep enough, and the lock tolls few in number and size, water transportation will usually get the business. But those sorts of O-D pairs are declining, and so long as rail transportation isn't crippled by rate regulation designed to protect the poorly located shipper against the competition of the well-located shipper, then the trend will continue.
RWM
Frankly, I found yesterday's obscenity easier on my mind than the wisdom of all the new posts today!
Draft #2 of letter-to-the-editor:
"Dear Mr. Wrinn,
Don Phillips' article is an over-simplification of a complex issue."
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
Railway Man Decline in the domestic water traffic has a large component due to the low-hanging fruit being plucked. In a developing economy, resource extraction and industry initially concentrates where the resources are the richest, the population is first centered, and the transportation in between the cheapest. Thus many of the first coal, iron ore, row crop, and forestry resources first attacked were as close to water as possible. An illustrative example was the first-pass trees extracted from the Puget Sound watershed, which quite literally were the trees that when cut down would fall directly into the water, resulting after a short time of a sort of bathtub ring around the sound. Next, the timber industry went after the trees that could be easily dragged downhill into the water, then the trees that could be carried by rail to tidewater, and so forth, ever further back into the hills, until eventually the haul to water was so far that the total land-water haul cost was so circuitous that it became cheaper to forgo the water portion altogether. Looking now from the perspective of 200 years of industrial-level resource extraction in the U.S., the problem from the domestic water point of view is that much of the traffic it once hauled no longer exists in absolute terms (the coal or ore has been mined, or the forests cut-over), and since it was a simple, low-cost technology to begin with, there's very little opportunity to change technologies or reduce costs to compete with all-rail via longer truck or rail hauls from source to water. Also, the large industrial base once centered around the Great Lakes and the upper Ohio-Illinois rivers has both dispersed throughout the U.S., following population growth and economic development elsewhere, and declined in overall volume as the demand for steel per capita has declined. Since the water bodies can't shift location, or repurpose themselves as readily as rail can shift between commodities and shipment size, water transportation declines. This is not to take away from what Greyhounds has said about rate reductions since rail deregulation. What deregulation accomplished was not so much as to take traffic away from water, as to enable rail to solicit new traffic that never would have been available to domestic water to begin with. That was the fundamental concept that Washington understood in 1980, which is how Congress could turn back protests against rail deregulation from the domestic water industry. Where it's a head-to-head competition from a source near water and a destination near water, and the water is deep enough, and the lock tolls few in number and size, water transportation will usually get the business. But those sorts of O-D pairs are declining, and so long as rail transportation isn't crippled by rate regulation designed to protect the poorly located shipper against the competition of the well-located shipper, then the trend will continue. RWM
Yep.
Coal to power Chicago used to come up the Illinois River by barge. Now it comes out of Wyoming and there just ain't no barges going to Wyoming. Things changed and the barges couldn't change with 'em. Somebody moved the cheese.
In any event, while talking to my very accomplished farmer friend (See the current ethanol thread for a brief bio.) I was informed that "A Loop" was being installed near Macomb, IL. "A Loop" aparently is farmer talk for a shuttle train grain loading facility. This fact tells us something.
Macomb, IL is home of Western Illinois University (The "Leathernecks") and is located approximatly equidistant between the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. Both rivers have been dredged, damed and locked by the Federal government and convey commercial barge traffic. Macomb is right around 40 miles from the Mississippi River grain terminal at Keokuk, IA and the same distance from the Illinois River grain terminal at Havana, IL. Before the loosening of rail rate regulation (barge rates were not regulated) it would have been beyond belief that the railroads could haul significant amounts of grain (Illinois being known for its grain production.) out of an area this close to a commercially navigable river. The government simply wouldn't allow it. The Feds protected the barges by holding rail rates high. It's better now. The farmers can reach new markets and the railroads can compete for the grain. The "Loop" will be on the BNSF.
On another front, there was a steel mill on the east side of the Mississippi near St. Louis. It was an early casualty of the current economic unpleasantness. But before it shut down it drew its iron ore from Minnesota. The iron rode the BNSF all the way to St. Louis. It rolled right alongside the mighty Mississippi from St. Paul to St. Louis. The railroad could compete with the barge rates. This wouldn't have been allowed under strict regulation and the ore would have gone into something that floats as soon as possible.
I agree that much of the decline in waterborne freight has been the result of shifts in production that the barges can not accomodate. I also maintain that much of the decline in waterborne freight has been the result of deregulation which has allowed the railroads to compete for this tonnage.
We all benifit from the change. Let's hope it doesn't change back. From what I'm hearing, I don't believe we're going back to the dark ages of price regulation. (There will be execptions!) But with politicians you never know.
.
A few years ago Great laker/Seaway Review magazine did an article on the costs financially and environmentally to ship a given item on the Great Lakes via lake boat, train or truck. The numbers/ratios of fuel use/btu's per ton mile were similar to what has been previously mentioned. Essentially water ways where available are cleaner and more fuel efficient than trains and trucks are the worst. No one has mentioned air shipping let alone lighter than air movement of goods. I say, lets get along with the water boys and get the trucks off the roads!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.