It's ton cheaper by rail too.

Trouble is that the infrastructure to do either doesn't exist. When
gas was cheap shipping in the US all moved towards tractor trailers.
They are more convenient, they can go straight to many of the final
delivery points. Small rail and boat terminals dried up and closed
down. So now there are not any terminal points for a train or boat to
unload and load cargo except at huge ports. Gone are the days when
freight trains and boats dropped and picked up cargo at small cities
across the country.

basskisser wrote:
Gene wrote:
snipped
Besides, using the ICW for hauling freight would be SAVING fuel. It
costs about $.10 on the dollar to ship goods via barge as opposed to
tractor-trailer.

That's interesting! I wouldn't have thought there would be much
difference. Why the big savings?

Nonsense. Commercial users already pay a fuel tax designated to both
maintain and improve the existing facility. This money is held in the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Federal Law requires that nearly all of
the ICW be maintained at a depth of 12 feet (with a minimum depth
anywhere of at least 7 feet).

We have the need and we have the means, the money is already set aside
to accomplish the task. If those currently in charge weren't asleep at
the wheel, this important task would be well underway.

Yep!
--