Not To Throw Cold Water On It, But . . .

The US Department of Transportation's Secretary, Ray LaHood, announced the inception of the "America's Marine Highway" program in April.  For those weary of bailouts and stimuli, the initial grants involve under $100 million (with an "m" not a "b").

Are short-sea and other maritime transport modes really viable in the US?  I don't know.  I do suspect that longer-distance river transport could be more employed than it is if: 1) shippers stopped to think about it, and 2) locks and other infrastructure  elements were upgraded and maintained.  But, it does seem reasonable that, if Secretary LaHood's concept embodied compelling merit, profit-motivated players in the private sector would have jumped on the notion quite some time ago.

It's appealing that there might be environmental benefits to the movement of goods over water instead of over the road (either rail or highway).  In the wake of BP's catastrophic misadventure in the Gulf, there might be some concern about the environmental risks of a maritime shipping accident involving who knows what kind of cargo.

In the broader economic equation, I'd like to know if marine highway proponents have considered: 1) the cost of added handling and delay if a water link were to be added to supply chains; and/or 2) the added complexity of introducing more players into the complex business relationships that make up end-to-end supply chains.