Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (260927)	6/4/2002 1:31:44 AM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Respond to of 769670

Yes. That Is Another Issue I Considered Too. The railways and ports due east on both sides of the boarder were not too happy about losing commerce to the Seaway.In fact, they lobbied hard during the study phase , but the momentum was there and central Canadian politics played a huge part in pushing it through on our side. The ports and rail from the coast have declined , as you might imagine , since the Seaway has been operating with max. through put.The argument then was basically the infrastructure was essentially in place , with upgrades required only as traffic demanded. So the argument goes...one man's meat was another man's poison, and it has poisoned those on the East Coast for many years now. From an economic perspective , it looks like it will pay off, but who knows how or what to compare it with since it has taken over the trans. industry in the East - Central? That's until the New SuperCargo port is built in New York. Hard to answer those types of questions of opportunity costs.. well for me anywho. KC