The canal has 35 locks and obviously had to be excavated, that seems like it would be wildly more expensive than laying track. Can someone explain this to me further?
All information gained from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Canal
It was cheaper than a railway in one key respect: time. 1817 was well before the the railway became capable of transporting large volumes of goods over long distances. The world's first public steam railway, the British Stockton and Darlington Railway, opening in 1825. This was a comparably small railway, connecting the towns of Stockton and Darlington with nearby collieries. It only ran for some 25 miles, compared to over 300 for the Erie Canal. In 1830, the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, the first intercity route opened. Again, this was a short railway, connecting two cities close to each other, and stretching for just 35 miles. In the US, the first railway, the Baltimore and Ohio, began construction in 1828. By this time, the Erie Canal had been operating in full for three years. By the time the B&O opened in 1830, it had been operating for five. It would take several more years for the B&O to reach the length of the Erie Canal. The first trains were, while somewhat faster than a canal barge, carried less weight. This meant that if you wanted to ship a lot of stuff over long distances in the early 1800s, you wanted a canal.