The policy of this country is a canal under American control.
September 9, 2006 11:30 PM Subscribe
What would a pan-continental canal cost to make? Particularly, one that divides North America in half.
I was thinking, what if the continental US had two more coasts? Those states in the middle seem so dry, so maybe if a big canal was cut right through them they wouldn't have anything to complain about. They would become home to the new Central Coasts. So, I am imaging something about as wide as Rhode Island and deep enough for cargo ships. It would go from the gulf up through the Dakotas. While we are at it, we'll cut Canada in half too and let this super canal connect to the arctic circle.
Now, perhaps later we can add more to this canal, maybe branch it out. But right now, I am only asking about this one super canal. How long would it take to make this canal? How could this canal be made? How much would it cost to finance such an endeavour? (For simplicity, assume the United States government would be heading the project.)
I was thinking, what if the continental US had two more coasts? Those states in the middle seem so dry, so maybe if a big canal was cut right through them they wouldn't have anything to complain about. They would become home to the new Central Coasts. So, I am imaging something about as wide as Rhode Island and deep enough for cargo ships. It would go from the gulf up through the Dakotas. While we are at it, we'll cut Canada in half too and let this super canal connect to the arctic circle.
Now, perhaps later we can add more to this canal, maybe branch it out. But right now, I am only asking about this one super canal. How long would it take to make this canal? How could this canal be made? How much would it cost to finance such an endeavour? (For simplicity, assume the United States government would be heading the project.)
This post was deleted for the following reason: silly hypothetical question
Response by poster: Bigger! Wider! I am talking about adding beach front property to Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota. After this super-canal is made the Mississippi would be laughed at. School children would be calling it the Sissy River!
posted by TwelveTwo at 11:41 PM on September 9, 2006
posted by TwelveTwo at 11:41 PM on September 9, 2006
Something like this? Ok, it was 90 million years ago.
posted by chef_boyardee at 11:46 PM on September 9, 2006
posted by chef_boyardee at 11:46 PM on September 9, 2006
If it's that wide you wouldn't be able to take it over other rivers (including the Miss) on an aqueduct, so you would have vast and hugely unpredictable consequences for water flow patterns across the US. And that's before we even mention the Rockies.
For me, that outweighs the potential of Lincoln-on-Sea. (Give global warming a chance and we might yet see it)
posted by athenian at 11:48 PM on September 9, 2006
For me, that outweighs the potential of Lincoln-on-Sea. (Give global warming a chance and we might yet see it)
posted by athenian at 11:48 PM on September 9, 2006
I'm not sure I see the point of this canal. Shipping isn't a problem in the plains, given that the train is much more efficient anyways. Salt water isn't going to do much for irrigation or drinking water supply or anything else that fresh water is used for. The water isn't going to be much for swimming or beaches either if you have ships running up and down it and the lack of water circulation from the locks needed for tidal regulation and increases in elevation as the canal goes up the continent.
But let's say that we did need to build the canal. The right-of-way needed for this thing is going to be such a massive nightmare of planning that it simply wouldn't be feasible. Think about it. There's private land which would need to be bought, public land redesignated and land use zonign made up elsewhere, services like power, oil and gas, fibre optics etc which would have to be re-routed or buried deeper, bridges to be built.
Totally not worth thinking about it's so ridiculously preposterous.
posted by jimmythefish at 11:48 PM on September 9, 2006
But let's say that we did need to build the canal. The right-of-way needed for this thing is going to be such a massive nightmare of planning that it simply wouldn't be feasible. Think about it. There's private land which would need to be bought, public land redesignated and land use zonign made up elsewhere, services like power, oil and gas, fibre optics etc which would have to be re-routed or buried deeper, bridges to be built.
Totally not worth thinking about it's so ridiculously preposterous.
posted by jimmythefish at 11:48 PM on September 9, 2006
Response by poster: It is preposterous, ok. Well, so is blowing up the moon or taking down a grizzly bear with only a knife. Give the Super Canal a chance!
posted by TwelveTwo at 11:58 PM on September 9, 2006
posted by TwelveTwo at 11:58 PM on September 9, 2006
From a economic standpoint it's more expensive (currently) to ship things via water than it is to load them on trucks. We already have multiple high ways and interstates crisscrossing our continent... building waterways would only make sense in a post-oil era - as it did in a pre-oil world.
posted by wfrgms at 11:58 PM on September 9, 2006
posted by wfrgms at 11:58 PM on September 9, 2006
You sure about the relative economics of various forms of shipping, wfgrms? I'd think there wouldn't be much barge traffic on the Mississippi if that were true.
Both barges and train can move significantly more cargo per man-hour and gallon of fuel than trucks, but those efficiencies may not stand against other efficiencies, like reduced inventory and other benifits of just-in-time manufacturing.
posted by Good Brain at 12:13 AM on September 10, 2006
Both barges and train can move significantly more cargo per man-hour and gallon of fuel than trucks, but those efficiencies may not stand against other efficiencies, like reduced inventory and other benifits of just-in-time manufacturing.
posted by Good Brain at 12:13 AM on September 10, 2006
When you factor in all the nuisance and invasive species that you'd be allowing to move from the Pacific to the Atlantic and the effects thereof, why that thing would probably only cost about a gigazillion dollars in damages!
posted by fshgrl at 12:27 AM on September 10, 2006
posted by fshgrl at 12:27 AM on September 10, 2006
Before you can talk about how much something would cost, first you have to prove that you have the technology to do it.
We don't have -- unless you are willing to consider using about 3000 hydrogen bombs. Which would almost certainly put enough dust into the air to jumpstart the next ice-age, and put enough radioactive fallout in the air to quadruple the cancer rate in humans for the next 500 years.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:40 AM on September 10, 2006
We don't have -- unless you are willing to consider using about 3000 hydrogen bombs. Which would almost certainly put enough dust into the air to jumpstart the next ice-age, and put enough radioactive fallout in the air to quadruple the cancer rate in humans for the next 500 years.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:40 AM on September 10, 2006
Wasn't the transcontinental railroad built for this purpose?
posted by Violet Hour at 12:45 AM on September 10, 2006
posted by Violet Hour at 12:45 AM on September 10, 2006
Steven C. Den Beste:
Before you can talk about how much something would cost, first you have to prove that you have the technology to do it.
We don't have -- unless you are willing to consider using about 3000 hydrogen bombs. Which would almost certainly put enough dust into the air to jumpstart the next ice-age, and put enough radioactive fallout in the air to quadruple the cancer rate in humans for the next 500 years.
Well, sign me up!
Seriously, don't think that your warning is going to do much for the OP, whose posting history suggests a real interest in makin' things "go all splody." To wit: "Given our current state of technology and the world's nuclear armaments, I ask the question that the world needs an answer to: Could we destroy Mars?"
posted by Sinner at 1:00 AM on September 10, 2006
Before you can talk about how much something would cost, first you have to prove that you have the technology to do it.
We don't have -- unless you are willing to consider using about 3000 hydrogen bombs. Which would almost certainly put enough dust into the air to jumpstart the next ice-age, and put enough radioactive fallout in the air to quadruple the cancer rate in humans for the next 500 years.
Well, sign me up!
Seriously, don't think that your warning is going to do much for the OP, whose posting history suggests a real interest in makin' things "go all splody." To wit: "Given our current state of technology and the world's nuclear armaments, I ask the question that the world needs an answer to: Could we destroy Mars?"
posted by Sinner at 1:00 AM on September 10, 2006
With the Saint Lawrence Seaway you are already half way there. Good luck with that American control thing though..
Then there is the GRAND Canal project, which would turn James Bay into a fresh water reservoir by damming it off, and then supply North America (or at least parts of North America east of the Rockies) unlimited fresh water.
posted by Chuckles at 1:20 AM on September 10, 2006
Then there is the GRAND Canal project, which would turn James Bay into a fresh water reservoir by damming it off, and then supply North America (or at least parts of North America east of the Rockies) unlimited fresh water.
posted by Chuckles at 1:20 AM on September 10, 2006
Response by poster: Wait! This Operation Plowshare is fascinating. But surely, wouldn't it require less than 3000 hydrogen bombs to make the Super Canal? What is the blast radius of modern nuclear weapons? How many bombs would it take to draw a Rhode Island wide line across the continent? And isn't there some way to contain the resulting dust cloud?
posted by TwelveTwo at 1:30 AM on September 10, 2006
posted by TwelveTwo at 1:30 AM on September 10, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
I also like the irony of the US government's involvement somehow being related to "simplicity."
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 11:36 PM on September 9, 2006