People who have never been there have suggested making a canal from the Missouri River to the Snake or Columbia River, which would, they think, make transcontinental ship traffic possible. Here's one:
Here are some facts: The Missouri River is only navigable up to Sioux City, Iowa, which is right where South Dakota, Iowa and Nebraska come together--in other words, less than half way across. The part upstream of St Louis needs periodic dredging.
The Snake River is navigable up to Lewiston, Idaho, where it splits into several tributaries, all of which are way too small for anything much bigger than a ski boat. And there are lots of waterfalls. The connection on the map appears to be the Clark Fork river, which runs through some mighty rugged country. I've driven alongside it for substantial mileage: turning it into navigable water is not a credible option.
We already have many transcontinental routes which are vastly more practical than waterways. They are called Railroads, and Interstate Highways. It's important to realize that America stopped digging new navigable canals (e.g. the Erie Canal) pretty much as soon as railroads became viable--it was simply not economically competitive anymore. Europe was much farther into their canal system at that point--it made sense to connect up canals, especially in northern and western europe, where the land is pretty flat. Most of the canals dug in the last 150 years have been aqueducts--not for moving boats, but for moving the water itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment