What if, instead of a wall, we were to build, along the southern border, a cargo shipping canal?
The U.S.-Mexico border is 1,989 miles long; of that, 1,255 is the Rio Grande river. The Rio Grande is, at its deepest, 60 feet, but much is much shallower. The rest of the border, including a small stretch of the Colorado river, changes elevation substantially, and crosses the southernmost subrange of the Rocky Mountains. For scale, the Panama Canal is only 48 miles long, and cuts through only one little 312 foot mountain. The Suez Canal is just 121 miles long, and crosses flat ground. This would be a much, much bigger undertaking.
Construction of the Suez Canal started in 1859 and finished ten years later. The Panama Canal was begun in 1881; the French, who were digging it, gave up in 1884; the Americans took over in 1904 and finished ten years later in 1914–thirteen years total work. A canal along our Southern border would be 16 times longer than the Suez Canal and 41 times longer than the Panama Canal. Would construction, therefore, take between 160 and 533 years?
More
9 comments:
Too big of an environmental impact.
Sharks Alligators piranhas
There's no economic reason to build a border canal.
fill it with snowflakes.
Yes 11:03 there is. Don't you think companies would pay a considerable fee to cut off a day or 2 for ships from the east coast to the west coast and beyond? Remember they are already paying a fee if they cross the Panama Canal.
That being said, I have to agree with 10:31. It would never get through because of the environmental impacts.
For immediate Release: Democrats have secretly provided all the materials for the wall via all the bricks they SH@T when TRUMP WON! Construction can start immediately!
Build a canal in the desert??
No, there isn't an economic gain for a canal....over 50% of current bridges and roadways need fixing...not some damn canal.
Um, there's a REASON we built the Panama Canal at the ISTHMUS of Panama. Look it up, Dummy!
Post a Comment