Dam Susquehanna, dammit (Railroad: live, price, store)

[jetgraphics]

Or do we want undeveloped riverbanks / canal banks like the canal du Midi


Or like this (also canal du Midi):

[thecoalman]

Or perhaps we can make it like this... oh wait that's how it is now:



Canoe split in half after hitting some left over construction debris under water, I guess your dam would have fixed that but that was most of the most memorable days of my life. Not me in the photo BTW, Steven Egenski of 40 LB head if anyone is familiar with the band, actually from the Cheumung just across the border a few miles before it makes its way into the Suqhuehanna.

[North Beach Person]

Coalman, you sure did a number on that canoe.

[thecoalman]

I wasn't in it, we were ahead of it. The channel was to the right of that pier which was a little narrow but deeper and fast. There was a I-beam just below the surface but it barely gave a ripple. We hit it dead on but bounced off and kept going. the others were right behind us but ended up riding up on it and with all the weight it opened it like a can opener. I don't think that canoe was really meant for river travel, more like for a lake or pond.

Bad thing was it was like 4 hours into a 8 day trip. lol


Good thing was they had us in front of them and another few canoes and kayak down a little ways. I don't think they lost a single thing. We had walkie talkies so everyone came back. Even more fortunately there was store/restaurant maybe 1/2 mile down the road from the bridge. They called up there GF's and had a canoe by 2AM.

One really good thing was it was one of out first trips, after that everything in my boat got tied down with straps. fast forward 4 years later and we dumped in the rapids after hitting a big log. That would have been disastrous because there was no one there and the water was so fast but we lost very little, small tackle box and fishing pole, maybe some small items...

[North Beach Person]

Yeah, capsizing's no fun. I've been lucky, I usually go in to the water when I'm walking in the marsh and aren't paying attention. My father in law shot himself out of his jonboat once, he got his shotgun out but lost his wallet. Guess who he gave that jonboat to. He had made it in his basement, I still don't use it much. My kids do a lot of kayaking on the Bay and always have a story or three when they come back in, usually about dumb weekenders in their new boats.

[Gerania]

That part I don't like. Yes, there are some lovely canal systems in the world, water where there might be none. Next to a river, a canal just looks like an oversize drainage ditch and many of them are quite filthy.

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

A view of a canal in Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Would this be acceptable development for riverbank dwellers? Would it be desirable for developers to construct canals off the tamed Susquehanna, and build neighborhoods like this?
Imagine former flood plains converted into waterfront property...
Do you like the idea, too?

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Gerania

That part I don't like. Yes, there are some lovely canal systems in the world, water where there might be none. Next to a river, a canal just looks like an oversize drainage ditch and many of them are quite filthy.

It all depends on the folks who operate it and care for it.
This doesn't look filthy, or unpleasant:



Or this:

[jetgraphics]

Train (electric) and canal - together, at last!

[jetgraphics]

Why build a navigable waterway?
Because we desperately need every possible frugal option to move cargo and passengers!

November 2008 Archives | SportsloversBeat

After decades of decline, commercial shipping has returned to the Erie Canal, though it remains a far cry from the canal's heyday, writes Christopher Maag in the New York Times. Higher fuel prices have suddenly made barges an attractive alternative to trucks -- a gallon of diesel pulls one ton of cargo 500 miles, compared to 59 miles by car and 200 miles by train.

Though many think we can just "drill, baby drill" and resolve our oil supply crisis, the facts do not support it.

Oil reserves in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proven oil reserves in the United States are 21 billion barrels (3.3×10^9 m3), excluding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The U.S. Department of the Interior estimates the total volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable prospective resources in all areas of the United States, including the Federal Outer Continental Shelf, the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska, and the Bakken Formation, total 134 billion barrels (21.3×10^9 m3) of crude oil. This excludes oil shale reserves, as there is no significant commercial production of oil from oil shale in the United States.

STEO Table Browser : U.S. Crude Oil and Liquid Fuels Supply, Consumption, and Inventories
U.S. oil consumption: down to only 19.2 million barrels / day, due to the economic contraction in 2008.

Domestic production is 4.96 million barrels / day. (2008)

100 x (19.2 - 4.96/19.2 ) = 74% is imported
That's roughly 14.24 million barrels / day we import - and if it was cut off, for whatever reason, what happens?

0.6 billion barrels of oil = one month U.S. consumption

PROVEN RESERVES = 35 months (3 years)

And if we spent the next ten years exploiting every possible oil resource, we're still in trouble.

TOTAL OIL RESERVES (unproven) = 223 months (18 years)

(Shale oil would require extensive strip mining - and that's something northeast Pennsylvania has had experience with - bad experience.)

It is imperative that we consider every possible alternative that will reduce our consumption of oil. And one of those alternatives is water transportation. Establishing a navigable waterway between the Chesapeake Bay, central Pennsylvania and upstate New York via engineering the Susquehanna, would be a spectacular boost to the economy. And when the oil spigot is turned off, the navigable Susquehanna river will become a vital link, enriching the generations to come, with inexpensive transportation, recreation, and a host of related business opportunities.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

What you suggest [engineering the Susquehanna] is impossibly expensive and won't work for so many reasons I cannot even begin to describe why, I don't think you realize the magnitude of such a project. FYI the Susquehanna did have a canal and parts of it can still be seen today. It was abandoned because cheaper and easier forms of transportation became available.

Pardon the delay in answering. It was not procrastination, but poor eyesight. I missed reading the post.

Working backwards, it is true that steam locomotives supplanted the canal system, nationwide, starting in the mid 1800s. But water transportation is cheaper, per unit fuel or per ton of cargo. It's major drawback - it's SLOW. And the advantage of swift rail transport to areas not served by navigable waterways certainly drew away customers from canals. Likewise, point to point shipping via trucks drew away customers from the more energy efficient rail roads.

Part of the nationwide canal boom was due to the economic bounty caused by the Erie Canal, that linked New York City and the Great Lakes, the gateway to the midwest. By most accounts, the Erie Canal was responsible for ending Philadelphia's reign as the most important port city in America, and making New York City into the economic wonder that has extended into the 21st century.

And it is also true that cheap and plentiful petroleum caused the demise of steam locomotives, fueled by wood or coal. The durability and efficiency of a diesel electric locomotive was overwhelming.

But but but - the age of cheap and plentiful oil is coming to an end. Likewise, any transportation system wholly dependent upon petroleum will have to find an alternative or become increasingly more expensive.

For land transportation, my bet is on electric rail. But water transportation is still the most frugal means to move cargo and passengers.

I suspect that the initial higher cost for dams and locks will be far cheaper in the long term, than a restoration of the old canal system.
And the benefits will be much greater with dams.

Civil engineering is always expensive. And no, it's not astronomical nor impossible.
The question is - Do the benefits outweigh the cost?
[] What is the benefit for avoiding the cost due to floods? And for repeated floods? (1972 flood cost Pennsylvania an estimated 2 billion dollars. And 48 lives.)
[] What is the cost in stagnation of the economy versus economic growth, as in expansion of opportunity?
[] What is the benefit for hydroelectric power when fossil fuels are gone (or taxed out of sight!)?
[] What is the benefit for a stable shoreline, versus a widely fluctuating water level?
[] What is the benefit for making riverside towns into ports, versus doing nothing?
[] What is the benefit for making the riverbank into waterfront property, versus hiding behind levees - which are rendered obsolete, as each incrementally greater flood has shown us. (* Comprehensive watershed management, with high head dams on all tributaries feeding the Susquehanna, would prevent flooding, or reduce the magnitude of flooding.)
[] What is the benefit for multitudes of small mountain reservoirs, with shoreline development versus the loss of property inundated by the high head dams?
[] What is the benefit for investment into waterfront property in flood plains, via extensive canal development (think Venice, California), versus the cost of doing nothing?
[] What is the economic benefit for tourism and recreation, versus doing nothing?

Funding?

In 2008, we exported roughly $600 billion for oil imports.
For the sake of a thought experiment, what if Pennsylvania's percapita share of that expense was available for alternatives in oil free (or reduced consumption) transportation?

12.5 million PA / 300 million USA computes to roughly $25 billion per year.

Let's say half of that goes to urban rail development and half to water transportation. With a yearly budget of $12.5 billion per year, how many years would it take to engineer the Susquehanna River?
With technological and mechanical advantages, can it be done with less labor and quicker?

(The 2008-9 Pennsylvania General Fund budget was $28.3 billion, in comparison.)

Considering the Tennessee Valley Authority as a model to copy (or pitfalls to avoid, depending on viewpoints), in 1959 Congress voted that the TVA had to pay its own way, and thus it's operation ceased to be a drain upon taxpayers. (current operating budget is approx. 5 billion dollars)

If the Susquehanna River Authority was set up in a similar manner, the goal would be that its operation would eventually cease to be funded indirectly by taxes, and only users would directly pay, by purchasing goods and services.

What could the SRA sell to fund itself?
[] Lease waterfront access for housing, industry, commerce, aquaculture
[] Lease docks and anchorages
[] Irrigation water
[] Hydroelectricity
[] Lock fees
[] User fees for parks, preserves, museums
[] Cooperative development with shoreline electric rail mass transit (share of ticket revenues)

Obvious benefits of an engineering project is long term employment in construction, in all aspects, and later, business expansion. And then there's the innumerable opportunities for entrepreneurs.

Of course, this is all speculation.
But the reality of doing nothing but endure slow decay is certainly not as desirable as invigorating growth?

One thing is for certain - the age of cheap and plentiful oil is over.
We will be suffering the aftereffects of ever rising cost and eventual scarcity for oil, as time goes by.