Western Canals?

The Erie Canal was one of the great engineering and construction marvels of the early 19th century and helped expand trade to the growing Midwest. For much of the country's early history the canals were the Interstates of their day, before they were overshadowed by the railroads.

WI the idea had been carried into the American West? Suppose, for some reason or another, the railroad came later and Western rivers (such as the Colorado or perhaps the Platte?) became the basis for Western canals? Given the difference in terrain (not to mention hostile Native Americans and desert conditions further West) could such a canal system have been built and even been profitable?
 
The issue with Western rivers is Snowpack. Depending upon the previous season the rivers may be higher or lower making canals difficult to operate. The success of the Erie, Suez and Panama Canals is that they connect oceans or large lakes to rivers or oceans and not snow pack fed rivers to snow pack fed rivers. Additionally, the distances are extreme while looking small on a map the distance between the Platte and the Colorado for instance is huge. However if I have to pick one it is the St. Louis River to the Mississippi while basically ASB imagining a waterway that connects the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico.
 
The issue with Western rivers is Snowpack. Depending upon the previous season the rivers may be higher or lower making canals difficult to operate. The success of the Erie, Suez and Panama Canals is that they connect oceans or large lakes to rivers or oceans and not snow pack fed rivers to snow pack fed rivers. Additionally, the distances are extreme while looking small on a map the distance between the Platte and the Colorado for instance is huge. However if I have to pick one it is the St. Louis River to the Mississippi while basically ASB imagining a waterway that connects the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico.
We already have the Chicago Ship & Sanitary Canal, and (formerly) the Wabash and Erie Canal.

But a canal south from Duluth looks interesting. Why don't we have one IOTL?
 
But a canal south from Duluth looks interesting. Why don't we have one IOTL?

Presumably because railroads took over the freight traffic along that route before anybody got together enough capital to try such a project (or maybe nobody thought of it).

There are fewer navigable rivers (and shorter navigable segments thereof) much beyond the Mississippi because the West is drier. The distances (and rough terrain) between navigable river segments make useful canal routes fewer and more difficult, in a time when railroads are seriously competing with canals.
 
With such an extensive network of rivers already in place, the only canals I can envision being built in the Midwest would be those connecting the Great Lakes to the Mississippi or Ohio Rivers.
 
We already have the Chicago Ship & Sanitary Canal, and (formerly) the Wabash and Erie Canal.

With such an extensive network of rivers already in place, the only canals I can envision being built in the Midwest would be those connecting the Great Lakes to the Mississippi or Ohio Rivers.

@Kiat - Codae already mentioned the Chicago Canal. It only needed to be some 6 miles (??) long to connect the Great Lakes and Mississippi (i.e. the ?Chicago? River to the Illinois). Similarly, I guess, for the Wabash and Erie, although I am not as familiar with that one.
 
@Kiat - Codae already mentioned the Chicago Canal. It only needed to be some 6 miles (??) long to connect the Great Lakes and Mississippi (i.e. the ?Chicago? River to the Illinois). Similarly, I guess, for the Wabash and Erie, although I am not as familiar with that one.

There's more to the Midwest than its rail hub. Back in the old days, States' Rights weren't just a talking point. Ohio might wants its own canal.
 
IMHO the coolest way for there to be western canals is some kind of super-Mississippian culture creating a system of canals to unite their massive empire.
 
Robert Fogel wrote an interesting book on this in 1964 looking at the importance of railroads in the economic development of the United States through a counterfactual, coming to the conclusion that even if railroads hadn't been invented, the US would have still developed through a network of canals.

http://www.csiss.org/classics/content/19
 

Sachyriel

Banned
I know this is pre-1900 but in the great Depression would a canal work as an anti-employment measure? A Make-work program designed to employ the other-wise unemployed?
 
We already have the Chicago Ship & Sanitary Canal, and (formerly) the Wabash and Erie Canal.

But a canal south from Duluth looks interesting. Why don't we have one IOTL?

I forgot about the Chicago Canal. As for Duluth. The reason is logistics and the free market to connect the St. Louis River to the Navigable part of the the Mississippi you have to go about 180 miles to St. Paul. It is simply cheaper to transport by water to Duluth and to then Ship by Rail cross country. The Mississippi is only navigable by river boat to St. Paul and from their by Canoe and small boat to North Central Minnesota. Any canal would call for considerable engineering and money. It is just cheaper to build a railroad.

Duluth itself is far from the ideal Great Lakes Port (Superior, Wisconsin; our neighbor across the shore) is. The only reason Duluth has as much traffic as it does is because in the late 1850s rather than wait for Fed. Govt. permission to dredge the mouth of the St. Louis River the citizens did it anyway. The rider got to Duluth told them the shipping industry belonged to Superior and that no Federal help would be forthcoming only to find it was already done.
 
Top