« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Democrats’ Energy Ideas Date to 19th Century

'We should take a hard look at reviving the canals,' says Rep. Jerry Nadler

By: Robert Bluey (Diary)  |  July 29th, 2008 at 08:11 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Bless his heart, Rep. Jerry Nadler is trying to understand the woes of Americans facing the high cost of gasoline.

Venturing outside the comfortable confines of his Manhattan and Brooklyn district, the liberal Democrat was spotted Monday in the Upstate New York city of Utica talking about transportation and energy policy.

Nadler’s solution:

“We should take a hard look at reviving the canals,” Nadler said. Rail transport is cheaper than truck transport, and canal transport is even cheaper than that, he said.

Yes, you read that correctly. The liberal New York City congressman wants to invest government resources in the nearly 200-year-old New York canal system to solve the “energy crisis.”

As someone who grew up just miles from the canal, it’s safe to say Jerry Nadler has no idea what he’s talking about. I don’t question the facts. I’m sure it would be cheaper to transport goods on the canal. But with a maximum speed of 10 mph and a system of locks to slow down boats, it might be faster to employ a pack of donkeys.

This is further proof that liberal elitists like Jerry Nadler and Speaker Nancy Pelosi are clueless when it comes to energy policy. Of course, that’s to be expected. Pelosi’s rich San Francisco district doesn’t face the strains of high gas prices like those in the Midwest. It’s no wonder they oppose energy exploration in favor of old ideas.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Oz

    Feel free to pick up that slogan and run with it.

    It hit me on my way into work today.

    Oz

  • Chuck_Norris_Republican

    Can we sink taxpayer money into donkeys helping the ships upstream.

    Because, of course, this will lower oil prices more than offshore drilling.

  • padre29

    Nadler is no dummy of a politician, such a proposal is sure to fire up some voter’s imaginations.

    Problem is, the infrastructure is just not “there” to make such a plan work, things like barges, off loading and onloading facilities, distribution routes based on the canals..it just won’t work.

    That is, it won’t work without massive amounts of Federal Monies (“our” money) which is more then likely what Mr. Nadler had in mind in the first place..

  • Oz

    that wouldn’t be environmentally destructive now, would it.

  • blooch
  • Oz

    that wouldn’t be environmentally destructive now, would it.

  • streiff

    which is a statement I’m not sure I’ve ever uttered before, he refers to both canals and railroads.

    The St Lawrence Seaway is commercially viable. So is the Mississippi. To what extent we can bring back the Erie or C&O canals I don’t know. But we can work to bring back railroads and our maritime traffic along our coasts.

    It isn’t like highways are free or anything. Trucks are a terribly inefficient means of long haul transportation that are only viable because we subsidize an interstate highway system but won’t do the same for rail or maritime traffic.

  • padre29

    That is all that is steiff, Pork Barrel spending, if the Canals were viable (I’m dubious on that) then a private entity would be better suited to running the thing, or investing in it.

    The old canals fell out of use for a number of reasons, not the least of which was their shallow depths, they are maybe 10 feet deep, add in the locks, and the fact that long stretches are now parks, and the plan is unworkable.

  • streiff

    they failed because they were slower and less cost efficient that railroads.

    There might be a half-dozen areas in the country where a canal makes economic sense but it isn’t like the interstate highway system isn’t little more than a porker’s heaven.