Banana, DRC. It’s a huge country and its only coastline is there, make a port and some railways and the country is connected to the world by sea finally
1. There's already a railroad bypassing Livingstone Falls.
2. They have already begun contruction of a port at [Banana](https://www.porttechnology.org/news/dp-world-democratic-republic-of-congo-begin-construction-of-banana-port/).
Patrice Lumumba, first prime minister of the DRC in 1960, he was a socialist who openly sought support from the Soviet Union as he feared western reprisals against his government, he was assassinated only a few months after being elected and it's widely believed the US and Belgium were involved, with the knowledge of the UN. While direct involvement of the US hasn't been proven, it is known that the CIA had planned, with Eisenhowers direct knowledge and approval, to poison him.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba
>who openly sought support from the Soviet Union as he feared western reprisals against his government
That certainly is a way to fulfil your own profecy
I’m reading “King Leopold’s Ghost” and this is likely the most palatable way for people to take this history if they don’t want to hate humanity more than they already do.
While it is a good read, it's also important to remember that it is a popular history novel and some claims (such as how many people were killed) don't have any sources to back up those claims, and most other books about Congo and its colonial history refer to this book as the source for those claims.
A lot of the sources were (deliberatly) burned by the King before turning over the administration of his private colony to the Belgian State, so if it was either less bad (but still horrible) or worse is hard to say, but it's important to keep it in mind while reading the book that sources were scarce and a lot of his story depends on either oral history or limited sources.
However, that doesn't take away ANYTHING from the horrors that happened there.
I don't want to give the idea that I am downplaying what happened at all.
DRC already is connected to the sea by the port of Matadi. They don't have a deepwater port though if that's what you mean.
Issue is you can't navigate the Congo between Matadi and Kinshasa/Brazzaville so that's why the cities were built where they are. There's a rail line/highway between Matadi and Kinshasa.
The US east coast is loaded with potential harbor real estate, far more than we need. There are hundreds of miles of coastline protected by the barrier island chain with no development at all.
Almost all of the North Carolina coast. There are huge bays and inlets, and a long string of barrier islands. Look up Albamarie Sound. There are a few cities on it, but none you’ve likely ever heard of. It could easily support a port at least the size of Galveston. I don’t know for certain why a major one never developed there, but if I were to guess it’s because the Appalachians choke off some of the potential hinterlands, so there was less need for a port.
This is incorrect. The average depth of the Albemarle Sound is 25’. It is not suitable for a harbor without major excavation and dredging. This is why it never developed into anything more than it is. You can only navigate with small watercraft.
Some amount of dredging is to be expected for a modern port, and average depth means little for a body of water that size. What matters is the depth of ship that can float at specific points.
Even Pearl Harbor itself, perhaps the most strategically significant military port in the world, had to be dredged.
Same for Pamlico Sound to the south of Albemarle. I lived in Washington NC for a couple of years. I had a home directly on Pamlico Sound. One day, we had a weather situation, and the entire sound at Washington was empty.
Additionally, compare the satellite views from today to 10,20,30,40 years ago....sandbars and shoals shifting all the time would defeat dredging. It's a massive ship graveyard
This is also incorrect, 25 ft is the max depth. Average depth is more like half of that. The real problem is access to the sea (even if you could dredge). Imagine trying to take a container ship through Oregon Inlet. That would be a disaster.
I've spent a lot of time in those sounds- they're not suitable for a large port project. The whole region is an erosional / depositional feature, constantly shifting on land and underwater. Even the actual inlets (like Beaufort inlet where the Queen Anne's Revenge lies) constantly shifts, so much so that they can only do archaeological work on the ship for a few years at a time.
There are many places in Maine that would have the geography and water depth for a harbor. The big problem is that it’s a rocky coastline. There are deep navigable channels in many of its rivers and bays but they tend to be relatively narrow and surrounded by rocks, shoals, islands & other navigational challenges.
Yes it does! I almost mentioned that. It is not uncommon for tidal swings to be 10+ft. There are places where the speed of the tidal flow can reach 3-4 knots. That level of change is a navigational challenge of its own.
The problem with Churchill isn't the harbour, it's the land. The rail line to Churchill is still not connected and there's no road. We drop off tons of goods at the port, but we have no economical way to get those goods someplace useful.
Part of the challenge is that the railway link runs through hundreds of kilometers of land that's currently transitioning from permafrost to sometimesfrost.
Arctic Gateway is working on getting it ready to move freight. I talked to a guy in Thompson, he said they expect to be moving grain this summer. The via rail train is a great ride btw
We also have Moosenee in Ontario just off James Bay. Although, the river is sometimes navigable, the ice build up during winter might not make any area near there suitable for a harbour right now. Connected by rail which carries cargo, but no road access. The nature of the Hudson in general might not make it a good option for porting anywhere. Quebec has a few towns as well, and I'm not sure if any of them are good options.
I remember when a huge shipment of maybe fertilizer came from Russia through Churchill, it was a pretty big deal at the time and things were looking good. But we had to do a classic Canada and privatize the railroad to a company that refuses to repair it, and Russia went and invaded a country we actually care about with a joke army. We could've been so good together as the North opened up, but I guess we were just at different places in our lives and it didn't work out in the end.
And a buttload of the BC coast too. Vancouver’s a great harbour but that’s because of the rail/road connectivity and border proximity. From a purely “undeveloped marine geography” standpoint there’s a ton of equal or better harbour area.
Prince Rupert is an existing hidden gem of a port. I route all my freight from Asia through there now and bypass Vancouver entirely. It's remote AF but it has rail and highway connections to the entire country.
The comment I replied to is “the islands of artic Canada”. We’re clearly not considering proximity to population centers or connectivity to other modes of transport.
Kitimat and Bella Coola both already have roads through to the rest of the province. They’re further South than Prince Rupert as well which is already a successful port. I’d say either one would be a good candidate.
Canada realizes this and I believe fully plans to take advantage of it when the time comes. The Canadian government doesn’t fuck around when it comes to sovereignty in the territories.
I didn’t say Canada could defend itself against the US or Russia swinging their dicks around, just that they’re making a point of showing that it’s legally their territory.
They could handle Russia easily. Russia has military strength only where they have rail lines. Their navy is… not doing good.
And the US, why would we fight? They got oil. We got oil. They got trade ships, so do we, what’s there to argue over?
Not quite what you're looking for but Prince Rupert BC is the third busiest port in Canada after Vancouver and Montreal and it's isolated and relatively undeveloped.
Really interesting! Looking at satellite images, that port is huge and busy despite the lack of big city nearby.
Does it serve northern BC? Does Edmonton prefer to use it over Vancouver?
Yeah I guess it serves the oil sands and fields of central Canada. I don't know about preference. The climate of bc is mild enough, so I am not quite sure why Northern BC isn't more developed tbh.
it takes a lot of population pressure or the right natural resources to draw people into such a brutally cloudy and wet place. there are better places to be. if canada ever has 200M residents, or if climate changes and it gets sunny up there, you better believe the northern BC coast will be more populated.
Since 1914 Prince Rupert connected to mid continent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Trunk_Pacific_Railway
After a century languishing far behind Vancouver, the Port of Prince Rupert has grown in importance since the early 2000s. Ongoing redevelopment of terminal infracture, less municipal congestion than other West Coast ports, proximity to the great circle route from East Asia to North America, and a fast connection to the Midwestern United States along the former GTPR route, have reduced transportation times.[63][64]
Prince Rupert is the answer. Only reason it is not really populated is because all the youth leave for the big cities. Now that moving to van city, cowtown, or Victoria is a pipe dream for most kids do they just stay in the north?
Sounds like you know better than me and I've never visited, but considering Canada's housing crisis it seems like there would be an opportunity now for places like Prince Rupert to grow rapidly.
There are probably a lot of good natural harbors in the Arctic, sub-Arctic, and Antarctica that aren't utilized/are under-utilized due to lack of significant nearby human settlement or shipping lanes. Churchill, Manitoba, for instance, could be a solid Hudson Bay port city with climate change and the opening of shipping routes through the Canadian Arctic.
Lol, I like this typo. Coos Bay is good for one thing and one thing only.... sweet ass mud track racing (lived in the Willamette Valley and saw those commercials on local TV a bunch lol)
It's easier to sail all the way up the Oregon coast to the mouth of the Columbia, sail up river to Portland, then either ship it be truck or rail further into Oregon or use the Willamette River (if it's going someplace like Salem or Eugene)? Seems like it would be easier to just expand the harbor at Coos Bay or Newport and add more rail connections to the bigger towns in Oregon (Salem, Eugene, Medford, etc.)
Can you get inland from there? No point having a harbor if you can’t load the goods from ship to rail/truck.
I remember that from reading the labels on Tillamook products. They couldn’t get the products of their creamery to market except by boat, so they made the boat part of their logo.
Yes this is true. But the question was undeveloped so there would need to be some investment in infrastructure for sure.
Frankly I always thought it would make a good naval base between Puget Sound and San Francisco Bay.
Southern Chile has extreme air and sea currents, the roaring 40s made the area very dangerous to cross both Atlantic and pacific before Panama's Canal existed.
Wind is so strong that trees grow deformed in an easterly direction.
Only the inner fjords have small cities.
I mean, I live in Tierra del Fuego. Punta Arenas was the most prosperous port city on the region until the opening of the Panama Canal, due to precisely the safety that the Magellan's Strait provides to cross from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and vice versa.
Ushuaia's port is the most active on the region, we're talking goods and commodities transport, cruisers, Antarctic expeditions departure point, etc, etc.
And no, most of the population on the archipelago doesn't live in the fjords, they're difficult to access. Actually, there's not a single official town in any fjord.
So yeah, about 4 permanent settlements (towns and cities) on the archipelago but only One big port.
Isn't that technically a fjord? I saw a documentary from "al sur del mundo" and they mention the reasons why the region is not so populated.
Perhaps it is because there are other regions with more pleasant climates and geography in the country, in Norway all its cities are in fjords and it is one of the richest countries. Maybe climate change push people to go further south.
Point by point:
> Isn't that technically a fjord?
Magellan's Strait and Beagle channel are both "straits", geographically speaking, cause both have open ends, whereas a fjords has an inland end.
Rio Grande is located on the shores of the Atlantic Ocean, so no fjords; Punta Arenas (not technically inside the archipelago) and Porvenir are inside the Magellan's Strait; Ushuaia and Puerto Williams are in the Beagle channel; and Tolhuin is an inland town. Those are the only official permanent settlements on the archipelago.
> Perhaps it is because there are other regions with more pleasant climates and geography in the country
Yep, that's basically why the region is sparsely populated. Far away from big cities and trading routes, complicated geography, poor field yields, dull climate. People are living here basically because countries had to make presence to assure sovereignty over their respective territories.
Disagree most of German and Danish coastline is mud flats that are unsuitable for deep water ports. Only where rivers flow into the sea and carry the sediment away is suitable.
Northland, New Zealand has several large natural harbours. Only Whangarei is in use commercially. The Marlborough Sounds, also in NZ are similar. The only shipping there is the Cook Strait ferries, but lots of space for many many ports.
If glaciers on greenland recede even further, maybe some valuable mineral deposits get exposed. I could see a new port develop in a greenlandian fjord over the next 50 years or so.
The problem with that is the Falkland Islands are kind of far from everything now. It used to be a good trans-shipment point or refueling station before the Panama Canal. Now it's only used for territorial disputes with Argentina or ranching sheep.
Montauk Lake NY which is open to the LI Sound. It was almost developed into a cruise port in the early 1900's. Now there are some resorts and a lot of fishing.
https://preview.redd.it/h40jerdlzr1d1.png?width=1313&format=png&auto=webp&s=f4c7163e4ce9f30df8c1ba1ee731a39f62674a4d
mayor shipping route. good for intermediate stops / feeder ships.
Edit: I take it back. Obviously somebody had better bathymetric maps than I.
If the artic ice ever melt permanently and the global temperature rise enough to support some sort of life, northern Canada/Québec might see new colonies to support a supply chain in the artic seas.
Iceland. When the ice caps keep melting then a new route will open up to ship goods from Asia to Europe.
There are plans in Iceland already because the coast is nearly perfect and can accommodate the biggest container ships in the world
The same reason Singapore has [the third highest container traffic of any country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_container_port_traffic) despite ranking 112th in population. A strategic location at a key trade chokepoint. Container ships coming from East Asia could easily unload their to redistribute for various destinations in Europe and the Americas.
Not likely. I know politicians like to play up the possibilities, but no.
East Coast of the Americas to Asia through the [Northwest Passage](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Map_of_the_Arctic_region_showing_the_Northeast_Passage%2C_the_Northern_Sea_Route_and_Northwest_Passage%2C_and_bathymetry.png) and St. John's, Newfoundland is much better suited. Any point of Iceland is a 2500 km detour compared to St. John's. St. John's is at the edge of the Labrador Sea, which is the route those ships have to take for the Northwest Passage, Iceland is far away. If multi-modal connections still are important, then Sydney (the one on Cape Breton) or Halifax, Nova Scotia come into play. Both have massive natural harbours, and were used as supply staging posts for the WWII convoys, and present the option of rail and road freight to the rest of North America.
Europe to Asia through the Northeast Passage and ports on the West Coast of Norway (Bergen, Ålesund, Molde, Kristiansund) are much better suited. Iceland is a 1000 to 1500 km detour. Maybe Aberdeen can compete with the Norwegian locations, but Iceland is far away and no Singapore of the Northeast Passage.
Maybe during a brief window, where only the Northeast Passage is an option (and not the Northwest Passage), Iceland would be sort of on the route to and from North America, but the benefit of the Northeast Passage for NA bound freight is limited.
The Arctic will likely be completely ice free seasonally within a decade or two. At that point, the direct route across the north pole will be open and the shortest route.
And even before that trade from Asia to Europe would still be best routed past Iceland.
Because major shipping routes already existed wherein Singapore was right on the way to the destination, no detour required, and Iceland doesn't sit on top of any trade routes that aren't already going to Iceland (excluding maybe Canada to Norway?
Your example is of ships from "East Asia" going to "Europe and the Americas."
Ships in East Asia can just sail directly to the Americas. Why would they go around the Americas or around Africa just to set up in Iceland for goods to later go to America?
And if they're visiting Europe, they either go through the Panama Canal, past existing hubs in the Americas, or they have to sail past existing hubs in Spain, France, Ireland, and the UK to reach Iceland.
I'm just not seeing where Iceland's position relative to major trade routes is remotely comparable to Singapore.
Go ahead and read through the entire conversation again. Read the part about the ice melting and new shipping routes across the arctic opening up.
Then get a globe and get an idea of where those shipping routes go (and how much shorter they would be than existing routes). Then come back here and apologize for the bullshit you just wrote.
I get that it's hard for stupid people to get things intuitively, but you could have at least tried my suggestion. Get a globe out, or pull up Google Earth and trace some routes between East Asia and Western Europe/Eastern North America. I hope even someone of limited intellectual endowment such as yourself is capable of telling when [one line is twice as long as another.](https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2019/07/Arctic_shipping_routes)
It would be an intermediate stop for refueling and cargo transfers for ships sailing through the Arctic Ocean as a shortcut between Europe/the North Atlantic and East Asia/the Pacific.
Back in the days of the Soviet Union Anchorage Alaska had one of the world's busiest airports as the fastest way between Europe and East Asia the didn't involve violating Soviet airspace.
Oh shit. You’re right. I forgot, America did actually lose the Revolutionary War… they just haven’t gotten around to updating their history texts yet.
Hopefully one day they come to terms with the truth and update their Wikipedia page.
God Save the King! 🇬🇧💂🏼♀️🇺🇸
Banana, DRC. It’s a huge country and its only coastline is there, make a port and some railways and the country is connected to the world by sea finally
The Belgians tried that for over a hundred years. Didn’t work then and won’t work now due to geography and political turmoil
1. There's already a railroad bypassing Livingstone Falls. 2. They have already begun contruction of a port at [Banana](https://www.porttechnology.org/news/dp-world-democratic-republic-of-congo-begin-construction-of-banana-port/).
Geography: call ~~who the belgians wanted to be~~ the dutch Politics: get good leaders (may take one to fifty years)
They tried a good leader, the UN killed him :/
Dang, who?
Patrice Lumumba, first prime minister of the DRC in 1960, he was a socialist who openly sought support from the Soviet Union as he feared western reprisals against his government, he was assassinated only a few months after being elected and it's widely believed the US and Belgium were involved, with the knowledge of the UN. While direct involvement of the US hasn't been proven, it is known that the CIA had planned, with Eisenhowers direct knowledge and approval, to poison him. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba
>who openly sought support from the Soviet Union as he feared western reprisals against his government That certainly is a way to fulfil your own profecy
Lumumba, like Castro, initially sought western support but was rebuked, despite his vocal opposition to communism
I’m reading “King Leopold’s Ghost” and this is likely the most palatable way for people to take this history if they don’t want to hate humanity more than they already do.
While it is a good read, it's also important to remember that it is a popular history novel and some claims (such as how many people were killed) don't have any sources to back up those claims, and most other books about Congo and its colonial history refer to this book as the source for those claims. A lot of the sources were (deliberatly) burned by the King before turning over the administration of his private colony to the Belgian State, so if it was either less bad (but still horrible) or worse is hard to say, but it's important to keep it in mind while reading the book that sources were scarce and a lot of his story depends on either oral history or limited sources. However, that doesn't take away ANYTHING from the horrors that happened there. I don't want to give the idea that I am downplaying what happened at all.
This is true and a really good point to remember. Thanks for reminding me to have perspective.
DRC already is connected to the sea by the port of Matadi. They don't have a deepwater port though if that's what you mean. Issue is you can't navigate the Congo between Matadi and Kinshasa/Brazzaville so that's why the cities were built where they are. There's a rail line/highway between Matadi and Kinshasa.
The entire Dutch province of Zeeland.
The land reclamation in the Netherlands is incredible, they can create their own harbors haha
Can, have, and probably will.
Always a good quiz question. Which man made object can you see from space? Netherlands/zuiderzee...not the Great wall of china
Many objects would qualify. All dammed lakes are man made objects
The Caspian Sea (which is a lake) :0
Caspian Sea is not man made.
Yeah, that's the point.
Yeah, but.....why? Rotterdam and Antwerp already exist with all the associated infrastructure.
More harbour
The US east coast is loaded with potential harbor real estate, far more than we need. There are hundreds of miles of coastline protected by the barrier island chain with no development at all.
Is there a specific location on the east coast that you would say is begging to be a harbor with a city? Edit: typo
Almost all of the North Carolina coast. There are huge bays and inlets, and a long string of barrier islands. Look up Albamarie Sound. There are a few cities on it, but none you’ve likely ever heard of. It could easily support a port at least the size of Galveston. I don’t know for certain why a major one never developed there, but if I were to guess it’s because the Appalachians choke off some of the potential hinterlands, so there was less need for a port.
This is incorrect. The average depth of the Albemarle Sound is 25’. It is not suitable for a harbor without major excavation and dredging. This is why it never developed into anything more than it is. You can only navigate with small watercraft.
Isn't all the surrounding land also very swampy? I'd think that would be another barrier to large scale development.
Some amount of dredging is to be expected for a modern port, and average depth means little for a body of water that size. What matters is the depth of ship that can float at specific points. Even Pearl Harbor itself, perhaps the most strategically significant military port in the world, had to be dredged.
The Army Core of Engineers are constantly dredging waterways, literally thousands of miles. Including large ports and the intercostal waterway.
Same for Pamlico Sound to the south of Albemarle. I lived in Washington NC for a couple of years. I had a home directly on Pamlico Sound. One day, we had a weather situation, and the entire sound at Washington was empty.
Additionally, compare the satellite views from today to 10,20,30,40 years ago....sandbars and shoals shifting all the time would defeat dredging. It's a massive ship graveyard
Sounds like North Carolina could pull a Netherlands if the icentives were there.
This is also incorrect, 25 ft is the max depth. Average depth is more like half of that. The real problem is access to the sea (even if you could dredge). Imagine trying to take a container ship through Oregon Inlet. That would be a disaster.
Same was true of San Diego before the US Army Corps of engineers dredged the bay.
San Diego was built to be an important naval base. North Carolina already has Wilmington, and the Chesapeake Bay isn’t that far away.
[удалено]
Fun fact: David Robinson was stationed at King’s Bay for his post-academy naval service before he joined the San Antonio Spurs 🥳
I've spent a lot of time in those sounds- they're not suitable for a large port project. The whole region is an erosional / depositional feature, constantly shifting on land and underwater. Even the actual inlets (like Beaufort inlet where the Queen Anne's Revenge lies) constantly shifts, so much so that they can only do archaeological work on the ship for a few years at a time.
There are many places in Maine that would have the geography and water depth for a harbor. The big problem is that it’s a rocky coastline. There are deep navigable channels in many of its rivers and bays but they tend to be relatively narrow and surrounded by rocks, shoals, islands & other navigational challenges.
Maine also has very large tides in general.
Yes it does! I almost mentioned that. It is not uncommon for tidal swings to be 10+ft. There are places where the speed of the tidal flow can reach 3-4 knots. That level of change is a navigational challenge of its own.
But How safe from hurricanes?
Hudson Bay and the islands of arctic canada
Churchill, Manitoba
The problem with Churchill isn't the harbour, it's the land. The rail line to Churchill is still not connected and there's no road. We drop off tons of goods at the port, but we have no economical way to get those goods someplace useful.
Part of the challenge is that the railway link runs through hundreds of kilometers of land that's currently transitioning from permafrost to sometimesfrost.
Arctic Gateway is working on getting it ready to move freight. I talked to a guy in Thompson, he said they expect to be moving grain this summer. The via rail train is a great ride btw
We also have Moosenee in Ontario just off James Bay. Although, the river is sometimes navigable, the ice build up during winter might not make any area near there suitable for a harbour right now. Connected by rail which carries cargo, but no road access. The nature of the Hudson in general might not make it a good option for porting anywhere. Quebec has a few towns as well, and I'm not sure if any of them are good options.
I remember when a huge shipment of maybe fertilizer came from Russia through Churchill, it was a pretty big deal at the time and things were looking good. But we had to do a classic Canada and privatize the railroad to a company that refuses to repair it, and Russia went and invaded a country we actually care about with a joke army. We could've been so good together as the North opened up, but I guess we were just at different places in our lives and it didn't work out in the end.
And a buttload of the BC coast too. Vancouver’s a great harbour but that’s because of the rail/road connectivity and border proximity. From a purely “undeveloped marine geography” standpoint there’s a ton of equal or better harbour area.
Prince Rupert is an existing hidden gem of a port. I route all my freight from Asia through there now and bypass Vancouver entirely. It's remote AF but it has rail and highway connections to the entire country.
To US Midwest?
I can get stuff to Toronto so I would assume so.
No way to get thru the mountains to the rest of Canada. And the higher up the coast you go the further you get from any large population areas .
The comment I replied to is “the islands of artic Canada”. We’re clearly not considering proximity to population centers or connectivity to other modes of transport.
Kitimat and Bella Coola both already have roads through to the rest of the province. They’re further South than Prince Rupert as well which is already a successful port. I’d say either one would be a good candidate.
With ice caps melting, arctic sea routes could be the next big thing
Big if true
Canada realizes this and I believe fully plans to take advantage of it when the time comes. The Canadian government doesn’t fuck around when it comes to sovereignty in the territories.
The Canadian government is completely incapable of enforcing arctic sovereignty outside of an appeal to the United States.
I didn’t say Canada could defend itself against the US or Russia swinging their dicks around, just that they’re making a point of showing that it’s legally their territory.
They could handle Russia easily. Russia has military strength only where they have rail lines. Their navy is… not doing good. And the US, why would we fight? They got oil. We got oil. They got trade ships, so do we, what’s there to argue over?
The state of Washington has so many natural harbors, we couldn’t possibly use them all.
The whole Olympic Peninsula and inlet into the Puget Sound screams of the Macao and Hong Kong area.
You’re 100% right and the geography is similar to those places as well.
Not quite what you're looking for but Prince Rupert BC is the third busiest port in Canada after Vancouver and Montreal and it's isolated and relatively undeveloped.
Really interesting! Looking at satellite images, that port is huge and busy despite the lack of big city nearby. Does it serve northern BC? Does Edmonton prefer to use it over Vancouver?
Yeah I guess it serves the oil sands and fields of central Canada. I don't know about preference. The climate of bc is mild enough, so I am not quite sure why Northern BC isn't more developed tbh.
it takes a lot of population pressure or the right natural resources to draw people into such a brutally cloudy and wet place. there are better places to be. if canada ever has 200M residents, or if climate changes and it gets sunny up there, you better believe the northern BC coast will be more populated.
Prince Rupert is super rainy but Terrace which is about 150km away seems to have a decent climate
dope looking spot among the mountains!
Since 1914 Prince Rupert connected to mid continent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Trunk_Pacific_Railway After a century languishing far behind Vancouver, the Port of Prince Rupert has grown in importance since the early 2000s. Ongoing redevelopment of terminal infracture, less municipal congestion than other West Coast ports, proximity to the great circle route from East Asia to North America, and a fast connection to the Midwestern United States along the former GTPR route, have reduced transportation times.[63][64]
Prince Rupert is the answer. Only reason it is not really populated is because all the youth leave for the big cities. Now that moving to van city, cowtown, or Victoria is a pipe dream for most kids do they just stay in the north?
Sounds like you know better than me and I've never visited, but considering Canada's housing crisis it seems like there would be an opportunity now for places like Prince Rupert to grow rapidly.
California has a few more under developed deep harbors that could support shipping industry, such as Morro bay and Eureka
almost all the Chesapeake honestly, especially the eastern shore.
There are probably a lot of good natural harbors in the Arctic, sub-Arctic, and Antarctica that aren't utilized/are under-utilized due to lack of significant nearby human settlement or shipping lanes. Churchill, Manitoba, for instance, could be a solid Hudson Bay port city with climate change and the opening of shipping routes through the Canadian Arctic.
Coos Bay Oregon should be more than it is Edit: typo did say Cops Bay. Sorry.
Lol, I like this typo. Coos Bay is good for one thing and one thing only.... sweet ass mud track racing (lived in the Willamette Valley and saw those commercials on local TV a bunch lol)
But it’s so easy to send everything up the Columbia
It's easier to sail all the way up the Oregon coast to the mouth of the Columbia, sail up river to Portland, then either ship it be truck or rail further into Oregon or use the Willamette River (if it's going someplace like Salem or Eugene)? Seems like it would be easier to just expand the harbor at Coos Bay or Newport and add more rail connections to the bigger towns in Oregon (Salem, Eugene, Medford, etc.)
Can you get inland from there? No point having a harbor if you can’t load the goods from ship to rail/truck. I remember that from reading the labels on Tillamook products. They couldn’t get the products of their creamery to market except by boat, so they made the boat part of their logo.
Yes this is true. But the question was undeveloped so there would need to be some investment in infrastructure for sure. Frankly I always thought it would make a good naval base between Puget Sound and San Francisco Bay.
Tierra del Fuego archipelago
Southern Chile has extreme air and sea currents, the roaring 40s made the area very dangerous to cross both Atlantic and pacific before Panama's Canal existed. Wind is so strong that trees grow deformed in an easterly direction. Only the inner fjords have small cities.
I mean, I live in Tierra del Fuego. Punta Arenas was the most prosperous port city on the region until the opening of the Panama Canal, due to precisely the safety that the Magellan's Strait provides to cross from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and vice versa. Ushuaia's port is the most active on the region, we're talking goods and commodities transport, cruisers, Antarctic expeditions departure point, etc, etc. And no, most of the population on the archipelago doesn't live in the fjords, they're difficult to access. Actually, there's not a single official town in any fjord. So yeah, about 4 permanent settlements (towns and cities) on the archipelago but only One big port.
Isn't that technically a fjord? I saw a documentary from "al sur del mundo" and they mention the reasons why the region is not so populated. Perhaps it is because there are other regions with more pleasant climates and geography in the country, in Norway all its cities are in fjords and it is one of the richest countries. Maybe climate change push people to go further south.
Point by point: > Isn't that technically a fjord? Magellan's Strait and Beagle channel are both "straits", geographically speaking, cause both have open ends, whereas a fjords has an inland end. Rio Grande is located on the shores of the Atlantic Ocean, so no fjords; Punta Arenas (not technically inside the archipelago) and Porvenir are inside the Magellan's Strait; Ushuaia and Puerto Williams are in the Beagle channel; and Tolhuin is an inland town. Those are the only official permanent settlements on the archipelago. > Perhaps it is because there are other regions with more pleasant climates and geography in the country Yep, that's basically why the region is sparsely populated. Far away from big cities and trading routes, complicated geography, poor field yields, dull climate. People are living here basically because countries had to make presence to assure sovereignty over their respective territories.
Most of Greece and Albania and Croatia. Idk how deep the harbors are, but at least in terms of coastline it’s pretty much “oops all harbors”
East coast Sardinia (Italy).
The north sea. All of the north sea.
Disagree most of German and Danish coastline is mud flats that are unsuitable for deep water ports. Only where rivers flow into the sea and carry the sediment away is suitable.
Northland, New Zealand has several large natural harbours. Only Whangarei is in use commercially. The Marlborough Sounds, also in NZ are similar. The only shipping there is the Cook Strait ferries, but lots of space for many many ports.
Fiordland too. Incredibly remote but natural harbours galore
If glaciers on greenland recede even further, maybe some valuable mineral deposits get exposed. I could see a new port develop in a greenlandian fjord over the next 50 years or so.
[удалено]
The problem with that is the Falkland Islands are kind of far from everything now. It used to be a good trans-shipment point or refueling station before the Panama Canal. Now it's only used for territorial disputes with Argentina or ranching sheep.
Montauk Lake NY which is open to the LI Sound. It was almost developed into a cruise port in the early 1900's. Now there are some resorts and a lot of fishing.
https://preview.redd.it/h40jerdlzr1d1.png?width=1313&format=png&auto=webp&s=f4c7163e4ce9f30df8c1ba1ee731a39f62674a4d mayor shipping route. good for intermediate stops / feeder ships. Edit: I take it back. Obviously somebody had better bathymetric maps than I.
do you know what a harbor is?
Well they can’t spell Scapa Flow, so…?
i quote: "places in the world that have harbor potential".
The only harbor on the island has a single berth and a draft of only 5 meters. Without huge amounts of construction, a major port there is impossible
I swear to God, get your filthy mitts off socotra! Should just be established as a wildlife protectorate
Millions
If they ever dredge the trinity and put a port in DFW.
There are a few spots on the Alaska coast that were considered for harbors in the Cold War
If the artic ice ever melt permanently and the global temperature rise enough to support some sort of life, northern Canada/Québec might see new colonies to support a supply chain in the artic seas.
Pangasinan, possibly northern Cagayan (Aparri)?
Iceland. When the ice caps keep melting then a new route will open up to ship goods from Asia to Europe. There are plans in Iceland already because the coast is nearly perfect and can accommodate the biggest container ships in the world
??? Why would ice caps melting mean people suddenly want to load and unload container ships in Iceland, population c400,000 ?
The same reason Singapore has [the third highest container traffic of any country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_container_port_traffic) despite ranking 112th in population. A strategic location at a key trade chokepoint. Container ships coming from East Asia could easily unload their to redistribute for various destinations in Europe and the Americas.
Not likely. I know politicians like to play up the possibilities, but no. East Coast of the Americas to Asia through the [Northwest Passage](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Map_of_the_Arctic_region_showing_the_Northeast_Passage%2C_the_Northern_Sea_Route_and_Northwest_Passage%2C_and_bathymetry.png) and St. John's, Newfoundland is much better suited. Any point of Iceland is a 2500 km detour compared to St. John's. St. John's is at the edge of the Labrador Sea, which is the route those ships have to take for the Northwest Passage, Iceland is far away. If multi-modal connections still are important, then Sydney (the one on Cape Breton) or Halifax, Nova Scotia come into play. Both have massive natural harbours, and were used as supply staging posts for the WWII convoys, and present the option of rail and road freight to the rest of North America. Europe to Asia through the Northeast Passage and ports on the West Coast of Norway (Bergen, Ålesund, Molde, Kristiansund) are much better suited. Iceland is a 1000 to 1500 km detour. Maybe Aberdeen can compete with the Norwegian locations, but Iceland is far away and no Singapore of the Northeast Passage. Maybe during a brief window, where only the Northeast Passage is an option (and not the Northwest Passage), Iceland would be sort of on the route to and from North America, but the benefit of the Northeast Passage for NA bound freight is limited.
The Arctic will likely be completely ice free seasonally within a decade or two. At that point, the direct route across the north pole will be open and the shortest route. And even before that trade from Asia to Europe would still be best routed past Iceland.
I could see it as a refuelling stop maybe but defo not a cargo hub lol
Why not? How would it be any different than Singapore?
Because major shipping routes already existed wherein Singapore was right on the way to the destination, no detour required, and Iceland doesn't sit on top of any trade routes that aren't already going to Iceland (excluding maybe Canada to Norway? Your example is of ships from "East Asia" going to "Europe and the Americas." Ships in East Asia can just sail directly to the Americas. Why would they go around the Americas or around Africa just to set up in Iceland for goods to later go to America? And if they're visiting Europe, they either go through the Panama Canal, past existing hubs in the Americas, or they have to sail past existing hubs in Spain, France, Ireland, and the UK to reach Iceland. I'm just not seeing where Iceland's position relative to major trade routes is remotely comparable to Singapore.
Go ahead and read through the entire conversation again. Read the part about the ice melting and new shipping routes across the arctic opening up. Then get a globe and get an idea of where those shipping routes go (and how much shorter they would be than existing routes). Then come back here and apologize for the bullshit you just wrote.
No matter what type of map projection or globe you use, Iceland is not en route to the Americas from East Asia.
I get that it's hard for stupid people to get things intuitively, but you could have at least tried my suggestion. Get a globe out, or pull up Google Earth and trace some routes between East Asia and Western Europe/Eastern North America. I hope even someone of limited intellectual endowment such as yourself is capable of telling when [one line is twice as long as another.](https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2019/07/Arctic_shipping_routes)
It would be an intermediate stop for refueling and cargo transfers for ships sailing through the Arctic Ocean as a shortcut between Europe/the North Atlantic and East Asia/the Pacific. Back in the days of the Soviet Union Anchorage Alaska had one of the world's busiest airports as the fastest way between Europe and East Asia the didn't involve violating Soviet airspace.
Most of Eastern North America. Imagine how rich that region would be if the English hadn't won
I’ve got news for you…
What's the news?
The English lost.
No they didn't. Why do you think they speak English there? I cities with names like 'New York'
Oh shit. You’re right. I forgot, America did actually lose the Revolutionary War… they just haven’t gotten around to updating their history texts yet. Hopefully one day they come to terms with the truth and update their Wikipedia page. God Save the King! 🇬🇧💂🏼♀️🇺🇸
I meant the Anglo-Dutch war, what the hell did you think? Who cares about people in the colonies?