[Atlas Sneezed]

While challenging, at least building new locks side-by-side with the existing ones is rather doable, compared to the monumantal task of greatly enlarging the channel and cut, which one doubts could even be achieved with modern expectations of worker safety. Bigger ships could presumably fit through the existing channels. From a recent transit, I recall that there was amply space to add locks at each of the three sets. Not trivial, but not monumental.

There is nothing inherently difficult about making locks somewhat wider or longer.

[Atlas Sneezed]

And while I understand that added lock usage by new locks would deplete the lake (hopefully consuming no more of the water that is now spilled over the dams), I do not see how flooding farms would add to the finite drainage basin that provides the needed water to operate the locks. Even raising the lake level would not increase the basin, which is defined by the ridges encompassing it.

[presidio9]

Estimates run as high as 30,000 lives lost during original construction (that includes the 20,000 during the initial French debacle). Of course, we are better able to deal with malaria now, so contemporary numbers would not approach anywhere near that.

[Richard Kimball]

Experts say the bill could approach $8 billion,

20 billion is my guess. New locks would allow the current canal to continue to be used. Are we going to build it so the next Rat President can give it to China, like Carter did with the first one?