France’s €5.1BN Canal to Germany
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 05. 2024
- Try free for 7 days, and get a 60% discount if you join the annual subscription.
speakly.app.link/futurology
France is building a €5.1BN canal that will unite the Seine river with the waterways of Belgium and the Netherlands, uniting the Seine and Rhine river basins. Called the Canal Seine-Nord, the project will stretch 107 kilometers from Compiegne to Oisy-le-Verger. It will be 54 meters wide and 4.5 meters deep, featuring 6 locks at Montmacq, Noyon, Campagne, Allaines, Marquion-Bourlon and Oisy-le-Verger. It will also have several canal bridges, including a 1.3 kilometer long canal bridge across the Somme. Once finished, the megaproject will boost barge traffic in northwestern Europe, improving efficiency and reducing CO2 emissions. Since funding was secured in 2019, the project has advanced immensely and starting in 2024, construction on the full-scale project will commence.
If you enjoyed this video, please consider subscribing to Futurology for more similar content!
Thank you to the following sources!
Information
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seine%E...
seine-scheldt.eu/en/homepage/
www.canal-seine-nord-europe.f....
www.french-waterways.com/wate...
www.canal-seine-nord-europe.f...
Video Chapters
0:00-4:32 Context
4:32-8:04 The Canal Seine-Nord
8:04-9:44 Benefits
9:44-11:15 Updates - Zábava
Try free for 7 days, and get a 60% discount if you join the annual subscription.
speakly.app.link/futurology
You can take a barge from Paris to Peking via canals and rivers and have been able to for decades...of course the Iron Curtain stopped most traffic but that ended in 1989, not so sure how it goes now with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and subsequent war.....
I am French and this is the first time I hear of this project. Thanks a lot.
It is a good project and an even better video.
Are you a carpenter
J'aimerai tout de même rajouter un peu de nuances à cette vidéo. Je suis étudiante à Compiègne en école d'ingénieur (qui a d'ailleurs un partenariat avec la société du canal) et la réalité est bien moins jolie qu'annoncée.
D'abord sur le point de vue environnemental. Du coté réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre c'est très peu réaliste. En effet les marchandises transportées par voie fluviale et routière sont très différentes, donc seul 3% des marchandises transportées sur l'A1 seraient transposables sur l'eau, ce qui résulterait en une baisse très faible des émissions et un désengorgement très faible lui aussi. En revanche Il en résulterait une baisse de 15% du fret ferroviaire qui est pourtant moins polluant et déjà en difficulté à cause d'un manque de subventions.
De plus ce serait un projet absolument catastrophique pour la biodiversité. On peut par exemple citer un bras complet de l'Oise qui sera complètement rebouché. Le canal va mener à la destruction des habitats de plus d'une centaine d'espèce menacées (je ne retrouve plus le chiffre exact, il me semble que c'est autour de 150), la destruction de zones Natura 2000. Quand à la compensation écologique, c'est une pratique extrêmement controversée dans le milieu scientifique, car on ne peut pas simplement recréer un écosystème efficace artificiellement (d'ailleurs il y a une corrélation entre ancienneté et efficacité). J'aurai encore bien d'autres choses à dire sur cet aspect là mais bon...
La dimension économique est elle aussi très discutable. Tout d'abord, différentes instance gouvernementales (l'Autorité Environnementale et la Cour des Comptes Européenne) estiment que la rentabilité du canal est calculée à partir d'hypothèses de croissance largement surestimées. De plus ce projet est calculé pour être économiquement viable (selon les hypothèses précédentes) à partir de 3 étages de conteneurs, quand les liaisons qui encadrent ce canal sont dimensionnées pour seulement 2 étages (Projet MAGEO entre Creil et Compiegne, et le réseau Dunkerque Escaut). On voit donc à nouveau un problème dans la viabilité économique.
Finalement, le projet est également critiquable sur le plan social et culturel. Par exemple, l'expulsion de toutes les personnes vivant sur des péniches amarrées sur le bord de l'Oise commence déjà. Ce canal est aussi une menace pour toute la petite batellerie, et globalement l'économie locale, qui va se faire écraser par des porte containers surdimensionnés au service de la mondialisation (ce qui dans un contexte de transition écologique n'est pas forcément appréciable). Enfin, il risque de transformer la région en véritable hub logistique qui est un secteur très connue pour la forte précarité des emplois. Sur ce sujet, nous sommes en lien avec un sociologue qui a beaucoup étudié ce sujet. Et finalement sur le coté culturel (rien que sur Compiègne), il va mener à l’arrêt d'une course traditionnelle existant depuis près de 50ans, le déménagement forcé du club d'aviron de Compiègne (club très important et influant), ou encore la dégradation des conditions de vies des Compiegnois à cause du passage bien plus fréquent de péniches, dans des lieux de détente.
Bref, voici un petit panel non exhaustif de raisons pour lesquelles le canal Seine Nord Europe ne devrait pas voir le jour, même si il a l'air très intéressant au premier abord.
@@leonietzd6778Merci beaucoup pour cette synthèse !😊
This canal is not a direct link between France and Germany but to the sea ports of Belgium and Netherlands and France, the 5 main sea ports being Gent(B)-Antwerp(B)-Terneuzen(NL)-Rotterdam(NL) and Amsterdam(NL).
A direct link between France and Germany are the already existing Marne-Rhine and Rhone-Rhine canals, but both these are undersized like the current Canal du Nord, so the new canal will give larger boats and barges acces between France and Germany although via a week long detour via the Netherlands, so I'm not too sure that this canal will stimulate waterway traffic between France and Germany a lot.
The main goal therefore seems the connection between France and Belgium/the Netherlands.
I guess he wants to pull the German audience into watching the video 😅
I'd hazard a guess that it makes more sense to build a canal through the largely flat northern part of France, and linking up with the equally flat Belgium and especially the Netherlands, because of the size of the ships. Building a canal with all the associated lock through the mountains between France and Germany would be prohibitively expensive and present numerous challenges.
So, it that sense, the connection with Germany, albeit via the detour that you mention, would definitely be a consideration. Yes, the video title could have been clearer, or less click-baity if we want to be unkind. But once you reach the Netherlands, any size considerations for your ships go pretty much out the window. You can sail up the (artificial) rivers and/or canals to the Rhine and Germany.
My guess is that the canal is mostly intended to give ships a reason to go to northern France, and not just the Netherlands and Belgium.
@Tom-Lahaye: Yes and no. The Marne-Rhine is not suitable for considerable freight ships neither is the Rhine-Rhône-Canal. In addition, the latter one connects Southern France to the Rhine and not Northern France like the project described in the video.
@@christofs1196 The second half of my previous reply does describe the possibilities for ships going from the north of France trough the new Canal du Nord to the Netherlands and from there on the Waal/Rhine to Germany.
I wasn't possibly specific enough in describing this so some misconception on your side may be the result.
The first part of that reply actually states that upgrading the Marne-Rhine canal for larger vessels isn't an option, this canal now can handle very small cargo boats only but is mainly used for tourism in the form of small yachts and pleasure boats.
Worked on me 😂 @@bluesky8334
I live in Belgium, Kortrijk, 25km north of Lille. A decade ago the river Leie/Lys in my city has allready been straightened and enlarged. They are bussy with building higher bridges and river locks around the lys. They also plan to make the canal Kortrijk-Bosuit (lys/schelde) wider. All for making this connection.
hehehe "bussy"
Ja ,de vlamingetjes stoan assan gereed vo frangrik 😢
@@gerwindeforche4424 Maar ook voor Nederland!
Great video, and a great job with French pronunciation, there were some real efforts made there.
Thanks! I tried my best to get them right :)
@@FuturologyChannel real good pronunciation for most of them.
I have to tell that for "Oise" you mispronounced the "Oi" part. You should have used the same sound as in "toi" or "moi" (you - me) or like the sound oof "What" just without the final t
The rest was clean, impressive !
thanks for the effort mate
@@FuturologyChannel you actually said it correctly at the end of the video ahaha
@@FuturologyChannel Just another thing, you don't pronounce the last e in Compiegne and other words that end with e. You only do so in the casse of an accented e "é". So "casse" is pronounced kass and "cassé" is pronounced kassay (word emphasized where I added ay)
Great work on the video and fascinating subject! Have a good one :)
@@ohimats Americans always give French words that end with an "e" a Spanish pronunciation with an AY sound like in Olay
Man, I love european integration
I am excited for this project, not because I have any skin in this but because I love large engineering projects like these. But if there is _one_ thing to learn from this, it's that bureaucracy can take an incredibly long time to get things started
Yes, but what a big project that is; maybe it is good that they take their time with decisions. 🤔 And maybe another lesson is how disastrous war is for economic development. 😄
What another fascinating video! I hope to visit Europe one day!
I'm French, living near the place and I never heard of that project haha
honnetement, présenté comme ca il a l'air génial, mais en réalité c'est un non sens economique écologique et social (je peux étayer mes arguments si besoin). D'ailleurs ca ne m'étonne pas que vous n'en ayez jamais entendu parler puisqu'il y a eu cet été une consultation publique pour le projet MAGEO entre Creil et Compiègne (qui est intrinsèquement lié au canal seine nord europe), avec seulement une centaine de réponses, dont 27 explicitement favorables....
Toutes les entreprises de TP dans le coin 😅 connaissent bien après les pubs sont franchement discrètes.
J'ai beau être militante écolo pour la vie de tous les jours. Je pense que c'est un bon projet pour le futur. Oui l'investissement est lourd mais l'intérêt long terme est quand même énorme.
Franchement je dois souvent prendre l'A1 et la RN2 pour le taff, c'est une file de camions continue
@@perrinerichard3488 Justement, le problème c'est que seulement 3% du transport routier serait transférable sur le fluvial, donc ça ne changerait franchement pas grand chose, par contre ça réduirait de 15% le ferroviaire, et on peut craindre un effet rebond. Et puis différents rapports de l'Autorité Environnementale et de la cour des Comptes européennes expliquent que les hypothèses de croissance et de rentabilité sont très discutables, et très peu réalistes donc j'ai du mal à croire à l'impact positif du canal.
@@leonietzd6778 c'est très compliqué de savoir quel part prendra le fluvial dans quelques années notamment avec la pression de la réduction des émissions de co2.
wait and see
@@leonietzd6778 pour le coup j'ai discuté la personne de l'ICPE qui a analysé le dossier du tronçon 2. Pour eux la dernière version est largement mieux et cohérente.
J'ai aussi vu des critiques sur l'étude des 3%. Car il est question du report de l'arrivée des marchandises à Anvers et Rotterdam. 2 ports en grande transformation et saturés en l'état. Les routes marchandes évoluent déjà en ce moment.
Pour mon travail je suis souvent en contact avec l'ICPE et la DTT sur les demandes de transport exceptionnel par exemple. Et le canal permettrait vraiment de revoir l'arrivée de gros composants, très émissifs aussi.
On parle de reindustrialisation et de besoin de construction dans le domaine de l'énergie qui ont besoin de ces accès malheureusement. J'ai bien conscience qu'il faut avant tout réduire notre consommation.
thanks for positive vibes!
Very good video, and nice prononciation effort in French 👌
Well done ! 👍
Glad to see you're not abandoning long form videos! Many times I see a very interesting short from you and I try to find the long video from you to know more, only to discover there isn't one...
Amazing Video! But I want to add something. I know engineers from the Hydrolic institue of Vlaanderen which are working on the project and they pock system is a marvel. Not only will that reservoir provide additional water, but to reduce water usage each (if I remember correctly) lock will receive its own underground reservoir to provide the water required. That's one of the main reasons the project is so expensive and is taking sonlong to develop. At the institute they actually have a model version of the locks in question and it's absolutely marvellous
As an inland sailor ( on seine river with the biggest ships) and now on the north of fra /bel/Neth/germ, we are all blocked by this canal, all of our ships are too big and we wait for this one since more than 10 years...
It's a great project that's coming to fruition, except that few French people know about it, and neither do I!
The name of the canal isn’t « Seine-Nord », it is « Seine-Nord Europe », meant to connect Seine to harbours of northern Europe.
Netherlands and Belgium is not Northern Europe. It's Western Europe.
To me it looks more like Northwestern Europe. Actually Portugal and Spain are more to the West. (Like Southwest)
From the French point of view Belgium is North. Anyway, it's the official name. @@brazzo975
After reading some comments (newest first):
My impression is, that this video ridicules itself (and maybe its sponsor). However, it's a great idea to improve the capacity of the French waterways (notably the locks, if I remember correctly from a video by a Dutch couple sailing their barge from Rotterdam to Lyon), and so is paying attention to that. :-)
Developing (or upgrading) container terminals along the French waterways would be welcome, too.
In 1997, when I discovered AmPorts and became a private member (until reorganization eliminated private membership), the port of Amsterdam (I should say: portS of Amsterdam) was about to take over fourth position (in tonnage) of the five major sea ports in the Le Havre - Hamburg range (with Antwerp and Bremen making five). It is not that France doesn't have sea ports, the matter is, that the container loops have employed ever bigger ships, and that ever fewer ports can handle those. Rotterdam has been fanatically enlarging its port to accomodate these and other big ships - and the sea-side quays are on tidal waters, close to the sea (on reclaimed land that isn't a polder!). Anyway, Antwerp and Rotterdam are the obvious ports for accepting containers (and other cargo) to and from France. The "best" way of transport for this would be barges, so enabling bigger barges on these services would be welcome.
"Best" by price and certainty. Barge traffic seems quite predictable and reliable (in the Netherlands): with a margin of plus/minus half an hour. Which may well outweigh pure speed. Now the volume. (1 TEU is the equivalent of a single 20-foot container.) A lorry may move 3 TEU. (Make it 5, doesn't matter.) A freight train in Europe is limited to a length of 740m (metres, not miles!), engine included, equaling (less than) 120 TEU for a train. (Our trains are no match for freight trains in North America or Australia.) The capacity of a barge (in Europe) depends on the height of the lowest bridge on a route. If containers can be stacked in 4 layers, a barge may carry 320 TEU (I found 398 for a given ship and 5 layers.)
Yes, container trains are likely to achieve greater speeds than barges - otherwise these trains (like barges probably shuttle services) couldn't fit in with passenger services...
Yes, most container trains run on electric power for the best part of the trip. No, electric barges are still a minority. Still.
I'm not saying that there be one solution for all European freight traffic! A great thing about containers is their ease of handling, and here in Europe multi-modal transport of containers is likely. So I could well imagine those container terminals along upgraded French waterways. On the other hand, traversing the Alps tends to be done by rail. (And the electric locomotives going downward can feed their braking energy to the catenary.)
I saw a similar video explaining however that a sudy assessed the canal would remove more freight from trains (which are more environmentally friendly than boats), and not so much from trucks. To be seen.
6:15 the planning included precautions for a drought. does the reservoir work for floods too? any special retention areas in times of flooding?
9:35 When Did Ireland Cyprus Malta, Sardinia, Corsica, Balearic, Crete leave the EU?
Ceuta, Melilla...
Well, trucks don't typically drive through large bodies of water.
The same year that the Swiss joined, obviously. Keep up. 😊
Great presentation. Thank You in gathering, correllating, and creating wonderful graphics for us.
That's awesome
If the planned canals in the Czech Republic are built, all of Europe will be connected
France doesn't need a canal to Germany. Today the connection between Paris and the Belgian harbours is being modernized (for container barges) bridges higher, canals wider ,locks bigger etc etc. and Antwerp is connected to the Rhine river by canal. So, everything has already been planned since a long time. It takes time of course.
Thank you to learn me a lot about this subject about my own coutry. 😅
I live in Rouen, a major harbour on the Seine river, between Paris and the sea. Here there are some concerns about a decrease in activity in general, due to a reduced traffic on the river.
High sea ships can reach Rouen from the estuary (120 km) in 7 hours, but only with the rising tide (which ends at Rouen). It's the main weakness of the operation. However, many ships that do this route are bound to Rouen anyway, for industrial purposes for instance. That's not what the main problem is. Between Rouen and the Seine harbour of Paris (Gennevilliers) one can sail without interruption, for 12 hours. But it's barely used.
Increasing the quantity of goods shipped by river in the Île-de-France (10M inhabitants) should be a priority. The quantity of shipping-induced road traffic is staggering. The Seine river should be a major shipping link. I think it would profit my city, all the Seine basin and Paris. We could even use it a way of transportation and build ecologically new villages and cities along the river. (I don't think it's the priority of people like Macron and his ploutocratic faction ;) )
J'aimerai tout de même rajouter un peu de nuances à cette vidéo. Je suis étudiante à Compiègne en école d'ingénieur (qui a d'ailleurs un partenariat avec la société du canal) et la réalité est bien moins jolie qu'annoncée.
D'abord sur le point de vue environnemental. Du coté réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre c'est très peu réaliste. En effet les marchandises transportées par voie fluviale et routière sont très différentes, donc seul 3% des marchandises transportées sur l'A1 seraient transposables sur l'eau, ce qui résulterait en une baisse très faible des émissions et un désengorgement très faible lui aussi. En revanche Il en résulterait une baisse de 15% du fret ferroviaire qui est pourtant moins polluant et déjà en difficulté à cause d'un manque de subventions.
De plus ce serait un projet absolument catastrophique pour la biodiversité. On peut par exemple citer un bras complet de l'Oise qui sera complètement rebouché. Le canal va mener à la destruction des habitats de plus d'une centaine d'espèce menacées (je ne retrouve plus le chiffre exact, il me semble que c'est autour de 150), la destruction de zones Natura 2000. Quand à la compensation écologique, c'est une pratique extrêmement controversée dans le milieu scientifique, car on ne peut pas simplement recréer un écosystème efficace artificiellement (d'ailleurs il y a une corrélation entre ancienneté et efficacité). J'aurai encore bien d'autres choses à dire sur cet aspect là mais bon...
La dimension économique est elle aussi très discutable. Tout d'abord, différentes instance gouvernementales (l'Autorité Environnementale et la Cour des Comptes Européenne) estiment que la rentabilité du canal est calculée à partir d'hypothèses de croissance largement surestimées. De plus ce projet est calculé pour être économiquement viable (selon les hypothèses précédentes) à partir de 3 étages de conteneurs, quand les liaisons qui encadrent ce canal sont dimensionnées pour seulement 2 étages (Projet MAGEO entre Creil et Compiegne, et le réseau Dunkerque Escaut). On voit donc à nouveau un problème dans la viabilité économique.
Finalement, le projet est également critiquable sur le plan social et culturel. Par exemple, l'expulsion de toutes les personnes vivant sur des péniches amarrées sur le bord de l'Oise commence déjà. Ce canal est aussi une menace pour toute la petite batellerie, et globalement l'économie locale, qui va se faire écraser par des porte containers surdimensionnés au service de la mondialisation (ce qui dans un contexte de transition écologique n'est pas forcément appréciable). Enfin, il risque de transformer la région en véritable hub logistique qui est un secteur très connue pour la forte précarité des emplois. Sur ce sujet, nous sommes en lien avec un sociologue qui a beaucoup étudié ce sujet. Et finalement sur le coté culturel (rien que sur Compiègne), il va mener à l’arrêt d'une course traditionnelle existant depuis près de 50ans, le déménagement forcé du club d'aviron de Compiègne (club très important et influant), ou encore la dégradation des conditions de vies des Compiegnois à cause du passage bien plus fréquent de péniches, dans des lieux de détente.
Bref, voici un petit panel non exhaustif de raisons pour lesquelles le canal Seine Nord Europe ne devrait pas voir le jour, même si il a l'air très intéressant au premier abord.
@@leonietzd6778 Merci pour ce point-de-vue précieux. En regardant la video je me suis demandé s'ils ne s'étaient basé uniquement sur les dossiers de presse, tant c'était univoque et enthousiaste...
Seems kind of odd to me to start such a massive undertaking. Wouldn´t it be cheaper and require much less earth moving and environmental impact to just build a railway line?
I mean wehn theese barges have a capacity of 4400 tons, thats basically at the very top end of what railways build to european specs can still handle, trains with a total weight of arround 6000 tons.
When it comes to trains, they put increasingly large strains on the rail-lines the more you load them. Doing this frequently enough to cover the frequency offered by canals and barges, you risk a lot of failure-points. Canals on the other hand are far more long-term and logistically easier, as they can be loaded in-port without making a rail-line transfer. What should also be added is that trains can't cover these weights everywhere they go.
@@jonaw.2153Also existing rail lines often go through cities and adding extra tracks is for that reason more expensive and transporting dangerous goods is limited through cities. The alternative is a whole new dedicated high speed freight rail line going around cities, high speed for freight that is. The Netherlands already did so, from the Port of Rotterdam to the German border, which is already 15 years in service, while at the German border the freight line has to connect to a busy double track passenger rail line. The Germans are planning a third rail track for freight from the Dutch border to the Ruhr Industrial Area, but I’m not sure when this will be completely finished. I looked it up and the Germans plan to have it ready in 2027, but I doubt it. The Germans are lacking behind immensely, with planning, money and construction and proved to be unreliable about this project. The canal option is a more national idea and therefore easier and quicker to realize, because the new canal connects to existing canals and rivers.
Also length. 750m is the max length so 100 containers is the realistic limit. These wouldn't be fully loaded as it would exceed the axle limit on the standard European container wagon cars.
This is not to say it's technically impossible. But you would need to increase the length and the loading gauge ( height) well outside of European normal to something close to American scale 2km long and double height high cube.
This issue is more complex in Europe as you need clearance for the ohle. So you are close to 9m for bridges.
Dunkirk-Scheldt Canal the real name is Canal D'aire , I don't know if is for a bit of the canal , I go to maps and yes is for a bit
Almost sounds too good to be true! I hope this will all work out
Nice video on a topic not often reported. However, the title and image is IMHO misleading. The Canal Seine-Nord Europe (CSNE) is connecting the Oise river with Antwerp in Belgium, not Germany.
Canals are in terms of costs and climate effects a good mode of transport (the best is no transport at all). However, you need to have the transport requirements for such a huge investment. I am skeptical on this. "The Seine-Scheldt inland waterway link was approved on the basis that traffic levels on the Canal Seine Nord Europe by 2060 would be four times as high as the reference situation in 2030 without the Canal. To achieve this a significant increase in freight volumes on the axis across France and Europe is necessary" ("EU transport infrastructures: more speed needed in megaproject implementation to deliver network effects on time" (PDF). European Court of Auditors, page 24).
I don't have enough information to make a judgement if that money for the CSNE would be better spend for other infrastructure projects. Can some provide more on the economics of the CSNE?
"The best is no transport at all" wtf? No transport means no goods being delivered means empty store shelves means the demands by the people aren't met means loss of general wealth and quality of life. You spend way to much time in circles with no understanding of the real world out there. 🤦♂️
@@c0d3warrior I made myself not clear (English is my second language): Ket me give same examples to better explain what I was trying to say that we have far to much transport done
1. Take for example the Volkswagen engine plant in Kariega, South Africa, which produces engines not only for the assembly plants in South Africa but also for plants in Europe. These engines have been engineered in Europe and the majority of the plants are delivered by suppliers from Europe. So many parts are shipped to SA where there are manufactured into Engines that are then shipped to other continents.
2. I know the case that steering wheels and their leather covers were shipped from Germany to Tunisia just to do the stitching to save labor costs.
3. In order to obtain the meat of North Sea crabs, the majority of the catch landed in northern Germany has so far been transported to Morocco for hand-pulping. The main reason for this is the labor costs.
4. Same-day shipment in E-Commerce leads to much more transport for last mile logistics since you don't have so much shipment that can be used to optimize loads and transport routes.
We did this in the past because we subsidized transport. A considerable share of transport costs (building and maintaining infrastructure; pollution) are paid by the society as a whole and not the shipper/customer.
What I would like to say, that it is better to optimize the needs for transport before doing the shipment. Is really all that we transport around the world necessary?
I hope I made myself clearer.
I will try to provide you with more information but I don't know if it is satisfying. In addition to the report that you cited, we can add one from the french Environmental Autorithies in 2022 saying "The balance sheet is based on a purely supply-side model, and relies on a clearly overestimated growth forecast." (hope that the translation is alright). We can also say that the canal is suppose to be economically viable for 3 level of containers while the others calas surrounding it (MAGEO project in the south, and Dunkerque-Escault network in the north) are only dimensioned for 2 levels of containers sooo....
I hope that helps, if you want I can also provide information on the ecological, social, and cultural impacts of the project (spoiler alert, they are not great).
@@leonietzd6778 Thanks a lot.👍
These infrastructure projects are tough. And is not only the building but the permanent maintenance that has to be budgeted (this is of course true for roads and railways as well). In my regiion (ruhr area) we have a dense canal network build more than 100 years ago that was highly used to transport ore, coal and coke. But that has changed so now the canals and ports are more used for container transport. And here the levels you can stack containers come into place. It does not help so much that you can stack containers 4 levels up on the Rhine if you want to go to Dortmund and can not pass under the bridges of the canals (maximal two levels). Changing that requires huge investments in new bridges and ramps.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm much in favor for building waterways but maybe instead of building new canals it might be more useful to maintain/upgrade existing infrastructure. I know, that maintenance does not sound so "futurological" and is harder to sell to CZcams viewers.
Thanks to the channel for posting this video!👍
Yes! Approved. You got a Head Go on this Canal project and tremendously increases the trade between France and Germany. It will even impact the budgets of France and Germany by generating the Revenue, and reduce much of costs-on-goods meant for domestic manufacturing. Overall, Good for European Economy.
Why wouldn't you just skip the canals and go down the Seine from the top?
Paris
You mean from the ocean? Some (most?) barges are not ocean-worthy - even for coastal waters. The new canal extends an existing network, requiring fewer transfers and creating an efficient supply chain, connecting two large existing networks.
As already mentioned river barges aren't seaworthy and seaworthy ships get way too high, way too quick, requiring higher bridges. On top of that it is peant to boost all kinds of trade, not just between Paris and Antwerp and Rotterdam. It will connect to smaller places like Ghent, Kortrijk, Lille, Saint Quentin, Dunkirk and Cambrai. And even without changing ships the detour would likely be longer. Avoiding the mouths of ribers couod also ease congestion as most trade won't be land inwards
Ah c'mon, that's just in Seine! 😁
@@ordinaryorca9334she meant that instead of using sea boats that discharge at Antwerp and the use of the canal, why not take the same sea boats to le Havre and use the Seine river from the top
The answer is probably that goods arriving from le Havre could also be spread across Europe using that new canal
Interesting project. The specifications seem very different to the Suez and Panama Canals. I assume this is due to France's canal only carrying river boats?
Yes. As the sea route by the Channel is really close, it would make no sense to accommodate larger ships.
This canal is only to be used by river boats and barges, transhipping from seagoing vessels into river boats and vice versa happens in the ports of Antwerp-Gent-Terneuzen-Rotterdam and Amsterdam which are the 5 main ports in Belgium and the Netherlands.
Yes, they are indeed very different. The Suez and Panama Canals are essentially shortcuts for sea-faring ships. Because of those connections, ships don’t have to travel around Africa or South America. These canals, as others in Europe, are only for river barges. They basically do the same thing as trucks, just more efficiently. For example a container ship would go from China to Antwerp, and then the containers for France are loaded on barges heading south. Those barges are more efficient than trucks. Now a lot of the goods imported and exported are done by trucks to major sea ports, but with more canals part of that traffic can be done by ship. I live in the Netherlands and I often see barges coming from Germany carrying raw materials to the port of Rotterdam, but also the other way round. Those river barges simply can carry a lot more than cargo trains or trucks, and they face less unexpected delays.
@@DanAndHoe Indeed much more efficient, a normal human can tow a 250 tonne barge albeit at a slow speed and if no river current works against it (was very common on canals in the old days before internal combustion engines came), try to get a 25 tonne truck started from standstil by pulling it yourself, al lot harder. It has a lot more static and dynamic friction from the tyres, gear box and wind resistance.
I have done such pulls formerly competing in strongman contests so I had the chance to feel the difference in a very direct way.
A train sits comfortably between those two.
Ok and what has that to do with Germany? It is about connecting France and especially Paris to the ports of the Netherlands and Belgium, espeically of course Rotterdam and Antwerp.
It has didly squat to do with Germany or the Rhine, he likely just put it into the title for clicks. This project allows for much bigger ships to cross from the Scheldt in Belgium to the Oise in France. The project doesn't just involve the new canal, it also includes widening of the Scheldt's Lys tributary in Belgium.
Lets go, more infrastructure.🇪🇺
Could the upgrade the railways instead? I know it adds versatility but I'm wondering what some of the other benefits may be of canals.
I think they use canals due to less fuel being used by barges in comparison to trains? So its more green? Maybe?
I really think it would be a greaaat thing. Railway is in fact greener as fluvial transport ( especially those kinds with gigantic lock (more than 25m high for some of them) and mega basins (22 times the volume of an other one that was source of huuuge protests this year in France). And in that case it would make even more sense, cause that canal can only take away 3% of the road transport, for 15% of the railway transport (taken away too of course).
As a Oise river riparian, environment involved, and logistician, I feel totaly concerned by your video, and I feel more confident for the future to see more barges between Benelux and Paris instead of trucks.
And you answered one question that nobody was able to answer ; why not enlarging "Canal du Nord" ?
Thank you so much for your passionating videos, I'm just loving it ; please just keep on to make us dream of a better future connecting peoples.
Thank you, your french is delicious.
I hope it can improve aquatic life which tends to be overlooked most of the time.
By the way, in French "oi" is pronounced "wa", not "oy". Therefore, "Oise" is pronounced ""Waz". There has also been a projected Rhine-Rhone Canal for more years than I can remember. I doubt it will ever be built.
Is a canal bridge the same as an aquaduct or is it different? It looks the same, but I wonder why they use another name for it.
Good question for the sponsor of this video! :-)
We called it "pont canal" here in France. There is a exemple here in Normandy at Carentan for small boat. Look at it on googlemap.
Why did you only mention the Canadian casualties of the battle of that canal??
More like a canal to Belgium? The thumbnail and title are a bit misleading, the canal you speak of isn't as long as shown in the thumbnail.
Belgium connects to the Rhine river
@@Cotswolds1913 Well, that's not quite true, but not totally false either. In Belgium there actually is no direct connection to the Rhine per se. But the Meuse (Maas in Dutch and German,) that does cross eastern Belgium joins the Rhine in a common delta in the Netherlands north of the Belgian border. This common delta is also connected a bit further south, towards the Dutch-Belgian border, to the delta of the Schelde (Escaut in French) that crosses western Belgium. This three-river delta is called the "Rijn-Maas-Schelde Delta". The Belgian port/city of Antwerp is where the Schelde joins the delta.
@@jfrancobelge There is literally a Rijn-Schelde canal running from the port of Rotterdam to the port of Antwerp aka a direct connection to the Rhine river.
@@jfrancobelge that’s the one.
@@Cotswolds1913 Belgium does indeed connect to the Rhine river but not due to the infrastructure project mentioned in this video. France is not building the canal that connects Belgium to the Rhine or Germany
Thanks for the great video, haven't heard about this interesting project yet. One important question remains unanswered as any such mega project is subject to increasing costs: Who has to cover them?
Taxpayers.
@@markvanderknoop131 That's exactly the problem. If the taxpayers have to cover this, there is no incentive to stay within the budget..
@@afborchert that is the problem in France the ones responsible never held accountable.
Finaly!
This is long overdue
I love watching people invest in themselves, we don’t do that here in the US.
sure "you" do!
well .... at least the upper 5-10% who got the very few braincells needed to participate in politics and to vote for representation of their own interests like any normal person would do ... seems you are just part of the 90ish % too dim and/or too lazy for politics, the fools who willingly hand their nation over to a few upper class elderly who love to invest your money in themself. Would be pretty silly to invest in those who just cry about politics but dont get their arse up for it.
Rubbish. America spent 200 billion last year alone building battery factories, chip factories and ev infrastructure. Not to mention it's the second largest producer of solar and wind power
@@millevenon5853 lol, if only you would talk about actual infrastructure investments, but its just more of the same idiotic trickle-down scam which never managed to improve the lifes of US citizens in a noteworthy way.
200 billion of taxdollars directly invested into the profit margins of rich peoples enterprises, which rarely pay their taxes.
Hilarious how you still fall for this scam and try to convince the real first world that this nonsense works in favor of the common people.
Wonder when you learn that there is a difference between spending billions on private enterprises in the hopes that they create something worthwhile for a couple of years and spending billions on public infrastructure which lasts a lifetime, enabling your entire economy to advance.
Isn't it easier to build a rail link instead?
you want really long trains huh
I thought this was opening next year?
Is your channel connected to Futurologie?
Yes!
Cool
Transfering are you sure? Do we really need that much capacity?
When you get there, tell 'em Large BARGE sent you!
And where is the new canal to Germany you promised in your title? This is a canal connecting France to the NL.
Crazy how this one (small) canal can cost 5bn
it is less a canal and more or less a big devolpment, plus it cost a lot to move all that mass
It might be deep. It takes a lot of moving dirt you know.
It's not just a big hole filled with water, it's a big hole filled with water integrated with the surrounding ecosystemS (which is VERY expensive to do properly) through a former warzone which might still contain remains and unexploded bombs.
As with any such great infrastructure projects, by the time it is finished it will have cost twice as much.
Why no plan for a port in Gdansk is logical that there’s one there as well!
I hope that the French are so smart to build a freight rail line next to it, to link the European and local ports. The costs are relatively low if you are at work.
The line exist for freight and passengers. I used to work in the area a great high speed train will bring me in 3h45 from ouest coast of France to Perronne Monday mornings.
There are a lot of investments for passenger rail.
For freight unfortunately it is still decreasing, some update on tracks will be needed
I feel obliged to watch this video, as the blue line in the thumbnail runs straight through my house 🇧🇪
Yeah, that thumbnail looked like the french were coming to dig up Belgian and Dutch soil.
I don't live far from the Canal du Nord and that of St-Quentin, for those who want to know these 2 canals join the Canal d'Aire (I live there about ten kilometers away) and I find the idea of the new channel an incredible idea for the development of the Benelux of northern Germany and northern France, here is my opinion :D
Couldn't they have just built another electrified rail line instead? Genuine question, especially since so much of France's power production is nuclear, as far as i know it would be better for the environment than whatever the barges are burning.
Then again, I do hear that ship transportation is incredibly efficient for how much they can carry, but does that outperform partially nuclear fueled electrified rail?
I'm sure somebody knows the answers. either way though, my brain does get good feels from seeing infrastructure investment that isn't retarded carr infrastructure. Ah Europe.
It will be mutch mutch expensive!
Every infra project is extremely slow and expensive in Europe
Is this so much better than just sailing the English Channel?
Simple answer. YES.
How will it make money ?
5 billions euro seems like a small number for such a big project. I belive in the end it will cost much more.
Wikipedia says 7 billions, at least, as the project was under estimated... Also it is a shitty project, railway is a better solution. Due to earthwarming there's a lack of water to sustain all the pre existing canals.
Also it will destruct a lot of biodiversity in an already damaged region.
They believe that this monumental construction project will be completed and operational by 2030! But what they were meant to really say is that they are praying that this massive construction project will be ready to start by 2030.
Seems like a lot of work, money, ongoing maintenance and environmental impact just to avoid going out to the English Channel.
as the EU chipped in 41% towards the cost of this canal, would that mean if the UK were still an EU member we could've applied for financial help for our (now shelved) high speed railway??
yup, probably
yes, of course
Maybe. The EU does help with funding infrastructure projects etc. However it likely wouldn't be as much as with this project, since here you connect European nations more, whereas this wouldn't be the case with the UK's highspeed railway. Something similar to the Eurotunnel would likely have been well supported (if investigations proved it was needed/beneficial enough ofcourse).
@@MDP1702 very true
France is a net contributor to the EU budget and so was the UK. So basically any EU funds going to these projects is just your own money that the EU spits back at you.
9:42 Why are you holding the flag of Luxembourg? And why is it the wrong way around?
Building canals, building highspeed rail, improving road connections.
Eu cares about infrastructure.
Finaly, it will be good for Wallonia, and help to redevelop the "dorsale wallone" to its former glory
Wallonia should become a french region
@@swann67000 the catholic church made sure that walloons or belgians in general don't feel close to the revolutionnary and secular France. It still ingrained in the heads and I'm actually a part of a minority of wallons that would want a "rattachement" to France. This minority is even smaller today due to the massive immigration of Italiaans...
@@swann67000yes and Flanders will be finally free from the underdeveloped wallonia
@@kenpe1455 why Flanders wouldn t like to be part of netherlands? They are rich
@@swann67000 i think because flanders still has some of its former pride they where not always apart of the netherlands they used to be a powerfull state on their own
I'd still like to add a little nuance to this video. I'm a student at Compiègne engineering school (which has a partnership with the canal company) and the reality is much less pretty than advertised.
Firstly, from an environmental point of view. In terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it's highly unrealistic. In fact, the goods transported by river and road are very different, so only 3% of the goods transported on the A1 would be transposable to water, which would result in a very small drop in emissions and a very small reduction in congestion. On the other hand, it would result in a 15% drop in rail freight, which is less polluting and already in difficulty due to a lack of subsidies.
What's more, the project would be absolutely catastrophic for biodiversity. For example, an entire branch of the Oise will be completely filled in. The canal will lead to the destruction of the habitats of over a hundred endangered species (I can't remember the exact number, I think it's around 150), and the destruction of Natura 2000 areas. As for ecological compensation, it's an extremely controversial practice in scientific circles, because you can't simply recreate an efficient ecosystem artificially (besides, there's a correlation between age and efficiency). There's a lot more I could say about this aspect, but...
The economic dimension is also highly debatable. First of all, various government bodies (the French Environmental Authority and the European Court of Auditors) consider that the profitability of the canal is calculated on the basis of grossly overestimated growth assumptions. What's more, this project has been calculated to be economically viable (according to the above assumptions) on the basis of 3 container floors, whereas the links that frame this canal are designed for just 2 floors (the MAGEO project between Creil and Compiegne, and the Dunkerque Escaut network). Once again, we see a problem of economic viability.
Finally, the project is also open to social and cultural criticism. For example, the eviction of all those living on barges moored on the banks of the Oise is already underway. The canal also poses a threat to small-scale inland shipping, and to the local economy as a whole, which will be crushed by oversized container ships in the service of globalization (which, in a context of ecological transition, is not necessarily to be welcomed).
Finally, it runs the risk of transforming the region into a veritable logistics hub, a sector notorious for its high job insecurity. On this subject, we are in contact with a sociologist who has studied it extensively. And finally, on the cultural side (in Compiègne alone), it will lead to the discontinuation of a traditional race that has existed for almost 50 years, the forced relocation of the Compiègne rowing club (a very important and influential club), and the deterioration of living conditions for the people of Compiègne due to the much more frequent passage of barges through recreational areas.
In short, here's a non-exhaustive list of reasons why the Seine Nord Europe canal shouldn't be built, even if it looks very interesting at first glance.
(I hope everything is understandable, it is to late for me to try to write it in english so I used an translator 😅😅)
Why I'm learning this thing from a foreign channel ?
Seems kinda pointless to me. Is there a canal connecting the Rhine to the Danube? That would be really efficient.
yes, it's called the Rhine-Main-Danube Canal.
It's not pointless
Well pointless would be if it wasnt already a congested route and way to narrow for modern barges
Yes, you can get from Rotterdam to Constanța via the Rhine-Main-Danube canal.
How look, an entitled american who think that France is not a major economy but just a theme park...
Pretty genius move to flood Belgium, the Kreigsmarine were historically not very effective in WW2
Anime pfp and instantly brings up ww2 Yep thats a classic.
Your Netherlands ain't anatomically correct. Where's the Ijsselmeer and why is the area between the coast and the islands painted green when it should be water?
phenomenally slow progress. almost a century from an obvious need to the supposed final end construction date
A lot of political and legal considerations have delayed the project. Same for the Rhine-Rhone canal. All the impact and technical studies have been completed decades ago. The land had already been built.. but ecologist politicians have stopped the project.
Nice and it’s only taken 130yrs from when they came up with the idea, that’s really quick by European standards
Can you make it a bit less hectic next time, please? Less or slower zooming out and in in maps, less spinning, etc.
Thanks
Isn't this a canal to the Benelux?
No, Luxembourg is left out.
8:12 Ireland (Republic) is also a member of the European Union.😉
my prediction is it will be wayyy over budget, we won't see less trucks on roads, and everything will just slitghly cost more
I can't say anything for sure about the budget, but what I CAN say is that, indeed, only 3% of the road transport of the A1 is transposable on river transport, whereas it should reduce from 15% railway transport....
A video about the Seine - Scheldt canal and never mentioning the port of Gent- Terneuzen- Vlissingen in the Scheldt bassin… are you kidding?
First time I've seen this channel. Was very interested... at first, but then I started getting dizzy from all the rapidly spinning and cycling images. I barely had time to mentally register what I was looking at before it started to rotate and then flashed to the next image. Perhaps I'll listen or read the transcript, but I won't be subscribing if this is the normal editing style.
Why not just widen and deepen the existing canals? Would be way cheaper as well.
🤔Maybe they flow through settlements which would make expropriation of house owners necessary. This would be expensive and would lead to severe political resistance by the inhabitants.
thats a very american way of thinking XD. Just another lane, i am sure it will fix it this time
@@gargoyle7863 I don't really know what would happen to widen the exitent canals, but hey are still soo much expropriation with this one, and honestly we're relly trying to build resistance for so many reasons, it's just that they did everything very secretely, and not much people know its existence...
Belgium really just is in the way.
I would also say its more a belgian/netherlandic connection :D
Funny that the EU as a conglomerate of nations is better at (big) infrastructure than the US as a single nation. Nice project and really a no-brainer this transport option is better and cheaper than road transport for many goods.
ummmm dont both countries have seaports?
Internal distributions of goods between cities and countries.
I wish you had not chosen Italian, but French as your course before starting this video.
👍
Like the vid, but the visuals are too fast and have way too much going on. Every sentence has its own accompanying clip.
I doubt that this project will reduce road traffic by trucks. Boats are slow and cannot reach everywhere.
If we are all going to be Net Zero by 2035 (11 years away) what’s all this saving CO2 over 40 years? What’s going to power these barges when we all know water vessels are the least efficient in terms of fuel consumption?
Rubbish.
8:12 Ireland isn't in the EU anymore? 😂
Also Malta, Cyprus and all the other islands.
Wording would have been better. Like Mainland EU or continental EU.
@@dantetre didn't even notice. True
France give more money to EU than EU give to France... (~ 25 Bn out, 15 Bn in) In reality EU fund nothing in France 😅
Topic is very interesting but the way how nervously the video is cut I had to stop watching it after a few seconds.
Talk about a stupid move, not increasing the size of the canal when they started construction again 50/60 years later. Very short-sighted.
I dont think 5.1 billion is enough
Ben gurion canal (israel)
Kra canal(Thailand)
Canal du seine - norde(france))
Kra canal is cancelled. It will be a land bridge further north, linking two ports
@@stevens1041 It will be back on pretty soon (within a decade), the Thai navy doesn't like to take the long way around, going through the waters of other countries.
Nice video but why oh why did they put in all that work, and then neglect to check the pronounciation of various names?