The news item is right here on this website.
https://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/09/28-digest-trump-indicates-approval-coming-for-proposed-alaska-rail-link
How typical of this man & his so-called administration that he will "call for" extending a rail link to Alaska before giving a green light to the Gateway project with its much-needed tunnel under the Hudson River.
Like his always-threatening lawsuits, nothing will come of this. Why should it? Where's the need? Or the market to support it?
He must think all of us are suckers & losers. After all, "We don't pay taxes. The little people pay taxes," as another of his ilk once said.
I was under the impression that the Gateway Project was going forward, just with a larger chunk of funding from the local states.
Who will pay for and own this railroad? Is it to be a private sector railroad? If so, are there investors that see the need and the ability for it to pay for itself and thus are willing to finance it? What are the details of that part of this news story?
rrnut282I was under the impression that the Gateway Project was going forward, just with a larger chunk of funding from the local states.
It is.
A railroad to Alaska's been kicked around ever since WW2. Why it's going to be built (maybe) now I don't know.
More engineering consultants will gain some man-years of employment, and then the idea will most likely die (again) when the financial numbers are added up. I don't expect to see any meaningful construction. It might, barely, cover its operating costs but never the initial capital investment.
NKP guyHow typical of this man & his so-called administration that he will "call for" extending a rail link to Alaska before giving a green light to the Gateway project with its much-needed tunnel under the Hudson River. Like his always-threatening lawsuits, nothing will come of this. Why should it? Where's the need? Or the market to support it? He must think all of us are suckers & losers. After all, "We don't pay taxes. The little people pay taxes," as another of his ilk once said.
You seem to be misinformed.
The Gateway project will require many billions of taxpayer dollars. That's a whole different animal than the Alaska project which will be built, if it is, with voluntarily invested private money. All President Trump has to do for the Alaska line is approve crossing the international border.
The two projects are totally different in funding but you conflate them in your blind hatred of the president.
The proposed route would have to continue where the Dease Lake Extension left off. From what I understand the grade of the DLE is still there. Albeit overgrown many times over. This proposed line does pass through substantial; Copper, Iron, Zinc, Titanium, Tin, Coal and Hydrocarbon reserves. Whether those get developed if this is built who knows. Though on the intermodal side of things.. This line would put us closer to Japan, South Korea, and Southeast Aisa. Build a contianer port in the Cook Inlet just opposite of Anchorage. It might be worth the investment.
Guess it will be funded by Trump's IRS tax returns.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
[quote user="SD60MAC9500"]
[/quot Read this 'TWEETED' message in a news agrigator's site I read. And then saw this Thread posted by NKPguy earlier. Unfortunately, a component of the NEWSWire article is in a paywalled site for the Anchorage Daily News !
Here is another site that proclaims "Trump to issue permit for $22-billion railway between Alaska and Alberta to transport oil, other resources" [by Jeffery Jones] It is the Globe and Mail site. linked @ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-trump-issues-permit-for-22-billion-alaska-to-alberta-railway/
The article states [in part] FTA:"...Alaska to Alberta Railway (A2A), which would link south-central Alaskan ports with Fort McMurray, Alta., and the rest of the continent’s rail network, will start preparing regulatory applications in Canada and Alaska. It will also begin consultations with Indigenous communities, which will be offered an equity stake of up to 49 per cent, executives said on Sunday.
The line would give Alberta’s oil sands producers a new oil export option, but also provide service for other freight in either direction on the 2,570 kilometres of track that will extend through Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Territories and northern Alberta, according to the plan. But it still faces major regulatory and financial hurdles..." [article also includes a small map of the proposed route.]
An interesting development; and seems to have also garnered some prety cynical and negative comments from this Forum. Surely, with the current political climate in the U.S.A. it seems to be as encouraging as an attempt to set up a beach chair in a hurricane. Will surely be a story followed around this Forum with interest(?).
BaltACDGuess it will be funded by Trump's IRS tax returns.
Russell
greyhounds NKP guy How typical of this man & his so-called administration that he will "call for" extending a rail link to Alaska before giving a green light to the Gateway project with its much-needed tunnel under the Hudson River. Like his always-threatening lawsuits, nothing will come of this. Why should it? Where's the need? Or the market to support it? He must think all of us are suckers & losers. After all, "We don't pay taxes. The little people pay taxes," as another of his ilk once said. You seem to be misinformed. The Gateway project will require many billions of taxpayer dollars. That's a whole different animal than the Alaska project which will be built, if it is, with voluntarily invested private money. All President Trump has to do for the Alaska line is approve crossing the international border. The two projects are totally different in funding but you conflate them in your blind hatred of the president.
NKP guy How typical of this man & his so-called administration that he will "call for" extending a rail link to Alaska before giving a green light to the Gateway project with its much-needed tunnel under the Hudson River. Like his always-threatening lawsuits, nothing will come of this. Why should it? Where's the need? Or the market to support it? He must think all of us are suckers & losers. After all, "We don't pay taxes. The little people pay taxes," as another of his ilk once said.
I fail to see where NKP Guy was misinformed. Your blind allegiance to the person in the people's White House leads you to explode with a temper tantrum. Issuing a permit? The question is whether or not any private interests want to construct a rail line. If they did, seems likely that a permit was not the missing link.
I found an article about it that said it will be completely privately funded through a company affiliated with the Alaska RR. I will try try to find the link again.
Trying to be apolitical, but here are some facts for the discussion.
The Tanana River Bridge, which is Alaska's longest bridge at 3,300 feet, was completed in 2014 and is owned by the Alaska Railroad.
Articles in news media (Anchorage Daily News) at that time indicated the hope was for it to be a key link in a future rail connection to Canada.
It is about 298 miles from the current end of ARR track in North Pole, AK to Beaver Creek in the Yukon Territory.
That portion af any proposed rail line will be litigated in US courts.
The President - whoever it is - has authority to approve or disapprove international border crossings for rail, pipeline and other commercial projects.
The portion of the rail line in Canada, which is the vast majority of the line, will be litigated in Canadian courts.
Opponents only need to stop it in one country - proponents need to have it approved in two countries.
"explode"!!
York1 John
In reading further, I don't find any clear statement as to how this will be financed. It is being built by The Alaska – Alberta Railway Development Corporation (A2A RAIL). Without further information, I cannot rule out the possibility that this project will be publically financed by the U.S. and Canada.
That is a possibility. The Alaska Railroad is owned by the State of Alaska. It will be interesting to see if they end up being the owners of the stretch between North Pole and the border.
[quote user="samfp1943"]
SD60MAC9500 The proposed route would have to continue where the Dease Lake Extension left off. From what I understand the grade of the DLE is still there. Albeit overgrown many times over. This proposed line does pass through substantial; Copper, Iron, Zinc, Titanium, Tin, Coal and Hydrocarbon reserves. Whether those get developed if this is built who knows. Though on the intermodal side of things.. This line would put us closer to Japan, South Korea, and Southeast Aisa. Build a contianer port in the Cook Inlet just opposite of Anchorage. It might be worth the investment. [/quot Read this 'TWEETED' message in a news agrigator's site I read. And then saw this Thread posted by NKPguy earlier. Unfortunately, a component of the NEWSWire article is in a paywalled site for the Anchorage Daily News ! Here is another site that proclaims "Trump to issue permit for $22-billion railway between Alaska and Alberta to transport oil, other resources" [by Jeffery Jones] It is the Globe and Mail site. linked @ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-trump-issues-permit-for-22-billion-alaska-to-alberta-railway/ The article states [in part] FTA:"...Alaska to Alberta Railway (A2A), which would link south-central Alaskan ports with Fort McMurray, Alta., and the rest of the continent’s rail network, will start preparing regulatory applications in Canada and Alaska. It will also begin consultations with Indigenous communities, which will be offered an equity stake of up to 49 per cent, executives said on Sunday. The line would give Alberta’s oil sands producers a new oil export option, but also provide service for other freight in either direction on the 2,570 kilometres of track that will extend through Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Territories and northern Alberta, according to the plan. But it still faces major regulatory and financial hurdles..." [article also includes a small map of the proposed route.] An interesting development; and seems to have also garnered some prety cynical and negative comments from this Forum. Surely, with the current political climate in the U.S.A. it seems to be as encouraging as an attempt to set up a beach chair in a hurricane. Will surely be a story followed around this Forum with interest(?).
Well it seems I'm ignorant of the political face-off going on between Alberta, and B.C at the moment... I found the story you linked with included map, and the DLE is off the table.. Considering this is the best way north as the DLE RoW travels through the relatively flat Rocky Mountain Trough. Maybe when elections come up in B.C. things could change.
A few items .. Not sure how concerned Canada would be with DoD movements by rail to Alsaka and vice-versa. So in that regard this link could be a strategic move for any arctic aggression (Russia) that might transpire. Last item. Based on current information and drilling samples from over the years. Alaska is potentially sitting on over 600 trillion cubic feet (Yes 600 trillion) of recoverable natural gas in the form of shale gas and hydrates. Rail could be the mover of NG out of Alaska for sometime until pipeline capacity catches up. Which would have to go through many hurdles with First Nations, Inuit, and so forth..
EuclidWithout further information, I cannot rule out the possibility that this project will be publically financed by the U.S. and Canada.
I believe the A2A RAIL people have bent over backward to keep the financing private, even to the extent of having the American or Canadian governments provide access to cheaper or better guaranteed financial terms.
Someone remind me what their currently touted routing is, and whether it changed in response to the First Nations controversies a few months ago or the weaselry inherent in some of the supposed Canadian-government responses to them.
Proposed route map is here at this website. They are trying to avoid BC.
https://a2arail.com/
Regarding ecomomics, are not their mineral (mining) and agricultural expansion possibilities in Alaska that would be realized by year-round lower-cost transportation to Canada and the rest of the USA?
Without a doubt Trump is catering to his own self interest here. Anticipating the fruits of global warming, he has no doubt been buying up huge tracts of beachfront property, in preparation for his next go round of resort development. The rail link becoming a vital conveyor belt filled with patrons.
OvermodWithout further information, I would rule it out definitively as, even if there were no issues with year-round operation or maintenance, there is little effective use for the line economically unless it is extended across the Bering Strait coherently and coordinated either with some aspect of Belt and Road or ... Russian operation.
Shades of Lyndon LaRouche?
daveklepper Regarding ecomomics, are not their mineral (mining) and agricultural expansion possibilities in Alaska that would be realized by year-round lower-cost transportation to Canada and the rest of the USA?
There probably are such possible uses for the railroad. But these possiblities have been used to promte the dream of this rail expansion for many years. And this sort of pie-in-the-sky dreaming sounds exactly like what we are hearing from this current promotion by A2A RAIL today. It sounds to me like they are promoting the dream in hopes of raising the money to build it. The test of the dream will be whether private investors are willing to take the risk of investing. And if they won't take the risk, maybe the U.S. and Canadian governments will. But, in my opinion, the governments taking the risk will not be proof of viability of the railroad.
Overmod I believe the A2A RAIL people have bent over backward to keep the financing private, even to the extent of having the American or Canadian governments provide access to cheaper or better guaranteed financial terms.
Perhaps our respective governments will guarantee A2A's bonds, as they have for so many past rail projects through remote territory......
Overmod Someone remind me what their currently touted routing is, and whether it changed in response to the First Nations controversies a few months ago or the weaselry inherent in some of the supposed Canadian-government responses to them.
I don't believe the protests have had any effect on the route, and A2A has made a point of emphasizing their ongoing talks with the various Native groups along the route.
The currently proposed route starts at or near Fort McMurray, AB, and travels in a northwesterly direction, crossing CN's former Great Slave Railway line at or near High Level, AB and connecting with the northernmost point of the former BC Rail system at Fort Nelson, BC. It does not pass through Whitehorse (too far north) but appears to go through the Dawson City area, before continuing northwest to the end of the current Alaska Railroad system.
If the oil traffic from Fort McMurray was not desired, Fort Nelson would be the most logical spot to start a railroad to Alaska from. The ex-BC Rail line there is still in operation, though it only sees a train once every week or two these days, and is most likely suffering from deferred maintenance. It used to be much busier, BC Rail once ran 100+ car lumber and chip trains out of there, using their unique MLW M420B's as DP remotes.
I think $20 billion is far too low an estimate for the cost of the A2A project, and it reminds me of the Grand Trunk Pacific and National Transcontinental projects.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
York1 "explode"!!
I am not so sure that Schlimm knows what either an explosion or a temper tantrum are. If he did, he would see that neither were present in Greyhound's post.
There was a bit of a tantrum in NKP's op though....
An "expensive model collector"
SD60MAC9500 said in part: "...Well it seems I'm ignorant of the political face-off going on between Alberta, and B.C at the moment... I found the story you linked with included map, and the DLE is off the table.. Considering this is the best way north as the DLE RoW travels through the relatively flat Rocky Mountain Trough. Maybe when elections come up in B.C. things could change.
A few items .. Not sure how concerned Canada would be with DoD movements by rail to Alsaka and vice-versa. So in that regard this link could be a strategic move for any arctic aggression (Russia) that might transpire. Last item. Based on current information and drilling samples from over the years. Alaska is potentially sitting on over 600 trillion cubic feet (Yes 600 trillion) of recoverable natural gas in the form of shale gas and hydrates. Rail could be the mover of NG out of Alaska for sometime until pipeline capacity catches up. Which would have to go through many hurdles with First Nations, Inuit, and so forth..."
To SD60MAC9500: When I posted the link the Globe&Mail article was an open Internet posting. Sorry they "paywalled" it.
You had commented and asked as follows: "...Well it seems I'm ignorant of the political face-off going on between Alberta, and B.C at the moment..."
[continued] "...I found the story you linked with included map, and the DLE is off the table.. Considering this is the best way north as the DLE RoW travels through the relatively flat Rocky Mountain Trough. Maybe when elections come up in B.C. things could change..."
Samfp1943 responded: As you mentioned; As you noted..., I, as well, have no knowledge of the current politics on the Provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. All I have ever remember reading was of the contentiousness that happened in the B.C. political environment surrounding the business and political affairs surrounding the 'fall' of the British Columbia Railroad. (?) And some writings on the Deese Lake Extension.(?) Canadian politics are a mystery here.
I woud not suspect that the Canadian Government or military(?) would have much to object to as U.S. DoD rail moves would likely be coordinated by both Governments; much as they cooperate thru existing NORAD channels.
As to the the movement of freight; I would expect the involved governments would welcome those potentials. While enjoying some benefits as well(?).
We'll just have to wait and see.
n012944 York1 "explode"!! I am not so sure that Schlimm knows what either an explosion or a temper tantrum are. If he did, he would see that neither were present in Greyhound's post. There was a bit of a tantrum in NKP's op though....
"Greyhounds: You seem to be misinformed...The two projects are totally different in funding but you conflate them in your blind hatred of the president."
Well, I think I do understand the contextual semantics of all those words. NKP expressed his opinion, as is still his right, though I would agree that he did probably did express his thoughts with excessive anger over a minor situation that will probably never reach fruition. For that act, Greyhounds misconstrued (deliberately?) what NKP had said as a snide putdown stemming from his inability to tolerate any negative statement regarding the current occupant.
This is great! Very entertaining.
Here is the original:
Here is Charlie's take:
charlie hebdoNKP expressed his opinion, as is still his right, though I would agree that he did probably did express his thoughts with excessive anger over a minor situation that will probably never reach fruition.
Here is greyhounds' comment:
greyhoundsThe two projects are totally different in funding but you conflate them in your blind hatred of the president.
charlie hebdoYour blind allegiance to the person in the people's White House leads you to explode with a temper tantrum.
So, Charlie, NKP "probably did express his thoughts with excessive anger," but greyhounds was led "to explode with a temper tantrum."
I don't want to really get into Canadian politics here (why disrupt yet another American political thread), but suffice it to say that interprovincial Canadian infrastructure projects like A2A are federally regulated, and no single Province or Territory can unilaterally stop such a project. Same goes for Native bands. Over the last year both of these positions were reaffirmed by our Supreme Court in rulings related to the Trans-Mountain pipeline expansion, whose construction is currently going full steam ahead.
Our two militaries have a long history of cooperation and alliance. The only times that transportation of war material would be an issue would be if the U.S. became involved in a large war and Canada wished to remain neutral. The opposite situation actually did occur during the early years of both World Wars, when CP's International of Maine line could not be used to transport war materials to Canada's Atlantic ports, as it crossed the then-neutral U.S.
York1 This is great! Very entertaining. Here is the original: NKP guy How typical of this man & his so-called administration that he will "call for" extending a rail link to Alaska before giving a green light to the Gateway project with its much-needed tunnel under the Hudson River. Like his always-threatening lawsuits, nothing will come of this. Why should it? Where's the need? Or the market to support it? He must think all of us are suckers & losers. After all, "We don't pay taxes. The little people pay taxes," as another of his ilk once said. Here is Charlie's take: charlie hebdo NKP expressed his opinion, as is still his right, though I would agree that he did probably did express his thoughts with excessive anger over a minor situation that will probably never reach fruition. Here is greyhounds' comment: greyhounds The two projects are totally different in funding but you conflate them in your blind hatred of the president. Here is Charlie's take: charlie hebdo Your blind allegiance to the person in the people's White House leads you to explode with a temper tantrum. So, Charlie, NKP "probably did express his thoughts with excessive anger," but greyhounds was led "to explode with a temper tantrum."
charlie hebdo NKP expressed his opinion, as is still his right, though I would agree that he did probably did express his thoughts with excessive anger over a minor situation that will probably never reach fruition.
greyhounds The two projects are totally different in funding but you conflate them in your blind hatred of the president.
charlie hebdo Your blind allegiance to the person in the people's White House leads you to explode with a temper tantrum.
Predicable cutting and pasting from another desperate right wing fanatic.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.