Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
It could be possible to link America by rail?

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill A Pan-American rail link would be almost as economically dubious as a rail link to Alaska. The latter is a project whose true purpose is to transfer wealth from the pockets of the many to the pockets of the few. Railroads are a form of inland transportation -- see Stuart Daggett's book Principals of Inland Transportation. They rarely provide lower cost freight transportation than littoral or bluewater shipping. Faster, yes -- if that matters. (If the Jones Act was repealed, a great deal of rail freight in this country would immediately shift to water.) Since there's an excellent direct-water route between Tacoma-Seattle-Vancouver-Prince Rupert and Anchorage, where 75% of the Alaskan population is clustered, the rail link's only value would be inland transportation to the Alaskan and Canadian frontier. I have no idea what it would haul -- the mineral deposits are unexciting and the timber stand in the dry, cold interior varies from marginal to worthless. Oil and gas are more efficiently pipelined. A Pan-American link is made even more fatuous by water transportation, since for the most part it would virtually be in view of the ocean. Passenger travel, maybe, but the urban concentrations that justify high-speed rail of the Japanese variety, as opposed to highway or air, do not yet exist and probably never will. Overmod and Elliot are dead on. [/quote] Has there ever been a rail project anywhere that CANNOT be defined as "economically dubious" in some form or fashion? Hasn't the Alameda Corridor been economically dubious so far? Isn't Boston's "Big Dig" economically dubious? And how is it that the Alaska rail link would "transfer wealth from the pockets of the many to the pockets of the few."? When was that last time ANY pork barrel project did not fall under that statement? It is the nature of the beast, although there is an alternative funding method that harkens back to early U.S. rail financing schemes..... I assume the "transfer" comment is somehow related to the assumption that the Alaska rail link will require a massive taxpayer subsidy, which it seems are only appropriate for places like LA and Boston. God forbid that Alaska be compensated for having half its land locked up by the federales, which is preventing Alaska and most of the Intermountain West states from truly realizing their economic potential. The obvious answer for funding the Alaska rail link is of course a land grant. Whether that could be done for a Pan American rail link I don't know but is is certainly doable for most of the Western U.S. As to whether such projects would fall under the acceptable terms of current (read: shortsighted) "economic justifiability" standards, it is doubtful since those caveats basically eliminate Jim Hill's concept of "build for the future". The vast mineral and timber wealth of Alaska's interior, the Yukon, and upper BC are assets we just may need in a decade or two, so if we build the heavy haul connection now, it will be ready when we need it. "Dry" timber is harvestable and replantable, you know! It makes more sense to build a single transporation mode with comprehensive commodity coverage than to end up having to build many single use modes. An oil pipeline can only haul oil (and maybe some refined petroleum products), a natural gas pipeline only natural gas, a coal slurry pipeline only coal. A railroad can handle all these commodities and then some: raw timber, processed timber, mineral aggregates, trailers, containers, pulp, paper, etc., etc. The people who are supporting these concepts do so because they realize the value of having heavy haul/time sensitive responsiveness is essential for long term economic sustainability and security. Such things trump the regression into the rubber stamp acceptance of "economically dubious" labels for such projects. Don't knock time sensitivity either. A Pan American railroad could speed up the trip for perishables from Brazil, Chile, Argentina. Fresher perishables means greater satisfaction for the consumer and greater economic stability for producers. The oft criticized railroad land grants that opened up the West to development were a stroke of genius, even if some lefties back East still regret that action to this day. We could always modernize the concept to placate the doubters. Give the land grant to the states with the caveat that the land remains in the public domain, let the states establish a revenue stream from sustainable resource extraction, and use that revenue to cover interest or dividend payments for the investors of the project. It is possible therefore to construct such projects without transfering a dime from the many to the few.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag