charlie hebdoTime to make our representation in the Senate based on population.
cx500I'm somewhat baffled at the folks who justify the railroad as being faster than the marine highway. If speed is the concern, the existing highway will serve the purpose quite adequately, just as the highways do everywhere else in North America for many commodities. Many of us do criticise the rails for having little interest in pursuing this business of course. The Alaska Highway will almost certainly continue to be primary way any groceries come north, even if the railroad is built.
Above is a very good example of keep the status quo reasoning but misses on the major points........
The rails are not persuing the business for the same reason they did not initially build West without massive government incentive. It was only once the markets had matured a bit and had been proven that you saw rail companies forgo the rail grants and purchase the ROW themselves. Railroads need to see a 20-30 year payback for their initial investment because in the past you can see what happened to railroads that took a gamble and bet the farm on an overly rosey forecast (Milwaukee Road and I might also say had it not been for BN, we probably would have lost NP as well).
It's cheaper, faster and more of an all weather alternative. Sea going barges require fair weather just like the current Great Lake ferries do. Rough seas = No sail. And since the transit time is in days vs hours between Seattle and Alaska, whats the impact of one day of rough seas as far as recovery time as far as the logistical chain is concerned?
I very seriously doubt the sea based system would work if Alaska went on a development binge because I am not sure how expandable some of those ports really are. Some of them look rather constrained land use wise from the air. So one can conclude the sea based system is probably only working now because the population of Alaska is so small and there hasn't been a development focus on the state. Which again begs the question why the state has been ignored for so long.
If you look closer at Alaska, it actually is suffering from lack of infrastructure development. Many communities do not have a hospital or even an acceptable medical clinic, patients have to travel long distances in a lot of cases. The Alaska phone company is barely profitable and loses money some years. Viability of the Alaska Railroad is actually open to question it shows a profit in some years because it can count a direct subsidy as a profit as well as it's extensive land and property leasing. Rail operations for the Alaska Railroad does not seem to be enough to sustain it currently, it needs more traffic. Roads and highways are both underdeveloped or lacking all together in some cases. Not too much different than the Russian Far East. Except in the Russian Far East the Russian government has recently spent decent money on large scale infrastructure projects. In and around Vladivostok for example with their bridge program in 2012. Russia could do better of course with Asian investment if it settled some political disputes like the Kuril islands for example.
Russian investments to it's Far East and American investments into Alaska could lead to a new trading gateway between the countries that would develop over time with a rail connection to Alaska as well as a more expanded railway network in Alaska. A new gateway would add to both countries GDP growth and add to growth of Pacific Rim to an extent.
I don't think I am ever going to see it but I would like to see all the Federal subsidies being paid into Alaska to sustain it. I know it pulls in a lot of revenue from oil royalties but even in that case it seems to not reinvest a lot of those oil revenues into the state via infrastructure. The state still seems to lean heavily on the Feds for big projects.
CS800: I disagree about groceries if the RR gets built.
But many good reasons have been given on this thread as to why it will not be built.
Asking a leading question for discussion purposes, with the southeastern terminus being Edmonton, what roles might CN have as:
Possible investor in the line
Possible operator of the line
Possible interchange partner of the line
Assuming, of course, that A2A gets built.
It has been suggested that the rail link would help in developing Alaska's natural resources. Most of the lumber is along the insde passage, which is far from the proposed route or any practical rail route, and much of which goes out on ships to Asia. Theres lots of coal, but that is a contracting industry, and coal production has been hampered forever by royalty earmarks which seem untouchable. Oil goes out by the famous pipeline and tankers. As mentioned before most of the mineral wealth along the proposed rail line is in the Yukon where the route runs away from the Al-Can Highway, closer to Faro lead/zinc mine and other copper deposits. The miners preferred routes are from the mines to the closest tidewater.
.
York1 John
charlie hebdoAnd why is it that NKP gets jumped on for his anti-Trump remarks while you get to rant on Chicago and Biden? Political and social clear double standard.
Animal Farm.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
AK has less than 750,000 people yet it gets two senators, same as CA or TX with many millions. Time to make our representation in the Senate based on population.
GrampHaving friends who live in Anchorage, I do know goods are very expensive there. And Alaska is considered the last vestige of the frontier for the U.S. Don't know whether a rail connection with the rest of North America would make a measurable difference. I recall Kneiling at the time thinking oil by rail to the Midwest would be beneficial since that was the most lucrative market for it. Glad I don't have to bet on what the future holds. Heck, if Biden wins, I probably won't have to spend any time voting going forward. The country will be Chicago-machine style one party rule. Checks and balances down for the count.
Can't you see Russia from everywhere in Alaska? [/sarcasm]
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
And why is it that NKP gets jumped on for his anti-Trump remarks while you get to rant on Chicago and Biden? Political and social clear double standard.
Having friends who live in Anchorage, I do know goods are very expensive there. And Alaska is considered the last vestige of the frontier for the U.S. Don't know whether a rail connection with the rest of North America would make a measurable difference. I recall Kneiling at the time thinking oil by rail to the Midwest would be beneficial since that was the most lucrative market for it. Glad I don't have to bet on what the future holds. Heck, if Biden wins, I probably won't have to spend any time voting going forward. The country will be Chicago-machine style one party rule. Checks and balances down for the count.
I'm somewhat baffled at the folks who justify the railroad as being faster than the marine highway. If speed is the concern, the existing highway will serve the purpose quite adequately, just as the highways do everywhere else in North America for many commodities. Many of us do criticise the rails for having little interest in pursuing this business of course. The Alaska Highway will almost certainly continue to be primary way any groceries come north, even if the railroad is built.
CMStPnP daveklepper And a rail connection to Alaska might benefit the whole country, but this also requires a good economic analysis. We do as a country need to STOP thinking of Alaska as a National Park and start developing it as a state. Rail connection is a logical choice and over time would drive down transportation costs as the state grew. I just can't see a fleet of ocean going ferries keeping up with the demands of a growing state efficiently if we shifted towards a more pro-growth stance for Alaska. I think the current ferry connection is outdated and is a major impediment to growth for the state. Some people like the status quo and have no issues with it. However, that position is rather unfair for the folks that live there. I think we should let Alaska grow and stop the status quo nonsense...........which I might add, none of the other 49 states have had to contend with. Also, lets allow some of the Western Canadian Provinces to apply for statehood in our Union. I don't think that is such a bad idea either.
daveklepper And a rail connection to Alaska might benefit the whole country, but this also requires a good economic analysis.
We do as a country need to STOP thinking of Alaska as a National Park and start developing it as a state. Rail connection is a logical choice and over time would drive down transportation costs as the state grew. I just can't see a fleet of ocean going ferries keeping up with the demands of a growing state efficiently if we shifted towards a more pro-growth stance for Alaska. I think the current ferry connection is outdated and is a major impediment to growth for the state. Some people like the status quo and have no issues with it. However, that position is rather unfair for the folks that live there. I think we should let Alaska grow and stop the status quo nonsense...........which I might add, none of the other 49 states have had to contend with.
Also, lets allow some of the Western Canadian Provinces to apply for statehood in our Union. I don't think that is such a bad idea either.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
daveklepper Is it all-season service? I may have been under the misconception that there are Winter problems.
Is it all-season service?
I may have been under the misconception that there are Winter problems.
BaltACD zugmann CMStPnP Also, lets allow some of the Western Canadian Provinces to apply for statehood in our Union. I don't think that is such a bad idea either. Somehow I don't think there will be many applications at the moment. I am wondering how many of the Western US states would want to defect to Canada?
zugmann CMStPnP Also, lets allow some of the Western Canadian Provinces to apply for statehood in our Union. I don't think that is such a bad idea either. Somehow I don't think there will be many applications at the moment.
CMStPnP Also, lets allow some of the Western Canadian Provinces to apply for statehood in our Union. I don't think that is such a bad idea either.
Somehow I don't think there will be many applications at the moment.
I am wondering how many of the Western US states would want to defect to Canada?
I'm still a little overwhelmed trying to figure out where to put all the fuel stops for our Shanghai-Seattle container trains.
Convicted OneCAREFUL!! You know how touchy some people here get over mention of States Rights.
The same people that argue that Alaska should be forced to be more of a state or something?
BaltACDI am wondering how many of the Western US states would want to defect to Canada?
CAREFUL!! You know how touchy some people here get over mention of States Rights.
CMStPnPAlso, lets allow some of the Western Canadian Provinces to apply for statehood in our Union. I don't think that is such a bad idea either.
Overmod Murphy Siding In my opinion, proposing a railroad from Alaska to the continental US makes as much sense as proposing one from Australia to the US. It only makes sense in the context of a bridge line close to the 'great circle' route from the Far East that involves only negligible ship crossing. This is where a hard crossing of the Bering Strait - probably using the Diomedes - comes into the picture. The days when a heroic railroad was necessary across the Yukon, probably with a significant portion of route in snow sheds or equivalent like the old SP line north out of California, is long gone. Likewise the idea that such a line could possibly be justified by some kind of originating traffic is wishful thinking... except insofar as effectively subsidized by a greater and more valued source of traffic. In a world in which freight interchange via large installation of variable-gauge equipment is more valued than efficient intermodal exchange, we might see the importance of a near-through route entirely by rail. The engineering and capital expense of a bridge-tunnel across the Strait is no greater than already-achieved engineering works on Europe and Asia; I think it would compare favorably with the proposed Finland-Estonia project. The fun only starts, though, with who puts up the money to build and then to maintain it... and who has operating and tolling authority. I see little reason for a West Coast railroad of any kind, although probably cheaper and doing most of the things touted for a 'rail' connection of Alaska to Canada and the lower 48. On the other hand, a line across the Yukon and through Alberta offers quite a bit more -- in both directions -- perhaps enough to get it built properly and run effectively long-term.
Murphy Siding In my opinion, proposing a railroad from Alaska to the continental US makes as much sense as proposing one from Australia to the US.
It only makes sense in the context of a bridge line close to the 'great circle' route from the Far East that involves only negligible ship crossing. This is where a hard crossing of the Bering Strait - probably using the Diomedes - comes into the picture.
The days when a heroic railroad was necessary across the Yukon, probably with a significant portion of route in snow sheds or equivalent like the old SP line north out of California, is long gone. Likewise the idea that such a line could possibly be justified by some kind of originating traffic is wishful thinking... except insofar as effectively subsidized by a greater and more valued source of traffic.
In a world in which freight interchange via large installation of variable-gauge equipment is more valued than efficient intermodal exchange, we might see the importance of a near-through route entirely by rail. The engineering and capital expense of a bridge-tunnel across the Strait is no greater than already-achieved engineering works on Europe and Asia; I think it would compare favorably with the proposed Finland-Estonia project. The fun only starts, though, with who puts up the money to build and then to maintain it... and who has operating and tolling authority.
I see little reason for a West Coast railroad of any kind, although probably cheaper and doing most of the things touted for a 'rail' connection of Alaska to Canada and the lower 48. On the other hand, a line across the Yukon and through Alberta offers quite a bit more -- in both directions -- perhaps enough to get it built properly and run effectively long-term.
For one Russia is not going to be doing any kind of variable gauge rail traffic of any kind with the U.S. for the foreseeable future. Russia having a hard enough time as it is keeping a population base in Siberia. Far East patrols and defense are strict. The Inuit can't move between Big Diomede, and Little Diomede as the Kremlin moved all Inuit off of Big Diomede Island years ago. Which is now the domain of Russian ground forces. That's a project that won't happen until the current economic standoff deescalates between Washington, and Moscow comes to accord. Which isn't on the horizon.
Murphy Siding charlie hebdo Euclid CMStPnP I think we should let Alaska grow and stop the status quo nonsense. In what way are we preventing Alaska from growing? Great question. Alaska has been a state about 60 years. It is sovereign. It gets a lot of Federal money. Its main commercial activities are natural resources and tourism, which sometimes are not compatible. Businesses and industry are free to move there, etc. If they haven't, I suppose it is because they see no prospects. I was born there. I think a lot of people have real misconceptions about what is actually there. In my opinion, proposing a railroad from Alaska to the continental US makes as much sense as proposing one from Australia to the US. Bottom line is that the existing, easily expandible shipping industry will always be able to outperform and outprice any railroad in this scenario.
charlie hebdo Euclid CMStPnP I think we should let Alaska grow and stop the status quo nonsense. In what way are we preventing Alaska from growing? Great question. Alaska has been a state about 60 years. It is sovereign. It gets a lot of Federal money. Its main commercial activities are natural resources and tourism, which sometimes are not compatible. Businesses and industry are free to move there, etc. If they haven't, I suppose it is because they see no prospects.
Euclid CMStPnP I think we should let Alaska grow and stop the status quo nonsense. In what way are we preventing Alaska from growing?
CMStPnP I think we should let Alaska grow and stop the status quo nonsense.
Great question. Alaska has been a state about 60 years. It is sovereign. It gets a lot of Federal money. Its main commercial activities are natural resources and tourism, which sometimes are not compatible. Businesses and industry are free to move there, etc. If they haven't, I suppose it is because they see no prospects.
I was born there. I think a lot of people have real misconceptions about what is actually there. In my opinion, proposing a railroad from Alaska to the continental US makes as much sense as proposing one from Australia to the US. Bottom line is that the existing, easily expandible shipping industry will always be able to outperform and outprice any railroad in this scenario.
We should also look at this project from a strategic standpoint than strictly commerce based. This line will allow rapid deployment and faster times to move DoD equimpent than via marine highway. We have to consider the geopolitical ramifications as well. Russia is making claims in the Arctic outside it's continental shelf. China has slowly been encroaching on the Arctic even going as far to say it's an Arctic state....?!?..... So that aside.. Building this line to Alaska is a benefit. A new conatiner facility built in the Cook Inlet would bolster this line as it would reduce sailing time by a few days. I can also see forest products moving south. Additonally this line could generate a good deal of chemical business in the long term. I don't expect much if any mineral resources to be developed in Alaska with this line built. Resource extraction would moslty if not only occur in Yukon Territory.
Murphy SidingIn my opinion, proposing a railroad from Alaska to the continental US makes as much sense as proposing one from Australia to the US.
I may haver been under the misconception that there are Winter problems.
And transportation isolation may be the reason some of them do not see the prospects.
Please pardon the sarcasm but, when did the military in this country begin to worry about cost?
EuclidIn what way are we preventing Alaska from growing?
Answered already in the thread by various posters.
tree68Alas, there are those who would prefer that we continue thinking of Alaska as a national park - and they live in Alaska.
And there are much more that want to see it grow as in the current Governor and State Representatives whom I have to think are acting at the will of the majority of voters there. DoD which is a large part of the current expansion of the Alaska Railroad is probably getting tired of the limitations as well since it would like to send Alaskan Military units South for evaluation at twenty-nine palms every once in a while at a more reasonable cost.
https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2020/07/31/from-dream-to-reality-proposed-railway-would-connect-alaska-to-the-rest-of-the-continent-by-rail/
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.