CMStPnP I think we should let Alaska grow and stop the status quo nonsense.
CMStPnPWe do as a country need to STOP thinking of Alaska as a National Park and start developing it as a state.
Alas, there are those who would prefer that we continue thinking of Alaska as a national park - and they live in Alaska.
I'm pretty sure there are commodities to be had in Alaska as well - ie, things that could be mined or otherwise harvested in sufficient quantities as to require transport by rail.
There are those who would prefer those commodities to remain where they are as well.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
daveklepperAnd 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 I think the current ferry connection is outdated and is a major impediment to growth for the state.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.
SD70DudeMinaret is simply a named station along the line,
Rock the Casbah?
Greyhounds, I approve of your condemnation of hate speech.
I believe the Gateway Project is essential for a strong USA economy, and not implementing it will result in far greater costs. The cost division between NY. NJ, CT, PA, and other East Coast States and the rest of the country needs a more careful analysis.
And a rail connection to Alaska might benefit the whole country, but this also requires a good economic analysis.
I'd like to continue with what I said.
The two projects cited by the OP have but one thing in common. That one thing is that they involve rail transportation. I have seen absolutely no mention, outside of this thread, of government money being used to fund A2A. Any assumption of such possible funding is just that, an assumption. If such government funding were to be proposed I certainly would oppose it.
The OP conflated the two projects to justify a hate spiel against the President of the United States. I objected to that. (BTW, I did not vote for Trump in 2016. I went 3rd party.)
The president's actions with regard to the A2A proposal involve only issuing a permit to build across the international boundary with Canada. (I'll reasonably reckon that the Canadian government will need to do a similar thing.) No US Federal expenditures beyond the minimal cost of issuing the permit are involved. Remember, a major pipeline was blocked because the Obama Administration would not issue such a permit.
In contrast, the Gateway project will require multi billions of taxpayer dollars while being of negligible, if any, benefit to most of those taxpayers. I don't like such expenditures. I support users/beneficiaries pay. i.e., put it in the cost of a ticket. If the beneficiaries won't pay then the costs outweigh the benefits and the project should not be done.
My objection was clearly about the conflation of two very dissimilar actions. A conflation that was done in order to support a hate monger rant against the President of the United States. I've had my fill of such rantings against anybody.
There is absolutely no valid reason for holding up the A2A border crossing permint while the Gateway Project funding is hashed out. Unless, of course, you want to spew hatred.
SD70DudeOur 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.
Yeah I saw that comment your responding to and had to snicker. Another American that does not really know how DoD operates.
The DOD ensures the transportation is tremendously profitable for whatever country cooperates......it's why they all lined up like ducks in a row to host U.S. Forces for GWOT and Afghanistan logistics. Even the Russians cast idealogy aside for the money they knew they would make on the deals. What did we pay the Germans for manuever damage during REFORGER exercises? 1.5 times whatever cost they submitted as a claim. It's been extremely rare for host countries to complain about being transportation bases or conduits for DoD. Money talks and we have a lot of it.
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 and that was the intent. It wasn't lost on the Trump administration that NY and NJ by themselves were almost in a position to finance this but then things fell apart and they approached the Feds for funding. Also I read somewhere after the Feds refusal to fund the project......all of the sudden Amtrak found this much cheaper third alternative then completely reboring the tunnels......go figure.
Even more to the point of the journalists misinterpretation. This was not Trumps idea, it was suggested to him by at least one Senator and another person who slips my memory at the moment. Trump just threw his support behind the suggestion.
Euclid 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.
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?
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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
daveklepper Euclid, I respect your position, and you may be correct. I cannot claim any greater knowledge on ths subject than you have. I should add wood, forest-products to the list. Could not your analysis have been applied to the western transcons before construction?
Euclid, I respect your position, and you may be correct. I cannot claim any greater knowledge on ths subject than you have.
I should add wood, forest-products to the list.
Could not your analysis have been applied to the western transcons before construction?
Euclid, I respect your position, and you may be correct. I cannot claim any gtrater knowledge on ths subject than you have.
Could not your analysis have been applied to the wesytern trasnscons before construction?
azrail Taking it through Alberta is wiser than down the Pacific Coast..less controversy (protests) and closer to the heart of the US rail network.
Taking it through Alberta is wiser than down the Pacific Coast..less controversy (protests) and closer to the heart of the US rail network.
The layout of British Columbia's rail network means an all-BC route will involve heavy grades (on the ex-BC Rail line both north and south of Prince George) and mileage approaching that of a route through Alberta, along with the congestion of Vancouver. Traffic to and from the west coast would of course take this route, but traffic to and from the Midwest and eastern North America would more logically be routed through Edmonton.
The protests are not relevant in this discussion.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
caldreamer CP has a line into Minaret, BC which is quite a ways north of Prince Rupert. That would be the logical jumping off point for a rail connection to Alaska. Seee the attached CP rail network map. https://www.cpr.ca/en/choose-rail-site/Documents/cp-network-map-2020.pdf
CP has a line into Minaret, BC which is quite a ways north of Prince Rupert. That would be the logical jumping off point for a rail connection to Alaska. Seee the attached CP rail network map.
https://www.cpr.ca/en/choose-rail-site/Documents/cp-network-map-2020.pdf
The former BC Rail Dease Lake extension (now CN's Takla Subdivision) has not seen a train past Fort St. James in about 15 years, and will have received next to zero maintenance during that time. More recently CN has placed this line on their "intent to discontinue" list.
Minaret is simply a named station along the line, there is no town or settlement there, a temporary logging camp would be the most that has ever existed up there.
I stand by my earlier statement that Fort Nelson is the most logical starting point for a railroad to Alaska.
rrnut282 kumbaya I find it puzzling that A2A maps don't show canadian lines, but a large chunk of all the rail lines in the US/Mexico. It appears their preferred terminus is Edmonton (larger arrow). Taking it through Alberta is wiser than down the Pacific Coast..less controversy (protests) and closer to the heart of the US rail network.
kumbaya
I find it puzzling that A2A maps don't show canadian lines, but a large chunk of all the rail lines in the US/Mexico. It appears their preferred terminus is Edmonton (larger arrow).
charlie hebdoNKP Guy is a decent human being. So is Ken Greyhounds. So are you, John.
As are you, Charlie. Thanks.
York1 John
NKP Guy is a decent human being. So is Ken Greyhounds. So are you, John. The problem in USA is we are more divided than ever and folks become intemperate and snide online, even on here. There are many reasons but one factor seems to animate that discord. Sad.
I think that it is about time for a rail link between Alaska, Canada and the lower 48 states. This idea has been talked about for years. It will not happen for the following reasons.
1. Even if the EPA, the army Corp of engineers and other federal agencies approves the building of the connection between the Alaska railroad and the Canadian border. would it pass all of these hurdels?
A. The tree huggers in the US who would tie the project up in court for ever.
B.. Would the Canadian government approve the deal, since the connection is north of Vancouver, BC through wilderness to Alaska?
C. Would the tree huggers in Canada tie it up in court as well?
D. Who would pay the billions of dollars to build it? The US tax payers, Canadian taxpayers or the railroads who would benefit from the project?
Caldreamer
charlie hebdoPredicable cutting and pasting from another desperate right wing fanatic.
I apologize.
Since I'm not a degreed and licensed psychologist, I didn't realize that probable excessive anger and exploding temper tantrums were terms I didn't understand because of my fanatical position.
One thing I do know: Kalmbach could probably make money charging a fee for reading the entertaining threads like this one.
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."
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.
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."
Predicable cutting and pasting from another desperate right wing fanatic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
York1 "explode"!!
"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.
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.
An "expensive model collector"
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.