JUNEAU, Alaska – The Yukon and Alaskan governments are teaming up to study the economic and social benefits of a proposed rail line running through Canada and Alaska.
Officials announced Monday the signing of a memorandum of understanding to launch the year-long study, expected to begin in May.
The railway would link Alaska, the Yukon and northern British Columbia, and then run down into the contiguous United States.
The two governments have agreed to establi***he Alaska-Canada Rail Advisory Committee, comprising members from both jurisdictions. The study is expected to cost $5 million US.
Thanx foi the info … would you please post this on “Canadian Passenger Railroads - Let’s Talk!” on this forum. Some of the guys have brough this up and your input would really keep it all together …
Since the US and even Canada gripe about funding passenger rail service even in heavily traveled areas of their respective countries, I would say that it is a safe assumption that such a line would be freight-only (at least initially anyway).
Since WW2, talks have been going on and off about connecting the Alaska RR to the lower 48. Various studies have shown that:
a - such a RR would be a great economic stimulus for Canada and Alaska
b - it may be one of the largest pork-barrel projects of all time and an economic disastor
c - it would be an ecological disastor
d - it would save the Alaska coasts from an ecological disastor
e - etc.
You pick your political/cultural hot button and you can find a study that supports it.
Following are the facts as I see them:
1 - Alaska is served by a very efficient seaway system at rather low cost - but it is slow
2 - Alaska is served by a very efficient air system that is fast but high cost
3 - The bulk of southbound freight from Alaska is oil that is most economically shipped by sea
4 - the bulk of northbound freight to Alaska is economic commodities that are also most economically shipped by sea
5 - there are commodities, such as autos, appliances, etc that could be shipped faster - but economically by rail directly from manufacturers in the East and Midwest
6 - an Alaska/Canada/US rail link is an all or nothing project - similar to the transcontinental of the 1860’s. It will generate no revenue until it is complete. Incremental extensions of existing rail are a waste of money unless the system is connected.
I view this study as one more attempt to determine if there is sufficient commerce in commodities that are rail oriented to justify a RR link, or if there is sufficient ecological concern to transport oil by rail instead of seaway.
The environmental concerns are not so much with rail but with the sensitive nature of the terrain that the rail would cross. I think that these concerns can be mitigated with careful engineering - but this may significantly increase the cost.
I like your argument about defense support - but the Alaskan portion of the defense system has been supported by air for almost 50 years.
Right, but the installation of the bunkers radar systems etc. cannot be moved by air. I remember reading house bill–public–memo that the military indicated that direct rail access to Alaska would greatly facilitate the implementation of the current missle defense plan.
Note that the study committee is being set up by the State of Alaska and the Yukon Territory - no federal goverment involvement at this point. That may give this committee a higher chance of success.
Say great idea, Canada says yes to a railway and we get the U.S. to pay for it, by the way what is the reason for the railway anyway?? there is already a pipeline from there and a highway, plus shipping access, and full air access, just what is coming out of Alaska thay I’m not aware of?? smoked salmon? What could possibly constitute a massive railway scheme to facilitate a mysterious commodity market? OH, wait, could it have anything to do with the military system??? there is already a missile defence system in place now, with U.S. missiles to intercept incoming missiles and explode these nuclear devices directly over Canada so they do not reach the U.S. The only problem now is , where will these incoming missiles come from? Brazil??
Alaska is pushing for this for reasons of being a major player in Pacific Rim trade. Alaska is closer to the Asian countries than LA, Puget Sound, Vancouver, or Prince Rupert, thus a rail link with the U.S. Midwest would make an Alaskan port the prefered choice for the land ship concept of container shipping. Therefore, you can expect opposition to this project from Puget Sound and coastal B.C. interests, as well as whichever railroad(s) is not the primary U.S. connection. Logic and location would suggest CN as the mainland rail connection especially with the BCRail takeover. If project proposers can get an extension farther south to CP, then CP becomes a second bottleneck gatekeeper.
Thus, this project does have incredible consequences for Alaska, Yukon, Alberta, and interior BC. But these days you need the unqualified support of one of the major U.S. Class I’s for a project of this magnitude. Whenever someone proposes a big project like this, one that could dramatically change the face of Pacific Rim trade, you have to consider how the potential losers would react. The idea of opening up the interior of Alaska and Yukon to development is more of a red herring, it’s the Asian trade potential that is driving this project. Given this fact, if Alaska and Yukon want this bad enough they will have to go it mostly alone, with only tacit support from the U.S. and Canadian governments. The defense angle is a must to get U.S. federal support, or at least mitigate the inevitable “environmental” roadblocks.
Despite what the so-called environmental movement states regarding a preference for rail, in reality they will oppose this as rabidly as any other worthwhile public works projects. The kneejerk reaction of all environmentalists is to oppose any construction or development anywhere at anytime for any ostensible reason, and I see know reason they won’t continue that predictable tactic on this one.
If Pacific Rim trade is the motivation for building this white elephant, how much would it cost to build a major container port in Seward, Valdez, Skagway or any other coastal city deemed to be the appropriate site? Alaska may be closer to the Far East, but it’s farther from the Midwest and Northeast then Seattle or Long Beach. It’s a mirror image of establishing a container port on the Pacific coast of Mexico.
One must weigh the cost of ships vs. rail, Alaska is closer to the far east but has a long haul by rail down across Canada after a massive railway building project (cost??) so why not just use ships and go to Seattle (or Prince Rupert?) At any rate Canada at least has seen the potential far east market which is so massive no one here can even imagine the impact in the VERY near future. U.S.-Canada are each other’s biggest traders today, this will change sooner than anyone realises and China will soon be everyones biggest trade partner. Any new railway projects in North America will be east-west connectors to get as much stuff to the west coast (C.P.R. is now double-tracking it’s western line to the coast)
Political opinions, conspiracy theories, and other aspersions aside, what’s the harm in studying the idea? When one considers how much money goes into studies running from the sex life of the speckled bellied snail darter to the impacts on global warming of cow flatulence, I’d say this will be money better spent.
Shoud the idea turn into reality (but hardly in my remaining life) freight would surely be the impetus for laying the track. However, don’t bet against passenger travel - especially in the days ahead of ever increasing gasoline prices. It’s anyone’s guess regarding just “who” would make such a rail trip - but then again, when I see the lines and lines of people willing and eager to throw their bucks into a trip aboard the “Rocky Mountaineer” and other excursions, there will be passenger traffic - but not in the “classic” sense, of course.
Thanks, dd, for posting your intial comments over on “Canadian Passenger Railroads - Let’s Talk!” Much appreciated and helped to keep things in some semblance of order …
personally I wuld love to take a train to Alaska - but freight will drive this one.
I hadn’t considered the Asia connection. One major drive is congestion in current ports - both in docks and rail/truck access. One competing project is the rejuvination of the old Orient line across Texas and Mexico - someday it might live up to it’s name.
]
[/quote]
there is already a missile defence system in place now, with U.S. missiles to intercept incoming missiles and explode these nuclear devices directly over Canada so they do not reach the U.S][/quote.
The United States does not currently posses any such system… There was one planned in the 1970’s but it never became operational. The Reagan administration planned to develop an extensive anti ICBM defense system in the 80’s but this never came about due to the end of the cold war.
What is being proposed now is an Anti Ballistic Missile system based in Alaska capable of targeting and destroying missiles launched at North America from rogue states such as North Korea.
I read an article about this, and in 2001 when this was first proposed, they said that one of the benifits would possibly be a tunnel from Siberia to Alaska. They said the soil actually made it an easier project than the Chunnel. That would be cool, to take the train all the way to Russia!
Brad