Dave- in answer to your quetion, no I don’t think Euclid’s analysis could have been applied to the western transcons before construction. Back then, the railroads were heading into uncharted territory. There were no highways, cars, trucks, airports or airplanes to be concerned with. As an example, we buy lumber out of Northwestern Canada that is shipped out by truck. A railroad that had to cover the cost and overhead of maintaining the ROW probably could not be competitive.
[quote user=“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 w
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rock the Casbah?
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.
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.
In what way are we preventing Alaska from growing?
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.
Answered already in the thread by various posters.
Please pardon the sarcasm but, when did the military in this country begin to worry about cost?
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.
And transportation isolation may be the reason some of them do not see the 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.
Is it all-season service?
I may haver been under the misconception that there are Winter problems.
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.
We should a
[quote user=“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