Canadian Railroads > Rail to Alaska

Does anyone know if there are any updates on the proposed Alaska to the rest of North America rail connection that has been proposed?

The last I heard they had completed Phase 1 Studies on the proposal.

How much economic impact would a connection have for Alaska plus any possible communities on the proposed line?

Have heard nothing about any proposal here in B.C. With the economy the way it is on both sides of the border and resource industries (in BC at least) sucking big time, doubt if we'll see in our lifetime!

The proposal did seem to indicate it was invovling Alaska and Yukon. What railroads run into the Yukon that could be connected to Alaska?

I would have assumed it would be done via BC, but do other lines run into Yukon that would be easier to access.

Go to there website www.alaskacanadarail.com for further details on the route. It would start in Northern British Columbia, pass thru the Yukon and connect at either Delta Junction or Fairbanks with the existing Alaska Railroad. Connection at Delta Junction would only occur if Alaska Railroad completes its proposed project to extend rail service to that community.

When oil was $150 a barrel and on its way to $200, this project made a lot of sense for northern BC oil sands and Alaskan oil.

When oil was $35 a barrel, just a few months ago, it made absolutely no sense to build this railroad.

Is that view a little narrow minded?

Oil is not the only thing of value that can be gained from a connection to the rest of the wrold by the Railroads in Alaska. What other valuable materials can be found along the proposed route other than just oil?

I know one proposal did indicate a connection with the ports could be used to bring goods from Asia, just based on the location of the Alaskan ports. I'm sure shipping companies want to risk that though.

I do think other commodities could be gained as rail traffic. The last I heard the area did have mineral deposits which may or may not be mineable.

I think a connection to the outside world could sput economic growth of Alaska.

If Alaska's position on the Pacific Rim were so lucrative for the container trade, then surely Prince Rupert would have developed as a container port sooner than the current project, and Prince Rupert already has a railroad line. And while it's conceivable that there's mineral wealth in that part of the world, it may also be uneconomic to develop at this time - not when there are cheaper alternatives.

Building north along and beyond the Dease Lake line in British Columbia would cross harsh terrain and be quite expensive. The economics simply may not be there unless the price of oil climbs again.

I've also rad, though not recently, about work taking place on the other side of the Bering Straits in advance of a proposed tunnel or bridge connecting North America and Asia. Maybe I'll see it in my lifetime, if I live past 150.

If global warming actually happens, there will be a nautical shipping route across the pole.

This is an enormous, bold, vision. At the moment, I don't see any Canadian or US interest in pursuing it. Get oil to $150, and you may see an interest.

Supplies come into Alaska by the carload, but mineral and natural resources come out by the ship load. There really isn't a competitive need for a direct rail route with so many year round ports already there.

Nick, you summed it up nicely. All railroading in Alaska and BC is local and will remain that way for quite some time.

Long Term Vision, folks. It's called Long Term Vision. Oil WILL go back to $150/barrel again. There WILL be a need for a line to Alaska. This is the biggest problem with us 'Murricans. We don't think of long term national development and economic stability. We only think about short term profit and shareholder value.

Mark

I've heard a lot of people say there is no reason for this because of the economy of Alaska and BC doesn't demand it. Instead of thinking this is why lets think about if the economy would benefit if the project was completed.

I agree oil will increase that high again and the rail line would be beneficial.

BNSF6400
Thanks for the link.

Here's the map from the site and 2 google maps.

I think they're nuts talking about building north from Hazelton to get to the Yukon (800 kms). What are they smoking? They could get there with almost lower, dryer mountain routing via Ft. Nelson (500 kms), and the railroad already goes most of the way there.

see the two routes with satellite imagery --
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=hazelton+bc+canada&daddr=watson+lake+yukon+canada+to:fort+nelson+bc+canada&hl=en&geocode=&mra=mr&mrcr=1&sll=57.574779,-126.496582&sspn=9.08582,23.269043&ie=UTF8&ll=57.562995,-123.925781&spn=7.112213,22.91748&t=h&z=6

The coast range north of Hazelton is darn rugged, the climate wet and really snowy.

They're proposal would be like getting from Ogden to Pueblo, if the UP lines were already built to Provo and Rawlins. Would you rather go on exiting tracks to Rawlins, then over Sherman Hill and down the edge of the prairie to Pueblo? (350 miles) Or go over Soldier Summit then through the Colorado Rockies? (650 miles)
( comparable US route choices to the "how to get to the Yukon" question -- http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=rawlins+wy&daddr=pueblo+co+to:US-24+to:provo+ut&hl=en&geocode=%3B%3BFez8UAIdsE-s-Q%3B&mra=ls&via=2&sll=39.783213,-108.127441&sspn=6.499786,11.634521&ie=UTF8&ll=41.029643,-106.380615&spn=6.380768,11.634521&t=h&z=7 )
Ted in WA

---

---

---

No, oil does make the project worthwhile. It is cheaper to move oil via pipeline and tankers from Valdeze than by rail. The infrastructure is already there and is under utilized, until we can get oil from ANWAR flowing.

> Long Term Vision, folks. It's called Long Term Vision. ... This is
> the biggest problem with us 'Murricans. We don't think of long term
> national development and economic stability. We only think about short
> term profit and shareholder value.

It's a good thing the government didn't think this way when the first transcontinentals were built. It would have taken us fifty years longer to get the Mountain West settled, and consider all the development that would have been delayed. This would be a better use for stimulus money that a lot of places it's going.

steeplecab Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Long Term Vision, folks. It's called Long Term
> Vision. ... This is
> > the biggest problem with us 'Murricans. We
> don't think of long term
> > national development and economic stability. We
> only think about short
> > term profit and shareholder value.
>
> It's a good thing the government didn't think this
> way when the first transcontinentals were built.
> It would have taken us fifty years longer to get
> the Mountain West settled, and consider all the
> development that would have been delayed. This
> would be a better use for stimulus money that a
> lot of places it's going.


The first US transcontinentals were built to "civilize" the West, and fill in the "empty" space between the Missouri River and California. When President Buchanan attempted to rein in the Mormon settlers in Utah in 1857, it took months to move elements of the US army into position. It was no accident that the charters for both the Central Pacific and Union Pacific went directly into the Salt Lake basin.

The Canadian transcontinental, on the other hand, was built specifically to limit the access of US railroads into the grain belt, and to honor the commitment to BC that they would be connected to Canada. The first Metis war, which took weeks for RCMP and troops to be moved to the rebellion site, was icing on that cake.

BNSF6400 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go to there website www.alaskacanadarail.com for
> further details on the route. It would start in
> Northern British Columbia, pass thru the Yukon

For more historical background, see pgs. 25-35 of Aug. 1986 TRAINS Mag. Yea, yea, I know, who has access to such old magazines? The Train Mag website? A favorite, elaborate library?
But as you readers state and the article explains, such a RR line will not be built until the need for it exists. There is TREMENDOUS potential freight traffic along the route awaiting a "wake-up" call (natural resources).