Regional Boards > Northwest

Alaska

<< < (15/16) > >>

mgk920:

--- Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 29, 2020, 03:39:45 PM ---Even if this project is fully funded (which I'm skeptical it will be), how many years of construction will it take to complete the route? If all goes smoothly (which pretty much never happens), I'd say this line probably won't open for at least a few decades, at minimum. With all the litigation I expect this project will endure, it might be faster to walk the entire length of the project, and carry all the freight via muscle power than to do it by train along this corridor.

--- End quote ---

Yes, I know that there was a strong incentive to get it done (a establish a supply route that was out of range of enemy fire from the Pacific Ocean), the original Alaska Highway was completed and opened in less than one year.

Mike

Bruce:

--- Quote from: mgk920 on September 29, 2020, 04:26:53 AM ---I suppose that once things are up and running, it could also be attractive to passenger operators to offer multi day excursions through some of the most wild and unspoiled scenery on the planet, much like Amtrak does on some of their current long distance runs (ie, the ever popular Empire Builder and California Zephyr), but it would primarily be a freight route.

--- End quote ---

Realistically, I think a private operator like the Rocky Mountaineer will be the first to try and set up an Alaskan excursion on the line. They already run on routes that don't have Amtrak/VIA service.

triplemultiplex:
The consequences of this rail project would go far beyond the direct impacts of laying track through the wilderness.

Funny that oscar mentioned a proposed rail project that would have served an extraction industry in the same region; one where the material was found to be extremely detrimental to our well being.  So we left it in the ground.  And the rail project was cancelled.
Seems like a blueprint worth duplicating.

splashflash:

--- Quote from: oscar on September 29, 2020, 02:33:32 PM ---
--- Quote from: mgk920 on September 29, 2020, 04:26:53 AM ---IIRC, from discussions that I have followed over the past several years, it is indeed to allow the Canadians to export Tar Sands oil to Asia.  However, there is no place left to build a commercial sea port on Canada's west coast.

--- End quote ---

That didn't stop the effort to build a pipeline to the coast across British Columbia. First Nations in the way of the pipeline route were the main problem.

Could existing ports in BC, including Stewart's deep-water port, handle extra volume from the tar sands oil?


--- Quote from: mgk920 on September 29, 2020, 02:19:38 PM ---CN took over the BCOL (British Columbia Railway) several years ago, too.  I'm not sure how interested they'd be in ever completing BCOL's partially built line to Dease Lake.
--- End quote ---

One of the reasons it's only partially built is that the potentially exportable resource from the Dease Lake area was asbestos. That market died around the time BCOL pulled the plug on the Dease Lake line.

--- End quote ---

The northwest extension of BC Rail was abandoned in the mid 1970's.  Coal, copper concentrate and asbestos were commodities that were projected to be extracted to justify the line.   Asbestos extraction stopped around 1992 while copper extraction only started large-scale in 2014.  Coal extraction never materialized because of price-drops and more recently First Nations opposition.  The line extends a ways beyond Fort St. James for forestry products, but likely not for mineral commodities.  The roadbed is still visible in many locations.

The projected line would completely bypass BC and likely not connect to the former BCRail, CN Fort Nelson extension.

hurricanehink:
Have there been any updates/discussions on the Glenn to Seward Highway connection in Anchorage? This seems to be one of the largest potential transportation projects in the state, by virtue of affecting its largest city.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version