Thoughts on this ??

http://railfan.com/survey-of-rail-r...t8r9W-lzBjU8qx0P-9rXBBbPb2VRtmcrAm5mhE00

I think in the long run it will be beneficial. With all of the environmental oversite nowadays, I don't see what harm it could do.

Hard to tell by the maps shown, but it looks like it will go through the southern edge of my trapline. Maybe I will get some good trail out of the deal.

I would be very concerned about it opening up access to a lot of country that is protected by its remoteness and distance. Also I don't like the idea of transporting oil by railcar through wild country

Yea the access is something Ive thought about alright. I dont think it will be a big issue though. The rail line that goes into Ft Nelson goes through some remote country and hasn't been a big problem as far as opening things up. I have no problem with them transporting oil by rail though. At least when they have a derailment/spill they can get to it to clean things up. All in all Im for the project. Something has to give. Western Canada is in bad shape, especially in the oil patch. People need jobs to feed their families. There is a risk with everything we do, and thats something a whole bunch of people have forgotten.This chinese virus has certainly driven that home. People are scared to death when the reality is they are far more likely to get killed in their car on the way to work than they are by the virus.

I think rail would bring far less intrusion than a pipeline and requisite road.

Good point AV

I wonder how many moose will get killed while running down the tracks while avoiding deep snow on the sides?

Actually, that information is available, here in Alaska. The highways are far more deadly.
Yes, the trains get a few, though.

That's fantastic news. I've followed the plot of Sean McCoshen's dream with interest for a few years, but I hadn't heard this bit yet.

As a woodsman and a participant in the economy (in the industrial construction sector, no less), I often face dueling motives when it comes to project proposals, be it oil, mining or transit. I love wilderness and it's a critical part of our lifestyle and culture. But I also want to have economic opportunities for me and mine to be able to live and thrive here. So I try to support projects that yield the best economic return balanced by the least natural disruption.

To that end, the A2A rail project seems to me like a great idea. The economic benefit to Alaska will be immense, most widely in the lowered cost of shipping goods which will benefit everyone. The preliminary and construction work will create hundreds or thousands of jobs on the railroad alone, not to mention depots, spur lines and ports. Then there is the operation labor. But the big news is in the potential for the future. Alaska could very well become a major freight portal for all of North America. As mentioned in the article, Alaska ports are 4 days closer to Asia than most west coast ports. Then there is the vast potential for natural resource development along the expanded rail belt. There is potential for timber, ore and similar bulk resource development in areas that had no viable transport before. Like I said, I see the economic benefit for Alaska being huge.

Now on the side of environmental preservation, I'm a fan of rail above most other transit options, such as pipelines and roads, for a couple reasons: a pipeline is low-profile once built, but just as disruptive to install. A pipeline requires an access road and cleared ROW, and even if it's gated it becomes an ATV highway. A pipeline can only transport one type of product, and if a pipeline leaks it's hard to detect, measure and track.

A railroad is inherently limited-access. Sure you can ride ATVs on the tracks, but its not comfortable, it's illegal and the RR enforces the trespass laws. The only real recreational access via rail is a whistle stop option, if they include that. And a railroad spill, if it happens, is a known quantity on the surface.

In my personal cost/benefit analysis, I'm all for it.