Alaska-Canada railroad awaiting resolution

Outlook good for "last transcontinental railroad"

By DANIEL SPOTH-Frontiersman reporter

ANCHORAGE -- The planned Alaska-Canada railroad, sometimes called "the last transcontinental railroad," may see some positive developments in the near future.

Senate Bill 31, which would provide the means to investigate the feasibility of an Alaska-Canada railroad, had a hearing in the Alaska State Legislature Jan. 29. Alaska Senator Gary Wilken decided to hold the bill until further action on the federal scene could be completed.

The Legislature also held a hearing to expedite Alaska-Canadian relations two weeks ago in Juneau. At this meeting, at which Governor Murkowski as well as numerous Canadian officers were present, Yukon Premier Dennis Fentie remarked that the Alaska-Canada railroad issue has been moved to the top of his list of priorities.

Although Senate Bill 31 does not provide for any planned construction, it does provide the mechanism for establishing a portion of land on which to build the railroad. According to the bill, should construction of the railroad proceed, a corridor of state land no more than 500 feet wide would be given to the railroad corporation free of charge.

Roughly 130 people also attended a recent conference on the proposed railroad in Anchorage. At the meeting, which was intended to raise support and awareness of the project, statements from Alaskan and Canadian officials were considered. Though the proposed railroad has a considerable amount of public support behind it, progress is slow due to federal legal hang-ups.

"We can't proceed with the project until the Canadians decide to go forward with it," said Wendy Lisndskoog for the Alaska Railroad Corporation's planning department. "This needs to be a bilateral decision."

Though plans for an Alaska-Canada Railroad have been in the works for years, the project has been slow in developing, a fact due in part to a logjam in the Canadian government. Although Alaskan politicians believe that the Canadian government is in favor of the railroad, there has been no expenditure of Canadian funds on the project and the case is being handled by the notoriously slow-moving Canadian Foreign Affairs Office. Canadian politicians are currently attempting to delegate the handling of the bill to the Department of Transportation, which could make a decision much more quickly.

Until that decision is made, the project will have to remain on hold.

Constructing a 1,200-mile rail -- the length considered by a February 2002 cost estimate -- would call for an excess of one million tons of steel, and would cost roughly $2.7 billion.

About 980 miles separate the end of the Alaska Railroad near Eielson Air Force Base with the northern limits of the British Columbia Railroad at Fort Nelson. The British Columbia Railroad, once intended to capitalize upon deposits of tungsten and other minerals in western Canada, has been left largely unused due to a change in the Canadian government. The cost of building the railroad would thus be greatly reduced owing to the quantity of track already in place.

Planning maps of the project have the proposed railroad running south-east of Fairbanks, past Tok, and into Canada.

Possible uses for the Alaska-Canada railroad include transportation of Alaska freight such as minerals, timber and oil, as well as moving tourists and visitors up from the Lower 48.

Another rather unconventional use of the railroad would be the transportation of imported goods from Japan and East Asia to the Lower 48. Since the ports at Anchorage and Whittier are considerably nearer to Asian export centers than ports in California, it might be feasible to transport cargo from Asia to Southcentral Alaska by boat, then move the goods by rail to the rest of the states. This was also a function performed by the transcontinental Pacific-Atlantic railroad constructed in 1861.

Currently, Alaska exports its oil by tanker and its fish, timber and other resources by air or barge. A railroad to the Lower 48 could make export by land a feasible option.

The most direct, quantifiable benefit afforded by the railroad would be its cutting of the costs involved in building the proposed Alaska-Canada natural gas pipeline. If a pipeline is constructed on Canadian land, an Alaska-Canada railroad would reduce building costs by 20 percent.