Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderball
Like I said, the only good reason would be for shipping purposes. You're right about the long term potential.
As for transcontinental rail, the rationale was asserting sovereignty, as well as connecting remote areas. If Canada didn't build the CP line, a spur line from the Union Pacific might have made this Calgary, Montana rather than Calgary, Alberta. Nowadays, no one without a deathwish would challenge Russian or American sovereignty in that area. Growth could follow, but it would depend greatly on climate change, as the area is really too cold and remote to support much in the way of population.
|
This isn't about asserting any sort of soverignty in a nation-state sense, that comment was a relic of the 1800s. Look at CP Rail's bottom line, they turn a nice profit year-over-year. Why might you ask? Canada's port is clogged with shipping traffic and only a couple of major rail lines through the rockies. They enjoy nice shipping rates for the business they do. There is talk of there not being enough Pacific ports in Canada/US due to the rugged terrain. Most of the goods shipped through these ports is trade with Asia/Russia. A line connecting the two continents would be huge for shipping. Rail would be quicker for large volumes of goods as there is a limit to tanker capacity.The question would be whether or not it would be worth $100 Billion in capital cost and as an observant fellow CPer pointed out this is in an active faultline.