Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
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.
|
You took what I said completely out of context. A previous poster said that a resident of the 1800s might have thought a transcontinental railroad was a waste of time and money and wouldn't lead to much in the way of growth. I said the difference then was that they were concerned about asserting sovereignty then, which in some circles trumped the desire of growth and connectivity... where that is no longer an issue today... which is one reason for less government involvement in this potential project, and why this project is still 10-20 years from starting, and reliant greatly on political climate of that day, and environmental climate change and its possible effects.