(erielack) Road vs Rail (was Railroads "That Should Never..." A&GW)

["Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>]

Wow, talk about a hot button issue, almost an entire (rather lengthy) digest devoted to a subject that's more or less off-topic. Rather late to change the thread title, but someone had to do it.

Martin's example nicely illustrates my point from yesterday. With gas at $10/gal, a critical mass of travellers prefers to take the train. However here and now, with (still) relatively cheap gas (although it sure doesn't seem that way when you fill your tank), enough people would be willing to take the train to make the service worthwhile. Set up a network of high-density short to medium distance routes, dedicated where possible (ie seperate from freight routes), run a fleet of comfortable trains at reasonable speed and frequency (they don't have to be bullet trains), with funding and fares based on real-world economics, and people will ride them. The rail subsidy indirectly benefits highway users since the roads are less congested, and doesn't cost the taxpayer since some highway infrastructure won't need to be added. The higher the gas price, the higher the proportion of riders vs drivers. At $10 per gal, it would take about $400 for gas to drive your monster SUV from NY to Washington and back. At that price I think the train would look pretty good.

Paul B

	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	Sponsored by the ELH&TS
	http://www.elhts.org

------------------------------