[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: (erielack) NJ/PA - Environmental Assessment for Lackawanna Cutoff now ava...

Bottom line highway traffic will always be inefficent. Rail is always better, provided you can fill the cars. You can move many times the number of bodies on rail vs highway for a fraction of the energy cost and congestion.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jim Guthrie<mailto:jguthrie_@_pipeline.com> 
  To: EL Mail List<mailto:erielack_@_lists.railfan.net> 
  Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 1:29 PM
  Subject: Re: (erielack) NJ/PA - Environmental Assessment for Lackawanna Cutoff now ava...


  Henry writes:

  >I have never been a big fan of train rider welfare.

  Highway engineers figure the subsidy from general taxation for motorists runs around 44-46%; rail advocates figure it at 56-60%; the strong libertarian anti-gummint, anti-tax folk figure it at 88%.

  What makes automobile drivers so special that they receive substatial subsidies, but you think rail riders don't?

  BTW -- as to Jerome's screed, it has always been my understanding that #1-2 actually more than covered its marginal costs right up until the end, an that EL management was actually surprised when the ICC examiner accepted their petition for discontinuance. The N&W wanted all passenger service off the books no matter what the circumstances. I realize full costs would nto be covered but railroading has always been a business of marginal costs not full costs anyway. 

  Cheers,
  Jim Guthrie
  ELHS $1296

  The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
  http://EL-List.railfan.net/<http://el-list.railfan.net/>
  To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html<http://lists.railfan.net/erielackunsub.html>


	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	http://EL-List.railfan.net/
	To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html

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