Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hmaly who wrote (124180)	9/19/2000 11:19:27 AM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571399

Dear Hmaly: Freight trains are surviving and even thriving once intermodal was allowed by the RR regulators (the exact name escapes me at the moment). Long haul trucking costs too much when fuel costs go up. Two engineers (operators) can haul 200 to 400 semi trailers worth over thousands of miles far faster than any trucking company can do it for quite a bit less money (although somewhat more hassle). Passenger rail thrives when high traffic routes are maintained properly (Boston to Washington corridor or things like Chicago Metro). If the rail track was maintained by the government like the interstate is, railroads would be very profitable for hauling freight and still hauling passengers. There is less cost to building a double track mainline than a four lane interstate and the exits (train stations) are much cheaper as well. If intermodal for passengers was as cheap as for freight, there would be much more traffic for long range travel. IMHO, train track should be owned and maintained by government subsidy to level the playing field between trains and all other transportation forms (Shipping lanes, air routes, and of course roads (how many private roads do you see?) are subsidized). If this was done, you would see much more passengers and freight going by train. Pete