From: nilknocgeo@earthlink.net   
      
   "Stephen Sprunk"  wrote in message   
   news:m4bpth$fjf$1@dont-email.me...   
   > On 14-Nov-14 20:56, conklin wrote:   
   >> "Peter Schleifer"  wrote:   
   >>> "conklin"  wrote:   
   >>>> "Stephen Sprunk"  wrote:   
   >>>>> Trains have the option of adding more cars, which is both more   
   >>>>> flexible and more cost-effective than replacing small planes   
   >>>>> with big planes.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I rather suspect that the slots cannot be increased in the   
   >>>> Washington-DC corridor, or even to Boston.   
   >>>   
   >>> Which is not relevant to the option of adding more cars to   
   >>> existing trains running in the same slots. -- Peter Schleifer   
   >>> "Ignorance is easy and you get it for free"   
   >>   
   >> It is relevant to increasing the number of humans who can travel   
   >> between Boston and NYC.  The increase in capacity is due to air   
   >> carrier policy, not the lack of runways.  How many new cars can   
   >> Amtrak put on the corridor to increase capacity?   
   >   
   > Amtrak could increase their rolling stock 50%-75% if they had the funds.   
   > If you allow investment in more/faster tracks too, they could double   
   > that again without much difficulty--aside from funding.   
   >   
   > It ain't chump change, but it's still a lot less per passenger than the   
   > same amount of capacity by road or air.   
   >   
   > S   
   >   
      
   Increased capacity at the airports comes from changing the size of the   
   airplanes, which pay for themselves.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)