From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >On 15-Apr-15 11:18, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >>>On 15-Apr-15 08:30, 866013149e wrote:   
      
   >>>>Amen to that. I've always suspected the FRA's requirements are   
   >>>>driven by an anti-passenger rail agenda.   
      
   >>>"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained   
   >>>by stupidity."  --Hanlon's Razor   
      
   >>Ok, you can't keep repeating that.   
      
   >Repetition doesn't make it untrue.   
      
   It's an aphorism. It's just not applicable in every situation to   
   explain undesirable consequences.   
      
   >>Anyway, stupidity isn't the explanation. If I had to go with a   
   >>one-word simplistic explanation, I'd say cowardice: Fear of   
   >>Washington in fighting and criticism if a signal death occurs that   
   >>wouldn't have if FRA had stuck with American buff-strength standards   
   >>instead of implementing European standards.   
      
   >>Still, it's wrong to point the finger at FRA (and ICC before that).   
   >>It's never really the administration's fault. It's Congress.   
      
   >I'd point the stupidity label at Congress; they're the ones that set up   
   >the regulatory framework to consider each mode separately, and they're   
   >the ones taking bribes^W"campaign contributions" from the freight   
   >railroads and airlines in return for killing off passenger rail.   
      
   I'm going to agree with the stupidity of Congress. However, it's pretty   
   clear that heavy handed regulation with heavily subsidized non-rail modes   
   made both passenger and freight service uneconomical. Today's freight   
   service little resembles the service railroads used to provide, with   
   the exception of bulk commodities.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)