Report a Comment

@DavidC; your math and logic are a bit off.

In your example, a $1B cash infusion to the railroad would result in:

A $9B investment that will bring a $.1B return and $2B in externality reductions.

But your externality business just reveals the limits of that logic.

What do railroads carry -- coal. And junk from China. Very little coal is trucked around, and once you start to factor in ALL the externalities investing in rail looks sillier.

Now your point about commuter rail is very true, and a larger investment program geared toward reducing truck traffic by say 5% might make sense. Direct intermodal or something. And the traffic reductions also might include grade crossing and what not.

But assuming investment in rail means less truck traffic? I doubt it.

Externalities seen a neat way to justify paying off corporations. I know liberal love them because they look like economic tools, and so they can talk with the CEIs of the world, but don't get stuck on them.

Isn't CSX a major funder of CEI?

by charlie on Jul 8, 2011 12:09 pm • link • report

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator page • spam