Quote:
Originally posted by Bertuzzied+Oct 6 2004, 08:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bertuzzied @ Oct 6 2004, 08:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Oct 6 2004, 08:37 PM
Why would it be a disaster?
It would sure beat driving there in January in an ice storm!!
As someone who used to drive a tractor crossing the Edmonton/Calgary rail line, I can tell you farmers would be very put out if they own property on both sides of the track as those crossings would likely be reduced substantially. Farmers would likely be facing massive detours to get to their land.
There's one potential opposition group right there.
But these trains don't seem to be disasters anywhere else. It's an issue of whether we need it or not and if the demand is there to support the cost.
Cowperson
|
how long would it take for them to make back 3.4billion dollars? They are going to have to make a tonne of overpasses.
For a family of 4 it would cost them $400 for a round trip. Unless gas is $3.25/litre at that time the costs wouldn't make sense. [/b][/quote]
I'm not advocating it but the usual thing to do - and would have been done in the feasibility study - would be to try and determine average ridership at particular prices, maintenance costs on an ongoing basis, contingencies, the cost of carrying debt for the time frame in question, etc and perhaps look at a 25 year time frame or something.
It happens on things like this all the time.
Again, I have no idea if its economical or not.
Cowperson