johnden223 wrote:The key question is to determine if rail freight is still an economic engine, or simply another form of transportation that can be easily substituted.
I think the simple answer is yes, New England's railroads continue to be an economic engine and serve an important role in the region's transportation needs. It is, however, a role that has evolved as it has in all parts of North America given changes in the industry's competitive advantages vs. other modes, shifts in production and within the greater economy, population trends, technological advances, and public policy. Though the role is changed from pre-WWII, it's still an important role that can not be easily substituted, either tactically, strategically or economically (back of the envelope I'd estimate replacement of rail would demand approximately 1.5 million additional annual truck-trips moving on New England's highways).
It would be interesting to look at the New England rail system's traffic back in the 1920's, for example, vs. contemporary traffic by volume and commodity, that's for sure. I'd venture a guess that while as a share of total freight transportation rail's role has declined, as it has everywhere, the absolute volume might be in the neighborhood of the peak of rail's heyday, though moving much more efficiently with higher-capacity equipment, much fewer track- and route- miles, higher-volume trains, fewer facilities, and a lot less labor.