QUOTE: Originally posted by garr A recent study by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics cited in todays (2/10/05, page A12) Wall Street Journal shows the federal subsidies breakdown of each mode based on per thousand passenger miles: Amtrak ...................$186.35 Urban Transit .......$118.26 Airlines .......................$6.00 Highways ................--$1.91 Data was gathered on federal subsidies for all four modes from 1990-2002. The total for each mode had its pertinent users fees deducted and was then divided by that mode's number of passenger miles. The aim was to "to show the amount of subsidy relative to the level of use." Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation says this is as close as you can get to an apples to apples comparison. In a number of other threads the people posting have wondered how the federal subsidies compare between transportation modes. I thought this might answer some of these questions. I am not familiar with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics or the Reason Foundation but assume they are valid since the Wall Street Journal saw fit to use them as sources. And yes, as far as federal subsidies are concerned, that is a negative $1.91 for highways. Jay PS Google search "Bureau of Transportation Statistics subsidy comparisons" or check out www.transtats.bts.gov for some interesting info.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Again, a lot depends on what constitutes a subsidy. Obviously, the subsidization of highway and air transportation by taking valuable real estate off the tax roles and giving the infrastructure a free ride as far as real estate taxes is not included in these subsidy figures, and there are other examples.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The biggie that's missing from the highway calculation, at least for passenger transport, is the cost of the vehicle and operator. Those are directly paid for by the user but the user never really reimburses himself for his time lost driving nor considers anything more than his out-of-pocket costs.
QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The biggie that's missing from the highway calculation, at least for passenger transport, is the cost of the vehicle and operator. Those are directly paid for by the user but the user never really reimburses himself for his time lost driving nor considers anything more than his out-of-pocket costs. True the highway user rarely considers the value of his "lost" time, but is his time any less valuable sitting on a bus or train. I know some people work while commuting on public transit (but most don't) others may read a newspaper or book (but most don't). Besides its hard to do anything productive while hanging from onto the overhead bar in a BART car or bus. In your own auto you can at least listen to what you want on the radio. Something often frowned upon on public transit. On public transit you must travel when the service is provided and on the service providers schedule. On the highway you can, within broad limits, determine your own schedule. Also real trips aren't between public transit stops. A person who considers travel time wasted will want to take the fastest mode of transportation, be that auto, train, or air. There are of course other factors. When I lived in Los Angeles I took the bus to work downtown. While the bus trip took 30 minutes and driving myself only 10 minutes, the cost and inconvienance of parking downtown overrode the speed factor. When I worked in Eagle Rock, I drove to work. The car trip was only 10 minutes and I had free parking at my work location. The bus trip was over 1-1/2 hour , required one transfer, and the nearest bus stop was 3 block from work. I really don't think my situations were unusual.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.