Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
Passenger
»
US High Speed Rail
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
<P mce_keep="true">[quote user="KCSfan"] <P> [quote user="Sam1"]</P> <P>The U.S. has a national transportation policy. It is called highways and airways with some rail where appropriate. It is also called let the people decide, which is what democracy is all about. </P> <P>[/quote]</P> <P>Sam1,</P> <P>I agree with you on most points except the one quoted above. IMHO the US does not have a national transportation policy. "Let the people decide" is a <STRONG><EM>paractice</EM></STRONG> <STRONG><EM>not a policy, </EM></STRONG>at least not a policy akin to that of many European and Asian countries.</P> <P>If all the various forms of subsidies that the states and locals give to airline and highway transport could be quantified and added to the federal ones I'm certain the differences between total airline and highway and passenger rail subsidies would be narrowed. Also include the "bailout" monies the feds have given to the airline industry which you failed to mention.</P> <P>Mark[/quote]</P> <P mce_keep="true">Allowing the market place to determine the most suitable mode of transport is a policy. Just because it does not look like a European or Asian transport policy does not mean that it is not a policy. It is messier than more formal policies, but democracy, including free markets, is inherently messy.</P> <P mce_keep="true">Many passenger train advocates (groups and individuals) claim that the airlines have been bailed out, especially after 9/11. They also claim that the airlines receive a variety of subsidies. I have looked into some of their claims. Here is what I found.</P> <P mce_keep="true">Following 9/11 the federal government loaned the airlines approximately $86 million to help them recover from the impacts of the terrorist attacks. They carried a below market interest rate. All of the loans with interest were repaid as of December 31, 2007.</P> <P mce_keep="true">Also following 9/11 the federal government underwrote the difference between what insurance premiums cost the airlines before 9/11 and what they cost after 9/11. Given the extraordinary impact of 9/11, this does not seem unreasonable. Moreover, as the gap between pre 9/11 rates and today's rates has narrowed, the subsidy has largely disappeared.</P> <P mce_keep="true">One advocate group claims that the government (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation) has taken over the legacy pension obligations of the airlines that have declared bankruptcy as a result of 9/11 or other market drivers. They claim that this is a subsidy. In fact, the PBGC is an insurance program. Anyone with a legacy pension program, including the airlines, pays a premium to insure their pension plan. The airlines, having paid the premiums for years, were simply taking advantage of the insurance contract. The PBGC is a self funding agency. It is not a bailout.</P> <P mce_keep="true">The largest advocate group claims that general aviation benefited from a $1.5 billion FAA operating subsidy in 2007. They imply that the commercial airlines were the sole beneficiary of the subsidy. But they fail to mention that the commercial airlines are a minor user of FAA operations. For example, in 2005 (the latest audited figures) the airlines accounted for 26.1 of tower controlled operations and 35.1 per cent of air traffic control center activities. When adjusted for these figures, the federal largess realized by the commercial airlines would be approximately $696 million. The group does not appear to recognize the difference between general aviation and commercial aviation. I brought this fact to their attention. I am still awaiting a response.</P> <P mce_keep="true">Airlines and motorists receive federal, state, and local subsidies. But they pale compared to the subsidies received by all forms of passenger rail except for certain tourist operations. </P> <P mce_keep="true">I favor passenger rail in relatively short, high density corridors where the construction of additional highway and airway capacity would be cost prohibitive. And I favor subsidizing it to the extent that competitive modes of transport are subsidized. But I don't favor subsidies for operations that don't have a chance of covering their operating costs, i.e. HSR, long distance trains, etc. </P> <P mce_keep="true">I take the train where it makes sense. This year I have ridden the Sunset Limited from El Paso to San Antonio, the San Joaquin from Bakersfield to San Francisco, the Acela from Philadelphia to New York and return, and the Pacific Surfliner from LA to San Diego and back (2).</P>
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy