Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Phoebe Vet"] That didn't answer the question. If the railroads did not own and maintain the rails.  If both freight and passenger paid the same tax per gallon as trucks and buses, how much subsidy would then be required for passenger rail? It does not cost any more per mile to build a mile of railroad than it does to build a lane/mile of highway.  With the fuel tax model, the rails would be available to much smaller companies and startups. [/quote] Woodside Consultants, amongst others, believes the freight carriers that hoist most of Amtrak's trains charge transit rates that do not cover the full cost of moving the passenger carrier's trains over their systems.   If the government owned the rails, as it does the highways and airways, and it charged rates designed to recover the cost of the facilities, the cost structure for passenger trains would be little different than the current cost structure.  In fact, it could be worse if it is true that the hoist rails subsidize indirectly Amtrak.  This would be true if all forms of transport wore the same fuel taxes.   In most European countries, as well as those in Asia, the rail infrastructure is owned by the government.  And in many instances the government supplies the electric power for electric powered trains or subsidizes the cost of diesel fuel.  Yet passenger trains in these locales require the same level of subsidy or more than trains in the U.S.
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