Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="conrailman"] Why don't Congress give Amtrak 1 Billion Dollars from the Airlines and the Highway Trust Fund, so that 2 Billion in fresh money every year? Back in 1997 they was a bill to give Amtrak 1 cent of the gas tax, but it was ever Vote on or pass in Congress. If that pass in 1997 Amtrak would be rolling in the  money by Now 2011.<img alt="My 2 Cents" src="/TRCCS/emoticons/icon_smile_2cents.gif" /> [/quote] Subsidies distort cost and price mechanisms, thereby leading to suboptimum policy decisions and distorted use.  Hidden cross subsidies are even worse.  Moreover, they are unfair.  Why should a passenger on Greyhound or American Airlines, who is paying a price sufficient to cover the cost of transporting him via a private company that must earn a profit or go out of business, subsidize a rail passenger?   Federal fuel tax monies are currently diverted from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF).  The federal gasoline tax is 18.4 cents per gallon.  Of this amount, two cents goes to the Mass Transit Fund and four cents goes to the Treasury Department for deficit reduction.  This is the major reason why $14.7 billion had to be transferred from the General Fund to the HTF in 2010 to cover federal highway construction and maintenance needs.  Transferring addition funds to Amtrak would make the situation worse. All transport subsidies should be eliminated, and the full cost of each transport mode should be reflected at the price point, i.e. ticket counter, pump, etc.  If this happened, conventional passenger rail, irrespective of who operates it, could be viable in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost to expand the airway and highway systems is prohibitive.  The issue is not saving Amtrak.  It is developing passenger rail where it makes commercial sense.  There is no logical reason why Amtrak should have a monopoly on intercity passenger rail.  Other wannabes should be allowed to compete for the passenger rail markets, although they are not likely to do so unless the economics change substantially.  Assuming Amtrak will be the only game in town for the foreseeable future, it should be rationalized.  Operations should be confined to corridors where it can cover its operating costs under the present regulatory environment and its capital costs if the government were to adopt a no transport subsidy policy.  The first step toward the rationalization of Amtrak would be to discontinue the long distance trains and use the savings to promote enhanced corridor services.  This would eliminate the need for baggage, lounge, and sleeping cars, thereby resulting in significant capital and operating savings. Another step would be to use technology to improve productivity.  This would reduce some of the labor intensity associated with passenger trains.  Assuming passenger rail operates only in high density corridors, Amtrak or any operator could install passenger access systems similar to those found on the Washington METRO, BART, etc., thereby eliminating the cost of collecting tickets on the trains. Ticket taking on the train is a 19th century practice that needs to go the way of the horse and buggy.  A third step would be to eliminate the administrative paper work associated with Amtrak.  For example, Amtrak still sends me a paper ticket every time I take the Texas Eagle from Taylor, Texas.  I don't need it.  The conductor could carry a device similar to the smart meters carried by utility meter readers.  When a passenger boards the train, he could show his identification, and the conductor could check instantly to determine whether he had bought and paid for his transportation. Numerous other steps could be taken that would make it possible for Amtrak or other operators to cover their operating costs where trains make sense.  Moreover, if governments stopped subsidizing other modes of transport, or made their true cost transparent through its pricing mechanisms, passenger rail probably could stand on its own in the markets described above. Undoubtedly, some will respond by claiming that the government has treated Amtrak unfairly by giving vastly greater sums to air and motor transport.  This overlooks the fact that the subsidy per passenger mile for Amtrak is many times greater than that for other modes of transport.  In any case, it is irrelevant.  Those actions are history.  They cannot be reversed any more than the support given to the railroads under the Pacific Railroad Acts can be reversed.  The key question is how do we go forward?  What passenger transport problem is the nation addressing?  And what is the best solution for the United States.  Not France!  Not China! Not Japan!  The United States!
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