Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
Passenger
»
If Amtrak carried 120 million passengers

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="V.Payne"] "Increasing the subsidies for passenger rail so that they are on a par with the perceived subsidies for highways, airways, waterways, etc., is not a good financial strategy."  I guess you don't realize that we will actually be spending more to shore up the Interstate road network in the future than we have in the past. Just a plane jane mill and overlay is going for $1.2 million a route mile every 8-10 years and we can't get out of it as the base will turn to ravel if you keep letting trucks run over it at the current axle loads, leading to even greater rebuilding costs. However, now a lot of structures out there are also needing to be rebuilt, the base is needing a full reconstruction, the geometry doesn't work for the level of usage, where are those urban soundwalls, etc. Further, most of funding for new construction is being borrowed, on the Federal level I listened just three weeks ago when one of the FHWA financial people said that the $8 Billion a year General Fund bailout of the HTF will continue indefinitely as far as she can see. In my area the counties are now bonding projects for thirty years to build new capacity against the state's future federal funds. In other words, the future financial situation is going to be even worse for the HTF.  "Highway-user charges—including motor-fuel taxes, motor—vehicle taxes and fees, and tolls-were the source of 56.3 percent of the $166.0 billion of total revenues for highways and bridges in 2006. The remaining 43.7 percent of revenues came from a number of sources, including local property taxes and assessments, other dedicated taxes, general funds, bond issues, investment income, and other miscellaneous sources"  Note, this leaves out private costs, such as when a developer installs a neighborhod road, and then the federal tax is applied to it though there was no federal role in developing it. It also leaves out government accident costs, early Social Security payments, Medicare, and the whole host of other programs that take care of you when you are really injured in an automobile accident. The most my auto insurance will write my medical limit to be is $100k. Because they are depending on your medical insurance to take over for that $1/2 million hospital bill, but that isn't paid by the vehicle mile is it? There is a definte elasticity of automobile use with respect to price as the recent trends have shown. Now for the coming reconstruction of the interstates some are suggesting to expand the capacity even more, 6 lanes in rural areas instead of 4. Why, if it wasn't even remotely paid for by the users to begin with why should more capacity be added? Further it will just cost even more to overaly that pavement. So you have to set a financial limit! or you will over spend if you have the "big jar of money" mentality. Once you do, why shouldn't the safest, most fuel efficient mode, that has the potential to atract and serve the travel needs for trips between 200-900 miles be funded at the same level? Yes, the actual usage might only be 6-8% of all intercity trips, and maybe 20% in the target distance range, but that is a lot more than currently offered service. Will Amtrak be the provider, maybe not, but if you have a metric then you are set up for competition, not for the lowest overall cost, but the lowest cost per unit of output. [/quote] My main point is to eliminate all subsidies or reduce them to the lowest amount possible. The users (highway, airway, waterway, railway) should pay the cost of what they use through the pricing mechanism was my other key point. If they did passenger rail might be self sustaining in relatively short, high density corridors.  In FY11 the transfer from the U.S. General Fund to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) was $14.7 billion. It was partially offset by the transfer of highway funds from HTF to the Mass Transit Administration and the use of HTF funds for other activities, i.e. Rails to Trails, Administration, etc., leaving the net transfer to HTF of $11.3 billion. The President's Commission on the Deficit (Simpson/Bowles) recommended raising the federal fuel taxes to eliminate the need for the transfer. Hopefully, after the election, sanity will set in, and the next administration will move forward on Simpson/Bowles. The local streets in my community were paid for by the developer and baked into the cost of the houses. No state or federal funds were involved.  The maintenance of the streets is covered by property taxes.  This process, by the way, is the one followed by utilities in Texas.  The cost of underground utilities, which are a common feature in new housing developments in Texas, are baked into the cost of the house as the difference between the cost of standard overhead service and the cost of the underground service. As noted fuel taxes, fees, excise taxes, etc. pay for approximately 55 to 60 per cent of the cost of roadways in the United States.  The gap is closed with property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, transfers from general funds, etc. We the people pay the taxes that go to the general funds and from which the transfers are made to the various highway funds.  Many of the costs that you associate with motoring are soft and difficult to support. But the losses associated with Amtrak, especially the long distance trains, are crystal clear. Amtrak has had more than 40 years to get it right. It has failed miserably.  Numbers crunchers frequently miss an important point regarding human behavior. In many instances people are willing to pay for a more expensive option, i.e. cars and roads vs. trains and public transit, because of the intrinsic value baked into them. As long as they know what they are paying for, that is a good outcome. Why should we not fund intercity passenger rail on a par with highways, airways, etc.  I can think of two reasons.  First, we are broke. Second, it is not what the people, at least in my neck of the woods, want.  At least not now!  They want I-35 to be expanded, which is what is happening. Whether they would change their minds if the true cost of driving is passed through to them as the pump is unknown, but I don't look for Texans to give up their cars in the near future.
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