Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="daveklepper"] Sam, you know you are distorting the argument.   Long distance truckers pay between one-third and one-half the cost of the wear and tear the cause on highways.  I've seen these figures in the British publication Transportation, published by a London University, as well as elsewhere, with research to back up the assertation.   But I agree with your assertation that what is important is what passenger trains make sense.   But sometimes even subsidized trains make sense,   Even certain long distance ones. Railroads don't pay fuel taxes because they maintain their own rights of way.   And they pay real estate taxies on the RofW, which truckers do not. [/quote] As was pointed out in the Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study (1982), which was replicated in 2000 using 1997 data, different classes of trucks produce different levels of wear and tear on the nation's highways. To assume, for example, that a Frito-Lay 18 wheeler, which is carrying potato chips, has the same impact on a highway as a heavy fuel truck is incorrect.   As I noted in my post, most students of transportation know that heavy trucks cause more wear and tear costs to roadways than the highway authorities recover in fuel taxes, licensing fees, etc. to maintain them. But the spread, depending on class of vehicle, is not has high as you claim. Moreover, the methodologies for collecting the data are suspect, at least when it comes to making an absolute claim.   Railroads don't pay fuel taxes because they are classified as off-road users. Just like farmers! Again, do the fuel taxes paid by truckers, along with all the other taxes that they pay, equal the property taxes paid by the nation's freight railroads? Truckers and railroads pay property taxes, inventory taxes, excise taxes, etc. on their terminals, etc.  So the apples to apples comparison would be the fuel taxes, licensing fees, etc. paid by truckers, which go to the federal and state governments for road construction and maintenance, compared to the net property taxes and maintenance costs for the railroad rights-of-way.  The railroads can deduct the property taxes and maintenance expenses from their income tax returns. Moreover, they can and do negotiate the amount of property taxes that they are required to pay whereas the truckers pay the fuel taxes and cannot negotiate them.  If I get some time, I am going to look into it and see how it comes out.  It may be that the net costs are very close. Subsidies to, airlines, bus companies, motorists, etc. have nothing to do with the question of where do  passenger trains make sense.  They should not be subsidized anymore than airlines, bus operators, and motorists are subsidized.  None of them should be subsidized. There is nothing holy about passenger trains.  Long distance trains make no sense whatsoever.  Especially for a country that is $16 trillion in debt and facing more than $46 trillion in unfunded liabilities!
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