On The issue of Subsidies

[John WR]

tomtom76

The point I was trying to make is that when the Federal government starts controlling things (i.e., what form of transportation should get a boost in the form of government money) I think it is difficult to determine if it is really working.

I don't see that there is a problem in determining whether or not Federal initiatives are working.  For example, it is clear to me that the interstate highway system while overall providing important highway connections between cities has at the same time gutted many of our cities themselves leaving us with horrendous problems.   The problem is that once this massive destruction is caused there is not much that can be done about it.  

Also, it certainly is possible to move to another state if people are unhappy with the state where they live. For example, the taxes in my state, New Jersey, are so high that there is a constant stream of retired people who leave to live in states with lower taxes.  However, it is also possible to leave the country if people so choose.  Many Americans who are retired have moved to Mexico.  

[oltmannd]

John WR

oltmannd

Trying to objectively level the playing field is a fools errand.  

I'm not so sure about that, Don.  When I began riding trains in the 50's I never ever saw a woman or a member of a minority group collecting tickets on a train.  Now it is quite common to see both.  I don't say the playing field is now perfectly level but I think a lot of the hills have been greatly diminished and the valleys largely filled in.  

John

Um, sure.  But we were talking about the economics of transportation subsidies.  Was this supposed to be an analogy?  I'm missing it....

[tomtom76]

John WR

tomtom76

I agree 100%, though I think the federal government needs to end all subsidies. I think that subsidies are a way of spreading around favors and make the government more corrupt. It would be better if any subsidies come only from the individual states. It is much easier to move to a different state than to move to a different country.

I don't follow your line of thinking here.  If it is wrong for the Federal Government to give a subsidy wouldn't is be equally wrong for a state government to give that subsidy?

The point I was trying to make is that when the Federal government starts controlling things (i.e., what form of transportation should get a boost in the form of government money) I think it is difficult to determine if it is really working. I see governments as basically a Walmart-like store. One of the ways a Walmart determines it is doing good is by attracting patrons from other stores. The patrons will go shop at the stores that give them what they want. If Walmart does not give the customers what they want they may start shopping at Target. However if the only store available is Walmart, people have no choice where to shop. Walmart will be selling things and people to a certain point will have to buy it. Walmart will think they are making people happy because people keep on shopping there, even though they have no choice. However, if Target, Sears, Kmart and other stores are available Walmart will need to always do their best to make people happy. I the the Federal government as a Walmart all by themselves. People keep on shopping there only because they have to. The states however, can be like 50 different stores that people can shop at. 

The point I am trying to make is that if a state makes me unhappy with how they spend their tax dollars, I can go to another state. It is harder to go to another country.

I hope that I explained a little better what I was trying to say.

[John WR]

tomtom76

I agree 100%, though I think the federal government needs to end all subsidies. I think that subsidies are a way of spreading around favors and make the government more corrupt. It would be better if any subsidies come only from the individual states. It is much easier to move to a different state than to move to a different country.

I don't follow your line of thinking here.  If it is wrong for the Federal Government to give a subsidy wouldn't is be equally wrong for a state government to give that subsidy?

[John WR]

oltmannd

Trying to objectively level the playing field is a fools errand.  

I'm not so sure about that, Don.  When I began riding trains in the 50's I never ever saw a woman or a member of a minority group collecting tickets on a train.  Now it is quite common to see both.  I don't say the playing field is now perfectly level but I think a lot of the hills have been greatly diminished and the valleys largely filled in.  

John

[tomtom76]

ontheBNSF

In my view either transportation subsidies should be ended for all modes of transport with regulations reduced or the government provides a somewhat equal amount to each perspective industry.

I agree 100%, though I think the federal government needs to end all subsidies. I think that subsidies are a way of spreading around favors and make the government more corrupt. It would be better if any subsidies come only from the individual states. It is much easier to move to a different state than to move to a different country.

[oltmannd]

Trying to objectively level the playing field is a fools errand.  

What is "level" depends on where you draw the boundaries.  Do you include changes induced from the subisdies?  Over what period of time?  How far do you go looking at indirect subsidies?  When is a "benefit" a "subsidy" or vise versa.

All we will get is a lot of heat and noise.

Better to just look at things incrementally and do cost/benefit analysis of alternatives.  It still can get a bit squishy, but you wind up actually doing something - or avoid doing something (if "do nothing" wins) and progress actually occurs.

[henry6]

There will never be an end to either subsidies nor to regulations of any and all businesses.  Businesses are themselves a major reason for both in that they ask the government for aid in form of tax relief, easement, abatement, eminent domain privileges, permissions, etc. and take competitors and those in opposition or problematical to court for a ruling which becomes either law or regulation.  Then they complain about regulations and we complain about subsidies.  

[John WR]

ontheBNSF

In my view either transportation subsidies should be ended for all modes of transport with regulations reduced or the government provides a somewhat equal amount to each perspective industry.

In an ideal world there would be an over all transportation policy with each mode of transportation factored into it.  But that is just not going to happen.  

[ontheBNSF]

Airline Subsidies - This mostly comes in the form of the FAA budget being 30% funded by general fund appropriations. EAS airlines provide directly subsidized service to rural communities and small airports. The TSA is also mostly funded by general fund appropriations. The government also provides various kinds of insurance to the airline industry as well. Airlines for years didn't pay fees for airport usage until 1971 Sources http://tsanewsblog.com/1625/news/is-tsa-just-another-airline-subsidy/ http://www.laane.org/downloads/ShortchangedStudy.pdf http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2010/11/federal-airline-subsidies-in-airline.html http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advocacy/resources/subsidies/transport.htm

Road Subsidies - The way revenue is extracted for the purpose of building and maintaining roads pretty much means anyone who drives pays for there usage whether it be on a tollroad, parking lot or city street. "User fees" with all revenues accounted for being devoted towards road usage would still not full cover the costs of it. Many billions of dollars are also spent by government on R&D for "Green" automobiles.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_000010.htm

http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/direct-expenditures/highways/funding/analysis/
http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Do-Roads-Pay-for-Themselves.pdf

Waterway Subsidies - Data on waterways is a bit hard to find but a large chunk of waterways is not funded by users of such systems http://www.iatp.org/files/MYTH_Barges_are_the_most_fuel_efficient_mode_o.pdf

http://www.iwla.org/index.php?ht=d/sp/i/5034/pid/5034

In my view either transportation subsidies should be ended for all modes of transport with regulations reduced or the government provides a somewhat equal amount to each perspective industry. Unless more information is known about the issue will largely remain Amtrak and public transit is an evil soviet enterprise intervening in the markets while everything else is wonderful free market rugged individualism which is what the conversation has been for a while. "Fuzzy math" is used to make it look like Amtrak is really expensive since they use units rather than just expenses because Amtrak has less miles traveled and less users it makes it appear more subsidized even though it probably around the same amount on an expenses/revenue basis and less on a pure dollars and cents basis. With local transit systems it differs many have recovery rates of 60% such as the San Diego MTS system, 20% with lower performing ones, TTC being one of the highest at around 80% or more, and the New York Subway has around 70%. What are considered fees on Transit or Amtrak is not being indirectly siphoned from other sources. Essentially the question we should ask politicians is why is it ok for other modes of transport to get money yet passenger rail gets very little real in dollars while at the same time is expected to make money? Discussion thus needs to shift towards getting wheels on the track and getting projects off the ground.