Efforts in Europe to encourage rail travel over other modes

[CMStPnP]

Interesting changes.....

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-transport-minister-considers-cutting-vat-train-tickets

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2019/09/19/dutch-airline-klm-to-replace-a-plane-with-a-train/#48c394a17ffb

 

[Gramp]

Here are RG Int'l announcements shown on Blue Streak's post about wire teardowns.

https://www.railwaygazette.com/policy/db-to-order-more-high-speed-trains-as-government-cuts-vat-on-fares/54627.article

https://www.railwaygazette.com/high-speed/klm-replaces-plane-with-high-speed-train/54577.article

 

 

[54light15]

Here's what's happening in Sweden:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-19/-flying-shame-is-now-starting-to-ground-swedish-business-travel

[richg1998]

My second daughter just returned from Europe on a business trip.

The ICE train ride she said was first class right to her seat.

She remembers seeing 165.5 MPH on the speed indicator. It might have been Metric and she converted. Not sure.

A local business associate complained in an urban are the speed as only 80 MPH.

A picture of the engine she sent almost looked like a jet plane.

I did Google it.

I have seen a program where the driver closes passenger car vents on high speed trains at tunnels because of pressure changes.

Rich

[charlie hebdo]

She converted from kmh.  The DB ICE trains are great. 

[54light15]

I recently rode the 4th version of the ICE train from Mulhouse to Munich. 285 kms an hour was shown on a screen in the middle of the car. Smooth as silk and passing cars on the Autobahn like they were parked. 

[richg1998]

charlie hebdo

She converted from kmh.  The DB ICE trains are great. 

 

I am sure she did. First time traveling by train.

She usually flies. Works in Boston for major corporation and travels to Europe  occasionally.

Looks like Shanghai trip coming up this year.

Rich

[54light15]

The terms "flying shame" and "train pride" can only lead to good things. Sleeping cars making a comeback in Europe is one example. Increased taxes on short flights, lower taxes on rail tickets. It all seems good to me. 

[York1]

54light15

The terms "flying shame" and "train pride" can only lead to good things.

 

Why?

[54light15]

Why? Anything that promotes rail travel and is effective at that is a good thing.  

[York1]

54light15

  Why? Anything that promotes rail travel and is effective at that is a good thing.  

 

So if I want to fly, I have to pay higher taxes because you want to ride a train?

[Miningman]

Yes. That's what's coming. There will be a hefty environmental tax levied on flying. Be careful who you vote for in the future. Depends where you stand on the issue.

[54light15]

It is going that way. In Europe, anyway. Here, all the candidates for prime minister (except the conservative) have all pledged big money for transit projects. Will we get a high-speed train from Toronto to Ottawa and Montreal? I'll believe it when it happens. 

[charlie hebdo]

Miningman

Yes. That's what's coming. There will be a hefty environmental tax levied on flying. Be careful who you vote for in the future. Depends where you stand on the issue.

 

Most folks prefer to avoid the outrageous costs of living in a world altered in a  severely damaging way.  Some prefer a short-term and selfish denial.

[York1]

charlie hebdo

Most folks prefer to avoid the outrageous costs of living in a world altered in a  severely damaging way.  Some prefer a short-term and selfish denial.

 

Do you mean those folks who flew in 1,500 private jet flights to the Davos summit to discuss climate change?

[charlie hebdo]

York1

 

 

charlie hebdo

Most folks prefer to avoid the outrageous costs of living in a world altered in a  severely damaging way.  Some prefer a short-term and selfish denial.

 

 

 

Do you mean those folks who flew in 1,500 private jet flights to the Davos summit to discuss climate change?

 

Red herrings for those who choose to ignore facts in favor of some specious conspiracy nonsense.

 

 

 

[York1]

charlie hebdo

Red herrings for those who choose to ignore facts in favor of some specious conspiracy nonsense.

 

Now that's a mouthful.

[charlie hebdo]

"If the metaphor fits,  swallow it!"

[my apologies to the original aphorism]

[York1]

charlie hebdo

"If the metaphor fits,  swallow it!"

[my apologies to the original aphorism]

 

 

When I went on blood pressure medicine, that's one of the things I was forced to give up.

[n012944]

charlie hebdo

 

 

Miningman

Yes. That's what's coming. There will be a hefty environmental tax levied on flying. Be careful who you vote for in the future. Depends where you stand on the issue.

 

 

 

 

Most folks prefer to avoid the outrageous costs of living in a world altered in a  severely damaging way.  Some prefer a short-term and selfish denial.

 

A recent poll shows most people don't want to pay very much to "avoid the outrageous cost of living in a world altered in a servely damaging way."

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-climatechange/americans-demand-climate-action-reuters-poll-idUSKCN1TR15W

[charlie hebdo]

You can pay today or pay a lot more tomorrow.  Either way,  we'll all pay a lot in many, many costs. 

[Flintlock76]

54light15

It is going that way. In Europe, anyway. Here, all the candidates for prime minister (except the conservative) have all pledged big money for transit projects. Will we get a high-speed train from Toronto to Ottawa and Montreal? I'll believe it when it happens. 

 

And politicians and governmental officials can be just as faddish as high-schoolers, going along with "The Program" just because it's popular or the percieved thing to do.  Many, many of them, everywhere.  Never forget that.

Also, there may be a cynical undertone to "Flying Shame."  Most foreign airlines are heavily subsidized by their respective governments, as are their rail services.  It's probably a certainty that running trains is a lot cheaper than running aircraft.

[daveklepper]

"I want to fly, so do I have to pay taxes so you can ride a train?"

"Absolutely, because I pay even greater taxes so you can fly."

That is one possible answer.  Airports do not pay real-estate taxes.  Railroads do, and even Amtrak does pay some compensation to the towns its RoW runs through.

[54light15]

I don't know about here, but in Europe, diesel locomotive fuel is taxed, aviation fuel is not. Maybe that will change. 

[JPS1]

daveklepper

 "I want to fly, so do I have to pay taxes so you can ride a train?"

"Absolutely, because I pay even greater taxes so you can fly."

That is one possible answer.  Airports do not pay real-estate taxes.  Railroads do, and even Amtrak does pay some compensation to the towns its RoW runs through. 

In FY17 the average federal operating subsidy for Amtrak was approximately 2 cents per passenger mile.  On a fully allocated cost basis, Amtrak cost the federal taxpayers approximately 14 cents on average per passenger mile.     

 

For the long-distance trains the approximate operating subsidy was 19 cents per passenger mile.  Assuming the long-distance trains wear 10 percent of Amtrak’s capital expenses, i.e. depreciation, interest, etc., the fully allocate cost to the taxpayers was approximately 22 cents per passenger mile.

 

Using information from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund Fact Sheet for 2017, as well as Table 1, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the average federal subsidy per passenger mile for domestic flights, as well as overseas flights arriving and departing from the United States, was .00016 cents per passenger mile.

 

The actual transfer from the General Fund to AATF in 2017 was $852,852,000.  But I used the 2018 number because the 2017 transfer was an outlier.  I also assumed that the total transfer from the General Fund to AAFT was to support the controlling of commercial airline operations.  In fact, this is wrong. 

 

Commercial airlines account for approximately 32 percent of tower operations and 35 percent of high-altitude operations – over Flight Level 18. 

 

Using the 2017 transfer plus the Grants in Aid for Airports, adjusted proportionally for operations, the average subsidy was .00094 cents per passenger mile. 

 

Airports don’t pay property taxes for a good reason.  Having the government tax itself - all commercial airports in the U.S. are owned by a government authority - would not make any sense.  However, the tens of thousands of businesses found on the nation’s airports, i.e. parking lots, restaurants, FBO operators, etc., pay significant federal, state, and local taxes. 

 

Amtrak pays no federal taxes.  The host railroads are not allowed to include any pass-through taxes in their billings for hosting Amtrak’s trains. 

 

I have never seen any publicly available Amtrak financial statement showing that the company makes voluntary payments to any government entity. 

[York1]

daveklepper

"I want to fly, so do I have to pay taxes so you can ride a train?"

"Absolutely, because I pay even greater taxes so you can fly."

 

 

Dave, here is my original quote with an important word you left out: higher.

 

York1

So if I want to fly, I have to pay higher taxes because you want to ride a train?

 

 

I have no problem paying taxes to support transportation.

 

I do have a problem with a government trying to discourage one convenient, fast, safe, and economical mode of transportation for another more expensive, inconvenient, slow, and limited-availability mode.

 

 

[York1]

daveklepper

That is one possible answer.  Airports do not pay real-estate taxes.  Railroads do, and even Amtrak does pay some compensation to the towns its RoW runs through.

 

While I'm at it, I can't tell you how many times it's been stated on these forums about the airlines and trucking industries taking advantage of the government through the free use of highways and airports.

 

Let's all remember these rail lines were laid by companies that were given, by the government, millions of acres of land not just to run rail lines, but to sell for the enrichment of their owners.

[Flintlock76]

Have to disagree with you on the last one Mr. York, although I don't have an issue with anything else you've said.

Those weren't land gifts to the railroads, they were land grants.  Strictly loans, they had to paid for one way or another, usually by hauling government people, freight, mail, or military personnel at reduced rates.  It's an old misconception, but the railroads didn't get the land free. 

[cx500]

York1

Let's all remember these rail lines were laid by companies that were given, by the government, millions of acres of land not just to run rail lines, but to sell for the enrichment of their owners.

A more accurate phrasing would be "given, by the government, millions of acres of WORTHLESS land".  It is now worth quite a lot, but that is because the coming of the railroad gave it, and the rest of the land the government still owned, that value by opening up effective transportation.   In Canada much of the land grant was sold off at very low prices as soon as possible to encourage settlement.  For a railroad to survive it needed traffic, so it was a higher priority to get the area developed and shipping goods.  Obviously they would retain larger parcels where a city was expected to form, but that was the exception.

Furthermore, only some railroads benefited from land grants, mostly in the western frontier for the original lines.  For later branches and in the east they often had to purchase the right-of-way from existing land owners.

John

[York1]

Thanks for the correction.  Sorry about that.  I should have done some research before posting.