Why Amtrak hasn't kept up with market share

[Anonymous]

Some have asked on this forum why Amtrak hasn't kept up with growing population.

This chart from NARP shows how much money the feds have thrown at air and highways, while cconsistently cutting Amtrak funding.
http://www.narprail.org/default.asp?p=resources%2Ehtm
*

Purchasing power for federal highway programs more than doubled (increased 113%) from 1982 to 2004.

It also more than doubled (increased 149%) for aviation, but passenger rail decreased 27% -- as a society we get what we pay for, so it's little wonder that passenger rail has not been able to increase its market share among the other modes.

"You can't ride a train that's not there."

--
Throwing money at everything doesn't solve all problems but when AIR and HIGHWAYS have had BILLIONS thrown at them, WHILE RAIL HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY stabbed and told to be self-sufficient by politicians who take bribes from highway and aviation interests, you soon realize money's part of the problem.

The above statement from NARP shows why there isn't at least TWO trains on a route like the Calif. Zephur route. Actually, there should be more, with one running through DES MOINES or because of bad track, on the line through AMES through Nebraska and North Platte to Cheyenne and on to Idaho and Seattle.

Amtrak isn't perfect. It's management has made many mistakes. But in Washington, money speaks louder than words. And lack of money - and mismanagement by federal lawmakers - has harmed Amtrak.

Take Pres. Carter (and later Clinton) ORDERING Amtrak to cut routes. Not because of ridership, logic or anything inherently wrong with people wanting to take the train (despite experts on this forum claiming passenger rail is outmoded. The same argument might be used against their beloved freights if RRs are compared to trucks - trucks have clearly made freight rail outmoded. Right.) , but because the DOT wanted to save money.

Amtrak therefore to satisfy politicals stopped running several KEY trains in important regions - like the LONE STAR from CHI to Oklahoma and HOU.
It was the 7th most popular LD train at the time that suffered from FEDERAL INTERFERENCE.

Think if that train - and the CHI-FLORIDA and the PGH-STL train and the second MSP-SEA train had been in existence now, as well as the DENVER-SEA and SALT LAKE-VEGAS-LA train, there would be many more Amtrak riders and the system's losses would have been a lot smaller.

But Congress and the White House continues to interfrere. Now, Bush - who can't stop dumping billions into a foreign war - is aggravating the situation by singling-out Amtrak.

Let's introduce something called THE TRANSPORTATION FREE-MARKET bill that requires ALL forms of transportation to be subsidy free. See how long that idea would last.
.

This NARP page has a lot of good info and resources.
http://www.narprail.org/default.asp?p=resources%2Ehtm

I urge everyone interested in preserving and expanding passenger rail to join NARP, your state organization and get involved.

------------------

http://www.narprail.org/default.asp?p=resources%2Ehtm

[CG9602]

hmmm. . . .Sounds fascinating. Let's hear more. As long as we're at it, perhaps we should be writing our Elected Representatives about requesting that all forms of transport be subsidy-free. Either that, or at least level the playing field to a degree.

[andrewjonathon]

I don't think it is quite as simple as arguing the funding hasn't been kept up. This discussion is a little like the discussing of what came first the chicken or the egg. For example, has funding for passenger rail been flat because the demand for passenge rail is flat or is demand for passenger rail flat because funding hasn't been increased? That is difficult to determine. With everyone demanding the government to fund all sorts of programs passenger rail has to justify itself as deserving. Certainly there has been (rightly or wrongly) there is high demand for highways and air traffic that can be used to justify the increased expenditures. I think it is a little ridiculous to argue that two trains per day should be running on the California Zepher route when much of the year the existing train has excess capacity.

By way, do you know how much of the expenditure on highways is paid for through fuel taxes?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by andrewjonathon

I think it is a little ridiculous to argue that two trains per day should be running on the California Zepher route when much of the year the existing train has excess capacity.

By way, do you know how much of the expenditure on highways is paid for through fuel taxes?

Motor fuel taxes - so-called user fees - only pay half or so of the bill. And that doesn't even touch traffic enforcement, traffic lights, law enforcement, DUI patrols, court costs, snow removal and the hundreds of other hidden subsidies.

Guess what? This country actually spends more removing animal dung or snow from highways than passenger rail.

It's not ridiculous at all to advocate more frequencies on LD routes. Most routes could use a second frequency, one timed 12 hours or so apart, so cities like Salt Lake and Omaha and others that have lousy boarding times could have better times and more travel options. After all, you don't have just one flight once a day departing your local airport.

Amtrak's former product line manager for the CZ stated in a recent NARP meeting that there was enough demand for a second CZ, an all- first-class, sleeper line, for those paying a premium.

Certainly, demand exists for trains from DEN to SEA and SLC to Vegas and LA.
Just because there isn't a train there NOW doesn't mean there isn't demand.

Ditto for CHI-Florida, KC-Dallas, Denver-Dallas, a 2nd MSP-SEA via southern Montana, CHI-ATL, ATL-FL., PGH-STL, and some others.

A good passenger rail map would be similar to the high-speed Interstate highway system the goverment built entirely out of federal funds - NOT user fees.

More trains to more places = less losses that are spread to more trains generating more money from more passengers.

[andrewjonathon]

Based on my Amtrak travel experiences if you travel on Amtrak long distance services during the holidays the trains are jammed but if you travel outside of the holidays or summer the empty seats oftern out number those that are occupied. An airline with load factors at the level that many Amtrak trains operate at either will turn the route into a seasonal route or they will cut capacity as most airlines have done in the last few years i n response to the downturn in airline traffic. As a tax payer I certainly have no interest in increasing the $50 subsidy per person to Amtrak long distance trains while at the same time my daily 35 mile commute takes 1.5 hours each way because of a lack of road capacity, lanes for express buses and commuter rail options. I think the government has far more pressing problems to solve than adding a second CZ (all first class or not) especially while the first one still has capacity available.

[Modelcar]

...Good arguments both ways....but no one can run a public transportation service no matter what kind it is....without proper equipment and frequency and much more, and expect much success. That's been the story of Amtrak from the beginning and through the present.

[Junctionfan]

If you build it, they will come.

If it sucks, they will go away.

If you fix it, they will eventually come back.

If they like it, news will spread.

If others hear how good it is, they might come.


That's basically how I see it.

[kehoesj]

Now, more than ever, diversity in our country's transportation policies are needed. Unfortunately, there are few in Washington who would have the courage to present a bold initiative that would bring rail back into the equation of support. Freight railroads don't want it, so it falls back to who? Certainly the oil companies make more money on the aviation fuel consumed, so why would they pursue it. Now that passengers are being treated like cattle on the airways, you would think that more would want alternative travel options. If air passengers had to pay the "true" price of a ticket, rail certainly would be back. Look at all the bankrupt air carriers - sounds similar to rail passenger service back in the 60's - railroads losing money on most routes. Gridlock on the highways - build more highways, even though we can't fix the current ones. I long for a leader in the political arena who sees the big picture! Our European folks certainly see it, and have implimented alternative travel options.

[Paul Milenkovic]

A lot of arguments can be made for subsidies of various modes, pro and con, and as to whether the different modes are getting their fair share of subsidies, and so on.

I also think we need to go back to Oltmand's post on another thread as to what Amtrak is supposed to do. If it is supposed to reduce dependence on foreign oil, carrying 1 percent of riders isn't doing it. I suppose there isn't much support under current politics for this either, but increasing CAFE (fuel economy standards) on SUV's may be a much bigger bang for the social-spending buck than increasing Amtrak funding.

I am also beginning to think that subsidy for rail should fit the pattern of subsidy for the other modes: the states and feds have to both ante up. Yes, there is the alleged federal pork of some states getting more than their share of highways because they have a congressional delgation with seniority and that cares about roads, and yes there is the NEC problem of 9 states having to cooperate, but my proposed system has worked for highways. If the states have to kick in money, it cuts down on the John McCain issue of states without rail carping about the states that have it and all of the congressional micro-management of Amtrak -- want rail in your state? Come up with some of the bucks!

As to states not having tax revenue, they have tax revenue to pay for highways, and if they think they get better bang for the buck building roads, I gets thats the deal. Trains magazine argued that the California corridor rail projects is a good model, and while these trains are subsidized, the people in charge do their homework in justifying the subsidy as providing relief to highway congestion and more cost-effective too.

As to the "easement" Amtrak has by Federal law to run their trains on the freight railroads, the freight railroads, for economic reasons, are providing a level of speed of service that is incompatible with passenger trains. On the other hand, the freight railroads are becoming capacity constrained for their traffic growth, they don't have the bucks to put in more track, and a lot of the interstates are choked with the number of trucks required.

Perhaps the new model should be that the Feds supply infrastructure in the way they do highways and waterways, and the deal for that infrastructure is that the freight railroads supply a certain number of slots/grade of service over the lines that get that assistance in exchange.

There is one area where the preservationist mentality is essential: rail line abandonments. Once lines are abandoned and turned over to other uses, you can't get them back, and we are currently gridlocked for any new transportation corridor development whether it is highway, rail, monorail, maglev, or whatever. Those right aways are national treasures.

Apart from that, rail advocates are in preservationist mode, and the "Bush is evil", "highway lobby gets all the money", "trains haven't been given the chance", "trains are a lifeline" arguments have been made (fill in the blanks with different names) for over 30 years now.

I think it is time to try something different, and maybe the proposal to do 390 million for the NEC is the start of something. Instead of fighting for maintaining passenger rail subsidy by arguing "they are taking away my train", how about taking the 390 mil as a starting point and say, "OK, the 390 mil for the NEC is good, we have a rail infrastructure project in our state that will relieve highway congestion of truck traffic and provide segments of commuter rail to relieve rush hour congestion, how about wese get some of that kind of money too."

[jsoderq]

First, regardless of what you believe, the demand is not there. Having flown extensively and traveled by rail since the 60's, I can tell you I rarely road a plane that had more than a few empty seats, even on commuter runs. On the train, unless it was a holiday or weekend run to a college town, there were and are always many empty seats on a train. Equipment utilization is something no one seems to realize - with a plane, you can get more than one trip a day even on cross country flights. Change the crew, clean and fuel the plane, inspect it, and off you go. A cross country train trip takes days and you have to add time to prep it, service it, and turn it around at the other end. So a loco or car gets one trip every couple days. Even shorter runs, trains will run into say Chicago and get outbound the same day but only one trip. ( I know, commuter trains, but they are generally not Amtrak). Airplanes also utilize equipment for quite a bit of charters, which is unheard of with trains. Also freight railroads hate Amtrak and do as little as possible for them resulting in delays and general interference in operations, hence the success of Amtrak in the corridor where they own the track and the freight stays off for ther most part. The problem with Amtrak is the same problem railroads have competing with trucks - you just can't get from here to there with a train.

[DSchmitt]

www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=320&sequence=7

In 1995 user fees paid 80%+ of the costs for State and Interstate Highways. These are the roads which have been determined to be of state and/or national importance and included in the highway systems.

The overall share for all roads that is paid by user fees is about 60%.

The share for local streets and roads paid by user fees was only about 26% Local streets and road serve homes, schools, busineses, etc. They would be necessary even if the highway systems and the automobile did not exist.

Federal spending on highways comes from the Highway Trust Fund. The money in this fund comes 100% from highway user fees. The money is allocated approx 95% to highways, 5% to mass transit (including rail even though rail does not contribute).
Since this is what most people mean when they say the Federal government is subsidizing highways, it is clear no subsidy exists at the Federal level .

The gas tax is not the only user fee, just the most talked about. About 15% of the gas tax is allocated to mass transit.

States also have Highway Trust Funds for revenue from highway user fees, but the situation is more complicated. Some State use part of the highway user fees for non-transportation purposes, and General Fund money may be used for transportation.

Local governments are the losers as far as user fees are concerned. Traditionally local roads have been funded from other sources.

Benificiaries of highway user fees that do not pay them include rail, pedrestrian and bycycle.

I have not seen any numbers on how much is spent accomodating pedestrians and bicycles, but most highways include facilities for them.

I doubt the overall picture has changed much since 95.

[Anonymous]

What I thought was appaling was the federal government - another in its boneheaded moves to drive passengers away from rail and to highways and air - yes it was a plan - was its stupid taxing of rail passengers to pay for airport construction!

What utter nonsense.

The feds taxing rail passengers to bulid the airline industry.

This fact and many others are found here.
http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advocacy/resources/subsidies/transport.htm

Forget anything about a level playing field. The deck has been stacked from the start..

--

About User Fees... they don't pay the bills
User fees only account for about 60% of highway spending by all levels of government. The rest comes from non-users and in 1990, non-highway users subsidized roads at the rate of $18 billion per year. -Source: Highway Statistics 1990,
Tables HF-10 and SMT, Federal Highway Administration

Air passengers did not pay user fees between 1963 and 1971, ironically the year Amtrak began operation. "Airport and airway development costs incurred prior to the assessment of user charges in 1971 have been treated as sunk costs, none of which will have been or will be paid for by air carriers...these sunk costs total $15.8 billion." -Source: Study of Federal Aid to Rail Transportation, USDOT 1977

Railroad passengers paid for airport construction through special tax!
Between 1942 and 1962 a 10% rail ticket tax was levied on railroads as a war measure to discourage unnecessary travel. This tax generated revenues of over $5 Billion, which went into the general revenue fund and ironically, was used in some
cases to build more airports and highways. In today's dollars, that probably would amount to about $100 billion and one wonders what would have happened if that money had been invested in rail service after the war. By the time, the tax was lifted, the passenger train was already on the ropes. -Source: report by USDOT Secretary William Coleman, 1977

Air passengers also paid a federal passenger tax, also as a war emergency measure, but the government was busily investing in air facilities at five times the rate at which taxes were being collected. -Source: Study of Federal Aid to Rail
Transportation, USDOT, Jan 1977

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier
[--

About User Fees... they don't pay the bills
User fees only account for about 60% of highway spending by all levels of government. The rest comes from non-users and in 1990, non-highway users subsidized roads at the rate of $18 billion per year. -Source: Highway Statistics 1990,
Tables HF-10 and SMT, Federal Highway Administration

If you read my post, just above yours, you will see that I agree that user fees pay for only 40% 60% of the road system. However the Federal share of the cost for Highways is 100% user fee.

States pay their share with 80% user fees (including what they get from the Federal government.).

Local roads are only 26% user fee (including what they get from the Feds and State) While the local streets and roads are not paid for by user fees, they are paid for by the people who use/and or benefit them. In California new local roads are built by developers at theit expence. Upgrades to existing roads are often done by developers or paid for by developer fees. Some Highway (including Freeway) upgrades are paid for by developers too. This of course increases the developers cost, which they hope to recoup from customers, but it releaves the taxpayer of some of the direct costs for the road system.

Taking all this into account, the highway subsidy is no where near 40%. It may even be in reality non-exsistent since Highway user fees are also used for non-highway purposes.

Most traffic on the Highways is actually local and regional. Perhaps Highway funding should be taken out of the Federal arena. Do away with all Federal funding, end the Federal gas tax and all other Federal user fees. Then let the States determine own highway and road needs, and how to fund them.

[Anonymous]

Long distance passenger trains are obsolete for the most part because most people are not willing to pay enough to justify running them. It would be the same if a few people were demanding that we run long distance stage coaches. Few would pay enough to justify running them either. There is no reason taxpayers should pay to run passenger trains as a means of recreation for a few people.

One thing said that is correct is that there should be no subsidies for any means of transportation. Everyone should pay their own way. If people are not willing to pay their own way, then the service would probably not be offered and should not operated at taxpayer expense.

Larry

[Junctionfan]

Actually Amtrak doesn't suck so much as the people that underfund it do.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier

Some have asked on this forum why Amtrak hasn't kept up with growing population.

This chart from NARP shows how much money the feds have thrown at air and highways, while cconsistently cutting Amtrak funding.
http://www.narprail.org/default.asp?p=resources%2Ehtm
*

Purchasing power for federal highway programs more than doubled (increased 113%) from 1982 to 2004.

It also more than doubled (increased 149%) for aviation, but passenger rail decreased 27% -- as a society we get what we pay for, so it's little wonder that passenger rail has not been able to increase its market share among the other modes.

"You can't ride a train that's not there."

--
Throwing money at everything doesn't solve all problems but when AIR and HIGHWAYS have had BILLIONS thrown at them, WHILE RAIL HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY stabbed and told to be self-sufficient by politicians who take bribes from highway and aviation interests, you soon realize money's part of the problem.

The above statement from NARP shows why there isn't at least TWO trains on a route like the Calif. Zephur route. Actually, there should be more, with one running through DES MOINES or because of bad track, on the line through AMES through Nebraska and North Platte to Cheyenne and on to Idaho and Seattle.

Amtrak isn't perfect. It's management has made many mistakes. But in Washington, money speaks louder than words. And lack of money - and mismanagement by federal lawmakers - has harmed Amtrak.

Take Pres. Carter (and later Clinton) ORDERING Amtrak to cut routes. Not because of ridership, logic or anything inherently wrong with people wanting to take the train (despite experts on this forum claiming passenger rail is outmoded. The same argument might be used against their beloved freights if RRs are compared to trucks - trucks have clearly made freight rail outmoded. Right.) , but because the DOT wanted to save money.

Amtrak therefore to satisfy politicals stopped running several KEY trains in important regions - like the LONE STAR from CHI to Oklahoma and HOU.
It was the 7th most popular LD train at the time that suffered from FEDERAL INTERFERENCE.

Think if that train - and the CHI-FLORIDA and the PGH-STL train and the second MSP-SEA train had been in existence now, as well as the DENVER-SEA and SALT LAKE-VEGAS-LA train, there would be many more Amtrak riders and the system's losses would have been a lot smaller.

But Congress and the White House continues to interfrere. Now, Bush - who can't stop dumping billions into a foreign war - is aggravating the situation by singling-out Amtrak.

Let's introduce something called THE TRANSPORTATION FREE-MARKET bill that requires ALL forms of transportation to be subsidy free. See how long that idea would last.
.

This NARP page has a lot of good info and resources.
http://www.narprail.org/default.asp?p=resources%2Ehtm

I urge everyone interested in preserving and expanding passenger rail to join NARP, your state organization and get involved.

------------------

http://www.narprail.org/default.asp?p=resources%2Ehtm

The subsidy needs to be normalized by population and/or passenger miles to see if we are getting a good return on our tax dollar. I think Amtrak comes off looking poorly when you do this.

But, I think you can make a good case that Amtrak is undercapitalized.

However, in their current form, they are very inefficient service providers.

So, if we want more money for Amtrak, Amtrak will have to change or at least have the appearance of change. If you want more rail service, Amtrak's status quo is a non-starter.

[Modelcar]

....If we would have funded the interstate highway system to be a 2-lane highway...I wonder how successful it would have been....That's about the equivalent to how Amtrak's been handled from the beginning and still.....

[Anonymous]

This isn't meant to start a corridor v. LD debate, but interesting how Amtrak itself says the LD trains cost only $70- $300 million a year. Amtrak requests $1.8 billion. A majority of that funding, therefore, goes to the expensive money-losing corridor trains, capital needs of the NEC and RR retirement needs.

The LD trains aren't obsolete, any more than LD driving or LD buses or SHORT-DISTANCE flights. They all have a purpose and are used.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....If we would have funded the interstate highway system to be a 2-lane highway...I wonder how successful it would have been....That's about the equivalent to how Amtrak's been handled from the beginning and still.....

True, but then people would be calling the good ol USA a second rate country for not having a highway system a good as France and Germany.

The Interstate Highway system was funded by user fees. Taxes paid by auto and truck owners and users. Only local streets and roads are financed in any substantal amount from non-user fee sources.

The passenger rail users don't even pay enough to maintain the system let alone improve and expand it. Highway user fees are used along with other sources to subsidize rail.

From a previous thread:

RE: RE: "Rail doesn't pay its fare share"
TRAINS Magazine Forums » Railroads
Posted by DSchmitt Posted: 29 Sep 2004, 18:11:56

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

In $ per passenger-mile what is the subsidy for:

Amtrack? All passenger rail? Highway?





I found the following information at Victoria Transportation Policy Institute
http://www.vtpi.org/

From: TDM Encyvlopedia -Transportation Costs $ Benefit , Table 15
Cost per vehicle mile for motor vehicles (2000 US dollars) is $1.20
costs incliude: travel time, veh ownership, crash damage, non residential off-street parking, vehicle operation, roadway costs, traffic congestion, environmental costs, roadway land value, residential parking, fuel externalities, traffic impacts.

Assuming 1.4 passenger per vehicle cost per passenger mile (capital + operating) = 86 cents

From a report titled: Comprehensive Benefits of Rail transit Benefits
dated 12-May 2004
Table 6 US Transit Expenses and Revenues By Mode (APTA 2002)
note auto is not included in this Table
Total rail: Total exp/passenger mile 1.55 Fares paid $0.22 Subsidy $1.33
Percent subsidy 79%
All bus Total exp/passenger mile $1.86 Fare $0.26 Subsidy $1.59
Percent subsidy 83%
Costs include: Capital expences and operating expences

The Subsidy for Heavy Rail is 72% Commuter Rail 73% and Light Rail 91%
The Sibsidy for Bus 76% Trolley Bus 84% Demand Responce 90%

-------------------------------------

The APTA 2002 data above was for the year 2001

The APTA 2003 chart for the year 2002 gives the following subsidies: Heavy Rail 72%, Commuter Rail 73% and Light Rail 91% . It does not list "Total Rail"

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....If we would have funded the interstate highway system to be a 2-lane highway...I wonder how successful it would have been....That's about the equivalent to how Amtrak's been handled from the beginning and still.....

True, but then people would be calling the good ol USA a second rate country for not having a highway system a good as France and Germany.

The Interstate Highway system was funded by user fees. Taxes paid by auto and truck owners and users. Only local streets and roads are financed in any substantal amount from non-user fee sources.

I seriously doubt so-called user=fees paid a dime to build the mammoth high-speed highways system.

Gasoline only cost what like 20-30 cents a gallon during the 1960s. Highway taxes weren't at all like they grew to be during the 70s and 80s.

Face it, this country got a free ride, with the feds funding every conceivable form of transportration with billions v. crumbs for more efficient forms.

--

Much is made of the $30 billion spent on Amtrak over the last 30 years, but in that same period the federal government spent $1.89 TRILLION on air and highway modes, according to the New York Times and Washington Post.

Since 1946, the federal government has poured billions of dollars into airport development. In 1992, Prof. Stephen Paul Dempsey of the University of Denver estimated that the current replacement value of the U.S. commercial airport system-virtually all of it developed with federal grants and tax-free municipal bonds-at $1 trillion.

Not until 1971 did the federal government begin collecting user fees from airline passengers and freight shippers to recoup this investment. In 1988 the Congressional Budget Office found that in spite of user fees paid into the Airport and Airways Trust Fund, the taxpayers still had to transfer $3 billion in subsidies per year to the FAA to maintain its network of more than 400 control towers, 22 air traffic control centers, 1,000 radar-navigation aids, 250 long-range and terminal radar systems and its staff of 55,000 traffic controllers, technicians and bureaucrats.
- James Coston, member, Amtrak Reform Council, 2001.

http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advocacy/resources/subsidies/transport.htm

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....If we would have funded the interstate highway system to be a 2-lane highway...I wonder how successful it would have been....That's about the equivalent to how Amtrak's been handled from the beginning and still.....

True, but then people would be calling the good ol USA a second rate country for not having a highway system a good as France and Germany.

The Interstate Highway system was funded by user fees. Taxes paid by auto and truck owners and users. Only local streets and roads are financed in any substantal amount from non-user fee sources.

I seriously doubt so-called user=fees paid a dime to build the mammoth high-speed highways system.

Gasoline only cost what like 20-30 cents a gallon during the 1960s. Highway taxes weren't at all like they grew to be during the 70s and 80s.

Face it, this country got a free ride, with the feds funding every conceivable form of transportration with billions v. crumbs for more efficient forms.

--

You are incorrect. Costs were substantially lower then.

"What Is the Highway Trust Fund?
The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) was created by the Highway Revenue Act of 1956 (Pub. L. 84-627), primarily to ensure a dependable source of financing for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways and also as the source of funding for the remainder of the Federal-aid Highway Program. Prior to the creation of the HTF, federal financial assistance to support highway programs came from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. While federal motor fuel and motor vehicle taxes did exist before the creation of the HTF, the receipts were directed to the General Fund, and there was no relationship between the receipts from these taxes and federal funding for highways. The Highway Revenue Act authorized that revenues from certain highway-user taxes could be credited to the HTF to finance a greatly expanded highway program enacted in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. In the original Highway Revenue Act of 1956, the crediting of user taxes to the HTF was set to expire at the end of fiscal year 1972, but since then, legislation has been passed to extend the imposition of the taxes and their transfer to the HTF through September 30, 2005.
Like other federal trust funds, the HTF is a financing mechanism established by law to account for tax receipts that are collected by the federal government and are dedicated or "earmarked" for expenditure on special purposes. Originally, the HTF focused solely on highways, but later Congress determined that a portion of the revenues from highway-user taxes dedicated to the HTF should be used to fund transit needs, resulting in a 5 cent increase in the gas tax (to 9 cents), of which 1 cent would go towards transit, to help fund the new account. As a result, the Mass Transit Account was created within the HTF effective April 1, 1983. Although never formally described and named, the portion of the Highway Trust Fund outside the Mass Transit Account has come to be called the Highway Account and receives all HTF receipts not specifically designated for the Mass Transit Account.
How is the HTF funded?
Tax revenues directed to the HTF are derived from excise taxes on highway motor fuel and truck-related taxes on truck tires, sales of trucks and trailers, and heavy vehicle use. The Mass Transit Account receives a portion of the motor fuel taxes, usually 2.86 cents per gallon, as does the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, usually 0.1 cent per gallon. The General Fund receives 2.5 cents per gallon of the tax on gasohol and some other alcohol fuels plus an additional 0.6 cent per gallon for fuels that are at least 10 percent ethanol. The Highway Account receives the remaining portion of the fuel tax proceeds.
How are the Taxes Collected?
Most excise taxes credited to the trust fund are not collected directly by the federal government from the consumer. They are, instead, paid to the Internal Revenue Service by the producer or importer of the taxable product (except for the tax on trucks and trailers, which is paid by the retailer, and for the heavy vehicle use tax, which is paid by the heavy vehicle owner.). Hence, the 18.3-cent federal gasoline tax and the 24.3-cent diesel tax included in the price at the pump are, in effect, a reimbursement to the producers and distributors for taxes they have already paid. "

This is the link to the Federal site where more up to date info may be found.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/