Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by CG9602 In 2001, 41 % of the U.S. $133 billion spent on highways came from payments other than the gas tax, toll, & vehicle registration fees. Much of that money came from general fund appropriations, bond issue proceeds, investment income, other taxes, and property taxes. While most of this is at the state & local levels, federal policy encourages this by offering generous funding matches for highway investments but NO match - none, zero - for intercity rail investments or intermediate-range rail corridor development. Funding from fuel taxes have been rising slower than program costs for 3 decades, as some elected officials have become more and more reluctant to raise the fuel taxes to offset inflation. One result of this is that the responsibility for raising the funds is being shifted to the local governments. Voter approved referendums, for the most part, aren't based upon user fees. (Source: "Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance," by Martin Wachs, Brookings Institue Series on Transportation Reform, April 2003). Highways don't pay for themselves. The gas taxes don't cover the costs of the highways. Does the gas tax cover the cost of the related police and emergency services? Does the gas tax cover the cost of the snow plows in the northern climates? In the example that DSchmidt related above, are those roads maintained exclusively with private funding? Are the roads owned by a private, for-profit entity? While they may have been built with private funds, I think not. California has been mentioned in an above post. While that may be true, most other states don't have that sort of arrangement. [/quote] Your post sent me scurrying to the internet to check the 41% from other sources. I did not find the figures for 2003 but did find some for 1994/5 at www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=320&sequence=7 Total Revenues (Federsl+State+Local): In 1994 revenues used were 56.5% Highway user fees, 4.2% tolls (I consider this a user fee), 4.7% other (includes interest earned on Highway trust fund money), 7.7% misc (including Hwy Trust Fund reserves), 8% bonds, 31.3% other . The 31.3% is definately not user fees. The others are indeterminate. It is noted that $4.3 billion in bonds were issued in 95 of which 82.4% were intended to be paid by user fees Federal Financing: The document states "Funding provided by the federal goverment for highways comes from taxes imposed on highway users. Those taxes flow into the federal Highway Trust Fund. From there, the goverment aportions funds to states according to complicated formulas ans subject to annual limits imposed in the Congressional appropriation process." .... "At the federal level highway users are the source of all revenues that go to finance highways" <Many posters seem to believe that the federal money is a subsidy. It is not. It comes from user fees> State financing: 57.4% user fee, 25.7% FHWA (user fee) 7.8% general sources, 6.8% bonds, 2.3% other Local financing: 5.3% user fees, 21.1% State highway user, 0.8% FHWA (highway user), 9.1% bonds, 63.7% other The study also states that the trend is that user fees are pay ing a declining percentage of highway costs. The individual states own the State and Interstate Highways. In 1995, they were 80+% financed with useer fees. The local roads owned by cities and counties were only 26% financed by user fee. My conclusion: The claim of 41% non user may be fee justified. However, I do not believe that this justifies the claim that automobiles are subsidized by the government since most of the non-user fee money is spent on local road systems. [/quote] Well said! What some pro-Amtrak folks try to muddy-up is the difference between the federal share of highway funding vs the state and local share. Furthermore, it is appropriate to differentiate between spending on interstate and intrastate corridors vs spending on local and residential roads. If we focus only on the primary corridors, the federal share is almost wholey made up of user fees. The state and local share of corridor funding is more varied, some from user fees, some from bonds, some from federal EDC grants, etc. If the states opted to, they could just raise their share of corridor funding from user fees, but they choose not to for reasons that deal with their own funding principles. Therefore, if we are going to compare Amtrak funding with interstate and intrastate movement of passengers on highways, it is irrefutable that federal highway passenger funding comes from user fees, while federal Amtrak funding comes from the big pot in DC. Now it looks as though the states are going to have to poney up for continued rail passenger operations, while federal aid will be limited to providing a portion of infrastructure funding. The latter will be hard to finagle, since most of the rail lines currently used by Amtrak are privately owned by the Class I oligarchy. The question then is will a federal agency keep the right of access to private rail lines for use by rail passenger service providers, or will that option also be eliminated?
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