Trains.com

Bush Budget to Scrap Subsidy for Amtrak

7419 views
152 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • 258 posts
Posted by slotracer on Friday, February 4, 2005 1:59 PM
Nothing visionary here. It's 30 years overdue. Long haul passenger rail service was outmoded 40-50 years ago, Amtrack should have been tried for a few years in the 70's and if it succeeded at all fine, continue, but since it has been a miserable failure, it should have been cut decades ago. Long haul rail travel was relegated to the list of the obselete and outmoded when air travel became efficient and economical. Today rail service is spotty, unrelaible, ineffienct, slow and for the most part offers no cost savings vs air so why would anyone want to take it ? Long haul passenger trains were nice once, in a completely different world, but they, along with the horse and buggy, vacume tube television sets, rotary telephones and the sopwith camel are obsolete, there is no rational reason to waste millions on them in 2005
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, February 4, 2005 1:48 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Canada is rather distributed too. Not all of our population centres around southern Ontario and Quebec. VIA does have a great deal of passenger service concentrated on the Windsor Corridor route but there is also dense population in both West and East. There are a few trains that are centred in just those areas with a set going cross corridor (Ocean, Canadian). Most is targeted for tourism which is quite profitable to us.


But its all in one band across the southern border. The US is a series of belts and that prove most difficult to connect with inflexible or low service rail lines. You can't travel from the south half of my state to the north half by rail at all. And that's two seperate population belts.

QUOTE: The U.S is quite fortunate in that everywhere is potentially a great passenger service. You have the east (NEC already), the west (Cascades et al already), the south (Texas to Florida), the North (Boston to Chicago to Seatle) and Centreal.


And there's more than plenty of places outside those that don't need or can't justify passenger rail at a national level. The corridors are all good and fine for the people that live there. But why should I be helping to finance communter rails in California? That's the job of California's government.

QUOTE: The U.S has the greatest amount of major cities in the world as far as I know and so the commuter possibilities should be profitable enough. The U.S has great amount of scenery including the Rocky Mountains which our nations share. The tourism possibilities should be profitable enough.


Great for all those places. They should have to fund it themselves.

QUOTE: There is so much lucrative possibilities with Amtrak and not enough brains in the White House to see it.


The White House does not set policy. And if they were so lucrative, this situation wouldn't be happening in the first place..
  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: St.Catharines, Ontario
  • 3,770 posts
Posted by Junctionfan on Friday, February 4, 2005 12:59 PM
Canada is rather distributed too. Not all of our population centres around southern Ontario and Quebec. VIA does have a great deal of passenger service concentrated on the Windsor Corridor route but there is also dense population in both West and East. There are a few trains that are centred in just those areas with a set going cross corridor (Ocean, Canadian). Most is targeted for tourism which is quite profitable to us.

The U.S is quite fortunate in that everywhere is potentially a great passenger service. You have the east (NEC already), the west (Cascades et al already), the south (Texas to Florida), the North (Boston to Chicago to Seatle) and Centreal.

The U.S has the greatest amount of major cities in the world as far as I know and so the commuter possibilities should be profitable enough. The U.S has great amount of scenery including the Rocky Mountains which our nations share. The tourism possibilities should be profitable enough.

There is so much lucrative possibilities with Amtrak and not enough brains in the White House to see it. If it can't fire bullets or shells, it's not worth the time to the U.S is pretty much the attitude of the Whitehouse right now. Since the majority of the people voted for the dummy, I can't really feel to sorry for them if they start to realize that their government has abandoned them in their time of need. That goes for anything to do with Amtrak.

I got an email from the democratic party as I was interested in the Kerry platform because it sounded remarkable in comparison to the N.D.P platform only with an American flavour. The Democratic Party had issues with his funding including the No Children left behind bill but unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done short of finding a legitamate grievance to empeach him.

Problem is, the people wanted Amtrak to go so well done to those who wanted it gone, your wish has come true. Democracy prevailed or Republican......whatever you call your government.
Andrew
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, February 4, 2005 12:20 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

you will be the only 1st class nation to not have a passenger train network.


We're also teh only first world nation with populaces so distributed.
  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: St.Catharines, Ontario
  • 3,770 posts
Posted by Junctionfan on Friday, February 4, 2005 10:11 AM
Well;....it's your country and you can do whatever the hell you want with it but hey......
you will be the only 1st class nation to not have a passenger train network.

Now that's pioneering progress.
Andrew
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • 587 posts
Posted by garr on Friday, February 4, 2005 10:06 AM
jeaton,

If I had the power, I would first freeze federal spending at the 2004 level for at least 3 years. There would be no adjustment up for inflation,except for Social Security (I'm 42 so this doesn't benefit me).

The first area to look at cutting would be the 1,000's of Pork Barrel projects Congressmen and Senators have put or want in place. Then the social programs. Then Defense and any other Constitutionally mandated programs.

If Amtrak could survive thru this process, let it be. But any serious look at reforming federal spending would surely eliminate Amtrak funding as it now stands.

Jay


  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Rockton, IL
  • 4,821 posts
Posted by jeaton on Friday, February 4, 2005 8:49 AM
Let see. If $1.2 billion is the bench mark for limping along and $385 million is being offered, that is a reduction of $815 million or 68%. That is a really big item for DEFICIT REDUCTION!!! Going from $400 billion to $399.15 billion SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED!

Now, if we could get a 68% drop in the defense budget...

Jay

"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Friday, February 4, 2005 8:31 AM
....A reliable rail passenger mode of transportation in this well to do country..{that seems to want to cure all other Ill's in the world}, doesn't seem too over the top to me to provide for it's citizens.

Quentin

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: US
  • 383 posts
Posted by CG9602 on Friday, February 4, 2005 12:02 AM
One minor quibble with that, garr: Trains, planes, automobiles and busses have their profits or losses measured on a Revenue Passenger Mile basis, as the "per-passenger" metric has long been thought to produce unreliable and inaccurate numbers.

Amtrak could probably get away with raiseing some of their fares. In fact, I seem to recall an announcement that they did just that not two weeks ago. I couldn't tell you what the average fare paid was, though. All the while, Amtrak is on track to have one of their highest ridership years ever.

Here are a few links for the forum members' consideration:
http://www.unitedrail.org/documents/numbers.htm
http://www.unitedrail.org/documents/longdistancedemand.htm
http://www.unitedrail.org/news/200204braymer.html
http://www.unitedrail.org/pubs/corridors.htm
http://www.midwesthsr.org/promote_National.htm

Last but not least: http://www.midwesthsr.org/pdfs/MRR12n3.pdf
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • 587 posts
Posted by garr on Thursday, February 3, 2005 9:56 PM
ralphm,

If Amtrak is cut to the point where only the NE corridor remains, then the governments in that region of the country should cover any deficits for what is basically a commuter railroad. It's not a conservative vs. liberal issue to me. It just falls in line with my belief that the user should pay and the federal gov't shouldn't.

Jay
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • 587 posts
Posted by garr on Thursday, February 3, 2005 9:43 PM
CG9602,

Quick calculations using the raw numbers of an annual $1.2 billion subsidy needed for current operation levels and the latest annual passenger count of 24 million show a shortfall of $50.00 per ticket.

I don't know the average price paid for an Amtrak ticket, but it would probably be hard to charge a ticket tax or increased fare of $50.00 and not expect that 24 million ridership number to go down drastically. Otherwise, hopefully, Amtrak would have already raised the fare since it is such a deceivingly low deficit when "boiled down" to a per passenger basis.

Jay

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, February 3, 2005 8:54 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by garr

amtrak-tom,

By what is in the original story, the Northeast corridor doesn't seem to be in danger. This being the case, if what is proposed comes to be, most of the funding should be shifted form the federal gov't to states in that region.

Jay


The NEC runs thru 9 states (counting DC), 10 if you count the VA extenstion to Richmond as a functional part of the NEC. Do you have any idea how ridiculously hard it would be get all 9 to agree on a funding formula?

It's a big enough mess that Metro North controls the NEC from New Rocelle (Shell) to New Haven.

It would be similar to the toll road network that was building before the interstate system. You could go almost seamlessly from Boston to Chicago, but there were pieces that each state would never build because it wouldn't help them directly (like I-90 between the NY state line and Cleveland, for example)


I didn't read every posting here, and its only implied here, but I don't think that anyone brought up the question of what support will there be among the non-NEC members of Congress for funding even the $350M that Bush proposes for the NEC infrastructure. I don"t think Trent Lott or Kay B. Hutchenson will support the NEC when they kill the trains in their states.

This is a bone to the Neo-cons, and they will bark at it for weeks, but without a nationwide support system, there will be no support anywhere.
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018
  • 4,422 posts
Posted by DSchmitt on Thursday, February 3, 2005 3:49 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd


There three points of view one could take regarding highway funding:

One, interstate highways are regarded as an incremental investment on top of an existing network of local roads that would exists as-is with or without intercity highways

Another view would be that ALL roads should be lumped together.

A third would be a combination. WIthout interstates, auto dependency and sprawl would be much less, so much of local road infrastructure would never have needed to be built.

Perhaps,


An argument that has been going on for over 30 years that I know of is:

"Do we need to build highways because of sprawling development or do we have sprawling development because we built the highways?"

I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.

I don't have a leg to stand on.

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: US
  • 383 posts
Posted by CG9602 on Thursday, February 3, 2005 3:33 PM
DScmidtt, futuremodal, & oltmannd: I appreciate your providing some real "meat" (i.e., facts & figures supported by sources & documentation) to this discussion. Please continue to do so. It's refreshing to read statements which are supported by documentation.

However, I reiterate my posts regarding the Higways & Airports: let's see our Elected representatives privatize every last inch of these, and then we'll see just what things really cost. For many folks, flying or driving just seem cheaper due to that fact that the out-of-pocket costs don't seem like a whole lot.

Fellow members of the forums: If you don't want passenger Service to recieve a direct subsidy in its current form, how would you go about setting up a "Trust Fund," something along the lines of what the U.S. has for the highways & airports? Would it be possible to issue U.S. bonds to help capitalize this fund? What form would this Passenger Rail Trust Fund take?

How would you set up the "user fee" ? Would you bring back a ticket tax?

Would there be any sort of government matching funds?
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, February 3, 2005 3:25 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

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.


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.




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.


It's hard to "muddy up" a pig sty!

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, February 3, 2005 3:24 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Has anyone taken a look at the subsidies for private aircraft? Remember that an Aircraft Controller uses as much energy and time on a small plane as on a large one. I suspect that if anyone does an in-depth analysis, you'll find that private aircraft are far more subsidized that Amtrak passsengers. Of course, this is not an "operating subsidy" unless one counts air traffic control as operations . Which it probably should be. We could link these two subsidies and say if one is cut so should the other, and if oen continues ot be funded, soshould the other. Possibly the total dollar amount is more signifigant too!


Private aircraft - sounds like subsidization of a hobby!

....and don't forget the military uses air traffic control, too! (and pays for it!)

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Thursday, February 3, 2005 2:57 PM
....One bit of action I would like to see.....The moment and if it happens...that is, no money to operate and service Amtrak...I hope the same day Dave Gunn pulls the plug and shuts it ALL down...Including the NEC. Let someone else figure out how to pay the commitments under contract. Wonder who the blame would go to then.

Quentin

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, February 3, 2005 2:55 PM
Has anyone taken a look at the subsidies for private aircraft? Remember that an Aircraft Controller uses as much energy and time on a small plane as on a large one. I suspect that if anyone does an in-depth analysis, you'll find that private aircraft are far more subsidized that Amtrak passsengers. Of course, this is not an "operating subsidy" unless one counts air traffic control as operations . Which it probably should be. We could link these two subsidies and say if one is cut so should the other, and if oen continues ot be funded, soshould the other. Possibly the total dollar amount is more signifigant too!
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, February 3, 2005 2:47 PM
If the Bush Administration actually does eliminate Amtrak's subsidy and Amtrak goes belly up, you can bet that the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys will somehow blame this on the Democrats. LOL! [;)]
That's the neo-cons for you.
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, February 3, 2005 1:27 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

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.


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.




There three points of view one could take regarding highway funding:

One, interstate highways are regarded as an incremental investment on top of an existing network of local roads that would exists as-is with or without intercity highways

Another view would be that ALL roads should be lumped together.

A third would be a combination. WIthout interstates, auto dependency and sprawl would be much less, so much of local road infrastructure would never have needed to be built.

Perhaps,

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, February 3, 2005 1:23 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

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.


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.




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?
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018
  • 4,422 posts
Posted by DSchmitt on Thursday, February 3, 2005 11:12 AM
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.


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.

I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.

I don't have a leg to stand on.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, February 3, 2005 11:08 AM
In reference to the World trade Centre disaster, guess who carried congressional members to the site - Amtrak.
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, February 3, 2005 10:52 AM
A subsidy is a subsidy. It is the subsidies in airports, in air traffic control, and in security that permit airlines to operate without operating subsidies. If Bush wants to drop Amtrak operating subsidies he should be FORCED by popular opinion to sell off airports to be charged with real estate taxes and all else like any private business, to make the air traffic control system self supporting, etc., etc. The peculiar nature of the railroad business means that subsidies that go to highway transportation and air transportation and water transportation that are NOT operating subsidies must be matched by operating subsidies for Amtrak if there is truly to be a fair and level playing field.

Also, even MIT's alumni magazine admits that we cannot burn oil at the present rate indefinitely, and the future is increased use of electricity from coal and nuclear power. No more meantion of that safety hazard and boon doggle fuel cells - Hydrogen.

The USA has to keep a going national railroad system going. Otherwise in the future it will have to be put back at far greater expense and with far greater turnoil in doing so.

Like the streetcar tracks on Howard Street Baltimore and Canal Street New Orleans that had to be put back some 40 years after they were removed.
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, February 3, 2005 9:38 AM
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.


I wish I'd read your post before I wrote mine. Well put.[:)]

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, February 3, 2005 9:09 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by garr

amtrak-tom,

By what is in the original story, the Northeast corridor doesn't seem to be in danger. This being the case, if what is proposed comes to be, most of the funding should be shifted form the federal gov't to states in that region.

Jay


The NEC runs thru 9 states (counting DC), 10 if you count the VA extenstion to Richmond as a functional part of the NEC. Do you have any idea how ridiculously hard it would be get all 9 to agree on a funding formula?

It's a big enough mess that Metro North controls the NEC from New Rocelle (Shell) to New Haven.

It would be similar to the toll road network that was building before the interstate system. You could go almost seamlessly from Boston to Chicago, but there were pieces that each state would never build because it wouldn't help them directly (like I-90 between the NY state line and Cleveland, for example)

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, February 3, 2005 9:04 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer

If Amtrak is cut, ALL transportation funding should be cut.Make the airlines maintain and operate the airports and the air traffic control system.

How about the $5 BILLION the administration GAVE the airlines after the WTC destruction? Just because the airlines were grounded for 3 whole days?
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, February 3, 2005 8:57 AM
NightCrawler: thank you for your nice response, and, name calling.

garr: yes, the northeast states contributing has been brought up before, but, the states are asking "where do you expect us to come up with the money?" Seems all of the states are in a financial crisis.
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, February 3, 2005 8:56 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

Highway users pay virtually 100% of their operating costs.
Transit users pay 20% of their operating costs.

At the federal level approximately 15% of the user fees paid to the Federal Highway Trust Fund by highway users is allocated to mass transit (which includes rail). Look at my post on page 2 of this topic regarding the Highway Trust Fund.

The State of California has highway user fee rates comparable to the federal rates. I have not checked on the % but California also allocates Highway fee money to mass transit but suspect it is at least as much as the Federal.

In California approximately 85% of highway infrastructure costs (including maintenance) are paid by Highway users through user fees (highway related taxes State and Federal).

In California land developers (based on the principal that they increase the need for highways) pay a substantial portion of the costs to build roads and highways that are not covered by user fees. The costs to build now local roads are virtually always borne by developers. I have even seen several freeway interchanges built by developers, and others built by local agencies that were primairly funded using fees paid by developers.

To me it doesn't look like the automobile is geting a free ride. They pay most of their costs and most of the transit riders cost too.




Looks like the tax on gasoline pays for about 2/3 of the HTF. A GAO report from years ago stated that heavy trucks do >90% of the wear and tear to the interstate highway system. So, it looks like the automobile as cross subsidizing truckers, too. (not to mention the extra cost of construction to accomodate trucks compared to autos)

I can understand paying for transit with the HRT since it is generally cheaper than laying more asphalt and concrete, but the imbalance between truck and auto contribution to the HRT is not defendable IMHO.

Also, quite a bit of the operating costs of the federal highway network is not covered by the HTF. Local feeder roads (which are paid for by local sales taxes here in GA) and police and fire come to mind - I'm sure there's more. Somewhere, I read a study that had the HTF contribution at 40-50% of the total highway construction and operatings costs. What was included and excluded, I can't remember.

I DON'T think Amtrak, in it's current form is defensible in terms of return on taxpayer dollars. But, I don't think that a reason to kill it. Amtrak has so many internal and external contraints placed on it, that it can't really succeed in any meaningful way. But, it has a constituency and is not along among gov't programs in not providing a good ROI, and Conrgress is apparently comfortable with the status quo, so that's what we get!

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the gov't looked at integrating highways, air and rail travel into a single network rather than each mode as it's own entity with it's own ends so that we could have the greatest possible mobility at the least possible overall cost to society - regardless of the source of the money.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Aurora, IL
  • 4,515 posts
Posted by eolafan on Thursday, February 3, 2005 8:05 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by garr

eolafan,

I think futuremodal was referring to the red state/blue state division of the US by the media in illustrating the election results. Red being Bush. Blue being Kerry.

Jay


[:I]OK, now I get it. Yes, paint my green stars blue (wasn't there a song title like that back in the Seventies?).

Oh, by the way, I am more ticked off than ever since last night when King Bush spoke of messing with my social security benefits (when I am ready at age 62).
Eolafan (a.k.a. Jim)

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy