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.
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.
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.
QUOTE: There is so much lucrative possibilities with Amtrak and not enough brains in the White House to see it.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan you will be the only 1st class nation to not have a passenger train network.
"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
Quentin
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)
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
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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!
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.
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.
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.