Bush Budget to Scrap Subsidy for Amtrak

[conrailman]

Well on tonight NBC news King Bush is giving 350 million Dollars to Israeli to help them rebuild from all the fight between them Two people. Give more aid away king Bush.[V][V][:(!]

[garr]

CG9602,

As stated by others in previous posts, the big difference between Amtrak subsidies and highway subsidies is that the federal gov't subsidizes not only Amtrak's infrastructure but also its operating deficit. Highway vehicle owners pay 100% of their operating expense. Airlines, except in the last 3 years, have usually covered there operating expenses. True, in both cases there are federal infrastructure subsidies, but Amtrak has always needed operating subsidies as well.

Jay

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eolafan

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman

well... i don't know what to say...

He's the president, and was voted so.

[^]I can proudly say in response...I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM, EITHER TIME!

[#ditto] I did everything in my power to stop him too.

Keep in mind that Presidents have said a lot of things that have not come to pass. Why should this time be any different?

The White House only proposes policy, Congress spends the money. Of course this Congress is loaded with Bush "yes-men" like one of my Senators, Norm Coleman, and my Representative Mark Kennedy, both of whom I voted against at each opportunity.

Bottom line, if you feel strongly about this, write to your Congress person and Senator, but don't forget to send lots of money with your letter, it's the only way to get their attention anymore. [:0][B)][}:)][:(!][V][:(][xx(]

P.S. Here's a happy thought, mid term elections are less than 2 years away. Political advertising should begin resume, shortly. Have a nice day.[swg]

[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.

[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

[Anonymous]

why do all you sore loser left wing nutjobs always have to turn every Amtrak thread into a "lets bash bush" thread?

how hard is it for you to understand that every president has tried to cut amtrak? and if a democrat were in office, they would still be buying new helicopters an spending money to rebuild Iraq?

is it that hard to keep these threads on topic?

[Anonymous]

Well, I've said it here before----shut us down! I'll only focus on the northeast corridor, since I've heard it before "amtrak doesn't go through my state, la la la". I can't wait to see the traffic jam from Washington DC to Boston, MA when and if this happens. And, to see what effect all of those travelers, who now will have to take to the highways and burn more gasoline, will have on all the states in the U.S.A.

Amtrak was created by an act of Congress, but, was never funded properly to succeed, as is still the case. Maybe this time next year, we can all visit a museum to see an HHP-8 and the Acela High Speed Trainsets sitting on display, while those commuters who will now be driving burn up more gasoline and give the oil companies another "excuse" to jack up the price for a gallon of gasoline even more.

It has been already said that with so many of our American jobs going over to China, the Chinese are able to buy cars and now they're starting to put some strain on an already tight oil market. Oh....and lets not forget how many billions of $$$ has been slated to rebuild and improve the Iraqi Railroad system!!

Why is it the USA can come up with so much $$$$ for other countries, and easily cut the throats of their own?? Why is it Ok, and blessed by a gov't. tax incentive, to unemploy Americans by "exporting" American jobs??!!

[garr]

piouslion,

Don't yell--you're hurting my eyes!

Jay

[Anonymous]

HEY GUYS----(1) THE ELECTION IS OVER (2) POLITICS IS POLITICS (3) THIS WILL CHANGE AND (4) LET'S GIVE THIS ONE A REST

[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

[eolafan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by eolafan

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman

well... i don't know what to say...

He's the president, and was voted so.

[^]I can proudly say in response...I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM, EITHER TIME!

You might ask Bergie if he can change the color of your three stars from green to blue[:(][:(][:(]!!!

Why, I am not "blue" as in sad, I am really happy that I was not one of those who voted for King Bush either of the two times he has run. I voted for Gore and Kerry. [:)][:D][:I][8)]

[mustanggt]

QUOTE: well... i don't know what to say...

He's the president, and was voted so

ditto. And on to AMTRAK. I don't care unless I have to pay taxes, which is about oh, 2010 or so[:D]

[garr]

Who one voted for in the last election is not that relevant in the overall picture. Neither of the '04 candidates were/are fiscally conservative. Regardless of who is in office, the day to pay the Piper is fast approaching. This day only changes by a few years regardless of which candidate was elected.

The projected cost of gov't social program spending along with the necessary Constitutionally mandated spending in the near future will make the Amtrak budget a mute point. The money will not be there.

We are only arguing the inevitable sooner than later.

Jay

[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.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eolafan

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman

well... i don't know what to say...

He's the president, and was voted so.

[^]I can proudly say in response...I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM, EITHER TIME!

You might ask Bergie if he can change the color of your three stars from green to blue[:(][:(][:(]!!!

[eolafan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman

well... i don't know what to say...

He's the president, and was voted so.

[^]I can proudly say in response...I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM, EITHER TIME!

[garr]

conrail man and CG9602,

I am of the libertarian principles radivil mentions above. I believe the gas tax and ticket tax are probably the best and fairest ways to subsidize transportation, be it highways, airports, or passenger railways. This way the user pays his/her part of the infrastructure that he/she is using. If one drives a lot, he buys more gas and pays more taxes with each gallon purchased. Someone who doesn't drive, buys no gas and pays no direct taxes for the highways. However, if this nondriver buys a bus, train, or plane ticket or an item at the store, he pays a ticket tax or indirectly pays a gas tax in the price of goods bought at the store. With the gas and ticket tax, the federal/state/local governments don't have to set up a bureaucracy of toll takers--the suppliers/retailers send the collected money to the proper department of government.

The key here is that the user pays. Most of the cost is shifted from the federal taxpayer to the actual users of that infrastructure or service.

In turn, the Federal government has an obligation to use the "saved" taxes ($XX billion of user taxes on transportation vs. general fund taxes) as true spending cuts or tax cuts. Otherwise, the government is "spinning its wheels".

My earlier point was that the arguing between constituents about "he got his and I want mine" is what got the Federal Government into the current financial mess. This probably started with the earliest election process but has grown exponentially since and needs to stop.

Amtrak's subsidy is truly small potatoes vs. the overall federal budget ($1 Billion subsidy = roughly $8.00 per taxpayer). However, Amtrak, in its current form with <1% of intercity transportation, is not a vital link in the overall transportation equation. Add up the 1,000's of other small potato programs the federal government subsidizes like Amtrak, eliminate them all and real cost/tax savings will be realized.

If this came to be, the average taxpayer could use the money saved from lower taxes alone to buy a ticket on one of the privately operated rail cruises.

Jay

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman

well... i don't know what to say...

He's the president, and was voted so.

Nothing can be truer said than this, Mr. Bush is the elected president of the USA fair and square. He is the president of all the people, even those that did not vote for him. Pierre Trudeau (not sure on the spelling) gave a lesson on this kind of thing a while back in 1977 when J.C. Carter was the U.S. President on a state visit to Canada. -------------------------------------------------------------------- The citizens of Montreal were booing and a few were spitting at him. Mr Trurdeau noticing this came to the podium and simply said, Come on you guys, he is a guest of ours and a neighbor. Show him that in Canada we are a class act even if we could not not vote for him or against him he is still our guest.------------------------------------------I'm a Republican but don't particularly like Bush, but he is the President of the U.S. and is owed the respect of our citizenship in what is our home. In all this folks remember that in less than 48 months he will be out of office and as important as J.C. Carter, Bill Clinton, Bush 41, and Ford on the current affairs of nations, states, businesses and yes railroads.

[Anonymous]

To everyone out there who voted for Bush, I can now ask why?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CG9602

I have an idea: Since these conservatives are all in favor of privatization, let's have them put the money where the mouth is.

You're confusing conservatism with libertarianism. And there are libertarians and such that do want to do just that.

[Modelcar]

.....BRF: I've been wondering the same thing....My problem tonight is we have a Pacer ball game I must keep close watch on too....So, if you hear a few words uttered on the subject tonight by the Prez...please note it on here so those of us that might miss it might pick up on it.....

[Anonymous]

well... i don't know what to say...

He's the president, and was voted so.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CG9602

I have an idea: Since these conservatives are all in favor of privatization, let's have them put the money where the mouth is. I suggest we privatize every last inch of the Interstates & Federal highways - every last inch!! get rid of the Gas Tax, and get rid of the Highway trust fund. All users would have to do is pay a toll (or, if you like, pay "rent," or a "one time user fee") to use the stretch of highway in question. Every inch of the highway would be required to turn a profit, or else be turned into nature preserve. The tolls would be paid for on an out-of-pocket basis. Would any members of the forum care to guess as to how much the tolls would be? After all, you can bet that the road owners would want to charge as much as the market will bear, and not just cover their costs.

Same with the airlines. If someone in your city wants air service, then let him or her build their own airport, and charge a user fee. Each airline would have to purchase ownership of a particular airport if the airline wanted to fly there. All airports will be private airports - no municipal ownership of airports allowed! Get rid of the Airline trust fund, and completely privatize every single last inch of the Air Traffic Control system. Same with the TSA nonsense - let the users pay the fully allocated cost of operation. Guess how much it would cost to fly around then? I'd be willing to bet that a train trip would look like a bargain in comparison.

As long as we are talking of having all forms of transport be self-sufficient, I say we get serious and eliminate the policies and practices that have stacked the deck against rail and towards other modes of transport. After all, the Federal government's role is merely to regulate interstate commerce, not rig the system in favor of certain modes over others.

Oh, yeah. While I'm on the topic, let's make certain that all barges must pay the full cost of those locks, dams and the dredging of the navigable waterways. That would involve the use of tolls. As long as I'm on this leveling of the playing field streak, I want to be thorough.

All forms of transport, not just Amtrak alone, should make a profit and cover their costs. if I don't use a particular stretch of raod, I certainly don't want my tax dollars going to support it. Let's see our Elected Representatives practice what they preach, and privatize every last inch of transport.

Unbridled Private Capitalism lives, just think of the taxes that will be raised from private owners to the coffers of state and federal governments that are paid for by the users of that service. The other side is to think of the increased savings to us the tax payer that will come from lower taxation due to taxes no longer so dependant on Federal Income Taxes. Another benefit is the dismissal of about one half of the state DOT "Officials that will no longer be needed but will find employment in the private sector and begin making respectable livings for a change.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan.

Good......
At least I know where my tax money "WON'T" be going!

[#ditto]

[DSchmitt]

There is a lot of misinformation about Federal Transportation spending, the quote below is from the following document. While out of date (1998) the charts in the document are interesting. Especially the chart showing where the money comes from.

www.fhwa.dot.gov/aap/PRIMER98.PDF


"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/

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Michael27

Why destroy the only alternative to flying there is in this country(and I don't include driving as an alternative to flying because americans do it every day). This seems like deja vu all over again from George bu***he elder's only term in office. Let the USA go down the drain just to build up another country. Amtrak, imho, is very vital to our country. What private passenger trains in the USA made money in the long term after WW2? I hope our Representatives and Senators do fight Bush on this proposal.

On that matter I'm pretty sure you will get your wish.[tup]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by conrailman

I Think Bush need to be out of Office Now, and Each Gov. of each state up put up a big fight to bush and Congress Needs to put bush in his place Now. War is 200 plus billion now and we give aid to Russia and other country every year like 80 to 100 Billion. We can't help are our own people out first, but we give aid away like its candy to other country . [V][V]

----------------------[B)][alien][banghead][X-)][%-)][sigh][#dots][zzz]-------------

[Anonymous]

Good......
At least I know where my tax money "WON'T" be going!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rgemd

We can spend 200billion dollars to destroy and then rebuild a country half a world away, but no money for the train.

They do seem to have some skewed priorities, don't they?

But then, look beneath the surface.. By Spending that wadd in Iraq, what they are (in concept) doing, is to invest money into an industry that is very profitable (oil)..... And you can "tra-la-la-la-laa" all day about the hype and propaganda claimed by the administration of "The importance of installing freedom for the iraqi people",...it's all just bunk trying to invoke a 'cause celebre' when in fact this entire fiasco is little more than service to big oil, and the companies that will rebuild and refinance the "new Iraq"

Whereas, and this will no doubt be unpopular here,....the decision to pull the plug on Amtrak is probably the (fiscally and physically) wise one....

Amtrak is nice if you happen to either live as close to a Passenger station as you do to an airport, or if you happen to be a transportation nostalgist.....but the fact of the matter is, most Americans are neither.

I like trains... i'd like to think that "there will always be passenger rail as an option", but that desire is based as much by my passion for the hobby, as it is on anything else, and there simply is a time where you have to look at sacred cows with a fresh eye.

Passenger rail would never have caught on in the firstplace, had it not been profitable. Why expect the system to carry the burden, on behalf of a minority of nostalgists? If passenger rail can't carry it's own weight, that tells you something significant, no matter how painful that may be to face.

Too bad the "abandonment" and "farming out to short line" craze has not stimulated entreprenurial imagination in the "passenger rail" venue. It is remotely possible that the continued existance of Amtrak has served as an inhibitor to that incentive,...though I suspect raw economics serves the greater detriment.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Key quote in this article:

"Amtrak should be treated like any other form of transportation and funded like any other form of transportation. The other forms don't get operating subsidies."

Finally, someone has discerned the difference between highway funding, airport funding, and Amtrak funding: It's the operating subisidies. It is also interesting that the Administration will continue to fund NEC infrastructure. This is consistent with basic federal transportation policy, it is apropos to fund transport infrastructure, not transport services.

The question now is if the federal guaranteed right of a passenger service to access the private Class I rail network will also be eliminated, or if it will be retained for transfer to state, regional, or private rail passenger service providers. If the latter is the case, Amtrak will evolve into a federal regulatory body, with the power of transfering access rights of proprietary rail lines to other entities, just as I have suggested over the years. If it is the former, a golden opportunity to reintroduce the concept of private rail passenger services will be gone forever (or until open access is instituted, whichever comes first).

Needless to say, Truth Spoken here[^]