Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
I was not addressing V Payne's points.  My comments were directed to some of M. Eaton's observations, but they cut across several postings.If there is money to be made in any form of passenger rail, investors will jump on it.  I am not holding my breath.Highways were never intended to make money.  The plan was and is to recapture their costs through user fees and general fund transfers, which are paid for the most part by the users.  The nation's airways were never intended to make money.  The plan was and is to recapture their costs through user fees and general revenue transfers.  The users pay 85 per cent of the cost, and most of them pay most of the general fund transfers.  Most air travelers come from the upper half of the populations that pays federal income taxes.   Business and general aviation aircraft users pay the same fuel taxes and certification fees as commercial airline users, sans the passengers screening fees.  They do not get a free ride.  I was a pilot for many years.  I have a good idea what taxes and fees general aviation users pay.This country has a huge investment in highways and airways because it is what the people said that they wanted.  What a novel idea for a democratic republic.  The people's representatives speak for them.The constant dollar cost of gasoline is at or only slightly above what it cost in 1981.  In some states, however, taxes have caused it to rise higher than general inflation rates.The cost to build an interstate highway in rural Texas would be lower than the cost to build one through the middle of the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex.  My estimate of the cost to construct new highways is probably too low, although I was not just thinking of new highways.  I was thinking as much about expanding existing ones.  I accept that.  I was trying to make the point that a lot of highway mileage could be constructed by raising the gasoline and diesel taxes by a relatively small percentage.  Some smaller airports, especially those that were built for bragging rights, don't have enough traffic to cover their costs.  They have to rely on the general revenues to make-up the difference.  Most major airports, however, not only cover their costs, they provide hundreds of community jobs.  And each airport worker, as well as most vendors, pays local taxes into a pool, from which the funds for the airport are drawn.  In many instances the taxes paid by the workers, as well as vendors, are more than the local taxes required to support the airport.NARP, as well as others, constantly cite the revenues generated by long distance trains.  They conveniently forget the other side of the accounting equation.  It is cost.Southwest Airlines lobbied against a Texas high speed rail line.  But whether their position was decisive is arguable.  According to a friend of mine, who was in the Texas Legislature at the time, as well as an associate, who was one of our lobbyists, the deal fell apart because there was no appetite in the legislature to fund a large Lionel set.  Texans, for the most part, are not interested in intercity rail.  End of story, at least for now.Whether an electronic roadway guidance system is feasible remains to be seen.  If you think we are at the end of the technological development curve, then it isn't feasible.  You would have found comfort with the Head of the U.S. Patient Office in the middle 1880s.  He recommended closing the patient office because everything that was worth inventing had been invented.  Today's airplanes are much more sophisticated than when I was flying.  Instrument approaches, for example, are made with an electronic coupler.  If it fails, an alarm goes off in the cockpit, and the pilots take over.  A similar system could probably be designed for an electronic roadway guidance system.  Users should pay directly or directly for what they use.  Because of the large base of air and highway users, they do.  Because of the small base of rail users in the U.S., a greater portion of the load is shifted to non-users than is the case for air and highway users.  I am for corridor rail because it is the one place where trains, which are designed to move large numbers of people, have at least a chance of breaking even, as per a posting I made several months ago on how the Surfliner could make money if gasoline was near $5.00 a gallon.  Long distance trains don't even come close to recovering their costs.Ideally, each mode of transport should cover its costs through direct user fees.  If this was the practice in the U.S. we would have a better balanced transport system.  But most people would still take the family buggy to the beach or an airplane across the country.  And trains would probably become more common in high density corridors.
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