Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="klahm"] There are two plain facts: 1) Passenger rail doesn't make economic sense except where (a) passenger density is substantial and tracks/stations reach useful destinations (e.g., NE corridor, California, Europe, perhaps a few other places E of Mississippi River) or (b) there is sufficient demand for cruise trains. 2).............. My longstanding view is that interstate trains should be sponsored by groups of states along the route, with federal matching dollars available on a basis similar to the highways. Trains within a given state can be handled by the state DOT, again with a federal match. The states and groups thereof can contract whoever they want to run the trains. Maybe some Class Is would be willing to do that. The Amtrak monopoly should be quietly legislated away.[/quote] I agree with most of the sentiments expressed in this post.  However, I don't think that the federal government should underwrite passenger rail services, especially long distance trains.  The notion persists in the minds of many people that the government unfairly subsidizes highway and airways users, largely because pump and ticket prices don't reflect the full cost of building and maintaining these facilities.  By the way, if they did reflect the full cost at the pump or in ticket prices, it would put passenger rail on a more even footing with cars and planes. The overwhelming majority of motorists, as well as commercial aviation users, pay federal, state, and local taxes.  These taxes flow into the general fund of the taxing authority.  Some of the monies are transferred to the highway trust fund or aviation trust fund, in the case of the federal government, or state and local highway and aviation funds.  Most of the roadway and airways costs in the U.S. are paid for via user taxes, e.g. fuel taxes, license fees, ticket taxes, etc.  To the extent that these taxes or fees are inadequate to cover the costs of the highways and airways, monies are transferred from the general funds to make up the difference.  The transfers referred to above involve some cost shifting.  High income motorists tend to pay more in user and general taxes than low income users, who in some instances pay no income tax and little general taxes.  Thus, it can be argued that these high income earners subsidize low income motorists.  The same might be argued for airline passengers, although the per mile subsidy for them is very small, thereby largely negating the cost shifting argument. Given the large number of motorists, as well as commercial airline users, they are paying for the highways and airways that they use, either directly or through transfers from the general funds. Passenger rail users also pay taxes.  And some of them find their way from the general funds to support Amtrak or local rail operations.  However, because the percentage of the population that uses passenger rail, compared to the percent that drive or fly is relatively small, passenger rail users require a significant subsidy from non-users, many of whom could not take a train even if they wanted to because there is no service available to them.
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