Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="schlimm"]I realize air traffic has increased greatly in the 23 years, but it is hard to imagine the subsidy dropping by 90%? In any case, I believe all transportation is a proper government function.  My question is: should we continue maintaining a system of roads and airways that are near capacity?  The cost to relieve congestion by building new roads would be exorbitant as would building 10's of new airports.  Even then, the air in many areas is reaching capacity.  Doesn't make more sense to relieve the strain by upgrading and constructing a viable mass transit and HSR network (routes generally under 500 miles) , shifting shorter route air traffic to rail, as well as diverting some of the highway traffic? [/quote]   Many people, especially journalists who are not schooled in accounting, finance, and statistics, take raw numbers to be the gospel truth.  They don't know how to analyze them.  Thus, they attribute a subsidy to the airlines, let's say, without understanding the numbers.  Here is one example. NARP claims that the airlines receive a greater federal subsidy than is the case.  Their calculation is in error.  They attributed the entire federal transfer to the FAA in 2007 to the commercial airlines, when in fact it covers commercial, general aviation, and military operations in civilian airspace.  The commercial airlines only use approximately 30 per cent of the air traffic control system's capability.  Accordingly, only 30 per cent of the transfer applicable to FAA operations should be attributed to the commercial airlines.  I pointed this out to NARP, but they did not respond.   I support the development or enhancement of passenger rail in high density corridors where the cost of developing or enhancing roadways and airways is prohibitive.  But I don't delude myself.  Passenger rail, especially high speed rail, is very expensive and requires a large per passenger and per passenger mile subsidy. It is appropriate for the federal government, as well as state and local governments, to jump start the development of transport infrastructure.  However, I don't think that they should be involved in running transport operations.  With the exception of local public transport, they should be required to stand on their own.  In the case of public transport, local governments or transport authorities should contract with private business to run it ala Melbourne, Australia.
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