Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
Passenger
»
$11 billion later, high speed rail in US drags along

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="aricat"] Sam1  Airports that exist for general aviation  have nothing to do with High Speed Rail issues. Airports that serve commercial aviation are a different story. You and I both know who pays the salary of the air traffic controllers and for operation of air traffic control system; and that is the American taxpayer. The same goes for the TSA. If airlines had to pay the entire cost for air traffic control, TSA security, and build and maintain the airports themselves, the cost to fly would be prohibitive. This is precisely what railroads had to do in the United States until the inception of Amtrak; and you wonder why American railroads wanted out of the passenger business. Railroads were expected to pay taxes not get tax breaks. In the 1950's and early 1960's the Federal Government subsidized local service airlines to serve small cities like Havre Montana and a myriad of others. Oftentimes these cities had passenger rail service like Havre did with the Great Northern which received no subsidy at all. [/quote] You raised the issue of aviation.  You are correct; it has nothing to do with high speed passenger rail. But many of your comments re: funding commercial aviation in the U.S. are mistaken. I set the commercial airports in the context of all airports to help show, at least by implication, that a significant portion of the airport Improvement funds go to airports that are not served by commercial airlines and, therefore, are not a subsidy for them.  Moreover, again by implication, I wanted to show that approximately 70 per cent of the air traffic control load, as detailed in other threads, is for general aviation and military aviation operating in civilian air space.  Historically approximately 85 per cent of the FAA;s budget has been covered by fuel taxes, ticket taxes, registration fees, etc. These are paid by the users. One hundred per cent of operations, which includes the air traffic controllers, is covered by these user fees. Since the Great Recession a higher percentage of the FAA's budget has been covered by transfers from the general fund.  Most of these monies were dispensed under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for airport and airways improvements as well as safety initiatives. This information can be found in the FAA's Annual Performance Reports.  Approximately 40 per cent of the TSA's airport security program is covered by ticket taxes (fees). This is about to increase to 50 per cent. The airlines did not bring on 9/11. One could argue that a multiplicity of factors brought it on and, therefore, it is right that the country bear the consequences as opposed to dumping them all on airline passengers. With the exception of the Long Island Railroad, as well as perhaps a few others, passenger rail has ridden on the backs of the freight carried by the railroads from the get go.  Without the dual use of rail facilities, i.e. for freight and passenger, passenger rail probably would not have come about. The same notion applies to the nation's airports and airways. The airlines are just one of several user groups. In fact, they only use approximately 30 to 35 per cent of the airways and air infrastructure capabilities. Even at many large airports, i.e. Dallas Love Field, commercial aviation accounts for less than half of operations. A healthy commercial aviation industry is vital for the U.S. economy.  So too is a first class highway system. We are where we are with respect to aviation and highways. So the question is where does passenger rail make sense, what should it look like, and how should it be funded.
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