Samantha wrote: America faces numerous infrastructure challenges. Many of its highways, airports, airways, rail lines, pipelines, electrical grids, telecommunication facilities, etc. need to be upgraded or replaced. In addition, given the projected growth in the population, new infrastructure will be needed.Following the end of WW II Americans focused on two national passenger transport systems, i.e. systems that cover the nation as opposed to serving a regional market. They settled on highway and air transport while shunning passenger rail in most markets. The shift to highway and air travel was a function of superior technology. It was not, as some have suggested, a political conspiracy to wreck the country's railway passenger business. The car is more flexible, comfortable, convenient and, in many instances, economical than taking a train. The airplane, especially the jet, beats the train hands down for long distance travel. It can cover as much distance in a hour or two than a train can all day long. Had Amtrak not been formed as a political solution to the shrinking passenger train market, intercity trains would have disappeared, with the exception of commuter rail and perhaps the NEC. The NEC, because of its population density and lifestyles, i.e. people were used to taking the train, might have been able to stand on its own if it had been managed properly.Now, as the country's population grows larger and larger, there is a place for passenger rail. But it is not in a reincarnation of a 1950s style intercity passenger rail system. It is rapid rail in relatively high density corridors, on an upgraded existing rail infrastructure, where the cost of building more highways (the choice of most people) and expanding airways (the choice of most business people) is cost prohibitive. Building a passenger rail system to connect America's 100 or so largest metropolitan areas, as advocated by some, including NARP, begs two important questions. Would people use it in sufficient numbers to cover at least the operating costs? And can America afford a third national passenger transport system?The U.S. national debt is approximately $9.5 trillion. And it is growing at the rate of more than $600 billion a year. This is the federal operations spend deficit, which is masked in part by Social Security surpluses. This averages out to nearly $100,000 per household, with an annual interest burden of more than $4,000 per household. But approximately one third of the households in the U.S. that file a federal income tax return pay no federal income taxes. So the burden for the households that pay income taxes is considerably more than $100,000. But it does not stop there. It does not include state and local government debt, consumer debt, mortgage debt, credit card debt, etc. When these amounts are factored into the matrix, the average debt per American household is estimated to be more than $175,000. However, this is only the tip of the iceberg.The former Comptroller of the Currency, David Walker, estimates that the average burden for American household is more than $400,000 when the unfunded liabilities (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) are taken into consideration. He is so concerned about it that he left the current administration to become an advocate for recognizing the problem and taking steps to fix it. How heavy is the burden? The median household income in 2007 was $48,200 per household. Thus, the potential federal finance burden is nearly 10 times the country's median household income. And that is not sustainable. Unfortunately, I have not seen from those advocating a massive investment in passenger rail in the U.S. a serious plan to finance it. They talk about getting more federal monies, as if this will not further acerbate the country's financial problems. Advocating more spending without a plan to pay for it lays the burden off on our children and grandchildren. And that is irresponsible. America needs to improve and expand its highways and airways where it is cost effective. It should build rapid rail where the cost of improving the airways and highways is cost prohibitive and there is a commercial need for it. But it cannot afford a third national passenger system, unless it wants a tax structure like most of the European countries. And polls show that most Americans want to go there.
America faces numerous infrastructure challenges. Many of its highways, airports, airways, rail lines, pipelines, electrical grids, telecommunication facilities, etc. need to be upgraded or replaced. In addition, given the projected growth in the population, new infrastructure will be needed.
Following the end of WW II Americans focused on two national passenger transport systems, i.e. systems that cover the nation as opposed to serving a regional market. They settled on highway and air transport while shunning passenger rail in most markets.
The shift to highway and air travel was a function of superior technology. It was not, as some have suggested, a political conspiracy to wreck the country's railway passenger business. The car is more flexible, comfortable, convenient and, in many instances, economical than taking a train. The airplane, especially the jet, beats the train hands down for long distance travel. It can cover as much distance in a hour or two than a train can all day long.
Had Amtrak not been formed as a political solution to the shrinking passenger train market, intercity trains would have disappeared, with the exception of commuter rail and perhaps the NEC. The NEC, because of its population density and lifestyles, i.e. people were used to taking the train, might have been able to stand on its own if it had been managed properly.
Now, as the country's population grows larger and larger, there is a place for passenger rail. But it is not in a reincarnation of a 1950s style intercity passenger rail system. It is rapid rail in relatively high density corridors, on an upgraded existing rail infrastructure, where the cost of building more highways (the choice of most people) and expanding airways (the choice of most business people) is cost prohibitive.
Building a passenger rail system to connect America's 100 or so largest metropolitan areas, as advocated by some, including NARP, begs two important questions. Would people use it in sufficient numbers to cover at least the operating costs? And can America afford a third national passenger transport system?
The U.S. national debt is approximately $9.5 trillion. And it is growing at the rate of more than $600 billion a year. This is the federal operations spend deficit, which is masked in part by Social Security surpluses. This averages out to nearly $100,000 per household, with an annual interest burden of more than $4,000 per household. But approximately one third of the households in the U.S. that file a federal income tax return pay no federal income taxes. So the burden for the households that pay income taxes is considerably more than $100,000. But it does not stop there. It does not include state and local government debt, consumer debt, mortgage debt, credit card debt, etc. When these amounts are factored into the matrix, the average debt per American household is estimated to be more than $175,000. However, this is only the tip of the iceberg.
The former Comptroller of the Currency, David Walker, estimates that the average burden for American household is more than $400,000 when the unfunded liabilities (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) are taken into consideration. He is so concerned about it that he left the current administration to become an advocate for recognizing the problem and taking steps to fix it. How heavy is the burden?
The median household income in 2007 was $48,200 per household. Thus, the potential federal finance burden is nearly 10 times the country's median household income. And that is not sustainable.
Unfortunately, I have not seen from those advocating a massive investment in passenger rail in the U.S. a serious plan to finance it. They talk about getting more federal monies, as if this will not further acerbate the country's financial problems. Advocating more spending without a plan to pay for it lays the burden off on our children and grandchildren. And that is irresponsible.
America needs to improve and expand its highways and airways where it is cost effective. It should build rapid rail where the cost of improving the airways and highways is cost prohibitive and there is a commercial need for it. But it cannot afford a third national passenger system, unless it wants a tax structure like most of the European countries. And polls show that most Americans want to go there.
Comments on above bold type remarks:
There are those who would argaue that air and highway building was a political conspiracy on one hand but a private entprise monoploy and conspiracy on the other. Big business was big and getting bigger and all was wonderful on the economic front: two cars in every garage by 1960! . It was, at the time you mention, right after WWII, and it was a simple fact that passenger trains were part of the free enterprise, private sector and, unless a true rapid transit commuter operation such as New York City's, it was figured that it would always stay that way.
The car did afford American's their precious freedom of being able to go where they wanted or needed to go, in a style they could afford. And they were told their gasoline tax paid for the highways they drove on. Local taxes took care of municipal streets. But you never saw the tax at nine tenths of a cent per gallon of gas at the pump or the line item on your property tax bill.
At that time, too, railroads were fairly prosperous, fat from the War effort, and did spend money on new equipment and improved schedules. They also had to work at improving thier roadbeds and infrastructure. For which they were taxed to support highways and airports which took traffic away from thier private venture. And railroads, faced with a dwindling passenger market, began getting rid of high overhead passenger trains but were required to continue commuter services...so you are partly right on that. Except nobody stepped forward to pay for the commuter service or to put the passenger train into the public sector because both were owned and operated by private enterprise and thus a forbidden tresspass.
Building a usable and marketable national passenger rails system is what shoud have been considered at sometime but never was and still isn't. Amtrak is a patch job of lip services because of a lack of committment. As for financing the system, it should be partially paid for by less contributions to air, highway, and water. Proportionately Amtrak receives less than 10% of the total transportation budget, so you can't even begin to talk about real finances until the whole system is rationalized and planned, really planned, as a transportation system to serve business and people. And this will utilize the cost effectiveness of each mode of transportation to make it work for all. In the East in general, but also in many industrialized and urbanized areas, air pollution, traffic congestion with no room for new highways or lanes, make highway construction not a viable or economic option anymore.
Two quick sidenotes: 1).I n NJ in the late 40's and early '50's rail lines were taxed at least twice what other industry was taxed. And when the NJ Turnpike Extension was built across rail yards, those yards had an increase in taxes because of the improvements made by the bridges. Other states were not as bad, but bad enough.
2). I understand that in England Heathrow Airport and many others are operatead by private companies. So, if we could introduce that into our air transportation system while rationalizing and planning, there might be some money to put into rail, too.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6 wrote: 2). I understand that in England Heathrow Airport and many others are operatead by private companies. So, if we could introduce that into our air transportation system while rationalizing and planning, there might be some money to put into rail, too.
I've seen that remark a couple of times in these forums. What does "operated by private companies" mean? Do the private companies have full responsibility for the financial and operational success or failure of these airports? Or are they under contract with some public agency, therefore one assumes if that agency deems them to be succesful then the agency will renew the contract? Are there guarantees that someone, the private enterprise or the public, will be made whole in the event of failure?
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
gardendance wrote: henry6 wrote: 2). I understand that in England Heathrow Airport and many others are operatead by private companies. So, if we could introduce that into our air transportation system while rationalizing and planning, there might be some money to put into rail, too.I've seen that remark a couple of times in these forums. What does "operated by private companies" mean? Do the private companies have full responsibility for the financial and operational success or failure of these airports? Or are they under contract with some public agency, therefore one assumes if that agency deems them to be succesful then the agency will renew the contract? Are there guarantees that someone, the private enterprise or the public, will be made whole in the event of failure?
I saw a news report...on BBC North America via PBS...the other night about a possible strike averted at England's Airports operated by such and such a company and Heathrow was singled out. It stated that this company "operated" these airports in Engalnd and others in the rest of Europe. I am intrigued by the concept and wonder why it has not been approached here in the Colonies! I do know that many airports have a fixed base operator and managers which are not public entities or necessarily employees here.
but then absent any more info we can't tell if the private operator is any less on the public dole than a government opertor.
Philadelphia 1960's Pennsylvania RR and Reading RR, private companies at the time, both got subsidies for their commuter rail lines. Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Co president Merrit Taylor, bus and light rail operator, which had some lines which competed with the railroads, had been quoted in a few books I read that if he got even a fraction of the railroad subsidies he could carry passengers for free and still make a profit.
Samantha,
Your first four paragraphs accurately summarise what I wrote, so I'm ok with that.
Where we diverge is your view in the fifth paragraph that ‘The place for passenger rail .... is rapid rail in relatively high density corridors, on an upgraded existing rail infrastructure.'
You seem to be saying that, yes, there is an increased role for rail transport this century, but that the only thing we can afford to do is upgrade existing railways. It all depends what you mean by this, but I fear that you are advocating something that I believe would be the biggest waste of money ever.
I do not believe that any speed in excess of 80mph is remotely compatible with the interests of the railroads who own the current rights of way. Even as we converse, freight railroads are reducing the speeds of their trains to save on fuel costs. 80mph is worse than useless: 100mph failed in the 1940s, what chance 80mph in the 21st century? Could you take current rights of way, and make them ok for 120mph, by adding dedicated passenger tracks? Well, maybe, but I would say it would be enormously expensive to do that. I think any railroad operating at 120mph+ should be grade separated, and far enough from 15000ton coal trains on adjacent tracks that there was little chance of hitting them if they fell over. The FRA is extraordinarily conservative, as I understand, on safety, and my guess is they would pretty much insist on this. There is then a fundamental and indisputable point of geography. 120mph is ok for journeys of up to 200 miles- the trip times are competitive with both road and air. Given that the enormous costs of even upgrading to 120mph- 1960s technology- could only be supported on the basis of the traffic volumes between the major metropolitan areas, the problem is that, outside the North east Corridor, there are very few major metropolitan areas within 200 miles of each other. These trains would be just as useless as the ones that failed in the 1950s.
There are however plenty of major urban areas within 200-400 miles of each other, which could be usefully connected by 200mph+ trains (which will be the state of the art by the time anyone got round to building). With 250mph, even 500 miles comes into the equation for business travel. So, my view is that, given US geography, the only thing worth investing mega $B in is high speed rail. Would it cost that much more than upgrading existing right of way to 120mph?- I doubt it. So, my view is that the very worst thing that could happen is that the US invests $100Bs in low speed intercity rail, as the 2050 passenger rail report advocates (This is a very scary document if you are a US taxpayer). If this is what you're advocating, then I think you're wrong.
Having said that, I simply do not know if high speed rail is worth doing. I agree with your statement ‘that the place for passenger rail is high density corridors, on an upgraded existing rail infrastructure, where the cost of building more highways (the choice of most people) and expanding airways (the choice of most business people) is cost prohibitive. Exactly right. What I don't believe either you or I know is how many of these corridors exist, or where they are, though we can make intelligent guesses. My point is not to argue that high speed rail is a solution, or indeed, essential, only to argue that a proper analysis should be done. Otherwise, the debate remains at the level of children (railfans) looking in shop windows (Government- no one else can pay the price) and saying ‘I really would like one of those trains, Santa Claus. Each to his own preference. I'm not in favour of a rail lobby demanding a rail solution, only a rational assessment of the alternatives (I'm a bit of a dreamer).
You then go on to bemoan the parlous state of US finances, to bolster the case that ‘we cannot afford it'. There seems to be a non sequitur here; on the one hand you argue that massive investment in infrastructure is needed (even though by your own logic it cannot be afforded), but then say high-speed rail cannot be afforded (though low speed rail can). How can you know if the analysis has not be done? How do you know what the true costs and benefits of the alternative investments are? How do you know what the price of the political barriers might be? I imagine even now that if a foreign railroad tried to buy a small railroad for a few hundred million $ that went through some of the most wealthy suburbs in the land, there would be quite a stir. What resistance to $225B per annum of toll roads? I'm quite happy to back down if there is data to hand, but I haven't seen any.
There are a lot smarter people than I all over the world wondering what to do about the level of US indebtedness, and how long they should go on funding it. I have no idea of the answers, but have hunch that, whilst I admire your high mindedness in saying that it would be irresponsible to pass it on to children and grandchildren, that's what will happen, including the children and grandchildren of the immigrants who have not yet arrived (Don't tell them). I have another hunch. There is a strand in another thread that somehow, the US operates in a different, more virtuous political environment to Europe (which is in fact very far from homogeneous). I think this is nonsense: it's about people responding to the realities they face. The US can do what it has done, and take the political stances it has because of the very privileged piece of real estate it has recently taken over, and the willingness of the rest of the world to invest in its deficit, in the belief that the dynamism of its people, economy and its natural resources are the safest bet for long term reward. There has been no need to spend more than 2.5% of GDP on infrastructure in a vast underpopulated land. It doesn't cost much to concrete over prairie or desert (Thesis, by the way, not fact), it does cost to concrete over Manhattan. The question is, how long can this continue, before the realities that beset the rest of the world, where people often live in something much closer to Manhattan than prairie or irrigated desert, (from which they want to escape to Dallas or Phoenix), start to bite. Again, I do not know, but by implication, your argument is that the US is already living in the past, because it even now does not spend what it needs to on infrastructure. I think that as this begins to pan out, some kind of political convergence is inevitable, timescale unknown, unpalatable as this may be. So, it's nothing to do with political virtue: to quote a past President ‘It's the economy, stupid'.
Subsidies may be a good thing if they are reasonable and fairly administered just to level out the playing surface. What the country really needs in an integrated transportation system . Regardless of what amouint of oil we have used up; it is in the short term a limited resource. Given that global warming is true , it behooves us to come up with less toxic and susstainable methods of powering our industries and transporation systems . Economics rules all aspects of our existance . Nobody shed a tear for the whalers when petrochemicals replaced whale oil , nor when gas companies were replaced by electrical generating companies. Diversity allows you to change when change is necessary . Whats really sad is when you put all your eggs in one basket and it falls . Playing catch up gets to be extremely expensive. Besides we have been subsidising giant corporations for decades ;they have been getting "social welfare" since Eisenhower left.
Dreyfusshudson wrote: I do not believe that any speed in excess of 80mph is remotely compatible with the interests of the railroads who own the current rights of way. Even as we converse, freight railroads are reducing the speeds of their trains to save on fuel costs. 80mph is worse than useless: 100mph failed in the 1940s, what chance 80mph in the 21st century? Could you take current rights of way, and make them ok for 120mph, by adding dedicated passenger tracks?
I do not believe that any speed in excess of 80mph is remotely compatible with the interests of the railroads who own the current rights of way. Even as we converse, freight railroads are reducing the speeds of their trains to save on fuel costs. 80mph is worse than useless: 100mph failed in the 1940s, what chance 80mph in the 21st century? Could you take current rights of way, and make them ok for 120mph, by adding dedicated passenger tracks?
Well, there already is some 110 mph passenger operation on frt RR owned track. From Poughkeepsie to Styvesant on the Hudson River is owned by CSX but NY State pays for class 5 and 6 track along the route. Frt traffic is very light, however...
NS's policy is 90 mph max on same track. Faster than that, has to be separate track. They are open to the idea, but bring your checkbook!
Something less than full HSR has a chance in the US now as more of the country becomes more more NEC-like, a place were moderately fast speed produces useful results.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
gardendance wrote: but then absent any more info we can't tell if the private operator is any less on the public dole than a government opertor.Philadelphia 1960's Pennsylvania RR and Reading RR, private companies at the time, both got subsidies for their commuter rail lines. Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Co president Merrit Taylor, bus and light rail operator, which had some lines which competed with the railroads, had been quoted in a few books I read that if he got even a fraction of the railroad subsidies he could carry passengers for free and still make a profit.
I think I see what your are getting at. But the PRR and the RDG were railraod companies who took the subsidy payments from government whereby this is a company which owns and operates the airports with no government subsidy mentioned.
Jhanecker2 wrote: Subsidies may be a good thing if they are reasonable and fairly administered just to level out the playing surface.
Subsidies may be a good thing if they are reasonable and fairly administered just to level out the playing surface.
I think the argument is that subsidies tend to tilt an existing level playing surface. I consider myself a railfan, which I think means I should be a member of the rail advocacy group, but I do realize that could be more an intersection, rather than a union of 2 sets. For the most part I expect that railfans and rail advocates feel that historically the subisidies, real, direct or imagined, have leaned towards the enemy: private automobiles and airplanes, and that rail subsidies so far have only partially gone towards redressing those past and present wrongs.
My laisez faire sentiment, all other things being equal, would be that we should eliminate subsidies if the intent is to level the playing field. That's in line with my efficiency theory, I'd like to hang onto my money rather than send it to a beaurocrat who will decide more wisely than me how it's to be spent, and of course be compensated fairly, out of my money, for his wise decisions.
Yes a subsidy might be a good thing, but my opinion is that it's to elevate the recipient, and there are those who feel the only way to elevate one segment is to subjugate another, as I usually feel as raifan and rail advocate, subsidies have tended to elevate auto and air at the expense of rail.
Jhanecker2 wrote: What the country really needs in an integrated transportation system. Regardless of what amouint of oil we have used up; it is in the short term a limited resource.
What the country really needs in an integrated transportation system. Regardless of what amouint of oil we have used up; it is in the short term a limited resource.
Can't agree with you more. The proper tool for the proper job. But the subsidy failure happens when it encourages us to use the improper tool. Again my feeling is that so far subsidies have tended to encourage us to use automobiles. But I also feel that for the most part the government has been giving the people what it wanted. Makes me kind of yearn to trust that wise beurocrat to handle my money, as well as yearn for the ability not to have to pay him for the service.
Jhanecker2 wrote: Nobody shed a tear for the whalers when petrochemicals replaced whale oil , nor when gas companies were replaced by electrical generating companies. Diversity allows you to change when change is necessary . Whats really sad is when you put all your eggs in one basket and it falls . Playing catch up gets to be extremely expensive. Besides we have been subsidising giant corporations for decades ;they have been getting "social welfare" since Eisenhower left.
Nobody shed a tear for the whalers when petrochemicals replaced whale oil , nor when gas companies were replaced by electrical generating companies. Diversity allows you to change when change is necessary . Whats really sad is when you put all your eggs in one basket and it falls . Playing catch up gets to be extremely expensive. Besides we have been subsidising giant corporations for decades ;they have been getting "social welfare" since Eisenhower left.
Again foamer railfan that I am, I shed tears once in while for the Lehigh Valley Transit, because now I cannot take advantage of hourly, or whatever the several times a day frequency it was, trips from 69th St to Allentown, and when I was stuck in traffic for 5 hours coming back from Cape May to Philly, 100 miles, ecologically sound 4 people in a sedan, I irritated my car mates with the number of times I said "I want my PRSL (Pennsylvania Reading Seashore Lines) train back".
Save the whales, collect the whole set.
henry6 wrote: this is a company which owns and operates the airports with no government subsidy mentioned.
this is a company which owns and operates the airports with no government subsidy mentioned.
But no subsidy mentioned does not necessarily mean no government subsidy, only that there's no mention one way or the other about if they're getting a subsidy. Similar to private automobile driving on the so called freeway. Or my wife saying "Why do we have to pay to visit the Franklin Institute? All the museums in Washington are free", yet she still complains about April 15th tax day, when she finally sees the bill for those museums.
I'm just saying that all I've seen in the posts is "operated", your post now is the first I've seen which says "owns". So department of beating the dead horse department, how did they get to own it? I admit I'm ignorant of the facts, but I'm assuming it was once government owned, did the government get a fair price when they sold it? If not there are those who would deem the bargain basement purchase price to be a subsidy.
henry6 wrote: gardendance wrote: henry6 wrote: 2). I understand that in England Heathrow Airport and many others are operatead by private companies. So, if we could introduce that into our air transportation system while rationalizing and planning, there might be some money to put into rail, too.I've seen that remark a couple of times in these forums. What does "operated by private companies" mean? Do the private companies have full responsibility for the financial and operational success or failure of these airports? Or are they under contract with some public agency, therefore one assumes if that agency deems them to be succesful then the agency will renew the contract? Are there guarantees that someone, the private enterprise or the public, will be made whole in the event of failure? I saw a news report...on BBC North America via PBS...the other night about a possible strike averted at England's Airports operated by such and such a company and Heathrow was singled out. It stated that this company "operated" these airports in Engalnd and others in the rest of Europe. I am intrigued by the concept and wonder why it has not been approached here in the Colonies! I do know that many airports have a fixed base operator and managers which are not public entities or necessarily employees here.
You might find the attached link interesting.
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11089928
The United States arguably has the best highway and airway system in the world. It needs to expand, upgrade, and maintain them properly. This is what Americans have consistently demonstrated that they want.
Passenger rail may be appropriate in relatively short corridors where the cost to build addition highway and airway capacity is prohibitive. There are numerous city pairs in the U.S. where the distance is 200 to 300 miles. In Texas most of the largest cities, with the exception of El Paso, are approximately 250 miles apart.
The DOT has identified the areas of the country where it believes transportation congestion is a major problem or will be in the next couple of decades. DOT's conclusions are based on sound research.
The most practical passenger rail option, where it is justified, is to upgrade existing facilities, as was the case with the NEC, for rapid rail. The U.S. does not need 200 mph trains. The NEC, by the way, hoists approximately 1,700 mixed trains operations a day.
I suspect few people along the NEC would describe the Acela as useless. It is a major player on the NEC, which is one of three corridors that cover its operating expenses from ticket revenues. It does so in part by snagging approximately half the commercial passengers traveling between New York and Washington.
The U.S. can afford to upgrade its highways and airways because that is what the people are willing to pay for. And they are willing to pay for them because it is what they want and use. Most people in my part of the country have never been on a railway train.
How much the U.S. and state governments spend on highways, airways, railways, pipelines, rivers, harbors, etc. is knowable. But one has to dig it out, as I have done and written about.
Transportation planners in the U.S. have reasonable estimates how much it costs to implement a transport alternative or up grade an existing one, e.g. $625 million (2007) to shave 15 minutes off the New York to Washington running time for the Acela; $7 billion to upgrade the NEC to TGV standards (2007); $3 billion to make commuter rail between Austin and San Antonio feasible (2008).
Highlighting U.S. financial straits is hardly bemoaning. It is a fact. And knowledgeable people, including the former Comptroller of the Currency and Head of the GAO, are very worried about it. It is going to have a major impact on what Americans can afford. Economists and budget wonks have a good idea what needs to be done to fix the problem. The challenge is getting the people to agree.
The U.S. could fund NARP's and the Passenger Rail Working Group's vision for a passenger rail network in the U.S. It could build high speed rail between every significant metropolitan area in the country. But given its other priorities, along with the aforesaid financial constraints, it could only do so with a hefty increase in taxes. And most Americans will not support going there.
Samantha wrote: The U.S. could fund NARP's and the Passenger Rail Working Group's vision for a passenger rail network in the U.S. It could build high speed rail between every significant metropolitan area in the country. But given its other priorities, along with the aforesaid financial constraints, it could only do so with a hefty increase in taxes. And most Americans will not support going there.
I follow you up to this paragraph. I agree that high speed rail is not the panacea for rail travel and is highly overated by most porponents who vary in defining it. But, "with a hefty increase in taxes" is applicable to the entire transportation system's future at this moment no matter what the mode.
And I have not heard a word from anyone here about privitizing airports like in Europe. Are publicly owned and operated airports in our country sacred cows? (Oh, I know there are some small private airports, and some public airports, where the fixed base operator is designated or charged with or acts as management by agreement. But I am talking about a Kennedy or a O'Hare or LAX.)
henry6 wrote: Samantha wrote: The U.S. could fund NARP's and the Passenger Rail Working Group's vision for a passenger rail network in the U.S. It could build high speed rail between every significant metropolitan area in the country. But given its other priorities, along with the aforesaid financial constraints, it could only do so with a hefty increase in taxes. And most Americans will not support going there. I follow you up to this paragraph. I agree that high speed rail is not the panacea for rail travel and is highly overated by most porponents who vary in defining it. But, "with a hefty increase in taxes" is applicable to the entire transportation system's future at this moment no matter what the mode. And I have not heard a word from anyone here about privitizing airports like in Europe. Are publicly owned and operated airports in our country sacred cows? (Oh, I know there are some small private airports, and some public airports, where the fixed base operator is designated or charged with or acts as management by agreement. But I am talking about a Kennedy or a O'Hare or LAX.)
Improvements in many transport modes may or may not require a signficant tax increase. It depends on how we want to pay for them.
More highways are being built as toll roads, at least in Texas, and planners are considering turning so-called free access highways into toll roads to pay for improvements. Even the expansion of I-35 north of Dallas, according to the planners, will include toll lanes. Tolls are direct user fees designed to pay for the roadway.
Approximately 85 per cent of the cost of America's airways, including the airports, are paid for by landing fees, vendor rentals, etc. and are reflected in ticket prices. Fees are direct user charges.
Samantha wrote: Approximately 85 per cent of the cost of America's airways, including the airports, are paid for by landing fees, vendor rentals, etc. and are reflected in ticket prices. Fees are direct user charges.
But the taxpayers, often non users of air services, are paying the other 15% or so. So, if Amtrak is supposed to be a self supporting (read: for profit) system, totally self supporting, why shouldn't airlines, bus companies, and truckers have the same stipulation? I know it is really a rhetorical question, and I am somewhat mocking those who complain about Amtrak because they don't use it. But, why hasn't the idea that airports be privately owned ever been brought up in this country.
And I see one of the major differences in your opinions and solutions is geography. How many times would New York or New Jersey fit inside the state of Texas? Put NJ into Texas as many times as you can. Then step outside, if there is room, and take a deep breath. The geography, climate, population density, transportation needs, all are so different in the East than they are in the West. So we will differ.
No one denies that all transportation modes get some kind of subsidy, often indirect.
The problem for train advocacy is that the rate of direct subsidy for trains is at least 10 times that of cars and planes on a per passenger mile basis. What this means is that if by some political miracle trains are funded at the same level as those other modes, trains will continue to be a minority contributor to transporting people.
The Vision Report proposed funding trains at roughly the level of the FAA budget. Their projection is that this infusion of money could bring trains about to 1/10th what airplanes are carrying.
That "all the other modes are getting subsidy" or "look at how much money the Department of Defense spends" or even "look at what NASA is getting" is not going to persuade people to spend more public money on trains. Is the argument "look at all of those other government boondogles, why can't the government waste more money on Amtrak"?
From the standpoint of the advocacy community, we have to come to terms with the high rate of subsidy required for trains or come up with innovative proposals to make trains more cost competitive. That something is subsidized tempers the need to run it in a cost-effective matter, but it does not eliminate all considerations of cost. Amtrak may not have the profit motive, but it has to make its case every year as to why the subsidy money gives the taxpayer value.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.