I am a conservative and in that respect I don't like subsidies of any kind. But the airlines and roads are far more subsidized than Amtrak. So why complain just because Amtrak continues to need hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars each year? The airlines gobbled up $15 billion in the wake of September 11 and many are now saying they will go out of business next year anyway. In all of 30 years Amtrak has been subsidized by less than twice that amount.
As regards the future of passenger rail in the United States, the jury is out. Some believe that passenger rail should be subsidized in the mistaken view that intercity highways and airports are subsidized. Indeed, highways and airports are financed with fees and taxes paid by those who use them. Anyone not wanting to pay for highways or airports can simply not use them and not pay --- just as a person not wanting to pay for hardware can simply stay away from hardware stores.
At least Weyriich has a clue. What makes Cox think highways are paid for entirely through user fees? If all forms of transportation were self supporting, train travel would be the least expensive, hands down, because the overhead is by far the lowest. Fuel costs per passenger mile are lower. Infrastructure is relatively cheap (especially when you take out the property taxes). The only reason why passneger trains have failed is because other forms of transportation are kept artifically cheap through taxpayer subsidized infrastructures. I'd bet that the freight trains would have failed too if it wasn't for the inherent economies of the trains.
posted
I wholeheartedly agree, Mr Toy -- Mr Cox is way out in left field when he says that highways and airports are paid for by the people who use them. What a specious comment from a person who should know better. I know (and I'm sure HE knows) many many people who NEVER use an airplane, NEVER drive (don't own a car) and are STILL paying taxes to support both infrastructures. If, as Mr Cox claims, only users paid for using them, they'd fall apart.
Mr Weyrich is at least a realist -- I share his views about public subsidies, but at the same time, I am realistic enough to know that either we taxpayers support transportation or we don't have it.
This is a pipe dream, but would be a fun experiment: the taxpayers mandate that the airlines, highways, and railroads all get an equal piece of our taxpaying pie -- 33 1/3% for each, no further subsidies ... wonder who would be hurting at the end of the fiscal year?
Posts: 52 | From: Lithia, Fl, USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I pay taxes, but don't drive a car.. technically I'm not using the highways. Our tax dollars pay for highway upkeep, don't they? OK, yeah I do ride in cars that drive on the highways, and in theory, I don't pay tolls or gas which supposidly funds highway maintenance and construction. Are highways funded ENTIRELY by the gas tax? I don't know about that.. maybe someone here does. I WISH I had the choice not to use the highways, but until our railroads are properly funded, what alternatives do we have?
Posts: 140 | From: Albany, NY | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, we're beating this particular dead horse yet again?
Railfans always seem to *just know* that everybody besides trains gets big subsidies. As with so many things that everybody knows, this is not quite correct.
1) Federal gas tax revenues exceed Federal spending for highways (yes, really, it's true). Now, states and localities spend money on highways too, and there's a cost for police protection, snow removal, etc., etc. Probably some of this is covered by general revenues rather than fuel taxes, but the bottom line is that the big capital spending at the Federal level (90% of the construction cost for interstate highways, 70% for US highways) comes entirely from the Highway Trust Fund, which is entirely funded from fuel taxes. No general revenue money at all.
2) Airports are self-sustaining moneymakers for the states and cities that own/operate them. They are built using money from tax-exempt bonds. THe bonds are paid off with airline landing fees, revenues from airport concessions such as rental cars, parking, hotels, etc., and from "passenger facility charges", a direct tax on each airline ticket. The only subsidy would be the tax-exempt status of the land used by the airport, and the revenue loss due to the fact that the bonds are tax-exempt.
3)One unequivocal subsidy to airlines is the approximately $18 billion spent by the Federal government for the air traffic control system. But that's spread across general aviation as well as nearly 500 billion air passenger miles. Amtrak generates about six billion passenger miles for its $550 milllion subsidy. You do the math, and tell me whose subsidy is bigger.
Don't construe from any of this that I'm anti-rail, or that I think Amtrak should disappear. But if we're going to argue subsidy, let's start from the facts. Just because you don't like the numbers doesn't mean they're incorrect.
Posts: 614 | From: Merchantville, NJ. USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I do not know if your facts are correct (They may be), but I very much agree with you. most of the people on this forum are such fans of Amtrak that they overlook the facts, and only concentrate on what is only their own opinions. I agree with you, I am a fan of passenger railroads also, but it is only fair to show both sides of the story.
------------------ Elias Valley Railroad (N-scale) www.geocities.com/evrr
posted
Wendell Cox does research paid by the highwya users alaliance formed by GM in 1932 and an anti -AMTRAK group calling for elimination of S-250 (HSRIA)
Posts: 17 | From: new york | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
