Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All forms of transportation should be funded by the users of those services including roads, rails and airports.
And they do now:
National roads (US highways and Interstate Highways) are funded by the federal excise tax on gasoline (although some of the revenue is diverted to other uses, each state is permitted to divert some of the money, and I believe some of this supports transit). Local roads are funded at the state and town levels.
Railroads are funded by their private revenue
Airports and the FAA are funded by the taxes on air tickets plus money raised by the airport authorities. Until the TSA was created in 2001, the system usually ended up in the black.
The big exceptions to these norms are Amtrak and the TSA, both of which could vanish without the notice of about 80% of the US population.
The system we have now is mostly a market-based system; it works well (and I repeat, I am a heavy user, with 150,000 air miles and 30,000 road miles this year); and it's relatively cheap (compare the costs of operating a car in France with one in Texas, for example.)
Any politician that tries to screw with the existing transportation system in any significant way will be an ex-politician very quickly.
For example, only 60% of gas taxes go to fund roads. The rest goes to a variety of things such as mass transit, parks, etc.
Why should gas tax only fund more infrastructure that requires more gas? That is like taxing cigarettes to maintain and open more cigarette selling outlets.
Apparaently, we do have a couple of participants here who know a thing or two about trackwork, or dispatching, or a little of both. That is a refreshing change from too many forums where either the NIMBYs, dreamers, or what rail buffs refer to as "foamers" try to dominate.
It hasn't been brought out here (as yet) that the ability of freight and passengers to share track capacity is not what it once was...
And we have much, much less track mileage than 100 years ago. Even since the 1970s nationalization of passenger rail service, the total track mileage in the US has dropped considerably.
The railroads do not want to pay to maintain unused track, very simply put.
But to be fair to the pro-HSR participants, they are advocating completely separate (and brand new) rights-of-way.
Why should gas tax only fund more infrastructure that requires more gas? That is like taxing cigarettes to maintain and open more cigarette selling outlets.
Gas is good. Cars are good. Fast cars are even better. Long live fast cars with big powerful engines!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
National roads (US highways and Interstate Highways) are funded by the federal excise tax on gasoline (although some of the revenue is diverted to other uses, each state is permitted to divert some of the money, and I believe some of this supports transit). Local roads are funded at the state and town levels.
Railroads are funded by their private revenue
.
Mass transit is not funded by riders. It's hugely subsidized by everyone.
A 2004 study from Lancaster University concluded that there was no environmental benefit to be gained from persuading car or plane travelers to switch to trains. Environmental group Friends of the Earth were skeptical of the findings, claiming the results are not in line with previous studies. The study showed that trains had failed to keep up with the advances that the automotive and aviation industries had made in improved fuel efficiency. Express trains travelling from London to Edinburgh consumed 11.5 litres more fuel per seat than a modern diesel car and Pendolino trains weigh more per seat than the Airbus A380 airliner. A representative from Modern Railways magazine is reported as having said:
"I know this will generate howls of protest, but at present a family of four going by car is about as environmentally friendly as you can get."
London Heathrow to Paddington... in 15 minutes, pretty much guaranteed versus about an hour in car (no guarantees). I know what I prefer... every time. Although, that gives me very little time to have my coffee and be online responding to C-D threads while cruising at 100 mph.
i guess the burning question is not should we build it but with what money will we pay for it.
btw japan and mexico depend heavily on buses, 1/3 the fare u would pay on the train. the setup fee and maintenance of bus routes and subcontracted staff is a fraction of that of rail.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
