5 ms·

Taxpayers (and freight customers) shouldn't be subsidizing a novelty form of transportation for rail fans. If there's a subset of people who want this service,

by rdl 9y ago

Taxpayers (and freight customers) shouldn't be subsidizing a novelty form of transportation for rail fans. If there's a subset of people who want this service, they should pay sufficient fares to cover the cost of service. Amtrak isn't doing that.

Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
As a non-driver[1], I totally look forward to the day when my taxes are no longer used to fund the road network and its deleterious effects. [1] can drive, choose not to, don't own a car
- rdl 9y ago
  Federal highways are about 30-50% funded by gas tax in the US; I agree fuel taxes should be increased to the point where they pay for the road network. (State/local roads are separate, and are much more multi-model in use, at least in cities, so it's harder to apportion costs.) (https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2009/09/17/do-highway-users-pay-for-the-highway-system-not-even-close/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2009/09/17/do-highway-users-pay-...)
riffic 9y ago
You're correct - taxpayers should be subsidizing an improved form of rail transit instead (see china, europe, japan.)
- pzone 9y ago
  Taxpayers should barely subsidize trains, if at all. If they're not profitable it's a very strong sign they shouldn't be run in the first place. (Or prices should be increased.) America is very different from Europe and Japan. Japan's population is concentrated in a single megalopolis. Europe is denser than America as well, 700 million people in roughly the same area. Another reason sprawling rail networks aren't a great idea in the US is that our geography is cleaved down the middle by a 1000 mile swath that is sparsely populated, and bordered by a massive mountain range.
  - ascagnel_ 9y ago
    Ironically, one of the biggest problems Amtrak faces is that it's forced, by Congressional decree, to service unprofitable routes on track time that must be paid to freight carriers. If Amtrak operated only the Northeast Corridor, and could reinvest in that region instead of having to beg for nickels, the US could have train service in a region that more closely mimics the relative density of Europe. Acela is a step in that direction, but a half-step at best.
    - pzone 9y ago
      Yep, but you get romantics who just can't imagine reducing train service on those unused lines out of the romance, and they come and downvote people who suggest maybe this things aren't much of a public service, and people who aren't using them shouldn't be paying for them.
anderber 9y ago
"Yes, Amtrak is subsidized. So are all competing forms of transportation. Highways cover only 51 percent of their costs from all user fees, including the gas tax. The rest is paid by subsidies of one form or another, especially from local property taxes. Airlines receive massive subsidies in the form of airports and the air traffic control system. The day after 9/11, the airlines ran to Capitol Hill and were immediately given billions of dollars in additional taxpayer money, no questions asked." http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/dont-railroad-amtrak/ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/dont-railroa...
- rdl 9y ago
  Airports are largely self-funded by user fees (or via federal funds which come from other user fees and fuel taxes), and airlines (except for bailouts in 2008-2009) are almost entirely commercially funded. http://airportsforthefuture.org/did-you-know/ http://airportsforthefuture.org/did-you-know/ Air is the true competitor to the long-haul train in the US. It is cheaper and faster. There are separate arguments for/against transit and regional trains, but long-haul passenger rail, which is what is discussed in TFA, is essentially a novelty.
  - fulafel 9y ago
    There's the small problem that air travel is environmentally unsustainable, with no fix in sight. It should be heavily taxed to account for the env. externalities.
    - rdl 9y ago
      Taxes to account for environmental externalities (in the case of air travel, noise, CO2, altitude-related pollutants are probably the main things) make sense for everything. Air travel beats road and rail in some cases on this, doesn't in others. Taxes and thus pricing in all the costs would let consumers decide.

by rdl 9y ago

Doctor_Fegg 9y ago

As a non-driver[1], I totally look forward to the day when my taxes are no longer used to fund the road network and its deleterious effects. [1] can drive, choose not to, don't own a car

rdl 9y ago
Federal highways are about 30-50% funded by gas tax in the US; I agree fuel taxes should be increased to the point where they pay for the road network. (State/local roads are separate, and are much more multi-model in use, at least in cities, so it's harder to apportion costs.) (https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2009/09/17/do-highway-users-pay-for-the-highway-system-not-even-close/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2009/09/17/do-highway-users-pay-...)

riffic 9y ago

You're correct - taxpayers should be subsidizing an improved form of rail transit instead (see china, europe, japan.)

pzone 9y ago
Taxpayers should barely subsidize trains, if at all. If they're not profitable it's a very strong sign they shouldn't be run in the first place. (Or prices should be increased.) America is very different from Europe and Japan. Japan's population is concentrated in a single megalopolis. Europe is denser than America as well, 700 million people in roughly the same area. Another reason sprawling rail networks aren't a great idea in the US is that our geography is cleaved down the middle by a 1000 mile swath that is sparsely populated, and bordered by a massive mountain range.
- ascagnel_ 9y ago
  Ironically, one of the biggest problems Amtrak faces is that it's forced, by Congressional decree, to service unprofitable routes on track time that must be paid to freight carriers. If Amtrak operated only the Northeast Corridor, and could reinvest in that region instead of having to beg for nickels, the US could have train service in a region that more closely mimics the relative density of Europe. Acela is a step in that direction, but a half-step at best.
  - pzone 9y ago
    Yep, but you get romantics who just can't imagine reducing train service on those unused lines out of the romance, and they come and downvote people who suggest maybe this things aren't much of a public service, and people who aren't using them shouldn't be paying for them.

anderber 9y ago

"Yes, Amtrak is subsidized. So are all competing forms of transportation. Highways cover only 51 percent of their costs from all user fees, including the gas tax. The rest is paid by subsidies of one form or another, especially from local property taxes. Airlines receive massive subsidies in the form of airports and the air traffic control system. The day after 9/11, the airlines ran to Capitol Hill and were immediately given billions of dollars in additional taxpayer money, no questions asked." http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/dont-railroad-amtrak/ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/dont-railroa...

rdl 9y ago
Airports are largely self-funded by user fees (or via federal funds which come from other user fees and fuel taxes), and airlines (except for bailouts in 2008-2009) are almost entirely commercially funded. http://airportsforthefuture.org/did-you-know/ http://airportsforthefuture.org/did-you-know/ Air is the true competitor to the long-haul train in the US. It is cheaper and faster. There are separate arguments for/against transit and regional trains, but long-haul passenger rail, which is what is discussed in TFA, is essentially a novelty.
- fulafel 9y ago
  There's the small problem that air travel is environmentally unsustainable, with no fix in sight. It should be heavily taxed to account for the env. externalities.
  - rdl 9y ago
    Taxes to account for environmental externalities (in the case of air travel, noise, CO2, altitude-related pollutants are probably the main things) make sense for everything. Air travel beats road and rail in some cases on this, doesn't in others. Taxes and thus pricing in all the costs would let consumers decide.