3 ms·

Airports and Air Traffic systems also cost money. Several tens of billions of dollars were spent on SFO+LAX+SJC+OAK+SAN upgrades in California in the last few d

Airports and Air Traffic systems also cost money. Several tens of billions of dollars were spent on SFO+LAX+SJC+OAK+SAN upgrades in California in the last few decades. If you add up the CapEx, it's on par with the CapEx for high speed rail. Operationally, the FAA budget is $15 billion a year, the TSA is $7 billion per year, so minimally, $22 billion in government subsidy.

ekianjo 12y ago
The difference being that an airport can be used for intercontinental travel, not just domestic. Your Shinkansen lines in Japan can only be used where they go. Airports can connect to everywhere in the world (within a certain range at least), it's a much better investment for your buck.
- cromwellian 12y ago
  For travel of 5 hours and less, I'd disagree. The airport is a less efficient use of one's time, even if it is cheaper per mile flown. Traveling from SFO to LAX on high speed rail is far preferable to me than driving for 5 hours or a 5-hour airport experience. Mythbuster's recently tested this, and the actual difference between driving and flying door-to-door was like 15 minutes. A 2.5 hr train ride would not only be faster, it would be far more pleasant in terms of getting on/off, and in terms of comfort and space onboard.
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    Even if it's not that much faster, flying is way cheaper. In Japan there's just no way you get as far with the train as the plane on the same budget. Hell, for a Osaka-Tokyo trip by train, I can fly to Korea for the same price.
dworin 12y ago
Air traffic systems aren't a good analogy - for the most part, they're funded through user fees. Eighty percent of the FAA budget [1] is funded through the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which is based on taxes and service fees levied on operators and passengers. This was designed to allow the agency to grow with the size of the industry, without taking over the federal budget. It's also more progressive, since air travelers are generally wealthier, it makes it so you don't have to subsidize travel for the rich with taxes on the poor and middle class. Airport construction follows a similar system. Most airports in the United States are public-private partnerships. They issue Airport Revenue Bonds, which are similar to municipal bonds from a tax perspective, but they're backed by airport revenues, not municipal tax revenue.[2] The airport authority has to pay back the debt through the fees they collect from operators or concessions. The latter is why everything from bottled water to rental cars is more expensive in an airport. It's not just that they have a captive audience, it's that concession sales actually pay for the operation and expansion of the facility. In both cases - the FAA and capital expenditures - it's mostly paid for by the users, not the taxpayer. [1] - https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aatf/media/AATF_Fact_Sheet.pdf https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ap... [2] - http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=14041&page=12 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=14041&page=12
- Maven911 12y ago
  Curious how do you know so much about the Airport industry and how I can get more information about the airport industry
- cromwellian 12y ago
  Well, the same excuses have been made about the road system, that it's funded by gas taxes, but when people crunched the numbers, it turned out it's only about 50%. Since the subsidy you link to, varied between 70% and 80%, it could still be the case that the Airport system in California got subsidies within a small multiplicative factor over it's entire lifespan compared to the proposed costs of the high speed rail system. The objections to high speed rail IMHO, aren't 100% based on economics or funding, because other things have gotten massive subsidies, they're also based on a kind of weird political tribe association people have against trains. Let me quote George Will as an example: "To progressives, the best thing about railroads is that people riding them are not in automobiles, which are subversive of the deference on which progressivism depends. Automobiles go hither and yon, wherever and whenever the driver desires, without timetables. Automobiles encourage people to think they—unsupervised, untutored, and unscripted—are masters of their fates. The automobile encourages people in delusions of adequacy, which make them resistant to government by experts who know what choices people should make. Time was, the progressive cry was “Workers of the world unite!” or “Power to the people!” Now it is less resonant: “All aboard!”" So, to some people, trains are a Euro-socialist kind of thing, anti-freedom.

ekianjo 12y ago

The difference being that an airport can be used for intercontinental travel, not just domestic. Your Shinkansen lines in Japan can only be used where they go. Airports can connect to everywhere in the world (within a certain range at least), it's a much better investment for your buck.

cromwellian 12y ago
For travel of 5 hours and less, I'd disagree. The airport is a less efficient use of one's time, even if it is cheaper per mile flown. Traveling from SFO to LAX on high speed rail is far preferable to me than driving for 5 hours or a 5-hour airport experience. Mythbuster's recently tested this, and the actual difference between driving and flying door-to-door was like 15 minutes. A 2.5 hr train ride would not only be faster, it would be far more pleasant in terms of getting on/off, and in terms of comfort and space onboard.
- ekianjo 12y ago
  Even if it's not that much faster, flying is way cheaper. In Japan there's just no way you get as far with the train as the plane on the same budget. Hell, for a Osaka-Tokyo trip by train, I can fly to Korea for the same price.

dworin 12y ago

Air traffic systems aren't a good analogy - for the most part, they're funded through user fees. Eighty percent of the FAA budget [1] is funded through the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which is based on taxes and service fees levied on operators and passengers. This was designed to allow the agency to grow with the size of the industry, without taking over the federal budget. It's also more progressive, since air travelers are generally wealthier, it makes it so you don't have to subsidize travel for the rich with taxes on the poor and middle class. Airport construction follows a similar system. Most airports in the United States are public-private partnerships. They issue Airport Revenue Bonds, which are similar to municipal bonds from a tax perspective, but they're backed by airport revenues, not municipal tax revenue.[2] The airport authority has to pay back the debt through the fees they collect from operators or concessions. The latter is why everything from bottled water to rental cars is more expensive in an airport. It's not just that they have a captive audience, it's that concession sales actually pay for the operation and expansion of the facility. In both cases - the FAA and capital expenditures - it's mostly paid for by the users, not the taxpayer. [1] - https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aatf/media/AATF_Fact_Sheet.pdf https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ap... [2] - http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=14041&page=12 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=14041&page=12

Maven911 12y ago
Curious how do you know so much about the Airport industry and how I can get more information about the airport industry
cromwellian 12y ago
Well, the same excuses have been made about the road system, that it's funded by gas taxes, but when people crunched the numbers, it turned out it's only about 50%. Since the subsidy you link to, varied between 70% and 80%, it could still be the case that the Airport system in California got subsidies within a small multiplicative factor over it's entire lifespan compared to the proposed costs of the high speed rail system. The objections to high speed rail IMHO, aren't 100% based on economics or funding, because other things have gotten massive subsidies, they're also based on a kind of weird political tribe association people have against trains. Let me quote George Will as an example: "To progressives, the best thing about railroads is that people riding them are not in automobiles, which are subversive of the deference on which progressivism depends. Automobiles go hither and yon, wherever and whenever the driver desires, without timetables. Automobiles encourage people to think they—unsupervised, untutored, and unscripted—are masters of their fates. The automobile encourages people in delusions of adequacy, which make them resistant to government by experts who know what choices people should make. Time was, the progressive cry was “Workers of the world unite!” or “Power to the people!” Now it is less resonant: “All aboard!”" So, to some people, trains are a Euro-socialist kind of thing, anti-freedom.