4 ms·

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 Air

by 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.

by dworin 12y ago

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.