During WW 2 the government imposed a 10% tax on rail travel. Now remember at that time
the majority of travel and in most cases the only way to travel was by train. This tax on rail travel
was not rescinded until the formation of Amtrak in 1971.But I’d like to ask were did all that tax
money go? It didn’t go into a rail transit fund or the like did it? NO! So were did it go? To the
general fund that states used mostly to support local activities and build/maintain roads.

During Pres Clinton’s administration wanted a fuel tax on airline, trucking and railroads.But
thanks to the strong (let me repeat that-strong) lobbyist from the trucking and airline industry
they managed to avoid the tax, not so for the railroads, who are more fuel efficient in may ways
then the airlines and trucking industry.

As it was pointed out on this post that railroads do pay more taxes then most business in this
country.But when I hear of subsidies to Amtrak I laugh and remind that the railroads in many ways
subsidize YOU! The trucking and airlines get indirect subsidies that taxes pay from other funds.
The railroads have been trying to get the government, without much success, in giving them a 25%
tax credit to reinvest in needed infrastructure improvements for increased capacity for the next 10 years.
( Rail freight tonnage will rise 88% by 2035! )

Unless you want more trucks on the highways and the costs of maintaining them will
eventual bankrupt the highway trust fund. To late, this year (2009) the highway trust fund is bankrupt
due to less tax revenues and of the $40 million spent on highways they had to borrow $8 million form
other funds. Social Security is not the only fund that is insolvent, our government is not telling the whole truth-our country is BROKE!

I challenge Conservatives to do only three (3) things:
1-Lower railroad taxes
2-Set up a much needed Rail Transit Fund equal to the Highway and Airline Funds
3-Bring “logic” and “balance” to intermodal transportation

If not you will pay-do you now how much it will cost taxpayers if we had to privatize the railroads
that compete with already public funded highways or airlines that do not build their own airports?
We still need our railroads.

Suggest reading Railfan and Railroad, October 2009 issue pages 16-18.

Just a few examples of the many that could be listed- The Great Northern, of course, was built with land grants, just like almost every other railroad in the country.

And the California HSR is not some wild idea dreamed up by unemployed science fiction writers. After studying how best to meet the increased transportation needs of the next 30 years, the HSR emerged as one of the most cost-effective, that is to say, cheaper than building more roads and airports. The proposal has been studied at length by the California legislature, had hundreds of hearings, has the support of the California Department of Transportation and the Airport Managers Association, has had the enabling act passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, and the funding approved by the citizens.

Well, progress has always occurred before without the help of “conservatives”, so I guess we’ll just keep on going without them. Too bad they can’t get a clue from Paul Weyrich and William Lind.

Basically what you’re saying is that two wrongs make a right. For the moment let’s assume, in arguendo, that you’re correct about the subsidization of roads, a libertarian will immediately tell you that the correct solution would be to end subsidies for the roads … not give another mode a subsidy.

Conservatives and libertarians would want to know how much of a subsidy and how much the gas tax would need be to be raised to cover.

You see, even if they don’t know the stats that rail (transit, commuter, and Amtrak) account for less than 1% of the transportation market (Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2006), they intuitively know that rail is a minor player in transportation.

Now, as for whether the gas tax covers the highways, I checked one of the more liberal states in the Union … Massachusetts. Here is a quote from their website about the MA Highway Fund: The Fund pays all transportation-related expenses, including debt service on bonds issued for transportation purposes. The fund finances highway maintenance and safety services and the state’s share of federally sponsored highway projects as required. http://transportation.blog.state.ma.us/blog/2009/02/current-gas-tax-where-does-it-go.html

Hmmm, the Fund pays ALL transportation-related expenses … I don’t hear the governor of MA laughing that the gas tax doesn’t cover the highway projects.

I know that TN has raided the Road Fund to balance the state’s general budget. Earlier this year (’09), there were committee meetings to discuss how to spend the money in the Fund … nothing about a Fund shortage. Don’t hear the governor of TN laughing either.

Most of the studies that I’ve seen show that the gas tax does cover the highway expenses. Where the-roads-are-subsidized argument has some validity are local roads which are usually paid for by local taxes.

So what the pro-rail folks often do, incorrectly, is lump the local roads with the highways and cry, “See! Roads are subsidized too!”

Not only that, but money from the gas tax is siphoned off to subsidize transit. So one of the first reactions will be, “If the roads need a subsidy then let’s start by returning the money given to transit to the road fund.”

You could get more conservative and libertarian buy off on rail projects if you could convince them that they would at least cover the operating and maintence costs. The initial capital construction costs aren’t usually as much of a problem as the coninuing call for more money to keep them running.

drag us into unwanted wars - Are there really unwanted wars?

In NYC immigrants have created their own semi legal van service. It is not clear why it is not legal to operate these vans, other then they might put the government bus service out of business. Intercity, immigrants created the Chinatown bus which regularly undercuts both Amtrak and Grey Hound.

See Hong Kong for more ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_light_bus

So why not try legalizing private transportation before coming up with a public boondoggle.

High Speed Rail? It works in Europe due to having collections of large cities close to each other. In the US it might work in a few locations, but the reality is if you are going from Cleveland to another city, air is the best way.

I have to laugh at any comparison of rails to buses. The only legitimate comparison is if one includes the cost of the highway used by the bus. Contrary to what some will tell us, the bus company does not fully pay for it’s highway use when it purchases the fuel. A fairer comparison would be if the train was operating on tracks owned and maintained by the government. Maybe that is the model we need…..consider rail tracks and rights of way as property of the government, then charge freight and passenger companies to use them. I think we already know (from the experiences of other countries) that such a system is not perfect, but it might be better than what exists now, at least for the movement of people. I doubt the freight railroads would like it.

Personally, I would much rather see pressure put on the railroad companies to allow the construction of dedicated passenger rails on existing rail rights of way. Along with that, I would like to see a move toward grade separation at all automobile crossings, which would improve both speed and safety. Additionally, some dedicated rail could be built on existing interstate highway rights of way.

There are ways to build a decent passenger rail system, using rights of way that currently exist. The real problem is mustering the political will to make it happen.

Where do you assume this from what I say? I do not prefer public funding (extortion) for any form of transportation, I don’t think the gas tax covers the bill. Again, road conditions continue to get worse, maintenance is deffered, while taxes rise, If a company were running like a transport authority they would go out of business in a day. I advocate private ownership of transportation of any form, no where do I chose public funding. In order to end the increase in road costs and increase quality, the govts should secede ownership to private entreprenuers.

The roads you drive on are highly subsidized by the government. Why is your preferred mode of polluting (cars travel) more qualified for public funding? And don’t think the gas tax covers the bill.

Simple analogy: an elevator in an apartment building recovers no funds — it operates at a loss. But the apartment building would have no value without the elevator. The market does provide elevators; I’m not sure it would provide public transit without really large landowners dominating the landscape.

That all said: it would be really nice if property owners who would all jointly benefit from a transit investment along a corridor might band together in an association to fund an infrastructure investment from which all would benefit. The Brookings Institution is actually working with the DC government and downtown business groups to explore the potential of this approach with landowners in transit-servable corridors in the district. It’s a good model that hopefully could be supported by parties of all political stripes.

What was possible for private enterprise to build and operate a century ago would be impossible today for these reasons and more. If, however, government were willing to partner with private industry to smooth-out these many barriers and assist with basic infrastructure costs we could have a truly viable passenger rail system in the making.

Substantial public-private partnership is, in fact, a necessity, not an option. And I’m not talking about paying a private contractor to operate the system, I’m talkin about a substantial role where private investors stand to gain hugely if rail is run well.

Naturally, this argument rests on one clear assumption, government by itself could never pay for all the rail projects that should likely be built. No matter how high income taxes are hiked, no matter how high corporate taxes are hiked, no matter how high property taxes are hiked– our governments could never buy a suitable system from money taken from taxpayers.

If you believe government could pay for even some of the rail projects mentioned here in the Infrastructurist, you’re either foolish or a Marxist ideologue.

Libertarians be warned, there is not a 100% private solution for a successful American rail service future. Our governments are too far gone at this moment in time.

One example from highway construction is the Virginia HOT lanes project. Regardless if you believe the Beltway in Virginia needed more lanes or not, one thing is true, the thirty-year old overpasses, underpasses and exits needed to be replaced. In this case, no combination of government monies would have been able to pay for such an expensive undertaking. By partnering with private investors, the state of Virginia was able strike deal where the state got new overpasses, underpasses, exits and HOV lanes while the private investors got a financial stake in potential toll revenue from those same HOV lanes. That’s a win-win.

America’s future rail system could benefit from a public-private partnership that seeks to achieve a win-win. In fact, it’s a necessity.

I couldn’t agree with you more. Before the 1950’s public trans was mostly private and very profitable. That is until government started subsidizing the automobile industry. Not only did the government give money to GM, Ford, etc. but they also built up their highway and roadway system for them.

To truly give rail a change in the public sector, government would stop building roads and highways for the auto industry and sell off what we have already built up. Then Government would tax the buyers of the roads high property taxes like they do the rail. THEN the Government should stop enforcing highway and traffic laws and make the buyer of the roads pay for their own security.

When that happens, I will be one of the first to start looking for investors for rail, because it would be very competitive. Today it’s not competitive because one is taxed by the government, the other is subsidized by the government.

Actually, much of the NYC subway, including the system’s longest line, was built by the city-owned IND. Of the two private companies that remained at consolidation, one, the IRT, was losing loads of money, and the other, the BMT, was a successor to bunch of other companies that went bankrupt. Furthermore, nearly all private subway operators received some kind of subsidy or legal status from the city. The IRT, which constructed the first line, was private entity founded in accordance with a state law that mandated the construction of the line. Private enterprise did not just dream up the New York City Subway without lots of help from government.

There may be a role for private enterprise in transit development. But “getting the government out” is not a solution, and would probably make things worse.

I thought this interview brought up a lot of very good points - chief among them framing transit as an economic and national security issue. I can understand the conservative view in those areas. But one problem that I constantly have with conservatives/libertarians is the endless faith in the free market. The free market is great, but it’s not great at everything.

As a conservative, I have been a proponent of train travel for years. I understand that if there was no public funding at all for any type of transit, we would have a far more efficient, faster, and comprehensive train system. Free markets are a recipe for lower cost and better service. Government involvement is a recipe for the opposite.

When Simon Bolivar burned the ships the crew knew there was no turning back. We have the option to start the fire or watch as our way of life goes up in smoke. World markets realizing the enormity of the US decision will sell oil like it has no tomorrow. Therefore we can have our cake and eat it to.

Grant upgrades to maximize a hub (rail) and spoke (trucks). With bottlenecks eliminated increased capacities can flow faster than trucks between hubs. The Japanese and Europeans electrification of rail eliminates the threat of oil to the transportation network. HSR can piggyback on the electric infrastructure, thus killing two birds with one strategic oil reserve