posted
It is a good report. The only fly in the ointment is the quote from Charles Arlinghaus about how buses pay for themselves (ho, ho, anybody seen a Trailways bus recently? And Greyhound? Well, I'd short the stock of the parent). Arlinghaus has written an op-ed piece in the Manchester (NH) Union-Leader a week ago about gasoline taxes and the highway trust fund. At the end of the article he mentions that these taxes pay for highway subsidy and that airport taxes pay for air travel subsidies, but no such tax income exists for train travel. His point is that users of roads and planes pay the subsidy of the service they use, and why should non-users of trains pay for passenger train subsidy? It's a fair point. What should our response be?
Posts: 518 | From: Maynard, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I no longer drive but I am taxed for highway projects to build and repair more roads so others can flood them with cars. I do not fly but I think ( those with more knowledge can correct this!) that some of our income tax pays the salaries of the air controlers. The security people at the airports are government employees.
Posts: 1577 | From: virginia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that it's a fair point: Users of roads and planes may pay the subsidy of the service they use, but the money for highways is supplemented from other sources--federal funds, for instance.
Besides, as a train rider, I don't ride buses too much, ride planes almost never any more, and in fact ride very minimally and only quite locally in a car. Yet I have to breathe all the air pollution they cause!
Posts: 2642 | From: upstate New York | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sojourner that is my point. I don't think all the services that the Government pays for, for the airlines comes from airport taxes. here in northen Va they wanted to raise taxes to pay for more roads. I don't drive so why should I pay that tax?
Posts: 1577 | From: virginia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TBlack: It is a good report. The only fly in the ointment is the quote from Charles Arlinghaus about how buses pay for themselves .... His point is that users of roads and planes pay the subsidy of the service they use, and why should non-users of trains pay for passenger train subsidy? It's a fair point. What should our response be?
If you'll look at the top of the second page of the article you'll see a response was already provided by the report:
quote:Busses, Arlinghaus argues, operate at a profit, use existing infrastructure, and can go anywhere they need to. "Passenger trains don't pay for themselves," he says, echoing a common criticism nationally. "They're an incredible waste of money."
Not so, says Patricia Quinn, head of the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority, which runs the Downeaster in conjunction with Amtrak. "All modes of transportation are subsidized – the roads we drive on, the airports we land at," she says. "A bus company doesn't have to maintain the cost of the road network. But we carry on our balance sheets the costs of maintaining not just our vehicles, but the infrastructure."
Regarding the notion that user fees completely cover highway costs, the fact is that user fees only cover about 60% of highway costs. Less if you include things like police. Overall Amtrak covers closer to 70% of its costs, including infrastructure and security.
Locally, our county is asking for a sales tax increase to pay for our badly deteriorating roads. Sales taxes all over California are being used for road projects because the gas taxes aren't covering state needs.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the statistics, Mr Toy. I knew user fees didn't cover it all and am glad to get some statistics. I did see the response in the article, I was just responding to the Arlinghaus quote, basically agreeing with trainlady and adding my own little tidbit about air pollution that should also be considered.
In my opinion, New Hampshire should absolutely start thinking about more public transit, especially in the southern part of the state (but if they do something smaller going into the north, like one train a day, perhaps into Canada, that might be a good idea too--esp good for tourist business). I must say, the bus line I took between Boston and Concord is nicely run, relatively clean, and pretty pleasant--nothing like that Greyhound I took recently! The Boston bus terminal is convenient to the trains; the little Concord bus terminal was even better. Still, there was plenty of traffic when we hit the Boston area, and its only going to get worse. It's not an either/or between bus and trains--they need both. The problem is the mushrooming number of cars. Soon there will not be enough buses to accommodate the growing number of commuters--only trains can do that. And when traffic congestion worsens, trains on these short distances are also much faster. It's quite a bit quicker to take the train from Albany into Manhattan than to drive, for example. Same could be made to happen for a train from Manchester NH to Boston. And trains are so much more comfortable than buses. And you can get work done on them--this is a huge boon to commuters. I don't know about you, but I cannot read on a bus (or in a car), it makes me queasy. But I can read, use computer, etc etc., on a train.
They probably need to consider a tristate deal, as NJ, NY, and CT have around the NYC area--with Massachusetts contributing a little something too. Boston benefits from NH and ME workers, shoppers, and travelers, after all. However, I can understand if Massachusetts cannot contribute too much; it has other factors to consider, having a big city like Boston that needs a subway etc., and having the suburban train lines within the state as well. I hear one of those suburban lines to the south was recently extended, btw. I also think they might consider another train from Boston west, perhaps just to Pittsfield, perhaps through Albany to Buffalo (and stopping in Chatham, now not a stop on the LSL). There were plenty of people riding the Chicago train westbound out of Boston when I took it who were not going beyond western NY; this traffic would certainly benefit from an eastbound train that is more reliable, timewise, than a train that starts in Chicago. And a reliable train connecting Boston to Springfield and Pittsfield could perhaps help economically in those western MAssachusetts cities, and be useful in getting tourists from the Boston area to Berkshires or making a connection into Vermont for the skiing season etc. . . . there are all kinds of possibilities, and in my experience Bostonians, like New Yorkers, Philadelphians, and Washingtonians, are inclined to use public transit when available.
Posts: 2642 | From: upstate New York | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you all be upset if I sent this thread to C. Arlinghaus in hopes of correcting his impressions of how and where highway/airport support is derived? Particularly interesting are Mr. Toy's comments on user fee/taxes coverage. I doubt that informing Mr. Arlinghaus will go a long way to effecting policy, but it does seem to me incumbant on us to spread the word where necessary.
Posts: 518 | From: Maynard, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
