posted
The original thread on this topic was started by Mr. Toy and is further down the topic list. In that thread I suggested communicating with Charlie Arlinghaus, the policy "expert", to correct a misunderstanding about the costs of various modes of people transport. I'm enclosing my email to him and his response here:----
tblack@eastoninvestment.com wrote: > Dear Mr. Arlinghaus, > > I follow a forum on AMTRAK (Trainweb.com) regularly; recently, one of my correspondents showed us the article from the Christian Science Monitor wherein you were interviewed about passenger rail travel. I also noticed that you had more to say on the subject in an editorial in Union-Leader. I think there is a basic mistake that you are making with regard to how the costs are covered in various modes of passenger travel. I'm including here a copy of a dialogue on the subject from trainweb. At issue is whether train travel relies any more or less on the federal government for subsidy than airplanes or buses. AMTRAK receives its support in a one-line item in the federal budget, and therefore, it's easy to measure. Bus and airplane subsidies are much more diffused and therefore hidden and harder to measure. So I'm not buying your point that trains are any more expensive to operate than planes or buses, and I'm hoping this email will cause you to think about your position in a little more depth. > > Sincerely, > > Tom Black
Tom, I'm replying sooner that I thought in a search for more information.
My concern has been NH specific and my quote was a little bit off. My point is that, in NH, every dime we spend on highways is paid for my toll revenue and the gas tax, user fees. In our state, we even divert 44% of those user fees for other uses. So highways are paid for in their entirety by user fees, taxes only paid for by the people who use it. That is to say, they pay for themselves.
As for Buses, the local intercity buses (Concord Coach, etc) do in fact pay for themselves. A new Boston commuter bus covers more than its operating costs although a capital expenditure (the bus) was provided by the state. The state shouldn't have done that as the service does pay for itself anyway but the bus company was skittish the state would start running trains before they paid them off.
Our pasenger airport in manchester is publicly owned but is paid for by airline taxes and parking fees rather than out of the city budget. I'll look for those statistics.
So our highway funds come only from gas taxes and tolls or federal grants paid for entirely with gas taxes. The airport pays for itself and requires no appropriation.
The commuter train they propose would require 100% of the capital improvements to be paid with non-user fee tax dollars and would also require a significant operating subsidy. The downeaster is a wonderfully successful train but its capital costs were paid entirely out of non-user fee tax dollars. Its operating costs are subsidized by millions of dollars, about $20 per passenger.
The national government might be able to afford trains but commuter trains are a financial drain in NH.
Your correspondents seem well informed (as railfans tend to be). I would be open to exploring the extent to which highway spending is not paid for by user fees. I suspect that they are in some states. I'm pretty sure that in NH, user fees pay for the highway and then some.
I'm interested in any other information you can refer me to.
Coridally, Charlie
Well, I probably didn't articulate our position as succinctly as I could have, because I see that he has still not taken into account those "off-balance sheet" expenses such as security, air traffic controllers, infrastructure improvements, or generally any items paid for with federal dollars. Is there anything else I should be including?
Posts: 518 | From: Maynard, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I forgot to add that I included with my email a copy of the original thread down to the point where I suggested communicating with Mr. Arlinghaus. I had previously gotten the OK to do that from the various participants. So he had some of our thoughts.
Posts: 518 | From: Maynard, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
