posted
Just saw in an engineering/construction related publication that the government is going to spend $2.8 billion at Dulles Airport and $200 million at National Airport for various improvements. Thats a total of $3 billion, get this $3,000,000,000, that is 30,000,000 pictures of Benjamin, for only two airports that both serve the same city!!! No one is talking about "money losing airports" or "subsidy to money losing airlines" when they say this, either. No, it is called "capital imporvements" For that kind of money how many coaches, sleepers and engines and how much in the way of track imporvements could we buy? Are we being paranoid? No. They really are out to get us.
Mike Smith Member # 447
posted
That kind of money will double track the entire Sunset Limited route (triple track it where it is already double tracked).
That would improve transportation of people and material throughout the South.
espeefoamer Member # 2815
posted
And maybe the Sunset Limited could run on time for once.
------------------ Trust Jesus,Ride Amtrak.
[This message has been edited by espeefoamer (edited 08-06-2004).]
rresor Member # 128
posted
Actually, the airports in Washington, which AFAIK are run directly by the Federal government, are an exception to the general rule that airports are self-financing. Yes you heard right. Airports are usually run by state or local authorities with bonding power. They sell tax-exempt bonds to finance construction. The bonds are paid off from a variety of sources:
1) landing fees paid by airlines 2) concession fees paid by hotels, car rental companies, and taxi and limo operators 3) parking fees 4) rental on retail space
The largest and best-run airports are actually profit-makers for their owners.
Now we can get into a long and fruitless argument over whether tax-exempt bonds and the fact that airports pay no real estate taxes constitute a "subsidy", but it'll be a pretty sterile argument.
The Airport and Airways Trust Fund, administered by the Federal government, pays for the air traffic control system and (I think) certain categories of airport improvements like ATC systems. It is about 65% funded from taxes on airline tickets.
Okay, now, let's see if we can pay for Amtrak improvements (or even 65% of them) by taxing Amtrak tickets, and let's try making PHL 30th Street self-supporting with concession fees.
polarbearucla Member # 2723
posted
rresor - I really agree with your agrument - But isn't Dulles Airport in Virginia (not in the district) and thus not under federal jurisdiction?
BTW national airport is now named after our late 40th president!
sbalax Member # 2801
posted
As a airline friend of mine likes to point out, the only airport named after TWO presidents. Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. And then there's George (and Barbara and Millie) Bush Intercontinental Airport Houston.
Frank in Sunny SBA ˇViva la Fiesta!
MPALMER Member # 125
posted
quote:Originally posted by polarbearucla: isn't Dulles Airport in Virginia (not in the district) and thus not under federal jurisdiction?
Yes, Dulles (IAD) is in Virginia, but I do believe it is administered by DC. Part of the capital improvements are for a "rail transit system" from the ticket counters to the gates. The underground rail line will replace large bus-like 'mobile lounges' (built by Budd-the RR car builder-in PA!)
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
Both National and Dulles are in Virginia. the state line is the normal low water line on the south side of the Patomac River. Major city airports may be "self financing" if you forget property taxes, police, access roads, etc., etc. but what about those that have service primarily courtesy of "essential" air service subsidies? I can think of a few, example Laurel/Hattiesburg, Mississippi comes to mind that have exactly two commerical departures a day, and these are not big planes, either. There are undoubtably many others with nice 6,000 foot plus concrete runways and all associated appurtenances that exist primarily to satisfy medium sized cities desire to have air service coupled with the political clout to get it.
MPALMER Member # 125
posted
quote:Originally posted by rresor: They sell tax-exempt bonds to finance construction. The bonds are paid off from a variety of sources:
1) landing fees paid by airlines 2) concession fees paid by hotels, car rental companies, and taxi and limo operators 3) parking fees 4) rental on retail space
The largest and best-run airports are actually profit-makers for their owners.
.
Do you know how the bonds are paid off if the fee collections fall short? Some local initiatives for bonds get shot down by voters because there is the fear (reality?) that the bond issuers will tap into some other taxpayer funds to pay the bonds if the revenue doesn't come in as projected.
Incidentally, it was the potential loss of parking revenue that was cited as one reason why Los Angeles Intl. Airport (LAX) rejected the MTA Green Line transit system from directly entering the airport. There is a train-to-bus transfer instead...
Tessie Member # 1419
posted
One of the reasons some out-of-the-way places have nice airports is because of the military. Many of them are partially if not mostly funded so that there is "scatter" airports for our planes to go to in case of an evacuation of major military bases.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
Yes, and the Interstate highway system got 90% federal funding rather than the 50% federal funding normally prevailing for highway work at the time because it was supposed to be for "defense", anyone remember that? Supposedly in case of war or national emergency the "I" routes could be closed to civilian traffice and used for military moves only. "Defense" has been used to justify a lot of federal expenditures that in reality had no bearing on the military preparedness of the country.
The fear of loss of parking revenue had a lot to do with the lack of enthusiasm and downright obstructionism of SFO for the BART connection. But then energy efficiency and exhaust pollution are not considerations of the aviation minded, are they. Traffic problems? Build more lanes, build more runways!!
[This message has been edited by George Harris (edited 08-09-2004).]
posted