No problem.MDRailfan said:I stand corrected. Thanks Alan.
No problem.MDRailfan said:I stand corrected. Thanks Alan.
Yes, I agree with you. I'm very surprised that no one in the White House are listening to privating British meltdown.Shinkansen1966 said:I'm a Brit living here in the UK and read with great interest the White House budget plans and Amtrak coming to an end. Until 1995, we had 'British Rail', nationalized publicly owned railway. Then the governent started raill privitization. Do you want hear what happened? It make depressing reading.
Still another interesting quote:Secretary of Transportation Norman Minenta declared in a speech in Chicago last week that Amtrak runs "trains that nobody rides between cities that nobody wants to travel between." Are 25 million people "nobody"? That's how many people rode Amtrak in 2004, 3.5 million more than at the turn of the new century. Are New York and Boston cities that "nobody wants to travel between"? Amtrak, which now runs the high-speed Acela, accounts for about one-third of the transportation market between those cities.
The full opinion from the Berkshire Eagle can be found here.Mr. Minenta is not the only one in the White House who doesn't have his facts straight. President Bush's budget proposal claims that if Amtrak is starved into bankruptcy court it will produce "restructuring and efficiencies." Actually, it will mean the end of Amtrak because a bankruptcy court's first obligation is to settle with creditors, which would mean the sale of Amtrak properties like, for example, New York's Penn Station.
The full story from Pittsbugh Live.Kicking the props out from what remains of passenger rail service in the United States would save $1.2 billion a year. But that is less than one-20th of 1 percent of the federal budget.
The entire proposed FAA budget for FY 2006, including both the air traffic control system and airport grants, is just under $14 billion. Of that, nearly $13 billion is funded directly from airline ticket and avaition fuel taxes and fees. Only $1.1 billion comes from the general treasury to the FAA and commecial aviation.Guest said:And 35 billlion for airports and airlines and such.
Airline fees do not cover the costs of operating airport infrastructure. Without mega local funds and billions in federal support, the entire operation would grind to a halt.musher said:In other words, do airline fees for airports cover the cost of the airports and the surrounding infrastructure, or is there subsidy at that level as well?
Guest:Guest said:There is a clear and distinct difference between projects like Amtrak and junk like the following.
1. $17 billion a year in subsidies to agribusiness – the mythical family farmer
2. $50 billion in free radio spectrum to local TV broadcasters (just about everyone else pays for spectrum)
3. $50 billion a year is export subsidies (declared illegal by the WTO).
4. $11 million a year to manufacturers of bows and arrows
5. $15 million a year to the California Prune Board
6. $16 billion a year in tax breaks to SUV buyers
7. $400 thousand a month to Ahmed Chalabi
All major airports are operated independent of local tax contributions, with that financial separation often written into law. The day-to-day operating costs and debt service on local revenue bonds are more than covered by airline landing fees, gate leases, concession fees and leases, and parking. Almost all big airports are huge cash cows for the owner authority (the exception being special problem child facilities where a large terminal was built primarily for a single airline tenant and that tenant either walked or filed Chapter 11; i.e. Pittsburgh). The primary problem for day to day financing of large airports is not the need to tap local taxes, but it is the temptation for the local municipality to tap excess airport revenue to fund unrelated needs. Such cross-subsidization is prohibited.lepearso said:Airline fees do not cover the costs of operating airport infrastructure. Without mega local funds and billions in federal support, the entire operation would grind to a halt.
It may be true that of the 14 billion that comes from federal support having some 13 billion from fees paid by the airlines, let it be known that there is plenty more coming from the federal government to benefit airlines and airports, and not a cent of it is offset by airlines paying fees or by ticketed passengers. And costs are rising especially when you factor in the new security measures. Also consider the funds airports receive from municipalities, some of which can be matched with state and federal money.
I'm a dairyman (calf raiser). It's not a junk program. It's an effort to keep the produce (milk, wheat, corn, beef, etc.) prices low so that the consumers can afford to buy without going hunger. Produce prices haven't raised the price to meet with the inflation since 1900s. Gov't funds are to be used on depressed price or natural disaster such as drought, hailstorm, etc. If we get a really good year, then we can afford ourselves. It's just like a gambling, far worse than Las Vegas!Guest said:There is a clear and distinct difference between projects like Amtrak and junk like the following.
1. $17 billion a year in subsidies to agribusiness – the mythical family farmer
Of course the Port Authority then reneged on it's agreement to provide service to the station for free. After collecting millions of dollars in PFC's to build the monorail extension, they then turned around and decided to charge $5 per passenger to ride the monorail from the train station to the airport, $7 if you're coming from NY.PRR 60 said:A good example of airport financing of external transportation is the Newark Airport station on the NEC. This station was built by the Port Authority of NY & NJ (owner of EWR) and was funded by the PA through partial application of PFC’s (Passenger Facility Charges on tickets dedicated to local landside airport projects). The station was built at no cost to either Amtrak or New Jersey Transit.
Point well taken.AlanB said:Of course the Port Authority then reneged on it's agreement to provide service to the station for free. After collecting millions of dollars in PFC's to build the monorail extension, they then turned around and decided to charge $5 per passenger to ride the monorail from the train station to the airport, $7 if you're coming from NY.
EXACTLY!!!!!!! What you said!!!!! Here Here... amen and amen!!!AmtrakWPK said:One thing that needs to be explained to W is that the money the federal government gets COMES FROM THE STATES. HELLO??!! Where does he think we citizens live? Mars? ... "State participation"? The money he's got in his hands (most of which he's shoveling out the door to Iraq as fast as he can move it) comes from us, THE CITIZENS, and we live IN THE STATES!!! He and his flunky Mineta act like federal money comes from someplace other than the States in the first place. And if we, the citizens, say we want Amtrak, and that we want a national passenger rail system, (as ALL the polls that I'm aware of say), then where the heck does he get off telling us we don't? Maybe we need to just have Amtrak re-incorporate as the "Iraqi National Passenger Railroad" and list their corporate address as Iraq. They'd probably be knee-deep in federal money inside of a week.
Now that is what I've been waiting to hear! Everyone complains, 'why should I pay for something I don't use?" That is a very arrogant thing to say. There are so many things I pay for that I don't use either. But I benfit from it indirectly. Sales tax, social security, welfare....I never see the benefits from paying for that. Yet my children get an education so they take care of me when I'm old. I could could go on, but I'll leave it at that.SavetheCZ said:EXACTLY!!!!!!! What you said!!!!! Here Here... amen and amen!!!
It's been the same thing over an over again. Cut federal funding for education, transportation, and generally everything except for "defense" (ie. pre-emptive self defense) then the states have to pick up the tab. Guess what folks the funding is still coming from us. The same thing happened in California with the "Gropenfuher" when he was selected to replace the former governor. He made a campaign promise to refund and cut the increased vehicle registration fees when he did that the financial sitution of "Calleefoorneea" was made worse because there was a greater deficit because of the refunds (which became borrowed funds... borrowed money for for tax/fee refunds? That sounds awfully familiar on the national scene too.) As a result local programs such as education, fire and police protection, roads and public transportation in many cases had to cut services and raise their county and city sales taxes to maintain service levels. Public services such as Fire and police, education and even roads and Amtrak all cost money and provide a valuable service and the funds for those services have to come from somewhere.
I will happily pay taxes for services even if I never use them. I don't mind paying federal taxes that may go to subsidize the building of a freeway through Podunk Kansas or may subsidize an amtrak train or an airport. I don't have a problem with it because I know that someone in Mississippi will be paying a small percentage of some project that benefits me in my area. We really should stop regionalizing issues based on taxes. Some people feel because they don't use a service that they shouldn't have to pay for it, how selfish. Projects especially transportation projects (all transportation rail, roads and otherwise) make it possible to move goods, services and people from place to place creating jobs on multiple levels. Construction workers, truck drivers, rail construction and employees all benefit from me paying my taxes. Taxes pay people to work. Taxes improve our lives. That being said I'm not a never ending tap of funds. I live in the state with the 5th highest tax burden in the country (Utah... yup Republican Right wing Utah and the state to give DUB the greatest margin of victory and the only state where Clinton came in 3rd behind Ross Perot twice) has some of the highest combined taxes in the country (as a reference California is ranked 26th) Tax Burden by State
To close as this has gone on long enough... Every year there is fighting for continued funding for Amtrak. Could you imagine if the presidents plan to pass off the cost of Amtrak to the states passed? You would have exactly the same thing that we have now except it would be happening in every state with Amtrak service, so it would be 45 times worse as each state would have their own budget battle concerning funding of Amtrak. And what happens when a state has a shortfall?? The Dubya plan is perfect for his goal to kill passenger rail but ill-conceived for the rest of us.
You know it! Trains in Nebraska SUCK! It's too bad they don't have a train that goes from Chicago to Denver and offsets when the Zephyr goes through. Then at least we wouldn't have to board at such crazy times.Allen Dee said:All looks well here in California, but I can foresee some problems in some other states, though. One state that immediately comes to mind is Nebraska. I cannot imagine the residents of that great state wanting to finance two trains that pass through their state at ungodly hours of the night and not-so-much on time. Perhaps an exception could be made for those passengers boarding or detraining at Lincoln or Omaha.
Enter your email address to join: