Railroad Forums 

  • Funding Discussion - Amtrak DC Politics RELATED TO RAIL!

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1337179  by Ken V
 
David Benton wrote:If you want some comparison to make you feel better, We pay around USD $1.80 per US gallon tax on gas, here in New Zealand.
We in Canada don't have quite the same gas tax burden as you. There are local, provincial and federal excise taxes per litre and then sales taxes tacked on (tax on tax). Today, here in Toronto, regular gasoline sells for about $1.20 (Canadian) per litre of which 38½¢ is tax. This amounts to around $1.18 (U.S.) tax per gallon.

None of this is dedicated to transportation or infrastructure and everything is lumped in to "general revenue".
 #1337240  by BandA
 
I'd like to see the federal gas tax increased by about $.50, with half passed on directly to the states where the gas is purchased. Remember, oil prices are set by the OPEC cartel with collusion by monopolist oil companies and refiners, and the acquiescence of a corrupt and clueless federal government. Most of those foreign countries express open hatred of Americans while happily taking our money. We have to stop enriching our enemies.

Ultimately, all road maintenance should come from the gas tax. None of the gas tax should go to operational subsidy of railroads.
 #1337540  by afiggatt
 
electricron wrote:I recommend killing all gas taxes and replacing it with another tax.
How much do gas taxes generate as revenue today?
Around $28 Billion during FY 2008. I assume the funds collected today are about the same.

How many new cars and trucks are sold in the USA?
Around 16 million

I suggest an additional $2000 average tax for every new car and truck sold be the replacement tax. The new car tax could be ratio by weight or by gas mileage. Spread that $2000 tax over the average 5 year loan, that's just $400 per year, about $30 per month for your car's payment bill.

For comparison purposes, the average American drives a car 16550 miles a year, with an average gas mileage of 25 miles per gallon (2015 new car), with a Federal gas tax around 18 cents per gallon. That averages $119 in gas tax per year.
Math = 16550 / 25 x 0.18 = 119.16.
I recently read that the average American pays around $98 in federal gas tax per year, so your numbers are on the high side. I thought the average driving distance of 16,550 miles a year was high, so I did a search. Turns out 16,550 is the average for males across all age groups. The average for the US driving population is 13,476 miles per year. Source: Average Annual Miles per Driver by Age Group. Using 13,476 miles / 25 mpg x 0.183 = $98. Which matches the number I read in regards to how much the average American pays in federal gas taxes per year. Although this is nit-picking, on my part I admit.

As for levying a one time car tax on sales of a new car, the revenue from that would have collapsed when car and SUV sales plunged after the 2008 crash. The beauty of the gas tax is that it is an incremental tax, paid in relatively small amounts over the course of the year, and is inexpensive to collect. Another advantage of the gas tax is that those who drive heavier vehicles and/or drive more miles, thus causing more demand and wear on the road system, pay more. Perhaps not in direct proportion to the amount of wear they may cause to the road, but in principle, if you opt to drive a big pickup truck, you pay more gas tax.

IIRC, the federal government is currently pulling in around $34 billion a year from the 18.3 cent excise tax on gasoline and 24.3 cents on diesel. The annual outlay of the HTF is circa $50 billion, so the annual shortfall is in the ballpark of $16 billion plus. The easiest near term solution would be to raise the excise tax on gas and diesel by 12 cents a gallon. That would effectively fix the shortfall for the rest of the decade. The Mass Transit Fund which currently gets 16% of the gas tax (2.9 cents) would get a proportional increase. And how about 1.4 cents of the 12 cents to passenger rail for capital grants (Amtrak and state projects)?

Not a long term solution, true, but the simplest and easiest change to implement. Yes, fully electric or plug-in hybrid cars would not pay a gas tax, but they are a tiny percentage of the cars & SUVs on the road. An annual assessment based on mileage driven on electric cars would be one way to begin to transition to a direct annual mileage driven transportation tax approach that could be phased in over 10-12 years for all vehicles.

However, the politics in Congress at present mean that any increase in the gas tax, even one that adjusts for inflation since 1993, is a non-starter. Instead, Congress is likely to go with some ridiculously complex tax scheme to "generate" revenue to cover the shortfall in the HTF for the next 3-4 years. And Amtrak will limp along with about $1.4 billion in total funding per year; enough to keep running, but not enough for the NEC or buying new rolling stock for the LD network.
 #1337542  by electricron
 
afiggatt wrote:I recently read that the average American pays around $98 in federal gas tax per year, so your numbers are on the high side. I thought the average driving distance of 16,550 miles a year was high, so I did a search. Turns out 16,550 is the average for males across all age groups. The average for the US driving population is 13,476 miles per year. Source: Average Annual Miles per Driver by Age Group. Using 13,476 miles / 25 mpg x 0.183 = $98. Which matches the number I read in regards to how much the average American pays in federal gas taxes per year. Although this is nit-picking, on my part I admit.
Thanks for the correction, it's not nit-picking to get better data from better sources. ;)
And I agree gas taxes are collected in smaller amounts throughout the year. Never-the-less, $100 fee per driver or per car per year could collect as much in gas taxes in a year. It is an alternative that taxes everyone equally.
 #1337597  by YamaOfParadise
 
I dare say that this is relevant to a talk of funding: Senate Commerce Committee OKs rail reforms, Amtrak reauthorization
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation yesterday approved the "Railroad Reform, Enhancement and Efficiency Act" to improve freight- and passenger-rail safety and reauthorizes Amtrak funding at $6.6 billion over the next four fiscal years.
...
Additionally, the bill calls for investments in passenger-rail infrastructure, would leverage private-sector investment in the Northeast Corridor, increase states' say in infrastructure planning on state-supported Amtrak routes and in the Northeast Corridor, and streamlines the permitting process on infrastructure projects, according to a committee press release.
I am really curious to see what they mean and intend by "leveraging private-sector investment in the Northeast Corridor"; I can't wrap my brain around how that would be done.
 #1340880  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Well, look what "popped to the top" again; this time on its own merits.

I don't think this breaks any new ground around, but it appears in Sunday's (thrice the daily circulation of weekdays) Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/nyreg ... ridor.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fair Use:
In Maryland, a century-old rail tunnel needed emergency repairs this winter because of soil erosion from leaks, causing widespread train delays.

In Connecticut, an aging swing bridge failed to close twice last summer, shutting train service and stranding passengers.

And last week, New Jersey Transit riders had a truly torturous experience. There were major delays on four days because of problems with overhead electrical wires and a power substation, leaving thousands of commuters stalled for hours. One frustrated rider, responding to yet another New Jersey Transit Twitter post announcing a problem, replied: “Just easier to alert us when there aren’t delays.”

These troubles have become all too common on the Northeast Corridor, the nation’s busiest rail sector, which stretches from Washington to Boston and carries about 750,000 riders each day on Amtrak and several commuter rail lines. The corridor’s ridership has doubled in the last 30 years even as its old and overloaded infrastructure of tracks, power lines, bridges and tunnels has begun to wear out. And with Amtrak and local transit agencies struggling to secure funding, many fear the disruptions will continue to worsen in the years ahead.
And, from Saturday's Times, a related editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/opini ... istie.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fair Use:
In a glaringly shortsighted decision, Governor Christie canceled work in 2010 on a new tunnel under the Hudson River. It was designed to deal with the worst bottleneck in the Northeast rail corridor, which is the busiest in the United States and serves millions of people each year.....Governor Christie originally said he stopped work on the new tunnel because it would cost his state too much money. Then, he got the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to reroute $3 billion that had been allocated for the project. Instead of a tunnel to benefit the whole region, the money went to patch Mr. Christie’s roads and bridges....If everything really is on the table, Mr. Christie should help legislators come up with a gas tax that starts to dig the state out of its transportation mess. At the same time, he should support Amtrak and others as they start over with new plans for a tunnel under the Hudson.
 #1340885  by rr503
 
What are the chances of this senate bill passing?
NJT has been virtually ruined, it's underfunded, overused, aging and disorganized...
If only we could start from scratch... :-D
 #1340941  by SouthernRailway
 
How much lobbying power does Amtrak have? I assume that it has a governmental relations department and maybe pays a few lobbyists, and NARP and APTA lobby on their own and have some input, but I assume that the total pro-passenger rail lobbying power is pretty limited.

Maybe having more powerful citizen advocacy groups plus more lobbying could finally get some results?

Maybe NARP should give away memberships to every commuter in the US who buys a monthly train pass?
 #1341036  by rr503
 
SouthernRailway wrote:How much lobbying power does Amtrak have? I assume that it has a governmental relations department and maybe pays a few lobbyists, and NARP and APTA lobby on their own and have some input, but I assume that the total pro-passenger rail lobbying power is pretty limited.

Maybe having more powerful citizen advocacy groups plus more lobbying could finally get some results?

Maybe NARP should give away memberships to every commuter in the US who buys a monthly train pass?
My fingers are crossed
It'll probably be amended though...
 #1341093  by GWoodle
 
rr503 wrote:What are the chances of this senate bill passing?
NJT has been virtually ruined, it's underfunded, overused, aging and disorganized...
If only we could start from scratch... :-D
Slim to none, with the Ex-Im Bank battle in the middle.

Huge debate for 6 month no change bill till December vrs the 6 year deal.
 #1341113  by Desertdweller
 
I would just like to remind AMTRAK that there are taxpayers out here who have minimal or no train service. The focus on funding is focused on the NEC. Certain metro areas get funding for commuter rail. The rest of the country gets nothing. Why do you think it is called "fly-over country"?

My state gets one train a day in each direction. One of our neighboring states gets none. This is not right.

Les
 #1341115  by Greg Moore
 
Desertdweller wrote:I would just like to remind AMTRAK that there are taxpayers out here who have minimal or no train service. The focus on funding is focused on the NEC. Certain metro areas get funding for commuter rail. The rest of the country gets nothing. Why do you think it is called "fly-over country"?

My state gets one train a day in each direction. One of our neighboring states gets none. This is not right.

Les
Several thoughts:
1) NEC gets the focus because that's where the ridership is!
2) Many argue that if we got rid of the LD routes (the once a day) Amtrak would be better off.

That said.. I full agree. I think there needs to be a bigger push for more trains on the LD system, even if they're a series of segmented day trains or the like.

I'd have no problem if Amtrak funding increased and that meant additional trains in fly-over country.

I think a BIG part the success of something like Amtrak is the power the network to funnel more rides to more places. Part of that is more trains over parts of flyover country.
And of course the political reality is the NEC states need the votes of Senators and reps from the fly-over states. Amtrak is at its budgeting heart, a political creature.
 #1341131  by Desertdweller
 
Greg,

The ridership is on the NEC because that is where the trains are. And that is where the money is spent. And that is where the political power is.

AMTRAK is supposed to be a nation-wide system.

I think the big problem with the organization of AMTRAK (I really think it was set up to fail) is that it was patterned after the airlines' hub and spoke design. And only one major hub away from the NEC. The politically important City of Chicago. Hub and spoke works for a 600mph. transportation mode.
But not for a 60mph one.

We have lots of locations in Mid-America that were hubs and could be once again: Twin Cities; Omaha; Denver; Amarillo. Consider: a passenger in St. Paul wants to go to Denver. This involves a 400 mile trip in the opposite direction before heading west. The most-often requested route for reinstatement of passenger service (some years ago) was for a route between Denver and Dallas. Now, there is no train service south out of Denver.

Since this is a discussion of funding, I think some of the funding should go to these long-distance services. From my own experiences, long-distance trains in "fly-over country" run full or near-full. The problem is not lack of patronage. When we start considering tax uses, road improvements or passenger trains, we need to consider options that exist. For a person living on the NEC, rail is a real option. For someone outside that area, private automobiles are the only option (bus services have dried up almost as must as train service).

Les
 #1341137  by Greg Moore
 
Desertdweller wrote:Greg,

The ridership is on the NEC because that is where the trains are. And that is where the money is spent. And that is where the political power is.

AMTRAK is supposed to be a nation-wide system.

I think the big problem with the organization of AMTRAK (I really think it was set up to fail) is that it was patterned after the airlines' hub and spoke design. And only one major hub away from the NEC. The politically important City of Chicago. Hub and spoke works for a 600mph. transportation mode.
But not for a 60mph one.

We have lots of locations in Mid-America that were hubs and could be once again: Twin Cities; Omaha; Denver; Amarillo. Consider: a passenger in St. Paul wants to go to Denver. This involves a 400 mile trip in the opposite direction before heading west. The most-often requested route for reinstatement of passenger service (some years ago) was for a route between Denver and Dallas. Now, there is no train service south out of Denver.

Since this is a discussion of funding, I think some of the funding should go to these long-distance services. From my own experiences, long-distance trains in "fly-over country" run full or near-full. The problem is not lack of patronage. When we start considering tax uses, road improvements or passenger trains, we need to consider options that exist. For a person living on the NEC, rail is a real option. For someone outside that area, private automobiles are the only option (bus services have dried up almost as must as train service).

Les

I have to continue to disagree. The population density along the NEC greatly influences its traffic patterns. Heck, just consider I-95 from NYC to DC (a distance of 225 miles) vs Nashville, TN to Cincinnati OH (275 miles). You'll find the traffic density on I-95 far higher.

You couldn't suddenly run 24 trains a day each way between those two cities and generate nearly the traffic that the NEC gets.

That's simply population density.

That said, I mostly agree with you, more funding SHOULD go to trains in the heartland, but there are many that will argue that that's where the biggest losses already are.
(to randomly pick some Pew numbers, Sunset Limited loses $193/passenger, while the Northeast Regional trains loses $5/per passenger).

Looking strictly at economics, it's hard to justify additional routes like the SL (even having two of them) at losses like that.

That said, I think Amtrak has to be considered from a perspective of more than simply "cost". There's a societal benefit to increased transportation and access.

The government is not a business nor should it be run like one (if it were we'd be declaring bankruptcy based on our Iraq "investment").
 #1341214  by Tadman
 
Desertdweller wrote:I would just like to remind AMTRAK that there are taxpayers out here who have minimal or no train service. The focus on funding is focused on the NEC. Certain metro areas get funding for commuter rail. The rest of the country gets nothing. Why do you think it is called "fly-over country"?

My state gets one train a day in each direction. One of our neighboring states gets none. This is not right.

Les
??? There are equal or less taxpayers in NM and AZ combined as a whole than in each node of the Northeast Corridor. There's no riders and nowhere to go unless you could a few densely populated areas that already have commuter or transit service such as Phoenix, Tucson, or Santa Fe. In those areas you have quite nice modern commuter or transit systems so I'm not sure what the gripe is. Do we want 3x/day from Tombstone to Yuma?

Look, I'm in Chicago and I hate driving. I ride the train absolutely whenever possible. But let's be realistic here.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11