Rail: The Case for "Interstate II"

Washington (DC) Highway Transportation Fraternity | May 1999 | Gil Carmichael

[Publius]

Gil Carmichael, chairman of the Amtrak Reform Council, made this address at the annual meeting of the Washington Highway Transportation Fraternity, a part of the "highway lobby". This piece is posted as a companion to Abolishing Amtrak: Why I Voted No.

[Tijeras_Slim]

How many times have you heard people ask, "Why can't we have trains like those in Europe?"

Only liberals...

[Publius]

I'm not a liberal, and I ask that question quite a lot.

[Publius]

For your review.

[B Knotts]

I think many people miss the fundamental question: do we really need to move all those people? In other words, is there a way to increase our productivity by using modern technology to reduce the need for business travel or long commutes?

[Publius]

I wouldn't mind telecommuting, but my boss likes to keep an eye on me.

[Daus]

For the equivalent of two cents on the motor fuel tax

I love this.... Can't fund the mode of transport you, individually, intellectually like? Fund it off the back of the mode of transport you deride.

These is a Amtrak route that runs (from and to city centers) between Milwaukee and Chicago. I-94 also runs directly in between those two cities. The train is probably somewhat faster, but it costs $50 roundtrip while my cost of gas is about $10. $50 + massive ferderal subsidy and Amtrak is still losing money each time I ride it. Every day thousands of people make the trip to Chicago on I94 while hundreds take the train.

[Phantom Lord]

I am an opponent of trains in most cases. Cities like NY, SF, Boston, DC, LA and other LARGE (millions of residents) need trains. Small cities and suburbs do NOT need trains of any shape or form.

Here in Raleigh NC they are pushing hard for a light rail system. It is going to be nothing more than a Billion dollar plus boondoggle.

The Triangle Transit Authority (TTA), which operates the bus system in the area has ZERO riders. Well not zero, but on some of their routes they average .9 riders per trip! Of the entire bus system, the average ridership is close to 9 people per route. 9 people are using the bus and they want to spend a billion dollars on a train! And that rider number may be high. Also, i see the Amtrack train going through Durham twice a day. I count the riders. Avg... 5! There are more cars on the train than there are riders!

Oh, and if a developer attempts to build a highrise, high density building and development, they put up roadblocks and stop him from doing it. Without high rise and high density TRAINS ARE USELESS AND A WASTE OF MONEY!

Hey train lovers, how about this... PAY FOR IT YOURSELF! Meaning, tickets to ride should cost what it costs to ride. NO TAX PAYER SUBSIDIES. PAY THE FULL FARE!

[delapaz]

I have a high suspicion that if you sum up all of the money currently raised by federal state and local gas taxes, add in all of the money raised by car fees, truck fees, licensing, driver's licenses, etc. then take out all of the money spent on roads and highways, that you will have a huge pile of money left over. In other words, roads pay for themselves and are not subsidized by taxpayers.

just a hunch.

the same should be true for rail and air travel. the infrastructure costs must be paid for by the users of the system.

just a hunch.

[caddie]

Thanks, Publius, I will have a look at it a little later.

This dude is right in that there are really no other options besides beefing up the rail infrastructure.

I think people who are dead set against it have not seen how good it can be.

It's not a matter of if but of when. Late --caddie.

[Publius]

This article is not about Amtrak. (They can abolish it for all I care.) This is about building infrastructure -- something that government has done since the Madison Administration -- that will aid commerce.

[cicero's_son]

"Hey train lovers, how about this... PAY FOR IT YOURSELF! Meaning, tickets to ride should cost what it costs to ride. NO TAX PAYER SUBSIDIES. PAY THE FULL FARE!

You mean like you Road Lovers paid for the Interstate Highway system yourselves?

[Publius]

Small cities and suburbs need rail to get people into the big cities. That's what commuter rail is for.

I'm not going to get into a discussion of whether light rail will work for Raleigh because I've never been there and don't know anything about the city.

But if you were to shut down TTA and require those bus riders to drive, you'd have major congestion, maybe even gridlock. In a city, where the principles of high density living and high density working rule, high density transportation is a must.

[ghostcat]

I think that is why most companies don't have telecommuting! It is a control issue!!

[Phantom Lord]

As delapaz said in post #9...

I have a high suspicion that if you sum up all of the money currently raised by federal state and local gas taxes, add in all of the money raised by car fees, truck fees, licensing, driver's licenses, etc. then take out all of the money spent on roads and highways, that you will have a huge pile of money left over. In other words, roads pay for themselves and are not subsidized by taxpayers.

I think he is right.

[Publius]

Your hunch is wrong. Gas taxes at both the state and federal level pay for less than half of what it costs to build and maintain highways. The rest is made up out of the general fund, i.e., sales and income taxes.

That's why gas taxes are not truly a "user fee".

[Publius]

You're wrong. See post #16.

[delapaz]

If you are right I might change my mind on this issue. If I am right you should change yours. It'll be tough slogging to find the answer though I'll bet.

Thank God for the internet. I'll try to look up some facts in my spare time over the next couple of weeks. feel free to reply me or freepmail if you have anything hard on this.

[Daus]

This is about building infrastructure -- something that government has done since the Madison Administration -- that will aid commerce.

The goal would be to build a more effiecient infrastructure I would hope. IMO, this would not be accomplished by this authors suggestions.

An interstate system built for automobiles was more efficient than a hodgepodge of roads and more efficient than limited destination train travel. It still is today. If it wasn't, someone would have privately made $1 moving people long distances on trains without massive subsidy. When that happends... call us. :)