Comments on: Amtrak And Tax Dollars http://www.showmedaily.org/2009/10/amtrak-and-tax-dollars.html Advancing liberty with responsibility by promoting market solutions for Missouri public policy Mon, 06 Sep 2010 02:56:06 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: David Stokes http://www.showmedaily.org/2009/10/amtrak-and-tax-dollars.html/comment-page-1#comment-4107 David Stokes Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:40:22 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=8275#comment-4107 Mr. Gunn, First, I don't think that rail has to break even, but it does not even come close. Check out this testimony I gave where I state my support for several current rail projects being done by MoDOT. http://www.showmeinstitute.org/publication/id.215/pub_detail.asp As for the bigger question, there is no reason for me to answer it when Randal O'Toole already has. So, from Cata Institute briefing paper #107 from 10/08, "Rails Won't Save America," is his verbatim answer to basically the exact question you asked: "Myth 2: We’ve subsidized highways and airports for years; now it is time to subsidize alternatives. Reality: Since at least 1975, subsidies to Amtrak and transit have been many times greater, per passenger mile, than subsidies to highways and air travel. In 2006, Americans paid $93.6 billion in tolls, gas taxes, and other highway user fees. Of this amount, $19.3 billion was diverted to mass transit and other nonhighway activities. At the same time, various governments—mainly local—spent $44.5 billion in property, sales, or other taxes on highways, roads, and streets. The net subsidy to highways was $25.1 billion, or about half a penny per passenger mile. As most airport costs are paid for out of airport landing fees, subsidies to air travel were even smaller: about 0.1 cent per passenger mile. Transit carries only 1.5 percent of urban travel and Amtrak carries only 0.2 percent of intercity travel, yet transit and intercity rail require huge subsidies. In 2006, subsidies to Amtrak totaled just over $1 billion, or about 22 cents per passenger mile. This is more than 40 times the subsidies to driving. Subsidies to public transit totaled about 61 cents per passenger mile, or 120 times the subsidies to autos and highways." Mr. Gunn,
First, I don’t think that rail has to break even, but it does not even come close. Check out this testimony I gave where I state my support for several current rail projects being done by MoDOT. http://www.showmeinstitute.org/publication/id.215/pub_detail.asp
As for the bigger question, there is no reason for me to answer it when Randal O’Toole already has. So, from Cata Institute briefing paper #107 from 10/08, “Rails Won’t Save America,” is his verbatim answer to basically the exact question you asked:

“Myth 2: We’ve subsidized highways and airports for years; now it is time to subsidize alternatives.

Reality: Since at least 1975, subsidies to Amtrak and transit have been many times greater, per passenger mile, than subsidies to highways and air travel. In 2006, Americans paid $93.6 billion in
tolls, gas taxes, and other highway user fees. Of this amount, $19.3 billion was diverted to mass transit and other nonhighway activities.
At the same time, various governments—mainly local—spent $44.5 billion in property, sales, or other taxes on highways, roads, and
streets. The net subsidy to highways was $25.1 billion, or about half a penny per passenger mile. As most airport costs are paid for out of
airport landing fees, subsidies to air travel were even smaller: about 0.1 cent per passenger mile.

Transit carries only 1.5 percent of urban travel and Amtrak carries only 0.2 percent of intercity travel, yet transit and intercity rail
require huge subsidies. In 2006, subsidies to Amtrak totaled just over $1 billion, or about 22 cents per passenger mile. This is more than 40 times the subsidies to driving. Subsidies to public transit totaled about 61 cents per passenger mile, or 120 times the subsidies to autos and highways.”

]]> By: David Gunn http://www.showmedaily.org/2009/10/amtrak-and-tax-dollars.html/comment-page-1#comment-4103 David Gunn Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:43:32 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=8275#comment-4103 Given the consistent losses suffered by highways and airlines, why on God's green earth do you think it's imperative that rial break even? Given the consistent losses suffered by highways and airlines, why on God’s green earth do you think it’s imperative that rial break even?

]]>