Highway Trust Fund Misuse

[AmtrakWPK]

NYTimes article (free registration req'd) at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/14/opinion/....html?th&emc=th

excerpts:

------------------------

...

The trust fund was set up with the simple idea of making drivers pay for their roads by taxing the gasoline they bought. It worked at first, giving drivers wide-open Interstate highways, but eventually new drivers clogged the lanes, and the trust fund didn't yield enough money to build new roads or even maintain the existing ones.

The highway money dwindled partly because Congress didn't raise gas taxes to compensate for inflation and the higher fuel efficiency of cars, and partly because the trust fund kept getting raided. Gas taxes have been diverted to museums, a symphony hall, a riverside promenade, downtown landscaping projects, snowmobile trails and suburban transit systems that haven't been much more effective than horse trails in reducing road congestion. ...

[u.S. Representative] Boucher secured $750,000 of highway money for the "construction of horse trails and assorted facilities" in Jefferson National Forest.

-----------------------

Seems like if they can use chunks of Highway trust funds for museums, symphony halls, and downtown landscaping, as well as horse trails in a forest, we really OUGHT to be able to get some of that money too fund trails for "the Iron Horse". Instead what we get from Washington is the product exiting from the sound end of a northbound horse.

 

[saxman]

I think Amtrak should get a trust fund. That way it always has dedicated funded like highways and airways.

 

[SouthernServesTheSouth]

If you really want to get sick about pork-barrels, read Wednesday's USA TODAY article on Alaska and the roads and bridges being built up there for a handfull of people (they don't even want them). Their representative is head of the transportation committee. Sorry don't know how to produce a link to the article.

 

[WICT106]

I concur. A Passenger rail Trust Fund, or some other sort of dedicated funding source, would go as long ways towards getting rid of some intractible issues regarding Amtrak. One major challenge is how the Trust Fund would be funded. A second issue would be if it were allowed to be used for operating costs in addition to capitol costs. The highway Trust Fund / gas tax, IIRC goes just to road building and maintenance.

 

[PRR 60]

I think Amtrak should get a trust fund. That way it always has dedicated funded like highways and airways.

The concept behind trust funds is that users pay the freight. Airline passengers pay for the Airport and Airways Trust Fund, and drivers pay for the Highway Trust Fund. Exactly how would Amtrak passengers pay for a passenger rail trust fund. There are too few passengers and there is too little revenue.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

I think a small percentage of the highway trust fund taxes should go to rail infrastructure maintenance and upgrades, and to Amtrak. After all, (1) millions of semi trailers are moved around by rail, saving that much highway wear-and-tear, and (2) decreasing the traffic volume on the highways, effectively increasing the number of other vehicles that those highways can carry. Amtrak helps in taking personal vehicles off the roads.

Think how much the rail congestion problems would decrease if all single track areas could be double-tracked, and all existing double tracks to triples, at least anywhere that traffic volume would suggest it. Now, yes, much of that track belongs to the freight railroads, but Amtrak still has to travel on them, and whether the tracks are publicly or privately owned, those millions of semi trailers are still being taken off the highways when they are on those trains. And if acceptance of those funds by the freight railroads was tied to a cast-iron requirement to expedite Amtrak's trains on their rails, it would be a bargain.

 

[timetbleflagman]

AMTRAKWPK's point is an extremely good one! Since rail construction and upkeep are cited as being some 1/3 the cost of that of highway, even an exact proportional amount from the highway fund could go a long way in railroading. If a trainload of trucks paid the same "tax" for railroad upkeep as they would for the highway,,,that would be some funding! Still, the cost savings for the efficiency of train transport of trucks should make such hauls a bargain as they supposedly are now. Yes, the same should be true for passenger rail!

 

[Amtrak OBS Employee]

Yep WPK's point is well made considering one main line track is equivilant to about fifteen (15) lanes of highway as far as capcity is concerned! Can your car move over 300 people at once by itself? OBS...

 

[Guest_timetableflagman]

Contiuing from my last post,,, however, don't railroads charge to their shippers the amount it takes to keep up their tracks? Why should "tax" take the place of private railroads' self-funding? Sure, public subsidy of other modes of transportation have been rough for railroads but, highway costs are supposedly the reason truck shipments are being hauled by yet more efficient and economical, privately financed rail.