From: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder)
Subject: Re: Gas Taxes R Us 
Reply-To: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
Distribution: rec.bicycles
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:16:21 GMT


This really belongs in misc.transit (or whatever it's going to be
called), but since that group doesn't exist yet...

In <189malb.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:


>Amtrak has a little experience in this subject:
>Consistently they have managed to get ridership up to the
>point of paying approximately 55% of their expenses. Maybe
>you all will recall the crying of the social reformers in
>Congress to the effect that if we pay for Amtrak it will
>soon learn to pay for itself. Well, last year it cost the
>American taxpayer $.12 for _every_ passenger mile on
>Amtrak. And there were about 6 billion of those for a
>direct cost to the taxpayer of a $720,000,000.

I remember reading a newspaper article (probably in the Phila.
Inquirer) that Amtrak's Northeast Corridor service is near breakeven
(maybe above).  It's always seemed to me that one of Amtrak's problems
is that it attempts to compete with airlines on a national scale.
That's possible in the Northeast, and maybe on the West Coast, but not
elsewhere in the country (especially since they don't service routes
that would make sense: Cincinnati-Dayton-Columbus-Cleveland in Ohio,
for example).  And remember that Amtrak is under political pressure to
service unprofitable routes: I read that the reason that West Virginia
is serviced by Amtrak routes is because of the influence of Sen. "move
the government to WVa" Byrd.

>Virtually every light rail and subway commuting system in
>the United States is in the same predicament. Generously
>subsidized transportation _is_ mass transit.

Depends, I suppose, on what you consider mass transit.  From what I've
read railroads did fine until the advent of airlines, and airlines
until recently made a profit.  Sure they're subsidized to some extent,
but not to the extent that most public transit systems are.

And it's not as if the money wouldn't be spent if the public transit
systems were shut down tomorrow.  The clamor for new roads would be
tremendous.  Motorists benefit from having others traveling on
alternative transit.  People seem to realize this, which is, I
suppose, one of the reasons mass transit *hasn't* been shut down.

>And you must compare this to the two _trillion_ passenger
>miles traveled annually by automobiles. And the fact that
>only 13% of all households in the United States do not own
>and operate automobiles.

Wow, is it really that high?  I'd never have guessed this many.

>Yet, I do admit that mass transportation would solve many
>social ills infecting our world. I just think that they
>will improve through evolution, not revolution which is the
>really what the tax equation amounts to.

There's little need to worry.  The reaction to any hint that gas taxes
will be raised is typically near hysteria.  And, to bring it back to
the subject of this group, it's probably better for cyclists if taxes
*aren't* raised.  We already get enough nonsense about how motorists
should have exclusive rights to the roads because "they pay for them".
It'd only get worse if they paid more, especially if they actually
paid the full costs involved.

--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov