Highways were built with public funds using eminent domain to acquire property. In some cases, railroads did the same thing. In Arkansas, we have a big old highway department headquarters building that is probably 10 stories tall and has hundreds of engineers and administrators hard at work designing and planning.

Taxpayers pay for all those people. It sure looks like a business to me, but what do I know?

Truckers have a negative, and somewhat undeserved image, but you only need on incident of intimidation on the open road to change one’s outlook. Trucks tear up the roads and are seen as a principle cause of congestion.

Whether or not Amtrak is a business is a good question, and I do not mean any disrespect in the observation. I think there is a very good argument to be made that all transportation is a social service and that we all benefit from good transportation.

I do not by any means intend to excuse the instances of Amtrak mismanagement, an apparent example of which is being considered in the “Turboliner” thread above. Amtrak desperately needs some continuity in management and more businesslike operational philosophy.

Yes, that is a contradiction and I have no idea how to reconcile my own differing positions. It is an area where government agency, with reasonable oversight, should take a leadership role.

However, for the very reasons you stated (increasing fuel efficiencies, electric vehicles, etc.), he said that a new revenue stream would be needed to keep the Road Fund solvent. He was proposing changing the flat tax per gallon to a sales tax.

And yes, freight trucks do much more damage to roads than do cars. That is why the tax per gallon on diesel is higher than the tax per gallon of gasoline. Kind of sucks for those of us with diesel engines in our pickups but I see the logic behind since truckers use far more diesel than people with diesel cars and pickups.

By the same token, I would say that freight trains cause more maintenance on railroads than do passenger trains … but then they own the tracks.

The whole point of the argument is that highways are not a business … Amtrak IS a business!!!

Highways are not just for truckers and buses … but railroad tracks are just for freight companies and passenger trains. Railroads are exclusive while highways are inclusive. That’s why you see so much public support for highways.

It is readily apparent that highways do not cover their costs, logical and verbal gymnastics notwithstanding.

And I am pleased to note that we are in general agreement on the profitability of the NEC. Even without sinister deception, the allocation of expenses gets pretty dicey.

Those same people you claim I have lost in my argument know that truckers tear highways to pieces every day with their over-sized loads. Regular people know that is why the cost of keeping the highway up increases, and whether some bean counter with a green lamp and a visor puts the cost down as “operating” or something else, it is still a cost.

It is also true that the cherished gasoline tax is insufficient to pay for the sacred highways. Fuel efficiencies, public preferences, and the advent of electric cars will make it increasingly so.

Highways are an expensive proposition. Your argument, which I must salute for its raw cleverness, has some appeal in southern rural states like Arkansas. In places with real congestion, regular people can see the need for some options.

And I think you were entirely correct to trounce on that little witch. Everybody knows (or should know) the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Pat

Patlynch – “So, let us consider another “reasonable” proposition: should highways cover their operating costs?”

I’ve touched on this before but I’ll be blunt here. I don’t think you realize the absolute absurdity of this statement and why it falls on deaf ears.

1. Except for toll roads, highways do not have an operating cost. They do have a maintenance cost but not an operating cost and there is a significant difference between the two. So, from a strictly financial and logical point of view, you’re asking for something that not only doesn’t exist but cannot exist outside of a toll road.

For toll roads, they do sell a service, therefore toll roads should cover their operating costs (the costs of the booths, equipment, and labor). If priced correctly, toll roads could even show a profit.

2. Same thing with being “profitable”. If they don’t have an operating cost (they’re not selling a service or a product), then there can be no “profit”. Again, you’re asking for something from highways that doesn’t and cannot exist outside of a toll road.

Thus, when you bring up non-toll roads being “profitable” or “covering their operating costs”, you’re already starting out on a false premise and you immediately loose your audience.

I’ll give you a quick example. In a debate once, I had to defend a difficult position … almost impossible. My opponent had the morally superior position and should have easily won but she led off with, “It says right in the Constitution that all men are created equal.” No, it doesn’t (that’s in the Declaration of Independence). I jumped on that with both feet. Because she had made an incorrect statement, her credibility was gone and she lost the audience … and the debate.

You’re doing the same thing! With the exception of your own cheering section, you’re losing the audience.

3. You’re not even comparing apples to oranges, you’re comparing apples to watermelons!

Look, we can debate all day about whether the gas tax covers the construction and maintenance costs of highways but it doesn’t matter and let me tell you why.

People pay a gasoline tax. They know, or at least believe, that most of it is going to pay for road construction and maintenance. Very few actually know that some of it is siphoned off for transit. They believe, correctly, that they’re paying to use the roads. People are willing to pay an increase in the tax IF you convince them that it is needed FOR THE ROADS. For example, many years ago, my state easily passed a 5-cent increased in the state gas tax after a couple of bridges collapsed. The extra money was dedicated to repairing all the bridges with the state faithfully did. There was very little grumbling about the increase.

The reason people accept a gasoline tax is because any individual in their own vehicle can use the road when they please.

You can’t do that with a railroad. Imagine if the interstate system was exclusive for the trucking companies and passenger buses. Do you think that people, in general, would rush to subsidize the interstate so that SOME people could then PAY to ride the bus??? No? That is exactly what you’re asking them to do with railroads. It’s even worse with railroads because most of the tracks are privately owned. So now you’re asking people to subsidize the bus company in order to buy new equipment and pay the trucking companies a fee to use their privately owned roads … and you tell the people that not only does the bus company need money to buy equipment but it can’t even cover the operating costs! … And you wonder why you meet such resistance …

Throw in the fact that Amtrak has been poorly managed for many years and you get even more apathy.

Rather than ridicule Mr. Staley’s position about operating costs, you should turn to Amtrak and ask the management why Amtrak can’t recover at least the operating costs. For that matter, it should be able to recover the operating and maintenance costs from the fares.

Several overhead expenses need to be properly apportioned in the northeast corridor in order to make such a strong claim. Among the categories shared by Acela, long distance trains and commuter rail are: station personnel, reservations, ticketing, security, dispatching, and administration.

There are some vested interests here that need to be identified. First there is me. I reside in a rural state that, because of scheduling, is largely unserved by long distance Amtrak trains. Some would say that it is in my best interests to emphasize the shortcomings of the Acela premium frequent service.

On the other hand, Amtrak management has an incentive to appear more efficient and professional, “Those bad ‘political’ long distance trains just can’t make money but we graciously run them as the cost of operating our more sensible trains that, of course, run at a profit.”

My honest opinion is that trying to figure out if Acela is “profitable” is objectively impossible and a fools errand. It might be possible to get a good idea of the real situation, but that would demand a degree of honesty that is not likely in such an emotional debate.

Footnote: just try to imagine how many statistical distortions are used in the health care discussion.