# Is this how Amtrak got started?



## PetalumaLoco (Jul 31, 2008)

WSJ story here. 

Next thing you know, if interstate hiways don't turn a profit, the feds will quit maintaining them.

Oh, yeah, that's already started to happen...


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 31, 2008)

My solution to highway congestion is to close off one lane of every major highway.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jul 31, 2008)

PetalumaLoco said:


> WSJ story here.
> Next thing you know, if interstate hiways don't turn a profit, the feds will quit maintaining them.
> 
> Oh, yeah, that's already started to happen...


The "Feds" don't maintain them now. All highway maintenance, including Interstates, is the responsibility of the individual states. The Federal Highway Administration only funds capital projects.


----------



## saxman (Aug 1, 2008)

Mary Peters sure seems to be against raising the gas-tax, even though many have recommended it. There's no way 18 cents is doing the same as it was back in 1993, when the tax was set. I really think this gas-tax holiday will seriously hurt us in the long run. So are we slowly going to get away from rail vs. highways and go toward rail AND highways? I sure hope so, but I don't think private firms charging tolls will help reduce oil dependance nor will it help the argument for more mass-transit and intercity rail. OTOH, I'm not totally against tolling new roads either. I have no data to back myself up, but it SEEMS to me that the toll roads I sometimes drive on, there is less urban sprawl. People won't drive on it as much because its harder to drive on for a short distance, therefore there is less strip mall development near exits. I know thats not totally true, but in some rural areas where a toll road is, it seems to be the case. So with that said, I just think the simple solution is to raise the gas-tax, even if its a few cents.


----------



## RailFanLNK (Aug 6, 2008)

Read in a book about Amtrak that Graham Claytor came up with the "Ampenny", 1 cent of every gallon of gas would fund rail services in the USA. Guess it got shot down in Congress. Allthough, that to me is a good idea!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 7, 2008)

It would be an exceptional idea, actually, although I'd prefer an Amdollar, or Amquarter, or Amdime, or Amnickel. But an Ampenny is a start. It would give Amtrak a dedicated funding source and get rid of the annual appropriations for operating budget nonsense.


----------



## TransitGeek (Dec 6, 2008)

I think highway tolls are a great idea, because they start to charge auto users for the actual cost of their trip. That'd be something useful for changing behaviour in travelers. However, private companies charging tolls isn't going to help much of anything. We need to quit with the contracting and outsourcing and allow the government to collect tolls from public infrastructure. That way, the tolls can help towards highway maintenance, but can also go towards funding other transportation projects.

And the Ampenny sounds great. Many municipalities fund their transportation networks through sales taxes (though here it's a half of a cent, and most of it goes through roads), so some dedicated revenue for alternative transportation sounds like just the thing we need.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Dec 6, 2008)

Want to see the next step after toll roads?

Rhode Island new tolls, taxes and fees.

It's enough to make you quit driving.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Dec 8, 2008)

TransitGeek said:


> I think highway tolls are a great idea, because they start to charge auto users for the actual cost of their trip.


I think gas taxes are a much better idea. They accomplish the same thing you want to accomplish without killing people. (Fatal accidents occasionally happen at tollbooths which presumably would not happen if there was no need to slow down and then merge back into traffic to pay the toll.) Gas taxes also don't cause the pollution that's caused by slowing down for tollbooths, and they don't waste any of the individual motorist's time.


----------



## MrFSS (Dec 8, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> TransitGeek said:
> 
> 
> > I think highway tolls are a great idea, because they start to charge auto users for the actual cost of their trip.
> ...


The Indiana Toll Road doesn't have "Toll Booths" on the highway. Only at the exits/entrances. So, once you get on, you drive until the exit where you want to get off and pay the toll based on the distance you traveled determined on the entrance card they give you when you got on.

Makes it very nice not having toll booths all over the place as there are around Chicago.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Dec 8, 2008)

PetalumaLoco said:


> Want to see the next step after toll roads?
> Rhode Island new tolls, taxes and fees.
> 
> It's enough to make you quit driving.


They apparently don't want general aviation planes to be based in Rhode Island, either.

How are they planning to collect the tax on plastics ordered from out of state businesses and shipped by USPS/UPS/Fedex/etc?

And does the tax based on the odometer reading make people who drive with a broken speedometer cable into criminals? Why not just have a higher gas tax instead of a per-mile tax?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Dec 8, 2008)

MrFSS said:


> The Indiana Toll Road doesn't have "Toll Booths" on the highway. Only at the exits/entrances. So, once you get on, you drive until the exit where you want to get off and pay the toll based on the distance you traveled determined on the entrance card they give you when you got on.


The Mass Pike also mostly only has tollbooths at the entrances/exits (except at the east end), though this will probably be changing; I think the tolls that have been collected on the western portion over the years have more than paid for the construction costs of the highway. However, I think the traffic density is such that the safety impacts of having the tollbooths on Interstate highways in Massachusetts at all is nonzero.


----------



## PRR 60 (Dec 8, 2008)

Retroactively applying tolls to roads built with federal gas tax funding is tricky. The Feds are more than a little reluctant to let that happen. They can and will block the practice. If the toll revenue can be shown to be solely for maintenance and improvement of that one road, it is possible. If the tolls are meant to be a general revenue source for roads in general, or for other transportation projects or needs, then it is a no-go.

Pennsylvania proposed tolls for Interstate 80. The FHWA did not like the plan. It was killed.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Dec 8, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> > Want to see the next step after toll roads?
> ...


If they were going to do something, yes higher gas tax would make the most sense.

Oh, just remembered I heard on the raio recently, San Francisco is thinking about collecting a toll for the city coffers at the 2 bridge connections. Commuters coming from the south would get in Scott free.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 9, 2008)

Someone driving their car is very expensive for the public. For the tax payer. For the very real individual who does not drive! Talk about unfairness of providing Amtrak so people can ride trains in sleepers and luxury on the tax payers back? Why don't we talk about how people ride in private, inefficient cacoons all over the place, on the back of taxpayers, even the ones who never do so!

We should be stopping people from driving when they don't need to. And damnit, they'd learn to enjoy it. I sure have. I never realized how much of a hassle driving a car is in a variety of circumstances until I started to enjoy riding the train.

Sure, highway transportation should be available for every man. On a bus. Those that wish to do so in a private car can pay all of the additional costs associated with doing so. I, as an Amtrak coach passenger, have my coach seat subsidized by the public. Because that is basic public transportation. When I am an Amtrak Sleeping Car passenger, I pay all the costs associated with that upgrade. That is just, fair, and right.

That is why anywhere that public transportation is an option, people traveling by the luxury of an automobile should be forced to pay all costs associated with that luxury. And that includes a dissuasion cost for increased damage to the environment. We are all going to have to pay to fix the problems that damage causes. It is only fair that the people who disproportionately cause it disproportionately pay for it.


----------

