# Has U.S. High-speed Rail Finally Been Given the Green Light?



## EVDL Archive (Jul 26, 2007)

Katherine Dorsett profiles the current status of high-speed rail development in America.

More...


----------



## paker (Jun 20, 2008)

What bothers me is the tax on the people of Hillsboro county that will never use the train. There are at least 12 towns that will never get any pratical use for high speed rail. If anyone is taxed tax the people that use the train.


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

With the wreckage record of AMTRACK, I can't even imagine us wanting a hi-speed rail system.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

The story of high speed rail in america almost reminds me of light duty diesels in america. Very poor products pushed into service too soon under unstable economic and political influences and eventually nobody had the stomach for them anymore. By 1987, the hammer came down on cheap, non turbo engines that smoked like no tomorrow. The changes were so drastic and public so disgusted by then that there was simply no point anymore in offering compact diesels so even cleaner burning diesels disappeared with the rest.

Engines like the GM 5.7 and 4.3 diesels probably set diesels back by a good 10-15 years on this side of the pond (canada has no automaker of our own, so we simply tag along no matter what happens in the states).

Meanwhile in europe they were able to accomodate diesels in terms of acceptable performance and reliability but also in terms of more tolerant regulations because there was not such an anti - diesel establishement over there. And why would there be? those engines ran properly, didn't turn the sky black, and still had enough grunt to keep up with most petrol engines.

Whatever happens with the idea of high speed rail in north america, a cautious approach would be well advised. Allowing politicians to try and push one tech or another based on the whim of the political climate doesn't usually turn out well in the long run no matter how well intended.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

If you are travelling a medium distance the train is far and away the nicest way to travel!

The UK is one of the worst European countries for train travel and it is still great - 120 mph on the main runs

The killer in the UK is that the roads are paid from general taxation - the rails from the passenger fares

What makes it worse is that a lot of your car costs are basically fixed - insurance, tax, depreciation - the main variable cost is the petrol (gas) - when you get a train ticket its all NOW costs
So you look at the petrol costs / train ticket and decide to take your car

If I was Dictator (originally a five year emergency ruler) I would try to get all of your motoring costs on the variable feature

Your registration, insurance, servicing would be subsidized
Depreciation would be tax deductible

And I would get it back on increased fuel tax
(including enough to pay for roads and road costs)

Then railways and motor vehicles would be on a more equal footing!


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

We don't need any more taxes on fuel .
Since 1960, they have been robbing the motor fuel tax fund for everything BUT ROADS!!!!!!!!
The towns used to get a good share of the motor fuel tax for street repairs. That has been cut to about 1/5 of what it was just 20 years ago.
What we need is politicians that don't think they know better where your money should go.
CUT taxes and get the hell out of the way of business.
Our Marxist president should step down, as he is only ruining this country.
And sorry to say,,,, that is his main goal......the ruination of the USA.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Duncan said:


> If you are travelling a medium distance the train is far and away the nicest way to travel!
> 
> The UK is one of the worst European countries for train travel and it is still great - 120 mph on the main runs
> 
> The killer in the UK is that the roads are paid from general taxation - the rails from the passenger fares


Duncan, as usual, has apparently been imbibing before writing. U.K. roads are no more paid from general taxation in the U.K. than in the U.S. They are paid for, perhaps multiple times over, in gas taxes. In fact, U.K. gasoline taxes are far higher than U.S. fuel taxes for a vastly smaller road network. In fact, gasoline taxes in the U.K. probably provide the next largest revenue source for the government AFTER paying for roads following income and VAT taxes.



> What makes it worse is that a lot of your car costs are basically fixed - insurance, tax, depreciation - the main variable cost is the petrol (gas) - when you get a train ticket its all NOW costs
> So you look at the petrol costs / train ticket and decide to take your car
> 
> If I was Dictator (originally a five year emergency ruler) I would try to get all of your motoring costs on the variable feature


This is why no one is voting for you...


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I think what Duncan is driving at is to redistribute the cost of owning and operating a vehicle (and perhaps slightly separate the two). By cutting insurance costs while increasing fuel costs, the net cost of ownership will not change very much but the cost of driving long distances will go high enough to make train travel more appealing.

A similar strategy is in play in my province with carbon taxes on all road fuels that are then offset with rebate cheques in the mail.

Am I following right?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Guys
I got interested in Phantoms point - I know roads are partly paid for by my local government rates and I had heard that the UK fuel taxes did not cover roads - so I did some digging

- All cost/prices in pounds sterling, distances in miles
UK
Road -- ------ Miles -- ---- Cost/mile-- Total(M) -- Depreciation -- Upkeep/maintenance
M/way ------ 2705 ------- 3,000,000 ------ 8,115------ 203----- 203
A roads ------ 29934 ------ 800,000 ------ 23,947 ------ 599 ------ 599
B roads ------ 18779------ 200,000 ------ 3,756 ------ 94 ------ 94
Other ------ 195395 ------ 80,000 ------ 15,632 ------ 391 ------ 391
TOTAL ------ 246,813 ------ -------- 51,450 ------ 1,286 ------ 1,286

TOTAL 2,572 M

I am happy the miles are accurate as is the cost of motorway and "other", in our roading (NZ) depreciation and maintenance are about the same

Other costs
Direct Medical - all paid by the NHS (central taxation)
250,000 casualties / year (injury enough to get the police)
Some of these will cost *lots* all require police - most ambulance
100,000 per casualty (engineering estimate)
TOTAL 25,000 M
Police
30,000,000 million cars - assume average attention of 100 / car
TOTAL 3,000 M

Air pollution - 50,000 deaths/year
Road pollution - 40% (underestimate - industry and domestic heating is much tighter controlled in the UK than in the US)
Cost/death - 100,000
TOTAL 2,000 M 

TOTAL 32,572 + cost to buildings, fire brigade, ......

Fuel Taxes
Car Tax - 200 x 30,000,000 vehicles - 6,000 M
Fuel Tax
30,000,000 vehicles, 8,000 miles/year -30 mpg = 8,000 M gallons (imperial)
Tax of 2.83 / gallon = 22,640 M plus the car tax
TOTAL 28,640 M

My rough calculations show
Taxes don't cover costs - the difference is in general taxation
Roads are only a small part of the costs of motoring - *I didn't know that*

I was surprised at how much the fuel tax brings in - 

To David, yes that is what I was trying to do - if you pay mostly on fixed costs there is little incentive to reduce miles as that does not reduce your costs

In the UK for most people depreciation on their vehicle is one of the biggest costs - and it is only poorly linked to mileage


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Ok Duncan - much better post.

First thought - I don't buy your fuel tax calculations. Average mpg for your country's fleet is not anywhere north of 20mpg (most driving is short trips; city, and there are lots of older cars / trucks reducing fleet mpg).

Using 20mpg and your fleet of 30m and average annual miles driven of 10,000 (average in the U.S. is 15,000/yr), your tax of $2.83 yields about $42.5 billion in fuel tax exclusive of direct taxes for auto registration.

Next, health care and accident costs. We can "guesstimate" that costs are probably a bit less in NZ than in the U.S. where lawsuits reign. *This article* estimates the cost in the U.S. for auto accidents, including car damage and medical care, at around $1,000 per person nation wide. That yields around $60 billion, which is in fact greater than the $42 billion - however, I'm also certain that drivers are required to have auto insurance in the U.K. which covers the wreck costs. Since most accidents do not result in significant injury, we can take another guesstimate that about half of those costs are related to the car itself.

That leaves an approximate cost of $30 billion for "driving related medical costs." However, since everyone is already in a "health pool" and since there are few medical-cost related lawsuits in your country relative to the U.S. (reducing cost per accident), a strong argument can be made that the $500/per person figure is far too high for the medical portion in the U.K., where auto accidents come under "marginal costs to health care." Thus, I would submit some significant reduction in the estimate, to about $20 billion, in the U.K.

The police / firemen / etc. you quote exist for other purposes than just chasing speeders and car wrecks. Speeding is a money-maker. Car-b-queues are a small part of a fireman's workload. Together they are probably a scratch.

The road costs themselves - building costs are "sunk costs," already paid for. Your figures state $1.286 billion per year in upkeep - let's be generous and call it $5 billion for maintenance and new roads in any given year. That is a total of $25 billion per year - netting a profit of over $17 billion from road taxes.

My original point was only that the road taxes - $42 billion - far exceed road costs - maybe $5 billion per year (which is why I scoffed at your original post). If you want to be fair, when calculating "costs" of roads you must also factor in the POSITIVES that such roads net. The existence of good roads improves the economy by a multiple vs. bad or no roads - thus increasing the tax base. So much of your argument about the "cost" of roads is offset by "profit" to the economy.

As for the air pollution deaths - I'm not buying it, neither that it is significantly related to car fumes nor that you can count the whole cost of a life to that. For any people who actually died earlier due to car pollution than they might otherwise have died, the cold hard truth is that they were probably on the far side of their productive years and thus the "cost" to society was less than zero. Now this logical approach to calculating costs will no doubt cause offense to some, but once you get into the nasty business of counting the cost of a human life you can only do so based on productivity minus consumption. Probably better if we all just leave that out of the equation and point out that most people live ENRICHED lives having automobiles vs those who do NOT have automobiles.

In any event, the tax pays for the roads many times over. It may or may not cover the cost of the "risk of living," but I guarantee you that given the choice of not having a car or accepting the risk that they might get injured, people will take the car every time.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Honestly I didn't think there was much disagreement on the revenue made from fuel taxes and the fact that it far out weighs the cost of maintaining roads and bridges.

Here too my town is responsible for maintaining roads and infrustructure within its municipal bountries although in some cases higher levels of government pitch in for larger projects. More recently an idea has been tried which transfers some of the fuel taxes directly to municipalities across the country. What's nice about it, is this was done without slapping an extra tax on fuel and it means property taxes can be kept low.


----------



## justinjay (Apr 9, 2010)

ohh high speed rail...  ... just what i was expecting


----------

