Comments on: The Rail Debate Intensifies http://www.infrastructureusa.org/the-rail-debate-intensifies/ InfrastructureUSA.org is a non-profit, online community whose mission is to bring together infrastructure experts, industry leaders, government officials and most especially interested citizens, to participate in vigorous conversation and generate action to address the U.S. infrastructure crisis. Wed, 16 May 2012 20:55:08 +0000 hourly 1 By: F.K. Plous http://www.infrastructureusa.org/the-rail-debate-intensifies/comment-page-1/#comment-3283 F.K. Plous Wed, 07 Jul 2010 21:35:10 +0000 http://www.infrastructureusa.org/?p=2961#comment-3283 A "dedicated revenue stream" seems to have become the holy grail of high-speed rail advocates. They see it as the only way HSR can be financed as well as the only serious warrant of Congress's and the administration's will to support a passenger-rail buildup. Yet both the U.S. highway civil aviation infrastructures got a solid launch without a dedicated revenue stream. The first Federal Aid Highway Act, in 1916, was financed out of general revenues, and so were its successors in 1921 and 1925. The first federal gasoline tax--1 cent, and not all of dedicated to highway construction it --was not imposed until 1932, by which time the U.S. had nearly 200,000 miles of paved highways. The first Federal Airport Aid Program, in 1946, set aside $525 million from the General Fund for airport construction over a 6-year period. It was renewed in 1951, but the Federal Airline Ticket Tax and the Airport and Airways Trust Fund were not set up until 1971. If Congress genuinely wants to build a high-speed rail system it will find a way to raise the money, but a revenue stream supported by user fees will not generate adequate payments until enough users are first attracted. As with highways and airports, we will have to prime the pump before the system will be big enough or fast enough to attract that many passengers. A “dedicated revenue stream” seems to have become the holy grail of high-speed rail advocates. They see it as the only way HSR can be financed as well as the only serious warrant of Congress’s and the administration’s will to support a passenger-rail buildup.

Yet both the U.S. highway civil aviation infrastructures got a solid launch without a dedicated revenue stream. The first Federal Aid Highway Act, in 1916, was financed out of general revenues, and so were its successors in 1921 and 1925. The first federal gasoline tax–1 cent, and not all of dedicated to highway construction it –was not imposed until 1932, by which time the U.S. had nearly 200,000 miles of paved highways. The first Federal Airport Aid Program, in 1946, set aside $525 million from the General Fund for airport construction over a 6-year period. It was renewed in 1951, but the Federal Airline Ticket Tax and the Airport and Airways Trust Fund were not set up until 1971. If Congress genuinely wants to build a high-speed rail system it will find a way to raise the money, but a revenue stream supported by user fees will not generate adequate payments until enough users are first attracted. As with highways and airports, we will have to prime the pump before the system will be big enough or fast enough to attract that many passengers.

]]>