Federal rail officials made one point abundantly clear in new guidance released last week: If Virginia wants federal dollars for higher-speed rail projects, it must demonstrate that there will be adequate state funding to operate the new passenger service.
It's a reasonable request, but like so many reasonable requests on transportation, it runs into Virginia's legislative reluctance to pay for the state's infrastructure needs.
President Barack Obama has earmarked $8 billion in the economic stimulus package for rail improvements. That's an enormous sum compared with previous years, but it could be spent 10 times over on projects being planned along the East and West coasts and in the Midwest.
The projects that will rise to the top of the priority list will be the ones that federal officials believe have the best chance of becoming reality. States willing to put up their own money will have an advantage in drawing down federal dollars.
If Virginia is going to compete for its fair portion of the funds, it must have a revenue source dedicated to rail operations.
With the deadline looming in October for most of Virginia's rail projects, it's too bad state lawmakers didn't think about the need for funding when they met last winter.
Actually, someone did think about it. Del. Shannon Valentine of Lynchburg filed a request for the well-respected Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission to examine the state's long-term capital and operational funding needs and make recommendations for the 2010 General Assembly session.
Valentine is a Democrat, but her study request had the support of a bipartisan group of lawmakers. Nevertheless, a six-member legislative subcommittee tabled the proposal in an unrecorded voice vote.
It's not too late for legislators to rouse themselves and get moving on rail funding. Virginia already earmarks a portion of its car rental tax for rail construction needs.
That levy generates between $23 million and $25 million annually, and it puts Virginia ahead of many other states with no dedicated rail revenues. That amount or more will likely be needed for operational expenses each year. State rail officials will release cost estimates for passenger service to Hampton Roads in August or September.
Passenger rail improvements promise to boost Virginia's economy and reduce traffic congestion. Virginia's lawmakers should stop dithering and put this at the top of their priority list.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
hmmm
maybe a new tax on newpaper subscriptions could be dedicated to all the "public" projects.
Chasing Federal dollars
If someone offered to sit down at a campfire with you and throw $20 bills into the fire if you would match him bill for bill, would you do it?
Then why would you want the State of Virginia to play that game with the Federal Government? The Feds can print money, Virginia can't.
If rail service can't pay its own way with fares, that is the marketplace telling you that rail service is not the best allocation of our resources.
And the market is never wrong in the long run.
HIGH speed rail might pay its own way, not highER speed rail
Don, if we were considering offering a service to customers that would offer a BETTER way for them to get back and forth to Washington D.C. and Richmond - offing customers a FASTER transit and for the same of less cost, THEN the new serice may well pay for itself from its customers. True HIGH Speed rail (up to 200+ MPH) might actually offer travelers in our region - and those visiting our region - a BETTER option and could compete with driving private vehilces, riding a bus, or taking an airplane between here and D.C. Instead we are being asked to have taxpayers (drivers) subsidize a SLOWER passenger rail service called "highER speed rail) - average spped around 50 MPH or so. How is that better than driving? Not to mention that when we take our own car we can drive to where we need to go. Rial requires using other transit we have to pay for - and that increases the travel time. Offer a better option and people will pay to use it.
You've got to be kidding...
The notion that rail has to pay for itself solely through rider fees is laughable. How exactly do you, as a person who might drive on 264 or 64, pay for that? You pay taxes. Taxes also happen to fund rail, as well as schools, sewers, and the police. In some cases, it's reasonable to collect revenue for a service because it's easy to collect and sensible to ask the user to pay part of the cost: we pay for water, but everyone shares the cost of schools. Personally, I think we should have electronic toll booths every ten miles to force drivers to pay for the road services the rest of us are funding. The ultimate example of wealth redistribution is someone who lives out in Isle of Wight or Suffolk but works in Virginia Beach, and expects me to pay for the highways he uses to drive 45 plus minutes to work.
Roads are paid by GAS TAXES (Federal, state, & local) & tolls
Dear Ghent-ite" (it figures!); Roads are funded by GAS TAXES and sometimes TOLLS - paid by drivers. Rail riders are not paying GAS TAXES when they ride rail, yet GAS TAXES are being diverted from DRIVERS to fund rail! Rail riders don't pay tolls when they use tolled facilities for their rail lines. The "redistribute the wealth" economic model for mass transit funding that depends on rail service being paid for by those that do not use it sure makes it easy for those that plan to use it - to support SOMEONE ELSE paying for their transportation, doesn't it? What do we call those type of folks? "Freeloaders", right? If a citizen wants a service that government is not required to provide (higher speed rail is not a requirement for the state to provide) then the vocal advocates should be willing to pay for it - pay what is actually costs. Government does not exist to provide citizens with their transportation.
Roads are paid for with user fees
In addition to tolls on new roads, the highways are paid for by fuel taxes, which are user fees.
User pays - there is the "revenue source"
The Pilot writes, "If Virginia is going to compete for its fair portion of the funds, it must have a revenue source dedicated to rail operations." - hello!?? The people that USE the rail are the "revenue source"! If the RIDERS are not willing to pay what the service costs - then we don't need it. Enough with the "spread the wealth around" wealth redistribution thinking. We can't afford these social projects that require massive tapayer subsidized to benefit the few that use the services. I support the concept of connecting our region to a new network of high speed rail (I don't like "highER speed" rail - it is too slow). But - let's be clear. The economic model is that those that USE THE SERVICE - PAY for the service. If the costs of the new rail is too high to attract customers that are willing to pay for what they use - then DON'T DO IT.