# High speed rail ... how well will it fly?//Obama unveils high-speed rail plan **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 16, 2009, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347 "2009-04-16T22:33:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347/81 "2009-04-17T22:48:36Z")
> [@flonks](#): > > The managed to do it in many other countries. France, Germany and Japan are FAR more densely populated than the US. Yes, but those countries have a certain desire to progress and are willing to sacrifice for a better future–even if it may take years to get there. Here, OTOH, “if it was good enough for my father and his father before him, then it’s good enough for me.” Even if it’s slow, wasteful, dangerous and environmentally destructive. It’s hard to move forward when the knuckle-dragging slows you down so much. This visceral hatred of trains and selfishly paranoid worldview of “You can have my SUV when you pry it from my cold, dead hands” is very unbecoming of us. The irony is, if this was the 1950’s, the same backwardists bitching in this thread about rail travel would be bitching about the same Federal Interstate Highway system that now makes them jizz all over the leather seats of their pickup trucks. _“What if the traffic patterns change?!?!?!” “You can’t just move that highway to another city if this city goes belly-up, you know!!!”_ It’s a shame–we still have a _long_ way to go to catch up to the more civilized nations–and in many more areas then just rail travel. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347/82 "2009-04-17T23:03:38Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Biofuel has potential to become the Minitel of green energy, if not worse. Sure, but only if the government goes overboard in promoting it. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347/83 "2009-04-17T23:04:18Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > So in other words, a high-speed rail line on the East Coast wouldn’t work because it’s too densely populated, and besides, it’s not densely enough populated to make it worthwhile. Perfect. Another hilarious reminder of how the backwardists trap themselves with their own “logic”. Reminds me of another line from the Board that had the doom-and-gloomers fuming because it so perfectly exposed the absurdity of their views on Universal Health Care that they were left uttering mere gibberish: - “Universal Health Care-- A great idea in practice, but it’ll never work in theory.”\* I think it was **Brain Glutton** who came up with that truthgem. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347/84 "2009-04-18T02:02:39Z")
[QUOTE=I Love Me, Vol. I] Perfect. Another hilarious reminder of how the backwardists trap themselves with their own “logic”. Reminds me of another line from the Board that had the doom-and-gloomers fuming because it so perfectly exposed the absurdity of their views on Universal Health Care that they were left uttering mere gibberish: [/QUOTE] Perfect. Another hilarious reminder of folks with imperfect reading comprehension… Oh well, I’ve addressed this already and don’t feel the need to do so yet again. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347/85 "2009-04-18T02:21:13Z")
> [@](#): > > BECAUSE (no, just kidding…I just like to cap stuff for emphasis). The answer is that if it doesn’t have a major advantage over existing modes of travel then people are going to choose based on whatever is convenient to them or whatever they have used in the past since it’s what they know…which means we will have spent a large amount of capital and gone through a lot of effort to simply provide one more alternative travel option among many. How convenient each option is is one of the considerations that goes into deciding which one is better than the other. If driving to work was more convenient for you, and that was enough to make you choose driving over the Metro, then that’s another way of saying that the Metro was not, in fact, better for you. Now, of course, everyone has a slightly different figure of merit, so in practice what you’ll get is some people deciding that the train is the best option for them, some people deciding that the plane is the best option, some people choosing to drive, and some people hopping from NYC to DC on a pogo stick. But if we can, say, put in a train between two cities that’s both slightly faster (counting time getting to the terminus and time spent waiting there) and slightly cheaper than taking the plane between those two cities, then what you’re going to find is that at least half of the people who would otherwise have flown will be taking the train instead. That seems pretty significant, to me. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347/86 "2009-04-18T03:00:32Z")
[QUOTE=Chronos] How convenient each option is is one of the considerations that goes into deciding which one is better than the other. If driving to work was more convenient for you, and that was enough to make you choose driving over the Metro, then that’s another way of saying that the Metro was not, in fact, better for you. [/QUOTE] Very convenient, yes. ‘Better’ of course is all a matter of perspective. > [@](#): > > Now, of course, everyone has a slightly different figure of merit, so in practice what you’ll get is some people deciding that the train is the best option for them, some people deciding that the plane is the best option, some people choosing to drive, and some people hopping from NYC to DC on a pogo stick. But if we can, say, put in a train between two cities that’s both slightly faster (counting time getting to the terminus and time spent waiting there) and slightly cheaper than taking the plane between those two cities, then what you’re going to find is that at least half of the people who would otherwise have flown will be taking the train instead. That seems pretty significant, to me. Very significant…especially when you consider the large costs (ETA: I originally said 10’s or 100’s of billions, but on reflection I’m actually unsure what such a system would cost DC to NYC) you just spent to simply give people another option to get from DC to NYC. I suppose if you feel it’s worth all the cost and effort to do so then that’s fine. Myself, if my feeling is that if it simply a matter of giving folks a 4th option (car, plane, current low speed train and now high speed train) then it’s not worth the cost, and will simply be another high cost boondoggle that will need heavy subsidies in order to keep it viable…and perhaps require more subsidies to the air lines who maintain the air routes, since there will still be folks who want to use those. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Bruce\_Wayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bruce\_Wayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bruce_Wayne)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347/87 "2009-04-18T05:42:06Z")
I don’t think the Detroit reference made by **Sam Stone** in his first post is valid. There are a few obscure Amtrack stops from Flint to Chicago. Its not the stop, its the route that counts. You could make a high speed rail line from Chicago to Montreal with stops in Flint, Port Huron, Niagra, Toronto, with few or many in between and the system could still be profitable. ---
**Author:** ![Cyberhwk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7993a0/32.png) [@Cyberhwk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyberhwk)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347/88 "2009-04-18T07:16:48Z")
> [@Bruce\_Wayne](#): > > Tourism would flourish. I think so too. At 200+ MPH someone in Seattle could get down to San Francisco in a couple of hours? I can see people taking weekend trips down the coast if we can keep the cost reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347/89 "2009-04-18T07:24:10Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Let’s look at subsidies: The entire U.S airport system gets an annual subsidy of about 100 million dollars. This subsidy goes completely to small airports to keep air service available to remote communities. All the major airports in the U.S. run at a significant profit. And yet, twice in this rail debate so far I’ve seen air travel described as being ‘heavily subsidized’. Because they are heavily [subsidized](http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,185650,00.html). > [@](#): > > And U.S. trains, compared with other modes of transportation, don’t get much help. Passenger trains receive only 4% as much in federal subsidies as the **$13 billion pulled in annually by airports. And highways get even more: $30 billion a year**. Speedy, reliable passenger trains could help relieve congestion on the nation’s highways and at its airports, especially for trips of 100 to 500 miles. If their railbeds were upgraded and widened to allow them to run faster, they could speed travelers between the business districts of cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, or Chicago and St. Louis, as quickly as the tag team of taxi-airplane-taxi. Trains are also two to eight times as fuel efficient as planes. I don’t know where you are getting your figures from, but the subsidy is far, far greater than $100 million. There are also other “subsidies” like the [following](http://www.hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001001.html): > [@](#): > > 1. Airports and air trafffic control infrastructure are built and operated by tax-exempt government entities (consider the real estate and other taxes that would be paid by privately owned airports on huge tracts of land in prime urban and suburban locations) with below-market capital costs (tax-exempt government bonds). > > 2. Employee training for pilots, mechanics, etc. is provided by the military at no cost to airlines. (Ex-military pilots and mechanics may require additional training and certification for specific civilian aircraft types, but they’ve already logged thousands of very expensive hours of jet aircraft experience.) > > 3. Air traffic control and other services to airlines are provided by the government. (Airlines will claim that they pay for this in user fees, but that ignores the taxes that would be paid on private ATC infrastructure, and the artificially depressed labor costs: As government employees, air traffic controllers and many other civil aviation workers are forbidden to strike, enabling the government unilaterally to impose below-market wages.) > > 4. Airlines are paid all the time, even when their aircraft aren’t being used, for agreeing to make their planes available on demand to the government as part of the Reserve Air Fleet . But the times when they are needed – times of war – are generally times of reduced civilian air travel, when they would otherwise be idle. And when the “Reserve Air Fleet” is used, airlines are paid market rates for government charters. > > 5. Government funding for military aircraft subsidizes production and operation of civilian aircraft: Manufacturers of aircraft and associated equipment pay nothing for knowledge transfers from government-funded military aircraft research and development, prototyping, testing, maintenance experience, etc. to civilian aircraft. Military aviation provides critical support for economies of scale and continuity of operations for manufacturers of aircraft, support equipment, and related services during cyclical declines in civilian aircraft demand. Many civilian aircraft types are sold directly to the military, and these sales are often essential to enlarging production runs to the break-even point. > > 6. Airlines have a statutory exemption from Federal anti-trust law to allow them to participate in IATA “traffic conferences” to fix standard “industry fares”. > > 7. Under the preemption clause of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, airlines are exempt from state and local truth-in-advertising and other consumer protection laws. (This wouldn’t matter if the Federal government enforced similar rules, But, as state Attorneys General have pointed out , the Feds allow many practices that enhance airline profits but would be forbidden under state and local fraud laws.) > > 8. Airlines based in the USA are protected by Federal law from all foreign competition: No airline based anywhere else in the world is allowed to carry passengers between points in the USA, and no foreign entity is allowed to own more than 25% of the voting stock in any airline based in the USA. This applies even to US colonies: It’s illegal to buy a through ticket on a foreign airline between Guam and the mainland USA via e.g. Seoul, Taipei, or Tokyo (even though travel agents occasionally issue such tickets by mistake), no matter how much cheaper that would be than a ticket on Continental Micronesia, the only USA airline with service between those places. You have to buy 2 separate tickets, and claim and re-check your luggage at the transfer point. Under “Buy American” rules, all travel funded, even in part, by the US government must be on a US-flag airline, no matter how much more it costs than a foreign-flag competitor. Where, as is often the case, there is often only one US-flag airline serving a given destination, this gives them a de facto monopoloy on government-funded travel, a large and often high-revenue (last minute business travel by government contractors, etc.) portion of the traffic on some routes. Then we have [government-backed loans](http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_48/b3759036.htm), [etc.](http://the-idea-shop.com/article/41/the-price-of-deregulation-subsidies) > [@](#): > > According the Congressional Research Service, between 1918 and 1998 the feds spent about $155 billion on commercial airline subsidies—guaranteed loans, airport subsidies, direct hand-outs, you name it. And the trend isn’t slowing. By some estimates, they’ve tacked on another $15 billion just since September 11, 2001. More [here.](http://www.tripso.com/today/after-years-of-airline-subsidies-how-about-a-payback-for-taxpayers/) While, I generally agree with your take on HSR, I don’t think it’s fair to use bogus numbers to make your case. ---
**Author:** ![flonks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3ab097/32.png) [@flonks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flonks)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347/90 "2009-04-18T07:41:03Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I don’t think Sam is talking about the noise of the trains there. > > -XT He said that the neighborhood would not be happy. Why else would they complain? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347/91 "2009-04-18T10:36:22Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Because they are heavily [subsidized](http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,185650,00.html). > > I don’t know where you are getting your figures from, but the subsidy is far, far greater than $100 million. There are also other “subsidies” like the [following](http://www.hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001001.html): > > Then we have [government-backed loans](http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_48/b3759036.htm), [etc.](http://the-idea-shop.com/article/41/the-price-of-deregulation-subsidies) > > More [here.](http://www.tripso.com/today/after-years-of-airline-subsidies-how-about-a-payback-for-taxpayers/) > > While, I generally agree with your take on HSR, I don’t think it’s fair to use bogus numbers to make your case. I was talking about direct airport operations subsidies. The 30 billion you mentioned above appears to be the entire DOT spending on air travel. That includes maintenance of the air traffic control system, safety programs, and some upgrade programs for airports - for example to provide new runway lighting. I guess it all depends on what you want to consider a subsidy. You can see the entire list here: [url=[http://www.dot.gov/bib2009/htm/FAA.html](http://www.dot.gov/bib2009/htm/FAA.html)]FAA budget in brief, 2009). The budget for 2009 is 14 billion and change, the vast majority of which goes to maintaining ATC and various safety programs. The rail administration budget is about 1.1 billion. The Federal Transit Administration has a budget of a little more than 10 billion, a significant portion fo which goes to subsidizing rail (for example, 271 million this year for the Long Island Railroad). ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347/92 "2009-04-18T10:37:29Z")
> [@flonks](#): > > He said that the neighborhood would not be happy. Why else would they complain? They might complain having their homes ripped up and having trains going through their neighborhoods. Just as a guess. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347/93 "2009-04-18T11:19:20Z")
> [@Bruce\_Wayne](#): > > I don’t think the Detroit reference made by **Sam Stone** in his first post is valid. There are a few obscure Amtrack stops from Flint to Chicago. Its not the stop, its the route that counts. You could make a high speed rail line from Chicago to Montreal with stops in Flint, Port Huron, Niagra, Toronto, with few or many in between and the system could still be profitable. Ahh…but there’s the rub! And its the reaon todays buses suck and to some extent the rail lines. You cant go fast and make good time and keep stopping all the time. Remember how your Dad made sure everyone had gone to bathroom before the cross country trip? He was smarter than you think. Now, if you could come up with some sorta catapult stystem to fling people on and off the things as they flew by… ---
**Author:** ![MichaelQReilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@MichaelQReilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelQReilly)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347/94 "2009-04-18T14:27:43Z")
> [@flonks](#): > > Are there no new airports built in the US due to the traffic increase? A third airport will be built in the Paris area after Charles de Gaules and Orly airports. The two of them, although huge, can’t handle the traffic anymore. Well, that was before the crisis. I’m pretty sure one of the reasons that California voters approved the high speed rail system they are currently working on is because the cost of acquiring land to expand the airports in SoCal in order to meet projected demand was astronomical. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelQReilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@MichaelQReilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelQReilly)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347/95 "2009-04-18T14:36:47Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Because they are heavily [subsidized](http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,185650,00.html). > > I don’t know where you are getting your figures from, but the subsidy is far, far greater than $100 million. There are also other “subsidies” like the [following](http://www.hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001001.html): > > Then we have [government-backed loans](http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_48/b3759036.htm), [etc.](http://the-idea-shop.com/article/41/the-price-of-deregulation-subsidies) > > More [here.](http://www.tripso.com/today/after-years-of-airline-subsidies-how-about-a-payback-for-taxpayers/) > > While, I generally agree with your take on HSR, I don’t think it’s fair to use bogus numbers to make your case. Thanks for posting that, I knew the claim of airport profitability was false, but I didn’t know where to find a good cite. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347/96 "2009-04-18T15:04:25Z")
> [@MichaelQReilly](#): > > I’m pretty sure one of the reasons that California voters approved the high speed rail system they are currently working on is because the cost of acquiring land to expand the airports in SoCal in order to meet projected demand was astronomical. That really, really doesn’t make any sense. Any rail system would require the aquisition of vastly more land than even the largest airport. ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347/97 "2009-04-18T16:13:38Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > That really, really doesn’t make any sense. Any rail system would require the aquisition of vastly more land than even the largest airport. The route has been chosen to take advantage of existing Caltrain tracks and right-of-way. [http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/faqs/route.htm](http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/faqs/route.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Ca3799](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9f8e36/32.png) [@Ca3799](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ca3799)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347/98 "2009-04-18T17:31:59Z")
> [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](#): > > I’m all for it. > > I only hope passenger rail in general expands. > > I wish I had an Amtrak station within 100 miles o here. I’m all for it as well. We do have an Amtrak station (Texas) but it doesn’t really go anywhere that makes it useful. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347/99 "2009-04-18T18:13:46Z")
> [@MichaelQReilly](#): > > Thanks for posting that, I knew the claim of airport profitability was false, but I didn’t know where to find a good cite. The claim was NOT false. The cite I posted was direct from ICAO. That’s about as authoritative as it gets. The ‘subsidies’ airports get are mostly the federal maintenance of the Air Traffic Control system. That’s not a subsidy to local airports, it’s the cost of maintenance of the entire system. And it’s mostly not even a subsidy, because most of the FAA’s budget is paid for from the Aviation Trust Fund. The trust fund gets money from excise taxes (ticket taxes, fuel taxes, etc). The FAA then draws from the trust fund to pay for programs such as upgrading weather radars, paying for Air Traffic Control, etc. For example, in 2007 the Aviation Trust Fund took in about 12 billion dollars in income from taxes. Out of that, 5.5 billion went to pay for ATC, 3.7 billion went to airports, another 2.8 billion went to facilities and equipment (weather stations, safety equipment, etc). This is not a ‘subsidy’. Or to be more clear, it’s a subsidy to some airports and a tax on others. It’s more like social welfare for aviation - everyone pays in, and then the FAA doles it out based on need. That’s why there’s the direct subsidy to smaller airports that I mentioned above. The system as a whole is largely self-funding, and in that system, the majority of airports run at a profit. The same was true of that 30 billion dollars a year for highways that **brickbacon** mentioned. That’s the budget for highway administration, but what you don’t see is that most of that budget is paid for by various road travel related taxes. You could at least try reading the cites I linked to before making comments like that. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347/100 "2009-04-18T18:18:29Z")
The other flavor of subsidy airports get which isn’t mentioned in the FAA statistics come from things like local tax breaks for airport land or land grants for expansion and that sort of thing. It’s more in some places, less in others, non-existant in some. But there’s an argument for why they aren’t necessarily a subsidy, because having an airport can bring large positive externalities to a community. It can make companies more profitable, provide emergency medevac for patients who need to go elsewhere, give the city a competitive advantage when enticing business to relocate there, improve tourism, etc. And by the way, rail has exactly the same kinds of ‘off-book’ subsidies that don’t show up in federal budgets for rail operations. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/high-speed-rail-how-well-will-it-fly-obama-unveils-high-speed-rail-plan/493347.md?page=6)