Why Do We Subsidize Roads But Expect Profits From Amtrak?

Terrible analogy and worse analysis. (2.00 / 2)

Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts are private companies; no one but their shareholders is allowed to ask them of anything.

Americans take some 400 billion long-distance trips a year; Amtrack last year had a ridership of about 30 million. Comparing roadway travel to Amtrack travel would suggest that the two are in the same category of importance; they are not. One is the most important element of our infrastructure, national defense, and commerce; the other is a luxury that has no hope of ever becoming a viable alternative to vehicular transportation, no matter how much taxpayer money is wasted on it.

This is not to say that the government should subsidize mass transit options, but it should start (and arguably end) with bus. Buses are vastly cheaper, much more flexible, far more convenient, and are able to service a much broader customer base, plus take cars off the road when its needed most: rush hour.

Unfortunately, bus systems aren't as politically sexy as high-priced, heavily-subsidized, rarely used train systems, with their ribbon cuttings and photo ops. Literally every rail project in the United States has exceeded its initial cost projection and overestimated its ridership. Which makes the decision to invest funds for mass transit to rails instead of buses even more tragic.

---

by: FairfaxInsider @ Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 21:13:25 PM UTC

Correction (0.00 / 0)

"That is not to say that the government should NOT subsidize mass transit."

---

by: FairfaxInsider @ Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 21:14:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nothing wrong with buses, but... (0.00 / 0)

...this analysis is otherwise deeply flawed, not taking into account all kinds of subsidies (not to mention huge environmental and national security externalities) and other market distortions that massively tilt the playing field away from rail and towards motor vehicles. Without taking all of those subsidies and externalities into account, you can't even begin to compare the economics of roads to rail. Once you DO take into account those subsidies and externalities, rail looks extremely attractive.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 21:42:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

When/if (0.00 / 0)

Oil really gets expensive - say, permanently north of $150 a barrel - then air travel will eventually get very expensive, as will driving.  At that point, trains could come back into vogue as the main method of medium-range travel, especially up and down the Northeast.  At that point, a billion or two in subsidies for Amtrak now will look like a very good investment.

People always overlook the costs of providing air travel.  Sure, you can get a hybrid and get 40-50 miles to the gallon in a car, but there's no way to do that for an aircraft engine.  Even the newest engines underdevelopment will save maybe 20% of the fuel consumption that current engines do.  That's not a lot when oil is 300% the price that it used to be.

I don't think we'll ever see gas prices down around a dollar again.  So the one mode of transportation that we have that isn't completely dependent on oil - that being trains, at least in the Northeast - should not be left to die.

---

by: NotJohnSMosby @ Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 22:42:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pollution (0.00 / 0)

What about all the pollution buses produce with their diesel engines? I know that the electricity needed to run the trains is polluting, but at least the riders don't have to deal with it.
When I was a youngster DC had a street car system that was non polluting and I could go just about anywhere I wanted to go, but thanks to congress they were replaced by those stinking buses.

---

by: Jim B @ Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 21:35:33 PM UTC

Well, in defense of buses... (0.00 / 0)

...when they have enough riders, they reduce pollution by taking the place of many car trips.  And I have noticed a real difference in the exhaust from the natural gas powered buses that have replaced the diesel buses. If memory serves, that was an initiative first pushed by Chris Zimmerman on the Metro board (and derided by others).

Not to diminish the value of trains or trolleys in any way -- but do keep in mind that with electricity from today's grid, it's also mostly being produced from coal burning, with vast amounts wasted in transmission and distribution. So the pollution you don't see can be a problem too.  

Impeachinelli! Now on Twitter.

---

by: kindler @ Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 00:25:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly on point. (0.00 / 0)

The bottom line is that, in this country, for decades now we've been massively subsidizing anything and everything to do with automobiles - the interstate highway system, free parking, very cheap (by world standards) gasoline, etc. - and sprawl, while letting our urban areas and public transportation fall to pieces. Then, Republican'ts have the gall to claim that Amtrak is the one losing money, as if it's a level playing field? It's infuriating, but what else would we expect from those people. Grrrr.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 21:38:21 PM UTC

Also, I'd point out that oil and other fossil fuel industries (0.00 / 0)

have been massively subsidized for about a century now. In comparison, clean energy has received a pittance. Again, a totally tilted playing field, once again in the direction of those with the most political power and $$$$ to throw around. In this case, it's at the expense of our economy, environment, and national security, simply for the profits of ExxonMobil et al. A fair tradeoff? I don't THINK so!

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 21:39:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]