The Rhetoric of Rail

There’s often more fiction than fact in the articles on rail these days, and there’s almost NO real analysis in much of what passes for commentary. I posted the text below as a comment on the NewWest blog. It was actually long enough that it should be its own post. Here’s some thoughts I have about what we’ve been reading in the press lately about rail transit, specifically the possible reintroduction of the Amtrak Pioneer Line:

1) We need to be clear on the policy objective before we dismiss proposed solutions.

2) We need to be clear on the time horizon of the possible implementation of this policy.

3) We don’t know the “real” prices of most other transportation options.

4) We don’t have any comparative statistics against which to view the costs of the Amtrak Pioneer line.

There are any number of policy objectives that reopening the Pioneer line could accomplish: providing an alternative to air travel in the region; mitigating against future reductions in air service; mitigating against rising fuel costs; environmental protection; economic development; national competitiveness.

Senator Crapo says his objective with this policy is this: “A number of years ago (1997), Amtrak cut the Pioneer Route, which went through southern Idaho. That left many rural Americans in Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming without convenient access to the nation’s passenger rail system.” So, this proposal does what he is looking for, but yes, at what price. That brings me to point #2.

The good Senator, from what I gather, would like to see one of the Pioneer options happen sooner rather than later. That probably isn’t likely, in my estimation. Again referring to that America2050 rail report, no one really expects the Pioneer line to come back online for quite some time. I think it is reasonable for most people to agree that sometime in the next 40 years, it makes sense to get this line going again. That’s my position.

We should also be fortunate that we *know* the real costs of reopening the line. What does an airline ticket *really* cost? Who knows? $9 billion in taxes support TSA, and $14.6 the FAA. Add that to the cost of your plane ticket to SLC or anywhere else, and that is just the tip of the iceberg of hidden costs for just that one form of travel.

And so there is a $260 per passenger subsidy in some economic models for the Pioneer. Is that a lot? Who knows? What does it cost to run passenger or HSR in the Northeast? Japan? Europe? Would this represent a bigger per-capita subsidy (subsidy = public investment) than do our roads, and airlines? These are all questions that we need to answer.

I do want to throw out there too that at least there is SOME collection of non-public revenues for this system. What non-public revenue does I-84 collect? Zero. In fact, I-84 improvements are being paid for with Grant Anticipation Revenue Bonds which means your kids are paying for I-84 improvements.

Anyway - introductory economics tells us that at some cost and certain conditions, this policy proposal makes sense. I do not know if that is *now* or not; I still have questions. But, as I said, I think it is reasonable to be planning for the redeployment of this line sometime before the middle of the century. But as policy and bureaucracy moves so slowly, this is probably the time that we have to start talking about it if we want to make this happen at all.