The versatility of passenger train investment

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Last week, Mollee posed a question on NARP’s Facebook page, asking about the cost-to-benefit ratio of passenger rail:

“I understand that the budget and spending need to be curtailed but in doing so, wouldn’t the best plan… be in putting the money where it does the most good?”

The thrust of her comment seems to be: in a time of limited revenue, the government should focus on projects that move the country forward on multiple national objectives.

NARP agrees with the assessment, and it’s a viewpoint we’ve consistently pushed in our advocacy work. 

Amtrak is 31.2% more efficient than automobiles, 33.5 % more efficient than personal trucks, and 13.8% more efficient than airplanes (on a Btu per passenger mile basis).  Passenger trains decrease U.S. dependency on foreign oil and reduce the emission of harmful pollutants into the air.  Intercity rail, properly connected to public transit systems, creates walkable streets and livable neighborhoods. Train travel is far safer than driving; motor vehicle accidents killed more than 32,000 people in 2010, and is the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 3 and 33.  And constructing a high-speed train network would revitalize the U.S. passenger rail manufacturing industry, which declined in the decades following the construction of the federally-financed Interstate Highway System.

Congestion [Image: Mario Roberto Duran Ortiz Mariordo]

So building passenger rail fulfills not just transportation goals, but environmental, social, safety, and national defense goals as well.  Why not invest?

The answer seems to be as conceptual, as much as anything.  Here’s an excerpt from a piece we posted in November looking at the relative costs of different modes of transportation:

Using the relative government transportation budgets as a jumping off point, David C. compares the relative efficiency of the $1.6 billion spent on Amtrak (FY 2010) and the $96.4 billion spent on highways (FY 2007):

Amtrak’s federal grant, constituting just 0.05% of federal spending in 2010, is once again under attack. Its critics perennially point to the railroad’s 24¢ per passenger mile (ppm) government subsidy, compare it to the 2¢ ppm direct subsidy for driving, and call Amtrak a waste.

Comparing these direct subsidies, though, tells only part of the story. When indirect subsidies are considered, Amtrak’s total subsidy comes out to a little less than 44¢ ppm, but motoring’s subsidy rises up to almost 5645¢ ppm.

By “indirect subsidies”, David C. is referring to costs not directly covered by drivers, such as air pollution, traffic congestion, and a certain percentage of the cost of car accidents (anything not covered by driver’s insurance policy)—to name a few of many.

Now, “externalities” are difficult to build an argument around.  Rather than a simple bullet point, we’re asking undecided readers to let us deconstruct their world view and replace it with something more complicated and difficult to understand.  It’s an easy task for critics of Amtrak to say “taxpayers subsidize each train ticket on X route by Y dollars.”  It’s much harder to explain why policy dictating that every department store have X square feet of dedicated parking per Y square foot of retail space is making their purchases Z more expensive.  Or figure out the dollars and cents cost to increased instances of asthma found in children who live near highways—and are thus exposed to higher concentrations of vehicle exhaust.

Understanding the ways passenger trains benefit our communities requires work.  Understanding the ways over-reliance on roads is hurting the U.S. also takes work.  That’s why it’s important for advocates of a smart transportation system do the work, and help others to understand the indirect costs associated with our travel decisions.  Only by educating the general public about the real cost of transportation will we get the most bang for our buck.

Posted by NARP

Tags: amtrak, benefits, high-speed rail, indirect costs, national defense, safety
(3) Comments