There is considerable anticipation that the Republicans in the new Congress will slash transportation funding, including funds for high-speed rail. The National Journal raises the question about whether rail is being singled out for such budget slashing.
The author, Fawn Johnson, asks:
"So why pick on rail? Are there unique characteristics of rail programs that make them ripe for trimming? How are these rail funding programs different from federal subsidies for highways or runways? Are there essential features of each of these rail programs that should be preserved, and if so, why? What can rail and mass transit enthusiasts do to convince conservatives like the RSC that their projects are worthwhile?"
Here is the answer from Bob Poole, the Director of Transportation Studies at the Reason Foundation. What he brings to our attention is a response to a debate that has been raging for some time; which modality, rail, air or highway, is the most heavily subsidized PER PASSENGER MILE in the United States?
'Per passenger mile' is the most reliable metric to be used in making inter-modal comparisons. The CHSRA has assiduously avoided using that measure, preferring the much more vague 'passengers' as a measure. They do this with, for example, comparing fully loaded trains, with autos holding only one person, the driver. The rail authority has based it's HSR promotion on the fact that trains are the least, not the most costly to the taxpayer. Similarly with air travel. And, they are wrong.
This data, provided by Bob Poole, comes from the US Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, presumably a highly reliable, unbiased source. Note, below, the dollar comparisons, with rail by far the most heavily federally subsidized mode of passenger transit. Private auto and bus travel are the least subsidized.
And this is why many of us are so anxious about the development of high-speed rail in California, since subsidies are not permitted in the authorizing language of AB3034. In other words, who, after spending billions to build this train, is going to pay to operate it, if not the taxpayers? And we already know from experience that ticket sales will cover only a fraction of the operation and maintenance costs, as they do elsewhere in the world. No large passenger rail system anywhere is not subsidized by its host government in some form.
Let me also suggest, parenthetically, that urban/regional public mass transit can be considerably enhanced, thereby increasing ridership and further justifying tax dollar subsidies. This can be done in a highly cost/effective way, through elimination of redundancies and economies of scale, if these transit operators were to organize themselves under single umbrella management structures that integrated all these diverse, multi-modal services into a far more collaborative and coordinated network, encouraging ridership. It's in urban regions where most people live and work, and it's in these cities where the gridlock and air pollution are.
This data from the DOT bolsters the basic contention that inter-city travel is the most heavily subsidized, and therefore least cost/effective mode of transit. However, I would argue, probably against Bob Poole, that such subsidies are justified in high-density urban environments. But, we doubtlessly agree that they are not justified with inter-city train travel, particularly in its most expensive and wasteful mode, high-speed rail.
=============================================
JANUARY 24, 2011 9:35 AM
How Rail Differs from Highways
By Bob Poole
Director of Transportation Studies, Reason Foundation
Passenger rail and rail transit differ in two fundamental ways from highways and runways, which also receive federal grants. First, many highways and runways provide national as opposed to purely local or regional benefits. Second, most highways and runways are paid for by their users, not by non-user taxpayers.
Let’s take the second point first. Since the question on the table is federal transportation funding, we need to be clear about the extent of federal “subsidy” for each mode. Subsidy is not the same thing as “amount of federal funding,” although many transit and high-speed rail advocates keep trying to twist the language in that way. If an infrastructure project is funded by payments made by its users, there is no subsidy involved. A subsidy occurs when non-users are compelled to pay for such a project.
The definitive study on this subject is the December 2004 report by the US DOT’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics, called “Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation,” posted on the BTS.gov website. It reviewed about a decade’s worth of federal funding for inter-city rail, air travel, highways, and urban transit. For each mode, it compared federal user-tax revenue with federal spending, with the difference amounting to the subsidy. It then divided the average annual subsidy by the passenger miles traveled using each mode.
The resulting federal subsidy per thousand passenger miles was as follows:
Inter-city passenger rail: $186
Urban transit: $118
Air travel: $ 6
Highways: -$ 2
The highway figure is negative because in a typical year, federal highway user taxes exceeded federal highway spending (because of transfers of some of that revenue to urban transit).
Hence, the Republican Study Committee and other fiscal conservatives are seeking to reduce or eliminate subsidies, not rail travel, per se.
The other key point is the question of what is truly federal. The RSC, along with the President’s deficit reduction commission and others, are correctly pointing out that the federal government is greatly over-extended, extending its writ to vast areas in which handing out money may be popular but which serves little or no truly national or federal purpose. The benefits of urban transit are almost entirely local/regional, not national or federal. An important part of getting the federal government’s fiscal house in order over the next decade will be to sort out and focus its efforts on a relatively limited set of key national purposes, devolving numerous other activities to state and local governments to handle as they see fit.
