Are Rail Subsidies Too High?
I always hear people say that passenger rail in America should not get subsidies and that if it can’t sustain itself in the open market, it shouldn’t exist. Actually, I could agree with that — if the playing field were even and automobile and truck traffic weren’t so heavily subsidized. So here are a few little figures to contribute to that debate:
- 60: percentage of the 53.3 billion dollars the government spends each year that is covered by gasoline taxes and fees and vehicle registration fees.
- 60: percentage of costs on Amtrack covered by passenger fees according to a 1997 Cato Institute study.
- 14: percentage of damage caused by trucks paid for by the taxes and fees on trucks.
- 150,000: miles of railroad track in the US currently (approx).
- 429,883: miles of railroad track in the US in 1930.
How many miles of track might we have today and what might the relative ticket prices be if our streets and highways were not so heavily subsidized? Or what level of subsidy is appropriate for maintaining infrastructure? Those are open questions, but let’s not pretend that passenger rail subsidies are abnormal and some supposedly free-market highways system is normal.
Sources:
- “America in Motion,” Lorraine Moffa and Nigel Holmes, American History, vol. 43, n. 6 (Feb 2009), pp. 42–43.
- “Amtrack Subsidies:This is no Way to Run a Railroad,” Stephen Moore, on Cato.org
Popularity: 9% [?]
Add to: 
del.icio.us •
furl •
reddit
•
digg •
technorati cosmos
