skip to main |
skip to sidebar
the fastest trains are slower than flying; the most frequent trains are less convenient than driving; and trains are almost always more expensive than either flying or driving.”
By Randal O'Toole of Cato.
"“Why can’t America have great trains?” asks East Coast writer Simon Van Zuylen-Wood in the National Journal.
The simple answer is, “Because we don’t want them.” The slightly longer
answer is, “because the fastest trains are slower than flying; the most
frequent trains are less convenient than driving; and trains are almost
always more expensive than either flying or driving.”
Van Zuylen-Wood’s article contains familiar pro-passenger-train hype:
praise for European and Asian trains; selective statistics about Amtrak
ridership; and a search for villains in the federal government who are
trying to kill the trains. The other side of the story is quite
different.
For example, he notes that Amtrak “ridership has increased by roughly
50 percent in the past 15 years.” But he fails to note that the biggest
driver of Amtrak ridership is gasoline prices, which 15 years ago were
at an all-time low (after adjusting for inflation). Now that prices are falling, so is Amtrak’s ridership.
He also ignores the fact that Amtrak’s ridership is minuscule
compared with flying or driving. Whereas highways moved around 87
percent of passenger travel and airlines around 12 percent in 2012,
Amtrak’s share was just 0.14 percent.
While that is an increase from 0.11 percent in 1999, it is a decrease
from 0.15 to 0.16 percent in most of the years from 1975 through 1993,
when gas prices were high.
Trains are great for moving large volumes of goods from point A to
point B. America’s freight railroads are the envy of the world, but they
make most of their money moving coal from mine to power plant; grain
from elevator to port; and containers from port to inland distribution
center. The railroads conceded less-than-carload shipments, the freight
equivalent of passengers, to trucks and air freight back in 1975 when
the Railway Express Agency went out of business.
Passenger train proponents argue that, over certain distances such as
New York to Washington, trains can compete with airlines because trains
have shorter downtown-to-downtown travel times. But the reality is that
only 8 percent of Americans work downtown while less than 1 percent
live downtown; in most urban areas, more people live or work within a
few minutes of an airport than a train station.
One reason Amtrak’s share of travel is so low is that it is so
expensive. While airfares averaged 13.8 cents per passenger mile in
2012, Amtrak fares averaged 33.9 cents.
Amtrak is more expensive than driving, too, as Americans spend about 25
cents a passenger mile on auto travel (calculated by multiplying average auto occupancies by miles of driving divided by personal expenditures on driving).
Amtrak fares are high despite the subsidies it receives from federal
and state governments. Rail proponents argue that all modes of
transportation are subsidized, but they neglect to mention that Amtrak
subsidies per passenger mile are close to twenty times greater than
subsidies to highways or airlines. Comparing government revenues and expenditures by mode with passenger miles of travel
over the past decade reveals that subsidies to driving and flying have
each averaged a bit more than a penny per passenger mile, while
subsidies to Amtrak are nearly 24 cents per passenger mile. Counting
user costs and subsidies, Amtrak is four times more expensive than
flying and more than twice as expensive as driving.
Van Zuylen-Wood takes it for granted that Amtrak subsidies should be
massively increased to bring America’s passenger rail system up to the
standards found in Europe and Japan. Americans who visit Europe are
often impressed by the region’s trains, but what they don’t see is that,
despite the heavy subsidies to European passenger trains, European
travel habits are not much different from our own. According to the
European Union’s Panorama of Transport,
residents of the EU-27 used intercity trains for just 6 percent of
their travel while they drove for 74 percent in 2006, when Americans
drove for 85 percent of travel. France has built lots of high-speed
trains, yet 79 percent of travel there is by car.
Moreover, the countries that have built high-speed rail lines have
succeeded mainly in capturing passengers away from low-speed trains, not
cars or planes. Rail’s share of European travel was 8 percent before
they began building high-speed rail lines; now it is just 6 percent.
Japan’s example is even more stark: when it built the world’s first
high-speed rail line in 1964, only 12 percent of travel was by car and
70 percent was by train. Today, Japan has numerous high-speed trains,
but trains carry little more than 25 percent of travel while cars carry
60 percent. The reality is that passenger trains are as obsolete in
Europe and Japan as they are here, but local politicians keep throwing
money at them.
Van Zuylen-Wood is so eager for his rail subsidies that he never
mentions the clear alternative: intercity buses. In the last decade, and
with virtually no subsidies, Megabus has revolutionized the intercity
bus industry with low fares, mostly non-stop schedules, and free WiFi
and power ports at each seat. While Van Zuylen-Wood repeats Amtrak’s
claims that it carries more passengers in the New York-Washington
corridor than the airlines, he neglects to mention that intercity buses
carry even more than Amtrak (and automobiles carry many times more than
all public conveyances combined).
Buses are more energy-efficient than rail, and between numerous city
pairs offer more frequent and faster service than Amtrak at lower fares.
For those who would turn up their noses at riding a bus, a number of
companies offer luxury bus service between major cities with fewer
seats, on-board food service, entertainment centers, and other
amenities.
Amtrak supporters such as former Federal Railroad Administration director Joseph Szabo argue
that passenger “rail deserves a predictable and reliable federal
funding stream.” But it has one: fares. If fares won’t support passenger
trains, there is no reason why the 99 percent of Americans who rarely
if ever ride trains should be required to subsidize them. Let’s end all
subsidies to all forms of transportation and let passenger trains
operate where they can compete on a level playing field. That way people
like Van Zuylen-Wood and myself can enjoy the trains we are willing to
pay for and not expect others to subsidize our hobbies."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.