Over the weekend, the Tampa Tribune wrote an article on the debate about rail in the Sunshine State. Ostensibly, the purpose of the story was to help readers determine how to make an informed decision about rail when there are competing claims. The American Dream Coalition was one of those organizations making a competing claim.
When it comes to attention-grabbing covers, the title “Great Rail Disasters” with an illustration of a train wreck is tough to beat for creating a sense of danger and drama. Inside, the 44-page American Dream Coalition report focuses on “foolish investments” and “pork barrel spending” in a critique of rail as a passenger transportation alternative.
Pro-rail advocates have put forward reports that seem to show rail is a cost-effective “investment” capable of attracting new economic development while reducing traffic congestion and improving the environment. On the other end, organizations like the ADC, Reason Foundation, Cato Institute and others argue that rail doesn’t pay for itself or deliver on the promises of those promoting it.
One misnomer is that the ADC is “anti-rail.” The ADC is pro-mobility, pro-markets and pro-taxpayer. We are pro-freedom. If rail paid for itself and relieved congestion and actually offered up what people wanted, we’d say so. It does not, so we write reports showing that to be the case and trust that fair-minded people will evaluate our arguments, look at the evidence, and come to a reasonable conclusion.
To help the average citizen who is not a trained economist, I said “(o)ne of the key things people should try to do on these issues is to take an ‘apples to apples’ comparison. Statistics can be squeezed in ways to give many types of answers.”
For example, it is often argued that rail can move as many people as an six-lane highway. The underlying assumption is that the rail cars are filled to capacity while the cars on the highway carry only a single occupant. These assumptions are grossly in error. And if your argument is based on faulty assumptions … well then.
The only way to get an “apples to apples” comparison is to break down the variables to a per passenger basis. How much energy (measured in BTUs) is used to move people by rail per passenger mile? How much by auto per passenger mile? How much carbon is emited per passenger mile by rail and by bus and by autos?
Serious policymakers and concerned citizens need to know the answers to these questions since billions of taxpayer dollars are going to be spent pursuing one or more of these ends. The reality is that the reports by the ADC (and Reason, Cato, etc.) hold up very well to scrutiny. The pro-rail ones do not.
So how does the “other side” respond to this? ”People have done a pretty good job of making money by telling people what they like to hear,” says Todd Litman, executive director of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute. He’s clearly “projecting” because the VTPI is generously funded by government grants and pro-rail foundations … and he produces reports that say exactly what they want to hear.
I can’t speak for other pro-market organizations, but I can say that the ADC proudly does NOT accept government funding. We are under no pressure to produce what they want to hear. We are independent and our support comes from private citizens, many of whom are grassroots activists. We have not received money from Big Oil, Big Auto, or Big Asphalt - although they or anyone else is invited to contribute to the ADC - a 501(c)(3) non-profit - at a level with which they are comfortable.
There is another, indirect way to determine the validity of competing reports. When the US Transportation Secretary diminishes the importance of “cost-effectiveness” in determining how to award transportation projects … and VTPI and other rail advocates do the happy dance, doesn’t that answer the question about whether rail transit is cost effective?
It’s a pity that defending taxpayers from wasteful spending by self-interested politicians is considered a “special interest,” but we’ll wear that badge with honor.
