First let me say that I am saddened by the Amtrak tragedy in Pennsylvania recently.  Second, I admit I love trains—riding in them and watching them.  So I am not longing for railroads to disappear.  What I am disturbed about is the immediate use of this accident by Democrats  (and I am sure a few Republicans will join the chorus) for partisan political purposes.  Without any actual evidence of fault or cause, they have both lambasted conservatives and at the same time called for more money for “infrastructure” as urgent.  Suddenly Republicans and conservatives (the two are not completely identical) are seen as uncaring and unsympathetic.  Democrats on the other hand can cast themselves as the great saviors of the people who desperately need mass transit and, to satisfy the traditional crowd, better highways.  So what is really the situation?

With respect to mass transit, the Federal government already spends quite a bit to subsidize trains and related transportation in urban areas and between major metropolitan areas.  Much of this funding is a waste.  For example, most riders of Amtrak it turns out are middle and upper class—only about 13-16% are low income.  Why subsidize it when those people can pay?  If they really value its convenience, which many do (where else can you read the newspaper or laptop and ride to work?), they will be willing to pay for it.  Subsidies for low income people can be handled in other ways that don’t lead to such large inefficiencies.

Besides all that it doesn’t seem as if the railway right-of-ways are in danger of crumbling.  After all, don’t large and heavy freight trains use them already and we see relatively few problems.  In addition, the private railways maintain the trackage very well.  It’s time to cut the umbilical cord with Amtrak.

As for mass transit such as bullet trains, proposed for example, between cities in California or between Cincinnati and Columbus in Ohio (that one is dead), these are incredible wastes of taxpayer money.  People value the convenience and freedom of roads much more in interurban routes.  Thus the ridership would be very small and could not pay for the project.  And if one is concerned about pollution, we know that pollution problems between cities are very small compared to in and around them.  So we are spending a lot of money for little benefit.

What about roads?  It is true that roads seem to be having a rough time (no pun intended).  But at the same time, road infrastructure projects are full of cronyism (they always have been—but before the present era it was confined to local politics).  For example, what became of all the billions of Stimulus funding that was earmarked in large part for such projects?  It seems it disappeared somewhere, perhaps in the pockets of the friends of the stimulus funders, and perhaps in return for votes and support.  I don’t trust the state in this area.  But I acknowledge work is necessary.  What to do?

I am still thinking about that one, but tentatively, one proposal would be to stop building more roads for the most part.  Then, focus on the roads that truly need repair or reconstruction.  But we have to do this in way that reduces the incentives to cronyism and abuse.  That is not easy.  The Federal government should not simply give money away with no strings attached.  But how does such a large Federal bureaucracy provide effective oversight for funds?  I am not sure it is possible.  So I am stumped on this problem.  Could we go about the problem from the “other end” by institutionalizing incentives for less driving and fewer automobiles?  Of course we could, but I am not at all convinced this must be done.  It could happen anyway if gasoline prices rise significantly again, but I am not enthusiastic about that prospect either (government of course could make it happen with gas taxes—I do not favor that alternative).  How does  one “de-politicize” road funding?  I am open to suggestions, but not perceiving an absolute solution.  In the meantime I am beginning to formulate some possible alternative approaches that involve voting by people driving in affected areas, while at the same time trying to find a way to get them to reveal their true preferences (that is, to be honest about the true condition of their roads).

In America, a geographically very large nation, the transportation problem is an important issue, especially as population increases.  But we ought to be very careful in reacting to one tragic accident as if there were a crisis.  The invocation of “crisis” often tends to foreclose deliberation and lead to unintended consequences that are negative for taxpayers and users of transportation services.

I do welcome suggestions for a solution to my dilemma above concerning roads.