Moving stuff
CTC has not taken a position on Proposition 1, which would permit the state to fund freight rail projects. I agree with that; I have enough misgivings about TxDOT’s intentions that I don’t feel comfortable recommending to others that they vote yes.
But I believe firmly and without reservations that the most common argument I have heard against Prop 1 is silly. To paraphrase:
This is a handout to private corporations.
The fact is that our state government, and our federal governments and our local governments, are subsidizing private enterprises in myriad ways. The suggestion that state funding for railroad infrastructure projects would somehow single out railroad companies for government support is false; on the contrary, railroads are currently unique in their lack of government subsidy.
The primary forms of competition for private railroads are barges and trucks. Inland waterways are obviously and generously supported by the federal government; user fees cover less than half of the costs of maintaining and building locks and dams. The subsidy for trucks is less obvious but equally real. Highways are funded with fuel taxes on cars and trucks, but studies indicate that, due to their weight, trucks cause a greater share of the wear and tear on highways than their share of road taxes. Moreover, highway design standards – lane widths, grades, pavement thickness, and bridge strength – are governed by trucks; a car-only highway would be cheaper to build. Thus, every time you fill your tank you’re subsidizing trucks. Beyond that, significant components of the roadway system – including policing and the construction of local roads – are paid for from income, sales, and property taxes. By contrast, the major railroads receive virtually no government support. They build, maintain, and secure their own tracks. In fact, railroads pay fuel taxes and property taxes.
Our current system provides governmental economic incentives favoring trucks over trains. I have not heard any logical reason for that; trains are more environmentally friendly, more fuel efficient, and safer than trucks. Even with disincentives in place, railroads are taking trucks off the road; several major trucking firms now move significant portions of their freight by railroad. It would be sensible transportation policy to reduce the number of trucks on the road by shifting freight to trains, and government investment in railroads can do that.
That said, though, the biggest beneficiary of Prop 1 could be not the railroads but neighborhoods across the state. State funding would make possible the relocation of through freight trains in Georgetown, Round Rock, Austin, San Marcos, and New Braunfels to a new route further east, removing disruptive freight trains from those cities and allowing the creation of a commuter rail line. In Houston, state funding could upgrade and grade-separate railroad lines so that residents of the East End and Sugar Land wouldn’t wait behind closed crossing gates. The state’s major railroads have agreed to a set of principles under which they would pay for these projects to the extent they benefit the railroad, and the government would pay to the extent that the public benefits. Given that the railroads were there first, that seems to me to be quite sensible.
My only concern with Prop 1, in fact, is that the people who would be in charge of administering state railroad policy would be the same folks who brought us the Katy Freeway expansion and the Trans-Texas Corridor. I see a need for a state role here, but I fear that TxDOT will carry that role out in an opaque and undemocratic way. I would imagine many voters will have the same thought, and if Prop 1 fails, TxDOT can only blame itself. I say now, and I will say over and over again: good transportation policy requires public involvement. And I add: good transportation policy requires considering all modes, regardless of organization, ownership, or history.
A discussion is already underway at the CTC forums. We also have a fact sheet on freight rail.