Awhile back, FiveThirtyEight wrote an interesting post about how American perceptions of different modes of transportation lead to different outcomes in how we use transportation (Link to that post). Particularly, they write that Americans are more disposed to use cars than planes because we have negative perceptions of flying. The article also points out that we discount the cost of driving, when making travel decisions.
The problem with their analysis is that they want to use our incorrect accounting of automobile travel as a justification for additional rail travel. The article fails to realize that forcing consumers to confront the real costs of driving is not plausible. In the real world, people discount their use of a car because they do not have to pay for the wear and tear applied to their car at the point that they use it. Most people, will assume that the cost of owning a car is a sunk cost, independent of the decision to travel. And this sounds like a correct assumption – car owners still have to make a payment on their car for that month whether or not they decide to go on a family vacation. The additional costs of travel are only those created by gasoline. If you’re interested in forcing people to make the correct economic decision, a regional rail system (or any alternative transportation system) is not the answer. Increasing the gas tax is.
However, I certainly agree that we could use more regional rail travel in the midwest between our large cities. But my rationale is not based on attempt to adjust my behavior to account for the full cost of owning a car. Rather, it is based on my hatred of driving in Chicago traffic and the fact that I feel like I lose a significant amount of my time. I want all of the benefits of flying at a lower cost without the disadvantages of delays and oversold flights. There are many paths in the Midwest that are similar to the Madison to Chicago route – where its silly to fly that short of a distance and burdensome to drive the same route (Milwaukee to Minneapolis is another example).
I think other people want the same thing and such an option would have the potential to subsidize economic growth between the cities involved – businesses in each city would get the benefit of reducing the costs of face to face contact and could increase the productivity of their employees.
My argument for additional regional rail travel is based on two additional factors: 1) a preference for urban environments and 2) the fact that I’m single (okay – engaged. Whatever, I don’t have any kids). I think the dislike for flying is still going to apply to rail travel if you happen to be unlike me. If you have to drive a significant distance to link-up to a regional rail system, you are still going to prefer to drive the entire distance rather than to drive and then take a plane or train to your final destination. Similarly, if you have to pay ticket prices for everyone in your family – you are far more likely to prefer to drive than pay for everyone’s ticket.
