Corridor One

Corridor One too costly, Rendell official says

I have somewhat mixed feelings about this announcement. I was initially a big fan of the idea of expanding rail transportation to the area since I would love to see the return of good, efficient rail service to central PA. I also know that traffic congestion in the area is horrible and that the roads are too undersized and unable to expand in any conceivable way that won't cost millions of dollars.

In effect, the millions that opponents say will be wasted on expanding rail service will be saved in the short run, but ultimately 10 times that figure will likely need to be spent on expanding highways in the area to accommodate the increased population and traffic in the area. When that reaches the breaking point, then perhaps regional rail will get the boost in needs to happen. Hopefully, in the meantime, someone won't turn these into bike trails and forever close off the possibility of alternative transportation.

All that being said though, I can understand that rail advocates are disappointed by this since highways get such a huge public subsidy. Rather than make the argument that since highways are getting a wasteful subsidy, public transportation should also be given the subsidy, the energy should be placed first in tolling the highways. Make the people who use the roads pay for them and do it in such a way that the funds go solely for the roads and nothing else. Once that has been accomplished, hopefully through some form of privatization, then rail may be able to operate without any public subsidy as well. This could mean that private companies might be able to start or take over existing rail lines, hence no tax increases along with an increase in viable alternatives to cars and buses.

The argument against tolling of course is that it is a vital part of our infrastructure and economy. This is a topic for lengthy discussion on another day, but I will summarize a few points as to why this is a problem. The moral problem with subsidizing transportation, from an economic perspective, is that while some benefit from these expenses directly, in the form of cheaper transportation costs, most do not. One of the arguments goes that if the highways are tolled, all of our consumer goods will become more expensive. That is likely true, but why should we subsidize the transportation of goods any more than we should subsidize production? Should electricity or internet access be provided for free and paid for strictly out of tax revenue because it will allow all businesses to lower their costs? Why should interstate highways be given this special exemption? Why should we not subsidize rail in the same way since it reduces the cost to labor market with transporting workers and reduces the cost of shipping raw materials and goods just like our highways.

The other problem is that so long as we subsidize the transportation of goods in this manner, there is no incentive to improve efficiency in other means of transportation or to find alternatives. Telecommuting came about because of traffic jams. It might have developed earlier if business were forced to come up with creative ways to attract qualified labor over a larger geographical area without free subsidized transportation.

In addition, subsidizing public highways essentially means that we have a government owned and provided service competing with privately owned companies such as shipping and rail companies. Most people would cry bloody murder if the government set up a business to compete directly with their own, but somehow the government has been able to compete with private companies in this realm for a long time.

Again, there is much more to cover on this topic. Either way, the concept of Corridor One is likely gone for a long time.