Compared to many other countries across the world, train travel in the U.S. is quite primitive. While the relatively compact geography of countries like Japan and Germany lends itself better to train usage, there are still many reasons why the U.S. should follow the lead of these countries and increase its subsidies to inter-state train companies such as Amtrak. Train subsidies are a short-term expense that will reap long-term gains. The reasons why the U.S. should target train companies for subsidies over other forms of transportation are abundant.
First, trains are better for the environment than the cars they would take off the road and the planes they would take out of the sky. Second, such subsidies would relieve highway congestion, which will reduce the motor vehicle death rate. Third, trains are far safer than cars in general. Fourth and finally, the United States’ consumption of fossil fuels would go down.
Cars are some of the biggest producers of CO2, a greenhouse gas. In a time when global warming’s effects are beginning to be felt globally (just look to the forest fires in Russia and floods in Australia), the United States must prioritize environmental concerns. The future implications of environmental catastrophe far outweigh any fiscal issues the government may be facing now.
Each new train produced by subsidies will take hundreds of cars off the road and thus greenhouse gas emissions will decline. Increased train traffic will also reduce the number of planes, which are also awful for the environment. Train rights of way take up far less room than 12-lane highways and trains can transport people and cargo far more efficiently than cars or planes. Today, the environment has to be one of our biggest considerations and, environmentally, there is no argument against trains.
Another crucial argument for train subsidies is the fact that in many cases, corridor runs like those from N.Y. to Washington, DC and N.Y. to Boston, the train trip is just as fast, or faster than flying, when security checks and check-ins are taken into account. In addition, train stations are usually more centrally located than airports, which further reduces the total amount of comparative travel time.
Remarkably, the train fare in many instances exceeds the price of a plane ticket, which only incentivizes the public to favor their pocketbook over the environment. A government subsidy would immediately alter this for the better.
Furthermore, traveling by train is far safer than going by car or plane. According to MichaelBluejay.com, trains have the fewest deaths per billion passenger miles traveled (.5) compared to cars (7.2) and planes (2.3). Trains are also faster than cars, so the less time spent traveling, the more time that can be spent on work. Also, since one is free to use their hands whilst on the train, productivity would increase. Thus, the economy could be boosted by such measures.
Finally, since trains like the Acela can be powered using electricity, an increase in trains as a mode of transportation over cars would lead to a decrease in the United States’ consumption of fossil fuels. For these reasons the U.S. government should absolutely allocate more funding towards Amtrak and other inter-state train companies in the upcoming budget.
