Published: July 11, 2010

While transit advocates are discussing where to put rail and how soon, a broader debate continues about the wisdom of spending any tax money on any form of rail.

Critics say that if passenger rail were practical, private investors would happily build it and reap the profits.

They're half right. If profits were to be had, many people would be trying to capitalize. But that's no justification to refuse to subsidize better mobility on corridors where road expansion is impossible or would cost much more than a rail line.

The great expense of right of way, the slow return on investment and the complexity of operating across multiple jurisdictions are among many reasons investors won't risk money on passenger trains. But trains aren't the only thing taxpayers subsidize.
Yacht owners didn't build the Intracoastal Waterway. Ship owners didn't build the Port of Tampa. Airlines and airplane owners didn't build Tampa International Airport.

Those who fret about rail subsidies should remember that from the early 1940s until the early 1960s, before rail service was nationalized, a federal tax on railroad tickets went into the general fund. Some of the revenue was used to build highways and airports.

The total collected, adjusted for inflation, would today be in the tens of billions of dollars, enough to build high-speed rail in selected corridors.

Despite what some politicians promise, it is unrealistic to expect civic improvement to continue no matter how little is invested in it.

The free market is focused on the next quarter and next year, and especially so in hard economic times. It's government's job to focus on the next decade and wisely invest in infrastructure that will be around to serve our grandchildren.