(The following editorial appeared on the Idaho Statesman website on September 23, 2009.)
BOISE, Idaho — The campaign to bring back Amtrak hasn’t been derailed, but the route isn’t easy. A long-awaited feasibility study affixes a heavy price tag to restoring the passenger rail service, which pulled out of the Treasure Valley in 1997.
Even Sen. Mike Crapo, the Idaho Republican who asked for the study, concedes that the projected costs are “higher than anticipated.”
This presents a challenge to Crapo and fellow Amtrak supporters. It will take a 21st century case to make Amtrak a go. Playing to nostalgia and sentiment will only go so far.
Especially against these numbers, released Friday:
– Restarting the Pioneer route through Idaho and the rest of the Northwest will cost anywhere from $379 million to $493 million – one-time costs for everything from track improvements to locomotives and rail cars to employee training.
– It would cost $13.5 million to get Boise’s rail lines ready for resumed Amtrak service. Otherwise, rail riders would have to catch a train in Nampa, not at the Boise Depot.
– The new service would draw anywhere from 82,000 to 111,000 passengers per year, depending on which route is selected. Ticket and dining car revenues wouldn’t be nearly enough to cover costs; operating subsidies would total at least $25 million a year.
The subsidies are a convenient but unfair target for Amtrak critics. Like the wheel, the subsidy is pretty much a transportation necessity. Taxpayers finance airport improvements and the Treasure Valley’s spotty bus service. Boise Mayor Dave Bieter has hitched his streetcar proposal to federal stimulus dollars and local property taxes. Gas taxes pay to maintain interstates and state highways.
The question isn’t whether to subsidize passenger rail. The question is whether the benefits justify the costs.
Amid the sticker shock, the feasibility study offers some words of encouragement. The Pioneer line would serve rural communities that have felt the brunt of rail, bus and airline cutbacks. And rail service provides a relatively green way to travel, 17 percent more fuel efficient than air travel and 21 percent more fuel efficient than driving. Frankly, both points carry more weight than the nostalgia argument. Ultimately, Amtrak service would have to prove its modern-day relevance – to travelers and taxpayers alike.
The study even offers some advice about where Amtrak backers could find some startup money – the federal economic stimulus plan, which dedicated $8 billion to high-speed rail and intercity passenger rail. The irony here is that Crapo, and the rest of Idaho’s congressional delegation, opposed the $787 billion stimulus bill.
Amtrak backers have a tough job ahead. They have until next week to comment on the preliminary version of the feasibility study. If a strong, grass roots response demonstrates that rail service would draw travelers from underserved Southern Idaho, then the feds should pay attention. If not, then passenger rail service deserves to be only a historical footnote.