BELATED RAILROAD READING.

Eight years ago, the Independent Institute editorial staff invited me to review Randal O'Toole's Romance of the Rails: Why the Passenger Trains We Love Are Not the Transportation We Need, which I subsequenty did, as well as offer a compare-and-contrast with what the ferroequinologist press, who are more favorably disposed toward Amtrak and the local Commuter Rail or Rapid Transit operations than policy wonks with libertarian leanings.

I recently discovered David Henderson's review of Romance for Econlib from seven years ago.  "O’Toole, a long-time fan of railroads, puts his fandom aside and shows what a disaster government subsidies to, and regulations of, rail transportation have been."

Mr Henderson's summation:

On his last page, O’Toole nicely sums up his message: “[N]ew transportation technologies have replaced trains and streetcars. Planes are faster and less expensive for long distances; cars and buses are more convenient for short distances; and there is no midrange distance at which passenger rail has an advantage over both cars and planes.”

I submit that we cannot impound "cars and buses are more convenient" in ceteris paribus, not when the Republican candidate to be governor of Wisconsin is slagging on the Democrat candidate for advocating toll roads.  Recall, dear reader, that the Cold Spring Shops position on "crumbling infrastructure" is "Why should road socialism be any different from any other form of socialism?"

Our position on transportation policy remains conducting conversation about transportation policy on the merits of the modes, rather than on the ideology of the advocates.