In the last two decades, many states established rail promotion programs in an effort to limit the contraction of their railroad networks.
Now federal funds for rail projects are nearly exhausted, and states must decide whether to expand considerably their levels of intemat funding for short line investments. Such a decision requires a careful articulation of policy goals, combined with sound cost-benefit techniques. Research shows, however, that states often fail to evaluate thefutl range of costs and benefits when considering rail investments. Instead, the economic development ben^its cf local rail service frequently are overstated, while the potential for rail investments to meet broader transportation planning needs is neglected. This paper evaluates the rationale behind state intervention in the rail industry, discusses the tendency of states to focus on economic development to the exclusion cf other benefit categories, and presents summary results from an analysis of an investment project inNorth Carolina. The paper suggests that state funding for rail projects is more likely to be justified based on intermodal substitution benefits generated by local rail service, rather than the railroads' potential to increasejobs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.