Eco-Libertarian Alliance Pushes Replacement of Rural Air Service With Buses

Source: ##http://www.buses.org/files/Foundation/EAS%20Study%20Final%20Report%20FINALv2%20%2012sep11.pdf##Keeping Rural Communities Connected##

Buried in the FAA extension passed last week was a line item for air service to connect rural communities to major airports. These are usually tiny flights, leaving from remote airports. All together, they use annual subsidies of over $163 million.

In July, when Republicans forced a temporary shutdown of the FAA, this “essential air service” was one of the major sticking points. The House wanted to end the federal subsidies funding the service (even though Republicans disproportionately represent rural districts) except for routes in Alaska and Hawaii, which would still be eligible for federal subsidies.

The Reason Foundation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the American Bus Association, and Taxpayers for Common Sense – groups with wildly divergent missions – have come together to figure out if those communities could be connected more sustainably by using buses instead of planes.

Of the 153 communities served by what’s known as essential air service, many are long distances from major airports, especially the large proportion in Alaska. But M.J. Bradley and Associates, which was commissioned by the four groups to write the study, “Keeping Rural Communities Connected,” found that 38 of the 153 airports served – about a quarter of the total – were within 150 miles of a hub airport [PDF].

They found that 79,000 one-way flights leave each year out of those 38 airports, carrying 615,000 passengers, at a total cost of $131 million. Of that, about $60 million is government subsidy and $70 million comes from fares. M.J. Bradley found that equivalent bus service could be offered for just $41 million, for a savings of $90 million. Average passenger costs would go down by as much as $285 per round trip.

The switch from airplanes to buses would also save nearly 6 million gallons of gas annually and cut carbon pollution by more than 63,000 tons.

Source: ##http://www.buses.org/files/Foundation/EAS%20Study%20Final%20Report%20FINALv2%20%2012sep11.pdf##Keeping Rural Communities Connected##

The libertarians in the group like the plan because it gives private bus companies a chance to provide the service, and even Peter Pantuso of the American Bus Association adopted that rhetoric. “The government needs to get out of the business of making selections by passing dollars around on who the winners are and who the losers are in transportation,” he said, “and they need to look at what makes the most sense, not the stovepipe approach we’ve seen in Washington for so many years.”

They think that bus service between these remote areas may require subsidies at first, but that once the market grows, the private sector can take over.

I’d be interested to see some evidence to back up that claim – it’s not in the report. After all, it was just a few years ago that Greyhound was forced to make major cutbacks to its money-losing routes in rural areas.

Just because bus service is cheaper, for the government and for the passenger, it won’t necessarily attract customers. The study found that in most cases, the trip took longer by bus, even taking into account the security lines and extra hour built in to plane travel. On average, researchers said it increased the trip by 43 minutes. Will people be willing to spend an extra 43 minutes getting to their destination, even to save themselves — and the government — some money?

Maybe. Without making too many generalizations, rural Americans tend to have a libertarian streak, wanting government out of their business. They — or maybe it’s just their members of Congress — often complain about subsidizing urban mass transit systems with their gas tax dollars. But in this case, the rest of the country subsidizes their decision to live far from services and amenities by providing tiny turboprop airplanes to shuttle them back and forth. Perhaps the recipients of those subsidies would embrace the free-market nature of the bus service (if it ever launches and turns a profit) and prefer that to dependence on government largesse.

  • Flora

    A story I read over the summer quoted a passenger on one of these routes, who flew regularly between Hagerstown and Baltimore (a 75-mile drive), as saying he liked having air service available because he wasn’t a bus person. Something tells me rural dwellers are not ready to embrace a free(r)-market solution.

  • Nice info and nice analitics, I think they are all very useful.

  • Christopher Parker

    Hagerstown is not rural, nor is anywhere large enough to have an airport.  The program is mis-named, and that contributes to faulty assumptions.  Of course the area *around* the city with the airport can be rural.  The stops that Greyhound eliminated were in truly small towns — too small to have an airport.  You can still get to Hagerstown by Greyhound. 

    However there is another reality here: At least in the past, Greyhound has not effectively competed for the airplane demographic.  This is not a reflection on buses, but a reflection on Greyhound as a company and that it’s riders were typically only those with no choice.  The last several years has shown that a well operated bus company can indeed provide an attractive option.

    I’ve heard that it takes three years for a new bus route to establish itself and reach profitability   It takes that long for the word to get out and people to alter their habits.  That’s why an initial subsidy might be necessary, even if a route is projected to be profitable in the long run.

    Lastly, let us not forget that massively subsidizing the competition makes sustaining private bus routes much harder.  An even bigger competitor than air is the private automobile (lots more people drive long distances than fly).  And tax dollars makes that possible.

  • Straphanger

    It’s outrageous to think that regular people should have to pay this much just to be connected to the rest of their fellow Americans.  Americans have a right to free movement — we should make all transportation free!  The airlines just can’t be trusted — it’s clearly a market failure.  Time for Congress to step in and nationalize the airlines, just like we’ve done with Amtrak.  End all fares and gas taxes, and just raise income taxes a bit more to pay for it.  Surely Warren Buffet and rich people like him can afford to pay a few more bucks so that rural people can afford to travel anywhere they want at any time, without having to pay for it.

  • Paul Haebig

    Surprised how many of these airports are in western Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Would much rather see bus service to these places, would never consider flying to them.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

The Tea Party’s Selective Disdain for Transportation Subsidies

|
Does the Tea Party hate transportation subsidies or not? Sometimes it can be difficult to tell. Here we have the Reason Foundation howling about a $1 million grant for Capital Bikeshare. And last week self-styled GOP budget hawks successfully wrested away federal funds from bike and pedestrian projects on the grounds that such programs are […]

Today’s Headlines

|
Congress’s “Solution” on FAA Is No Solution At All (The Hill) Are Subsidies to Rural Air Service Really “Essential”? (LAT) Despite Congressional Budget Battles, Salt Lake City Transit Moves Forward (Deseret News) Villaraigosa Op-ed: Anchor of Our 21st Century Transpo Agenda is America Fast Forward (Daily News) Commuter Train Plan Runs Into Unexpected Controversy in […]