The state Legislature is about to hear a series of bills focused on transportation options for the people of Maine. That sounds like a good thing. Unfortunately, these bills are working at cross purposes.

Whereas L.D. 487 proposes to secure federal funding for identifying a rail corridor connecting Portland to Orono, L.D. 29, L.D. 30 and L.D. 511 propose to tear up rail infrastructure and replace it with trails.

The ongoing “rail versus trail” debate — whether to develop existing rail infrastructure for passenger and freight trains or to tear it up and build trails instead — is tragically shortsighted. It’s a waste of time and resources that undermines the medium- and long-term viability of both projects.

For starters, the coexistence of active rail corridors and trails running alongside is a safe and viable model practiced nationwide, expanding people’s options for recreational runs, walks and rides and commutes of necessity. We don’t need to destroy existing rail infrastructure to develop our trail networks in the state. Taking one option off the table to provide another is choosing a net zero outcome when we have the opportunity to create two new transportation options for Mainers.

And we desperately need both of those options.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Maine has the fifth highest road accident death rate in the country, and by far the worst in New England. Maine is also the 14th worst state in the country for driving under the influence, again the worst in New England. With the oldest population in the country, our reliance on highway travel by car means forcing seniors to choose between driving in dangerous conditions or skipping that trip to see family and friends altogether.

But if you’re not moved by safety concerns, consider what we pay for our low-quality roads that are perpetually under construction.

Maine’s highway fund has been in shortfall for years, forcing the state to draw a little over $100 million per year from the general fund to supplement road maintenance. Overall, 44% of major roads and highways in Maine are in poor or mediocre condition, costing Maine’s drivers upward of $1.6 billion per year, out of our own pockets, in vehicle maintenance, congestion and safety costs. That’s about $1,500 per driver per year in costs directly related to poor road quality.

The average cost of car ownership in Maine is at least $3,500 per year, exclusive of car payments and with lower maintenance costs than local studies suggested above. With car payments on a new vehicle and a good credit score, costs can go as high as $25,401 per year, with most Mainers likely somewhere in between. According to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the average annual cost of owning and operating a vehicle is over $12,000 per year and climbing. Maine’s median household income is around $72,000, which means that with extremely limited transportation alternatives, Maine families are forced to spend about 15% or more of their yearly income to get around.

I note these figures because opponents of passenger rail expansion are understandably concerned about what it would cost. In an unconvincing testimony on rail expansion in 2023, the Maine Department of Transportation estimated a cost of between $375 million and $903 million in capital costs, plus an annual subsidy of at least $17 million per year to develop a passenger rail corridor between Portland and Bangor.

That sounds like a lot of money when compared with nothing. But when compared with what our present over-reliance on the highway system costs Mainers — both in car expenses that come directly out of our own pockets and tax expenditures of hundreds of millions per year to maintain roads (a total of nearly $7 billion since 2018) — rail is much more affordable than you might think.

All of this is why it would be a terrible mistake to tear up existing rail infrastructure to install trails, and why it’s nonsensical to pit two viable alternatives to cars against one another. Rail and trail options are not competitors; they serve very different functions, both of which are important.

Trails provide crucial opportunities for short commutes and healthy recreational activities. Trains provide crucial opportunities for intercity travel. I wouldn’t ride my bike from Waterville to Bangor or Augusta to Brunswick; a trail doesn’t satisfy the need for better intercity transportation options. Most likely, an expansion of passenger rail options would lead to an expansion of trails, to solve the “last mile” problem of getting rail passengers from stations to their destinations in and around town.

Now, more than ever, we need to be smart about the decisions we’re making for our state, a state on the rise. The Maine Department of Transportation has lacked imagination, ingenuity and vision for years now, existing in practice for highways and highways only. That doesn’t mean we have to go along with it. More transportation options aren’t just about convenience; they’re about freedom to move around, freedom to choose more broadly where we can live and work and freedom to spend more of our time — in commute and recreationally — the way we want to spend it.

Don’t let the false framing of “rail versus trail” stand in the way of your imagination. Let’s keep our options open.