Don't derail Amtrak.

Byline: The Register-Guard

If President Bush issued a spending plan that eliminated all funding - every dollar - for the nation's highways, the outcry would be immediate and overwhelming. The same would be true if he zeroed out federal spending on airports and airlines.

For good reason. America is, after all, a nation of commuters. Its economy and culture are predicated on our ability to move freely and inexpensively from one place to another. From Cuba, Mo., to Topeka, Kan. From Florence, Ore., to West Palm Beach, Fla. Name the connections - and we want and need to get from Here to There. And back again.

Rail travel remains an integral part of this transportation matrix. While more Americans drive and fly than ride the rails, trains provide an increasingly attractive alternative, especially as gas prices increase, highways become overcrowded and airlines continue their glide path to self-destruction.

Yet President Bush, for reasons clear only to ideologues fixated on starving the government "beast," is determined to eliminate Amtrak. His new spending plan calls for cutting off nearly all federal subsidies for the national railroad system.

If Congress does not reverse Bush's senseless plan, the result will be destruction of a key segment of the nation's transportation system - a segment that eases traffic congestion, reduces pollution, moderates this nation's dependence on foreign oil and serves as a cost-effective alternative to building and maintaining new highways.

Bush's plan would wipe out Amtrak's $1.2 billion annual operating subsidy, except for $360 million to help keep trains running between Washington, D.C. and Boston if Amtrak is forced to shut down.

If Congress allows Bush's plan to become reality, much of the country will be left without rail service. Sure, a few profitable routes will be skimmed off by private operators. But the rest would cease to exist.

Of course, White House officials don't admit that's their goal. They prattle on about how states can use their own money to keep important routes in operation. Heck, they even say the federal government will offer a 50-50 match for state capital investments.

Sounds nice enough. But the catch is that most states, including Oregon, cannot afford to do so.

And they'll be even less able to as the Bush administration makes major new cuts in domestic spending in order to pay for its tax cuts to the nation's wealthiest citizens.

Congress should increase, not eliminate, funding for Amtrak, which is, lawmakers should remember, not a state system but a national system. All states, all major cities, all Americans, benefit from a cohesive, adequately funded rail system that links states and communities across the nation.

Lawmakers should also pause to remember what happened after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 when air travel was shut down - and then when many Americans were afraid to fly. The national rail system was there to provide reliable back-up transportation. Eliminating or crippling Amtrak would remove that option in the future.

Amtrak is already gasping for air. During the last two years, it received $600 million less than what it needed for capital improvements. A few states have stepped in to fill the gap in federal funding.

Washington state, for example, has spent more than $220 million since 1993 on rail service, including the Cascades line between Seattle and Eugene. But few states can afford to follow Washington's lead.

Last year, Amtrak received $1.2 billion in federal funding. Sounds like a lot of money, but it's a tiny percentage of what the United States is spending in Iraq.

As for the $30 billion the federal government has spent on Amtrak since its creation, it pales in comparison to the $2 trillion the government has spent on highways and airlines.

Without a federal subsidy, Amtrak will fail. Congress should reject the president's plan to derail Amtrak.