I read the Aug. 7 Salt Lake Tribune article titled "Amtrak going off the rails?" with interest. It has always perplexed me how Utah's Sen. Bob Bennett could be so against Amtrak passenger trains servicing Utah communities.

Sen. Bennett has stated on several occasions that any money supporting Amtrak should not go to trains running through Utah, but should be kept in the northeastern United States. Just whose interest is Sen. Bennett looking out for?

I would think that instead of eliminating trains through Utah, which he has been fairly successful in doing already, Utah's senator should be pressuring Amtrak to give Utah a more user-friendly schedule and restart direct service from Utah to Southern California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington.

Amtrak's Desert Wind and Pioneer trains were discontinued eight years ago, and this eliminated all rail passenger service to Ogden, Delta and Milford, and it also made it much more difficult to get to Portland, Seattle or Los Angeles by rail from Utah. The loss of these trains also made it impossible to get to Pocatello and Boise, Idaho, and Las Vegas, Nev., by train.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks uncovered vulnerability in the U.S. air transportation system. The Los Angeles earthquakes shut down highways for months, and in some cases even years, yet passenger railroads were back up and running in hours. But even after these tragedies have highlighted the role that passenger rail can play, why is the U.S. rail network still so hamstrung?

How could it possibly be under constant political attack by President Bush, Sen. Bennett and others? The problem is especially striking when at the same time the Bush administration is talking about subsidies for selected railroads in countries such as Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia.

The answer to why the Bush administration and Sen. Bennett refuse to support Amtrak and passenger rail is a complicated mix of factors, not the least of which is a long-running deliberate government effort to promote modes of transportation like highway and air travel at the expense of the much more fuel-efficient passenger rail.

All you have to do is look at the recently passed transportation bill which included $24 billion in pork barrel projects, including two bridges in Alaska to virtually uninhabited islands costing nearly $500 million, and you wonder how we can spend money on these things and not Amtrak trains, which carry 25 million passengers annually, 150,000 through Utah, of which 30,000 get on or off in Utah.

Many of these people use the train because they can't fly or drive. Another reason is that Amtrak, being a quasi-government corporation, cannot lobby Congress for funding. On the other hand, airlines can lobby Congress both for assistance and against funding Amtrak, which leaves more transportation money that could be used for airlines.

Trucking, auto, asphalt, concrete, rubber and oil industries, all of which contribute large sums of money to political campaigns, are lobbying for highway funding at the expense of Amtrak. The only people lobbying for Amtrak are riders, labor organizations and communities such as those in Utah that would be adversely affected.

This could explain why there has been a longstanding investment gap: In fiscal 2001, federal highways received 71 percent of the federal transportation budget, while aviation received 27 percent and Amtrak a mere 1 percent.

Amtrak also lacks a predictable mechanism for capital investment, such as the taxes on gasoline and airline tickets that provide a ready source of funds for road and airport infrastructure. Because of this Amtrak goes begging every year.

The airline industry also receives significant federal aid as well, both directly and indirectly, through support such as airport construction and pilot training in the military. And don't forget the $15 billion bailout package for the airlines in the wake of Sept. 11. This made the airlines the beneficiaries of one of the largest taxpayer subsidies of private industry in the history of America.

The best one-word way to explain the current U.S. rail situation is underinvestment. Other countries, some not much bigger in size than Utah, invest two to three times the amount the entire United States invests in Amtrak annually.

If the United States had invested 15 to 20 percent of its transportation budget into rail passenger service over the last 30 years, as we have in the airline industry, we would have trains running up to 200 mph between many cities and a dependable, energy efficient, environmentally friendly, first-rate rail passenger system that would be an integral part of our overall transportation system.

Instead, the Bush administration's constant threat of bankrupting Amtrak has cost Amtrak the profitable contract for Metrolink commuter service in California and new commuter service in New Mexico. Those that demand Amtrak make a profit are actually the ones that are making Amtrak lose money.

A few years ago, during the energy crisis, Amtrak wanted to sell electricity in the Northeast, which would have helped Amtrak financially. Congress said no, insisting that Amtrak should make a profit as a corporation. Yet Congress will not allow Amtrak to operate as a corporation.

Amtrak doesn't have to make money, or even break even, to be an important cog in the United States transportation system and a healthy economy.

Source: Salt Lake Tribune, F Jay Seegmiller, August 21, 2005