Oregon Running Off the Rails

Cutting budgets sometimes costs more, not less. I wrote two weeks ago about how the state loses money by cutting small and inexpensive programs for our mentally ill citizens. Another, smaller, example trickled through this week with the proposed elimination of Oregon's passenger rail program.

By cutting more small programs, like the passenger rail program, Oregon forces more and more congestion onto our overburdened freeway system and abandons the upgrade of our rail system, increasing the costs to the state. Even worse, elimination of the program endangers current projects which are spurring economic development.

Given population projections, the state needs rail service. The question is whether we want to be responsible about developing it, or delay the costs now and pay more later.

People have been trying to develop passenger rail service between Eugene and Portland for 25 years. For the past 9 years, the state has sponsored a passenger rail program which recovers over half its costs in ticket sales - well above the average in public transport. If the funding goes away now, Amtrak, which runs the service, will not continue the operation.

Even worse, the state will lose money and jobs if the program stops. According to the Department of Transportation, Oregon has invested $18 million directly in capital projects on the railroads. In return, the rail companies have invested an almost equal amount in the state, generating jobs and economic development.

In Central Linn and Lane Counties, the train provides a local economic stimulus. If the trains keep rolling, The Linn County economy will gain $12 million already dedicated to a project in Albany. Projects are planned in Eugene and Oregon City as well. Oregon Coachways, based in Lane County, takes in over $1 Million a year in train-related revenues. A local hotel houses about 10 train workers every night. This does not even take into account the increased tourist revenues that result from a passenger train.

Other states, including California, North Carolina, Maine, Michigan and Virginia are all engaged in adding to and improving their service. We do not need to compound our economic crisis by putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage.

Unseen costs follow elimination of this program. Increased population and no rail service means more cars on already crowded I-5. The state will need to pay to widen and maintain the roads. We will also have to pay to mitigate the increased pollution and urban sprawl pressures that are the result of more cars on the road.

I have received many letters and e-mails supporting the trains. People in my district defend these trains for a number of reasons. One constituent finds the trains convenient for moving her cello to perform in Portland and Seattle. Additionally, the trains are the only fully accessible public transport for folks in wheelchairs, and many disabled citizens use the trains to get from Lane, Linn, Benton and Marion counties to medical facilities in Portland.

We're not doing ourselves any favors by under-funding or eliminating small, beneficial programs. We pay much more in the long run for a young man with schizophrenia who lost his social worker and is now living on the streets, and we pay much more in the long run for eliminating trains that we need now, and will need even more later.