MORE RAIL SERVICE? LET RIDERS PAY FAIR SHARE

Steven Reed of Springfield, Mo., has a dream: more passenger trains in Missouri.

To his credit, Reed is actually doing something other than just talking about his idea. Unfortunately, the cost of Reed's plan far outweighs any statewide benefit that would be achieved.

In a nutshell, Reed has started collecting the 120,000 signatures needed to put his idea on the ballot across Missouri. If his petition drive is successful, voters would be asked to approve a one-tenth-cent sales tax on fuel. The estimated $4 million a year would be used to subsidize passenger trains in Missouri.

Reed doesn't cite any need for more rail service. Instead, he promotes the idea of preserving a bygone mode of travel. In short, his vision of rail service is little more than a museum on rails.

Missouri's limited passenger rail service, mainly the cross-state run between St. Louis and Kansas City, already relies on subsidies.

Across the nation, the federal government has poured billions of dollars into Amtrak to keep rail service alive in areas than long ago abandoned trains in favor of highways and airlines. Last year, Amtrak's operations went into the hole more than $1 billion.

The effort to get voter approval of a fuel tax to subsidize rail service in Missouri comes against the backdrop of massive shortages in revenue to maintain existing highways and other modes of transportation.

The Missouri Department of Transportation, backed by Gov. Bob Holden, cites the need for a massive injection of new revenue to fund maintenance and new transportation needs.

So far, the Missouri Legislature has been reluctant to hop aboard any transportation funding bandwagon. Indeed, the Missouri Senate last week sidestepped its preliminary approval of the governor's costly plan -- with huge tax increases -- in favor of shifting state revenue that should have been going to highways for years.

Reed's plan to use fuel-tax revenue for rail service would move the state's fuel tax further away from a user tax. Most motorists who fill up their vehicles' tanks with gasoline would like to think the state fuel tax they are paying will be used to improve highways and build bridges.

The notion of using tax revenue paid by highway users to subsidize rail travel -- mostly for recreational purposes -- just isn't a good fit.

If Reed or anyone else wants to promote a realistic plan for future rail service, let them seek petition signatures for a proposal that would require rail passengers to pay the full cost of the service -- plus a special tax on tickets to pay for any additional rail service.