WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 -- Last week's column on the lack of a national transportation policy drew tart response from JoC Online readers, writes Lawrence Kaufman in a Journal of Commerce Online editorial.

Said one: "I am somewhat perplexed by the fact that we've had a congressional National Transportation Policy in Section 10101 of the ICC Act since 1887 and a National Rail Transportation Policy in Section 10101a of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980. Yet no one seems to have taken the time to read either of them, especially the National Rail Transportation Policy.

"It is abundantly clear that "politics" is far more important in Washington than what is best for the nation, i.e. rail shippers. Congress made it perfectly clear that the Surface Transportation Board should insure that rail competition exists. In fact., those statements appear numerous times in the policy. It clearly says that rail carriers should be able to "enter or exit" the industry. Maybe the STB needs a definition of "enter". I'm convinced that either [STB chairperson Linda] Morgan has never read the Act or has no intentions of following it."

Another reader is perhaps a bit parochial, as I consider what's best for the nation to include more than rail shippers. He makes what I consider a valid point, however, about the STB and the laws it administers. It is the law and because it is very good at making sure all the "I's" are dotted and the "T's" are crossed, the courts rarely reverse it. The understanding that they will not obtain relief from the STB is the reason rail shippers increasingly are convinced that they need legislative relief. At her confirmation hearing in 1999, Morgan told the Senate Commerce Committee that if it wanted a different outcome it would have to change the law. Like her interpretation or not, Morgan has made it clear what her opponents must do.

Another reader said: "If the public doesn't demand the Congressional action, it won't happen. Specifically, if the public isn't led to the issue, the issue won't exist. I absolutely agree that railroad issues are invisible until there's a major derailment, strike, or loud whistles through town. Economic contribution and long term viability are the furthest issues from the public mind, which is comfortable with the personal convenience of the automobile and the speed of a jet airplane. Not until the costs of operating the highway and air modes truly are borne by those using them will the option and interests in rail options really begin to be pressed."

Another reader provided data that makes even more clear the points I made last week about the lack of policy contributing to a distortion of priorities.

He wrote: "Whether the policy is articulated or not, the federal government has, except for Amtrak and certain other passenger initiatives, essentially ignored the nation's railroads as a potential solution to highway congestion and capacity problems. According to the DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, between 1985 and 1996 the federal government invested $202,345,000,000 in highway infrastructure as compared to $9,834,000,000 in rail infrastructure, with $9 billion of the $9.8 billion being spent on Amtrak and much of the rest related to passenger operations. Whether we like or not, and I certainly do not, such a wide disparity in expenditures effectively makes transportation policy by using disproportionate infrastructure expenditures to influence the way freight traffic moves.

Since 1950, the Class 1 railroads in this country have obtained authority to abandon more than 82,000 miles of railroad, a total more than 50% larger than all of the mileage in the Interstate Highway system. Much, if not all of this trackage was abandoned because it no longer had economic viability to the owning railroad, either because the traffic it formerly carried had been diverted to highway, or because the cost of making essential capital improvements could not be justified by any form of economic analysis as being likely to produce a profit. Of course, in some cases the railroad was simply in the wrong place, but even in those cases, as in the vast majority of abandonment cases, no consideration appears to have been given to the question whether, from a public policy perspective, public investment in the rail infrastructure might have provided a current or future solution to the overall transportation equation. The policy of ignoring capital investment in the railroads as a possible solution, in whole or in part, to investment of additional dollars in highway expansion, continues to prevail today."

Another reader put the policy disparities in terms even a member of Congress could understand. He wrote: "It always has fascinated me that anytime transit money is to be spent on rail, a referendum has to be called. I have never been asked to vote on an expenditure for an extra lane on the highway nor have I been given the opportunity to vote yes or no on the bus expenditures/purchases in any municipality, in any year. Why is rail differentiated?

Another reader may have put his finger on a big part of the problems when he said: "Unfortunately, the other modes seem to support most any advancement/enhancement to their infrastructure/technology while the freight railroads do not want to be associated with their passenger carrying 'kin by marriage.' The majority of urban taxpayers have no idea how much effect the Highway Users Alliance has on their day to day life.

"The antipathy of some freight railroad managements toward their passenger brethren is going to have to end, and there are signs that it is. These comments, however, make it very clear that a cogent national transportation policy could go a long way toward improving the allocation of public resources to transportation infrastructure."