The PE hit the nail right on the head yesterday with their editorial about how to allocate $3 billion from last year's Prop. 1B transportation bond. As usual, the state is trying to override local concerns to appease some special interest groups.

State transportation officials seem set on funneling a share of the money to the Colton Crossing, a four-way railroad junction in Colton. But local transportation agencies oppose handing bond money to a project that primarily helps private railroads -- especially since the amount of bond money available falls far short of meeting the actual demand.

The locals are right: Railroads should pay the bulk of the Colton Crossing project's expense, as they receive most of the benefit. Relieving congestion on the rail lines helps railroads' business, but taxpayers have better uses for public funds than bolstering private companies' profits. Maintaining and improving the tracks is the railroads' responsibility, not the public's.

As the PE points out, we need state money to pay for the roads over and under those rail lines. Otherwise they end up dividing our communities and preventing commerce and public safety from flowing freely in the region.

The emphasis on extra trains and reducing air pollution makes me suspicious that like last year's water bond, this bond money is being hijacked from its original purpose and instead being used to appease the environmental extremist on the left.

But speeding the flow of freight trains through the region hardly eases the biggest local impact from rail traffic: long waits for drivers stuck at railroad crossings. Helping railroads move goods to market faster is not the kind of traffic relief the region needs.

Yes, fixing the Colton Crossing could reduce air pollution from idling locomotives, and may allow Metrolink to run a few extra trains. But those advantages are a poor tradeoff for projects that would do much more to unclog traffic across the region.

Goods movement makes huge demands on California transportation funds. Southern California alone requires at least $26 billion in improvements to handle freight traffic, regional planners estimate. Avoiding gridlock will be hard enough without diverting public money to projects that should be private investments.

The railroads traditionally have been very independent and basically told the state and local transportation officials to "go pound sand" when it comes to dealing with street and road issues. I've heard that even California's Members of Congress and Federal Senators can rarely get a meeting with anyone higher than mid-management to discuss transportation issues.

Railroads should pay the bulk of the Colton Crossing project's expense, as they receive most of the benefit. Relieving congestion on the rail lines helps railroads' business, but taxpayers have better uses for public funds than bolstering private companies' profits.

Maintaining and improving the tracks is the railroads' responsibility, not the public's.

Railroads also loudly tout their historic rights-of-way and long presence in the region during any dealings with public agencies, and vigorously oppose any state and local oversight of rail issues. Companies so determined to protect their independence from public agencies should not be seeking taxpayer money.

So the local share of the $3 billion, which will likely amount to a few hundred million dollars, should go to projects that improve local traffic. More than 40 percent of the nation's imported goods flow through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, then head east on through the Inland region. Trucks clog Inland highways, while freight trains stall traffic at street crossings.

I like that the railroads maintain their independence, but don't start asking for public assistance when you have been so opposed in the past to working with the public.