Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Stop forcing Northeastern Amtrak riders to subsidize the rest of the country

Mario Tama/Getty Images

The passenger rail monopoly we call Amtrak is really two radically different services: a popular and profitable set of rail lines in the Northeast Corridor between Washington, DC, and Boston, and a sprawling network of mostly little-used and money-losing lines everywhere else. The most profitable part of Amtrak’s network is the red routes to the right of this map:

For years, Amtrak has been using profits from these routes to prop up the rest of the system.

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed an Amtrak funding bill, sponsored by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA), that aims to put a stop to this practice. Instead, Northeast Corridor profits would be reinvested in Northeastern lines, providing funds for badly needed repairs and upgrades.

This is an overdue reform. For years, liberals and conservatives have argued about whether to continue to subsidize Amtrak’s money-losing services, and the House bill provides another $7.2 billion over the next four years. But wherever you come down in that debate (I agree with conservatives who want more money-losing lines shut down), it’s foolish to force travelers in the Northeast to pay the bill.

A better approach would be to leave decisions about which routes to subsidize up to states where the routes are located. Shuster’s bill takes a step in this direction by giving states more say in the management of local routes. The hope is that states will either help to identify cost-savings, or will come up with additional money to keep routes running.

The legislation must still be approved by the Senate before it can become law.

See More:

More in Politics

Politics
The rise of the progressive billionaire candidateThe rise of the progressive billionaire candidate
Politics

Why some on the left are feeling warmly toward Tom Steyer and other very wealthy contenders.

By Andrew Prokop
Politics
Mifepristone survives another Supreme Court scare — for nowMifepristone survives another Supreme Court scare — for now
Politics

Only Thomas and Alito publicly dissented.

By Ian Millhiser
Podcasts
Why the anti-abortion movement is disappointed in TrumpWhy the anti-abortion movement is disappointed in Trump
Podcast
Podcasts

Trump helped overturn Roe. Anti-abortion advocates still aren’t happy.

By Peter Balonon-Rosen and Sean Rameswaram
Politics
A year of Trump is backfiring on the religious rightA year of Trump is backfiring on the religious right
Politics

Americans don’t really want “Christian nationalism.”

By Christian Paz
Politics
The real reason Americans hate the economy so muchThe real reason Americans hate the economy so much
Politics

Did decades of low inflation make the public far more unforgiving when it finally did surge?

By Andrew Prokop
Podcasts
The Supreme Court abortion pills case, explainedThe Supreme Court abortion pills case, explained
Podcast
Podcasts

How Louisiana brought mifepristone back to SCOTUS.

By Peter Balonon-Rosen and Sean Rameswaram