Amtrak taps the states

is expecting some of its state partners to pick up more of the costs of passenger services they finance jointly on some secondary routes. This is as it should be.

Federal taxpayers have to subsidize Amtrak. The argument can be made that Amtrak’s portion of taxes is a legitimate charge to maintain a national system to which all should have access and therefore should pay for. It’s harder to make a similar argument for trains between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, one of the routes Amtrak has targeted. Indeed, the state of Pennsylvania helps to finance those trains. But why should a Massachusetts resident have to contribute to what is essentially a local service?

Let’s note two Massachusetts angles right here. First, the Boston to Portland and Brunswick Downeaster trains are supported by the state of Maine; steadily growing ridership means Amtrak’s subsidy per passenger is small. Massachusetts and New Hampshire contribute by providing stations; since their citizens ride the trains, too, the case for cash contributions is very strong. Second, anybody who hopes that the federal government (meaning taxpayers in Pennsylvania and other states) already incurring huge deficits will pick up much of the $1.5 billion tab to restore 36 daily trains between Fall River or New Bedford and Boston, another essentially local service, is dreaming.

Amtrak has agreements with at least 13 states to help pay for trains on 16 routes (eight involving two or three states), some seeing only one train a day and some several. Each deal is different. Policies based on the general rule that services should be paid for by the people who use them should be more common in the federal government. Perhaps Amtrak’s move can be a welcome precedent.