TRAVELLING AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS.

Our Political Masters seem bound and determined to let Amtrak wither, or be devolved to the states, and there isn't enough money to keep the road network in a state of good repair, and the Essential Air Service apparently isn't essential enough to be fully funded, either.

In the Lower 48, if the per-passenger subsidy exceeds $200, the law says USDOT must put the towns on notice that service could go out to bid again or end entirely. There are reasonable arguments to be made on either side about the merits of EAS; service to towns that are within the catchment areas of larger airports is always particularly vulnerable. But what about the train as an alternative? Only one of the 21 targeted towns (Altoona, PA) currently has Amtrak service. The rest will be left at the gate.

As public policy, it’s shameful that we continue to plan and operate these systems in isolated silos, with select federal favoritism towards funding dominant modes (especially Interstate Highways) in the form of free money to states. The dangerous direction that Amtrak is taking— insisting that states must pony up for any new service on their own—is completely contrary to the federal Constitutional responsibility to regulate interstate commerce, to which nothing is more foundational than transportation.

We must continue to advocate for a more holistic approach focused on local mobility outcomes. If that sometimes justifies subsidizing planes, so be it. But we must stand up to policies that force Americans into any single mode of travel.

Regulate means "to make regular." That neither implies nor is implied by public subsidies. Perhaps the most constitutional thing the federal government might do with respect to transportation is go away.