Good afternoon, and welcome to Day Two of the post-election landscape!

By now, the majority of the decisive ballots have been counted. The campaign ads have -- finally, blessedly -- ceased. And as the dust settles, transportation advocates are busy trying to answer the crucial question: what comes next?

Many election watchers (including, if we’re being honest, many of us at Rail Passengers’ HQ) expected that it would take a few days for these electoral contests to resolve themselves, particularly in regards to control of the U.S. Senate. Instead, Tuesday night’s blue wave crashed rapidly and decisively across all levels of government. That means passenger advocates looking to shape policy will be working with new House and Senate leadership, new governors, and new local leadership -- all of whom will have their own distinct legislative priorities.

In this post, we’ll highlight the key election results, and what they portend for transportation policy in the months and years ahead.

House Will See Big Changes to Leadership and Transportation Committee Membership

As expected, voters gave control of the U.S. House to Democrats. Less expected, however, was the overwhelming margin of control, with Democrats jumping from their current 214 seats to an estimated 259. That means the likely future Speaker of the House, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY-08) will have a healthy mandate with which to enact legislation. Compare that to current Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA-04) who, with a four-vote margin and an unruly House GOP caucus, struggled to pass even the most basic legislation.

The failure of the current Congress to pass a new surface transportation bill (which will almost certainly get another short-term extension when it expires in December) means that task will likely fall to Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA-02), who is expected to take over as chair of the House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure (T&I).

Successfully navigating reauthorization will be no easy task given the huge budget deficit facing the Highway Trust Fund as a result of declining gas tax revenue. However, for that reason, it will also be an incredible opportunity to overhaul our current approach to transportation policy, which is deeply broken in the way it prioritizes the unsustainable expansion of highways. By embracing a balanced approach that puts transit and rail on a more equal footing, the T&I Committee can help put the U.S. transportation network on a more practical financial path while simultaneously helping Americans deal with surging fuel prices.

Rep. Larsen will have a new-look committee, as well. With retirements, promotions to the Senate, and election losses, 23 members of the T&I Committee are heading towards the door (16 Republicans and 7 Democrats). That includes some reliable Amtrak allies, such as Reps. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ-02) and Rob Bresnahan (R-PA-08). It also includes some dedicated Amtrak haters, like Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA-10), a man who seemed to delight in introducing anti-Amtrak amendments that were destined to get voted down.

Given the massive seachange, in both the House and the T&I Committee, it would be a mistake for Rep. Larsen to resign himself to tinkering around the edges of the BUILD America 250 Act, introduced earlier this year by the retiring chairman, Sam Graves (R-MO-06). The American people have declared -- in both votes for individuals and votes for transportation-related ballot measures -- that they want a functional government capable of addressing the needs of its citizens. For the surface transportation bill, that means we can’t settle for a simple extension of the broken status quo.

…And, Somewhat Surprisingly, So Will the Senate

Less expected was the margin of control that voters gave to Senate Democrats, which until last month was still within the margin of error. Instead of having to wait days to see if they could eke out a win, it was immediately clear that a blue wave was handing control of the Senate to Democrats, with at least 54 seats (up from their current 47).

With the current filibuster rules, Senate Democrats will still need to negotiate with their Republican counterparts to get anything meaningful passed -- particularly with President Trump’s pre-election threat to become “Mr. Veto” if the Democrats take Control of Congress. The requirement for effective bipartisanship means that passenger advocates will continue to play an important role in educating elected officials on the importance of passenger trains to Americans and the U.S. economy. However, the current margins certainly put Democrats in a position of increased leverage to center their transportation priorities.

Personnel change will also be a factor for the Commerce, Science and Transportation and Appropriations committees, though retirements play a greater role than electoral losses, with Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) having all decided not to run for reelection.

There are, however, two notable exceptions:

• Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was defeated by Democratic challenger Troy Jackson. Current Chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Sen. Collins has been a reliable supporter of passenger train funding and a champion of the Downeaster. Her support for Amtrak funding will be missed.

• Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi is locked in a too-close-to-call race with Democratic challenger Scott Colom. This unexpectedly tight race -- which, at time of writing, has Hyde-Smith trailing by around 1,700 votes -- could have a big impact on the Senate Committee on Appropriations, where she is Chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development.

Regardless, a Democratic Senate should be more amenable to robust -- and dedicated -- funding for rail and transit programs. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), current Ranking Member and soon-to-be Chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, recently released an updated version of her “Chopping Block” report, which provides data on the state-by-state cuts to transportation systems and economic development initiatives if Congress fails to renew advanced appropriations for federal transportation infrastructure programs in Fiscal Year 2027. The report found that if advance appropriations are not renewed, funding for essential rail programs would decrease by 83%.

This kind of clear-eyed assessment of the fiscal cliff facing rail and transit programs absent the extension of advanced appropriations is a welcome addition to the surface transportation reauthorization discussion, which failed to launch in the Senate under the current leadership.

On the Docket: Oversight of the Trump Administration

While the transportation reauthorization will be a long-term project, the incoming Democratic leadership is already signaling it will use its control of key committees to rein in some of the more imperial habits demonstrated by Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. Under the second Trump Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has claimed unprecedented authority to pause, cancel or rescind congressionally approved funding, explicitly contradicting Congressional intent in its decisions on how to distribute -- or not distribute -- Congressionally appropriated funds.

Some of the more egregious rail-related examples include:

• USDOT’s failure to distribute $7.7 billion that Congress allocated to the Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Investment Grants program;

• The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) decision to halt payments to the Gateway Tunnel Project, initially as a way to gain leverage over Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) during negotiations over a government shutdown, then in an effort to get Penn Station and Dulles Airport renamed after President Trump;

• Utilizing hundreds of millions of dollars in FY24-26 funding for the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail (FSP) Grant Program to pay for grade-crossing elimination projects that will largely benefit Class 1 freight railroads rather than passenger rail services;

• Indefinitely pausing the distribution of millions of dollars in funding for the Corridor Identification Program while the FRA revises the program’s structure; and

• A prolonged pause in the distribution of billions of dollars in previously selected FSP grants to ostensibly review the projects for “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” elements (to be frank, it’s unclear to us what that actually meant. To choose just one example: were elements of North Carolina’s S-Line project suspected of including DEI, and does that account for the years-long delay in the distribution of those funds?).

Committee leadership may also choose to use subpoena powers to cast light on Secretary Duffy’s relationships with the corporations who funded the reality TV show he shot while in office, and his involvement in campaigning for his daughter’s husband’s campaign for Wisconsin’s 7th Congressional District.

Democratic lawmakers, including Rep. Larsen, have previously questioned Secretary Duffy about the extent to which political considerations influenced the USDOT’s decisions to block funding to certain states and municipalities. The ability to call USDOT officials to testify at hearings will give Democrats a public platform to demand answers. Perhaps more importantly, given that the USDOT will still have discretion over the selection and distribution of billions in grants over the next two years, Democrats will also have the ability to include report language in annual funding bills compelling the USDOT to take certain actions.

With Ballot Measures, Voters Say “YES” to Transit

When given the chance to directly vote to support transit and passenger rail, Americans overwhelmingly backed the creation of new revenue streams to fund public transit and passenger rail.

“It was an election night where voters expressed deep frustration about affordability,” wrote Yonah Freemark of the Urban Institute. “And [yet], all over the country, they chose to tax themselves to improve their transit systems.”

In the Rail Passengers’ voting guide for 2026 Transit & Rail Ballot Measures we outlined what we thought were the key races, and the biggest passenger rail and transit measures were all approved by healthy margins.

• Passenger rail supporters scored an important victory in Colorado, where voters approved a tax to fund the Front Range Passenger Rail District, a proposed intercity rail corridor linking Denver, Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, and Pueblo (aka the “Coco” service). With this funding in hand, the FRPR District is projecting it will have the Phase 1 starter service operating by 2029.

• From a ridership perspective, perhaps the most consequential result came in the San Francisco Bay Area, where voters approved the Regional Transit Measure (RTM), a sales tax projected to generate around $1 billion annually for 14 years to support BART, Caltrain, Muni, AC Transit, and other local operators. The measure passed handily with around 61% support, and will allow Bay Area operators to avoid severe service cuts across the region’s rail and transit network.

• Seattle voters approved Proposition 1, renewing and expanding a local transit sales tax that will support bus service, streetcar operations, transit access programs, and integration with Sound Transit expansion projects.

• Stark County, Ohio voters approved a 10-year extension of .25% sales tax to fund operations of the Stark Area Regional Transit Authority.

Not every ballot measure passed. Fresno County’s Measure S, which would renew and expand transportation funding for the region (with around 25% of funding going to transit), appears headed toward defeat.

However, the overall pattern is clear: Americans are willing to vote to commit their tax dollars to transit operations and passenger rail projects. (It’s also important to emphasize that U.S. municipalities need to move towards a funding model that doesn’t subject these critical transit systems to the threat of catastrophic cuts in the first place.)

Changeover at State Level Will Have Significant Implications

Even when driven by federal programs, transportation investments in the U.S. are largely driven by the decisions made by state-level actors. That means state and local races will also have a huge impact on what kinds of transportation infrastructure is pursued over the next four years.

Democrats were voted into the governor’s mansion in Texas, Ohio, Nevada, Iowa, and Georgia, while also making significant statehouse gains in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire. With the right advocacy, this could create interesting new opportunities to advance investments in passenger rail, transit, and multimodal transportation projects.

For passenger advocates, the biggest opportunities may come in states with newly unified governments, where leaders are able to provide matching funds for federal programs to advance new corridors. States such as Texas and Ohio have had strong public support for passenger rail, but suffered from uneven political support. After the midterms, these states may now be in a better position to compete for federal grants, make station investments, and partner with Amtrak to introduce new service.

At the local level, newly elected mayors (in big cities and small towns, alike) can be recruited to demand better regional mobility, supporting investments that connect local transit networks with intercity passenger train service.

With the proper levels of federal support, these state-level changes will improve prospects for expanding service and building the bipartisan coalitions needed to sustain long-term passenger rail growth throughout the country.

Thanks to a whirlwind 35-day, 28-state, and 21,000+ mile fall whistle-stop tour that ended with one of the greatest upsets in American political history, President Truman had a train trip for the ages - including posing for one of the most iconic photos ever.

The week’s question: What train station was that famous photo taken at?

Click the button to leave your answer.

Leave a comment

When we think about elections, it’s always the headline races that get the attention, which, for better or worse, makes sense. That’s what brings people to the polls each year. But the issues that affect your day-to-day the most are usually found way down the ballot.

In many communities, public transit and transportation infrastructure measures will be up for a vote today. You will be deciding directly on:

• Funding and frequency for local bus routes and light rail

• Maintenance and upgrades for roads, bridges, and crosswalks

• Investments in bike lanes, pedestrian safety, and accessibility

• Regional connectivity and how local tax dollars are allocated

Whether you ride the train every morning, drive to work, walk to school, or bike around running errands, these decisions directly impact traffic congestion, economic opportunity, air quality, and neighborhood connectivity.

Voting is your say in how your community moves forward - literally

Make your voice heard!

When discussing the future of intercity rail in North America, one of the common questions advocates face from a skeptical public is whether a suggested train route is viable. Often it sounds more like ‘well who would ride this thing anyways?’ but what people are really asking is, ‘does investing in this make sense relative to the alternatives?’ The days when passenger rail was the only travel option have long passed, and while in other nations the passenger train has reestablished itself as a competitive transportation mode, this is not so in the United States. Despite being practically built around railroads, Americans have lost the regular experience of train travel in daily life. Hence, the question of whether people would ‘really ride this thing?’ always needs answering.

Luckily, this was addressed by the USDOT way back when they were putting together Railpax, later Amtrak, in 1970. Secretary of Transportation John Volpe provided a report for the ever-skeptical President Nixon outlining a basic network split between two types of trains: long-distance overnight trains, once-per-day, connecting key regional endpoints and short-distance trains, twice per day, serving intercity corridors.

It’s the latter which bears further discussion today.

Volpe and his department explained on the second page of their memorandum that “The corridor designation applies to a pair of cities each with a population of one million or more and less than 300 miles apart.”1 There were other filters as well:

Corridor routes were selected if the demand projected for 1975 was sufficient to permit trains to compete effectively with buses on a time basis and airplanes on a cost basis. The demand was forecast by either (1) projecting existing demand or (2) using a demand model developed in the Northeast Corridor Study2 for cases where existing demand has been artificially depressed by poor rail service.

Using the above, the USDOT identified the following city pairs that fit the criteria and had existing corridor service.

When the public got ahold of the proposed basic system, they were appalled. Out of the hundreds of trains still operating, only 27 routes were to be saved, of which 14 were to be long-distance overnight trains. A more substantial network was eventually salvaged in the face of public pressure heading into the 1972 elections, resulting in a mostly recognizable version of the Amtrak we all know today.

What we must note is the USDOT’s criteria for viable corridors:

1. City pairs of around 1 million people each within 300 miles

2. Time competitive with a bus

3. Cost competitive with an airline

There were more city pairs fulfilling these criteria in 1970 than were chosen for the basic system, since the USDOT excluded routes which had no remaining corridor trains. At the time there were 57 possible pairings, with 25 selected for service and a further 7 accessible with a single transfer.3

If there were 57 viable corridors in 1970, how many are there today? By analyzing the 2020 US Census Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA’s) and their Canadian equivalents, we can reconstruct a modern version of Volpe’s map.

For the sake of accuracy, the following corridors were excluded:

1. Short-haul commuter service

2. Routes crossing physical barriers

3. Routes lacking a direct rail connection

4. Routes entirely within Canada

There are 198 city pairs that qualify today.

Quite a few pairs have existing rail service, with nine overlapping to form the Northeast Corridor. A further forty-six pairs have 2+ trains per day, including long-distance service. Nine cities have convenient single transfers that effectively connect them, such as Albany – Philadelphia. This leaves thirty-two pairs with inadequate service, fewer than two trains per day and often at odd hours of the night. A staggering 101 city pairs have no service at all!

A map of population density with these pairs overlaid reveals a critical lack of routes where millions more people live today than in 1970. Many cities with no service, such as Nashville and Cincinnati, should be thriving hubs of activity at the crossroads where many routes come together.

This visualizes something that rail advocates hear all the time: “I’d love to take the train, but it doesn’t go where I need to, when I need it.” We agree! Decades of underinvestment in our passenger rail system have left vast swathes of the country behind, especially MSAs, which have grown dramatically since 1970.

One can easily trace a future ‘Southeast Corridor’ over the S-Line from Washington and Richmond to Raleigh, Greensboro, Charlotte, Greenville, and Atlanta. Others belong to trains long discontinued, such as the original Floridian, or pre-Amtrak trains such as the ghost of the Cincinnatian from Detroit to Cincinnati or the Buffalo Day Express from Buffalo to Washington, D.C. via Harrisburg.

Not all corridors are created equal. Buffalo to Washington, D.C. covers 191 miles as the crow flies, but the two endpoints together only have 7,621,377 people in their MSA’s connected by winding freight tracks through rural Pennsylvania. By contrast, Houston – Austin has 10,525,572 within 145 miles along a mostly straight route. This analysis was not meant to determine which pairs were the most realistic, a question for another day.

This brings us to the largest unaddressed question: Which of these routes are time competitive with an intercity bus? In 1970, with uncongested highways, the answer was ‘not many’. Today, America is choked with traffic and getting worse by the year.

Very soon, the most direct highway routes for intercity buses between most cities in America will be so congested that even with current track conditions, a passenger train would be time competitive with them. As plane tickets grow more expensive, short-haul flight schedules grow more sparse, and as more buses and cars sit in traffic for hours, the need for a realistic alternative will only grow.

Only our rail system has the capacity to keep America moving.

There is a certain irony in the fact that the same USDOT that was actively planning and building the interstate highways as a comprehensive national network in the 1970’s did not do so for Amtrak. In the eyes of the USDOT, highways were being built for the future and passenger rail was a salvage job stuck in the past. The consequences of that distinction have never been clearer.

The Corridor ID program and the FRA Long Distance Study are signs, very encouraging ones worth celebrating, that the USDOT is beginning to recognize the scale of the challenge facing us. These are the first tentative steps toward building the rail system we need. Yet even if every route being studied today were fully implemented, it wouldn’t bring two trains per day to every city pair analyzed in this post.

We need to start thinking bigger.

This is why the question of viability is frustrating, because while trains from Tulsa – Oklahoma City or Buffalo – Pittsburgh would perform well, there are no plans to implement such services. Occasionally one of these corridors gets brought up by well-meaning local officials, only for them to be flooded with questions about viability. When we built the interstate system, nobody demanded that we separately study every new mile of pavement. Why do we need to do so for trains?

America deserves a proper rail network, useful and available to every American nationwide, not just on a handful of legacy routes. We’ll only get there if we break free of the mindset that investments in other modes of transit are common goods, but America’s national railroad must prove itself over and over, just as it did fifty years ago. The demand existed then, and it certainly exists today; the question is whether our nation will invest properly and build for the future. The alternative is to be stuck in traffic for another half century.

Recapping a busy week out of DC HQ: Jim recaps an important day for passenger rail in Seattle, Amtrak hits play on the “Pause for Progress”, and the Association submits official comments on Amtrak’s proposed corporate restructuring - plus all the latest in transit news. See you on board!

High ball!

Hotline 1459

1.86MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

They called it the “Pause for Progress,” and yes it was an actual pause. A lot of trains had to be rerouted, and there were passengers who somehow didn’t get the word and were inconvenienced. I have a lot of sympathy for that kind of disruption, and so did a lot of the leaders at the various agencies involved.

But anyone who has followed my commentaries here over the years knows that I’m a big fan of ripping off the band-aid and getting big projects done quickly. It’s the best alternative to waiting decades to do what other countries do in months.

And it was long overdue. I commuted on the Virginia Railway Express for more than a decade into DC Union. And of course I ride Amtrak’s NEC trains routinely. Rumbling over the A-interlocking at the speed of smell, you could be forgiven for concluding that this section was first installed during the reign of Ramses II.

But thanks to reliable funding, smart project planning, and multi-state, multi-agency, and multi-stakeholder cooperation spanning Washington Metro, CSX, Norfolk Southern, the North Carolina Dept. of Transportation, Virginia Railway Express, and the Virginia Passenger Rail Authority, crews were able to do a truly impressive amount of work in a very short amount of time.

Even better, they did it without budget overruns or big delays. A competent project, executed without drama.

“This concentrated construction period allowed our teams to make significant improvements to critical infrastructure while limiting the amount of time it was out of service,” Jennifer Mitchell, Amtrak’s Executive Vice President for Strategy and Planning, said in a prepared statement.

Indeed. Congratulations to the Amtrak team for yet another in a string of capital projects that have gone off smoothly and without giant cost overruns. Given the scope of the work it would have been understandable if things had been delayed. Crews installed eight new electric switch machines, two double-slip switches, and replaced the crossing diamond, rehabilitated 350 feet of track and tunnel base, installed 550 tons of ballast, outright replaced 1,000 feet of rail and 215 ties, and installed 2,500 feet of signal/electrical cable.

There were people who wanted this work done on nights and weekends instead of just taking a nine-day disruption and moving forward. But I’ll always take nine days of reroutes and schedule changes to get a smooth, drama-free, on-budget project done. It minimizes disruption, generally results in better-quality work with fewer defects, and winds up saving money because infrastructure I build tomorrow is always going to be more expensive than infrastructure I build today.

Next up, Portal Bridge…!

You can read Mathews’ submission in its entirety below.

Dear Chairman Coscia and Vice Chairman Szabat:

The Rail Passengers Association appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the Amtrak Board of Directors regarding its proposal to reorganize the company into three subsidiary divisions. As the nation’s largest advocacy organization representing rail passengers and the communities served by intercity trains, our Association is compelled to evaluate this proposal through the lens of its impact on travelers, host communities, and the long-term viability of a connected national passenger rail system. Our primary interest is ensuring that any organizational changes strengthen, rather than undermine, Amtrak’s ability to provide safe, reliable, and growing passenger rail service across the United States.

This proposal would establish a holding-company structure overseeing three separate entities: an Infrastructure Manager (IM) responsible for Amtrak-owned infrastructure, a Rolling Stock Manager (RSM) responsible for fleet assets, and Passenger Rail Services (PSR) responsible for passenger service operations. An organizational restructuring may offer opportunities to improve transparency, accountability, and operational performance. However, it also raises important questions regarding coordination, governance, and the preservation of Amtrak’s integrated national mission. Ultimately, any restructuring plan must acknowledge the political reality in which Amtrak receives its funding, and outline contingencies for how a restructured railroad will continue to operate in down funding years.

In the comments that follow, our Association will outline several criteria we believe must be met in any restructuring: impact on passengers, implications for the national rail network, financial consequences, governance structure and accountability mechanisms, and ability to support the long-term growth of passenger rail in the U.S.

These factors should guide any determination on whether the proposed restructuring advances the public interest and Amtrak’s statutory mission: to provide efficient and effective intercity passenger rail mobility consisting of high-quality service that is trip-time competitive with other intercity travel options and that is consistent with the goals set forth in subsection (c)^[1]. Whether the restructuring should be implemented rests on the extent to which it will benefit its public-service mission.

Sec. 1 – Governing Principles

A. Public Service Mission First

Our Association is committed to the idea that any restructuring of Amtrak must begin with a recognition that Amtrak’s intercity network is public infrastructure. Like highways, airports, and other public transit systems, Amtrak exists to connect communities, support economic development, and advance national transportation goals.

The success of any new organizational structure should therefore be measured not by its ability to maximize financial returns to Amtrak, but by its ability to improve service, strengthen connectivity, enhance reliability, and expand access to passenger rail throughout the U.S. Financial efficiency is important, but it must remain subordinate to Amtrak’s public-service mission.

B. Ongoing Public Accountability

Restructuring should not weaken the public accountability that accompanies federal investment in passenger rail. Congressional oversight, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) oversight, and regular engagement with state partners must continue regardless of organizational form.

The holding company and all subsidiary entities should be subject to robust transparency requirements, including regular public reporting on finances, infrastructure condition, service quality, and network growth.

For passengers and taxpayers—and their elected representatives—to be able to evaluate whether restructuring is producing measurable public benefits, a restructured Amtrak must:

· Explicitly acknowledge clear and continuing congressional authority over the NRPC holding company and its subsidiaries.

· Remain accountable to the public, via their elected officials, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Amtrak Inspector General, and the Government Accountability Office.

· Be overseen by Board members who are nominated by the President and seated with the “advice and consent of the Senate.”

C. Stable and Predictable Public Investment

No organizational model for a national railroad can succeed without sustained public support. Passenger rail infrastructure and equipment require long-term capital investments that cannot be financed through operating revenues alone.

Our Association is concerned that a restructured Amtrak could merely redistribute existing resource constraints among separate entities. Cross-subsidization of operational subsidies for Long-Distance Routes (LDR) and State-Supported routes with infrastructure subsidies for Northeast Corridor (NEC) capital investment has been a core component of the grand political bargain between rural and metropolitan politicians, and has been a key element to keeping Amtrak going in difficult funding environments.

Optimally, restructuring would be accompanied by clear Congressional commitments to stable, predictable, multi-year federal funding.

Absent that commitment, our Association expects Amtrak to clearly explain to the public how a restructured railroad will function in years in which federal and state governments impose funding constraints or delayed appropriations.

Sec. 2 - Governance and Organizational Structure

A. Relationship Among Subsidiaries

The creation of separate entities for infrastructure, rolling stock, and operations should not result in siloed decision-making. Passenger rail is, and will always be, an integrated system whose success depends on close coordination among all parts of the enterprise, regardless of the organizational structure.

Establishing a structure wherein the operations arm becomes the main profit center for the other two subsidiaries—through equipment and maintenance contracts for the RSM and access fees for the IM—could very well lead to negative outcomes for service levels and on-board service quality. In point of fact, many countries that have restructured their railways have seen an adversarial relationship develop between the central track authorities and the train-operating companies, leading to inefficiencies and stagnation in the development of the rail network. In pursuing a similar restructuring, the U.K. saw its newly established IM struggle with maintenance and oversight, culminating in several major accidents linked to infrastructure failures, most notably the 2000 Hatfield derailment. This safety crisis led to the IM’s collapse and replacement by the not‑for‑profit Network Rail, effectively re‑nationalizing the infrastructure.

All subsidiaries should operate under shared system-wide objectives emphasizing safety, reliability, ridership growth, customer satisfaction, and network expansion. Formal conflict-resolution mechanisms should be established to prevent disputes over funding, asset access, or cost allocation from disrupting passenger service. Moreover, how these conflict-resolution mechanisms will function must be communicated, in detail, to Congress and other stakeholders.

B. State and Passenger Stakeholder Participation

States, rail authorities, and interstate rail compacts are critical partners in the development of passenger rail service and should have meaningful opportunities to participate in restructuring discussions and implementation.

Our Association recommends the establishment of formal advisory structures—potentially building on existing models such as SAIPRC—that include state partners, local governments, passenger advocates, labor representatives, and other stakeholders.

Passenger perspectives should be incorporated into both strategic planning and performance evaluation processes.

Sec. 3 - Preservation of Amtrak’s Statutory Authorities

A. Access Rights

The IM, RSM, and PSR must fully and unambiguously inherit Amtrak’s existing statutory authorities. That includes right of access on Class I railroad infrastructure and preferential dispatching.

Restructuring shouldn’t weaken the umbrella corporation’s legal standing or ability—or the standing of any of its subsidiaries—to operate effectively over host railroads and carry out functions critical to maintaining a functional rail network.

B. Legal Authorities

Essential legal authorities, including eminent-domain powers, condemnation authority where applicable, labor authorities, and operating authorities, must remain fully available following restructuring.

C. Continuity Across Successor Entities

Amtrak must engage Congress to ensure that all authorities necessary to support the national passenger rail network are clearly assigned and preserved within the successor structure. No ambiguity should be permitted that could weaken service delivery or impair future expansion.

Sec. 4 - Protecting and Expanding the National Network

A. No Net Reduction in Frequencies

Governance and performance frameworks should make clear that success should be measured by service quality, network connectivity, public benefit, and efficient stewardship of public funds—not system-wide profitability.

We don’t expect highways to make a profit. Instead, the primary objective should be for services, construction projects, and rolling stock to be delivered quickly, on-time, and on-budget.

Throughout the transition period, and perhaps for at least a decade beyond it, a restructured Amtrak should be prohibited from reducing frequencies on the national passenger rail network, preventing service degradation through schedule thinning or indirect cuts. When new routes are established and launched, some frequency adjustments might be possible. However, net-net, the system should be running more trains, not fewer.

B. Accelerating Network Growth

This is an opportunity to explicitly reject and reset America’s dysfunctional timelines for launching new passenger rail services—particularly as outlined in the FRA’s Amtrak Long-Distance Service Study, which outlines a 15-plus year process for introducing a single daily round trip on existing railroad infrastructure.

The streamlining of leadership decision making and authorities under the new structure should materially reduce the time required to develop and launch new passenger rail routes, with a target of no more than six years from concept to service initiation.

It is reasonable to expect that, with a supporting framework provided by Congress through a surface transportation reauthorization, at least two routes could be successfully launched under the revised framework within six years—one Corridor ID candidate and one of the FRA Long-Distance Study’s preferred routes.

Sec. 5 - Financial Structure and Cost Allocation

A. Cost Transparency

Our Association would welcome a clearer picture of the true costs of operating service lines and the rationale for cost allocations among routes. We hope that improved cost transparency resulting from a restructuring could be used to better inform funding and investment decisions.

However, cost allocation must not be used as a standalone justification for service reductions absent broader public-interest and mobility considerations.

The success of any given route should include an explicit accounting of tax-base growth, community investment, second- and third-order workforce effects, and the many other benefits identified in Rail Passengers Association’s economic analyses.

B. Cost of Restructuring

In financially constrained environments, expenditures involve tradeoffs. Amtrak must communicate to Congress and the public how much money is being spent on this corporate restructuring.

This is particularly germane given the past few Congressional appropriations cycles and the likelihood of flat funding for Amtrak’s operational accounts.

C. Lines of Accountability and Communication

One of the central arguments Amtrak has made in favor of this restructuring is that it will provide clearer accountability through the assignment of ownership for delays, costs, and outcomes across the railroad. However, it has not yet explained the mechanics of how this improvement will take place.

Additionally, there is a clear risk that the establishment of three subsidiaries will create a balkanized communications environment—both internally, and for external parties looking to exercise oversight, collaborate on service, or provide feedback on the many interlocking responsibilities that will be spread across this new structure.

Amtrak should disclose to Congress and the public how the parent company will establish key performance indicators for each subsidiary, how those metrics will align with national passenger rail goals, and how this will drive improvements in accountability. The restructuring proposal should include clear lines of accountability among the parent corporation, subsidiary leadership, and Amtrak’s Board to prevent fragmented decision-making. There should also be clear lines of communication to ensure that external stakeholders are able to get information from and to the relevant department within the railroad.

D. Avoiding Internal Profit-Seeking

All subsidiaries should operate pursuant to the shared public-service mission, as statutorily mandated.

Internal charging and cost-allocation structures should support collaboration, with safeguards to avoid the creation of adverse incentive structures between subsidiaries.

It is incumbent upon Amtrak to detail to Congress and other stakeholders the mechanics of how these relationships will be structured to ensure that passenger and worker safety is not compromised under this restructuring.

Sec. 6 - Prerequisites for Moving Forward

Before endorsing any restructuring proposal, our Association recommends that the following conditions be satisfied:

1. Commitment from Amtrak that this process will be open to Congressional oversight. Any restructuring of a federally chartered passenger railroad must be conducted transparently and with regular reporting to Congress. Oversight mechanisms should include public hearings, periodic progress reports to relevant committees, and opportunities for congressional review at key implementation milestones to ensure that the public interest remains paramount.

2. Preservation of all Amtrak statutory authorities. Restructuring must not diminish Amtrak’s existing legal authorities, responsibilities, or rights under federal law. Any new corporate structure should include detailed analysis of how this restructuring will preserve the company’s ability to access freight-owned infrastructure and carry out other essential railroad functions.

3. Stable, long-term federal funding commitments. Organizational changes alone cannot solve long-standing investment challenges. The success of any restructuring effort depends on predictable, multi-year federal funding that provides the certainty needed for capital planning, fleet replacement, infrastructure renewal, and service expansion.

Absent this federal commitment from Congress, Amtrak should be prepared to explain how a restructured railroad will function in years in which federal and state governments impose funding constraints or delayed appropriations.

4. Commitments to not privatize essential passenger rail functions. Core passenger rail responsibilities, including service planning, operations oversight, infrastructure stewardship, and fleet management, should remain publicly accountable. Restructuring must not become a vehicle for transferring essential public functions to private entities.

5. No net reduction in existing service frequencies. Passengers should not lose access to train service as a consequence of corporate reorganization. Existing service levels should be maintained, at a minimum. Any transition plan should explicitly protect current frequencies on the Northeast Corridor, State-supported routes, and Long-Distance Routes.

6. Formal participation opportunities for stakeholders. States, labor, and passengers are among the most important stakeholders in Amtrak’s future. The restructuring process should include formal consultation mechanisms and advisory committees to ensure that the perspectives of riders, host communities, and state sponsors are reflected in final decisions.

7. Passenger-centered performance measures. The success of restructuring should be evaluated primarily through outcomes that matter to travelers, including reliability, trip times, customer satisfaction, accessibility, affordability, and service availability. Financial and organizational metrics should support, rather than supplant, passenger-focused objectives.

8. Clear commitments to network expansion. Any restructuring proposal should be accompanied by a credible strategy for growing passenger rail service nationwide. Amtrak must explain how the new structure will support the expansion of intercity passenger rail, including new corridors, additional frequencies, and improved connectivity for underserved communities.

9. Creation of a functional, adequately funded national rolling-stock entity. If a separate rolling-stock organization is established, it must be provided with sufficient authority, expertise, and funding to manage procurement, maintenance, modernization, and long-term fleet planning on a national basis. The entity should be structured to address existing equipment shortages and support future growth, not simply redistribute current responsibilities.

10. Demonstrable public benefits achieved through measurable implementation benchmarks. Restructuring should proceed in phases and be tied to clearly defined performance benchmarks. Amtrak should be required to demonstrate tangible public benefits, such as improved reliability, greater operational efficiency, reduced equipment shortages, enhanced customer experience, or expanded service opportunities, before advancing to subsequent stages of implementation.

Conclusion

The Rail Passengers Association does not oppose organizational reform where it can improve accountability, transparency, and operational effectiveness. In fact, we welcome creative and innovative approaches to produce these kinds of improvements.

However, restructuring must not become an end in itself. The ultimate test of any new structure is whether it delivers better service for passengers, strengthens and expands the national network, preserves public accountability, and advances Amtrak’s public-service mission. Any restructuring that fails to achieve these objectives should be reconsidered or modified before implementation.

Sincerely,

Jim Mathews, President & CEO
Rail Passengers Association

^[1] 49 U.S.C. § 24101, “Findings, Purpose, and Goals.” United States Code, title 49, section 24101, 2024. Office of the Law Revision Counsel, https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-136/t49/s24101/

In April of 1865, a nine-car funeral train carried President Lincoln’s casket from DC to Springfield, IL - retracing his inaugural route just 4 years prior.

In the decades that followed, night-shift dispatchers and track crews told stories of a phantom steam train draped in black coming along the old New York Central line each spring.

The week’s question: According to the folklore, what phenomenon supposedly takes place as the “ghost train” passes by?

Click the button to leave your answer.

Leave a comment

WASHINGTON, DC — The Rail Passengers Association today welcomed a significant change in the Federal review process for Amtrak’s proposed Midwest Maintenance Facility at Chicago’s Canal Street Yard, following weeks of public concern about the project’s environmental impacts, site selection, and lack of meaningful community engagement.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has made public a new Federal permitting dashboard indicating that the agency is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed facility, even though an earlier determination held that the project qualified for a Categorical Exclusion, or CE, from more extensive environmental review.

The link to that dashboard is here: https://www.permits.performance.gov/permitting-project/dot-projects/midwest-maintenance-facilities

The EA is expected to be released shortly, triggering an anticipated 30-day public comment period. FRA has also indicated that it plans to hold two public meetings, with dates and details forthcoming.

“This is a welcome and important step forward,” said Jim Mathews, President and CEO of the Rail Passengers Association. “We’ve said from the beginning that Amtrak needs modern maintenance facilities in Chicago. That hasn’t changed. But how and where we build those facilities matters, too. Communities deserve to understand what is being proposed, how decisions were reached, and what the consequences will be for the people who live nearby.”

The Association credited the persistent efforts of residents, community organizations, and elected officials who have pressed for greater transparency and public participation.

“Public engagement should never be viewed as an obstacle to building good infrastructure,” Mathews added. “It’s a vital part of building good infrastructure. This new review gives everyone an opportunity to move beyond competing claims and examine the actual evidence.”

The Rail Passengers Association intends to review the Environmental Assessment and supporting technical documents, examining the project’s operational requirements, site alternatives, environmental impacts, and proposed mitigation measures. The Association will also submit formal comments and work with residents and elected officials to ensure that community concerns receive substantive consideration.

To help residents participate, the Association is conducting an independent survey of communities affected by the proposed facility, including Armour Square, Bridgeport, and Chinatown. The survey invites residents to identify concerns about noise, air quality, traffic, construction, neighborhood impacts, and potential community benefits.

“These neighborhoods have been asking for a meaningful voice in decisions that will affect them for generations,” said Joe Aiello, the Association’s Director of Community Engagement and Organizing and a former Armour Square resident. “Now we have an opportunity to put those concerns on the record, backed by the experiences and observations of the people who know these communities best.”

Residents are encouraged to complete the Association’s survey at www.railpassengers.org/canalyardsurvey, follow the FRA’s public permitting dashboard, review the Environmental Assessment when published, and submit their own comments during the official comment period. The Association’s survey will help inform its participation but does not replace submitting comments directly to FRA.

“This isn’t the end of the discussion,” Mathews concluded. “It’s the beginning of a better one. We want Amtrak to succeed, we want Chicago to have the rail infrastructure it needs, and we want the surrounding communities to be treated as partners in that success.”

###

About Rail Passengers Association: with 127,000 members, donors, and supporters, the non-profit Rail Passengers Association is the oldest and largest national organization serving as a voice for the more than 40 million rail passengers in the U.S. Our mission is to improve and expand conventional intercity and regional passenger train services, support higher speed rail initiatives, increase connectivity among all forms of transportation, and ensure safety for our country’s trains and passengers. All of this makes communities safer, more accessible, and more productive, improving the lives of everyone who lives, works, and plays in towns all across America.

Recapping a busy week out of the Federal Railroad Administration, a ribbon-cutting in Seattle, and a final call for public comments on Amtrak’s proposed reorganization plan - plus the latest and greatest in transportation news. See you on board!

High ball!

Hotline 1458

1.79MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

And standing there, looking around at what we’ve built, I couldn’t help thinking about how long we’ve waited for days like this.

For decades, we’ve talked about the trains we could have. The service we should have. The investments we ought to be making. We’ve commissioned studies, drawn up plans, published reports, and admired artists’ renderings of what passenger rail in America might someday look like.

Well, someday is today.

Thanks to the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, I’ve been lucky enough to attend quite a few celebrations like this lately. New trains entering service. Tunnels being rebuilt. New maintenance facilities breaking ground or opening their doors. Real projects, delivering real benefits, for real passengers.

And here’s the important takeaway: We know how to do this. Amtrak delivered this project on time, $50 million under budget (yes, that’s right), and incredibly, over 400,000 construction work hours without a single reportable worker safety incident.

We know how to build trains. We know how to build the shops that maintain them. We know how to rebuild bridges and tunnels. And we know how to reconnect communities that have waited decades for their trains to return.

But none of this happens by magic. It takes factories, suppliers, skilled workers, engineers, and construction crews. It takes years to rebuild an industrial base that we’ve neglected for far too long. And once we’ve rebuilt that capacity, we can’t simply switch it off and expect it to be there when we need it again.

As I told the crowd today, Congressional appropriations buy projects. But certainty builds an industry.

That’s the challenge ahead. A new Congress will soon arrive in Washington, and we’ll be working hard to ensure that the next surface transportation bill sustains the momentum we’ve worked so hard to build. More trains. More routes. More communities connected to the national network.

Today’s ribbon-cutting was a celebration, and rightly so. But it was also a reminder that we’re just getting started.

America can build great things. We just have to want to build great things.

Passenger Rail Focused Investments

Hiawatha West Extension (Wisconsin) - Up to $218.2 million
The largest passenger rail grant was awarded to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation to extend the existing Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawatha service westward to Pewaukee, Watertown, and Madison. The project includes track, bridge, and crossing improvements, expanded corridor capacity, and construction of new intercity passenger stations.

Adding this service has been a longtime goal for Midwestern advocates. Wisconsin was awarded $810 million in federal funding in 2010 to develop higher-speed rail between Milwaukee and Madison—an investment that would have transformed mobility across the state. That funding was ultimately rejected by Republican Governor Scott Walker, who made killing the train a key part of his campaign for governor, using the project as a symbolic act of defiance against the Obama Administration. The decision killed not only the train, but ultimately led equipment manufacturer Talgo to shutter a Milwaukee-based intercity passenger rail manufacturing facility, leaving Wisconsin’s taxpayers on the hook for a $50 million settlement for two trainsets that were originally intended for the service.

Sixteen years later, this CRISI grant will finally correct Governor Walker’s folly, closing an important gap in the Midwest passenger network.

Springfield Rail Hub Modernization (Massachusetts) - Up to $130.1 million
This project modernizes critical infrastructure around Springfield Union Station through interlocking reconstruction, track reconfiguration, and signal improvements. By eliminating a significant rail chokepoint, the project will reduce conflicts between passenger and freight trains, improve reliability, and shorten travel times for rail passengers throughout New England.

Amtrak Northeast Corridor Fencing Program (Rhode Island and Maryland) - Up to $27.2 million National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) will install approximately 50,000 feet of security fencing along segments of the Northeast Corridor. The project is intended to reduce trespassing-related incidents, fatalities, and service disruptions on the nation’s busiest passenger rail corridor.

Projects Supporting Future Passenger Service

Baton Rouge-New Orleans Corridor Improvements (Louisiana) - Up to $5.8 million
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development will replace aging railroad bridges between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. While primarily a freight reliability project, FRA notes that the improvements will help support potential future intercity passenger rail service in the corridor, a corridor the Southern Rail Commission is working to advance to the construction phase.

The proposal would reorganize Amtrak into a parent company -- still controlled as a Federal entity, with the Board and leadership selected by the White House with the “advice and consent” of the Senate -- overseeing three separate subsidiaries responsible for passenger services, infrastructure, and rolling stock.

We’ve written extensively about it this year, and you can click here to see our thoughts.

A change in how America’s passenger railroad would be managed that’s this significant deserves, and is getting, serious scrutiny. Rail Passengers will be submitting our own detailed comments. But we want to encourage you to submit yours, too. As rail supporters, as advocates, and as fare-paying passengers, what you think is incredibly important in this process and you need to be heard.

A word of advice, though, from someone who has spent a lot of time reading, writing, and responding to public comments: the most satisfying comment isn’t necessarily the most effective one. It’s tempting to pound the table, express outrage, or declare that the whole thing is a terrible idea. Or the best idea since sliced bread. That might feel good. But it rarely gives decision-makers anything useful to work with. As a young reporter, I had a wonderful, crusty old Editor-in-Chief who used to tell me (usually through a cloud of cigarette smoke), “Speedy, it’s okay to vent your spleen, just don’t do it in print.”

My advice to you here is to be thoughtful and specific. You don’t need to be a railroad expert, a lawyer, or a policy wonk to make a valuable contribution. A good public comment identifies a concern, explains why it matters, and suggests what should be done about it. Personal experience is certainly welcome, especially when it illustrates a larger problem.

For example, you might be tempted to simply declare that the reorganization will hurt passengers. But instead, maybe you should ask how Amtrak intends to ensure that dividing responsibility among separate companies won’t make it harder to resolve delays, protect connections, or maintain service. If you depend on a long-distance train, explain why preserving that service is important to your community and to you personally, and ask what safeguards will protect it under the new structure if it happens.

And if you think some part of the proposal is a good idea, say so! Explain why. Constructive comments aren’t necessarily negative comments.

Above all, make your own argument in your own words. A few well-reasoned paragraphs can be more persuasive than pages of indignation. In fact, they’re almost universally more effective.

You can review Amtrak’s proposal and submit comments at Amtrak’s Future of Amtrak page. Click here and scroll down a bit.

The deadline is October 30, next Friday. Make sure you’re giving Amtrak something worth listening to.

Thanks to this little victory, we were finally able to say with some confidence what was happening with on-time performance, train delay minutes, Amtrak’s financial performance, customer satisfaction scores by route, data on stations, and so forth. We also for the first time got good data to measure public benefits such as the levels of service to underserved communities, the number of missed connections, the degree to which routes connect other communities, and how many people in large metropolitan statistical areas across the country have access to trains.

It was -- and is -- great stuff. But unless you’re a data nerd like me, looking through the quarterly list of spreadsheets, each with hundreds and hundreds of rows of data down to the route level, could be intimidating.

The Federal Railroad Administration this week did our whole community a solid, releasing an interactive dashboard to make a lot of that data easy to search and even easier to visualize. You can go look at that dashboard here: https://explore.dot.gov/t/FRA/views/AmtrakMetricsandStandardsDashboard/Introduction (Full disclosure, when I was in charge of the editorial data operation at Aviation Week 12 years ago I was an internal cheerleader for the tool FRA is using, called Tableau, to make that data accessible. So I guess I have a pony in this race...)

One thing grassroots advocates, railfans, and others love to do is to make confident declarations about why something might be happening with Amtrak trains. Sometimes they’re based on fact, and other times they’re based on, well, I’ll call it “unearned certainty.” Thanks to this dashboard project, which our friend Katie List at FRA says took many, many months and cooperative efforts across the agency and the Dept. of Transportation’s Volpe Center, there’s now an easy way to get real, credible answers.

You can dive deep into on-time performance, looking at one particular quarter, or a string of quarters starting and ending where you choose. You can look at individual routes, with a helpful route map, a color-coded performance indicator, and tables with causes of delays and delay minutes per 10,000 train miles all in one place. Or, if ridership is your jam, you can look at ridership sliced across Amtrak service lines or within a service line, with current data, historical data, or sliced any way you’d like.

It’s a terrific addition to the knowledge base of our entire community -- and the FRA deserves real credit for pulling it together.

This level of transparency was the result of Congress asking, and later demanding, to see real data around passenger-rail performance. Dozens of successive Congresses under different political leadership supported passenger rail, funded it, and wrote requirements into law to make sure that things like on-time performance and enforcing Amtrak’s rights to not get stuck behind freight trains were honored in the observance and not just the breach.

DOT and FRA did what Executive branch departments are supposed to do, develop and write regulations to carry out what Congress wanted. But there was nothing in the law that said FRA had to produce a dashboard. A crude regurgitation of numbers on a quarterly document would have fulfilled the letter of the law, if not really the spirit animating Congress’ intent. DOT and FRA have taken an extra step here by making this information easily digested by the general public, and produced in a form that makes it much easier to work with.

Go give it a try. Let us know what you think. And if it turns out that it’s hard to load, just give it some grace -- I think it’s going to be more popular, and more heavily used, than anyone at FRA or Volpe might have expected. To paraphrase that great line from the classic movie Jaws, “I think they’re gonna need a bigger server...”

This week’s trivia: In the early 1900s, Denver Union Station enacted an official ban that prohibited passengers and well-wishers from doing what on its boarding platforms, even putting up signs to enforce it?

Click the button to leave your answer.

Leave a comment

The Hotline is back from its two-week hiatus, and we are recapping the week with pieces from Jim & Sean - plus all the news that's fit to print. See you on board!

High ball!

Hotline 1457

1.78MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

However, for passenger rail and public transportation supporters, not all transportation measures are created equal. With our roads choked with automotive traffic and gasoline and diesel prices soaring, cities and states need to work to diversify America’s transportation portfolio and move away from an overreliance on single-occupancy automotive vehicles.

In our 2026 Rail Passengers Association voting guide, we look at which transportation initiatives are focused on investing in supporting and expanding public transit, and which treat transit as an afterthought to big highway and road funding packages.

Strongly Recommended: Transit and Passenger Rail Focused

Colorado Front Range Passenger Rail District (13 Counties)

Measure 7A Recommendation: YES

Measure 7A would create a dedicated funding source for the Front Range Passenger Rail project linking Denver, Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, and other communities. Revenue is specifically intended for passenger rail development and operations rather than highway expansion.

Transit/Rail Focus: ★★★★★

Why passengers should support it: One of the nation’s most significant intercity passenger rail expansion opportunities, creating an alternative to Interstate 25 travel while connecting major population centers throughout Colorado.

Bay Area, California

Regional Transit Measure Recommendation: YES

This regional sales tax would provide approximately $1 billion annually to sustain and improve transit systems including BART, Muni, Caltrain, AC Transit, and other operators. The measure is primarily designed to prevent devastating service cuts and maintain regional mobility.

Transit/Rail Focus: ★★★★★

Why passengers should support it: Failure could lead to substantial service reductions at some of America’s busiest transit agencies. This is arguably the most important transit funding measure on the ballot nationally.

San Francisco, California

Measure H Recommendation: YES

Measure H would fund Muni operations through a dedicated parcel tax, supporting bus, streetcar, and light rail service within San Francisco.

Transit/Rail Focus: ★★★★★

Why advocates should support it: While less attention-grabbing than ballot measures that identify big, capex-intensive projects, a dedicated source of reliable operating funding remains the Holy Grail of U.S. transit systems and is crucial to maintaining frequent and reliable service.

Seattle, Washington

Proposition 1 Recommendation: YES

This proposal would increase dedicated local funding for Seattle Transit service, primarily supporting bus operations and service expansion.

Transit/Rail Focus: ★★★★★
Road Spending: None
Why advocates should support it: Expands transit access and helps maintain frequent bus service in one of the nation’s strongest transit markets.

Pierce County, Washington

Proposition 1 Recommendation: YES

The measure would expand funding for public transportation, including both bus service and light rail investments.

Transit/Rail Focus: ★★★★★

Why advocates should support it: Directly expands transit capacity while strengthening regional rail connections.

Stark County, Ohio

Transit Sales Tax Renewal Recommendation: YES

This measure renews the county transit authority’s existing funding source at the current rate rather than increasing taxes.

Transit/Rail Focus: ★★★★★

Why advocates should support it: Preserves transit service and prevents potential reductions in a region where many residents rely on transit for daily mobility.

Lawrence, Kansas

Public Transit Sales Tax Increase Recommendation: YES

Would increase local funding dedicated specifically to public transit service.

Transit/Rail Focus: ★★★★★

Why advocates should support it: Direct investment in public transportation operations and service improvements.

Road-Heavy Transportation Packages

Charleston County, South Carolina

Transportation Sales Tax Renewal Recommendation: LEAN YES

The measure would generate substantial transportation revenue for both transit improvements and roadway projects.

Transit/Rail Focus: ★★☆☆☆

Why advocates may support it: Includes meaningful transit investment (20% of all funding), though the majority of the funding package is directed toward highway and roadway infrastructure. Transit advocates should push for strong oversight of spending priorities.

Charlotte, North Carolina

Transportation Bond Measure Recommendation: LEAN NO

The transportation bond would authorize $280 million for transportation projects, with the focus on roads and bridges.

Transit/Rail Focus: ★☆☆☆☆

Why advocates may support it: The measure improves transportation infrastructure, with only marginal investments in bike/ped infrastructure.

Riverside County, California

Measure A Recommendation: MIXED

Measure A renews a long-standing transportation sales tax supporting both transit and road projects across Riverside County.

Transit/Rail Focus: ★★☆☆☆

Why advocates should be cautious: While it contains transit funding, the program has historically emphasized highway expansion and road maintenance. Transit benefits exist, but transit is not the primary focus.

Fresno County, California

Measure S Recommendation: LEAN YES

Measure S would continue transportation funding with allocations for roads, active transportation, and 25% of its funding going to transit.

Transit/Rail Focus: ★★★☆☆

Why advocates should be cautious: Transit, bike, and pedestrian projects are included. However, the lion’s share of funding remains devoted to conventional roadway investments (although, to be fair, supporters argue that the measure shifts from highway expansion to a fix-it-first strategy).

We know how to build trains. We know how to build track, electrification, signaling systems, and all the other pieces of a modern railroad. Other countries have been doing this for decades. Nobody’s sitting around waiting for someone to invent high-speed rail.

So why do we keep acting as though it’s some crazy, nearly impossible undertaking?

During the discussion, I pointed out that Americans want to know their tax dollars and their support for passenger rail will translate into meaningful journeys within their lifetimes.

Think about how absurd that sounds. Anywhere else in the developed world, suggesting that people should be able to ride the trains they’re paying to build before they die would hardly qualify as a bold policy position. Here, it’s practically revolutionary. Crazy talk. Nuts.

Nobody wants to hear that some wonderful new service will be ready in 2060. They want trains they can ride, connecting places they actually need to go, on a timeline that bears some relationship to a normal human lifespan.

Part of the problem is that we’ve spent decades accepting scarcity as the natural condition of American passenger rail. One train a day. Minimum frequencies. Minimum rolling stock. Minimum station amenities. Minimum capacity.

Then we occasionally conclude that Americans don’t like trains.

Gee, imagine that.

And whenever somebody suggests we ought to do better, the response is almost always the same: “Well, you know, times are tough. We’re in a tight budget environment.”

You know what? It’s been a tight budget environment for five decades. We’ve normalized scarcity, manufactured scarcity, as an unavoidable feature of transportation policy without seriously questioning the political choices that produce it.

Yet somehow, when America decides something is a genuine national priority, we manage to dig into the couch cushions and find considerably more money for other priorities than passenger rail would ever need. The question isn’t whether we can afford better trains. It’s whether we’re willing to make them a sustained national priority.

And sustained is the important word.

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law gave passenger rail something it hadn’t enjoyed in generations: five years of predictable Federal funding. Look at how much we’ve been able to get moving with just those five years. Now imagine what we could accomplish with a genuine long-term commitment.

Because money buys projects. Certainty builds an industry.

Factories, skilled workers, construction equipment, engineering talent, supply chains: all of these things require businesses to invest, and businesses need some confidence that the work won’t disappear when the next budget fight rolls around. Our stop-and-start approach has left us decades behind countries that figured this out long ago.

But there’s another trap we need to escape. We’ve gotten awfully good at designing passenger rail around the meager service we already provide, rather than the demand we could create. Give people frequent, reliable, comfortable trains, useful schedules, good connections, and stations that work, and they’ll use them. They do it all over the world. And we see from looking at record-breaking ridership on Amtrak’s Mardi Gras between New Orleans and Mobile, or the Borealis between Minneapolis/St.Paul and Chicago, that they’ll pack the coaches even when the trains aren’t as frequent as they should be, or as reliable as they could be, or with stations that meet ideal conditions.

For me, success isn’t simply having a few high-speed rail lines on a map by 2035...or, likely, even later. Success is when millions of Americans can look at a trip of a few hundred miles and simply assume the train is a practical option. High-speed trains, conventional trains, long-distance trains, and local transit should all work as parts of one transportation system, reliable, transparent, and as regular as sunrise and sunset.

I closed my remarks by reminding the room that everyone there — planners, engineers, agency executives, railroad professionals — is also a passenger, a citizen, and a member of a community. We all have a role in making the case that better passenger rail is possible, reasonable, and entirely achievable.

Because it is.

It’s not magic. It’s not rocket science. Other countries have been doing it for half a century.

We can do it here, too.

We just have to decide we’re going to.

Miss us? Your friendly neighborhood trivia team took some time off to prep, then recover from an excellent event in Toledo.

We are now back on schedule (unlike the trains these days…)

This week’s trivia: Perched atop the Beaux-Arts center pavilion of Denver Union Station glows one of the most beloved neon landmarks in American passenger rail: the orange and red arch proclaiming "UNION STATION" over an iconic three-word slogan.

What is that slogan? (Bonus point for the year it was installed)

Leave a comment below with your answer.