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.

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/

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.

Rail Passengers Contact
Joe Aiello
Director of Community Engagement and Organizing
Email jaiello@narprail.org

AAO Contact
Beth Russell
Communications Director
Email beth@allaboardohio.org

Toledo to Host National Rail Conference: Where Michigan’s Momentum Meets Ohio’s Passenger Rail Future

TOLEDO, OH - The Rail Passengers Association (RPA) and All Aboard Ohio (AAO) are proud to announce RailNation Toledo, taking place October 2-4, 2026. The national conference will bring together federal officials, state leaders, and transit advocates at the historic Martin Luther King Jr. Plaza Amtrak Station to map out the future of America’s passenger rail network.

Toledo, strategically located at the crossroads of Midwest rail travel, serves as a key player in the future of regional transit. The city sits squarely on one of the nation’s most heavily traveled long-distance corridors (NYC-Chicago) and is the linchpin of the proposed

Cleveland-Toledo-Detroit passenger rail corridor.

“We are talking about engineering a connected Midwest economy,” said Mitch Radakovich, Chair of All Aboard Ohio. “Toledo is where Ohio’s untapped passenger rail potential will meet Michigan’s already-growing rail network. RailNation Toledo is about reclaiming our existing infrastructure to connect urban cores, build economically productive mega-regions, and give travelers real options.”

The conference will emphasize the return on investment of passenger rail, highlighting how robust transit networks act as economic multipliers for local tourism, job creation, and tax base growth.

“The data consistently shows that passenger rail is a powerful economic engine, not just a travel alternative,” said Jim Mathews, President & CEO of the Rail Passengers Association. “Upgrading our legacy infrastructure into multi-modal corridors is essential for maximizing our national assets. This conference lays the groundwork for an upcoming Rail Passengers Association Economic Impact Study that will demonstrate how expanding service benefits Ohio’s and Michigan’s communities.”

KEY CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS

Friday, October 2:

• 10:00 am – 3:00 pm: “Science Fair” at Martin Luther King Jr. Plaza featuring the Amtrak Locomotive Simulator, TARTA’s new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) VR Experience, and guided facility tours. (The public can purchase a $20 single-day Friday pass to attend).

• 4:00 – 5:00 pm - Toledo Amtrak Station Tour (exclusive press opportunity, not open to the public)

• 6:00 – 8:00 pm: AleNation Happy Hour at Toledo Spirits. Featured speaker: Mitch Radakovich, Chair, All Aboard Ohio (exclusive press opportunity, not open to the public)

Saturday, October 3:

Expert panels and keynote addresses featuring:

• Toledo Mayor Wade Kapszukiewicz

• Representative Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)

• Rusty Roberts, Senior Policy Advisor, FRA Office of Railroad Administration

• William Murdock, Executive Director, Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission

• Mark Brazeau, Director of Group Sales, Destination Toledo

• Rob Moore, Principal, Scioto Analysis

• Representatives from Amtrak’s Major Programs and Long Distance Service Lines

MEDIA INFORMATION

Media are invited to attend all panels and events. A dedicated interview area will be available for 1:1 conversations with RPA and AAO leadership and key panelists. Broadcast Media: please coordinate live shots by contacting Beth Russell at (614) 562-1086

###

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.

ABOUT ALL ABOARD OHIO

All Aboard Ohio is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, member-based organization dedicated to promoting more and better intercity passenger rail service and public transit throughout the state. All Aboard Ohio supports the innovation and development of a balanced transportation system that provides viable mobility choices to all Ohioans.

20260925 Railnation Toledo Pressrelease

124KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Full Press Release from the Rail Passengers Association & All Aboard Ohio

Download

Passenger-Rail Network Could Bring Nearly $190 Million in Annual Benefits to Ohio, New Analysis Finds

Detroit–Toledo–Cleveland service alone could deliver $14 million a year in modeled benefits; funding will determine how much of the opportunity Ohio captures

WASHINGTON, September 24, 2026 — A connected network of six proposed passenger-rail services could deliver nearly $190 million in annual benefits within Ohio, according to a new Rail Passengers Association analysis. Ohio need not wait for every route to be built to see a return: the model estimates roughly $14 million in annual benefits from Detroit–Toledo–Cleveland service alone, $28 million from Cincinnati–Dayton–Columbus–Cleveland service, and $15 million from Midwest Connect.

The complete network would generate an estimated 1.69 million annual passenger trips through Ohio stations. That is about 45 percent more than the combined ridership projected for the six services when each is modeled separately. Connections make each train more useful—and make each subsequent investment more valuable.

Rail Passengers released the study results today in advance of the Association’s upcoming Fall RailNation conference in Toledo Oct. 2-4, taking place at MLK Plaza.

“The full network shows what Ohio could gain, but it isn’t an all-or-nothing proposition,” said Jim Mathews, President and CEO of the Rail Passengers Association. “A train connecting Detroit, Toledo, and Cleveland would deliver real benefits on its own. So would service through Dayton and Columbus, or Midwest Connect across the state. Build useful pieces, connect them, and the value grows.”

For the Detroit–Toledo–Cleveland route, the Association projects about 188,000 annual Ohio passenger trips, $1.6 million in visitor spending, and 22 jobs supported by that spending. Its broader estimate of roughly $14 million in annual Ohio benefits also includes traveler savings and the modeled value of reduced crashes, emissions, and road use. The proposed service would give Toledo a direct passenger-rail connection to two major cities while strengthening connections to other trains.

The long-discussed “3C+D” corridor is often treated as a promise perpetually on the horizon. The Association’s estimate puts a more concrete figure on its potential: about 375,000 annual Ohio passenger trips, $3.3 million in visitor spending, and 44 jobs supported. Its total modeled annual benefits exceed $28 million, even before the added ridership that connections with other new routes could bring.

Midwest Connect, linking Chicago and Fort Wayne with Columbus and Pittsburgh, also makes a substantial case on its own. The model projects about 200,000 annual Ohio passenger trips, $1.7 million in visitor spending, 24 jobs supported, and roughly $15 million in total annual modeled benefits within Ohio. The route would add east–west connections for communities across the state and become more useful as other proposed services join the network.

Increasing the existing Cardinal from three days a week to daily service is another nearer-term opportunity. The Association projects roughly 45,000 annual Ohio passenger trips and $12 million in annual modeled benefits from that improvement. In its national long-distance study, the Federal Railroad Administration treated daily operation of the Cardinal and Sunset Limited as part of the assumed network, while identifying 15 additional routes for further development. Making the Cardinal daily still requires the funding, equipment, and operating arrangements to put seven-day service on the timetable.

“People can’t use a train that runs on the wrong day—or one that exists only in a planning document,” Mathews said. “The analysis shows why these projects merit serious funding decisions. Planning identifies the opportunity; investment puts the train on the timetable.”

Across the complete proposed network, the model estimates $14.7 million in annual visitor spending, supporting about 200 jobs and generating $3.4 million in state and local tax revenue. It also projects nearly 35 million fewer vehicle miles on Ohio roads each year. The nearly $190 million headline combines tourism-related economic activity, traveler savings, and estimated public benefits from fewer crashes, lower emissions, and reduced road use; it is not a projection of state revenue or a guaranteed budget saving.

The Association modeled ridership and impacts within Ohio, rather than claiming the full benefits of interstate routes for the state. The six services include three proposed corridors, two proposed long-distance routes, and daily Cardinal service. Each will need its own path through planning, funding, and implementation.

What Passenger Rail Could Deliver for Ohio - Fact Sheet

327KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Further information for reporters and local officials | Rail Passengers Association | September 2026

Download

###

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.

Rail Passengers Urges STB to Summarily Deny UP–Norfolk Southern Merger Application

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Rail Passengers Association today filed comments with the Surface Transportation Board arguing that Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern have failed to make the passenger-rail showing necessary to establish a prima facie case for their proposed merger.

The Association also joined the Joint Shipper Associations in supporting their pending Motion for Summary Denial.

“Before the Board can decide whether a merger this consequential is in the public interest, the Applicants have to provide enough evidence for the Board to make that decision,” said Jim Mathews, President & CEO of the Rail Passengers Association. “On passenger rail, they still haven’t done that. They tell us there is enough capacity. They tell us existing agreements will continue. What they still haven’t shown is how the additional freight trains they project will actually operate alongside scheduled passenger trains.”

RPA’s filing argues that the proposed transaction would give the combined railroad an unusually large role in both existing and planned passenger service. RPA found that 43 of 69 federally selected Corridor ID projects—62.3 percent—potentially use UP or NS infrastructure, and 22 of those projects overlap at least one segment where the Applicants project additional freight traffic.

For existing Amtrak service, RPA reviewed 53 passenger-service/route-segment pairings for which UP and NS quantified projected traffic changes. Forty-two of the 53 would receive additional freight traffic, generally two to ten trains per day. The Applicants nevertheless characterize existing capacity as “sufficient” for 31 of those affected pairings without providing a timetable-based operating demonstration.

The filing argues that the Applicants have not provided several forms of passenger-specific evidence needed for the Board to assess the transaction, including a timetable-based operating model, a passenger-specific dispatching plan, publicly testable capacity evidence, and a serious assessment of federally selected future passenger projects. RPA also argues that the Applicants’ statistical analysis cannot substitute for an operating demonstration and that existing poor passenger performance makes “no worse than today” an inadequate standard.

“The Applicants want the Board to credit projected new freight traffic when calculating the benefits of the merger, but then treat those same trains as almost operationally irrelevant when passenger service is considered,” Mathews said. “You can’t have it both ways. If the traffic projections are real, the Applicants need to show how those trains will fit. If they aren’t, then the benefits attributed to that traffic are overstated.”

RPA’s filing separately addresses the merits of the proposed transaction. It argues that Applicants have not demonstrated protection of existing passenger service, have inadequately analyzed terminal and network effects, and have failed to consider reasonably foreseeable passenger growth through the federal Corridor ID program.

If the Board does not deny the transaction, RPA asks for specific, enforceable passenger protections. Those include route-level performance standards; passenger operating demonstrations before material merger-related train-plan changes; public performance and capacity reporting; objective intervention triggers; capacity-investment commitments; protection for Corridor ID projects; independent validation of capacity models; and continuing Board oversight.

RPA also asks the Board to ensure that the merger itself does not extinguish or diminish existing passenger-service agreements, settlements, legal rights, remedies, or other protections applicable to either railroad.

“The burden belongs to the railroads proposing the merger,” Mathews said. “With this much of the country’s current and future passenger network potentially affected, passengers should not have to take adequate capacity on faith.”

###

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.

Amtrak Board Greenlights Next Step in Reorganization Process

Amtrak’s Board of Directors has voted to take the next step in a massive overhaul of its legal and operational structure. If enacted, the creation of three distinct subsidiaries within a larger umbrella organization would be the biggest shift in strategy for the public railroad since its establishment by the U.S. Congress in 1971.

The overall structure appears to align with what Rail Passengers Association reported in February: Amtrak is planning on breaking itself into three distinct operational entities within an umbrella holding company, dividing responsibility for operations, rolling stock management and leasing, and infrastructure management and construction.

Given where Amtrak is in the process, details are still sparse. However, the railroad did provide a clearer picture of the timeline:

• Amtrak will accept public comments through an online portal through Oct. 30, 2026;

• The company will propose the new structure to the Board of Directors in December of 2026 after receiving and responding to public and stakeholder input; and

• An implementation date has yet to be determined; subsequent implementation steps will also be individually approved by the Board.

Rail Passengers Association understands this is likely to be a multi-year process, with Amtrak working with consultants to design the structure, craft the subsidiary entities, develop performance metrics, build supporting IT and financial systems, and then returning to the Board repeatedly for approval at major milestones.

Amtrak stated that this restructuring will “bring greater visibility into performance and costs, enable faster and better-informed decisions, and align authority with responsibility and results, creating a more accountable, focused, and agile company.” We look forward to hearing from Amtrak how this restructuring will accomplish those goals.

In addition to the public comment portal, Amtrak will engage with regular meetings with labor organizations representing their employees, and outreach to other interested groups. Amtrak has invited our Association to remain closely engaged throughout the process and to schedule multiple meetings with the consultant team and internal project leaders to work through the details.

“While it is too early to draw any definite conclusions, the Key Performance Indicators Amtrak decides to focus on may prove more important than the organizational chart itself,” said Jim Mathews, President & CEO of the Rail Passengers Association. “The right metrics reinforce Amtrak’s public-service mission. The wrong ones could unintentionally push the company toward priorities Congress never intended.”

“Additionally, Rail Passengers has said from day one: organizational reform is not a substitute for adequately funding the railroad,” continued Mathews. “Towards that end, we continue to believe there must be buy-in from the U.S. Congress and States, and that any restructuring that isn’t done in conjunction with the Congressional debate over the shape of the surface transportation reauthorization and state-level network planning won’t deliver benefits to America’s passengers.”

While there is no clear sense of the cost of reorganizing Amtrak, a project of this magnitude is certain to incur a meaningful financial burden. Given the thin financial margins Amtrak operates within—and the Trump Administration’s call for a reduction in Amtrak’s annual appropriations in Fiscal Year 2027—Rail Passengers will be active in exploring what opportunity costs pursuing this restructuring will incur. We encourage the Administration and Congress to provide adequate funding so that important services can continue without interruption or degradation as expenses to fully develop this proposal are incurred.

###

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.

Rail Passengers Association Thanks Amtrak CEO Roger Harris for His Tenure As He Announces His Exit

Washington, D.C.—Amtrak announced late this afternoon that Chief Executive Officer Roger Harris will depart Amtrak on July 31, at which point Byl Herrmann will lead the company as Interim President while the Board conducts a search for a permanent CEO.

“On behalf of our members, I want to extend our thanks to Roger for his work on behalf of America’s passengers,” said Jim Mathews, President and CEO of Rail Passengers. “Roger’s seven years with Amtrak have included some of the most critical points in the railroad’s history—from ridership records to an almost-total shutdown of the network during the pandemic, back to new ridership records. We wish him well in his next chapter.”

Amtrak Board Chair Tony Coscia highlighted Herrmann’s impressive reserve of experience with the railroad, emphasizing he’ll oversee a smooth transition as the railroad looks conducts a search for his replacement.

“Byl Herrmann is a natural fit to lead Amtrak for what’s directly ahead of us,” wrote Coscia. “Byl is a 27-year veteran of Amtrak, with a deep knowledge of Law, HR, Labor and our business lines. As Interim President, Byl will work closely with the Board and executive leadership team to maintain continuity, support our workforce, and keep our focus on safe, reliable service, and delivering on our commitments to customers, partners, and the communities we serve.”

###

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.

Rail Passengers Association Endorses Congressional Request to Renew Guaranteed Funding for Rail

Washington, D.C. -- Rail Passengers Association is joining a coalition of Senators working to extend the guaranteed funding for rail programs -- both in the upcoming annual budget and the surface transportation reauthorization.

The group of Senators delivered a letter to Senate leadership, advocating for an extension of advanced appropriations in the bill which will fund the government in the coming fiscal year. The letter highlighted the investment cliff facing U.S. transportation infrastructure with the looming expiration of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) on September 30th of this year.

“As you consider the Fiscal Year 2027 Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Appropriations Bill, we urge you to support investments in our country’s entire transportation system,” stated the letter. “With the advance appropriations from the [Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)] expiring at the end of FY 2026, we must ensure that these programs continue to receive robust funding, at least at BIL levels, or risk cutting transportation investments to the lowest level in a decade when accounting for inflation.”

The letter was signed by: Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), John Fetterman (D-PA), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Angus King (I-ME), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Ron Wyden (D-OR)

The coalition of Senators also released a report titled “American Rail on the Chopping Block”, which quantified the scope of work that the IIJA has funded in the rail sector and the benefits that have flowed to communities as a result.

“The [IIJA] provided $66 billion in multiyear advance appropriations to grant programs that enhance passenger rail routes, strengthen supply chains, improve community safety near the tracks, and reduce highway traffic. Since the passage of the [IIJA] in 2021, these rail programs have funded over 500 projects in 49 states,” said the report. “However, surface transportation programs, including programs that support investments in passenger and freight rail expire on October 1, 2026. Meaning these programs will face drastic cuts if the multiyear funding is not renewed.”

Rail Passengers is endorsing both the FY27 appropriations request and inclusion of guaranteed rail funding in the surface transportation reauthorization. Predictable funding has been an essential element in allowing state and local governments and the private sector to invest in the capacity needed to build a world-class passenger rail system in the U.S.

“By providing predictable, dedicated funding for rail projects, the [IIJA] gave local governments and the private sector the certainty needed to invest with confidence in America’s passenger rail network,” said Rail Passengers Association President & CEO Jim Mathews. “Thanks to that surety, we have a robust national pipeline of rail projects and new equipment in the U.S. for the first time in half a century. It’s essential that Congress includes advanced appropriations for passenger rail programs in the next surface transportation reauthorization—to advance corridor projects in the pipeline and to sustain the equipment manufacturing jobs created in response to the IIJA.”

After only five years of predictable investment in passenger rail, we’ve already seen a reinvigoration of the U.S. passenger rail manufacturing base across the U.S. These green shoots include:

• Stadler expanding manufacturing in Utah, with a commitment to invest another $190 million in capacity over the next 15 years;

• Siemens Airo production generating domestic manufacturing activity across the country, with 3,500 parts manufactured by nearly 100 suppliers in 31 states;

• Siemens opening a new manufacturing plant in Lexington, NC, which will create 500+ local jobs by 2028 and grow North Carolina’s economy by $1.6 billion over 12 years;

• Alstom investing $75 million to build and outfit an expansion of its Hornell, NY manufacturing facility; and

• Amtrak making investments for a more reliable fleet by building, upgrading and expanding maintenance facilities in Seattle, WA; Philadelphia, PA; Boston, MA; Washington, D.C.; New York City, NY; and Rensselaer, NY.

###

About the 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.

Rail Passengers Association Warns Presidential Budget Proposal Would Undermine Progress on Upgrading Passenger Rail and Transit System

Washington, DC — The Rail Passengers Association today expressed deep concern over the Trump Administration’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2027 Presidential Budget Request, released today, which proposes a major increase in military spending offset by significant cuts to domestic programs—including steep reductions to public transportation and intercity passenger rail.

While the budget request includes $26.6 billion in discretionary budget authority for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)—a $1.6 billion (6.2%) increase over FY2026 enacted levels—the bulk of new funding is directed to highways and aviation. Transit and intercity passenger rail programs would see meaningful reductions.

“At a time of record highs for gas prices and airfare, the Trump Administration is proposing cuts to the intercity rail and transit programs that have been helping Americans stay connected to work, to school, and to family,” said Jim Mathews, President & CEO of the Rail Passengers Association. “This budget moves the nation in the wrong direction for affordability, mobility, and safety.”

Key Budgetary Impacts on Rail and Transit

Under the President’s FY2027 request:

• Amtrak funding drops to $2.1 billion—down from $2.427 billion in FY2026, a 13.5% decrease

  • Amtrak National Network: $1.45 billion (down from $1.577 billion)

  • Amtrak Northeast Corridor (NEC): $650 million (down from $850 million)

• Funding to the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail (FSP) Program is eliminated, reduced to $0 from $65 million in FY2026 discretionary funding, despite strong bipartisan support and national demand.

• Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) funding is nearly doubled to $300 million, up from $137 million in FY2026 (a figure which included earmarks)

• The Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program is cut nearly in half, from $2.45 billion in FY2026 to $1.25 billion in FY2027

A Looming Investment Cliff

The proposed cuts become even more severe when factoring in the expiration of Advance Appropriations under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) at the end of FY2026. Including those expiring funds, the budget would result in the following year-over-year drops:

• Amtrak National Network: $4.8 billion → $1.45 billion

• Amtrak NEC: $2.0 billion → $600 million

• High-Speed Rail Grants: $900 million → $0

• Federal-State Partnership (total): $3.8 billion → $1.4 billion

“These reductions represent a dramatic step backward just as states and regions are delivering new service, modernizing aging infrastructure, and responding to unprecedented demand for rail,” Mathews said. “Slashing funding to proven grant programs pulls the rug out from projects already underway.”

Rail Program Summary (Discretionary)

Take Action

Rail Passengers is urging Congress to reject cuts to passenger rail and public transportation and to fully fund programs that deliver affordable, energy efficient, and reliable mobility for communities nationwide.

“Congress has repeatedly recognized the value of passenger rail to economic growth, safety, and energy independence,” Mathews said. “We call on lawmakers to continue that bipartisan commitment and ensure Americans don’t lose vital transportation options.”

Join Our Campaign!

###

About the 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.

Rail Passengers Association Issues Statement on Reports of a Potential Organizational Restructuring of Amtrak

Washington, D.C. -- The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has revealed that it is directing Amtrak to undertake a dramatic organizational restructuring, breaking itself into three distinct operational entities within an umbrella holding company, focusing on operations, rolling stock management and leasing, and infrastructure management and construction. The FRA teased the restructuring at an event held by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Council on Rail Transportation last week. Additionally, Bloomberg covered expressions of concern from a leading labor organization that the potential restructuring could lead to the eventual privatization of Amtrak’s operations.

Rail Passengers has received an initial briefing on the proposed restructuring from FRA officials, with more in depth briefings scheduled. The outline of the proposal, which will presumably be fleshed out through a public process over the coming months, involves the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (NRPC), currently doing business as Amtrak, acting as a holding company for three distinct and separate subsidiaries: an infrastructure management entity, a rolling stock management entity, and an operational entity.

Jim Mathews, President & CEO of Rail Passengers, issued the following statement in light of early reports on the potential restructuring:

When done correctly, there are potential benefits to a structural reorganization. However, the experiences of European and Asian railways tell us there are clear and present dangers to this kind of restructuring. If done incorrectly, it can lead to service reductions, elimination of routes, increased fares for passengers, and even degradations in infrastructure and safety.

Critically, in the absence of predictable and sufficient public funding, this restructuring is certain to fail. To the extent that this is an attempt to reduce public investment in the national passenger rail system, it will have predictable results: privatization of profits, socialization of losses, deferred investment in infrastructure, and the degradation of frequencies and service quality -- particularly for routes that serve rural and small town America.

Additionally, there must be buy-in from the U.S. Congress and States; any restructuring that isn’t done in conjunction with the Congressional debate over the shape of the surface transportation reauthorization and state-level network planning will be DOA.

Rail Passengers stands ready to be an active participant in the conversation over how, or if, this restructuring should take place.

In the absence of firm details, rail industry stakeholders are struggling to determine the downstream effects. Bloomberg reported that the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) issued a memo to its members sounding alarm over the potential consequences of a restructuring of labor agreements for the roughly 18,000 unionized Amtrak workers.

“Shifts of this nature raise legitimate and substantive concerns regarding the maintenance of qualifications, preservation of established work jurisdiction, crew utilization practices, pilot requirements, and, most importantly, the continued protection and enforcement of existing Agreement rights,” wrote Patrick Darcy, chair of the Amtrak General Committee of Adjustment for the BLET.

For its part, the U.S. Department of Transportation denies that the move is part of a privatization scheme -- though it has yet to release a detailed proposal.

“The Trump Administration is considering ways to strengthen and modernize Amtrak for the future, but privatization is not under consideration,” Danna Almeida, a spokesperson for the Department of Transportation, told Bloomberg in response to inquiries.

An Overview of the Rail Passengers’ Understanding of the USDOT Restructuring Proposal

National Railroad Passenger Corporation

The NRPC will act as a holding company.

Infrastructure Management Entity (IME)

The IME would take over management of all Amtrak-owned infrastructure assets -- most of which is centered along the Northeast Corridor (NEC) -- including dispatching infrastructure, maintenance of way, and capital delivery work.

The IME would also take on the infrastructure Amtrak currently manages on behalf of State partners (including both long term station leases and state-owned stations).

Rolling Stock Management Entity (RSME)

The RSME Rolling would manage all rolling stock owned by Amtrak, as well the maintenance facilities, back shops, and other parts of the equipment maintenance infrastructure. The proposal would allow state governments to include State-owned equipment in the RSME equipment pool on an opt-in basis.

The proposal mirrors what Rail Passengers had outlined in the National Equipment Leasing Pool Corporation included in our surface transportation reauthorization blueprint. A national equipment leasing pool, properly financed, would:

• Provides a mechanism for Amtrak-as-operator, State and local governments, and private sector operators to quickly and flexibly expand the number of trains they operate – both via additional frequencies and with new services;

• Leverage economies of scale through joint and pooled procurement; and

• Keep costs low by limiting opportunities for customization, change orders, and other considerations, including political/partisan interest.

Operational Entity (OE)

As envisioned, the OE would continue to reflect Amtrak’s current divisional structure: NEC, State-Supported, and Long Distance Routes -- with the potential to operate more regional rail service in the future.

This subsidiary raises the most questions. Given the current federal and state-level funding structure, it’s difficult to see how this introduces more, rather than less, operational stability. Cross-subsidization of operational subsidies for LDR and State-Supported routes with infrastructure subsidies for 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. Creating an incentive structure wherein the operations arm becomes the main profit center for the other two subsidiaries -- through equipment and maintenance contracts for the RSME and access fees for the IME -- could very well lead to negative outcomes for service levels and on-board service quality.

Rail Passengers’ Metrics for Success for Any Restructuring

--Continued Oversight of NRPC “Holding Company”

Any reorganization must explicitly acknowledge clear and continuing congressional authority over the NRPC holding company and its subsidiaries.

A restructured Amtrak must remain accountable to the public, via their elected officials, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Government Accountability Office.

Board members must continue to be nominated by the President and seated with the “advice and consent of the Senate.”

--Continuity of Amtrak-Unique Legal Authorities

The OE, IME, and RSME must fully and unambiguously inherit Amtrak’s existing statutory authorities. That includes right of access on Class I railroad infrastructure, preferential dispatching, and condemnation powers.

Restructuring shouldn’t weaken NRPC’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.

--Effective Mediation of the Relationship Between Subsidiaries

In many countries that have restructured their railways, an adversarial relationship has developed between the central track authorities and the train-operating companies, leading to inefficiencies and stagnation in the development of the rail network.

Any restructuring should explicitly place fulfillment of a common mission as the governing principle for the relationship between the subsidiaries, not profitseeking.

--Explicit Rejection of Profitability as a System-Wide Goal

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.

--Separation of Cost Transparency From Service Justification

Improved cost transparency resulting from restructuring should 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 a clear-eyed accounting of tax-base growth, community investment, second- and third-order workforce effects, and the many other benefits identified in Rail Passengers economic analyses.

--Accelerated Route Development Timelines

This is an opportunity to explicitly reject and re-set the hyper-conservative 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 preferred routes.

--No Net Reduction in National-Network Frequencies

Throughout the transition period, and perhaps for at least a decade beyond it, a restructured NRPC 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.

--Formal Governance Input for States and Passenger Interests

The OE should include a formalized governance or advisory mechanism -- potentially building on existing models such as SAIPRC -- to ensure structured input from state partners and national passenger advocates into operational planning and service delivery decisions.

--Functioning Rolling-Stock Acquisition and Leasing Entity

A successful reorganization must produce a nimble, professional rolling-stock acquisition and leasing arm capable of supplying Amtrak and state partners, as well as potentially other operators, while incorporating legal and financial guardrails that prevent moral hazard in equipment specification, procurement, and lifecycle cost management.

--Delivery of New Passenger Rail Equipment by 2030

By 2030, the reorganization should result in new passenger rail equipment that has been fully specified, procured, manufactured, and placed into service, demonstrating that the new structure can translate planning and funding into tangible, on-the-ground improvements.

Review of International Experiences With Similar Proposals

Asset restructuring of railways in other countries has tended to incorporate three major options: geographical division, vertical separation, and functional distinction.

British Rail Privatization (and Re-Nationalization)

The United Kingdom privatized its national passenger rail system in the mid‑1990s, breaking up the former British Rail into over two dozen private operating companies and a separately owned infrastructure manager, Railtrack.

The reform aimed to increase efficiency, stimulate innovation, and attract private investment. Instead, the system soon became known for fragmentation, rising costs, and recurring reliability issues.

A core problem was the division of responsibility: train operators owned no track, stations, or rolling stock, making coordination difficult and often adversarial. Railtrack, pressured to cut costs, struggled with maintenance and oversight, culminating in several major accidents—most notably the 2000 Hatfield derailment—linked to infrastructure failures. This crisis led to Railtrack’s collapse and replacement by the not‑for‑profit Network Rail, effectively re‑nationalizing the infrastructure.

Meanwhile, passenger fares increased faster than inflation, and punctuality remained inconsistent. Franchise competitions often failed, with operators withdrawing early or requiring government bailouts, such as the East Coast Main Line franchise, which returned to public control multiple times.

Despite periods of growth in ridership, structural complexity, financial instability, and repeated government intervention have continued to challenge the privatized model, prompting ongoing debate about whether fuller public ownership would deliver better outcomes.

In December of 2024, the UK government launched a rail public ownership program and announced the first services to transfer into public ownership.

In November of 2025, the Railways Bill was introduced in the UK Parliament to authorize the creation of the Great British Railways (GBR), a publicly owned entity charged with overseeing the entire rail network.

Japanese National Railway Settlement Corporation

Japan privatized the state‑owned Japanese National Railways (JNR) in 1987, breaking it into six regional passenger companies and one freight company, collectively known as the JR Group. The reform aimed to address JNR’s massive debt (by 1987, JNR had accrued a total long-term liability of 37.2 trillion Yen, or roughly $256 billion in 1987 USD), chronic inefficiencies, and declining public trust.

Privatization delivered several clear benefits. The new JR companies gained managerial autonomy, enabling more efficient operations, reduced staffing levels, and modernization of services. Financial performance improved significantly on major intercity and urban corridors, and three of the passenger companies—JR East, JR Central, and JR West—eventually became fully private, publicly traded firms. Investment in technology accelerated, including the expansion of high‑speed Shinkansen lines, improved safety systems, and customer‑service innovations. Passenger satisfaction and punctuality remained among the highest in the world.

However, the restructuring came with costs. The breakup required the government to absorb a substantial portion of JNR’s long‑term debt -- around 24 trillion Yen in 2009 (almost $200 billion in 2009 USD). Additionally, many rural lines continued to face chronic financial losses, and regional disparities widened, as profitable urban networks thrived while less profitable rural services faced reductions or closure.

Overall, Japan’s rail privatization is widely viewed as successful, though not without significant social and fiscal challenges.

Open Access: Italy, Spain and Sweden

The liberalization of national passenger rail systems in Italy, Spain, and Sweden reflected differing policy choices. However, we can identify some common outcomes across all three cases.

Italy pursued high‑speed rail (HSR) liberalization early, fostering competition between Trenitalia and Italo. This competition led to substantial benefits: average fares fell by roughly 30% between 2011 and 2016, and demand for high‑speed services grew significantly.

Spain implemented a more recent and intensive liberalization process. The opening of high‑speed corridors to operators such as Ouigo and Iryo produced major gains: ridership increased by 42% compared with 2019, adding nearly 4.8 million new passengers, and fares declined by an average of 33% (44% real). Competition triggered substantial modal shifts from road and air, yielding over €500 million in societal benefits and reduced emissions. Yet, despite infrastructure manager ADIF’s revenue gains, rail operators faced growing financial pressures, and concerns emerged about unequal competition and sustainability—especially as commuter and regional services prepare for similar neo-liberal reforms.

Sweden, the earliest adopter among the three, fully opened its passenger rail market in 2010. While open access brought competition on profitable routes, regional and local services continue to depend heavily on public subsidies. Critics argue that liberalization shifted public funds toward private operators without delivering commensurate improvements in service quality; rail’s modal share rose only marginally from 8.1% to 9% between 2008 and 2023. Persistent issues include inadequate capacity allocation, unequal access to rolling stock, and service fragmentation, which have limited the overall benefits of market opening.

###

About the 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.

Rail Passengers Statement on Potential Work Stoppage for Hudson Tunnel Project

Washington, D.C. - Rail Passengers Association President & CEO Jim Mathews issued the following statement in response to today’s announcement by the Gateway Development Commission that construction on the Hudson Tunnel Project will pause on Feb. 6th if the disbursement of previously-committed federal funding isn’t restored:

“This is one of the most important rail transportation projects in the nation, and it is vital that work continues. The existing 110-year-old tunnels carry over 200,000 daily passenger trips every weekday onboard 425 trains. Any point of failure would be catastrophic for not only the region, but the entire U.S. economy. We’ve known for decades that these new tunnels need to be built, the funding agreements have been vetted and ratified—now the bureaucrats need to get out of the way and let workers build them!”

“Further delays will hurt not only passengers—it will also cost hard-working Americans their livelihoods. Over 1,000 workers will be out of work in February if federal disbursements don’t continue. If the funding freeze continues, it would endanger over 11,000 construction jobs.”

“Rail Passengers urges the U.S. Department of Transportation to restore the flow of funding immediately and allow work on this critical project to continue. This infrastructure project is too significant to play politics. “

Background Context on the USDOT’s Decision to Suspend Previously Committed Federal Funding

• The USDOT announced it would be suspending funding to the Hudson Tunnel Project on Oct. 1st as part of a review now the GDC was using the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program.

• Congress first enacted the DBE in 1983. It has been largely uncontroversial during the life of the program, with successive Congresses reauthorizing it in every subsequent surface and aviation authorization across the intervening 42 years.

• The USDOT’s interim final rule barring race- and sex-based contracting requirements from federal grants that the agency cited as the basis for suspending funding wasn’t actually published in the Federal Register until two days after the USDOT announced it was suspending the New York projects.

###

About the 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.