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.