“We’re looking at doing a much broader, bigger kind of Amtrak restructuring. I’m sure some of you have heard kind of a little bit about that, again, making it operate more efficiently and effectively, no, not doing anything that’s cutting routes or cutting jobs, or doing anything like that.” – Amtrak Deputy Administrator Drew Feeley
One of the basic principles of legal or historical research is to locate source documents: those which contain the words from the original proponents of an idea or a program, and which serve as the basis for future discussions concerning such proposals. One of the hot topics on the rail scene today is a potential restructuring of Amtrak. Advocates for Amtrak’s riders, rail labor, and managers from concerned companies have reacted to a recent alleged proposal from the FRA, but the agency itself denied having an official source document that would serve as a basis for all the discussions that have been the talk of the Amtrak scene during the second half of February. In this article, I will describe what I know about the purported proposal to restructure Amtrak’s business lines, highlight some of the reactions that have appeared regarding it, and take a brief look at some related issues.
FRA’s Feely: “Kinda … Kinda”
There are close ties between the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Amtrak: a sensible situation, considering the FRA’s concerns with railroad safety and with appropriately developing the efficient use of the nation’s railroads as assets. The FRA is represented on Amtrak’s Board of Directors by Paul Nissenbaum, Associate Administrator for Railroad Development, who spent much of his career at Amtrak before coming on board at the FRA. Ron Batory, who served as Federal Railroad Administrator during the POTUS 45 Administration, is also on the Amtrak Board, although he is no longer affiliated with the agency.
Instead, it appears to have started with Deputy Administrator Drew Feeley and remarks he delivered on Feb. 11 at a conference sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), an organization primarily concerned with highways, but with some interest in rail. In his 12-minute speech (access below), Feeley mentioned the agency’s grant program (including issues concerning grade crossings and CRISI grants), streamlining applications to less than 40 pages, and grants for the NEC. He also mentioned a strong push toward deregulation, with 57 deregulatory actions so far, and streamlining the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.
Regarding potential Amtrak restructuring, Feeley said: “In addition to trying to revamp a lot of the infrastructure on the Northeast Corridor, we’re looking at doing a much broader, bigger kind of Amtrak restructuring. I’m sure some of you have heard kind of a little bit about that, again, making it operate more efficiently and effectively, no, not doing anything that’s cutting routes or cutting jobs, or doing anything like that. But again, I feel that it’s something that’s been a long time coming. It’s something I can do without needing extra money or extra Congressional approval, which is great, and hopefully, soon, you should be hearing more about something we’ll be doing there. Hopefully you’ll all be very supportive of that, as well. It’s a big deal, and it’s something that, as we’ve kinda (sic) started to kinda (sic) talk about, it’s very bipartisan and usually the responses are, you know, ‘what took you so long?’ or even ‘why aren’t you going harder? You should go further.'” Feeley continued by reporting on Surface Transportation Reauthorization, with one further mention of “Amtrak reform” without specific details.
I contacted the FRA, whose spokesperson told Railway Age that Feeley’s remarks were preliminary, that the agency was is not suggesting an official policy change yet, and that an official proposal would be published in the Federal Register. There was also nothing to be found on the agency’s website. So, at least for now, it appears that the roughly 60 seconds of Feeley’s remarks at the AASHTO conference that I quoted here are as close to a “source document” as anyone will get.
Reactions Pouring In
The biggest reaction came on Feb. 20 from the Rail Passengers Association (RPA), and many more followed during the next several days. At this writing, more are expected, all from Feeley’s brief comments and without an official “source document” from the FRA. The ones I know about came from rider-advocates, rail labor, and management representatives who have also expressed concerns.
The RPA statement was treated as a primary source document in a report from another publication, even though it did not come from the FRA, which would be the issuing agency for any official proposal. RPA’s document began by saying: “The Rail Passengers Association issued a statement on early reports that the U.S. Department of Transportation is directing Amtrak to undertake a significant organizational restructuring” and included details that Feeley did not mention. However, RPA mentioned: “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.” RPA also said: “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.”
According to RPA’s overview, NRPC (Amtrak) would act as a holding company, essentially an umbrella organization, with three component entities. The Infrastructure Management Entity (IME) would manage all of Amtrak’s infrastructure assets, including the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and Amtrak-owned infrastructure in Michigan and other places. It would also manage assets that Amtrak currently manages on belalf of State partners. The Rolling Stock Management Entity (RSME) would manage rolling stock and maintenance for Amtrak, and State partners could opt in to have the RSME maintain the rolling stock they own. According to RPA: “As envisioned, the OE [Operational Entity] 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.”
Regarding the OE, RPA also commented: “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” (emphasis in original).
RPA expressed other concerns, as well. Jim Mathews, the organization’s President and CEO said: “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” and “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.” Mathews also called for approval from Congress and the States for any proposal of this sort, adding “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 labor also weighed in. The subject of the Bloomberg Government article cited by RPA was a memo by Partrick Darcy, Chair of the General Committee of Adjustment for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), a Teamsters-affiliated union. Darcy said on Feb. 13: “Many of us have experienced similar discussions previously, including federal level conversations concerning operational restructuring and long rumored privatization initiatives, many have not. But we all understand such discussions can generate uncertainty and concern. While undoubtedly speculation will circulate during these periods, it is essential we remain properly informed, grounded within governing Agreements and established facts, and continue to stay aligned within our commitment to protect the work, rights, and professional standing of Amtrak Engineers” and “So, I am unequivocally clear: any effort to restructure, segment, outsource, or otherwise modify operations in a manner which affects Amtrak Engineers will be carefully scrutinized and vigorously addressed. The Organization will continue to steadfastly insist all Agreements, practices, and craft specific protections remain fully intact and will be strictly enforced. Any operational change which may impact the work of this Organization must comply fully with the Railway Labor Act and terms of our negotiated Agreements and will not be permitted to circumvent or erode those established rights.”
Anthony Sessa, General Chairperson of the United Passenger Rail Federation of the BMWED (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division, also a Teamsters-affiliated union) said on Feb. 11, the day Feeley made his statement at the AASHTO conference: “[During] the past few weeks, I have attended multiple meetings concerning Amtrak’s reported consideration of restructuring into multiple companies. Much of this discussion hinges on potential Board approval and related government involvement. At this time, we do not have definitive answers. As soon as reliable information becomes available, we will immediately update the membership.” Sessa’s letter raises the question of how much discussion had been held out of public view regarding any potential Amtrak restructuring, despite the FRA not having any official documents to present and Feeley’s statement at AASHTO being regarded as “preliminary.” Sessa also expressed concern about privatization, saying: “We are already seeing examples of privatization efforts in certain areas, including the privatization of stations such as Union Station, New York Penn Station, and the contracting out of operations at 30th Street Station. Additionally, the structure surrounding Moynihan Train Hall has created complicated maintenance responsibilities. These developments demonstrate that discussions regarding labor, privatization, and operational control are very real and ongoing.” Sessa also said “any attempt to restructure, divide, or privatize operations that impact on our members will be closely monitored and addressed accordingly.”
One management group, at least, came out in favor of the sort of restructuring that Feeley mentioned. ALLRAIL, which represents independent rail operating companies, mostly in Europe, said in a statement: “ALLRAIL represents independent passenger rail operators, rolling stock investors, and ticketing companies active in competitive rail markets worldwide. Several of our members operate in the United States or are U.S.-owned companies” and “As stakeholders in the future of passenger rail, we welcome reports that the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), through the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), is exploring structural reform of Amtrak into separate infrastructure, rolling stock and train operations entities.” ALLRAIL disputed RPA’s concerns that plans along the lines of what Feeley mentioned have not worked well in Europe, saying: “International evidence is clear: where infrastructure management is genuinely separated from train operations — and markets are opened under transparent, nondiscriminatory rules — passenger numbers grow, fares fall and taxpayers receive better value. But reform must be real” (emphasis in original).
ALLRAIL advised: “True structural reform means separate control, separate management and separate funding for infrastructure, equipment leasing and train operations. It does not mean renaming internal departments while leaving all three activities under the control of Amtrak Holdings. If infrastructure, leasing and operations continue to be funded through the same holding company, governed by the same board and with decisions authorized by the same executive leadership, the incentives will remain unchanged” and added: “Without independent governance and independent balance sheets, there is no real separation — only administrative relabeling.”
Regarding the NEC, ALLRAIL said: “The Northeast Corridor, linking Washington D.C., New York and Boston — is one of the most commercially promising rail corridors in the world. Yet it remains structurally constrained by a vertically integrated model. Reform would not weaken the corridor. It would strengthen it.” The statement concluded: “Genuine separation of infrastructure, fleet management and train operations is not an end in itself. It is the foundation for transparency, fair access and sustainable growth. ALLRAIL encourages USDOT, FRA and Congress to pursue reform with clarity and competitive neutrality — ensuring that America’s passenger rail system can reach its full economic and mobility potential.”
Advocates independent of FRA have also made their voices heard lately. Richard Rudolph, Chair of the Rail Users’ Network (RUN), said in a message to Board members: “Needless to say we haven’t learned much. The Brits tried this approach and ultimately failed. We already have a slew of officials and VPs causing decision bottlenecks, stalling projects, and hoarding authority, which leads high performers to leave within 12-18 months. Unfortunately, leaders often fail to provide direction, act as, or create bottlenecks, and often refuse to take ownership.” Rudolph also told Railway Age: “The idea is preposterous. It will make communication more difficult, and managers will have less authority, so it will be more difficult for them to do their jobs.” Other RUN Board members posted statements in their personal capacities. David Tomzik, whose advocacy experience includes activity in Chicago and Florida said: “Regardless, to make any of this work we need a reliable and robust funding stream. The devil is in the details. Imagine the ‘operating’ division blames the ‘equipment’ division for a late consist released from yard, shortage of equipment or break down on the road. ‘It’s not our fault talk to the next guy.’ If the root causes of problems are not solved, there will be more finger pointing and terrible customer service. At least now, Amtrak has no one to blame yet [but] the organization. Now this can be tripled. Passengers will never get an answer why their train is late. Hopefully these discussions will come out as details emerge.” J.W. Madison, head of Rails, Inc. in New Mexico, said: “Speaking as a general/electrical contractor: David T’s points remind me of the widespread overuse of subcontracting and outsourcing in my and other businesses, perfect gambits for spreading blame and dodging accountability. Screw all that. Those deserving either praise or blame must be easy to find and reach.”
“Rearranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic.”
Albert L. Papp, a longtime advocate based in New Jersey, often analogizes discussions that ultimately will not make a significant difference to “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.” Whether there will be genuine efforts to restructure Amtrak in a meaningful way remains to be seen. I also don’t know if the FRA will propose a significant change in the way Amtrak actually works, whether Feeley was sending up a “trial balloon” to obtain reactions to the basic idea of such a restructuring before going further with a proposal, why advocates and other concerned persons outside of various unnamed organizations in addition to RPA that received “private briefings” to which Amtrak riders and other persons and organizations were not informed of any plans that the FRA might have, or any details of how Amtrak would operate the railroad or secure funding for it under such an FRA-proposed plan.
None of this is currently known, and the introduction of the idea in such a secretive manner is a matter of concern to the millions of Amtrak riders and other persons who want to know how “America’s Railroad” is being financed, managed, and operated, and how that will be accomplished in the future. The speculation assumes that the FRA will propose a plan that will make significant changes in Amtrak funding, management, and operations that will either deliver a benefit or a detriment to Amtrak’s riders.
Given the historical record, it is unclear how much difference a future restructuring process would make, given other restructuring plans that were implemented in the past. A source familiar with Amtrak’s history provided a list of five efforts to restructure Amtrak since its founding and commented: “Amtrak has a long history of using variously named business subdivisions. Name changes have neither changed Amtrak’s trajectory nor resulted in transparency” and “As long as Federal grants flow through Amtrak as a single corporate entity, neither operational clarity nor financial transparency will improve.” According to the analysis that Railway Age obtained, in the beginning under Roger Lewis (1971-75), Amtrak had short-haul, long-haul, state-supported §403(b), international, and semi-fixed routes. Under Paul Reistrup (1976-78), Amtrak was divided into the NEC, short-distance, and long-distance routes. The short-distance and long-distance dichotomy began under Alan Boyd in 1977 and continued until 1994. “Business units” were not specifically named during those periods. That started in 1994 under Tom Downs, when Amtrak introduced the NEC, Amtrak Intercity, and Amtrak West as business units. “Corporate” was added in 2001, and that model lasted until 2008. Then in 2009, under Joseph Boardman, there were a plurality of business lines, rather than named business units. Through all these formatting changes, Amtrak has always been a single corporate entity, and nothing that has been reported so far would disturb that status. However Amtrak was organized and reorganized in the past, I know that the long-distance network it operates now is as small and skeletal as it has ever been and has not recovered from cuts made in the late 1970s. This list of changes is far from complete, but it is illustrative. State-supported routes, including corridors, have grown in the past, but the only route that has been added recently is the Mardi Gras Service between New Orleans and Mobile, running along the Mississippi Gulf Coast with two daily round trips. Those trains started running last August, after the four-year “Second Battle of Mobile” that was fought before the STB.
Infrastructure the Problem?
A market analysis obtained by Railway Age seems to indicate that owning and managing infrastructure assets along the NEC and elsewhere is costing Amtrak money, which could hinder its efforts to operate trains both there and elsewhere. These diagrams illustrate that contention:
The FRA proposal, as best understood “pre-tweaking,” indicates grant requests and actual grants flowing between all proposed Amtrak entities, except between the Infrastructure Entity and the Rolling Stock Entity. Triple dollar signs indicate large amounts of money, while single dollar signs indicate smaller amounts of money. There are dashed-line connections between Amtrak’s proposed entities and non-Amtrak operations. Today, those consist solely of “transit railroads” that run on NEC tracks.
The proposed “tweak” in that analysis would make the infrastructure entity independent from Amtrak, which would reduce costs (all amounts represented as single dollar signs). The proposed independent infrastructure entity would also have similar relationships with Amtrak and with non-Amtrak operators. The “post-tweaking” diagram shows this. Under the “Follow the Money” principal of market and other business analysis, proponents of removing the infrastructure entity from Amtrak claim that such an act would save money by bringing private-sector capital into the infrastructure management component of running the railroad, while promoting competition between Amtrak and non-Amtrak train operators.
One proponent of such a separate infrastructure entity is Robert Serlin, an internationally recognized expert in railroad finance engineering, who told Railway Age: “For many years, stakeholders have talked about reforming Amtrak, Administrator [David] Fink is doing something about it and showing real leadership. The FRA’s proposal appears to be a valuable step in the right direction towards enabling the Administration, Congress, and Amtrak itself to understand Amtrak’s cost structure.”
As I have reported, there are now two proposals for injecting the private sector into Amtrak service through public-private partnerships (P3s), a topic mentioned at the Amtrak Board meeting held in New Orleans in December 2025. RAILnet-21 proposes an independent Infrastructure Management Organization (IMO) instead of the FRA’s proposed IME within Amtrak. That organization says: “RAILnet-21: the only immediately implementable program protecting stakeholders. It fully funds Amtrak’s infrastructure needs. It creates a solid foundation for improved safety, reliability, increased ridership, and long-term development.” The other comes from AmeriStarRail (ASR), which proposes operational changes on the NEC and elsewhere. ASR COO Scott Spencer has said that his company is “agnostic” about who owns and manages the railroad, if ASR can lease trackage rights to operate, so the “proposal” at issue would probably not affect ASR directly. Still, it demonstrates that bifurcation or trifurcation is a good way to allow managers of the different components to focus on the organization’s core competencies. Nonetheless, the issue of core competency isn’t that an organization can’t be competent in multiple areas, but it’s a cultural trait usually associated with one area of expertise. In other words, the FRA’s proposed trifurcation of Amtrak would simply be another exercise of “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.”
The public and private sectors sometimes cooperate on a project, as has been suggested here. This is different from full privatization, where a private-sector entity replaces a public-sector entity to perform the same function or a similar one. While “privatization” can be an emotionally charged word and the above-quoted RPA report criticized the privatization of British Rail (as have others), privatization is not currently at issue. Serlin told Railway Age: “There is no indication anywhere that the likely FRA proposal is a prelude to privatization.” In addition, FRA spokesperson Danna Almeida was quoted as saying: “The [POTUS 47] Administration is considering ways to strengthen and modernize Amtrak for the future, but privatization is not under consideration.”
Future Issues
Everything about the “proposal” at issue from the FRA raises more questions than it answers, both procedurally and substantively. Clearly, this has become an important issue, even though the customary procedure of publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register and inviting comments from interested persons and organizations as not yet been followed in the present case.
With no personal disrespect expressed toward Drew Feeley, why he used the AASHTO conference to mention a proposed change at Amtrak seems to raise new issues. At this writing, the FRA has not clarified his intentions. With only an informal reference, he sparked a discussion among stakeholders that the FRA should now take seriously. In short, the proverbial cat is out of the bag, and the FRA should either state unequivocally that the issue is off the table or proceed with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and initiate discussion. If Feeley was launching a “trial balloon,” he and the FRA got their answer: that he raised an important issue that deserves to be reviewed by stakeholders ranging from Congress to rider-advocates (who, except for RPA, are seldom considered true stakeholders), who should be given an “official” opportunity to comment on a concrete proposal submitted in writing.
It appears that RPA and other members of an elite and privileged group of “insider stakeholders” were allowed private briefings with information that was withheld from other organizations and individuals who would also have reason to be concerned. Such selectivity appears questionable, because it denies the same information to other people who would be affected by any decision that might be made. While RPA deserves credit for reporting something about what Feeley or the FRA had in mind, telling a few private organizations about an otherwise-undisclosed plan does not appear to act as a proper substitute for a robust public discussion. It also seems unfair to the many persons and organizations who advocate for better service on Amtrak, both in terms of expanding (or, if worse comes to worse, preserving) routes and frequencies of service on those routes, and in terms of the quality of on-board and other services furnished to Amtrak’s riders, to give it to a single advocacy organization and not give it to other advocates who are equally knowledgeable, committed, and concerned.
Then there is the age-old issue of the relationship between the NEC and the rest of Amtrak. Feeley did not call for Congressional approval of such a restructuring plan for Amtrak, but it is difficult to see how a meaningful change could be implemented without Congressional debate and approval. Amtrak is a political entity, and everybody knows it. It is also known on the rail scene that Amtrak gets much of its funding through a tricky political balance. Members from the Northeast, most of whom are Democrats, support funding for Amtrak. That makes sense, because the NEC has more trains, on both Amtrak and the transit railroads, than any other region in the country. Still, it’s expensive for Amtrak to operate on the NEC, because it must also bear the costs of owning and maintaining the infrastructure there.
As for the rest of the country, there are very few long-distance trains today, there has been no expansion of the network, it has shrunk since the 1970s, and it faces total elimination if new equipment is not ordered, built, and placed into service relatively soon. It might already be too late, but maybe not. In its Feb. 20 statement, RPA mentioned having new long-distance equipment running by 2030 as a goal. That now appears impossible, as ASR’s proposal, the most-ambitious one suggested so far, does not propose that any cars be delivered before 2031. The network of state-supported corridors and other routes grew during the 1970s and 80s, but not recently. Out of all the routes proposed in Amtrak’s 2021 Connects US plan, only one has begun operation. It’s the Mardi Gras Service route, which enjoys strong support from Sen. Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi, but it also required a battle of several years’ duration before the trains began to run last summer.
Amtrak does not acknowledge a rivalry between the NEC and the rest of the network, but advocates, especially those who come from outside the Northeast Region, do. They claim that “NEC” stands for “Nothing Else Counts” and that the long-distance trains outperform the NEC on economic metrics, but the Northeast still gets more than its share of Amtrak funding. Whatever the numbers reveal, members of Congress from outside the region know that their constituents do not want to lose their train, which might be the only one running in their state. So, the Democrats from the states served by the long-distance and state-supported trains, along with enough Republicans from those regions to keep Amtrak funding going, vote to fund it. If the idea of a “profitable” NEC and “money-losing” trains elsewhere is truly a myth, would the present-day voting customs in Congress that keep Amtrak going continue to do so? I don’t know, but Amtrak doesn’t seem willing to take the risk that they would not.
In any event, it’s now up to the FRA and Amtrak to level with all of us about what sort of proposals, if any, are under consideration for restructuring Amtrak. We also have a right to know why the FRA believes that any restructuring would benefit Amtrak’s riders, who should be considered the primary stakeholders, but have never been respected to that extent, at least not in the past 55 years.
Regarding Amtrak itself, I reached out to them and got this answer: “Hello — Thanks for your inquiry. Please reach out to DOT.” At this writing, that was all Amtrak had to say on the matter. So, clearly, Amtrak could not furnish a source document, either.
David Peter Alan has been reporting on passenger trains and rail transit in the United States and Canada since 2004. A long-time passenger rail advocate, he came to reporting after gaining two decades of advocacy experience. He is a member and has previously served as Chair of the Senior Citizens and Disabled Residents Transportation Advisory Committee (SCDRTAC) at New Jersey Transit, the Lackawanna Coalition (which concentrates on New Jersey), and the Essex County (New Jersey) Transportation Advisory Board. Nationally, he belongs to the Rail Users’ Network (RUN) and has been a member of its Board of Directors since 2005. Admitted to the New Jersey and New York Bars in 1981, he is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar and a Registered Patent Attorney specializing in intellectual property and business law. Alan holds a B.S. in Biology from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1970); M.S. in Management Science (M.B.A.) from M.I.T. Sloan School of Management (1971); M.Phil. from Columbia University (1976); and a J.D. from Rutgers Law School (1981). He has ridden the entire Amtrak and VIA Rail networks and nearly all rail transit in the United States and Canada.
