Cautious Optimism on Amtrak Reorganization

by Jim Mathews / President & CEO

Earlier this year, I wrote about a proposal being explored by the Federal Railroad Administration to reorganize Amtrak into three separate subsidiaries. At the time, my reaction was cautious — not because reform is inherently a bad idea (and in this instance is clearly needed), but because structural change without clarity about goals, authorities, and guardrails posed the risk of more uncertainty than progress. But since then, I’ve had the opportunity to discuss the concept further with senior FRA leadership, and that conversation addressed many of the questions I had raised.

I think it’s fair to say I’m now in the camp of “cautiously optimistic.”

My caution remains and comes primarily from the elements outside FRA’s control. Congressional intent plays a big role. Appropriations realities, too. Political narratives about “privatization” matter, especially when they move faster than the facts. How Amtrak’s internally affected constituencies will react also come into play. All of those uncertainties remain.

But my optimism comes from our follow-up discussions, in which I’m more confident than before that what FRA is examining really isn’t a back-door attempt to dismantle the national passenger rail system, as some online rail supporters have feared. Instead, it appears to be an effort to think seriously about how Amtrak’s structure can better support the service expansion Congress has already directed it to deliver.

What’s even more important, at least to us at the Association, is what seems to be genuine willingness to consider the tough questions as the goals for each of the three proposed subsidiaries are put together. These goals -- or “key performance indicators,” KPIs, in the vernacular -- should be tied directly to what the taxpayers and fare-paying passengers expect the new units to accomplish, and I was particularly reassured to learn that the intent is to develop KPIs with this in mind...and to allow stakeholders to contribute to that development.

One concern I raised earlier involved comparisons to European “open access” passenger rail models. Those comparisons can be misleading. In Europe, competing operators typically run trains over infrastructure that is publicly owned and publicly managed. That creates a very different set of incentives and accountability structures than we see in the U.S., where most intercity passenger trains operate over privately owned freight railroad rights-of-way. Putting private operators onto publicly managed infrastructure is one thing; placing them onto privately controlled corridors with different priorities and dispatching authority is something else entirely. Any conversation about restructuring Amtrak has to start by recognizing that difference.

Another concern involved whether organizational change might shift responsibility away from Congress at precisely the moment when Congress has been building a stronger passenger rail program. The past several years have seen historic investments in corridor development, long-distance service modernization, and the Northeast Corridor. Those programs depend on continuity. They depend on predictable governance. They depend on maintaining Amtrak’s role as the backbone of a growing national network rather than treating it as a temporary placeholder for something else.

And of course, there is the perennial concern about the fate of long-distance service, which might not be as sexy as higher-speed trains zipping along the Northeast Corridor but is absolutely vital to smaller rural communities across this country.

What I heard from senior FRA leadership helped clarify that these risks are understood. In particular, I was struck by the emphasis on aligning performance measures with mission rather than relying on imperfect proxies like “profit.” Taxpayer-supported passenger rail exists to move people safely, reliably, and at useful scale across a national network. Measuring success against those outcomes — and designing organizational units with sharply defined performance expectations tied to that mission, which includes serving those communities — makes far more sense than expecting a public-service railroad to behave like a conventional private carrier. That focus on mission-based accountability is an encouraging sign that the discussion is grounded in operational reality rather than ideology.

The Rail Passengers staff and I have had similar conversations with other stakeholder groups, like organized labor, and we’re all hearing the same kinds of things from FRA. To some extent, how successful -- or even how likely -- this proposed reorganization is will depend on how well and constructively we all take part in helping to shape what’s eventually proposed.

That’s why it matters that this conversation is happening now, before decisions are locked in. I’d said this earlier, but it bears repeating: FRA isn’t presenting a finished blueprint at this stage. It’s engaging stakeholders and testing ideas. That creates space to ensure that any eventual proposal strengthens passenger rail instead of fragmenting it, so long as we all actually do the work of engaging alongside Congress, Amtrak’s leadership, and the communities served.

And make no mistake, there’s work ahead. There are still questions to answer. How would responsibilities be divided? How would accountability be preserved? How do we keep Congress on board? How would Congress maintain oversight of a system it has spent decades rebuilding after years of underinvestment? How will we be sure that it’s funded appropriately, because absent predictable funding this will surely fail? And perhaps most importantly, how would riders experience the result? Organizational charts aren’t the goal. Better trains, more service, and greater reliability are the goals.

So of course, some degree of caution is appropriate. But caution isn’t the same as opposition. After this latest round of conversations, I’m more persuaded that the effort underway at FRA is aimed at solving real structural challenges rather than creating new ones. That moves me from where I started — concerned about the direction of travel — to something closer to cautious optimism about the opportunity to get this right.

As always, the Rail Passengers Association will stay engaged in this process and will continue to insist that any reforms strengthen the national passenger rail network Congress has already begun rebuilding. Structure should serve service. Governance should support growth. In our February release we outlined ten areas which we believed would strengthen any blueprint for building a 21st century Amtrak, and for the most part we’re sticking by them. The ultimate test of any proposal should be simple: does it make passenger rail work better for the people who depend on it every day? We’ll keep focusing on those questions, but so far FRA leadership seems to agree that those are the right ones to keep asking. And that’s a welcome development.