USDOT’s Proposed Amtrak Restructuring Plan Draws Scrutiny

Early indications that the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) may direct a sweeping restructuring of Amtrak have prompted a cautious response from the Rail Passengers Association. Its response warns that structural reform could either modernise the U.S. passenger rail system or undermine its public-service mission.

According to briefings and comments by federal officials, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is exploring a model that would reorganise the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak’s legal name) into a holding company overseeing three subsidiaries focused on operations, infrastructure, and rolling stock management.

While federal officials argue the concept is intended to strengthen and modernise the railroad, passenger advocates, labor unions, and industry observers say the proposal raises unresolved questions about funding, governance, and the risk of gradual privatisation.

What USDOT is Considering

The restructuring concept would place the NRPC at the top of a corporate structure with three distinct entities:

Infrastructure Management Entity (IME)

This subsidiary would oversee Amtrak-owned track, stations, dispatching systems, and capital projects, most notably along the Northeast Corridor. It could also manage infrastructure Amtrak currently operates on behalf of state partners.

Rolling Stock Management Entity (RSME)

A centralised equipment organisation would manage locomotives, passenger cars, and maintenance facilities. States could opt to place their own equipment into a shared pool, potentially enabling joint procurement and leasing arrangements designed to lower costs and speed fleet expansion.

Operational Entity (OE)

The train-operating arm would largely mirror Amtrak’s existing business lines, including the Northeast Corridor, state-supported routes, and long-distance services, while potentially expanding into regional rail operations.

Federal officials have not yet released a detailed proposal or timeline, but have denied that privatisation is under consideration.

The Trump Administration is considering ways to strengthen and modernise Amtrak for the future, but privatisation is not under consideration.

Rail Passengers Association Response

In its statement, Rail Passengers President and CEO Jim Mathews acknowledged that structural reform can bring benefits if executed carefully, but emphasised that international experience demonstrates substantial risks.

The organisation’s central concern is funding. Without predictable public investment, it argues, a reorganization could shift financial pressures onto the operating subsidiary through access charges and equipment leasing fees, potentially leading to higher fares, reduced service levels, or deferred infrastructure maintenance.

Rail Passengers also warned that separating infrastructure and operations could weaken the cross-subsidies that have historically helped sustain less profitable long-distance and rural routes while enabling major capital investment on the Northeast Corridor.

The association further stressed that any restructuring must be aligned with congressional surface transportation legislation and state rail planning efforts. Without that coordination, it suggested, reform would be politically unviable.

Jim Mathews, President & CEO of Rail Passengers, issued the following statement:

When done correctly, there are potential benefits to a structural reorganisation. 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.

Labor Concerns and Industry Uncertainty

Rail labor groups have also expressed apprehension. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen circulated a memo highlighting possible impacts on work rules, crew utilisation, qualifications, and collective bargaining agreements affecting roughly 18,000 unionised Amtrak employees.

These concerns reflect broader uncertainty among stakeholders, many of whom say the lack of detail makes it difficult to assess how responsibilities, funding streams, and labour protections would be divided across subsidiaries.

Patrick Darcy, chair of the Amtrak General Committee of Adjustment for the BLET said:

Shifts of this nature raise legitimate and substantive concerns regarding the maintenance of qualifications, preservation of established work jurisdiction, crew utilisation practices, pilot requirements, and, most importantly, the continued protection and enforcement of existing Agreement rights.

Key Metrics

While withholding judgment until more information emerges, Rail Passengers outlined several benchmarks it believes should guide any restructuring:

• Continued congressional oversight. The NRPC holding company and subsidiaries should remain accountable to elected officials and federal watchdogs.
• Preservation of Amtrak’s legal authorities. Subsidiaries must retain statutory rights such as track access and dispatching preference on freight railroads.
• Cooperative governance among entities. The relationship between infrastructure, equipment, and operations arms should be mission-driven rather than profit-oriented.
• Service-based performance goals. Success should be measured by connectivity, reliability, and public benefit—not profitability alone.
• No reduction in national network frequencies. The group argues the transition period should avoid service cuts and ultimately expand the number of trains operating.
• Faster route development and fleet renewal. A reorganized structure should accelerate new service launches and deliver new rolling stock by 2030.

Lessons from International Rail Reforms

Rail Passengers framed its response within the context of global restructuring efforts. Britain’s 1990s breakup of British Rail into separate infrastructure and operating companies, it noted, produced fragmentation and rising costs.

By contrast, Japan’s division of Japanese National Railways into regional firms improved efficiency and service quality but required the government to absorb significant debt and left many rural lines struggling financially.

Experiments with open-access competition in Italy, Spain, and Sweden have lowered fares and boosted ridership on profitable corridors, yet have also highlighted challenges, including uneven competition, dependence on subsidies for regional services, and coordination difficulties between operators and infrastructure managers.

With federal officials yet to publish formal plans, the proposed restructuring remains conceptual. Rail Passengers has positioned itself as a participant in the policy debate, signalling openness to reform but insisting that any reorganisation must protect Amtrak’s public mission, ensure stable funding, and expand, rather than diminish, service.