Author: Richard Rudolph

The Rail Users’ Network’s  concerns regarding the UP-NS Proposed Merger

June 11, 2026

The Honorable Patrick J. Fuchs, Chairman
The Honorable Michelle A. Schultz
The Honorable Karen J. Hedlund
Surface Transportation Board
395 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20423

Document No. FD 36873

Re. The Rail Users’ Network’s  concerns regarding the UP-NS Proposed Merger
Docket Number:

Dear Chairman Fuchs, Vice-Chairman Schultz, and Member Hedlund:

The Rail Users’ Network, the national nonprofit, all-volunteer organization representing long distance, regional and commuter rail passengers and rail transit riders, is opposed to the merger of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern.

Our concerns include the adverse affect on passengers who travel on Amtrak trains that will operate on the proposed new rail system, the safety of residents who live along the right of way of the proposed rail line, and the impact it will have on the welfare of freight customers by eliminating competition, disrupting service, weakening the U.S. supply chain, and increasing transportation rates.

As rail advocates, the key question is whether the merger will lead to better on-time passenger train performance on the tri-weekly Sunset Limited and Cardinal routes, and whether the “Union Pacific Transcontinental Railroad” will accommodate potential daily service on these two lines..

Given their past history and record, we question whether the merger will actually lead to improved service. We are aware that two years ago Amtrak and UP settled their dispute
regarding on-time performance of the Sunset Limited which operates over UP’s tracks. This led the STB to close its investigation.  However, no specifics have been mentioned regarding the resolution of this matter, and there is no guarantee against recurrence after the merger takes place.

We also have concerns about UP’s claims that it would require approximately a $1 billion in new infrastructure investments to establish daily long-distance service on the Sunset route because of capacity constraints. The accuracy of the UP’s position has been raised since in its application, in which it claims that it has available capacity for more than 100,000 freight carloads with modest infrastructure investments. We believe this is a necessary requirement that must be addressed before the STB approves the merger. We believe it is UP’s and NS’s responsibility to make the needed investments to ensure that daily passenger service can be restored on both the Sunset and Cardinal routes.

NS also has a poor on time record for passenger trains operating over its tracks. The federal Department of Justice recently reached a settlement regarding its handling of Amtrak’s Crescent, which operates on NS-owned or managed tracks between Alexandria, VA and New Orleans. A case was brought into federal court two years ago contending that NS regularly failed to give the Crescent preference over freight trains as required by law. This not only harms and inconveniences passengers, but also negatively affects Amtrak’s financial performance. When asking for a dismissal of the case in January, NS argued that the government was taking an “extreme interpretation of passenger train right of preference.” NS said the Justice Department “complaint depends on the idea that freight railroads must totally clear their tracks for approaching Amtrak trains, the same way D.C.-area commuters must clear the road for the President’s motorcade—even if the result is a massive traffic jam.”

There is also the issue of NS and UP’s recent safety record.  NS’s record was dismal even before he East Palestine, Ohio train derailment, which released toxic chemicals into the environment, seriously impacting the community’s health and safety.  This evidently first came to light in response to a Fox news I-team request regarding NS safety records, which showed that NS had agreed to pay the federal government $1,348,710 to settle hundreds of alleged violations of safety rules.  Federal regulators have also blasted Union Pacific for running unsafe trains. Just one month after the fiasco in East Palestine, UP had its own accident.  A runaway train carrying iron ore reached a reported 118 mph before it derailed in Kelso, California. It’s fortunate that no one was injured.  UP, which is the largest freight carrier, also received a blistering letter from
the FRA which was signed by Amit Bose, the FRA’s Administrator in September 2023. The agency had inspected East Departure Yard in North Platte, Nebraska that summer and found that “more than 70% of the train engines had safety defects, as did 20% of the cars – defect ratios twice the national average.”  Conditions didn’t improve when inspectors returned and found locomotives with defects still in use.  The company “had not displayed a sense of urgency to improve local and car conditions.”, the letter said.

Even though more than two years have passed since the derailed train spewed toxic gases across eastern Ohio, neither UP or NS have joined a voluntary federal “close call” program designed to reduce rail hazards and prevent accidents.  Only two railroads, BNSF and NS, have launched partial trials, but neither have fully joined. The federal working group formed to negotiate railroad participation has been disbanded.

Another concern is the impact that the proposed merger will have on the nation’s economy.  The Freight Rail Customer Alliance (FRCA) which represents 3500 chemical, manufacturing, agricultural and energy companies, has long been opposed to consolidation of the rail industry.  Its opposition is based on past experiences resulting in “higher fees and rates and unreliable service.”  It is also concerned about the market power that railroads have, even though the industry “has shrunk from 40 Class 1 carriers to six with four handling 90% of the U.S. rail freight.”  According to an FRCA spokesperson, Ann Warner, the growth in market power has also included forcing shippers into contracts that not only fall outside  the STB’s regulatory jurisdiction, but also lack protection from poor service and increased fees. It is also unclear how the STB’s tougher merger rules would benefit larger

shippers who move bulk freight, such as coal or grain in unit trains that are dedicated to moving a single commodity.  The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents its
member companies, has also raised serious concerns about the negative impacts that the proposed merger will have on American manufacturing. It is closely watching the proposed
terms of the deal and stated that it will actively oppose any merger that fails to significantly enhance competition between railroads.

The impact that the merger could have on railroad workers is also of great concern.  At least four major unions representing railroad workers are currently opposed to the proposed merger. The Transport Workers Union of America which represents NS car men in various locations in the Midwest and other locations, has expressed concern about the creation of a coast-to-coast railroad that would cover more than 50,000 miles and employ more than 52,000 people.   The TWU’s President, John Samuelsen, has called UP’s safety record “shameful”, and has said “There is no world where the Union Pacific should be controlling a coast-to coast rail network. A supersized Union Pacific would be catastrophic for TWU rail workers, shippers, and the safety of millions of Americans who live and work near freight rail lines.”

The  Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET),  a key division of the Teamsters, also strongly opposes the deal. They argue the merger overstates benefits and
minimizes potential harm.  They also remain concerned about poor safety cultures and job protection failures.   Brotherhood of Maintenance-of-Way Employees Division  also strongly opposes the transaction. Alongside the BLET, they represent over half of the unionized workers at UP and NS.  The Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen has officially urged the Surface Transportation Board to reject the merger, “citing concerns about market power concentration and safety risks tied to fewer skilled workers covering larger territories.” In addition, the  Transport Workers Union (TWU)   announced a strong, explicit opposition to the combination.

Rail Workers United  (RWU) issued a formal resolution and statement “opposing any and all mega-rail mergers between rail giants, such as Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern.  According to RWU General Secretary Nick Wurst, no other countries in the world outside of North America do huge rail corporations not just run the trains, but own the tracks, yards, signals, shops and other infrastructure. “Allowing a handful of privately held, extremely wealthy and powerful corporations, unaccountable to no one but the shareholders, is not in the interest of railroad workers, passengers, shippers, trackside communities nor the nation as a whole.”  The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, a key division the the Teamsters, is strongly opposed to the deal. They are concerned about the poor safety cultures and job protection failures.

Given all of the evidence and likely outcomes described above, we urge the STB to reject the proposed merger of UP/NS. We appreciate this opportunity to express our concerns and trust that they will be recognized and taken into account as a decision is made, not in the interest of UP and NS but of those who make it run and those who depend on rail travel.

Sincerely.
“/s/”
Richard H. Rudolph, Ph.D.
Chairman, Rail Users’ Network
P.O. Box 354
Northampton, MA. 01060
“CC:  Parties of Record”

Letter to U.S. Congressional Committee on Transportation

TO: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials; 

U.S. House of Representatives
2029 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

October 2, 2023.

We are writing to express our organization’s concerns regarding Amtrak’s recent announcement about the return of the Floridian.  The Rail Users’ Network represents riders of long-distance rail, commuter rail, and transit rail. While it may sound good that a long-absent train – Amtrak’s Floridian – is returning, there is much to consider about this “return.” Yes, this will give travelers from the midwest a direct, one-seat ride to the sunshine state. But, this route is hardly “the Floridian” that everyone remembers. This route replicates Amtrak’s Capitol Limited between Chicago and Washington, D.C., then utilizes the route of the Silver Star to make its way down the east coast to Florida. While doing so, it removes the traditional Silver Star from service north of Washington, D.C.. Riders from the northeast have traditionally had at least two direct trains to Florida – the Silver Star, and the Silver Meteor. These were scheduled at different times of the day to give more convenient schedules to riders who needed to get to Florida, Georgia, or the Carolinas. Amtrak’s new proposal will end the traditional Silver Star route, and riders from the northeast who wanted a morning departure to Florida will have to take a connection train from New York or points south to Washington, D.C.’s Union Station, where they will have to transfer themselves and their luggage to another train to get to Florida. If  for some reason the train from Chicago is delayed, they would have to hang around Union Station waiting for their train to Florida. Another ridiculous aspect of this new “Floridian”, would be that it bypasses large population centers in the south, making it far less useful than it could be. Cities such as Louisville, Nashville, & Atlanta – obvious places a Chicago to Florida train should serve – would not get the train service they have been waiting for for years. Ironically, the state of Georgia is very interested in their Savannah, Macon, Atlanta corridor, and having the Floridian serve that corridor on its way to  & from Florida would cement the need for that important corridor to get the additional service it needs and deserves. And having corridor trains frequently serving that corridor would bring additional ridership to the Floridian, boosting the corridor & long-distance trains, in an obvious and economically viable exchange that benefits not only Georgia, but surrounding states as well. 

The proposed Floridian takes Amtrak’s long-distance network from 15 trains down to 14 trains, with the loss of the NY-Florida Silver Star. This is due, in part, to the absence of viable long-distance Superliner coaches, which are sitting & rotting in the Beech Grove Yards, when they should have been refurbished and prepared for new long-distance service. What does this say about Amtrak’s supposed goal of expanding its long-distance network, and providing the US with the important and necessary rail network it needs and deserves? If Amtrak thinks its ok to shrink its long-distance network, which route would be the next to go? How will Amtrak justify its budget if they continue to cut service? How many important jobs will be lost in various states, if they’re no longer running trains and serving those states? In fact, how would they justify getting federal funds if services and routes keep getting cut? This is not a formula for success, and we would hope that our elected officials and those serving in the US Dept. of Transportation would see this for what it is – selling “new” connectivity, while demonstrably cutting off those who have relied on Amtrak service for many years. While we believe restoring through service from Chicago to Florida is a worthwhile goal, it should not come at the expense of taking away service from other states. The Rail Users’ Network calls on the Department of Transportation and our elected officials to “do the right thing” – by bringing back service from Chicago to Florida on a route that makes sense, while not harming any existing routes. Let’s give US rail passengers the service and the network they need, deserve, and are supporting with their tax dollars.

Sincerely,

Richard Rudolph, Ph.D., Chairman, Rail Users Network  

Andrew Albert, MTA Board Member, and Chair of the NYC Transit Riders Council.

Bipartisan Legislation – Amtrak Board Transparency

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

U.S. House of Representatives
2029 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515


RE: Letter of Support for the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 8692 Offered by Mr. Nehls of Texas



To Whom It May Concern,

We, the members of the Rail Users Network (RUN), a national rail advocacy
with home office in Massachusetts, write to offer our strong support for
the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute (ANS) to H.R. 8692 which wouldmake Amtrak subject to 5 USC 552b, the Open Meetings statute.

M r. Joseph Boardman who was the president of Amtrak at the time said in
2018, “Amtrak is not a privately held corporation whose fate is to be
determined by a few individuals behind closed doors. It was created by the
people and for the people and is funded by taxpayers who help to supplement Amtrak’s farebox revenue.” 1

As a *publicly-funded* national passenger rail service, Amtrak’s Board
meetings should therefore be open to the public and the media, with its
meeting agendas, minutes, and other materials presented at and to the board made available so that those interested can better understand how Amtrak conducts its business.

Research on this issue has shown that almost every other publicly-supported entity that provides passenger rail service in the United States (for example, the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority, the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority, and the Virginia Passenger Rail Authority, and other such entities in the Midwest and West) holds open and transparent board meetings, and we strongly believe that Amtrak, in the best public interest, should do so as well. In 1972 Congress amended the
Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 by adding a statute that required Amtrak
to be subject TO Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

In 1997 Congress passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act which updated the statute so that Amtrak to be required to be subject to the FOIA, “for any fiscal year in which Amtrak receives a Federal subsidy.” Our understanding is that the members of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials have agreed to the text of the ANS to H.R. 8692 by bipartisan agreement.

 We applaud the membership of this subcommittee for taking bipartisan action to prepare legislation that, if enacted, would finally make Amtrak subject to 5 USC 552b, the Open Meetings statute.

Sincerely,

Richard Rudolph, Ph.D., Chairman, Rail Users Network  

1 Boardman, Joseph A. (May 10, 2018), “Amtrak: Where is the public input?
Where is the transparency?”, Railway Age that required Amtrak to be subject  TO the Freedom of Information Act”

Letter to Sec. Peter Buttigieg

August 19, 2023

USDOT:  Pete Buttigieg (Cabinet Secretary)
FRA:  Amit Bose, Administrator
FTA:  Nuria Fernandez, Administrator 

To: contactus@fralongdistancerailstudy.org 

Subject: Comment letter on Round 2 on FRA Long-Distance Service Study

The Federal Railroad Administration has twice this year asked for input regarding passenger rail in the United States.  As a nationally recognized rail passenger advocacy organization, RUN answered the request for public comment on the Federal Railroad Administration’s Amtrak Daily Long-Distance Service Study.

 This is a follow up to our March 13, 2023 comment letter on the FRA Long Distance study, which included our recommendations for an enhanced passenger rail system with additional routes and services. We now respond to the second call for additional input to the Conceptual Enhanced Network which the FRA has proposed based upon input received thus far.

To reiterate and clarify our position, RUN advocates on behalf of all riders on rail-based transportation, whether Amtrak or local rail transit. We appreciate the importance of Amtrak in providing mobility throughout most of the nation, and we also advocate for improved connectivity between Amtrak and local rail transit.

Members of RUN have studied the report developed by the FRA which has explained the methodology used to develop the enhanced network, and deeply appreciate the legislative considerations guiding that planned development.  Hopefully this effort will not only enhance connectivity between major cities and regions and will also connect rural and/or less advantaged communities between those cities and within those regions.  Enhanced and expanded routes will result in a true system of interconnected passenger rail routes producing increase ridership as well as developing and increasing local and state economies.  

 Enhanced Network:

For the maximum public benefit of this Long Distance Study, we need the FRA to champion the expansion and improvement of the Amtrak long distance network, after the conclusion of this study process.   

We ask that the FRA prioritize several projects to serve as test cases to prove the merits of this enhanced system.  For the credibility of FRA and Amtrak, we need some near-term wins of “low-hanging fruit” routes that would require minimal new infrastructure. It could be a new route or an improved current route, but improvements needed should be accomplished to demonstrate the effectiveness of enhancements to passenger rail.  We suggest the following restorations of service:

·      Daily service on the Cardinal and Sunset Limited

·      The Desert Wind from Salt Lake City to Los Angeles (with perhaps initial service SLC- Las Vegas)

·      The Pioneer from Seattle and Portland to Salt Lake City via Idaho

·      A new route from Meridian, MS to Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas

·      The Floridian directly connecting the upper Midwest to Florida via Atlanta

·      The Broadway Limited from New York to Chicago

·      The North Coast Hiawatha from Seattle through southern Montana’s major cities to   Chicago 

·      The Rocky Mountain Flyer, connecting El Paso, Albuquerque, Denver, Casper and Helena, MT to Shelby, MT.

Our proposals, if implemented, will allow for this enhanced network carrying many more       travelers to many more destinations to become even more successful.

Following the ‘conceptual-level identification of capacity improvements’ in this Long-Distance study, the FRA needs to subsequently work with host railroads and others on more in-depth engineering studies to itemize and provide cost estimates on infrastructure capital projects needed along each of the proposed new/enhanced/restored corridors.  The current study should recommend a path forward for this work to begin as soon as possible. 

Also worthy of investigation are new policy incentives for host railroad capacity improvement projects  

 Economic and Social Well-Being of Rural Areas, Rural Accessibility:

We are very pleased to see that the study will prioritize rural and disadvantaged communities not served by existing passenger rail network, including tribal lands. 

There are also many urban, suburban and rural residents alike who do not “choose” to live without personally driving their own car. They might be too young or too old to drive, have a disability that does not allow them to drive, or they might not be able to afford to buy, insure and maintain a car. The concept of “Universal Basic Mobility” is gaining popularity. It is idea that all citizens should have a decent range of affordable transport options, regardless of their socioeconomic status, disabilities, or geographic location.

 An expanded nationwide system of regional and intercity passenger rail coordinated with local public transit would enable more urban and rural low-income families to access health care, education, jobs, and community life. It is also true for youth, elders and the disabled who neither can afford a car or no longer want to drive. Expansion of passenger rail service would also improve transportation access and help support local economies in rural communities, cities, suburbs, and Native American reservations.

As part of this study, FRA needs to measure both the public and economic benefits of Long Distance trains, including quantifying (in dollars) both direct and indirect benefits to local economies.

Measures of Effectiveness and Benefits:

 Transportation safety benefits of Long Distance trains-

One important benefit to rural travelers provided by the Amtrak long-distance trains is a safer alternative to driving. Rural residents make up less than 20% of the U.S. population, but account for about half of the total number of traffic fatalities nationwide, due to higher per-capita miles driven (or being a passenger in car for more miles).

The FRA study should estimate the safety benefits (reduced car accidents) of existing and new Amtrak Long Distance train services. 

Environmental and energy efficiency benefits of Long Distance trains-

The FRA study should estimate the environmental benefits (estimates of reduced pollution, fuel consumption compared to driving) of existing and new Amtrak Long Distance train services.  Particularly important is estimation of the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions enabled by Amtrak long-distance train services- both new and existing. 

Equipment:

An essential step for improving Amtrak long distance service is the acquisition of new equipment: there are currently not enough locomotives and passenger cars (the Superliner fleet) in a good state of repair to reliably sustain the existing Amtrak Long Distance Network.  

This FRA study needs to estimate how much new equipment is needed for these routes, and how much service can be supported with refurbishment/repair of existing Long-Distance equipment not-in-service (in storage at Beech Grove yard?).   FRA needs to make specific recommendations to Amtrak on procurement of new Long-Distance equipment, and help find ways to expedite this procurement. 

The FRA study should also investigate maintenance requirements for new Long- Distance services, including possible locations for new Amtrak maintenance facilities. 

FRA study team should engage rail advocacy groups to address passenger comfort in designs for new long-distance Amtrak equipment.  

Congress has recently allocated funding to restore to service the hundreds of cars and locomotives currently out of service for maintenance/overhaul/rebuilding.

Rail passenger advocates using government information sources have concluded that several daily, on-time trains each way on a route are proven to lure and keep people riding the rails.  

We propose building to this several-trains-per-day concept as new rolling stock is manufactured and put into regular service.  By our estimates, approximately 10,000 new passenger cars of various configurations will be required to supply a minimum of six daily trains for each of the current routes as well as the new proposed routes.  We can begin this process by making every passenger train in the US a daily service.

As a side note, this manufacturing base along with the numerous component manufacturers will provide hundreds, if not thousands of new good-paying jobs throughout the United States.  These jobs will, in turn, provide for subsidiary jobs which invariably spring up around the communities in which they are located.

 Crew resources:

 The FRA study needs to examine needs and strategies for hiring, training and retaining crew for Long Distance trains. The Covid relief funds provided by Congress should have enabled Amtrak to maintain its existing crews,  but instead it furloughed personnel.  These layoffs have severely impacted Amtrak’s ability to both crew the trains as well as maintain and repair the equipment needed for the trains, as short as they currently are, to still operate.   

Host railroads:

 Freight train interference/on-time performance.  Freight railroads have been required by law to provide Amtrak with “preference”.  This law is often ignored and as a result passengers suffer as well as the American economy.  Federal legislation is required to hold freight rail companies accountable and to allow Amtrak to defend its legal rights and ensure p=passengers are not unfairly delayed by freight trains.  We would also like to see better co-operation between Amtrak and the host railroads to capture back some of the business which should be hauled by rail.  By doing so, some of the unnecessary truck traffic which has also resulted in a driver shortage and more expensive shipping rates could be relieved.

Sincerely,

Richard Rudolph, Ph.D., Chairman, Rail Users Network 207-776-4961. rrudolph1022@gmail.com

Andrew Albert, Vice Chairman, Rail Users Network aalbertnyc1@gmail.com

Letter to Rep. Sam Graves

June 10, 2023
Representative Sam Graves. US Congress 6th District of Missouri

Dear Representative Sam Graves:

RUN advocates on behalf of all riders on rail-based transportation, whether Amtrak or local rail transit. We appreciate the importance of Amtrak in providing mobility throughout most of the nation, and we also advocate for improved connectivity between Amtrak and local rail transit.
 
Our members, including those who serve on our Board, live in different parts of the country, including along the Northeast Corridor (NEC). We appreciate the mobility provided by Amtrak and the local railroads in that part of the country but, at the same time, we recognize the requirement that the Amtrak Board represent geographically-diverse regions of the country and the riders and potential riders who live in those regions. Throughout its history, RUN has advocated strongly for a robust Amtrak National Network, in addition to improvements in the Northeast.
 
RUN believes that the country outside the Northeast Corridor, which statute defines to include Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia, is grossly under-represented in terms of Amtrak services and its board members.
 
As such, the Rail Users Network is gravely concerned about the direction the President of the United States is taking in his choices of nominees for the Amtrak Board of Directors. His choices are in direct conflict with the provisions set forth in Public Law 117-58 by the 117th Congress as 49 U.S. Code (USC) 24302.
 
According to 49 U.S. Code § 24302 – Board of Directors, part (C):
8 individuals appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, [having the following characteristics]:
1) general business and financial experience, experience or qualifications in transportation, freight and passenger rail transportation, travel, hospitality, cruise line, or passenger air transportation businesses,
2) representatives of employees or users of passenger rail transportation or a State government, at least 1 of whom shall be an individual with a disability (as defined in section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102)) who has a demonstrated history of, or experience with, accessibility, mobility, and inclusive transportation in passenger rail or commuter rail,
3) rail passenger advocacy,
4) union affiliation and service,
5) military experience, while not required, is a plus, and
6) candidates should reflect opposing political parties.
 
Congress mandated in IIJA that no more than four members of Amtrak’s Board come from the Northeast Corridor (NEC), which the statute defines to include Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia. Of the six individuals nominated all but one are from the Northeast Corridor, which is in direct violation of this Act which clearly defines Congress’s intent for the Board to represent the entire nation. We agree with Senator Jon Tester, and we want to voice his ask to bring this slate of nominees into compliance with the IIJA requirements.
 
Further, we also believe the Board will be better served by candidates with familiarity with the operations and customer base of Amtrak’s long-distance (LD) routes which are suffering from Amtrak’s concentration on the NEC and the near abandonment of long-distance services. Selection of more regionally diverse candidates would greatly stem the slow dissolution of Amtrak’s LD trains and services.
 
To reiterate, RUN requests that any nominees for Amtrak’s Board of Directors be representative of the entire United States and the services therein to include not only the Northeast Corridor and state- supported corridor services, but also the long-distance trains which establish the nationwide system, thin as it is.
 
Sincerely,
Richard Rudolph, Ph.D., 
Chairman, Rail Users’ Network
211 Ocean Ave, Portland, ME 04103
rrudolph1022@gmail.com 207-776-4961.
The Rail Users Network (RUN) is a 501 (c) (3) tax exempt national organization

Letter to Sec. Peter Buttigieg

August 30, 2022
Pete Buttigieg, U.S. Secretary of Transportation

Dear Secretary Buttigieg:

We are writing on behalf of our members, as well as the millions of Americans who depend on public transportation on a regular basis to travel to work, see relatives, seek medical attention, food and other necessities of life. While we certainly appreciate the funding that Amtrak has received through the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) it appears that Amtrak management is once again setting the stage to further reduce passenger service on its long-distance routes. Currently, the three trains from Chicago to the West Coast are running every day, as well as the Lakeshore Limited to New York and the section of the train to Boston. In the southern part of the country, however, the Silver Meteor remains suspended and the City of New Orleans from New Orleans to Chicago and the Crescent to New York remain on a five-day schedule until October 2.

To make matters worse, Amtrak has been running shorter consists than has been customary despite demand that has exceeded the level from the past two summers and coach passengers are no longer permitted to purchase a meal or even enter the dining car. There are also reports of passenger cars backed up at the Amtrak shops at Beech Grove, Indiana for repairs. A reliable source in rail-blogging circles has reported that Amtrak is considering cutting service again this fall either to five days a week or even to three, on the entire long-distance network.

The meltdown of Amtrak’s service is also affecting state supported routes as well. We have just learned that the Wolverine Service which normally operate between Chicago and Pontiac is cancelled with no alternate transportation provided between August 29 through Friday, September 16, 2022.

We believe that Amtrak board must prioritize and designate already appropriated IIJA funding to fully restore Amtrak long distance service. This must include restoring daily service to all of the long-distance routes, repairing out of service equipment as well as developing a procurement program to replace the aging long-distance fleet and to provide adequate dining car staffing so that coach passengers are able to purchase meals in dining cars.

We also request that these issues are brought to Amtrak’s Board of Directors via your designee, Amit Bose, who serves as the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration.

We look forward to your response regarding these matters.

Sincerely,

Richard Rudolph, Ph.D., Chairman, Rail Users Network rrudolph1022@gmail.com

Andrew Albert, Vice Chairman, Rail Users Network aalbertnyc1@gmail.com

RESOLUTION CALLING FOR ELIMINATION OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION THAT PROHIBITS ANY GROWTH OF AMTRAK’S NATIONAL NETWORK

At a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Rail Users’ Network (RUN), held by teleconference on September 25, 2021, the following resolution was adopted unanimously:

WHEREAS Section 201(a)(5)(C) of the Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) defines Amtrak’s “national passenger rail system” as “long-distance trains of more than 750 miles between endpoints operated by Amtrak as of the date of enactment of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008”; and

By defining Amtrak’s national network in that manner, such provision absolutely prohibits any new trains to be added to the national network, unless they are established as state-supported trains, despite their character as trains serving several states; and

There have never been any trains on routes more than 750 miles long that were successfully established with funding from the states served by such routes in Amtrak’s fifty-year history; and

The statutory provision at issue absolutely precludes any new long-distance trains from being established, as demonstrated by Amtrak’s announced expansion plans between now and 2035; and

No trains in Amtrak’s current network have started service more recently than 1985; and

The current prohibition on expanding Amtrak’s long-distance network serves to preclude any expansion of mobility on that network; and

No corridors operated by Amtrak today, with the exception of the Northeast Corridor (which is defined separately in the PRIIA legislation) and intrastate corridors, are longer than 309 miles; and

There is no statutory process for establishing routes of length between 310 and 750 miles, except for the historically-unsuccessful practice of establishing state-supported routes: and

WHEREAS RUN is dedicated to improving mobility by rail, including on Amtrak; it is hereby

RESOLVED that the Rail Users Network hereby calls for the definition of Amtrak’s national network under PRIIA §201(a)(5)(C) be repealed; and

FURTHER RESOLVED that the above-cited definition to be amended to specify trains on Amtrak’s national network as including all trains on routes running through or operating in more than one state, when the length of such route exceeds 310 miles.

This resolution will be sent to Amtrak, appropriate members of Congress, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other concerned or interested parties.

          ______________________________

          RICHARD RUDOLPH, Ph.D., Chair

Letter to Peter DeFazio

February 1, 2022
Representative Peter DeFazio
Chairman, U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

Dear Representative DeFazio.

We are once again writing on behalf of our members, as well as the millions of Americans who depend on public transportation on a regular basis to travel to work, see relatives, seek medical attention, food and other necessities of life.

Amtrak management is causing riders and potential riders to think twice before considering taking a rail journey – whether for leisure, business, medical appointments or anything else. This could affect appropriations, as public support for Amtrak is paramount in getting routes – whether national or state-supported, running. Since its inception during the Nixon Administration, Amtrak has operated on a federal budget designed to barely keep it alive, much less flourish.

Evidence from the past suggests that this was intended to promote the idea that passenger rail still existed while allowing the host railroads opportunity to disengage from their own passenger operations and free them to operate only as a freight operation, along with operating at most, one daily Amtrak passenger train. It was expected that Amtrak itself would be gone within five years. Obviously, passenger trains not only did not go away completely, but have gained in popularity over the last fifty years of Amtrak’s existence.

Last year, during the Covid epidemic, Amtrak, not knowing it would receive federal financial assistance, elected to reduce its service by having all trains nationwide, with only two exceptions, running only three days a week. By reducing the frequency of service, Amtrak was also able to reduce their staffing significantly, both on and off the trains.

We advocates advised them not to do this because when funding was secured or when ridership returned, they would be unable to meet that need to return to daily service. Needless to say, we were correct. Amtrak attempted to return to operating most of their routes on a daily basis, but found that many of its furloughed employees had found work elsewhere and/or would not be returning for this or other reasons. Amtrak had also furloughed their hiring and training departments during this time, again ignoring our advice. This has caused an additional severe disruption in its ability to crew the trains, so, Amtrak has, once again through its shortsighted mismanagement, decided to reduce daily service by nearly a third and run its route five days a week or less. This comes after an unprecedented allocation which was given Amtrak last year to get them through the government-mandated business shutdown – $66B ($22B to repair existing equipment and to purchase new equipment, and $44B to improve and expand the state and national network.) was expected to be used for these improvements.

Where Amtrak continues to operate, trains are often leaving their terminals late after experiencing equipment breakdowns. Also problematic, Amtrak has declared that they have insufficient crews to staff their trains so late trains are often made even later because of staffing issues. Why should this be, when Congress appropriated money to support Amtrak when ridership was reduced by government mandates? This is not only unacceptable, but it is a slap in the face of both Congress which provided this public money, as well as the traveling public, who depend upon and use or attempt to use the service. Congress, being the entity holding the purse strings, providing the operational funding for Amtrak, is the proper and responsible body to hold Amtrak accountable for this egregious mismanagement of both public monies, as well as the public trust supporting them.

We are also deeply concerned that Amtrak has unilaterally violated the statutory mandate that it refrain from reducing service on its long-distance trains without giving 210 days’ notice to members of Congress from the affected areas, as required by Section 22210(d) of the newly-enacted infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).

We believe this provision was enacted in response to Amtrak’s unilateral act of slashing service on all long-distance trains to three days per week in 2020, and that service on the other four days would not have occurred if Congress had not intervened. Amtrak is now disobeying the spirit and the letter if that Congressional mandate.

We understand that subsection (c) allows a service reduction in case of an emergency, but such railroad emergencies normally involve service disruptions beyond the railroad’s control. Amtrak’s unilateral act of discontinuing many of its runs for a ten-week period (including some shorter runs in the East and Midwest) is within Amtrak’s discrepancy constitutes an abuse if it. If Congress does not direct Amtrak to restore all of these runs no later than March 27 and never to reduce service unilaterally and on short notice again, the daily service that Congress ordered might never run again.

It is important to also understand passenger trains for their transportation needs. While these reasons are singular and personal to each individual rider, overall, they range from purely business to purely leisure reasons and cover an infinite number of variations or combinations depending on that individual traveler’s needs at why Americans want their passenger trains. There are a myriad of reasons why people want and use that time. In general people want to be able to conveniently, quickly, and safely get to their destinations. They want to be able to get to or from work, shopping, or just visiting family or friends. They want to able to avoid traffic and the dangers that traffic often presents while traveling within it. People also want to be able to use this travel time more effectively while they are traveling.

When available, train travel allows the wise traveler aboard to be able to continue working, or enjoy time with friends or family, or just plain rest and relax while safely traveling. Trains also provide environmental benefits such as reduced emissions both on its own and by reducing the number of individual auto trips which would be otherwise required, and, at the same time freeing up traffic lanes for the automobiles remaining on the highway. By opening these lanes, traffic flows more freely thus also reducing stress on those drivers. This economic gain produced by passenger rail is an important part of the basis for this letter. Wherever passenger trains operate, they produce a community vitality which is very much measurable in real dollars and quality of life for that community. With all these preventable issues at hand, we again request that Congress demand answers from Amtrak as to their reasons for these grave cuts in service, which may turn riders (& future riders) off from utilizing our national rail system, which in many ways – pays for itself.

Sincerely,
Richard Rudolph, Ph.D. Chairman, Rail Users’ Network

Letter to Senator Maria Cantwell

March 16, 2022
Senator Maria Cantwell
Chair, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation

Dear Senator Cantwell.

We are once again writing on behalf of our members, as well as the millions of Americans who depend on public transportation on a regular basis to travel to work, see relatives, seek medical attention, food and other necessities of life.
As you know, Amtrak has announced it is extending its current five-day-a-week long-distance service until May 31 and possibly later. This comes after a series of events which started during the Fall of 2020. At that time, Amtrak reduced all of its daily services to three days each week, stating it was doing so because Covid had reduced ridership below a threshold enabling it to operate economically as mandated by the federal government. Rail advocates at both the national and the state level strenuously opposed Amtrak’s decision, and contacted their respective congressional and senatorial representatives.

Even though Congress ultimately provided extra funds needed to continue 7 day a week long distance service, Amtrak unfortunately ignored the concerns of Congress and rail passenger advocates not only curtailing daily service, but also furloughing operating and service personnel across their entire system of routes. Congress not only came through with funds enabling Amtrak to continue operating until the government mandated nationwide Covid shutdown ended, they added an additional 66 billion dollars ($22B to repair/refresh equipment and to purchase much needed new equipment, and $44B to improve, enhance, and expand service around the country.) This may not occur for some time because of Amtrak’s shortsighted service reduction plan which included also shutting down their hiring and training departments. Not only are the furloughed service and operating crews not returning, as we warned might occur, Amtrak is unable to rapidly hire and train new personnel. This is either a significant error in judgment on the part of Amtrak’s upper management, or a carefully calculated early step in ridding itself of long-distance train service. We can look at both cases.

If an error in judgment, then the blame may be placed squarely on Amtrak’s Board of Directors who have hired and replaced four CEOs in the last five years. During that time there has been an exodus of the railroad’s institutional knowledge, with the departure of many vice-presidents and heads of departments, as well as mid-level management. Amtrak continues to cause itself (and the traveling public) harm with its poor business decisions.

If a deliberate ploy to aid in discontinuing long-distance train service nationwide, then one may conclude they are blatantly disregarding Congressional mandates (and funding) to improve and expand passenger rail service throughout the United States. Stephen Gardner is the man who gave us the current iteration of the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act (PRIIA), which specifies that no long-distance trains may be added to the system. This and other actions by him have led us and other to believe that he wants to completely abolish the network of long-distance trains.

Similarly, Amtrak’s woeful lack of employees, equipment, and interest in its business is a threat to the country’s transportation and economic future. Additionally, attempts to evacuate weather events by highway in recent years have been rather less than successful. Like the National Guard, the country needs standby transportation capacity for emergencies.

We need to be on record that this is inexcusable and is once again part of the effort of the President and CEO of Amtrak to ultimately destroy long distance service. Amtrak should be treated as a public service company and funded and governed as such.

We recommend the termination and replacement of its current Board. Replacement should be made up according to the recommendations of Congress to include one or more knowledgeable members of the rail passenger advocacy movement.

We again request that Congress demand answers from Amtrak as to their reasons for these grave cuts in service, which may turn riders (& future riders) off from utilizing our national rail system, which in many ways – pays for itself.

Sincerely,
Richard Rudolph, Ph.D.
Chairman, Rail Users’ Network

Letter to Senator Richard Blumenthal

April 2, 2021
Senator Richard Blumenthal
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Dear Senator Blumenthal:

We are writing on behalf of our members, as well as the millions of Americans who depend on public transportation on a regular basis to travel to work, see relatives, seek medical attention, food and other necessities of life.  We support your effort to establish an “Intercity Passenger Rail Trust Fund” which would create a dedicated funding stream to help Amtrak in planning and investing in major improvement projects, increase passenger rail’s efficiency and help promote safer, more reliable service especially on the fifteen long distance routes which have long been financially neglected.

While this indeed could be a game changer, Amtrak will still need annual appropriations to carry out what it is currently able to do. It is our hope and expectation that Amtrak, through the creation of a trust fund, will be able to restore passenger rail service on routes that it abandoned in December, 1997.  This would include the Desert Wind which was a separate section of the California Zephyr which continued on from Salt Lake City to Las Vegas and Los Angeles.

A second section called the Pioneer continued on from Denver through Cheyenne to Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington. We also support the work of the new Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority which is working to restore passenger service to the southern part of Montana and other efforts underway to restore passenger service across the nation.

There is also the need to establish daily service on the two tri-weekly trains: the Cardinal, that operates from New York to Washington, D.C., and then onto Cincinnati, Ohio, Indianapolis, Indiana and Chicago; and the Sunset Limited, which operates between Los Angeles, El Paso, San Antonio, Houston and New Orleans. This one train also provides a link between numerous and important military installations along its route.

To restore these routes as well as to provide for the current service, Amtrak also needs to replace passenger carrying equipment, which is more than 40 years old.

Finally, there is also a need to provide capital and operational funds for creating new state-supported routes.  Amtrak’s current plan would provide upfront capital, but would drastically reduce operational support after the first five years. Co-operation between Federal and State rail passenger entities would help to ensure a well-used system of interconnected routes with at least daily service in each direction.

There is much work to be done with much funding needed to upgrade and extend Amtrak service.  We commend your effort to create an “Intercity Passenger Rail Trust Fund”, and hope we can work together to provide high quality public transportation options for all of our citizens.

Sincerely,

Richard Rudolph, Ph.D.
Chairman
Rail Users’ Network