Happening Now

Rail Passengers' Analysis of BUILD America 250 Act (Part 2)

May 20, 2026

We look at the "Amtrak reform" and "Passenger Rail Policy" subtitles of the rail title in the House's BUILD America 250 Act.

by Sean Jeans-Gail, VP of Gov't Affairs + Policy

--

This is Part 2 of our analysis of the Building Unrivaled Infrastructure and Long-term Development for America’s 250th (BUILD America 250) Act. This post looks at the "Amtrak reform" and "Passenger Rail Policy" subtitles of the bill.

You can read Part 1 here. However, to catch you up to speed, here is Rail Passengers' President & CEO Jim Mathews statement on the bill: “We appreciate that the Committee included several Rail Passengers priorities, and we look forward to working with both parties to strengthen the bill. But as drafted, BUILD America 250 falls short of what passengers, states, workers, and communities need. Without reliable funding and a clear commitment to growth, this bill is not enough to earn our endorsement.”

Subtitle B – Amtrak Reforms

Section 10201. Amtrak economic performance.

- Updates statutory findings/goals to emphasize competitiveness with other modes, service connecting urban and rural areas, and operational efficiency;

- Replaces ‘‘maximize the benefits of Federal investments’’ with ‘‘to maximize services and benefits to the communities Amtrak serves that is competitive with other passenger modes and ensuring Amtrak’s long-term performance’’;

- Replaces striking ‘‘established long-distance routes’’ with ‘‘a robust Northeast Corridor and National Network, including long-distance and State-supported routes,’’; and

- Highlights need to “promote Amtrak’s long-term financial performance”.

Rail Passengers’ Analysis

These are subtle tweaks to Amtrak’s mission that won’t have a dramatic impact on how the railroad operates. The overall impression is that the Committee is trying to nudge the statute back toward profitability-adjacent language: financial performance, operational efficiency, competitiveness with other modes.

Taken in conjunction with the lack of guaranteed funding for rail, the message becomes clearer: Amtrak should operate in a way that allows it to operate with minimal (uneven? erratic?) Federal funding.

--

Section 10202. Amtrak transparency and accountability for passengers and taxpayers.

- Applies FOIA and Government in the Sunshine Act-style open meeting requirements to Amtrak’s Board of Directors when receiving federal grants; and

- Allows closed sessions for contracts, labor negotiations, personnel matters, and sensitive commercial/safety information.

Rail Passengers’ Analysis

This section adds policies from the ​​Amtrak Transparency and Accountability for Passengers and Taxpayers Act, which requires Amtrak’s Board of Directors to comply with the open meetings requirements.

This language appears to balance the desire for transparency with the practical need to allow for closed-door sessions for contracts, labor negotiations, personnel matters, and sensitive commercial information.

For those looking for more information, we recommend the resource page created by our friends at Trains in the Valley. They compare the level of transparency of the Amtrak Board with six similar entities -- including the Metropolitan Transportation Agency, the Washington Area Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and the U.S. Postal Service.

--

Section 10203. Implementing Amtrak Office of Inspector General recommendations to address infrastructure backlog.

- Requires Amtrak to implement OIG recommendations on asset management/state of good repair within 2 years.

- Requires Amtrak OIG evaluation after 3 years.

Rail Passengers’ Analysis

The OIG report “Asset Management: Better Governance and Data Would Improve Company Efforts to Achieve a State of Good Repair” urged Amtrak to address gaps in its governance framework, such as a lack of specific objectives for the company’s SOGR work. The report also recommends that Amtrak strengthen its SOGR infrastructure asset data.

These are good recommendations, and worth enacting.

--

Section 10204. Amtrak executive bonus disclosure.

- Requires public posting and congressional reporting of “the annual base pay and any bonus compensation paid to each member of the executive leadership team (including the chief executive officer, president, and each officer) of Amtrak, including the criteria and metrics used to determine any such bonus compensation”.

--

Section 10205. Amtrak and intercity passenger rail workforce assault prevention and response plans.

- Requires USDOT to issue best practices, after consulting with appropriate stakeholders;

- Requires passenger rail operators to submit and maintain assault prevention/response plans, training, reporting, and passenger notice to the USDOT;

- Requires operators to display, through its website and through signage, a written statement that informs passengers and personnel of the procedure for reporting an assault or harassment; and

- Adds safety and workforce protection requirements across passenger rail programs.

--

Section 10206. Baby changing table requirements on Amtrak trains.

- Requires baby changing tables in all Amtrak-owned trains purchased after the date enactment; and

- Does not include trains that Amtrak operates but does not own.

Rail Passengers’ Analysis

Amtrak is already including babychanging stations in its new equipment. However, it doesn’t hurt to make the requirement explicit.

The only question is: why limit it to Amtrak? All U.S. passenger rail operators should comply with this family-friendly rule.

--

Section 10207. Report on Amtrak long-distance equipment maintenance costs.

- Requires Amtrak to issue a report on the anticipated costs of maintaining, rehabilitating, refurbishing, and replacing the existing long-distance equipment of Amtrak to maintain the passenger capacity of its long-distance service;

- The report would include:

(1) A current inventory of long-distance equipment, including trainsets, baggage cars, dining cars, sleeper cars, and nonsleeper passenger cars;

(2) A determination of the minimum amount of equipment necessary to maintain the passenger capacity of the long-distance service of Amtrak;

(3) The anticipated cost of maintaining and refurbishing this equipment in working order through fiscal year 2033;

(4) Specific challenges that Amtrak may experience in maintaining the passenger capacity of the long-distance service;

(5) The potential for and effects of delays in the acquisition of new replacement equipment if such equipment is not acquired until after calendar year 2035; and

(6) The effect of establishing new or restored long-distance routes on the cost and availability of existing and additional long-distance equipment.

Rail Passengers’ Analysis

This is all extremely valuable information to have in the public sphere, and we applaud the Committee for asking these important questions.

--

Section 10208. Inspector General review of Amtrak accounting and reporting practices.

- Requires review of Amtrak’s financial systems (APT, ERP), internal controls, GAAP compliance, and FRA oversight systems, focusing on whether:

(1) Amtrak’s use of systems in data processing accurately tracks expenditures, revenues, and Federal funds;

(2) Internal controls within such systems are sufficient to prevent accounting errors;

(3) Amtrak’s systems in data processing and consolidated financial statements are in compliance with applicable Federal financial management standards and generally accepted accounting principles;

(4) Amtrak’s reporting practices accurately reflects route performance;

(5) Increased adherence to generally accepted accounting principles for APT would improve cost transparency; and

(6) The Federal Railroad Administration’s use of systems for Amtrak oversight are in compliance with applicable Federal financial management standards and generally accepted accounting principles.

Rail Passengers’ Analysis

We have posed many of the questions included in this section of the BUILD America 250 Act. In our past criticism of APT, we have argued that it reports only “fully allocated costs” that do not fully reflect underlying economics, it does not accurately report avoidable (or incremental) costs, it omits all costs of capital consumption, and it uses imprecise and inadequate data.

Our association believes a reexamination of some of the foundational assumptions within APT could well lead to a better understanding of the marginal cost of running individual services.

--

Section 10209. Amtrak annual reporting.

- Requires linking adjusted operating metrics to audited financial statements.

- Requires validation by Certified Public Accountant or Amtrak OIG.

--

Section 10210. Invoices and reports.

- Allows states to hire independent auditors for billing disputes under PRIIA §209.

- Requires Amtrak to provide underlying cost and operating data.

--

Section 10211. State-supported cost and service policy.

- Expands authority of the §209 committee to administer, implement, and update cost and service policy;

- Requires regular meetings, subgroups, and transparency in implementation; and

- Broadens from “cost methodology” to “cost and service policy.”

Rail Passengers’ Analysis

The language included in this provision is sparse. It makes certain changes to the State-Supported Route Committee, which is a venue for establishing the costs Amtrak charges to local governments for State-Supported service.

More analysis is needed.

--

Section 10212. GAO study on Amtrak customer experience.

- Requires GAO review of fares, service quality, reliability, accessibility, and customer communications across routes.

Rail Passengers’ Analysis

Rail Passengers believes this is a valuable area of inquiry, and is the sort of public venue for feedback that has been missing since the Amtrak Customer Advisory Committee was eliminated.

--

Section 10213. GAO study on Amtrak service to privately owned rail cars.

- Reviews costs, pricing, profitability, and access policies for privately owned railcars.

--

Section 10214. The Donald M. Payne, Jr. Transit Center at Newark Penn Station.

Renames Newark Penn Station as the “Donald M. Payne, Jr. Transit Center at Newark Penn Station” in honor of the late Congressman.

--

Section 10215. Public notice and comment on Amtrak’s corporate structure.

- Requires Amtrak to issue notice in the Federal Register, allow for public comment, and congressional reporting before any major corporate restructuring;

- Notice must include the legal authority for the restructuring; and an explanation of the purpose of the plan and how it would facilitate Amtrak’s statutory mission and other goals established by the Amtrak Board of Directors;

- Amtrak must produce a report to Congress on which comments it intends to implement, justification for comments that Amtrak does not intend to implement, and an implementation strategy and timeline for the restructuring; and

- Strategy must outline any potential impacts of the restructuring on Amtrak service, capital projects, and workforce.

Rail Passengers’ Analysis

There’s been a lot of discussion about Amtrak’s restructuring. However, most of that conversation seems to have been sparked by a BLET memo and one of our blog posts. The rest is taking place behind closed doors.

That’s not right for a publicly-funded railroad that touches as many communities as Amtrak does.

We applaud the Committee’s attempt to introduce some transparency in this process.

--

Section 10216. GAO examination of international passenger rail.

- Directs GAO to produce a report comparing governance, funding, and performance of foreign rail systems.

Rail Passengers’ Analysis

This could codify some valuable best practices on project delivery, financing, standardization, and maintenance.

One thing we suspect will come to light: successful intercity railroads in foreign countries all rely on predictable public funding and centralized network planning (two things this bill conspicuously lacks).

[Editors Note: online commentators have noted that Japan is a notable exception to the above statement. That's fair. We're generally aware that many countries with successful intercity rail networks do not have "dedicated" sources of funding for intercity passenger rail (e.g. the U.S. trust fund model), and tried to hedge with "predictable". In Japan, the public took on a large amount of debt during privatization, after which JR entities have been largely self-sustaining outside of some targeted subsidies for rural services.]

--

Section 10217. Food and beverage service.

- Directs Comptroller General to examine cost and quality of dining services, possible improvements, feasibility of returning traditional dining to all passengers, and a comparison of current dining options to established dietary guidelines;

- Requires Amtrak to report annually on adoption of recommendations, with advisory committee input.

Rail Passengers’ Analysis

Endorse.

This provision will be, if you’ll forgive the pun, red meat for many of our members.

Subtitle C – Passenger Rail Policy

Section 10301. Intercity passenger rail equipment pools.

- Authorizes the FRA to contract with interstate rail compacts to establish and run shared rolling stock pools, as well as finance procurement and long-term fleet management;

- The Agreement will:

- Establish governance rules, staffing, and procedures by which states may join the pool;

- Include a plan operations and management of the equipment pool;

- Govern procurement or acquisition of equipment for the equipment pool, including Buy America compliance;

- Establish a set of engineering standards, technical standards, and design standards applicable to all such procurement or acquisition of common fleet rolling stock equipment;

- Receive technical support for the interstate rail compact from the FRA and Amtrak;

- Funding would be provided largely through an expansion of eligibility in the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program and the newly-created NIPR;

- Secretary “may not prohibit an interstate rail compact from using a third-party entity to support the maintenance, distribution, oversight, and leasing of equipment”; and

- Amtrak cannot be compelled to provide equipment or facilities, and cannot be compelled to participate (though it may voluntarily participate.

Rail Passengers’ Analysis

There’s a lot to like here, and the section mirrors what Rail Passengers included in our reauthorization blueprint.

Equipment pooling would leverage economies of scale, introduce standardization in design and specifications for equipment, speed delivery. If it works as intended, it would facilitate the expansion of America’s anemic fleet of passenger rail equipment, allowing for new services and longer trains.

There are some worrying omissions, however, including labor protections and dedicated funding.

Without dedicated funding, this program will have to compete with other projects in the newly-created NIPR, and this program will almost certainly be oversubscribed.

There are RRIF loans -- but those loans will have to be paid back. Whether that’s a strong enough incentive to get States onboard remains to be seen.

Conclusion: more analysis needed.

--

Section 10302. California High-Speed Rail working group.

- Directs Secretary to establish a working group to conduct an assessment and make recommendations regarding the California High-Speed Rail project;

- Working group shall be made up of political appointees chosen by Congressional leadership and the Senate; and

- USDOT may not issue a grant to CAHSR until the report is published.

Rail Passengers’ Analysis

Federal oversight only makes sense when there’s Federal funding at stake.

California has made plenty of mistakes in its pursuit of high-speed rail. But Congress hasn’t covered itself in glory, either. It’s granted money, then clawed it back, then granted it again. It also put artificial deadlines on utilization money that have led to suboptimal sequencing of corridor development.

Currently, the California High-Speed Rail Authority has said it is letting go of the latest batch of federal funds that were clawed back and canceling its lawsuit. The Authority has also indicated it will proceed through the current phase without seeking more funds from the Federal government. So, whether the project succeeds or not is up to California.

The U.S. Congress would be better served convening a working group to study why it isn't even trying to fix the Highway Trust Fund deficit, why it can’t pass a budget on time, and why government shutdowns have become the new norm.

--

Section 10303. Route-specific reports.

- Directs USDOT to conduct an examination of intercity passenger rail service and an evaluation of the feasibility of establishing or expanding services for specific routes;

- Directs USDOT to focus on whether a route will require local, State, or Federal economic support and the degree of such support; cost and timeline estimate for initiating passenger service; benefits and impacts; and other factors;

- The section identifies the following routes for study:

(1) Between Kansas City, Missouri, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, by way of Newton, Kansas.

(2) Between Akron, Ohio, and Canton, Ohio.

(3) A rail corridor between the District of Columbia and Florida, including an examination of all motive options.

(4) Between Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Luis Obispo, California.

(5) Between Austin, Texas, and Laredo, Texas, by way of San Antonio, Texas, with an extension to Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico.

(6) Between Scranton, Pennsylvania, and New York City, New York.

(7) Additional routes, as identified by the Secretary.

Rail Passengers’ Analysis

May you find someone who loves you as much as Congress loves funding studies for rail corridors it has no intention of providing the money needed to actually build.

--

Section 10304. Study on commuter rail passenger transportation and transfers.

- Directs GAO to initiate a study identifying the benefits of commuter rail passenger transportation and major obstacles to providing commuter rail passenger transportation that does not involve a transfer for passengers;

- GAO will consider economic, logistical, and quality of life factors in analyzing the major obstacles to implementing single-seat trips on commuter rail; and

- Directs GAO to use the NJ Transit Raritan Valley Line as a case study.

Rail Passengers’ Analysis

One seat rides < fast, frequent regional rail that takes you where you want to go when you want to go there.

--

Section 10305. Adjustment of liability cap.

- Raises liability cap from $200 million to $323 million per incident

- Liability cap will be adjusted every five years; minimum of 2% and maximum of 10%

- Directs the Secretary shall convene a working group to suggest an increase to the liability cap based on recent history of accidents and their severity, and changes to safety technology or other safety factors;

- Automatic 10% increase if working group fails to reach a recommendation

Rail Passengers’ Analysis

Passenger rail liability is a serious issue that threatens to undermine regional rail service across the U.S.

While there are some interesting ideas in this bill, it doesn't appear interested in addressing the fact that the status quo is unsustainable for many rail systems.

Conclusion: more analysis needed.

Comments