GAO-06-820R Commuter Rail Service Contracts 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

July 10, 2006 

The Honorable Richard C. Shelby 

Chairman 

Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs 

United States Senate 

Subject: Active Commuter Rail Agency Service Contracts 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Commuter rail is an important part of the transportation system in many cities and 

regions in our country, providing more than 420 million passenger trips in 2005. 

Although several of the largest commuter rail agencies hire their own employees, 

many agencies contract with other companies, including Amtrak, freight railroads, 

and private rail operators, to provide services that are critical to running the agencies’ 

trains. These contracted services include providing crews to operate trains (train 

operations); maintenance of equipment (MOE), including maintenance of train cars 

and locomotives; dispatching train traffic; and maintenance of way (MOW), which 

involves maintaining the track, signals, and other track infrastructure. Commuter rail 

agencies can obtain these services by opening contracts to competition or through 

noncompetitive negotiations with a service provider. 

You asked us to provide information on the service arrangements between commuter 

rail agencies and other companies. Accordingly, we addressed the following 

questions: (1) How many currently active commuter rail service contracts were 

obtained through competitive and noncompetitive processes? (2) What differences, if 

any, are there between competitively and noncompetitively negotiated contracts? 

Through interviews and site visits with commuter rail agencies, we identified all 50 

active commuter rail contracts that provided at least one of the four following 

services: train operations, MOE, dispatching, and MOW. Of these 50 contracts, we 

found that 22 only provided access to infrastructure and services directly related to 

maintaining and operating the infrastructure (e.g., dispatching and MOW). These 

contracts did not include other services, such as train operations, that are not bound 

to the infrastructure and for which a commuter rail agency could choose a provider 

other than the infrastructure owner. We excluded these 22 contracts from our 

analysis because commuter rail agencies must negotiate with the infrastructure 

owner for access, and infrastructure owners generally conduct their own dispatching 

and maintain their own rights-of-way. The other 28 contracts included at least one 

service that was not bound to infrastructure used by the commuter rail agency and, 

therefore, could be provided by an entity other than the infrastructure owner. These 
contracts were included in our analysis and are discussed in greater detail in our 

findings. 

About Half of Commuter Rail Service Contracts Were Obtained through Competitive 

Processes

Fifteen of the 28 active commuter rail service contracts were obtained through 

competitive processes. As of July 1, 2006, Herzog, a private rail operator 

headquartered in Missouri, held 7 of the competitively procured contracts. Amtrak 

held 2 of the competitively procured contracts—including a turnkey service for 

Caltrain, a commuter rail service linking San Francisco and San Jose, under which 

Amtrak provides services critical to running Caltrain’s commuter service, as well as 

operations at several of Caltrain’s passenger stations. The remaining 6 contracts were 

spread among six other private transportation companies. 

The other 13 contracts were negotiated noncompetitively. Amtrak held 5 of these 13 

contracts, and three freight railroads—Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), CSX, 

and Union Pacific—held 6. The remaining 2 noncompetitive contracts were 

negotiated between commuter rail agencies that share continuous rights-of-way.1

 

Table 1 provides information on all 28 active commuter rail service contracts.

Table 1: Active Commuter Rail Service Contracts 

Commuter rail

agency Services

Contracted

service 

provider Contract period

Was this 

contract 

negotiated 

competitively?

Does the 

contracted

provider own

the 

infrastructure?

Competitively negotiated contracts 

Altamont 

Commuter 

Express (ACE)

Train operations

and MOE 

Herzoga

 June 1998-June

2009, with the 

option to extend

the contract for a 

period deemed

appropriate by 

ACE’s board 

Yes No

Maryland Transit 

Administration 

(MARC) 

Contract for MOE 

services at MARC’s 

maintenance facility 

in Frederick, 

Maryland 

Amtrak Dec. 2001-Dec.

2006 

Yes No

 1

In the first case, Metro-North Railroad, a commuter rail service in the New York City area, has a

contract with New Jersey Transit (NJT), another commuter rail agency in the same region. Two of

Metro-North’s lines are extensions of New Jersey Transit lines that operate out of Hoboken Terminal

in New Jersey, and both agencies have found it to be efficient to have a single operator (NJT) for this 

system. In the second case, Coaster has a contract for dispatching services provided by Southern

California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), the operator of Metrolink Commuter Rail Service. Coaster

officials noted that this contract is between two California public agencies, and, while Coaster’s 

service does not use parts of the rights-of-way owned by SCRRA, Metrolink commuter rail service does 

access Coaster rights-of-way. 

Page 2 GAO-06-820R Commuter Rail Service Contracts
Commuter rail

agency Services

Contracted

service 

provider Contract period

Was this 

contract 

negotiated 

competitively?

Does the 

contracted

provider own

the 

infrastructure?

Massachusetts 

Bay 

Transportation 

Authority (MBTA) 

Train operations, 

MOE, MOW, 

dispatching, and 

station operation 

Massachusetts 

Bay Commuter

Railroad 

Company 

(MBCR) 

July 2003-July 

2008, with the 

option to extend

through 2013 

Yes No

Nashville Music 

City Starb

Train operations

and MOE 

Transit 

Solutions 

Group 

Begins from the 

start of revenue 

service for 5 

years, with the 

option to extend

for 5 years; notice 

to proceed was

issued in May 

2006 

Yes No

New Jersey 

Transit 

Corporation 

(NJT)c

MOE Herzog July 2005-June

2010, with the 

option to extend

through June 

2012 

Yes No

New Mexico Rail 

Runner Expressb

Train operations, 

MOE, and MOW

Herzog Fall 2005-2010,

with the option to 

extend until 2012 

Yes No

North County 

Transit District 

(Coaster) 

Train operations, 

MOE, and MOW

Herzog July 2006-June

2011 

Yes No

Peninsula Corridor 

Joint Powers 

Board (Caltrain) 

Train operations, 

MOE, MOW, 

dispatching, and 

station operation 

Amtrak July 2001-June

2009, with the 

option to extend

until June 2011

Yes No

Southern 

California 

Regional Rail 

Authority 

(SCRRA), 

operator of 

Metrolink 

Commuter Rail

Service 

MOE Bombardier July 2003-June

2010, with the 

option to extend

until 2013 

Yes No

SCRRA Train operations Connex July 2005-June

2010, with the 

option to extend

until 2015 

Yes No

SCRRA MOW (track and 

structures) 

Herzog March 2001-June

2007 

Yes No

SCRRA MOW (signals and 

communication)

Mass Electric 

Construction 

Co. 

July 2001-June

2007 

Yes No

Tri-County 

Commuter Rail

Authority (Tri-Rail) 

Train operations

and MOE 

Herzog Nov. 2002-June

2007 

Yes No

Trinity Railway 

Express (TRE) 

Train operations, 

MOE, MOW, and 

dispatching 

Herzog Oct. 2005-Oct.

2010, with the 

option to extend

through 2015 

Yes No

Page 3 GAO-06-820R Commuter Rail Service Contracts
Commuter rail

agency Services

Contracted

service 

provider Contract period

Was this 

contract 

negotiated 

competitively?

Does the 

contracted

provider own

the 

infrastructure?

Virginia Railway

Express (VRE)

MOE STV Group

Inc. 

May 2006-May

2007, with 1-year 

options to extend 

up to 2010 

Yes No

Noncompetitively negotiated contracts 

Coaster Dispatching SCRRA In perpetuity until 

the parties agree 

to terminate the 

agreement 

No No 

Connecticut 

Department of 

Transportation 

Shore Line East 

(SLE) 

Train operations, 

MOE, MOW, 

dispatching, and 

station operation 

Amtrak March 2006-June

2007 

Nod

Yes, owns rightsof-way 

MARC Train operations,

MOE, MOW, 

dispatching, and 

station operation 

Amtrak Dec. 2004-Dec.

2006 

No Yes, owns

portions of the 

rights-of-way, 

Washington 

Union Terminal,

and Ivy City 

Maintenance 

Yard 

MARC Train operations,

MOE, MOW, and 

dispatching 

CSX July 2005-July

2010 

Noe

Yes, owns 

portions of the 

rights-of-way 

MTA Metro-North 

Railroad 

Train operations, 

MOE, MOW, and 

dispatchingf

 

NJT In perpetuity until 

the parties agree 

to terminate the 

agreement 

No Yes, owns

portions of the 

rights-of-way in

New Jersey 

New Mexico Rail 

Runner Expressb

Dispatching BNSF March 2006-

March 2009 

NogNo 

NJT MOE Amtrak July 2005-June

2006 

No Yes, owns 

Sunnyside 

Maintenance and 

Storage Yard, in 

which NJT has

an easement 

interest 

Northeastern 

Illinois Regional

Commuter 

Railroad 

Corporation 

(Metra) 

Train operations, 

MOE, MOW, and 

dispatching 

BNSF Jan. 2001-Dec.

2007 

No Yes, owns

portions of the 

rights-of-way 

Metra Train operations,

MOE, MOW, and 

dispatching 

Union Pacific Jan. 2004-Dec.

2008 

No Yes, owns

portions of the 

rights-of-way 

Sound Transit, 

Central Puget 

Sound Regional 

Transportation 

Authority 

(Sounder)

MOE Amtrak Sept. 2000-Dec.

2009 

No Yes, Amtrak

owns facilities 

and leases 

property at 

Holgate 

Maintenance and 

Storage Yard 

Page 4 GAO-06-820R Commuter Rail Service Contracts
Commuter rail

agency Services

Contracted

service 

provider Contract period

Was this 

contract 

negotiated 

competitively?

Does the 

contracted

provider own

the 

infrastructure?

Sounder Train operations,

MOW, and 

dispatching 

BNSF South Route

2000-2040; North 

Route 2000-2012, 

with the option to 

extend until 2017 

No Yes, owns rightsof-way 

Tri-Rail MOW and

dispatching 

CSX To continue until 

either party 

provides 9 months 

notice to end or

change the 

contract 

Noh

No 

VRE Train operations,

MOE, MOW, 

dispatching, and 

station operation 

Amtrak July 2005-June

2010 

Noi

Yes, owns about 

1.5 miles of 

rights-of-way 

from L’Enfant 

Station into 

Washington 

Union Terminal

and Ivy City 

Maintenance 

Yard, which are 

also owned by 

Amtrak 

Source: GAO analysis of commuter rail contract information.

Notes: Each row of this table represents a single contract. Because commuter rail agencies may have multiple 

contracts to obtain the services critical to their operations, a commuter rail agency may be listed more than once. 

For example, Metrolink, a commuter rail service in Los Angeles, has four contracts—one for train operations, one 

for maintenance of equipment, and two for maintenance of way—each of which is summarized on a separate 

row; Metrolink, therefore, is listed four times in the table. 

a

Herzog has several subsidiaries, but we did not distinguish between them for the purposes of the report. 

b

The Nashville Music City Star and the New Mexico Rail Runner Express are both proposed commuter rail 

agencies that plan to initiate revenue service later in 2006. 

c

This contract covers about 2 percent of NJT’s total maintenance of equipment service needs. 

d

SLE has had a noncompetitive agreement with Amtrak, in part because of labor issues, according to agency 

officials. However, SLE is investigating the possibility of contracting with a different train operator and having a 

separate noncompetitive agreement with Amtrak for rights-of-way access. 

e

MARC’s contract with CSX requires MARC to issue a request for proposals for new train operation crews and 

maintenance of equipment workers because CSX does not wish to provide these services to MARC in the future. 

MARC officials are working to develop the request for proposals and plan to issue it late in 2006. 

f

This contract covers about 7.5 percent of Metro-North's total service and applies only to Metro-North services 

west of the Hudson River. 

g

In March 2006, New Mexico purchased rights-of-way from BNSF and established a Joint Use Agreement. In 

accordance with the terms of the agreement, BNSF will provide dispatching services over this rights-of-way for 3 

years (until March 2009). After this initial period, New Mexico may assume dispatching responsibilities or select 

another provider. 

h

This contract is between the state of Florida and CSX. According to Tri-Rail officials, dispatching and MOW

services were negotiated as a part of the sale of CSX's rights-of-way to the state when the service was initiated. 

Page 5 GAO-06-820R Commuter Rail Service Contracts
The state of Florida now owns the rights-of-way and may choose to competitively procure this service contract 

provided the state gives CSX 9 months’ notice of its intention to do so. 

i

In its July 2005 renegotiations with Amtrak, VRE had Amtrak separate its costs for access and midday storage at 

Washington Union Terminal (WUT) from other expenses. This information would allow VRE to competitively 

procure train operations in 2010, when its current service contract with Amtrak expires. VRE’s long-term plans 

also include the construction of maintenance facilities so that equipment maintenance would not need to be 

performed at WUT. The WUT contract would remain noncompetitive, but VRE would be able to competitively 

procure maintenance of equipment services. 

Infrastructure Ownership Appears to Be an Important Determinant in Whether 

Contracts Are Competitively Negotiated

According to our analysis, the most notable difference between contracts that were 

competitively and noncompetitively negotiated was whether the service provider 

owned the infrastructure that the commuter rail agency was using. Specifically, for all 

15 contracts that were negotiated competitively, the service provider did not own the 

infrastructure used by the commuter rail agency. Rather, in most cases the commuter 

rail agency or its sister transit agency owned the majority of the infrastructure. In 

contrast, for 10 of the 13 contracts that were negotiated noncompetitively, the service 

provider owned the infrastructure used by the commuter rail agency. In two other 

cases, the service provider was the former owner of the rights-of-way, and the service 

agreement was established concurrently with the sale of the track. Thus, the service 

provider currently or previously owned the infrastructure used by the commuter rail 

agencies for 12 of the 13 noncompetitively negotiated contracts. 

Another difference between the competitively and noncompetitively negotiated 

contracts was the types of services included in the contract. Although competitive 

and noncompetitive contracts were almost equally likely to cover train operations, 

maintenance of equipment, and maintenance of way, the noncompetitive contracts 

were much more likely to include dispatching—an important infrastructure-related 

service that allows the provider to control train traffic on the rights-of-way. (See table 

2.) 

Table 2: Services Included in Contracts Reviewed 

Service Competitive contracts Noncompetitive contracts

Train operations 9 of 15 8 of 13

Maintenance of equipment 12 of 15 9 of 13

Maintenance of way 7 of 15 9 of 13

Dispatching 3 of 15 11 of 13 

Source: GAO analysis of commuter rail agency contract information.

Note: Most contracts included terms for more than one service. For example, a single contract may 

include train operations, maintenance of equipment, and maintenance of way services. As a result, the

number of services exceeds the number of contracts in each column.

Although infrastructure ownership appears to have played a critical role in 

determining whether the current contracts were negotiated competitively, commuter 

rail agencies indicated that, in the future, they may have greater latitude in choosing a 

provider other than the infrastructure owner. For example, several commuter rail 

agencies have taken steps to competitively procure services that are currently being 

provided by the infrastructure owner, and two agencies noted that the Massachusetts 

Page 6 GAO-06-820R Commuter Rail Service Contracts
Bay Transportation Authority’s (MBTA) experience with changing service providers 

served as an example for other agencies. Specifically, in 2003, MBTA replaced Amtrak 

with a new service provider, even though Amtrak had provided these services since 

1987 and the two agencies are dependent on each other’s infrastructure. In addition, 

commuter rail agency officials noted that the number of private rail companies has 

grown in the last 5 to 10 years, potentially making competitive negotiations 

financially more worthwhile. For example, officials from the Virginia Railway

Express (VRE) took steps to restructure their current service contract with Amtrak 

and are developing long-term plans to build their own equipment maintenance yard 

so that the agency is positioned to competitively negotiate train operations and 

maintenance of equipment services when their contract with Amtrak expires in 2010. 

Agency Comments 

We provided the Department of Transportation and Amtrak officials with a draft of 

this report for review and comment. Both agencies provided technical clarifications 

that we incorporated, as appropriate. 

Scope and Methodology 

To address our objectives, we contacted officials from all existing commuter rail 

agencies, as reported by the American Public Transportation Association, as well as 

two proposed commuter rail agencies that plan to initiate service in 2006. We 

conducted a semistructured interview with each agency to identify its service needs, 

the companies it has contracted with, and the scope of the services covered by its 

contracts. We also determined through these interviews whether the contracts 

included rights for the commuter rail agency to access infrastructure owned by the 

service provider (e.g., rights-of-way, passenger stations, and train maintenance 

yards). Through site visits with seven existing and one proposed commuter rail 

agency and through follow-up correspondence with all existing commuter agencies 

and the two proposed commuter agencies, we identified the length of the service 

contracts and determined whether each contract had been competitively or 

noncompetitively negotiated. We also examined some current commuter rail service 

contracts and documents related to milestones in agencies’ competitive procurement 

processes.2

 To ensure the accuracy of information summarized in the report, we 

verified the information we collected with the commuter rail agencies.3

 2

Our audit work also contributed to a comprehensive report on commuter rail agencies’ reliance on

Amtrak for services and access to infrastructure. See GAO, Commuter Rail: Commuter Rail Issues 

Should Be Considered in Debate over Amtrak, GAO-06-470 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 21, 2006). 3

Two commuter rail agencies did not respond to our request to verify information. 

Page 7 GAO-06-820R Commuter Rail Service Contracts
Our review identified 50 active commuter rail contracts that provided at least one of 

four services critical to running an agency’s service—that is, these services are all 

related to the movement of trains (i.e., train operations, MOE, dispatching, or MOW).4

Many of these contracts covered more than one critical service. Of the 50 contracts, 

we found that 22 provided access only to infrastructure and services directly related 

to maintaining and operating the infrastructure (e.g., dispatching and MOW). These 

contracts did not include other services, such as train operations, that are not bound 

to the infrastructure and for which a commuter rail agency could choose a provider 

other than the infrastructure owner. We excluded these 22 contracts from our 

analysis because commuter rail agencies must negotiate with the infrastructure

owner for access, and infrastructure owners generally conduct their own dispatching 

and maintain their own rights-of-way. A limitation of our analysis is that we did not 

collect information on the willingness of infrastructure owners to provide 

infrastructure access without also providing other services to commuter rail 

agencies. Table 3 describes all 50 contracts and indicates whether they are included 

in our analysis. 

Table 3: Commuter Rail Service Contracts, by Agency 

Commuter rail agency Provider Contract description

Included or

excluded in our 

analysis 

Existing commuter rail agencies 

Herzog Contract for train operations and 

MOE 

Included 

Union Pacific Contract for access to Union 

Pacific rights-of-way (ROW) and 

associated dispatching and MOW

Excluded 

Altamont Commuter 

Express (ACE)

Caltrain Contract for dispatching and train 

storage at Caltrain’s San Jose

Station 

Excluded 

Connecticut Department 

of Transportation Shore 

Line East (SLE) 

Amtrak Contract for train operations, 

MOE, dispatching, MOW, and 

station operation; also includes 

access to Amtrak ROW 

Included 

Amtrak Contract for train operations, 

MOE, dispatching, MOW, and 

station operation; also includes 

access to Amtrak ROW and 

Washington Union Station 

Included 

Amtrak Contract for MOE services at 

MARC’s maintenance facility in 

Frederick, Maryland 

Included 

Maryland Transit 

Administration (MARC) 

CSX Contract for train operations, 

MOE, dispatching, and MOW

Included 

Massachusetts Bay 

Transportation Authority 

(MBTA) 

MBCR Contract for train operations, 

MOE, dispatching, MOW, and 

station operation 

Included 

 4

Commuter rail agencies such as MTA Long Island Rail Road, MTA Metro-North Railroad, New Jersey

Transit, the Northeastern Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra), the Northern

Indiana Commuter Transportation District, and the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation

Authority use their own employees for most of their service needs, including train operations, 

dispatching, MOE, and MOW. Although the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), 

which operates the Metrolink Commuter Rail Service, contracts out almost all other services, it has its

own staff to provide dispatching services. We did not include these in-house arrangements in our 

analysis. 

Page 8 GAO-06-820R Commuter Rail Service Contracts
Commuter rail agency Provider Contract description

Included or

excluded in our 

analysis 

Amtrak Contract for access to Amtrakowned ROW and associated 

dispatching and MOW

Excluded 

Amtrak Contract for MOW at the Route 

128 Station, which is owned by 

Amtrak but sits on land owned by 

MBTA 

Excluded 

CSX Contract for access to CSX ROW 

and associated dispatching and

MOW 

Excluded 

Guilford Contract for access to Guilford 

ROW and associated dispatching 

Excluded 

MTA Long Island Rail

Road (LIRR) 

Amtrak Contracts for MOW and special 

maintenance projects, as well as 

access to ROW approaching Penn 

Station and Penn Station itself, all 

of which are owned by Amtraka

Excluded 

MTA Metro-North 

Railroad 

New Jersey Transit Contract for train operations, 

MOE, dispatching, and MOW, as 

well as access to NJT ROW

Included 

Herzog Contract for MOE services on a 

small portion of the NJT train fleet 

Included 

Amtrak Contract for MOE services at 

Amtrak’s Sunnyside Yard 

Included 

Amtrak Contract for access to Amtrak 

ROW and Penn Station, as well as 

dispatching, MOW, and services 

related to use of Amtrak ROW and 

Penn Station 

Excluded 

New Jersey Transit 

Corporation (NJT) 

Conrail Contract for access to Conrail

ROW and associated dispatching 

and MOW

Excluded 

Herzog Contract for train operations, 

MOE, and MOW

North County Transit Included 

District (Coaster) 

SCRRA Contract for dispatching services Included 

Union Pacific Contract for train operations, 

MOE, dispatching, and MOW; also 

includes access to Union Pacific 

ROW

Included 

BNSF Contract for train operations, 

MOE, dispatching, and MOW; also 

includes access to BNSF ROW

Included 

Amtrak Contract for MOW and dispatching 

in the area immediately 

surrounding Chicago Union 

Station, which is owned by 

Amtrak; contract also includes 

access to Chicago Union Station 

Excluded 

Canadian National Contract for access to Canadian 

National ROW, and associated

dispatching and MOW

Excluded 

Norfolk Southern Contract for access to Norfolk

Southern ROW, and associated

dispatching and MOW

Excluded 

CSX Contract for access to CSX ROW, 

and associated dispatching and

MOW 

Excluded 

Northeastern Illinois 

Commuter Railroad 

Corporation (Metra) 

Illinois Central Contract for access to Illinois 

Central ROW, and associated

dispatching and MOW

Excluded 

Page 9 GAO-06-820R Commuter Rail Service Contracts
Commuter rail agency Provider Contract description

Included or

excluded in our 

analysis 

Northern Indiana 

Commuter 

Transportation District 

(NICTD) 

Metra Contract for access to Metra 

ROW, stations, and associated

dispatching and MOW

Excluded 

Amtrak Contract for train operations, 

MOE, dispatching, MOW, and 

station operation 

Peninsula Corridor Joint Included 

Powers Board (Caltrain) 

Union Pacific Contract for access to Union 

Pacific ROW and the right for 

Caltrain to maintain and operate 

this portion of the track 

Excluded 

Amtrak Contract for MOE and access to 

Holgate Maintenance Yard 

Sound Transit, Central Included 

Puget Sound Regional 

Transportation Authority 

(Sounder) 

BNSF Contract for train operations, 

dispatching, and MOW, as well as 

access to BNSF ROW 

Included 

Southeastern 

Pennsylvania 

Transportation Authority 

(SEPTA) 

Amtrak Contract for access to Amtrakowned ROW, as well as 

associated MOW, dispatching,

and propulsion power on Amtrak’s 

Northeast Corridor and Harrisburg 

Line 

Excluded 

Connex Contract for train operations Included 

Bombardier Contract for MOE Included 

Herzog Contract for MOW (track and 

structures) 

Included 

Mass Electric 

Construction Co. 

Contract for MOW (signals and 

communications) 

Included 

Union Pacific Shared-use agreements for 

access to Union Pacific ROW, and 

associated MOW and dispatching 

Excluded 

Southern California 

Regional Rail Authority 

(SCRRA), operator of 

Metrolink Commuter Rail 

Service 

BNSF Shared use agreements for 

access to BNSF ROW, and 

associated MOW and dispatching 

Excluded 

Trinity Railway Express 

(TRE) 

Herzog Contract for train operations, 

MOE, dispatching, and MOW

Included 

Herzog Contract for train operations and 

MOE 

Tri-County Commuter Included 

Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) 

CSX Contract for dispatching and MOW Included 

Amtrak Contract for train operations, 

MOE, dispatching, MOW, and 

station operation; also includes 

access to Amtrak ROW and 

Washington Union Station 

Included 

STV Group Inc. Contract for MOE Included 

CSX Contract for access to CSX ROW, 

and associated dispatching and

MOW 

Excluded 

Virginia Railway Express 

(VRE) 

Norfolk Southern Contract for access to Norfolk

Southern ROW, and associated

dispatching and MOW 

Excluded 

Proposed commuter rail agencies 

Herzog Contract for train operations, 

MOE, and MOW

New Mexico Rail Runner Included 

Express 

BNSF Joint Use Agreement for 

dispatching services 

Included 

Transit Solutions Group Contract for train operations and 

MOE; notice to proceed was 

issued in May 2006 

Nashville Music City Star Included 

Page 10 GAO-06-820R Commuter Rail Service Contracts
Commuter rail agency Provider Contract description

Included or

excluded in our 

analysis 

Nashville and Eastern

Rail Authority (NERA) 

Contract for access to NERA 

ROW, and dispatching and MOW

services through NERA’s 

contractor, the Nashville and 

Eastern Railroad Corporation;

notice to proceed was issued in 

May 2006 

Excluded 

Source: GAO analysis of commuter rail contract information. 

a

Dispatching at Penn Station is a joint responsibility between Amtrak and LIRR, with each company providing half 

of the dispatching employees. 

Our review did not examine commuter rail agencies’ compliance with the Federal 

Transit Administration’s requirements for the use of competitive procurement for 

railroad service contracts. We conducted our review from July 2005 to July 2006 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

- - - - - 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report 

earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that 

time, we will send copies to congressional committees with responsibilities for 

commuter rail issues, the Secretary of Transportation, the Acting President of 

Amtrak, and the Administrators of the Federal Railroad Administration and the 

Federal Transit Administration. We will also make copies available to others upon 

request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 

512-2834 or heckerj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key 

contributors to this report were Nikki Clowers (Assistant Director), Gregory Hanna, 

Nancy Lueke, and Joah Iannotta. 

Sincerely yours, 

JayEtta Z. Hecker 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

(544122)

Page 11 GAO-06-820R Commuter Rail Service Contracts
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER