BEFORE THE

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

________________________ 

DOCKET NO. FD 36496

________________________ 

APPLICATION OF THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION UNDER 

49 U.S.C. § 24308(e) – CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., AND

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

________________________ 

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR AMITABHA BOSE ON BEHALF OF

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND

THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION FOR PHASE ONE OF

THE BOARD’S PUBLIC HEARING

Chairman Oberman and Members of the Board, thank you for the 

opportunity to appear here today. My name is Amit Bose, and I am the 

Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), an operating 

administration of the United States Department of Transportation (DOT). I am 

pleased to offer these remarks on behalf of DOT and FRA.

We appreciate the Board’s consideration of Amtrak’s application to re-start 

passenger service along the Gulf Coast by adding two daily round-trip trains 

between Mobile, Alabama and New Orleans. In DOT’s view, the Board’s decision 

here will have far-reaching implications beyond the Gulf Coast. The outcome of 

this proceeding will be pivotal to the future development of intercity passenger rail 

in this country. We believe it is imperative that the Board use its authority to 

ensure that host railroads fulfill their fundamental statutory obligations to allow the 
2 

expansion and improvement of intercity passenger rail services. As the Board 

knows, these statutory obligations are at the core of the balance that Congress 

struck when, over fifty years ago, it created Amtrak and relieved railroads of their

common carrier obligation to provide intercity passenger rail service. It is the 

American public that suffers when these services are held up – here, the Gulf Coast 

region has been without Amtrak service for nearly two decades. In this case, 

service delayed is service denied. 

As to our interests in this case, as you know, DOT is charged by statute with 

promoting “transportation policies and programs that contribute to providing fast, 

safe, efficient and convenient transportation,” consistent with “the public 

interest.”1

 DOT and FRA have participated in numerous proceedings before the 

Board involving matters of rail policy affecting both passenger and freight rail 

service. In doing so, we have consistently considered the interests of all affected

parties, including host railroads, shippers, Amtrak, other passenger service 

providers, and the public. We have been particularly active in this proceeding, 

filing comments with the Board at an early stage to urge the Board to decide 

Amtrak’s petition on the merits, as well as a more recent amicus submission 

providing additional views. 

1 49 U.S.C. § 101.
3 

Consistent with our previous submissions, I believe it is necessary at the 

outset to highlight the importance that Congress, and the Biden-Harris 

administration, have placed on the expansion and enhancement of passenger rail 

service in this country. As we explained in our previous comments to the Board, 

the 2021 passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the 

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, reaffirms the importance of passenger rail, and 

provides unprecedented funding and authority to maintain, improve, and expand 

intercity passenger rail service throughout the United States. In total, the 

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides $58 billion in dedicated, advanced 

appropriations for passenger rail. Congress also reimagined the Federal-State 

Partnership grant program by, among other things, expanding program eligibility 

to projects expanding or establishing new intercity passenger rail services beyond

the Northeast Corridor. The overwhelming majority of services that would benefit 

are those that operate over host railroad-owned infrastructure. Likewise, the 

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law created a new Corridor Identification and 

Development Program to guide future intercity passenger rail development efforts 

throughout the country. The Law also calls on FRA to complete a major study to 

evaluate the restoration of daily Amtrak long-distance services that have been 

discontinued or that occur on a non-daily basis, all of which operated over 

infrastructure owned by host railroads.
4 

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s expansive vision for intercity passenger 

rail development rests largely on the ability to introduce, improve, and restore 

passenger rail services that operate over host railroads. Without that ability, 

Congress’s vision cannot become reality.

The host railroads here, CSX and Norfolk Southern, have argued that 

Amtrak’s two regularly scheduled daily round-trip trains will not just 

“unreasonably impair” freight transportation, but will cause “near catastrophic” 

consequences—at least without over $400 million in additional capital 

improvements to their infrastructure. I would like to take this opportunity to 

highlight some key points. We respectfully ask the Board to take these points into 

account in establishing a framework to govern cases of this kind, which will 

embody Congress’s intent and, we hope, will help to encourage cooperative 

solutions in future cases.

First, in DOT’s view, the host railroads in this proceeding have not met their 

statutorily-mandated burden of demonstrating that reintroducing the Gulf Coast 

passenger service would unreasonably impair freight transportation, as the Board is 

directed to consider in conducting a hearing under the governing statute, 49 U.S.C. 

§ 24308(e). The concept of “impair unreasonably” must be a meaningful one. 

Neither this language, nor the other terms of section 24308, indicate that Congress 

intended for passenger rail service simply to accommodate freight railroad 
5 

operations or growth plans for freight service. That approach turns the statute on 

its head. Congress established a preference for passenger rail operations over host 

railroad lines, and the presumption is that passenger service will, in fact, operate. 

This case, involving the proposed addition of two daily round-trip trains, helps to 

illustrate the point. The Board’s decision should ensure that freight railroads 

cannot effectively “crowd out” passenger service by claiming that it conflicts with 

their existing or planned railroad operations. That is not what was meant by 

“unreasonable impairment.” 

Second, the host railroads have not presented a transparent analysis of what, 

if any, challenges may arise from Amtrak’s proposed operation. In so doing, they 

have deprived the Board of a clear-eyed view of railroad operations. DOT believes 

that any operations analysis used to assess the operational effects of changes to 

intercity passenger rail services, or which is used to identify capital improvements 

required to support such changes, must be conducted in an appropriately

transparent manner. Transparency is a basic prerequisite to meaningful

collaboration between Amtrak and host railroads. Transparency is also essential 

given that the host railroads here have called for costly capital improvements as a 

prerequisite to adding the Amtrak trains, and such improvements would likely be 

publicly funded. The public has a right to know why such improvements are being 

made, why they are necessary, how much they cost, and what other options may 
6 

have been considered. In DOT’s view, these considerations are even more 

pronounced in cases like this one, where the publicly funded capital improvements 

would be made to privately owned and controlled infrastructure. 

Third, while the Board should give appropriate confidentiality protection to 

proprietary commercial information regarding the railroads’ operations and 

customers, in FRA’s view, operational analysis can be conducted based on 

information that steers well clear of data that would compromise the commercial 

interests of either host railroads or shippers. In fact, railroads in the past have 

voluntarily participated in collaborative passenger rail planning efforts with FRA 

and Amtrak that involved both the sharing of these same types of information and 

their publication in public reports to Congress.2 FRA believes it would be 

beneficial for the Board to clearly establish the need for transparency in operations 

analysis undertaken as part of passenger rail development efforts, and to address 

the types of information that would need to be openly shared to achieve that 

required transparency. These types of information are captured succinctly in the 

August 3, 2020 letter sent by Amtrak to the host railroads, in which Amtrak 

addresses the “minimum data requirements” associated with the FRA grant that 

2 Potential Improvements to the Washington-Richmond Railroad Corridor in May 1999, and 

Transportation Planning for the Richmond-Charlotte Corridor in January 2004.
7 

funded the 2020 “Gulf Coast RTC Study.”3

 FRA stands ready to assist the Board 

in determining the types of information that would need to be shared from our 

perspective as the Federal agency that would likely provide funding for capital 

improvements that may be identified as necessary to support a change in passenger 

rail operations over a host railroad.

Finally, DOT appreciates the Board’s willingness to act expeditiously in this 

case in the interest of reaching a prompt resolution. DOT is concerned with the 

vitality of the rail network as a whole. Both freight and passenger service are 

critically important, and we have no interest in undermining freight operations or 

impeding the efficient movement of goods. Quite the contrary; we are taking 

numerous steps to help to improve supply chains and fluidity throughout the rail 

network and other modes of transportation. However, the people of the Gulf Coast 

region have been without Amtrak service since Hurricane Katrina in 2005. That is 

too long.

Should the Board grant Amtrak’s application, DOT and FRA remain 

committed to assisting the Board and the parties in helping to make the requested 

passenger service a reality. FRA would closely monitor the startup of the 

operation of the passenger service, and we are fully prepared both to provide 

technical assistance should any operational challenges arise, and to report regularly 

3 See Exhibit L in Amtrak’s Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.
8 

to the Board on the status of these efforts. On behalf of DOT and FRA, thank you 

for the opportunity to address the Board and for your consideration of our 

submissions in this proceeding.

February 15, 2022 Respectfully,

 /s/ Amitabha Bose

John E. Putnam

Deputy General Counsel

Paul M. Geier

Assistant General Counsel for

Litigation and Enforcement

Christopher S. Perry

Senior Trial Attorney

United States Department of 

Transportation

Amitabha Bose

Administrator

Allison Ishihara Fultz

Chief Counsel

Federal Railroad Administration