Penn Station and the Two Paths Forward for American Trains

Competing visions for transportation reauthorization

Penn Station handles about 600,000 passengers on a typical weekday—more than LaGuardia, JFK, and Newark airports combined. It powers New York City’s economy, and it’s the beating heart of the most developed and heavily used passenger-rail line in the US, the Northeast Corridor.

Plans to renovate and transform the station are moving forward: Amtrak’s Andy Byford has said shovels will be in the ground by late 2027. We generally support Amtrak’s approach, which was laid out in a study published by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in June. It makes the case for a fundamental overhaul of Penn Station’s concourse, track configuration, and operating culture—with the goal of running more trains into and through the station by slashing dwell times.

That’s the good news. The catch is that the Trump administration is driving the rapid progress on Penn even as it deprioritizes trains almost everywhere else—cutting and undermining the very federal programs needed to get projects like this done. That disconnect matters, because it reveals two competing agendas.

The new surface transportation bill will determine which one wins. The bill—which will set transportation policy and funding frameworks for roughly five years—is being debated in Congress. Its details likely won’t be finalized until next year, under a new Congress.

Which means that either of the administration’s agendas could win out: The Penn Station overhaul could be a one-off, stand-alone project, or it could help initiate and build momentum for an era of serious investment in America’s train networks.

Our actions, right now, can help determine which path Congress chooses.

Trump to train riders: drop dead

The administration’s preferred path is painfully clear in a letter Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy sent Congress in late July, outlining the administration’s vision for the next surface transportation bill. The current law expires on Sept. 30 but will likely be extended into 2027 as the new bill is finalized.

Duffy’s letter calls for Amtrak to rename Penn Station. That was the buzzy headline in most media accounts, because it suggests that he’s angling for Amtrak to put Trump’s name on the station. The more relevant news is that the letter calls for building and expanding highways and defunding nearly all mobility modes that aren’t powered by internal-combustion engines.

For example, it proposes a new grant program for expanding the entire Interstate Highway System to “at least” three lanes in each direction; eliminating the Mass Transit Account from the Highway Trust Fund—and funneling all fuel-tax dollars into the Highway Account; and killing a program for building bike lanes, “which are not an Administration priority.”

The New York Times recently analyzed the (mostly) under-the-radar effect of the administration’s policy priorities. The piece noted that the administration is not only eliminating grants but slow-walking the process for awarding new ones. The Federal Transit Administration has so far failed to distribute more than $7 billion approved by Congress for train and transit projects. “That absence of action is harder to trace,” the Times observed, “and harder for communities to contest.”

The delays aren’t limited to blue states. In fact, three of the top five projects (by dollar value) are in states that Trump won handily. Broward County (FL) seeks $352 million for a commuter rail line; Charleston (SC) seeks $374 million for a bus rapid transit line; and Salt Lake City (UT) seeks $2.4 million to add parallel track to sections of a commuter rail line. Each project is now stalled.

Two keys right now

But even if the Trump administration has little interest in trains and transit beyond Penn Station, Congress sets transportation priorities and authorizes spending levels—via the surface transportation bill. Again, the details of that bill will be in flux for several months at the least. So there’s still time to shape the final version.

Two priorities stand out.

First, we need a national railroad plan. Congress should direct the FRA or Amtrak to develop a federal-level, intercity railroad plan “rather than trying to assimilate state rail plans of varying quality or relying solely on grant programs to stitch together a vision,” as a report by the Transit Costs Project (based at New York University) argued in 2024.

A federal plan would fundamentally change the calculus for major projects like the Penn Station renovation. It could be planned with an eye on improving travel well beyond the New York region—by simultaneously upgrading Chicago Union Station, for example, and by investing in the infrastructure for faster, more frequent service between Chicago and New York.

Second, advocates for trains should push legislators to sponsor and support the American High-Speed Rail Act of 2026, which would authorize $205 billion (over five years) for a national high-speed rail network. As we wrote recently, it accomplishes three key goals, beyond just the funding levels, by defining high-speed rail, facilitating right-of-way acquisition, and promoting development around train stations.

The bill now has 53 cosponsors. It’s important because it puts key ideas in the conversation. Half the battle in politics is getting your ideas in the arena, putting them up for debate, and planting a flag for the kind of change you want.

The American High-Speed Rail Act does exactly that. And the plans for Penn Station show what’s possible when the federal government shows a real commitment to trains. That’s one possible path.

The other is a path of ever-expanding highways. That’s a dead-end we can’t afford and don’t have to accept.

Get Involved

Ask Your U.S. Representative to Cosponsor the American High-Speed Rail Act

Send an Email