    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        AMERICA BUILDS: IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY
                         AND EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL RAIL ASSIST-
                         ANCE

    =======================================================================

                                    (119-18)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES,
                            AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 6, 2025

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
         transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
                                 transportation

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    60-863 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                          Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
                         Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member

    Eleanor Holmes Norton,               Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
      District of Columbia               Arkansas,
    Jerrold Nadler, New York               Vice Chairman
    Steve Cohen, Tennessee               Daniel Webster, Florida
    John Garamendi, California           Thomas Massie, Kentucky
    Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaott Perry, Pennsylvania
    Andre Carson, Indiana                Brian Babin, Texas
    Dina Titus, Nevada                   David Rouzer, North Carolina
    Jared Huffman, California            Mike Bost, Illinois
    Julia Brownley, California           Doug LaMalfa, California
    Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
    Mark DeSaulnier, California          Brian J. Mast, Florida
    Salud O. Carbajal, California        Pete Stauber, Minnesota
    Greg Stanton, Arizona                Tim Burchett, Tennessee
    Sharice Davids, Kansas               Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
    Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois   Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
    Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Troy E. Nehls, Texas
    Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Tracey Mann, Kansas
    Marilyn Strickland, Washington       Burgess Owens, Utah
    Patrick Ryan, New York               Eric Burlison, Missouri
    Val T. Hoyle, Oregon                 Mike Collins, Georgia
    Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio,           Mike Ezell, Mississippi
      Vice Ranking Member                Kevin Kiley, California
    Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan        Vince Fong, California
    Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina   Tony Wied, Wisconsin
    Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania Tom Barrett, Michigan
    Robert Garcia, California            Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska
    Nellie Pou, New Jersey               Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,
    Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan     Pennsylvania
    Laura Friedman, California           Jeff Hurd, Colorado
    Laura Gillen, New York               Jefferson Shreve, Indiana
    Shomari Figures, Alabama             Addison P. McDowell, North
                                         Carolina
                                         David J. Taylor, Ohio
                                         Brad Knott, North Carolina
                                         Kimberlyn King-Hinds,
                                           Northern Mariana Islands
                                         Mike Kennedy, Utah
                                         Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri
                                         Jimmy Patronis, Florida

         Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials

     Daniel Webster, Florida, Chairman
    Dina Titus, Nevada, Ranking Member
    Andre Carson, Indiana                David Rouzer, North Carolina
    Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Mike Bost, Illinois
    Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina   Doug LaMalfa, California
    Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania,Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
      Vice Ranking Member                Pete Stauber, Minnesota
    Jerrold Nadler, New York             Tim Burchett, Tennessee
    Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois   Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
    Steve Cohen, Tennessee               Troy E. Nehls, Texas
    Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaacey Mann, Kansas
    Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Burgess Owens, Utah
    Patrick Ryan, New York               Eric Burlison, Missouri
    Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio            Vince Fong, California
    Laura Friedman, California           Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska,
    Mark DeSaulnier, California            Vice Chairman
    Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Jefferson Shreve, Indiana
                                         David J. Taylor, Ohio
                                         Mike Kennedy, Utah
                                         Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)

                                   CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................   vii

                     STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

    Hon. Daniel Webster, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines,
      and Hazardous Materials, opening statement.....................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     2
    Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Railroads,
      Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, opening statement..........     3
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
      Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     6

                                   WITNESSES

    Matthew Dietrich, Executive Director, Ohio Rail Development
      Commission, oral statement.....................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
    Hon. Garrett Eucalitto, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of
      Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of State
      Highway and Transportation Officials, oral statement...........    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Kevin D. Hicks, P.E., Senior Vice President and Rail & Freight
      Market Sector Leader, Gannett Fleming TranSystems, on behalf of
      the National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association,
      oral statement.................................................    21
        Prepared statement...........................................    23
    Kristin Bevil, General Counsel and Chief Legal Officer, Pinsly
      Railroad Company, on behalf of the American Short Line and
      Regional Railroad Association, oral statement..................    27
        Prepared statement...........................................    29

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Submissions for the Record by Hon. Daniel Webster:
        Press Release of May 6, 2025, from the U.S. Department of
          Transportation.............................................    53
        Statement of Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive
          Officer, Association of American Railroads.................    71
        Statement of David Shannon, General Manager, RailPulse.......    74

                                    APPENDIX

    Questions from Hon. Daniel Webster to Matthew Dietrich, Executive
      Director, Ohio Rail Development Commission.....................    77
    Questions from Hon. Seth Moulton to Hon. Garrett Eucalitto,
      Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Transportation, on
      behalf of the American Association of State Highway and
      Transportation Officials.......................................    77
    Questions from Hon. Daniel Webster to Kevin D. Hicks, P.E.,
      Senior Vice President and Rail & Freight Market Sector Leader,
      Gannett Fleming TranSystems, on behalf of the National Railroad
      Construction and Maintenance Association.......................    78
    Questions from Hon. Daniel Webster to Kristin Bevil, General
      Counsel and Chief Legal Officer, Pinsly Railroad Company, on
      behalf of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad
      Association....................................................    79

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  May 3, 2025

        SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

        TO:      LMembers, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines,
    and Hazardous Materials
        FROM:  LStaff, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and
    Hazardous Materials
        RE:      LSubcommittee Hearing on ``America Builds:
    Improving the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Rail
    Assistance''
    _______________________________________________________________________

                                   I. PURPOSE

        The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
    Materials will meet on Tuesday, May 6, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. ET
    in 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building to receive
    testimony at a hearing entitled, ``America Builds: Improving
    the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Rail Assistance.''
    The hearing will review the opportunities and challenges grant
    applicants encounter in accessing and using Federal Railroad
    Administration (FRA) and other Department of Transportation
    (DOT) rail discretionary grant programs and the potential for
    reform in the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization
    bill. At the hearing, Members will receive testimony from
    Matthew Dietrich, Executive Director, Ohio Rail Development
    Commission; Kevin Hicks, Senior Vice President, TranSystems on
    behalf of the National Railroad Contractors Association;
    Kristin Bevil, General Counsel and Chief Legal Officer, Pinsly
    Railroad Company on behalf of the American Short Line and
    Regional Railroad Association; and Garrett Eucalitto,
    Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Transportation on
    behalf of the American Association of State Highway and
    Transportation Officials.

                                 II. BACKGROUND

        America's freight and intercity passenger railroad networks
    are essential for the movement of goods and people across the
    country. America's freight rail network consists of almost
    140,000 miles of track.\1\ Six Class I freight railroad
    carriers and approximately 600 Class II and III (short line)
    railroads move roughly 1.6 billion tons of goods each year.\2\
    Amtrak is the Nation's primary passenger rail service and
    operates over 21,000 miles of track in 46 states, serving over
    500 destinations.\3\ In addition, there are approximately 30
    commuter railroads in the United States, most of which are
    operated by state or regional governmental authorities.\4\ The
    primary agency that oversees railroad safety and intercity
    passenger and freight rail grant programs is the FRA within the
    DOT.\5\ Federal commuter rail funding comes from the Federal
    Transit Administration within the DOT.\6\ Congress authorizes
    and appropriates funding for Federal discretionary grant
    programs to support freight and passenger rail service, some of
    which are described below.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Ass'n of American Railroads, State Fact Sheets, available at
    https://www.aar.org/
    data-center/railroads-states/#::text=in%20Your%20State-
    ,Freight%20Rail%20in%20Your
    %20State,nearly%20140%2C000%20miles%20of%20track.
        \2\ Id.
        \3\ Amtrak, Amtrak Facts, available at https://www.amtrak.com/
    amtrak-facts#::text=
    With%2021%2C000%20route%20miles%20in,to%20more%20than%20500%20destinatio
    ns.
        \4\ American Public Transp. Ass'n, How Many Commuter Railroads are
    in the United States?, (Mar. 16, 2021), available at https://
    www.apta.com/faq-items/how-many-commuter-railroads-are-in-the-united-
    states/.
        \5\ Fed. Railroad Admin, About Us, available at https://
    railroads.dot.gov/about-fra/about-fra.
        \6\ Fed. Transit Admin, Grant Programs, available at https://
    www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/grant-programs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                III. FEDERAL FUNDING AND FINANCING FOR RAILROADS

    CONSOLIDATED RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (CRISI) GRANT
                        PROGRAM

        The Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety
    Improvements (CRISI) grant program was initially authorized in
    the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act in 2015
    (P.L. 114-94) and reauthorized in the Infrastructure Investment
    and Jobs Act (IIJA) (P.L. 117-58) in 2021.\7\ CRISI provides
    funding for privately and publicly-operated freight and
    intercity passenger rail projects, including those that
    ``improve railroad safety, efficiency, and reliability;
    mitigate congestion at both intercity passenger and freight
    rail chokepoints to support more efficient travel and goods
    movement . . . and lead to new or substantially improved
    Intercity Passenger Rail Transportation corridors.'' \8\
    Eligible applicants include individual states (and the District
    of Columbia), Federally-recognized Indian tribes, public
    agencies, Amtrak or other rail carriers providing intercity
    passenger rail transportation, and Class II and Class III
    freight railroads.\9\ The Federal cost share of a CRISI grant
    award cannot exceed 80 percent of the project cost, with the
    remaining funding comprising state/local government or private
    sector funding.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  22907.
        \8\ Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Consolidated Rail
    Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Program, 87 Fed. Reg. 54278
    (Sept. 2, 2022), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/
    documents/2022/09/02/2022-19004/notice-of-funding-opportunity-for-the-
    consolidated-rail-infrastructure-and-safety-improvements.
        \9\ Id.
        \10\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Consolidated Rail Infrastructure &
    Safety Improvements (CRISI) Grant Program, available at https://
    www.transportation.gov/rural/grant-toolkit/consolidated-rail-
    infrastructure-safety-improvements-crisi-grant-program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        IIJA funded CRISI at $5 billion with advance appropriations
    over five years, in addition to any annual appropriations for
    this program.\11\ In September 2023, the FRA announced fiscal
    year (FY) 2022 CRISI awards totaling over $1.4 billion for 70
    projects, 10 of which fund intercity passenger rail
    projects.\12\ In October 2024, FRA announced FY 2023-2024
    awards totaling more than $2.4 billion for 122 projects.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  24911; see also Ben Goldman, Cong. Rsch. Serv.
    (IF11920), Passenger Rail Expansion in the Infrastructure Investment
    and Jobs Act (IIJA), (last updated Feb. 10, 2022), available at https:/
    /crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11920.
        \12\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin, Consolidated Rail
    Infrastructure Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program, (last updated Oct.
    2, 2023), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/grants-loans/
    competitive-discretionary-grant-programs/consolidated-rail-
    infrastructure-and-safety-2.
        \13\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin,
    Investing in America: Biden-Harris Administration Announces $2.4
    Billion in New Rail Projects, (Oct. 29, 2024) available at https://
    railroads.dot.gov/about-fra/communications/newsroom/press-releases/
    investing-america-biden-harris-administration-1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AMTRAK GRANTS

        Amtrak receives annual grants from the Federal Government.
    The FAST Act changed the authorization structure of Amtrak to
    provide appropriations based on service--Amtrak Northeast
    Corridor and Amtrak National Network grants--instead of for
    operations and capital/debt service activities.\14\ In addition
    to annual appropriations grants, IIJA provides $22 billion in
    funding specifically to Amtrak in the form of advanced
    appropriations.\15\ The bill authorizes and appropriates over
    five years $102 billion for the FRA, and at least another $30
    billion in discretionary multimodal grants for which freight
    rail, Amtrak, and other intercity passenger rail projects are
    eligible.\16\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1662 at Sec. 11101.
        \15\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin, 2022 Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law Funding Table, available at https://
    railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2022-02/Bipartisan
    %20Infrastructure%20Law%20Funding%20Table%20Jan2022.pdf.
        \16\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  6701 (noting the National Infrastructure
    Project Assistance, authorized at $5 billion and appropriated at $10
    billion over five years); see also 49 U.S.C. Sec.  6702 (noting the
    Local and Regional Project Assistance, authorized at $7.5 billion and
    appropriated at $7.5 billion over five years); see also 23 U.S.C. Sec.
    149; see also 49 U.S.C. Sec.  224, et seq.; see also 23 U.S.C. Sec.
    601, et seq. (describing two Federal loan programs that include this
    eligibility, Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing and
    Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIP FOR INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL GRANT PROGRAM

        Sections 22106 and 22307 of IIJA authorize the Federal-
    State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail (FSP) Grant
    Program.\17\ Created in the FAST Act as the Federal State
    Partnership for State of Good Repair Grant program, this grant
    program was modified in IIJA to not only provide funding for
    capital projects that reduce the state of good repair backlog,
    but may also improve existing service or establish new
    intercity passenger rail service, including privately operated
    passenger rail service.\18\ Eligible projects include projects
    to replace, rehabilitate, or repair infrastructure, equipment,
    or facilities used for providing intercity passenger rail
    service to bring assets into a state of good repair or to
    improve intercity passenger rail service performance; expand or
    establish new intercity passenger rail service; or for the
    planning, environmental review, and final design of an eligible
    project or group of projects.\19\ Eligible recipients include:
    an individual or group of states, including the District of
    Columbia, an Interstate Compact, a public agency or publicly
    chartered authority established by one or more states, a
    political subdivision of a state, Amtrak, a Federally
    recognized Indian Tribe, or any combination of these
    entities.\20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin, Federal-State
    Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program, (last updated
    Nov. 6, 2023), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/federal-state-
    partnership-intercity-passenger.
        \18\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin, Federal-State
    Partnership for State of Good Repair Grant Program (FY 2017-2021),
    available at https://railroads.dot.gov/grants-loans/federal-state-
    partnership-state-good-repair-grant-program-fy-2017-2021.
        \19\ Id.
        \20\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Because IIJA designated the majority of the advance
    appropriated funds for FSP for the Northeast Corridor and set
    out specific requirements for funding projects in this region,
    FRA issued two separate notices of funding opportunity (NOFOs)
    to break out the Northeast Corridor funding from National
    Network funding.\21\ On November 6, 2023, FRA announced awards
    of $16.4 billion for 25 projects on the Northeast Corridor.\22\
    This amount, includes $7.4 billion in phased funding agreements
    authorized in the IIJA.\23\ On November 15, 2024, FRA announced
    an additional nearly $1.5 billion to 19 projects on the
    Northeast Corridor.\24\ On December 8, 2023, FRA announced $8.2
    billion for 10 projects on the National Network.\25\ On October
    1, 2024, FRA announced a NOFO for National Network funding
    totaling over $1 billion.\26\ Applications were due in mid-
    December, but remain under review.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ Id.
        \22\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin,
    President Biden Advances Vision for World Class Passenger Rail with $16
    Billion Investment in America's Busiest Corridor, (Nov. 6, 2023),
    available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2023-11/
    FRA%2011-23.pdf.
        \23\ Id.
        \24\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin,
    Investing in America: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Nearly $1.5
    Billion in Additional Upgrades to America's Busiest Rail Corridor,
    (Nov. 15, 2024) available at https://railroads.dot.gov/about-fra/
    communications/newsroom/press-releases/investing-america-biden-harris-
    administration-4.
        \25\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin,
    President Biden Announces $8.2 Billion in New Grants, (Dec. 8, 2023),
    available at https://railroads.dot.gov/about-fra/communications/
    newsroom/press-releases/president-biden-announces-82-billion-new-
    grants.
        \26\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin,
    INVESTING IN AMERICA: Biden-Harris Administration Makes More Than $1
    Billion in Additional Funding Available to Support America's Passenger
    Rail Future, (Oct. 1, 2024), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/
    about-fra/communications/newsroom/press-releases/investing-america-
    biden-harris-administration-0.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On April 17, 2025, FRA rescinded an FSP grant that had been
    awarded to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for the
    rehabilitation of New York Penn Station.\27\ FRA states that
    the project will henceforth be conducted under a single grant
    sponsored by Amtrak.\28\ On April 22, 2025, FRA and Amtrak
    agreed to a revised scope for rehabilitation of the Dock Bridge
    over the Passaic River in New Jersey reducing the cost of the
    project by approximately $140 million.\29\ Earlier in the year,
    on February 20, 2025, Secretary Duffy announced a review of the
    California High Speed Rail Project (CAHSR) proposal and the
    nearly $4 billion in Federal funding awarded to the
    project.\30\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ Letter from, Kyle Fields, Chief Counsel, Fed. Rail Admin. to
    Mr. Janno Lieber, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Metropolitan
    Transp. Auth. (Apr. 17, 2025) available at https://railroads.dot.gov/
    elibrary/fra-chief-counsel-letter-mr-janno-lieber-41725.
        \28\ Id.
        \29\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin
    Trump's Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy Saves Taxpayers $140
    Million on NJ Dock Bridge Revitalization Project (Apr. 22, 2025)
    available at https://railroads.dot.gov/about-fra/communications/
    newsroom/press-releases/trumps-transportation-secretary-sean-p-duffy-
    saves.
        \30\ See e.g., Trump has California's high-speed rail in his
    sights, but so do Democrats, Politico (April 17, 2025) available at
    https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/17/trump-democrats-high-speed-
    rail-00295348; Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., U.S.
    Transportation Secretary Duffy Announces Review of California High-
    Speed Rail Project, (Feb. 20, 2025), available at https://
    www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-transportation-secretary-duffy-
    announces-review-california-high-speed-rail-project.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RAILROAD CROSSING ELIMINATION (RCE) PROGRAM

        IIJA authorized $600 million in annual advanced
    appropriations over five years (totaling $3 billion) to create
    a new RCE grant program to address safety concerns at highway-
    rail or pathway-rail grade crossings Nationwide.\31\ The grant
    program applies to projects that would separate or close grade
    crossings; would relocate tracks, install or improve protective
    or preventive measures at crossings such as signs or signals;
    and fund planning and designs for eligible projects.\32\
    Eligible recipients include individual states, the District of
    Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other United States territories and
    possessions, Federally recognized Indian Tribes, local
    governments, public port authorities, metropolitan planning
    organizations, and a group of the entities listed.\33\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, Sec.  22305, 135 Stat. 695.
        \32\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin, Railroad Crossing
    Elimination Program, (last updated Oct. 2, 2023), available at https://
    railroads.dot.gov/grants-loans/competitive-discretionary-grant-
    programs/railroad-crossing-elimination-grant-program.
        \33\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In December 2023, FRA awarded over $570 million in FY 2022
    funds to eligible projects under the RCE program.\34\ IIJA
    stipulates that at least 20 percent of available grant funds
    ($114.6 million) are made available for rural and tribal land
    projects.\35\ Of this 20 percent set aside, five percent of the
    total funding is made available for projects in counties with
    20 or fewer residents per square mile.\36\ The Federal cost
    share for these grants is no more than 80 percent of total
    project costs.\37\ On January 10, 2025, FRA announced over $1.1
    billion for 123 rail projects to improve or study more than
    1,000 highway-rail crossings Nationwide.\38\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \34\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin, Railroad Crossing
    Elimination (RCE) Grant Program, (last updated Dec. 4, 2023), available
    at https://railroads.dot.gov/grants-loans/competitive-discretionary-
    grant-programs/railroad-crossing-elimination-grant-program.
        \35\ Id.
        \36\ Id.
        \37\ IIJA, supra note 31, at 135 Stat. 696.
        \38\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin,
    Investing in America: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Over $1.1
    Billion in New Rail Grants to Reduce Train-Vehicle Collisions and
    Blocked Crossings, (July 9, 2024), available at https://
    railroads.dot.gov/about-fra/communications/newsroom/press-releases/
    biden-harris-administration-makes-more-11-0.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT GRANTS

        The Restoration and Enhancement Grant program was
    authorized in Sections 11104 and 11303 of the FAST Act at $20
    million a year.\39\ IIJA authorized and advance appropriated
    $50 million each year over five years for the program, which
    provides operating assistance grants to initiate, restore, or
    enhance intercity rail passenger transportation for up to six
    corridors.\40\ Eligible applicants include states or their
    political subdivisions, groups of states, interstate compacts,
    public agencies or publicly chartered authorities established
    by one or more states, Amtrak or other intercity passenger rail
    carriers, rail carriers in partnership with any eligible
    government entities, or a combination.\41\ For FY 2018 through
    FY 2020, the Restoration and Enhancement grant program awarded
    over $22.4 million.\42\ On January 10, 2025, FRA announced over
    $146.3 million in grants for FY 2021 through FY 2024.\43\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \39\ Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, Pub. L. No. 114-
    94, 129 Stat. 1651.
        \40\ IIJA, supra note 31, at Sec.  22105.
        \41\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin, Restoration and
    Enhancement Grant Program, (last updated Oct. 2, 2023), available at
    https://railroads.dot.gov/grants-loans/competitive-discretionary-grant-
    programs/restoration-and-enhancement-grant-program.
        \42\ Id.
        \43\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., INVESTING IN AMERICA: Biden-Harris
    Administration Announces Over $1.1 Billion in New Rail Grants to Reduce
    Train-Vehicle Collisions and Blocked Railroad Crossings, (Jan. 10,
    2025) available at https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/
    investing-america-biden-harris-administration-announces-over-11-
    billion-new-rail.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CORRIDOR IDENTIFICATION AND DEVELOPMENT (CORRIDOR ID) PROGRAM

        IIJA created the Corridor ID Program for FRA to identify
    and assist in the planning of intercity passenger rail
    projects.\44\ The program's goal is to create a pipeline of
    intercity passenger rail projects ready for implementation.\45\
    Eligible applicants include Amtrak, states, groups of states,
    entities implementing interstate compacts, regional passenger
    rail authorities, regional planning organizations and other
    public entities.\46\ The initial award is $500,000 per project
    to facilitate planning and development.\47\ On December 8,
    2023, the FRA announced the selection of 69 corridors across 44
    states to drive future passenger rail expansion.\48\ The
    selections included 15 existing rail routes, add or extend
    service on 47 new routes, and advance seven new high-speed rail
    projects.\49\ On April 14, 2025, Secretary Duffy announced that
    FRA would rescind over $60 million from a previously-awarded
    CID grant for Texas Central, a high-speed rail corridor planned
    between Dallas and Houston citing higher costs, among other
    factors.\50\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \44\ IIJA, supra note 31, at Sec.  22308 (codified at 49 U.S.C.
    Sec.  25101).
        \45\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin, Corridor
    Identification and Development Program [hereinafter Corridor ID],
    available at https://railroads.dot.gov/corridor-ID-program.
        \46\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  25101(b).
        \47\ Corridor ID, supra note 47.
        \48\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., President Biden
    Announces $8.2 Billion in New Grants for High-Speed Rail and Pipeline
    of Projects Nationwide, (Dec. 8, 2023), available at https://
    railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2023-12/FRA%2013-23.pdf.
        \49\ Id.
        \50\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin U.S.
    Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy Announces Agreement to Save
    Taxpayers Over $60 Million by Ending Grant for Texas High-Speed Rail
    Project (Apr. 17, 2025) available at https://www.transportation.gov/
    briefing-room/us-transportation-secretary-sean-p-duffy-announces-
    agreement-save-taxpayers-over-60.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    THE RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING (RRIF) PROGRAM

        The RRIF program provides direct loans and loan guarantees
    to finance the development of railroad infrastructure.\51\
    Operating under the DOT's Build America Bureau, RRIF provides
    up to $35 billion to finance the development of railroad
    infrastructure. Not less than $7 billion of RRIF funds is
    reserved for projects benefiting short line freight
    railroads.\52\ The program offers users low interest rates,
    payment terms up to 35 years, deferrable until up to five years
    after substantial project completion, and can fund up to 100
    percent of the project cost.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \51\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Build America Bureau, Credit Programs
    Guide, 1 (Mar. 2017), available at https://www.transportation.gov/
    buildamerica/sites/buildamerica.dot.gov/files/2019-08/
    Bureau%20Credit%20Programs%20Guide_March_2017.pdf.
        \52\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Eligible applicants include state and local governments,
    interstate compacts, government sponsored authorities and
    corporations, railroads, limited option freight shippers that
    own their own or operate their own facilities, and joint
    ventures that include at least one of the entities previously
    listed. Eligible projects and activities include acquiring,
    improving, or rehabilitating intermodal or rail equipment and
    facilities, such as tracks, bridges, yards, buildings and
    shops.\53\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \53\ Id. at 3-6.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Loans may also be used for Transit-Oriented Development
    (TOD), including commercial and residential development.\54\
    Such projects should incorporate private investment, be
    physically and functionally related to a passenger rail station
    or multimodal station that includes rail service, likely to
    begin the contracting for construction process no later than 90
    days after the RRIF loan is obligated, and has a high
    probability of increasing ridership, tenant lease payments or
    other activities that generate revenue exceeding costs for the
    passenger rail station or service.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \54\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    THE REBUILDING AMERICAN INFRASTRUCTURE WITH SUSTAINABILITY AND EQUITY
                        (RAISE) GRANT PROGRAM

        RAISE is a DOT discretionary grant program for surface
    transportation projects that have a significant regional or
    local impact, and support DOT strategic goals to improve
    safety, economic efficiency and global competitiveness, reduce
    disparities, and achieve environmental objectives.\55\ Eligible
    applicants include states, local governments, port authorities,
    and metropolitan planning organizations, among others.\56\ IIJA
    authorized advanced appropriations for RAISE grants of $1.5
    billion annually for FY 2022 to FY 2026.\57\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \55\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Off. of the Sec'y, Notice of Funding
    Opportunity for Fiscal Year 2024, Rebuilding American Infrastructure
    with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grants, https://
    www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-11/RAISE%202024%20NOFO
    %2011.30.23_0.pdf; see also IIJA, supra note 31, at 135 Stat. 663.
        \56\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  25101(b).
        \57\ IIJA, supra note 31, at 135 Stat. 675.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2023, the RAISE program issued over $2.2 billion in
    awards for eligible projects, including at least eighteen
    grants for highway-railway grade separation projects and other
    rail projects.\58\ In June 2024, DOT announced roughly $1.8
    billion in RAISE grant awards, including over 15 freight and
    intercity passenger rail projects.\59\ On January 10, 2025, DOT
    announced awards of $1.32 billion, including over 10 freight
    and intercity rail projects.\60\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \58\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., Biden-Harris
    Administration Announces Funding for 162 Community-Led Infrastructure
    Projects as Part of the Investing in America Agenda, (June 28, 2023),
    available at https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-
    administration-announces-funding-162-community-led-infrastructure; see
    also U.S. Dep't of Transp., Off. of the Sec'y, RAISE 2023 Fact Sheets,
    available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-
    06/RAISE%202023%20Fact%20Sheets_2.pdf.
        \59\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., RAISE Fact Sheet, available at https://
    www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-07/
    RAISE%202024%20Fact%20Sheets_0.pdf.
        \60\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Rebuilding American Infrastructure with
    Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant Program, available at https://
    www.transportation.gov/RAISEgrants.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    THE NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT MULTIMODAL FREIGHT & HIGHWAY PROJECTS
                        PROGRAM (INFRA)

        The INFRA program was established by the FAST Act and
    awards competitive grants for multimodal freight and highway
    projects of National or regional significance to improve the
    safety, efficiency, and reliability of the movement of freight
    and people.\61\ Eligible applicants include states, local
    governments, tribal governments, and special purpose districts,
    among others.\62\ Among the eligible activities for INFRA
    grants are highway-railroad crossings or grade separation
    projects.\63\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \61\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., The INFRA Grant Program, (last updated
    June 27, 2023), available at https://www.transportation.gov/grants/
    infra-grant-program [hereinafter INFRA Grants]; see also Fixing
    America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-
    94, 129 Stat. 1332, Sec. 1105.
        \62\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., The Infra Grant Program, available at
    https://www.transportation.gov/grants/infra-grant-program.
        \63\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        IIJA authorized up to $10.8 billion for INFRA over the
    period of FY 2022 through FY 2026.\64\ In FY 2022, DOT awarded
    approximately $1.5 billion to freight and highway
    infrastructure projects.\65\ DOT consolidated the INFRA grant
    program into a single notice of funding opportunity with the
    National Infrastructure Project Assistance grants program
    (Mega) and the Rural Surface Transportation Grant program
    (Rural).\66\ This combined NOFO is known as the Multimodal
    Project Discretionary Grant Opportunity (MPDG) and allows
    applicants to apply through one application and a common set of
    criteria.\67\ DOT issued a NOFO for the MPDG in June 2023,
    anticipating the MPDG will award between $5.45 billion and
    $5.75 billion from FY 2023 and FY 2024 funding, including
    between $3 billion and $3.1 billion for INFRA.\68\ In October
    2024, DOT announced $4.2 billion in funding from INFRA and the
    Mega grant program.\69\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \64\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
    Authorized Funding, available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/
    dot.gov/files/2022-01/DOT_Infrastructure_
    Investment_and_Jobs_Act_Authorization_Table_%28IIJA%29.pdf; see
    Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects.
        \65\ Tom Ichniowski, US DOT Picks Winners for $1.5B in INFRA
    Grants, Engineering News Record, (Sept. 15, 2022), available at https:/
    /www.enr.com/articles/54806-us-dot-picks-winners-for-15b-in-infra-
    grants.
        \66\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin, Competitive
    Discretionary Grant Programs, (last updated Dec. 11, 2023), available
    at https://railroads.dot.gov/grants-loans/competitive-discretionary-
    grant-programs/competitive-discretionary-grant-programs; see multimodal
    projects discretionary grant program.
        \67\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Off. of the Sec'y, NOFO for the DOT FY
    2023-2024 MPDG, (last updated June 26, 2023), available at https://
    www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-06/MPDG%20NOFO%202023-
    2024%20Final_0.pdf [hereinafter MPDG NOFO].
        \68\ Id.
        \69\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., INVESTING IN AMERICA: Biden-Harris
    Administration Announces More Than $4.2 Billion From the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law for Transformational, National Infrastructure
    Projects, available at https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/
    investing-america-biden-harris-administration-announces-more-42-
    billion-bipartisan.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  IV. REQUIREMENTS OF FRA ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

        There are several requirements that stakeholders must
    follow to access and utilize available Federal financial
    assistance. Some grantees may find meeting Federal requirements
    challenging. Below is a summation of some of these requirements
    and the challenges non-traditional DOT grantees face.

    NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

        The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires
    Federal agencies to assess the impacts of their proposed
    decisions on the physical and human environment.\70\ NEPA
    provides a framework for environmental planning and decision
    making by Federal agencies.\71\ Under NEPA, if the agency
    determines an action will not have a significant environmental
    impact, the agency may issue a categorical exclusion (CE)
    exempting the activity from further NEPA analysis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \70\ Fed. Railroad Admin., Environment FRA & NEPA, available at
    https://railroads.dot.gov/rail-network-development/environment/
    environment.
        \71\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        If impacts on the environment are not clearly established,
    FRA will conduct an Environmental Assessment (EA) that helps an
    agency document and determine whether the impacts of a proposed
    action are significant.\72\ If upon investigation, the agency
    determines the impacts are minimal, the agency may issue a
    Finding of No Significant Impact. If the EA affirms significant
    impacts, an agency will require an environmental impact
    statement which must identify and quantify potential impacts.
    The agency must also propose alternatives to the proposed
    action.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \72\ Fed. Railroad Admin., FRA & NEPA Documentation, available at
    https://railroads.dot.gov/rail-network-development/environment/fra-
    nepa-documentation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Rail infrastructure projects conducted on existing rights
    of way, or those that involve the construction, reconfiguration
    or expansion of existing facilities can qualify for a CE.\73\
    The American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association
    believes creating more clarity around when CEs qualify would
    save its members time and resources.\74\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \73\ Fed. Railroad Admin., Additional Information on Categorical
    Exclusions, https://railroads.dot.gov/rail-network-development/
    environment/additional-information-categorical-exclusions.
        \74\ Regulatory and Legislative Priority Items for the Short Line
    Freight Railroad Industry Prepared for the new Trump Administration's
    Federal Railroad Administration by the American Short Line and Regional
    Railroad Association. (Feb. 2025), [hereinafter ``Short Line
    Priorities''] (on file with Comm.).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition, FRA grantees may seek opportunities to adopt
    other agency's CE as implemented by other DOT and Federal
    agencies that regularly interact with rail. These other non-DOT
    agencies include the United States Army Corps of Engineers and
    the Surface Transportation Board.\75\ The Fiscal Responsibility
    Act of 2023 was signed into law on June 3, 2023.\76\ Section
    109 of the law allows agencies to voluntarily adopt the CEs
    listed by another agency provided the adoption is
    appropriate.\77\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \75\ Id.
        \76\ Pub, L. 118-5, 137 Stat 44.
        \77\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    USE OF PRE-AWARD AUTHORITY

        Pre-award costs are incurred after the award selection
    announcement date, but before the grant is obligated.\78\
    Recipients may incur costs using non-Federal dollars at their
    own risk for later reimbursement or credit once the funds are
    obligated. For rail grants managed by the FRA, grant recipients
    must request pre-award authority (PAA) from the FRA. The
    American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association believes
    allowing recipients to segment activities, such as conducting
    engineering analysis and the acquisition of materials may help
    serve as a hedge against material inflation and reduce the
    amount of time to begin construction.\79\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \78\ Fed. Railroad Admin., Federal Railroad Administration Answers
    to Frequently Asked Questions about Pre-Award Authority (Sept. 22,
    2023), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/
    2023-09/Pre-Award%20Authority%20FAQs%20-%209.22.23_PDFa.pdf.
        \79\ Short Line Priorities, supra note 65.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SECTION 106 HISTORICAL PRESERVATION REVIEWS

        The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires
    agencies to consider the impact of their actions on historic
    properties.\80\ Section 106 of the NHPA applies to all projects
    receiving a Federal grant or requiring a Federal permit
    regardless if they qualify for a categorical exclusion under
    NEPA. Section 11504 of the FAST Act initiated the creation of
    an exemption from Section 106 Advisory Council on Historic
    Preservation (ACHP) review for railroad rights-of-way
    consistent with the exemption for interstate highways.\81\ The
    highways exemption recognizes that ``the integrity of the
    system depends on continuing maintenance and upgrades so that
    it can continue to move traffic across great distances.'' \82\
    The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) issued a
    general exemption from Section 106 for the Federal highway
    system except for limited number of individual elements in the
    system which were so designated by the Federal Highways
    Administration.\83\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \80\ 54 USC Sec.  300101.
        \81\ Pub. L. No. 114-94, Sec.  11504, 129 Stat. 1693; see also 70
    Fed. Reg. 11,928 (Mar. 10, 2005).
        \82\ 70 Fed. Reg. 11,928 (Mar. 10, 2005).
        \83\ 70 Fed. Reg. 11,928-9.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The ACHP adopted an ``activity-based approach'' and a
    ``property-based approach for rail'' that differs from the
    exemption granted highways.\84\ If Federally-funded projects
    are outside of the list of exemptions, railroads can instead
    pre-identify projects as historically significant.\85\ That
    process requires railroads to conduct a review and examination
    of properties involved in a project to identify and qualify
    what could be considered of historical significance. This
    review is often conducted by third party contractors with
    specific expertise. Conducting this type of Section 106 review
    can be costly. Short line railroads may find the process cost
    prohibitive.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \84\ Id.
        \85\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ACHP is an independent Federal agency created to implement
    HHPA. ACHP is comprised of 24 statutorily designated members
    from Federal agencies, preservation organizations, tribes and
    expert private citizens who carry out, in part, historic
    preservation case reviews and the Section 106 process.\86\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \86\ Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, About the ACHP,
    available at https://www.achp.gov/about.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  V. WITNESSES

         LMr. Matthew Dietrich, Executive Director, Ohio
    Rail Development Commission
         LThe Hon. Garrett Eucalitto, Commissioner,
    Connecticut Department of Transportation, on behalf of American
    Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
         LMr. Kevin Hicks, P.E., Senior Vice President,
    TranSystems, on behalf of National Railroad Contractors
    Association
         LMs. Kristin Bevil, General Counsel and Chief
    Legal Officer, Pinsly Railroad Company, on behalf of American
    Short Line and Regional Railroad Association

     AMERICA BUILDS: IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL
                                RAIL ASSISTANCE

                                  ----------

                              TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
                                             Materials,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m. in
    Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Daniel Webster
    (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. The Subcommittee on Railroads,
    Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials will come to order.
        I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to
    declare a recess at any time during today's hearing.
        Without objection, show that ordered.
        I ask unanimous consent that the Members not on the
    subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee in
    today's hearing and ask questions.
        Without objection, show that ordered.
        As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document in the
    record, please also email it to DocumentsTI@mail.house.gov.
        I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
    statement for 5 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL WEBSTER OF FLORIDA, CHAIRMAN,
     SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

        Mr. Webster of Florida. Most of us are familiar with the
    unfortunate and unnecessary reputation of our country for
    building and repairing infrastructure. It takes too long, costs
    too much.
        Many of what we would today call megaprojects, like the
    original Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge and the Triborough
    Bridge in New York, took just a few years to build. Hoover Dam
    was completed in just 5 years.
        While delays to large projects garner all the media
    attention, many of the same laws, processes, and redtape that
    add years to project completion time and costs also plague
    smaller projects initiated by both freight and passenger
    service carriers.
        Recognizing the importance of a safe, efficient, and
    reliable freight and passenger rail transportation system,
    Congress has authorized several programs to assist those
    carriers who, owing to their size or market segments, lack the
    resources of larger operators to invest substantial funds in
    their infrastructure needs. These include programs like CRISI,
    which serves as a vital source of funding to assist short line
    railroads to rehabilitate and expand infrastructure necessary
    for their mission to provide first- and last-mile freight
    service.
        Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of these
    programs is the purpose of today's hearing and a goal as the
    committee works to reauthorize Department of Transportation
    surface transportation programs.
        Additionally, Federal infrastructure funding should support
    core programs and the construction of infrastructure.
        The Trump administration has inherited a backlog of more
    than 3,000 unobligated DOT grants. Responsibly, the
    administration took the time to review these grants to ensure
    the best use of taxpayer dollars. Today, the Department
    announced it approved more than 180 grants totaling $3.2
    billion. I look forward to working with the administration to
    reduce the Biden backlog in a timely manner and ensure that
    Federal grants are focused on improving critical
    infrastructure.
        Again, I look forward to learning the views of today's
    witnesses.
        [Mr. Webster of Florida's prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel Webster, a Representative in Congress
      from the State of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Railroads,
                       Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
        Most of us are familiar with the unfortunate and unnecessary
    reputation of our country for building and repairing infrastructure: it
    takes too long and costs too much.
        Many of what we would today call ``mega projects,'' like the
    original Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge and the Triborough Bridge in
    New York, took just a few years to build. The Hoover Dam was completed
    in just five years.
        While delays to large projects garner all the media attention, many
    of the same laws, processes, and red tape that add years to project
    completion time and costs also plague smaller projects initiated by
    both freight and passenger service carriers.
        Recognizing the importance of a safe, efficient, and reliable
    freight and passenger rail transportation system, Congress has
    authorized several programs to assist those carriers who, owing to
    their size or market segments, lack the resources of larger operators
    to invest substantial funds in their infrastructure.
        These include programs like CRISI, which serves as a vital source
    of funding to assist short line railroads to rehabilitate and expand
    infrastructure necessary for their mission to provide ``first and last
    mile'' freight service.
        Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of these programs is the
    purpose of today's hearing and a goal as the Committee works to
    reauthorize Department of Transportation surface transportation
    programs.
        Additionally, federal infrastructure funding should support core
    programs and the construction of infrastructure.
        The Trump Administration inherited a backlog of more than 3,000
    unobligated DOT grants. Responsibly, the Administration took the time
    to review these grants to ensure the best use of taxpayer dollars.
        Today, the Department announced it approved more than 180 grants
    totaling over $3 billion.
        I look forward to working with the Administration to reduce the
    Biden backlog in a timely manner and ensure that federal grants are
    focused on improving critical infrastructure.

        Mr. Webster of Florida. I now recognize Ranking Member
    Titus for 5 minutes for an opening remark.
        You are recognized.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DINA TITUS OF NEVADA, RANKING MEMBER,
     SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

        Ms. Titus. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    holding this hearing.
        Through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, this committee
    made some historic investments in passenger rail, and we are
    seeing the impact of that all across the country. Certainly, we
    are seeing it in Las Vegas. Thanks to a $3 billion grant from
    the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail,
    Brightline West has broken ground on a new high-speed train
    between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. I have been working to bring
    high-speed rail to the Southwest for many years, and I am
    excited that it is becoming a reality.
        I am also proud that this project is creating good-paying
    union jobs. Rail union workers are building Brightline West,
    and they are going to play a role in operating and maintaining
    it once it is in service. In fact, it has been estimated that
    the project will create 35,000 construction jobs and 1,000
    permanent jobs. And that is nothing to sneeze at.
        While Brightline West is a success story, I know it is not
    the only model we need to support as we work to improve
    intercity passenger rail. We have got to remember that there is
    not a passenger rail system in the world, in the whole world,
    that operates without some Government investment in capital
    projects.
        I believe we need to provide robust funding for Amtrak and
    competitive grants in the next transportation authorization
    bill. We don't want to lose all the progress that we have made
    over the past 5 years, and that is what will happen if we don't
    invest. Amtrak services are found in red and blue districts,
    and I am glad to see that some of my Republican colleagues
    voted in favor of amendments to protect Amtrak funding for the
    Northeast Corridor and for the North Carolina rail system
    during last week's markup in this committee.
        There are many communities across the U.S. that will
    benefit from sustained Federal rail investments. The Federal
    Railroad Administration has identified 69 corridors in 44
    States as ready for additional investment. These are in many of
    our districts, with proposed lines, extensions to existing
    routes, or improvements to the rail service in 49 districts in
    this committee alone, 49 in this committee alone.
        Now, in addition to helping expand passenger rail service,
    Federal rail grants also make our rail networks safer. For
    example, the Railroad Crossing Elimination program helps
    address safety concerns at grade crossings. There are over
    2,000 incidents and 200 fatalities at these dangerous
    intersections every year. We can and must do better. The $3
    billion Congress allocated to this program is helping eliminate
    these problems, or at least make them safer across the country.
        I would like to use our time today to hear from our
    witnesses about how investments from the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law are improving rail services in your
    communities or with your systems, and I also welcome
    suggestions for how we can work together to speed up the grant
    implementation process. Whether through improving the
    obligation process or ensuring that FRA has sufficient staff to
    execute these grants, I believe that targeted change could help
    speed up that grant implementation and help move the systems
    forward.
        So, I look forward to working with you, Mr. Webster,
    Chairman Graves, and Ranking Member Larsen on these issues as
    the surface transportation reauthorization process moves
    forward.
        So thank you, and I yield back.
        [Ms. Titus' prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress
         from the State of Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
                 Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
        Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
        Through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, this Committee made
    historic investments in passenger rail, and we are certainly seeing the
    impacts of those investments in Las Vegas. Thanks to a $3 billion grant
    from Federal State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail, Brightline
    West broke ground last April on a new high-speed train service from Las
    Vegas to Los Angeles.
        I have been working to bring high speed rail to Southern Nevada for
    decades, and I am excited that it is finally becoming a reality. I am
    also proud that the project is creating good-paying, union jobs. Rail
    union workers are building the Brightline West line and will play a
    role in operating and maintaining it once it is in service. Overall,
    the project is expected to create 35,000 construction jobs and 1,000
    permanent jobs.
        And while Brightline West is a success story, I know that it is not
    the only model we need to support as we work to improve intercity
    passenger rail service across the United States. There is not a
    passenger rail system in the world that operates without some
    government investment in capital projects.
        We need to provide robust funding for Amtrak and competitive grants
    in the next surface transportation reauthorization so we do not lose
    all the progress we have been making over the past five years. Amtrak
    services Red and Blue Districts alike, and I was glad to see some of my
    Republican colleagues vote in favor of amendments to protect Amtrak
    funding for the Northeast Corridor and for North Carolina rail
    investments during last week's markup in this Committee.
        There are many communities across the United States that will
    benefit from sustained federal rail investments. The Federal Railroad
    Administration has identified 69 corridors in 44 states as ready for
    additional investment. These corridors are in many of our districts,
    with proposed lines, extensions to existing routes or improvements to
    passenger rail service in 49 districts in this Committee alone.
        In addition to helping expand passenger rail service, federal rail
    grants also make our rail networks safer. For example, the Railroad
    Crossing Elimination Program helps address safety concerns at grade
    crossings. There are over 2,000 incidents and 200 fatalities at these
    dangerous intersections each year. We can and must do better. The $3
    billion Congress allocated to this program is helping eliminate or make
    these intersections safer across the United States.
        I would like to use our time today to hear from our witnesses about
    how investments from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law are improving
    rail service in your communities. I also welcome suggestions for how we
    can work together to speed up the grant implementation process. Whether
    it be through improving the obligation process or ensuring that the FRA
    has sufficient staff to execute these grants, I believe targeted
    changes could speed up grant implementation.
        I look forward to working with Chairman Graves, Ranking Member
    Larsen, and Subcommittee Chairman Webster on these issues during the
    surface transportation reauthorization process.
        I yield back.

        Mr. Webster of Florida. I now recognize the ranking member
    of the full committee.
        Mr. Larsen, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING
         MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

        Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair Webster and
    Ranking Member Titus, for holding today's hearing.
        Today's hearing is about efficiency and effectiveness in
    delivering rail improvements. I support these goals, and yet I
    am concerned this administration is more worried about the
    rhetoric than rolling up its sleeves to get there. In his first
    100 days, the President has driven up costs and cut critical
    services. We have seen chaos and confusion in the constant
    freezing and unfreezing of transportation grants, attacks on
    the workforce that deliver these transportation investments,
    and conditions placed on grants that have nothing to do with
    transportation.
        The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was a transformational
    investment in many things, including passenger rail. After 50
    years of underinvestment, Amtrak and the recipients of rail
    competitive grants can plan and succeed, thanks to 5 years of
    guaranteed funding for capital projects. This funding has
    allowed Amtrak to address decades of deferred maintenance and
    begin construction on long-delayed capital projects. This
    investment has allowed Brightline West to begin construction,
    as Ranking Member Titus has highlighted.
        Funding has been announced to support safety improvements
    all over the country, including my district. In early 2025, the
    city of Everett was awarded $18 million to eliminate two
    existing crossings with Burlington Northern Santa Fe through
    the construction of an overpass and roundabout near the Smith
    Island terminal. In 2023, the city of Burlington was awarded $2
    million in a planning grant to identify which of the city's 16
    at-grade crossings is most suitable for grade separation.
        Nationally, these investments helped create 1.7 million
    construction and manufacturing jobs across the country, and
    these are jobs with good wages and benefits. That is why it is
    hard to understand why the administration has, over the past
    100 days, halted progress and put millions of dollars, hundreds
    of thousands of jobs, and thousands of projects at risk.
    Secretary Duffy testified last month before the Senate
    Environment and Public Works Committee that roughly 3,200
    previously awarded projects were on hold.
        Now, the BIL invested more than $48 billion in 445 projects
    to improve rail safety and expand passenger rail travel
    nationwide, and still the administration has refused to tell us
    which of these projects are on hold.
        In the Pacific Northwest, Washington State and Oregon are
    committed to advancing the Cascadia high-speed rail project.
    This project will connect people and communities, increase our
    regional economic competitiveness, and improve the quality of
    life across the region with high-speed rail between Vancouver,
    BC, Seattle, and Portland. It will connect workers to good
    jobs, it will increase access to affordable housing, and offer
    greater mobility for almost 10 million people.
        Now, similarly, the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity
    Passenger Rail is matching billions of dollars in State and
    private investment in passenger rail improvements, including
    bridges and tunnels on the Northeast Corridor.
        The BIL is improving transportation in every State and
    every congressional district, which is why it is concerning the
    administration is trying to undermine that progress.
        Just last month, Secretary Duffy reduced previously awarded
    grants for rail infrastructure in New York, Newark, Dallas, and
    Houston. He also sent a letter to put all Federal grant
    recipients on notice that previously awarded grants will be
    reviewed and possibly paused to ensure they align with the
    administration's priorities. If jobs and investments aren't the
    administration's priorities, what are?
        Halting the flow of benefits from appropriations already
    approved by Congress is a strange way to launch the golden age
    of infrastructure. It is not efficient, it is not effective.
    Instead, we should be working on a bipartisan basis to keep it
    going.
        Meanwhile, the Department continues to signal that mass
    layoffs are coming, even though U.S. DOT staff who administer
    grants are there to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the
    money Congress allocates. The FRA is a grantmaking agency.
    Approximately 2.2 percent of its budget is for salaries and
    benefits. Federal workforce cuts provide minimal cost
    reductions and will make the Department less efficient.
        Moving forward, public investment is vital to building a
    truly national intercity passenger rail system. Every passenger
    rail system in the world developed with some form of public
    investment. Highways, transit, airports, and harbor maintenance
    projects have access to dedicated revenue, and it is time that
    we provide long-term funding certainty for intercity passenger
    rail.
        I am committed to building on the successes of the
    investments in the BIL and ensuring that this committee can say
    that America builds rail at hearings for many years to come.
        I want to thank the witnesses for being here, and I look
    forward to the discussion.
        With that, I yield back.
        [Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress
        from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on
                       Transportation and Infrastructure
        Thank you, Chairman Webster and Ranking Member Titus, for holding
    today's hearing.
        Today's hearing is about efficiency and effectiveness in delivering
    rail improvements. I support these goals, and yet I am concerned this
    Administration is more worried about rhetoric than rolling up its
    sleeves to get us there.
        In his first 100 days, President Trump has driven up costs and cut
    critical services.
        We have seen chaos and confusion in the constant freezing and
    unfreezing of transportation grants, attacks on the workforce that
    delivers these transportation investments, and conditions placed on
    grants that have nothing to do with transportation.
        The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was a transformational investment
    in passenger rail.
        After 50 years of underinvestment, Amtrak and the recipients of
    rail competitive grants can plan and succeed thanks to five years of
    guaranteed funding for capital projects.
        This funding has allowed Amtrak to address decades of deferred
    maintenance and begin construction on long-delayed capital projects.
        This investment has allowed Brightline West to begin construction,
    as Ranking Member Titus highlighted.
        Funding has been announced to support safety improvements across
    the country, including in my district:
          In early 2025, the City of Everett was awarded $18
    million to eliminate two crossings with Burlington Northern Santa Fe
    through the construction of an overpass and roundabout near the Smith
    Island terminal.
          In 2023, the City of Burlington was awarded a $2 million
    planning grant to identify which of the city's 16 at-grade crossings is
    most suitable for grade separation.

        Nationally, these investments helped create 1.7 million
    construction and manufacturing jobs across the country.
        These are jobs with good wages and benefits.
        That's why it is hard to understand why the Administration has,
    over the past hundred days, halted progress and put millions of
    dollars, hundreds of thousands of job, and thousands of projects at
    risk.
        Secretary Duffy testified last month before the Senate Environment
    and Public Works Committee that roughly 3,200 previously awarded
    projects were on hold.
        The BIL invested more than $48 billion in 445 projects to improve
    rail safety and expand passenger rail travel nationwide.
        Still, the Administration refuses to even tell us which of these
    projects are on hold.
        In the Pacific Northwest, Washington state and Oregon are committed
    to advancing the Cascadia high-speed rail project.
        Cascadia will connect people and communities, increase economic
    competitiveness, and improve the quality of life across the region with
    high-speed rail between Vancouver, B.C., Seattle, and Portland, Oregon.
    It will connect workers in my district to good jobs, increase access to
    affordable housing and offer greater mobility for almost ten million
    people.
        Similarly, the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger
    Rail is matching billions of dollars in state and private investment in
    passenger rail improvements including bridges and tunnels on the
    Northeast Corridor.
        The BIL is improving transportation in every state and every
    Congressional district, which is why it's concerning that the
    administration is trying to undermine the BIL's progress.
        Just last month, Secretary Duffy reduced previously awarded grants
    for rail infrastructure in New York, Newark, Dallas, and Houston. He
    also sent a letter to put all federal grant recipients on notice that
    previously awarded grants will be reviewed, and possibly paused, to
    ensure they align with this Administration's priorities. If jobs and
    investments aren't the Administration's priorities, what are?
        Halting the flow of benefits from appropriations already approved
    by Congress is a strange way to launch the golden age of
    infrastructure.
        It is not efficient. It is not effective. Instead, we should be
    working on a bipartisan basis to keep it going.
        Meanwhile, the Department continues to signal that mass layoffs are
    coming even though USDOT staff who administer grants are there to
    prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the money Congress allocates.
        The FRA is a grantmaking agency. Approximately 2.2 percent of its
    budget is for salaries and benefits. Federal workforce cuts provide
    minimal cost reductions and make the Department less efficient.
        Moving forward, public investment is vital to building a truly
    national intercity passenger rail system. Every passenger rail system
    in the world developed with some form of public investment.
        Highways, transit, airports, and harbor maintenance projects have
    access to dedicated revenue. It's time to provide long-term funding
    certainty for intercity passenger rail.
        I am committed to building on the successes of the investments in
    the BIL and ensuring this Committee can say that ``America Builds
    Rail'' at hearings for many years to come.
        Thank you to the witnesses for being here, and I look forward to
    the discussion.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. I, too, would like to welcome the
    witnesses, and thank you for spending your time to come and
    share with us your insights. And I look forward to hearing what
    you have to say.
        Briefly, I would like to explain our lighting system. There
    are three lights. Green is go, yellow is slow down, it is time
    to end, and red means stop. Pretty simple.
        I ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full statements
    be included in the record.
        Without objection, show that ordered.
        I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
    remain open until such time as the witnesses have provided
    answers to any questions that might be submitted in writing.
        Without objection, show that ordered.
        I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
    for 15 days for any additional comments and information
    submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
    of today's hearing.
        Without objection, show that ordered.
        As your written testimony has been made a part of the
    record, the subcommittee asks you to limit your remarks to 5
    minutes.
        We will start with Mr. Dietrich.
        You are recognized for 5 minutes.

     TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW DIETRICH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OHIO RAIL
     DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION; HON. GARRETT EUCALITTO, COMMISSIONER,
      CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE
       AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION
    OFFICIALS; KEVIN D. HICKS, P.E., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND RAIL
    & FREIGHT MARKET SECTOR LEADER, GANNETT FLEMING TRANSYSTEMS, ON
     BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL RAILROAD CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
    ASSOCIATION; AND KRISTIN BEVIL, GENERAL COUNSEL AND CHIEF LEGAL
      OFFICER, PINSLY RAILROAD COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
              SHORT LINE AND REGIONAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION

     TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW DIETRICH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OHIO RAIL
                         DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

        Mr. Dietrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Titus, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Matthew
    Dietrich, and I am the executive director of the Ohio Rail
    Development Commission.
        We are part of the Ohio Department of Transportation, and
    we work on projects involving rail infrastructure, including
    short line grants, rail coordination for highway projects, and
    grade crossing safety. We use State, private, and Federal
    funding, including FHWA formula funding and FRA discretionary
    grants for our work. We have used both the RCE and CRISI grant
    programs to supplement and leverage our State programs, a short
    line program, and a grade crossing safety program started by
    Governor Mike DeWine. We used the Governor's safety funds to
    match RCE funding specifically for grade separations, and we
    use our FHWA section 130 funds for at-grade crossings that
    cannot be separated.
        First, you have my written remarks, so I would like to
    summarize, but I hope to leave you with two takeaways.
        The RCE and CRISI grant programs are critical to the
    improvement of the freight rail infrastructure and safety. I
    can say without these programs, many of the 24 projects that we
    have received funding for just simply would not have happened
    without the Federal programs.
        Second, the more we can use standard project delivery
    processes that State DOTs around the country use to deliver
    other projects, the faster we will be able to complete them.
    With that, I have offered the following suggestions to
    streamline the project delivery.
        As you all know, grade separations are large projects that
    take a long time. Therefore, the applicants use the funding
    they have available, which is often State or FHWA formula
    funds. Because modal agencies' project development processes
    differ slightly, there is a great deal of time spent
    retrofitting these applications and creating barriers to
    development. This work could be avoided if the FRA would accept
    other modal agency standards and processes, especially when it
    comes to NEPA.
        The FRA could also provide pre-award authority letters with
    the notification of award to grantees. There is a natural lag
    time with these Federal grants from NOFO to submission to
    notification to the kickoff meeting. My organization has taken
    advantage of pre-award authority letters, but even those pre-
    award authority letters require additional paperwork after the
    kickoff meeting. If the FRA could provide pre-award authority
    letters immediately with the notification of award, grant
    recipients could continue to develop these projects
    concurrently with the administrative processes.
        The documentation for a project awarded to my organization
    is the same required for an organization that has never
    received any Federal funding. If the FRA developed a tiered
    grant process that could streamline grant administration for
    States, these projects could advance more quickly. For example,
    a great deal of the grant documentation isn't focused on the
    project, but on the governance and compliance. As a recipient
    of Federal funds in the State DOT, my entire organization is
    structured for Federal compliance. So, having separate
    documents is not only redundant, but it takes a lot of time and
    a lot of legal review.
        Another thing is that FRA could prequalify States to
    administer grants by allowing us to take more responsibility of
    administration. And I look to the NEPA assignment as a possible
    blueprint. Many States, including Ohio, have NEPA assignment
    where we assume Federal responsibilities. If a program like
    this could be expanded to cover the administration of
    discretionary grants, we could take some burden off of our
    Federal colleagues while at the same time accelerating
    projects.
        It was mentioned about the obligation process. The
    obligation process right now for discretionary grants is the
    same for formula funds. Formula funds: States have flexibility;
    discretionary grant projects: you don't. That means that there
    is obligation--if you have construction, it is sitting out
    there, possibly for years, as you are going through the
    process. This creates a worst case scenario. So if FRA could
    revise its obligation process to more accurately represent the
    commitments of the agency, that would add certainty and
    eliminate the need to continually revise and renegotiate grant
    agreements as we move forward.
        Finally, consider allocating a portion of the program to
    States so we can develop the projects. Of the last award, 123
    awards, only 33 received construction funding. If we as States
    could have a small portion to develop projects, then we could
    not only develop more complete projects, but I think it would
    increase the number and quality of the application pool.
        And please accept these comments as constructive criticism.
    We want to work together with all of you, with our FRA
    colleagues, to make this program better and a success. And
    thank you for the opportunity.
        [Mr. Dietrich's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Matthew Dietrich, Executive Director, Ohio Rail
                             Development Commission
        Good morning Chairman Webster, Vice Chairman Begich, Ranking Member
    Titus, and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Matthew Dietrich. I
    am Executive Director of the Ohio Rail Development Commission, part of
    the Ohio Department of Transportation tasked with rail infrastructure
    development, rail coordination for highway projects and grade crossing
    safety. I speak from the perspective of a state department of
    transportation that routinely administers federal transportation
    funding. The Rail Commission delivers projects using both Federal
    Railroad Administration (FRA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
    funds and both formula funds and discretionary grant awards. My
    organization has received multiple grant awards from the US Department
    of Transportation. Since 2010 the Rail Commission has been awarded and
    administered twenty-four (24) federal discretionary grants.
        These discretionary grants, specifically Railroad Crossing
    Elimination (RCE) and Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety
    Investment (CRISI), are critical to improving freight rail
    infrastructure and safety. My organization has been successful
    leveraging private freight railroad and state funding for these
    programs to complete projects that simply would not have happened
    without the federal funding.
        While the Rail Commission has experience with numerous federal
    discretionary grant programs funding rail infrastructure, my comments
    today focus on the FRA's RCE Program. This program shows both the
    challenges associated with federal discretionary grants but also the
    opportunities to make the process more efficient and more effective.
    First, I think it is important to note that grade crossing elimination
    projects are safety projects. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine created a state
    program to address grade crossing safety in the state. We have used
    those funds to leverage the federal RCE Program for grade separations,
    which are roadway bridges over or under rail lines. We chose this
    approach for two reasons. First, the safest crossing is one that does
    not exist and often the only way to eliminate at-grade railroad
    crossings without causing significant disruption to communities is to
    separate the roadway from the railroad. Second, we use Section 130
    funding from the FHWA to address safety issues at railroad-highway
    crossings where grade separations are not feasible.
        Based on my agency's experience over the years, below are six ways
    that project delivery could be streamlined while still meeting all
    federal requirements:
      Accept projects developed under the project development process of
                          other US DOT Administrations
        Grade separation projects are large, expensive infrastructure
    projects that, by definition, include multiple transportation modes. A
    great deal of time and resources are needed just to get a project to a
    stage that is suitable for submission of a federal grant application.
    One of the challenges with all discretionary programs is the
    uncertainty of funding. Therefore, applicants must balance the amount
    of work undertaken to develop the project with the uncertainty of the
    funding outcome, source, and timeline. Based on available funds,
    projects are often initiated following the processes of a different
    modal agency, such as the FHWA. While there are very good reasons for
    these differences in project approaches by the modal Administrations,
    in some cases, these differences create barriers to project
    implementation. Much work is needed to determine how these projects
    initiated following the project development process of one USDOT
    Administration can be retrofitted into the process of another USDOT
    Administration. This effort adds unnecessary work to both the
    application process as well as the project development process after
    the project is selected and funds are awarded. The Rail Commission won
    an RCE grant for a grade separation in Fostoria, Ohio, in the first
    year of the program. Between the time of application submission and the
    award announcement, we secured additional FHWA funding through standard
    Ohio DOT programs to advance the planning and engineering work and
    progressed that work following FHWA procedures. Rather than accelerate
    the project, the additional funding and work created delay and resulted
    in FRA determining that $70,000 of the RCE award was no longer eligible
    because we had progressed the work. It was the first instance in my
    career that identifying more funding for a project became an obstacle
    to overcome. This work could be avoided if the FRA accepted other
    approved USDOT Administrations' processes, such as NEPA, to develop
    projects.
         Provide Pre-Award Authority Letters with notification of award
        The time lags between application due dates, award notifications
    and kick-off meetings create project downtime that could be utilized by
    grant recipients to advance projects. My organization has taken the
    opportunity to seek pre-award authority letters from the FRA for our
    projects, but even this requires the submission of information to the
    FRA beyond the application. The statutory language of the RCE Program
    allows project development work initiated after the creation date of
    the program in the IIJA to be an eligible part of the project. At the
    current time, the Rail Commission has five grant awards under this
    program. Work has stopped on three of the projects because we have not
    received pre-award authority. These delays could be avoided if the FRA
    provided a pre-award authority letter with the notification of an
    award. While not full obligation of funding, these pre-award letters
    allow grant recipients to continue to develop these projects
    concurrently with the administrative processes. For several CRISI
    projects, the Rail Commission has been able to use pre-award authority
    from the FRA to purchase materials and conduct NEPA work while the rest
    of the project documentation is finalized. This process not only
    allowed the projects to advance more quickly but also mitigated some of
    the impacts of inflation on material costs. At the current time, we
    have a RCE award for a grade separation in Circleville, Ohio. Despite
    the fact that we have non-FRA funding allocated to the project, work on
    the project has stopped because we would jeopardize the FRA funding
    without pre-award authority.
      Streamline the grant documentation process for state DOT recipients
        My fellow DOT colleagues are entrusted to administer billions of
    federal transportation dollars following processes that have been
    developed over, and informed by, decades of experience. Yet, the
    documentation for a project awarded to my organization is the same
    documentation that is required for another entity that has never
    administered federal funding. If the FRA developed a tiered grant
    agreement process that considers the recipients' experience and
    authority administering federal funding, these projects could advance
    more quickly. For instance, lengthy legal review is required for grant
    documentation that is not related to the actual project but focused on
    governance and compliance. As a recipient of federal funding, our
    entire organizational structure is designed to comply with federal
    regulations so the need to have standalone documents is redundant and
    creates additional steps unrelated to project delivery.
                     Prequalify states to administer grants
        Another way for the FRA to streamline project delivery is the
    creation of a pre-qualification program for states to assume more
    direct responsibility for project delivery after award. A precedent and
    possible blueprint for this suggestion is National Environmental Policy
    Act (NEPA) Assignment. Many states, including Ohio, have received
    authority from US DOT Administrations to assume the federal
    responsibilities regarding NEPA. In Ohio, we have NEPA Assignment for
    both Federal Highway and Federal Rail programs. Expanding this program
    to encompass the administration of discretionary grants would reduce
    the burden on federal staff while simultaneously allowing states to
    more quickly advance awarded projects. For example, now that Ohio has
    NEPA Assignment for FRA projects, we have and continue to modify our
    programmatic agreements with resource agencies to include rail
    infrastructure projects and we are updating our internal manuals and
    computer systems to process rail projects. This work will remove the
    uniqueness of the administering FRA discretionary grants and allow us
    to use the standard project delivery processes that ODOT uses to
    deliver its overall program of projects.
                       Reconsider the obligation process
        Until grants are federally obligated, there is risk to all parties.
    In the case of Ohio's projects, almost all grant awards include
    construction funding. Historically, federal transportation funding for
    construction is not obligated until NEPA clearance is achieved. This is
    not an issue for traditional federal formula funds to states because
    the states have flexibility to adjust budgets to match project
    schedules. However, discretionary grants are project specific. The
    funding cannot be flexed by the recipients to other projects that might
    be on an accelerated timeline. The result is that for discretionary
    grant awards, portions of federal grant awards are left committed but
    unobligated for years. Because all of our infrastructure grants include
    construction funding, we currently have over $150 million in
    unobligated grant funds even though we are actively working on many of
    those projects. This creates a worst-case scenario for these projects:
    the grantee must develop the project without certainty of funding even
    after award and FRA appears to have significant balances of unused
    funding. If the FRA obligation process were revised to more accurately
    represent the commitments of the agency, such as entering into grant
    agreements and obligating funding earlier in the process, the certainty
    would provide assurance to grantees and accelerate work by eliminating
    the need to continually revise and renegotiate grant documents to move
    to the next step in the process.
                  Allocation to states for project development
        In addition to the process changes I have suggested, an additional
    step to advance projects more efficiently would be to allocate a
    portion of program funding to states to develop projects. As I stated
    earlier, these are large infrastructure projects that span multiple
    federal fiscal years. I think it is telling that of the 123 awards from
    the FY 23-24 RCE Program, just 34 received construction funding.
    Allocating a portion of the funding to states based on criteria such as
    railroad mileage and population would accomplish two goals: allow
    states to develop projects on timelines that are not dictated by the
    next Notice of Funding Opportunity and improve the quality and
    readiness of discretionary grant applications that are submitted to the
    FRA for funding. The Rail Commission is currently using the one-time
    state funding provided by Governor DeWine's Administration for grade
    crossing safety to conduct project development activities for potential
    RCE project applications. Allocation of funding to states would allow
    us to further this work through the NEPA process for new projects.
        I provide these comments not as criticism of the US DOT but as
    suggestions from someone with decades of experience administering
    federal transportation funding to help collectively move these critical
    safety projects forward in the quickest, most efficient way possible.
    While my observations today are focused on the RCE Program, many of
    these recommendations can also be applied to other federal rail funding
    programs.
        Thank you for the opportunity to offer these suggestions and I am
    happy to answer any questions.

        Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Eucalitto.

    TESTIMONY OF HON. GARRETT EUCALITTO, COMMISSIONER, CONNECTICUT
        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
       ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS

        Mr. Eucalitto. Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today. My name is Garrett Eucalitto, and I serve as the
    commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Transportation,
    and I am currently the president of the American Association of
    State Highway and Transportation Officials, or AASHTO. Today,
    it is my honor to testify on behalf of AASHTO, which represents
    all State departments of transportation, the District of
    Columbia, and Puerto Rico. I am proud to bring perspective from
    across the country and share what we are experiencing in
    Connecticut.
        Transportation is more than pavement and steel. It is a
    force multiplier for nearly every aspect of our lives. It is
    how people get to work and school, how we visit family and
    friends for important milestones, and how goods move from
    factories to store shelves. Transportation is the quiet
    foundation that supports our economy, our communities, and our
    way of life.
        When our transportation system functions well, it is
    invisible. And when it doesn't, impacts are widespread. We need
    to view infrastructure as a national platform, rather than a
    one-off project. Roads in Connecticut fuel supply chains in
    Georgia. Rail lines in the Northeast support commerce across
    the Midwest. Success isn't local, it is networked. And to keep
    that network strong, we need sustained, strategic investment
    that reflects the scale and complexity of the system we are
    depending on.
        The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided
    historic investment in our rail transportation system, with
    $102 billion in Federal rail funding from fiscal years 2022
    through 2026. This infusion of investment has been critical to
    State DOT passenger and freight rail efforts. Years of deferred
    projects are now finally moving forward. Much of the railroad
    infrastructure in our country was built in the 1800s and has
    been neglected for generations.
        The Fed-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail
    Grant Program has been instrumental in tackling many of these
    repair backlogs, boosting system performance, and fueling the
    modernization of our rail services, creating a faster, more
    connected transportation network. For example, in Connecticut,
    we are making progress replacing our aging, heavily used,
    movable railroad bridges, including the 129-year-old Norwalk
    River Bridge, known as the WALK Bridge. About a decade ago, the
    WALK Bridge sustained numerous catastrophic mechanical failures
    which crippled the entire Northeast Corridor. Now, thanks to
    the Federal funding, a replacement project is underway, and we
    will no longer have to fear the impacts to passenger and
    freight traffic because of another mechanical failure.
        Bold investments like these will transform passenger rail
    service, improve the reliability of freight rail, and ensure
    people and goods can travel safely and quickly throughout our
    country. None of this would be possible without dedicated,
    sustained Federal support. We need reliable, predictable
    funding to plan decades' worth of capital improvements. Fits
    and starts of funding make it difficult to plan and implement
    any project. This wouldn't be acceptable on our highway side,
    and it shouldn't be acceptable on the railroad side.
        Without formula funding like highway and transit
    infrastructure, our railroad investments are dependent on
    discretionary grant programs. This makes us more attuned to
    opportunities to improve the grants application process and
    administrative procedures. Duplicative permitting requirements
    and convoluted regulatory environments can delay the delivery
    of much-needed rail projects, which ultimately drives up costs.
    While it is not unique to the railroad sector due to the
    difficulties working in an active rail territory, the impact
    can be more pronounced. This inclusion of a dedicated rail
    title in the next surface transportation reauthorization bill
    will be critical to maintaining the current momentum of State
    DOT passenger and freight rail efforts.
        But without administrative changes to improve the
    efficiency of our grant programs and legislative changes to
    eliminate costly, redundant regulatory hurdles, project
    sponsors will continue to encounter project delays, increased
    costs, and inefficiency. We do need a long-term reauthorization
    that extends current IIJA funding levels that keeps pace with
    inflation, all while giving State DOTs the ability to
    efficiently deliver projects that keep our communities safe and
    keep our economy moving.
        AASHTO and its members are committed to implementing the
    IIJA and its historic investment in rail. With so much aging
    rail infrastructure, this is going to take a lot of time and
    effort. But we are on the way to building a future age of rail
    in America.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
    forward to answering questions.
        [Mr. Eucalitto's prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Garrett Eucalitto, Commissioner, Connecticut
    Department of Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of
                   State Highway and Transportation Officials
                                  Introduction
        Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
        My name is Garrett Eucalitto, and I serve as Commissioner of the
    Connecticut Department of Transportation (Connecticut DOT), and I am
    currently the President of the American Association of State Highway
    and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Today, it is my honor to testify
    on behalf of AASHTO, which represents the state departments of
    transportation (state DOTs) of all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
    and Puerto Rico.
        After earning degrees in political science, government, and
    international relations and affairs, I started my career here in
    Washington, D.C., spending six years with former Sen. Joe Lieberman,
    where I championed Connecticut's transportation priorities at the
    federal level.
        I moved back to Connecticut to work in the state's budget office,
    overseeing infrastructure policy, and later served as Transportation
    Program Director at the National Governors Association in Washington,
    D.C., helping governors advance transportation priorities. In 2020 I
    was appointed Deputy Commissioner of the Connecticut DOT, before
    stepping into my current role as Commissioner in 2023.
        Today, I have the privilege of leading one of Connecticut's largest
    state agencies. Our team of 3,300 dedicated professionals manages a
    nearly $3 billion budget to deliver a multimodal transportation system
    that is safe, efficient, and reliable.
        Connecticut is a small, yet mighty state that sits within the heart
    of the Northeast Corridor, one of the busiest and economically vital
    transportation systems in the world. The Northeast Corridor region is
    home to more than 50 million people, and growing, and represents the
    world's fifth largest economy. The Northeast Corridor region
    contributes 30 percent of all U.S. jobs and generates 20 percent of the
    nation's Gross Domestic Product. Each day, this essential backbone of
    American mobility carries more than 750,000 passengers and 70 freight
    trains--serving as a lifeline for our economy and our communities. The
    Northeast Corridor, with its 457 miles of track, 17 tunnels, and over
    1,100 bridges, is not only an engineering marvel of the past, but an
    American asset that demands renewed commitment today.
        Rail is critical to the state of Connecticut, and a key component
    of Connecticut DOT's infrastructure and operations portfolio. With over
    230 route miles of passenger rail, half of which is owned by
    Connecticut DOT, and 582 miles of freight rail, with forty percent
    owned by Connecticut DOT, we invest heavily in railroad infrastructure
    to keep our economy moving. Connecticut DOT also owns over 400 pieces
    of rolling stock to support the passenger rail operations that
    crisscross the state. More than 43 million people and 2.9 million tons
    of weight move by rail within and through Connecticut annually. The
    Connecticut DOT supports a range of passenger rail services, ensuring
    access and mobility for tens of thousands of daily commuters and
    travelers across the region. Just like our interstate highway system,
    our state's rail system is a key component of the nation's overall
    transportation infrastructure and economy, and we depend on a strong
    federal partnership.
        The nation's infrastructure is interconnected, crisscrossing state
    lines and regions. The successes playing out in Connecticut and
    throughout the country would not be possible without federal support. I
    would like to extend AASHTO's utmost gratitude to you and your
    colleagues on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee
    on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials (Subcommittee) for your
    dedicated and tireless leadership on surface transportation policy and
    in your oversight of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
    implementation. As AASHTO members look forward to the reauthorization
    of surface transportation programs prior to the IIJA's expiration in
    September 2026, the nation's state DOTs want to thank this Subcommittee
    and Congress for the sound policy and stable funding provided through
    this multiyear bill.
        As this Subcommittee continues to work on the reauthorization of
    surface transportation programs, I want to discuss the following topics
    as part of my testimony today:
          Provide an overview of the IIJA rail program successes
          Provide an overview of the challenges state DOTs have
    experienced since the passage of the IIJA
          Provide an overview of the rail program policy
    recommendations currently being considered by AASHTO members
    Overview--Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) Rail Successes
                                 and Challenges
        The IIJA provided historic investment in our rail transportation
    system, with $102 billion in federal rail funding from Fiscal Years
    2022 through 2026.\1\ This infusion of investment has been critical to
    state DOT passenger and freight rail efforts. This funding was split
    mainly across the Amtrak National and Northeast Network, the
    Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Grant Program,
    the Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program, and the Federal-State
    Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Northeast Corridor and
    National Grant Program (including the Corridor Identification and
    Development Grant Program). As state departments of transportation have
    worked to deliver IIJA-funded rail projects, successes and challenges
    have emerged.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act information from FRA.
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Information from FRA - FRA.
    (n.d.). https://railroads.dot.gov/IIJA
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As a result of the IIJA, 19 federal grants worth over $2.3 billion
    have been allocated for rail improvement projects in Connecticut. Years
    of deferred projects, including many listed on the Federal Railroad
    Administration (FRA) Major Backlog Projects list, are now moving
    forward.
        Of note, we are making progress replacing our aging, deteriorated
    moveable bridges, including the 129-year-old Norwalk River Railroad
    Bridge, known locally as the WALK Bridge, and the 119-year-old Devon
    Railroad Bridge in Stratford and Milford. Led by our partners at
    Amtrak, crews are also currently replacing the 118-year-old Connecticut
    River Bridge, which connects Connecticut's shoreline towns of Old Lyme
    and Old Saybrook to Rhode Island and beyond.
        We are modernizing the New Haven Line power system by replacing
    outdated equipment. We are reconstructing rail overpass bridges,
    enhancing security infrastructure, and upgrading all tracks on the New
    Haven Line to meet modern safety standards. We are expanding the
    Hartford Line by restoring a second track through the entire corridor
    from New Haven to Springfield, Massachusetts, to boost both frequency
    and speed of passenger service.
        The Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant
    Program has been instrumental in funding these crucial projects that
    not only reduce the state's repair backlog but also improve performance
    and pave the way for both new and expanded intercity passenger rail
    services, including those operated by private entities.
          Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) Rail Successes
        An overarching key success of the IIJA was the inclusion of a
    dedicated rail title with significant levels of authorized federal
    funding. These landmark funding levels have allowed state DOTs and
    freight railroads to actualize years of rail planning. The beneficial
    economic and social impacts of these investments highlight the need for
    continued federal support for rail program funding in the next surface
    transportation reauthorization bill.
        State DOTs are committed to improving safety throughout the
    transportation system. This includes working with the rail industry to
    manage the many concerns that arise from rail-highway crossings. The
    IIJA included several programs dedicated to addressing this issue.
        The creation of the Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program in
    the IIJA and the implementation of beneficial changes to the Federal
    Highway Administration's Section 130 Railway-Highway Program are key
    examples. The Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program provided an
    additional stream of federal funding focused on rail crossing safety
    improvements, which has accelerated the speed with which state DOTs can
    make rail safety improvements.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Railroad crossing elimination grant program. Railroad Crossing
    Elimination Grant Program - FRA. (n.d.). https://railroads.dot.gov/
    grants-loans/railroad-crossing-elimination-grant-program
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There are many important examples of projects around the country
    that are benefiting from these programs.
        The Texas DOT received a Fiscal Year 2022 Railroad Crossing
    Elimination Grant Program award for the US 90 Grade Separation Project.
    The project will support the construction of two at-grade rail
    crossings. It will close the at-grade crossing along Waco Street and
    build a grade-separated bridge to eliminate the US 90 highway-rail
    crossing over existing Union Pacific Railroad tracks.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Railroad crossing elimination (RCE) program FY2022 selections.
    Railroad Crossing Elimination (RCE) Program FY2022 Selections - FRA.
    (n.d.). https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/railroad-crossing-
    elimination-rce-program-fy2022-selections
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Michigan DOT received a Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Railroad Crossing
    Elimination Grant Program award for the Grade Separation of M-85 and
    Canadian National (CN) Railroad Project. The `project will eliminate a
    dangerous at-grade crossing on one of the Downriver Region's busiest
    traffic corridors, where freight tracks intersect with highway and
    pedestrian rights-of-way at M-85, a critical north-south route between
    Detroit and Trenton.' \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ FY23-24 railroad crossing elimination (RCE) grant program
    selections. FY23-24 Railroad Crossing Elimination (RCE) Grant Program
    Selections - FRA. (n.d.). https://railroads.dot.gov/FY23-24-RCE-Grant-
    Program-Selections
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Connecticut DOT received two Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Railroad
    Crossing Elimination Grant Program awards for two high-risk grade
    crossings in the state. One $400,000 award is being used to study the
    feasibility of closing the existing at-grade crossing at Toelles Road
    (FRA Crossing #500637X) on the Hartford Line rail corridor and
    construct a new roadway bridge to carry Toelles Road over the Amtrak-
    owned Hartford Line and U.S. Route 5 (U.S. 5). The Toelles Road at-
    grade crossing is Connecticut's #1 ranked crossing on the FRA's
    Accident Prediction Report. Between January 2019 through July 2024,
    there were 207 calls for service and 39 police department incidents at
    the Toelles Road crossing.
        Another grant of $2.4 million was awarded to study alternative
    options and develop preliminary engineering plans for the consolidation
    of crossings on the state-owned Metro-North Railroad (MNR) Danbury
    Branch in Norwalk and Danbury, CT. Despite prior improvements and
    ongoing education and outreach efforts, collisions continue to occur,
    including a tragic and fatal crash at the Commerce Street crossing in
    2023
        In addition, the IIJA modified the Section 130 Railway-Highway
    Program by changing the federal cost share to 100 percent and
    increasing flexibility with how funds can be applied.\5\ Enhancements
    to the Section 130 Railway-Highway Program have allowed states the
    flexibility to address railway-highway safety in a way that meets each
    state's unique needs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Rail-Highway Crossings Program Questions & Answers guidance.
    Rail-Highway Crossings Program Questions & Answers Guidance - FHWA.
    (n.d.). https://highways.dot.gov/safety/hsip/xings/rail-highway-
    crossings-program-questions-answers-guidance
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Funding from the Section 130 program is helping improve safety
    around rail crossings across the country, including in Connecticut
    through the installation of new vehicular gates and railroad flashers,
    upgraded traffic control signals with railroad pre-emption,
    installation of pavement markings, and much more. Section 130 funding
    has been put to good use at the Connecticut DOT; there are nearly
    twenty projects in design or in construction, and one recently
    completed project was in North Canaan, where we replaced crossing
    surfaces and made geometric improvements at freight rail grade
    crossings on U.S. Routes 7 & 44, accompanied by sidewalks and gates and
    bells.
        Another success from the IIJA was the inclusion of the Federal-
    State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program and the
    Corridor Identification and Development (Corridor ID) Grant Program.\6\
    The Corridor ID grant program creates a pipeline of projects that are
    ready for capital investment through programs like the Federal-State
    Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program. Each project in
    the current Corridor ID inventory and projects selected under the
    Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program
    have significant, discernible positive impacts on communities and state
    economies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail (FSP)
    grant program. Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail
    (FSP) Grant Program - FRA. (n.d.). https://railroads.dot.gov/federal-
    state-partnership-intercity-passenger
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This program has also provided key support for rail projects in
    several states.
        The North Carolina DOT received a Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Federal
    State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program award for
    the North Carolina--Raleigh to Richmond (R2R) Innovating Rail Program.
    The `project is part of a phased effort to develop a new passenger rail
    route between Raleigh, NC, and Richmond, VA, along the CSX
    Transportation ``S-Line'' as part of the Southeast Corridor connecting
    North Carolina with Virginia, Washington, D.C., and the Northeast
    Corridor. The project involves completion of final design, right-of-way
    acquisition, and construction activities to build additional parts of
    the Southeast Corridor from Raleigh to Wake Forest, NC, including new
    and upgraded track, eleven grade separations, and closure of multiple
    at-grade crossings.' \7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ FY22-23 Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail
    Program (national) selections. FY22-23 Federal-State Partnership for
    Intercity Passenger Rail Program (National) Selections - FRA. (n.d.).
    https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/fy22-23-FSP-National-rail-program-
    selections
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Florida DOT received a Fiscal Year 2022 Corridor ID Grant
    Program award for the proposed Jacksonville, Orlando, and Miami
    corridor. The `proposed corridor would provide new or enhanced service
    on one or more existing alignments.' \8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ FY22 Corridor Identification and Development Program
    selections. FY22 Corridor Identification and Development Program
    Selections - FRA. (n.d.). https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/fy22-CID-
    program-selections
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, the IIJA succeeded in providing Amtrak with necessary
    stability through funding for the National Network and the Northeast
    Corridor.\9\ State DOTs with state-supported intercity passenger rail
    benefit when Amtrak has sufficient federal funding and the IIJA has
    provided this stability while also working to address accountability
    through forums such as the State Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail
    Committee (SAIPRC) and the Northeast Corridor Commission.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ FRA. (n.d.). Amtrak Annual Grant Program Fact Sheet. https://
    railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2025-01/
    Amtrak%20Annual%20Grants%20fact%20sheet_1.23.25_PDFa.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Amtrak secured a 2023 Federal State Partnership for Intercity
    Passenger Rail Grant to replace the aging Connecticut River Bridge with
    a modern, moveable structure south of the current one. This long-
    awaited replacement comes after the bridge, built in 1907, was deemed
    ``structurally deficient'' in 2006 and was at risk for 15 years due to
    chronic underfunding.
        The new bridge will boost safety and speed for passengers by 55
    percent on the Northeast Corridor's Acela Express, Northeast Regional,
    and Shore Line East. Amtrak received more than $800 million in grant
    funds for this project, and the remainder of this historic $1.3-billion
    project is funded by Amtrak and the state of Connecticut.
        These bold investments are transforming passenger rail service
    along the Northeast Corridor.
        The IIJA also provided robust funding for the Consolidated Rail
    Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) grant program.\10\ The
    CRISI program funding has a wide array of eligible uses and has
    bolstered states' ability to grow freight connectivity and enhance
    safety.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements
    (CRISI) program. Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety
    Improvements (CRISI) Program - FRA. (n.d.). https://railroads.dot.gov/
    grants-loans/consolidated-rail-infrastructure-and-safety-improvements-
    crisi-program
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Here are some examples of how state DOTs are using this program to
    provide much-needed mobility benefits:
        The Colorado DOT was awarded a grant under the Fiscal Year 2023-
    2024 round of funding for the CRISI Grant Program. The `project will
    design, install, and test PTC on a portion of the Front Range
    Subdivision, including constructing a new siding. Additionally, the
    project will improve several railroad crossings at five high-priority
    locations along the Subdivision. This will enhance safety and
    efficiency, as the project will reduce crashes, increase travel-time
    savings, and increase economic savings.' \11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ FY 2023-2024 Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety
    Improvements (CRISI) program: Project Summaries. FY 2023-2024
    Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI)
    Program: Project Summaries - FRA. (n.d.). https://railroads.dot.gov/
    elibrary/fy-2023-24-crisi-program-project-summaries
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Georgia DOT received a Fiscal Year 2023-2024 CRISI Grant
    Program award for the CaterParrott Railroad (CPR) Short Line Upgrade
    Project. The project includes the `rehabilitation and upgrade of track,
    bridges, and siding and construction of a new rail spur on the
    CaterParrott Railroad in Lowndes and Berrien Counties.' \12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ FY 2023-2024 Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety
    Improvements (CRISI) program: Project Summaries. FY 2023-2024
    Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI)
    Program: Project Summaries - FRA. (n.d.). https://railroads.dot.gov/
    elibrary/fy-2023-24-crisi-program-project-summaries
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Connecticut DOT has received two CRISI grants in recent years
    to help fund new stations along the Hartford Line, an inter-city rail
    line that is part of the Northeast Corridor. The new Enfield station
    benefited from a $13.86 million CRISI grant, while the new Windsor
    Locks station received $17.49 million is CRISI funding. These grant
    dollars were instrumental in moving these two projects across the
    design finish line and into eventual construction. Also in Connecticut,
    the Housatonic Railroad received $5.37 million to improve 18 miles of
    railroad and upgrade bridges, increasing freight rail capacity.
        The inclusion of a dedicated rail title in the next surface
    transportation reauthorization bill will be critical to maintaining the
    current momentum of state DOT passenger and freight rail efforts. For
    Connecticut DOT, these programs have proven to be a critical component
    of our multi-modal transportation program.
         Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) Rail Challenges
        One key challenge that state DOTs have experienced since the
    passage of the IIJA is the extended time it takes from a grant
    announcement and award to the signing of a grant agreement and eventual
    obligation of funds. I want to be clear: FRA faced a herculean task
    following the passage of IIJA, which included a 561 percent increase in
    rail infrastructure funding compared to the FAST Act. Not only did they
    have to hire hundreds of additional staff, but they had to stand up a
    significantly enhanced grant administration program, all while
    attempting to make awards to the states eager to get to work building.
    At the same time, states have identified numerous processes and
    procedures that could be improved to accelerate the obligation of
    funds.
        One way to address this situation would be the creation of a more
    efficient process to approve pre-award authority for Federal Railroad
    Administration (FRA) grants. This would allow state DOTs to expedite
    project delivery and reduce cost escalations. The FRA defines pre-award
    authority as costs incurred after the award selection announcement date
    but before the grant is obligated.\13\ AASHTO members have been working
    to identify mechanisms that would increase the speed with which federal
    discretionary rail grant agreements are signed--not just FRA grants but
    across all USDOT modes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Federal Railroad Administration answers to frequently asked
    questions about pre-award authority. Federal Railroad Administration
    Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Pre-Award Authority - FRA.
    (n.d.). https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/federal-railroad-
    administration-answers-frequently-asked-questions-about-pre-award
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State DOTs have also continued to experience challenges with
    project delivery and permitting requirements. Too often, these
    requirements can be duplicative and can unnecessarily delay the
    delivery of much-needed rail projects--with project costs escalating as
    a result.
        AASHTO members believe there are reasonable modifications to
    project delivery and permitting requirements that could more
    efficiently and effectively move rail projects forward without doing
    damage to the environment. For example, Congress should direct
    executive branch agencies to fully implement the One Federal Decision
    process to speed up the review timeline for projects and improve the
    accountability for all parties involved in a project's development.
    Congress should also take steps to modernize the use of the National
    Environmental Policy Act--including by modifying the definition of a
    ``major project'' and ``federal action.''
        Additionally, with many large projects receiving funding from
    multiple federal partners, coordination amongst the various federal
    modal agencies should be improved, preferably with the agencies
    accepting their peer agencies' environmental reviews and quickly
    designating a lead oversight agency/project sponsor. These types of
    changes would better align federal resource agencies' review and
    permitting actions that improve transportation and environmental
    outcomes while reducing delays.
        State DOTs also continue to encounter challenges with the
    consistency of federal rail funding, and they would benefit from
    measures to provide more consistent funding to enhance planning and
    project delivery efforts. Stable federal funding is essential to
    maintain the flow of anticipated investment in rail transportation
    improvements, maintenance, and operations; the absence of this
    stability leads to project delays that escalate costs.
        The process to reach a final agreement on FRA awards can take up to
    18 months or longer, which accounts to virtually two full construction
    seasons. This is due, in part, to requirements for bi-weekly meetings
    with the FRA, which has proven to be time-consuming and results in a
    drawn out, less efficient, process. The FRA also has separate and
    different workflow provisions for various grant program terms and
    conditions. For example, Attachment 1 Terms and Conditions require
    multiple agreements and signatures, instead of one signature.
    Attachment 2 Terms and Conditions are transmitted via email, rather
    than using an online platform. The Federal Transit Administration
    utilizes a web-based automated system where all grant documents are
    housed in a shared platform; having a similar FRA module would
    eliminate back-and-forth emails.
        As an example, the Connecticut DOT was notified in November 2023
    that it was awarded $465 million in the Fiscal Year 2022 and 2023
    Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Program for
    Projects on the Northeast Corridor (FSP-NEC) for the Norwalk River
    Railroad Bridge; this is a project that began construction in May 2023.
    That grant was obligated by FRA in January 2025.
        Additionally, there are improvements to the financial processing of
    grants that could make the process much more efficient for awardees.
    Grantees should be able to seek federal reimbursement at a defined
    percentage, for example, 80 percent federal and 20 percent state, and
    not based on the total project cost, provided the non-federal match is
    met. Currently, the FRA determines the federal share percentage based
    on the total project cost resulting in odd percentages carried out to
    four decimal places. This extends the federal reimbursement schedule
    and puts more burden on both the grantee and the FRA staff. Once the
    project is fully billed to the federal contribution, the grantee will
    continue with the non-federal share until completion and simply
    continue with all federal reporting requirements as required by the FRA
    Grant Agreement. This would continue to keep the FRA fully informed of
    project progress as well as expenditures throughout the life of the
    project. This would streamline the FRA reimbursement requests and
    ultimately require less FRA and grantee staff time for processing,
    aligning the FRA with the processes followed by the Federal Transit
    Administration and Federal Highway Administration.
        I want to thank the leadership of FRA for their openness to process
    improvements, and willingness to discuss efficiencies in the federal
    rail assistance programs, such as those I describe in my testimony.
    Over the past few months, Connecticut has seen several grant awards
    begin to advance, and state DOTs are aligned in the desire to more
    effectively put federal funding to work.
      AASHTO Surface Transportation Reauthorization Policy Recommendations
        AASHTO has adopted an overarching vision for surface transportation
    reauthorization that covers state DOT work across the USDOT modal
    administrations. This overarching vision for surface transportation
    reauthorization calls for a world-class, multimodal transportation
    system that supports and strengthens the nation's transportation
    infrastructure for a strong economy with improved safety and mobility.
        Achieving this vision requires the following:
          Federal funding stability: Stable federal funding is
    necessary to keep the pipeline of planned investments in transportation
    improvements, maintenance, and operations moving forward; a disruption
    to this stability will translate into project delays that increase
    costs, resulting in fewer projects per dollar.
          Formula-based federal funding paired with state
    contributions: This approach to federal funding reflects the proven
    federal-state commitment that ensures the flexibility necessary for
    each state to best meet its unique investment needs.
          Current funding levels plus inflation must be the
    baseline: The baseline for the next bill must grow from current levels
    and keep up with inflation to advance safety and mobility in a
    meaningful way.
          User pay principles for all vehicles: Congress should
    ensure all vehicle types pay their fair share to fund transportation
    and to sustain the Highway Trust Fund.

        On this last point, I want to note that this Committee has started
    to discuss options for raising revenue for the Highway Trust Fund as
    part of its reauthorization process. The shortfall in the Highway Trust
    Fund is a serious issue and AASHTO members are grateful that the
    Committee understands this challenge.
        As part of implementing that vision, AASHTO is currently looking at
    the following draft surface transportation reauthorization policy
    recommendations developed by the AASHTO Council on Rail Transportation,
    to include:

          Provisions to clarify that a state, or a political
    subdivision of a state, that provides equipment, track, right-of-way,
    or financial support for intercity passenger service, but does not
    operate the railroad, is not a rail carrier or railroad and not subject
    to the regulatory requirements applicable to railroads.

          Reauthorization of funding for capital and operating
    expenses for Amtrak Northeast Corridor and Amtrak National Network
    (including state-supported corridors) at no less than the Fiscal Year
    2022 through 2026 levels, the indexing authorized levels to inflation,
    and the addition of eligibility for states for capital and operating
    assistance.

          Reauthorization of the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure
    and Safety Improvements Program at no less than the Fiscal Year 2022
    through 2026 levels, maintenance of the current federal cost share, and
    clarification on eligibility for early project planning efforts.
          +  Further, that a set-aside be created from the CRISI Program
    for grants to states for eligible activities under 49 USC 22907. This
    draft recommendation directs the Federal Railroad Administration to
    consider state input when finalizing factors for this set-aside.

          Reauthorization of the Section 130 Railway-Highway
    Crossing Program at no less than the Fiscal Year 2022 through 2026
    levels, in addition to maintenance of the current 100 percent federal
    cost share for projects. Further, the Council recommends an increase in
    authorized funding levels in relation to the Highway Safety Improvement
    Program.

          Reauthorization of the Railroad Crossing Elimination
    Grant Program at no less than the Fiscal Year 2022 through 2026 levels
    and to maintain, at a minimum, the current federal cost share for
    projects.
          +  Further recommended is support for United States Department of
    Transportation efforts to modernize its National Environmental Policy
    Act procedures in line with other AASHTO recommendations, including
    providing consistency across the department through efforts like `One
    Federal Decision.'

          Reauthorization of the Federal-State Partnership for
    Intercity Passenger Rail Northeast Corridor and Federal-State
    Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail National Grant Program at no
    less than the Fiscal Year 2022 through 2026 levels and maintenance of
    the current federal cost share.
          +  Additionally recommended is the elimination of the 22905(c)
    letter requirements for railroad projects in cases where the operating
    railroad is not the owner of the rail asset but has an existing
    contract that includes maintenance responsibilities, to facilitate the
    delivery of projects for this program and other applicable rail grant
    programs. Additionally, clarification is requested to ensure that a
    22905(c) letter is required only for construction, not preconstruction
    activities.

          Reauthorization of the Corridor ID grant program at no
    less than the Fiscal Year 2022 through 2026 levels, and that the
    current federal cost share is maintained.

          Reauthorization of the Restoration and Enhancement Grant
    Program at no less than the Fiscal Year 2022 through 2026 levels,
    maintenance of the current federal cost share, and clarification on
    prioritization for projects selected through the Corridor ID Grant
    Program.

          Reauthorization of the Interstate Rail Compact Grant
    Program at no less than the Fiscal Years 2022 through 2026 levels and
    maintenance of the current federal cost share. The addition of a state
    or group of states as eligible applicants under this program is also
    recommended.

          Creation of a provision requiring that if the Federal
    Railroad Administration enters into an agreement with a state to
    conduct rail inspections, it must also include bridge inspections, if
    requested by the state.

          A study to be conducted by the Government Accountability
    Office examining whether a pooled insurance arrangement for public
    entities supporting passenger rail could be implemented via an
    interstate compact or federal grant, with the identification of a
    trustee for funds generated for disbursement in the event of court-
    ordered liability.

          Reauthorization of the following Federal State Committees
    at no less than the Fiscal Year 2022 through 2026 levels:
          +  The State-Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Committee,
          +  And the Northeast Corridor Commission
          +  As well as Operations Lifesaver

          Reauthorization of the Next Generation Corridor Equipment
    and Pool Committee (NGEC) at $1 million per year for FY 2026 through FY
    2030, and allowance for the establishment of a percentage set aside for
    the NGEC within Federal Railroad Administration capital grants awarded
    for the acquisition of passenger equipment.
                                   Conclusion
        AASHTO and its members continue to take seriously the
    responsibility to implement the IIJA and its historic investment in
    rail transportation. Thank you again for the honor and opportunity to
    testify today, and I am happy to answer any questions.

        Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Hicks, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

     TESTIMONY OF KEVIN D. HICKS, P.E., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND
         RAIL & FREIGHT MARKET SECTOR LEADER, GANNETT FLEMING
     TRANSYSTEMS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL RAILROAD CONSTRUCTION
                      AND MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Hicks. Good morning, Chairman Webster, Ranking Member
    Titus, and members of this esteemed subcommittee. My name is
    Kevin Hicks, and I am a senior vice president and rail and
    freight market sector leader at Gannett Fleming TranSystems, or
    GFT. I currently serve on the board of directors of the
    National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association, the
    NRC, and as the chairman of the NRC's Policy and Legislative
    Committee. In my role at GFT, I work on business development
    and project delivery nationally for clients in the railroad
    industry.
        Since 2010, GFT has been helping Federal Government to
    deliver railroad infrastructure projects both through our
    design services for railroad owners, through public agency
    projects building railroad infrastructure that expands freight
    and passenger rail capacity, and also by assisting the FRA in
    oversight of the successful delivery of projects that have some
    Federal investment through an FRA grant. The firm has provided
    oversight for over 500 grants across the U.S.
        Prior to joining GFT, I spent the first 25 years of my
    career with the Union Pacific Railroad, serving in many
    engineering positions and ultimately working my way up to AVP
    and chief engineer of design. Though I now currently reside in
    Omaha, Nebraska, I grew up in Congressman Burlison's district
    in the town of Ash Grove, Missouri. I am honored to join this
    distinguished panel today and to provide a perspective on this
    important topic.
        As I mentioned in my opening, I serve on the board of
    directors of the NRC. While GFT is just one member company
    within the NRC, our member companies generate more than 100,000
    jobs nationwide, supplying, building, and maintaining freight,
    passenger, and industrial rail networks. The NRC supports the
    continued funding of the FRA grant programs at existing or
    increased funding levels.
        We appreciate the committee focusing its attention on the
    issue of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal
    rail assistance. Let me preface my comments by saying that I
    think the staff of the FRA is full of hard-working and talented
    individuals, and my comments are not an indictment on them.
        Let me first describe at a high level a few of the issues
    from our perspective. More detailed information is included in
    my written testimony.
        First, the selection process is slow. The grant award
    selection can take around 6 months after the application is
    submitted. With the influx of funding from the IIJA, the size
    and complexity of the NOFOs has increased, which has impacted
    the speed of selecting projects.
        Second, the grant takes too long to obligate. It takes 6 to
    18 months, on average, to obligate a grant after selection. It
    takes too long to deliver projects. And the waste, due to
    delays in the forms of administrative and planning costs,
    inflation, and lost opportunities for alternative use of
    capital hinder us from achieving our capacity expansion goals.
    Regarding NEPA, it takes a very long time to obtain
    environmental clearances. The project sponsor is not able to
    engage with FRA or U.S. DOT on the NEPA process until the grant
    is awarded.
        Third, delays to project implementation. Numerous factors
    impact project readiness, and most of these factors are outside
    of the FRA's control. But the FRA could do more to avoid future
    delays by having project sponsors better define the status of
    these factors in advance of obligation.
        Now, I will turn to some ideas to help enhance the process.
    Our recommendations for reforms focus around three key themes:
    creating project pipelines, sufficient and consistent staffing,
    and stakeholder agreements.
        Congress should consider directing FRA to identify a pre-
    approved--or at least a prior vetted--pipeline of projects. FRA
    should consider further standard standardization of the grant
    applications, thereby reducing the effort required both in
    preparation and in review.
        In addition, the agreements and scopes of work should be
    more formulaic and template-based.
        FRA could also consider consolidating existing grant
    programs and having separate programs for preliminary
    engineering, or PE, and NEPA versus final design and
    construction grants.
        For final design and construction grants, FRA should
    require PE and NEPA to be completed in order to be eligible for
    funding. This would help to ensure that the projects selected
    for final design and construction are truly ready to be
    delivered in an acceptable timeframe.
        FRA should also commit to an expedited NEPA process
    timeline and eliminate NEPA requirements where States have
    existing or duplicative requirements.
        To help make the grant agreement processing time more
    efficient, there needs to be sufficient and consistent FRA
    staffing with experience, capacity, and the ability to make
    decisions. Empowering FRA project managers to be decisionmakers
    would help address the problem.
        And regarding stakeholder agreements, the FRA should
    require PE, cost estimates, and stakeholder concurrence within
    grant applications. A sign-off form or letter template would
    make it easier for the FRA to collect and verify stakeholder
    concurrence.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective
    today. I look forward to answering any questions you might
    have.
        [Mr. Hicks' prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Kevin D. Hicks, P.E., Senior Vice President and
     Rail & Freight Market Sector Leader, Gannett Fleming TranSystems, on
         behalf of the National Railroad Construction and Maintenance
                                  Association
                                  Introduction
        Good morning, Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, and Members
    of this esteemed subcommittee. My name is Kevin Hicks and I am a Senior
    Vice President and Rail & Freight Market Sector Leader at Gannett
    Fleming TranSystems (GFT). I currently serve on the Board of Directors
    of the National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association (the
    ``NRC''). I also serve as the Chairman of the NRC Policy & Legislative
    Committee.
        As you may know, the NRC is an association that advances the mutual
    interests of railway contractors and suppliers who construct, maintain,
    and supply both freight and passenger railroads. Founded in 1978, the
    NRC connects members with other railway industry professionals and
    government legislators and policymakers. Together we work to create a
    positive business climate and to make railway construction and
    maintenance safer and more efficient.
        Although NRC members often compete against each other, our
    collaboration furthers the railway construction industry and benefits
    American freight, transit and commuter rail lines, our member
    contractors and suppliers, the general public, and our own professional
    growth.
        In my role at GFT I work on business development and project
    delivery nationally for clients in the railroad, ports and maritime,
    energy, and warehousing businesses.
        Prior to joining GFT, I spent the first 25 years of my career with
    the Union Pacific Railroad, serving in many positions, and ultimately
    working my way up to AVP and chief engineer of design.
        In addition to my role with the NRC, I am an active member of
    several industry and professional organizations, including the American
    Railway Engineering and Maintenance Association, the Railway Tie
    Association, the Missouri S&T Corporate Development Council, and the
    Inspire University Transportation Center at Missouri S&T.
        Though I now currently reside in Omaha, Nebraska, I grew up in
    Congressman Burlison's district in the town of Ash Grove, Missouri.
        I am honored to join this distinguished panel today and to provide
    our perspective on this important topic.
    Gannett Fleming TranSystems
        GFT is an Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) firm
    shaping the Infrastructure of Life: water, power, transportation, and
    buildings. Our team of 5000+ experts design, construct, and engineer
    resilient, creative solutions that uplift communities across North
    America and beyond.
        GFT has been engrained in the US freight rail industry for over
    forty years. Our experts are engaged in the planning, permitting,
    design, and construction management of a broad spectrum of railroad
    infrastructure, including bridges, at-grade crossings and grade
    separations, line and yard capacity expansions, and intermodal facility
    construction and expansions.
        Since 2010, GFT has been helping the federal government to deliver
    railroad infrastructure projects, both through our design services for
    railroad owners, through public agency projects building railroad
    infrastructure that expands freight and passenger rail capacity, and
    also by assisting the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in
    oversight of the successful delivery of projects that have some portion
    of federal investment through an FRA grant. In the FRA grant oversight
    work, the firm's professional engineering, transportation planning, and
    environmental practitioners work with the grant recipients to comply
    with federal requirements and assure that each project's scope is
    delivered without any extra cost to the federal government and that the
    promised public benefits are successfully delivered per the intent of
    the public expenditure. The firm has provided oversight for over 500
    grants across the eastern and western U.S.
    NRC and the Rail Contracting Industry
        While GFT is just one member company within the NRC, our member
    companies generate more than 100,000 jobs nationwide supplying,
    building and maintaining freight, public transit and industrial rail
    networks.
        As I mentioned in my opening, I serve on the Board of Directors of
    the NRC. The NRC is a U.S. trade association that represents nearly 400
    companies in the rail contracting and rail supply industry, with
    employees in all 50 states. Most NRC member companies are small family
    owned, multi-generational businesses with operations, manufacturing
    facilities, and offices located all across the United States.
        NRC members perform every type of rail infrastructure work--from
    design and engineering to basic construction and maintenance to highly
    specialized and custom design-build jobs. This work includes building
    new tracks, repairing and maintaining existing track, laying and
    replacing rail, welding and grinding, surfacing, ballast distribution,
    tie insertion and removal, grade crossings, signal systems, switches
    and turnouts, bridge deck replacement and maintenance, track design,
    crane rail, inspection services, emergency maintenance, and more.
        The freight railroad industry has grown dramatically since the
    partial de-regulation of the industry by the Staggers Act in 1980. The
    prevalence of rail transit systems throughout the country has also
    increased dramatically over the last generation resulting in increased
    urbanization and density. The size of the rail construction and
    maintenance contractor and supplier community has grown in proportion.
    More than 500 independent rail contracting companies in the United
    States perform more than $10 billion worth of rail infrastructure
    construction and maintenance work every year.
        In addition to the contracting community, in 2020, the rail supply
    industry directly employed almost 240,000 workers, who directly
    contributed $27.7 billion of value-added economic activity across the
    United States.\1\ Rail suppliers also deliver secondary benefits that
    other modes of transportation cannot, such as reductions in road
    congestion, highway fatalities, fuel consumption, greenhouse gases,
    cost of logistics, and public infrastructure maintenance costs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Rail Supply Industry: Manufacturing and Services Keeping the
    American Economy on Track. January 2023. www.remsa.org/files/
    RailSupplyIndustry_EconomicImpactStudy.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NRC members serve every type of railway owner, including Class 1,
    short line and regional railroads, industrial track owners, the U.S.
    military, port facilities and terminals, and rail transit agencies
    operating light rail, streetcars, subways, metro, commuter rail
    operations, and intercity passenger rail systems.
      Issues with the Federal Discretionary Grants Process and Potential
                                   Solutions
        Again, we appreciate the committee focusing its attention on the
    issue of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of federal rail
    assistance.
        Let me preface my comments by saying that I think the staff of the
    FRA is full of hardworking and talented individuals and my comments are
    not an indictment on them. Rather, the grant process that has been
    established at the FRA has put burdens on the staff often times putting
    them in positions that do not make the grants process efficient or
    effective.
        Also, the NRC supports the continued funding of the FRA grant
    programs at existing or increased funding levels. Spending on
    infrastructure, especially rail infrastructure, is truly a sound
    investment that pays dividends to our economy, supply chain, and our
    transportation network. These funds will also help stimulate additional
    infrastructure investment by states, localities, and private sector
    partners, and will help to onshore additional manufacturing jobs here
    in the U.S.
        I will focus my comments first on describing some of the current
    issues from our perspective, identifying the responsible parties, and
    finally, offering some recommendations for reforms in the next surface
    transportation reauthorization bill that the committee will soon be
    drafting.
        My comments focus around three key themes: 1) creating project
    pipelines, 2) sufficient and consistent staffing; and 3) stakeholder
    agreements.
    1. Selection Process is Slow
        Issue: Grant award selection takes about 6 months after the
    application is submitted. It takes FRA a long time to evaluate the
    large number of applications received as all the federal rail grant
    programs are vastly oversubscribed. This is a vicious spiral that
    forces FRA staff to be in a constant cycle of publishing a Notice of
    Funding Opportunity (NOFO), awarding grants, and then immediately
    drafting the next NOFO.
        With the influx of funding from the IIJA, the size and complexity
    of the NOFOs has increased which has also impacted the speed of
    selecting projects. These delays are especially felt by our NRC member
    contractors who are usually engaged at the end of this process. These
    delays result in changing budgets that jeopardize the projects and
    places additional risks onto contractors.
        Recommendations: Congress should consider directing FRA to identify
    a ``pre-approved'' or at least a prior vetted pipeline of projects. FRA
    NOFOs should have more stringent requirements (e.g. require projects to
    have more burden of proof of readiness) and/or eligibility to shrink
    the applicant pool. FRA should consider further standardization of the
    grant applications, e.g., a more defined template, thereby reducing the
    effort required both in preparation and in review. FRA could also
    consider consolidating existing grant programs and having separate
    programs for preliminary engineering (PE) and NEPA versus final design
    and construction grants. For final design and construction grants, FRA
    should require PE/NEPA to be completed in order to be eligible for
    funding.
    2. Grants Take Too Long to Obligate
        It takes 6-18 months on average to obligate a grant after
    selection. It takes too long to deliver projects, and the waste due to
    delays in the form of administrative and planning costs, inflation, and
    lost opportunities for alternative use of the capital, hinder us from
    achieving our capacity expansion goals. The expediting of
    transportation projects can be accomplished while retaining all current
    environmental safeguards.
        Next, I will detail several obligation-related issues in more
    detail:
                Obligation prerequisite--NEPA
        Issue: It continues to take a very long time to obtain
    environmental clearances. The project sponsor is not able to engage
    with FRA or USDOT on the NEPA process until the grant application is
    selected. Many times, the project sponsor does not have the capacity to
    complete NEPA themselves, and it takes a few months to hire an
    environmental consultant.
        Recommendations: FRA should establish a process to evaluate
    projects and allow them to proceed with NEPA before applying for a
    grant (e.g. establish a pipeline). FRA should also commit to an
    expedited NEPA process and eliminate NEPA requirements where states
    have existing or duplicative requirements, like in California or
    Washington. Sufficient and consistent FRA staffing would also help
    minimize the NEPA process timeframe. FRA should also require that
    project sponsors be ready to submit documentation within a certain
    timeframe (e.g. must submit environmental assessment within 1 month of
    selection) or consider having a separate grant or step in the grant
    program only for completing NEPA. This is similar to what the FRA
    Corridor ID program is attempting to establish, although that program
    has also moved in too slow of a manner. This would give the resulting
    project priority for funding, similar to the NEC inventory established
    in the FRA Federal-State Partnership program. Congress should also
    consider directing the FRA to establish a separate grant program, or
    step within existing programs, for projects to complete the NEPA
    process, and then require a completed NEPA document as proof of
    eligibility for funding for a final design/construction project.
    Finally, the FRA should allocate a larger percentage of its funding to
    agency staffing focused on expediting project delivery.
                Obligation prerequisite--NEPA Categorical Exclusions (CEs)
        Issue: Many rail projects, particularly those on short line or
    regional railroads, consist of ordinary ties, rail, ballast, and
    surfacing type work that falls under a NEPA Categorical Exclusion (CE).
    The FRA requires a CE worksheet to prove, with a ``legally defensible
    evidentiary record,'' that the project qualifies for a CE. This
    requires significant work, including resource mapping and appendices,
    to prove eligibility for a CE.
        In addition, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
    of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to consider the effects on
    historic properties of projects they carry out, assist, fund, permit,
    license, or approve throughout the country. If a federal or federally-
    assisted project has the potential to affect historic properties, a
    Section 106 review will take place. This requires a Secretary of the
    Interior (SOI) qualified archeologist and State Historic Preservation
    Office consultation to be completed before the FRA can approve the CE
    worksheet. This process causes many delays to rail projects attempting
    to receive a CE.
        Recommendation: The CE process should be streamlined to a simple
    grantee self-certification for an ordinary track rehabilitation
    project.
        Regarding Section 106, Congress should consider the creation of a
    national rail network that can be recognized for its historical
    importance, but only certain elements require compliance with Section
    106, exempting the national rail network from Section 106 the same way
    the Interstate Highway System is exempt. At a minimum, Congress should
    expand the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) issued
    Section 106 Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail
    Properties Within Rail Rights-of-Way to cover a broader list of
    activities, such as construction of additional yard or industrial
    tracks within the footprint of an existing yard or industrial facility.
                Obligation prerequisite--Preliminary Engineering (PE)
        Issue: It takes a while for project sponsors to have PE, cost
    estimates, and stakeholder concurrence ready for FRA review. Many times
    project sponsors do not even hire a consultant to complete PE until the
    grant is awarded and sometimes sponsors struggle with getting
    stakeholder concurrence, which can add to project delays.
        Recommendations: The FRA should require PE, cost estimates, and
    stakeholder concurrence with grant applications. Again, project
    sponsors should complete PE/NEPA before being awarded a final design or
    construction grant. For stakeholder concurrence, a sign-off form or
    letter template would make it easier for the FRA to collect and verify
    stakeholder concurrence. Short of that, the FRA should at a minimum
    define the stakeholder concurrence requirements and define the format
    required.
                Obligation prerequisite--49 U.S.C. Sec.  22905
        Issue: Project sponsors often struggle with obtaining the 22905
    railroad agreement with the host railroad. It often gets caught up as a
    provision within a larger design, construction or maintenance
    agreement.
        Recommendation: The FRA already provides simple template language
    which could be extracted as a separate 1-page agreement. If the host
    railroads would be willing to sign a 22905-only agreement, separate
    from the larger overarching agreements and the FRA would require 22905
    agreement with the grant application, this could potentially speed up
    the project timeline.
                Grant Agreement Processing Time
        Issue: The FRA is very flexible, customizing the grant agreement
    scope of work for each individual project. Multiple disciplines at the
    FRA (e.g. Project Managers, Grant Managers, Engineers, Planners,
    Environmental Specialists, Legal, etc.) must review the ``Attachment
    2'' (SOW, schedule, budget, performance measures) for each individual
    grant and this takes a long time. In addition, larger multimodal USDOT
    grants like BUILD and Mega must also undergo additional USDOT OST
    Office of the Secretary review.
        Recommendation: This process can be expedited by sufficient and
    consistent FRA/USDOT staffing with experience, capacity, and the
    ability to make decisions. Empowering FRA project managers to be
    decisionmakers would help address this problem. In addition, the
    agreements and scopes of work should be made more formulaic and
    template-based.
        Currently, the FRA builds in flexibility so that sponsors are not
    trapped with a hyper-specific SOW. The project sponsors also need to
    understand that they are being asked to fill in a binding contract
    document, and that they should not just copy and paste from a SOW with
    their contractor. Better education could help, along with fewer choices
    and less flexibility. For example, if grant agreements included a
    standard SOW by project type (e.g. Task 1 is always the project
    management plan, Task 2 is always final design, Task 3 is always
    construction) then that would minimize opportunities for customization.
        Finally, FRA engineering reviews should be limited to ensuring the
    PE and final design are in alignment with the grant agreement and not
    in conflict with industry standards, especially with grantees that are
    familiar with these standards and grants. FRA engineering reviews
    should only occur on request to smaller or less experienced grantees.
    3. Delays to Project Implementation
        Issue: Numerous factors impact project readiness, including
    railroad coordination and approvals, utility coordination and
    relocations, right of way acquisition, permitting and additional
    funding.
        Recommendation: Most if not all of these factors are outside of the
    FRA's control, but the FRA could do more to avoid future delays by
    having project sponsors better define the status of these factors in
    advance of obligation. The FRA could also conduct risk reviews later in
    the grant process based on project scope, readiness, and budget.
          Additional Recommendations for Reforming the Grants Process
        Finally, as this committee begins the process of reauthorizing
    surface transportation programs, Congress should direct the FRA to
    speed up and streamline the discretionary grant process to reduce
    waste, cost overruns, and unnecessary project delays. The NRC offers
    the following broad grants recommendations that we suggest will help
    America build and improve the federal rail discretionary grant process:

          Standardize environmental approval processes across USDOT
    modal agencies.

          Provide pre-award spending authority for advance
    construction and pre-construction activities across funding programs
    available to rail infrastructure projects. USDOT should provide clear
    and consistent guidance to grant recipients.

          Provide each successful grantee with a target date for a
    completed grant agreement. Responsibility for meeting a target date
    would be shared by USDOT and the grantee.
          +  FRA should model its grant management system after FTA's
    Transit Award Management System (TrAMS).

          Make the grant process easier for smaller entities by
    establishing a page limit for NOFOs and grant applications. The
    complexity of NOFOs has grown and has disproportionately impacted
    smaller entities with less resources and personnel.

          Codify authority for flexing and transferring funds
    between USDOT modal agencies when appropriate.
                                    Closing
        Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective today on
    improving the efficiency and effectiveness of federal rail assistance
    and building America's rail network. I look forward to answering any
    questions you may have.

        Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.
        Now, Ms. Bevil, you are recognized.

      TESTIMONY OF KRISTIN BEVIL, GENERAL COUNSEL AND CHIEF LEGAL
      OFFICER, PINSLY RAILROAD COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
              SHORT LINE AND REGIONAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION

        Ms. Bevil. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the
    subcommittee, my name is Kristin Bevil. I am general counsel
    and chief legal officer of Pinsly Railroad Company. I also
    serve as an elected vice president on the board of the American
    Short Line and Regional Railroad Association.
        The Pinsly Railroad Company owns eight short line railroads
    across the country that offer freight services, transloading,
    railcar storage, and industrial development opportunities. At
    Pinsly, we operate 850 miles as the first-mile/last-mile to our
    customers, connecting them to the national rail network.
        Most short lines began with the purchase of an unprofitable
    branch line from a much larger railroad. Those short lines
    didn't have a lot of money, weren't in great shape, and didn't
    have much traffic, often suffering from years of deferred
    maintenance. But the local entrepreneurs who took over these
    lines to make a go of it, including the Pinsly family, which is
    our company's namesake, were very successful. In fact, today,
    there are 600 short line railroads that manage one-third of the
    freight rail network.
        Short lines operate in 49 States, support 478,000 jobs, and
    produce $56 billion in value added to the economy, and yet
    account for only 6 percent of the freight industry's total
    revenue. We are small businesses that are critical to the
    communities in this Nation.
        For decades, this subcommittee has supported policies that
    have allowed short line railroads to survive and even thrive.
    Almost all of you on this committee have a short line railroad
    in your district, and these Pinsly's Grenada Railroad operates
    in Congressman Cohen's district.
        This hearing today focuses on Federal rail assistance and
    its efficiency and effectiveness. Let me assure you, Federal
    dollars are critical to our efforts to grow as short lines.
    Although we invest up to one-third of our own revenue in
    maintenance, the backlog of projects to upgrade rail and
    bridges to modern standards on short lines is $12 billion. That
    is a staggering number. Fortunately, this committee and
    Congress has provided several grant programs that have allowed
    short lines to grow our customer base, provide quality jobs,
    and drive the economy forward in rural and smalltown America.
        As Congress looks to reauthorize the surface transportation
    bill, our top priority is robust and advanced appropriated
    funding for the CRISI grant program. It is the only Federal
    grant program that short lines are eligible to apply for
    directly, and it has been transformational. Two hundred and
    forty CRISI grants have been awarded to short line railroads.
    Advance appropriations allow for certainty and predictability,
    and will ensure that more railroads will apply.
        My testimony provides examples of completed CRISI projects
    with specific benefits and statements of support. None of those
    would have been possible without the CRISI program.
        The Pinsly Railroad and our customers have benefited
    directly from CRISI grants. Our Florida Gulf and Atlantic
    Railroad spans the panhandle of Florida and provides critical
    transportation of aggregates that are used by the Florida
    Department of Transportation to build Florida's highways and
    roads. A CRISI grant enabled us to upgrade that line to a more
    efficient, reliable service all along that route, which helped
    our customer, Anderson Columbia, grow its aggregate business
    and ensured that the Florida DOT has the materials it needs to
    maintain Florida's highways.
        While short line investment is the best bang for the buck
    to be had for the public dollar, the CRISI grant program does
    have some room for improvement. The time from award
    announcement to obligation and funding is simply too long.
    Delays can cause overruns and costs, and our customers miss
    opportunities when we have to wait and wait.
        Good options to speed up the process include batch
    processing of NEPA categorical exclusions, more aggressive use
    of pre-award authority, or setting deadlines for agency
    processing. This program can move faster with no real
    additional risk, and that would be good for getting America to
    build.
        The rail crossing elimination in section 130 programs and
    the support of Operation Lifesaver are also very valuable to
    our industry, as they address the risk of injuries at grade
    crossings.
        As you shape the Nation's next surface transportation bill,
    we urge that these vital programs and policies be secured in
    legislative text, and that process improvements are considered
    to help maximize the value and impact of each dollar.
        Thank you for your longstanding support of our short line
    railroads, our customers, and the communities that we serve. I
    look forward to answering any questions.
        [Ms. Bevil's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Kristin Bevil, General Counsel and Chief Legal
    Officer, Pinsly Railroad Company, on behalf of the American Short Line
                       and Regional Railroad Association
                                  Introduction
        Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee:
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today as you
    examine how to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal rail
    assistance through important rail safety grant programs.
        My name is Kristin Bevil, and I am the General Counsel and Chief
    Legal Officer for Pinsly Railroad Company. I also serve as an elected
    Regional Vice President on the Executive Board of the American Short
    Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA). Thus, I have a broad
    view of the impact of federal grant programs on my company, as well as
    on short lines across the country.
        The Pinsly Railroad Company owns and operates eight short line
    railroads--Florida Gulf & Atlantic Railroad (FGA), Grenada Railroad
    (GRYR), Camp Chase Railway (CAMY), Chesapeake & Indiana Railroad
    (CKIN), Vermilion Valley Railroad (VVRR), Hondo Railway (HRR), North
    Florida Industrial Railroad (NFL) and Pioneer Valley Railroad (PVRR).
    Pinsly Railroad Company's railroad subsidiaries offer freight services,
    transloading, railcar storage, and industrial development
    opportunities. We directly employ 175 employees and serve over 150
    customers across the nation. Operating 850 route miles, we make
    connections for 150 shippers in 8 states, and 91 communities.
                    The Short Line Railroad Freight Industry
        Short line railroads are a critical component of rural and small-
    town America's economic fabric. These lines often represent the sole
    link to the national rail network, providing first- and last-mile
    connections for more than 10,000 shippers, supporting hundreds of
    thousands of jobs and billions in economic output. The typical short
    line employs about 30 people, operates about 80 route miles, and makes
    about $8 million in revenue per year. While we operate approximately
    30% of the national network (or 50,000 route miles) and handle about
    20% of the freight cars in service, our members earn only about 6% of
    the total revenue earned by the country's freight railroads.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        As you will note from the map above, almost every Member of this
    Subcommittee has one or more short lines operating in their district,
    and in many cases these short lines are one of the significant
    businesses in their town.
         Importance of the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety
                              Improvements Program
        Our industry is one of entrepreneurial grit. Short lines were born
    out of necessity following the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, which allowed
    for the sale of unprofitable, deferred-maintenance branch lines that
    were otherwise headed for abandonment from large Class I railroads to
    local operators who believed in their potential. Rehabilitating and
    operating these lines is enormously capital-intensive. Short lines
    routinely reinvest up to a third of their revenues into infrastructure
    maintenance and upgrades--far more than most other industries. As an
    example, Pinsly has invested over $25 million annually into our
    infrastructure for routine maintenance--and that does not include major
    infrastructure projects, many of which could not be accomplished with
    regular annual revenue. This is where the Consolidated Rail
    Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) program, a vital federal
    rail grant program, becomes essential.
    The CRISI Program: A Cornerstone of Short Line Growth and Viability
        Since its creation in 2015, the CRISI grant program has provided
    the only reliable and accessible source of federal infrastructure
    funding directly available to short line railroads. By allowing small
    business private railroads to apply directly, unlike other federal
    programs that require a public sponsor, CRISI has leveled the playing
    field and empowered small railroads to pursue safety, efficiency, and
    capacity upgrades that would otherwise be financially impossible.
        Of the 240 CRISI awards made to date, over $2.7 billion has gone to
    projects benefiting short lines. In the most recent combined FY23-24
    round, short lines received 81 out of 122 awards--over $1.2 billion in
    funding. These awards were matched by local and private investments
    ranging from 20% to as much as 80%, demonstrating that CRISI leverages
    public dollars effectively and attracts private capital that otherwise
    would not be invested.
        Examples of short line projects that CRISI has supported, and the
    project's impact are attached to this testimony in an Addendum.
    CRISI Grants Deliver Clear and Measurable Benefits
        CRISI projects have produced six core benefits, which I would like
    to briefly highlight:

        1.  Addressing Critical Infrastructure Needs--Short lines often
    inherit infrastructure in poor condition with significant deferred
    maintenance--these lines were often at risk of abandonment if not for
    the short line purchase. CRISI enables transformational projects like
    bridge replacements and rail upgrades that remove bottlenecks and
    enable industry-standard 286,000-pound railcars, improving
    interoperability and competitiveness.

        2.  Improving Safety--Rail safety begins with sound infrastructure.
    CRISI funds replace worn ties and rails, reducing derailments and
    making rail service safer for employees and communities alike.

        3.  Creating and Sustaining Jobs--Short line rehabilitation
    projects are labor-intensive and rely on local contractors. These
    projects support good-paying jobs in rural communities and generate
    long-term employment through service expansion.

        4.  Enhancing Environmental Outcomes--Rail is the most fuel-
    efficient mode of freight transport. CRISI-funded upgrades facilitate
    modal shift from truck to rail, reduce emissions, and allow for cleaner
    locomotive technologies.

        5.  Promoting Rural Economic Development--CRISI investments enable
    service to new and growing businesses.

        6.  Improving Service for Customers--Small improvements--such as
    500 feet of new track or the elimination of a chronic derailment risk--
    can make an enormous difference in the transportation costs and
    competitiveness of rural shippers.
    The Importance of Predictable and Robust Funding
        The advanced appropriations provided through the previous surface
    transportation law--$1 billion annually through Fiscal Year (FY) 2026--
    have been a game changer. Predictable funding allows small businesses
    to plan ahead, secure match funding, and complete upfront engineering
    work required for competitive applications. Without advanced
    appropriations, many short lines would be unable to pursue these grants
    due to the uncertainty and high upfront costs involved and the money
    would be less effectively spent.
        Short lines are small businesses with limited human and financial
    resources. The grant application process is time consuming and, to be
    competitive, requires significant up-front investment by applicants.
    For example, for more complex projects, costly engineering work must be
    conducted to assemble a competitive project scope and budget that can
    demonstrate project readiness. Short lines must also marshal committed,
    matching funds of at least 20%, but often up to 50% to be competitive
    with larger applicants.
        The annual appropriations process is always uncertain, and that
    uncertainty makes it difficult for applicants to start those upfront
    activities until they know if there will be adequate resources for
    which to compete.
        It is essential that the next surface transportation
    reauthorization not only extends CRISI but also preserve its advanced
    appropriations structure. Without it, federal investment becomes less
    effective, fewer projects move forward, and the communities that rely
    on short lines are left behind.
    CRISI Grant Award Process Recommendations
        The CRISI program has proven to be powerful, effective, and broadly
    supported on a bipartisan basis. However, as demonstrated by the
    experience of the Pinsly Railroad, there are clear opportunities to
    improve the grant process. Delays between award announcements and
    actual construction, as well as obstacles to making necessary project
    adjustments as conditions evolve, significantly reduce the
    effectiveness of CRISI funding--not just for railroads like ours, but
    for the shippers and communities that rely on us.
        These delays are not isolated incidents. Unfortunately, they are
    all too common among short line railroads seeking to modernize their
    infrastructure.
        Short lines are ready to get to work. By the time we apply for
    CRISI grants, we have already invested limited financial resources--
    along with substantial time and planning--just to be in a position to
    compete for funding.
        Our shippers, who rely on us for critical access to domestic and
    international markets, are eager to see safer, more efficient rail
    service become a reality.
        And the communities we serve--where local expertise is employed to
    carry out these projects--are waiting to realize the economic benefits
    that come with upgraded infrastructure: new business investment,
    expanded manufacturing, and job creation.
        To maximize the impact of the CRISI program, we must address these
    systemic delays. Streamlining implementation and allowing for greater
    flexibility in project management will ensure that federal dollars
    translate more quickly and effectively into real-world benefits.
    Pinsly Railroad Awarded CRISI grants:
                1. Florida Gulf & Atlantic Railroad (Pinsly subsidiary),
                        ``Florida Panhandle Rural Capacity Expansion
                        Project'', FY20 FRA CRISI Grant, $8,300,000.00
        The Florida Gulf & Atlantic Railroad was awarded a CRISI grant in
    June 2022 to rehabilitate a rail line previously owned by a Class I
    that had suffered from deferred maintenance. The project included
    85,000 new rail ties, bridge replacements and crossing upgrades. The
    project rehabilitated the infrastructure allowing Florida Gulf &
    Atlantic Railroad to provide service efficiently and safely to
    aggregate commodities customers in support of the Florida Department of
    Transportation's highway projects. The grant agreement was executed in
    May 2023, nearly a year after the award was announced and a Notice to
    Proceed was not received until December 2023. Construction took place
    in 2024. The project was further delayed when Florida Gulf & Atlantic
    came in under budget and had an opportunity to further improve the
    infrastructure by submitting a Grant Adjustment Request Form to
    increase tie density and add an additional mile of work. The change
    took 45 days to approve. While most construction was complete in 2024,
    the final report was submitted and closed out April 2025, three years
    after the grant was awarded. Shawn Snyder, Vice President of Anderson
    Columbia, a Florida Gulf & Atlantic customer said, ``Florida Gulf and
    Atlantic services three asphalt plants in the Panhandle from
    Jacksonville to Pensacola. The reliability of the service once they
    take control of the cars has been excellent. With Anderson Colombia
    being so reliant on the rail, seeing the commitment through the rail
    and Florida Gulf & Atlantic, specifically, gives us comfort in our
    markets that we will be stable or have the ability to grow as the
    markets grow. It's been a great partnership over the last couple of
    years.''
                2. Florida Gulf & Atlantic Railroad (Pinsly subsidiary),
                        ``Florida Panhandle Rail Resiliency and
                        Connectivity Project'', FY22 FRA CRISI Grant,
                        $23,198,945.00
        The grant for the ``Florida Panhandle Rail Resiliency and
    Connectivity Project'' was awarded in September 2023. The project is
    focused on resiliency and hardening of infrastructure to withstand
    hurricanes and major storms. Pre-award authority was received in March
    2024. Engineering Design review was submitted for approval in July
    2024. Almost two years and two hurricanes later, we think we will have
    a grant agreement soon.
                3. Grenada Railroad (Pinsly subsidiary), ``Central
                        Mississippi Rail Resiliency and Capacity Expansion
                        Project'', FY23-24 FRA CRISI Grant, $18,247,915.00
        The Grenada Railroad is a railroad that was saved from abandonment
    and as a result of both private and public investment, has
    significantly increased the number of customers served by the line.
    According to Governor Tate Reeves, ``Mississippi's economic momentum
    would not be as robust without the functioning rail line that moves
    input goods and finished products all over America.'' The recently
    awarded grant for the ``Central Mississippi Rail Resiliency and
    Capacity Expansion Project'' will increase capacity for significant
    growth through additional sidings, rail tie replacement, joint
    elimination and improved grade crossings across the line. Announcement
    of the grant award was made in October 2024 and Grenada Railroad is
    working closely with FRA to get a grant agreement in place.
                4. Pioneer Valley Railroad Company (Pinsly subsidiary),
                        ``The Tunnel Hill Reclamation and Pioneer Valley
                        Railroad Development Project'', FY23-24 FRA CRISI
                        Grant, $8,868,942.00
        The Pioneer Valley Railroad, in collaboration with WIN Waste
    Innovations (WIN), was awarded a CRISI grant to fund infrastructure
    improvements at the Tunnel Hill Reclamation (THR) facility in New
    Lexington, Ohio, and at the PVRR rail line which spans across Holyoke
    and Westfield, Massachusetts. The announcement of the award was made in
    October 2024, and the Pioneer Valley Railroad team is working closely
    with FRA to get a grant agreement in place.
        The CRISI program can be further improved, and made even more
    impactful, in the following ways:

          Protect CRISI's Ability to Bolster the Freight Rail
    Network--ASLRRA discourages set-asides within CRISI for passenger rail
    projects or expansions of the program to include major new eligible
    applicants such as commuter railroads. With so many challenges facing
    our freight supply chain, short lines need to remain viable competitors
    for these limited funds. While we have no opposition to passenger rail,
    there are other federal grant programs that provide passenger rail
    applicants with funding levels that dwarf CRISI.

          Speed--CRISI projects should move from announcement to
    obligation to completion faster than they currently do. For almost all
    short line projects, most of which are quite simple in the context of
    infrastructure investments, this would result in better outcomes for
    the public, for short lines, for communities, and for shippers with no
    additional risk, and would help avoid the significant cost escalation
    associated with delay.

          Encourage the use of pre-award authority (PAA)--More
    extensive use of PAA would allow CRISI grant awards for small railroad
    infrastructure projects to move more quickly and efficiently. PAA
    authorizes grant recipients to begin their projects immediately at
    their own risk rather than being stuck in limbo during the current
    lengthy federal approval process. When questions of the National
    Environmental Policy Act Process (NEPA) clearance as a necessary
    precedent arise in the context of PAA, the agency should consider
    segmented provision of PAA for non-ground disturbing elements of scope
    such as engineering analyses and acquisition of materials. Prompt
    acquisition of materials can be a particularly useful step to mitigate
    project cost inflation risk, and delays in completing engineering and
    design work correspondingly delay entry into the construction phase of
    a project.

          Increase Transparency across the Grant Lifecycle to
    Enable Benchmarking and Process Improvement--Congress could require
    that FRA file regular reports on the status of processing grants, from
    award notification through obligation to close out, to the
    transportation authorizing and appropriating committees. This data will
    help stakeholders understand how long it takes the agency to move
    through the process for each award to achieve grant obligation and
    begin work. It will also create some beneficial pressure encouraging
    the agency to innovate to move the process faster.

          Publish regular grant status reports--FRA could
    proactively shine light on the status of processing grants, from award
    notification through obligation to closeout. This data would be useful
    for setting realistic stakeholder expectations regarding the timeline
    for the agency to execute the process for each award to achieve grant
    obligation. Regular (e.g., quarterly) public reporting would also
    foster accountability and incentivize a faster program. These reports
    could include:
          a)  Key milestones of approval of pre-award authority, if
    applicable, and approval of the environmental decision document for the
    project.
          b)  Internal deadlines for moving grants through this process.
          c)  Delays outside the control of FRA personnel.

          Optimize grant application processes and program
    accessibility--FRA should consider a mechanism to share and analyze
    high level CRISI grant application information with ASLRRA. This
    information is publicly shared for programs like RAISE that have only
    public applicants, but not for CRISI, due to the broader eligibility.
    ASLRRA could work directly with FRA under an information sharing
    agreement to enable better analysis of what parts of the short line
    population are either not applying for CRISI grants or not applying
    successfully. Such collaboration could help the agency and the
    association to work together better to improve outreach to ensure that
    the CRISI program is broadly accessible, especially to the smallest
    railroads.

          Improve Notices of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) and the
    application review process--The prior administration's NOFOs included
    requirements beyond those in the program statute in the section on
    ``administrative and national policy requirements.'' These requirements
    caused confusion among applicants as to how their applications would be
    reviewed and what project implementation steps they would need to take.
    FRA should carefully review these requirements as they revise their
    standard NOFO text and strike requirements conditioning grant agreement
    execution on policies that are not required by the grant program
    statute.

          Improve Elements of the NEPA Process--railroads are an
    environmentally friendly way to move goods. We encourage efforts to
    ensure NEPA requirements reflect this sustainable way to move freight
    and do not undermine it. Specifically, we believe there could be room
    within USDOT's NEPA implementing regulations to expand definitions of
    selected categorical exclusions (CEs) without risking significant
    environmental impacts. Bundling like CEs for review and approval is an
    effective procedure for expediting grant awards that Congress can
    encourage.

          Grant Adjustment Request Form Process--The Grant
    Adjustment Request Form (GARF) process is a procedure used by grant
    recipients to request changes to the terms of a grant. These changes
    might include things like:
          +  Budget modifications (e.g., moving funds between categories)
          +  Time extensions for completing the project.
          +  Scope changes to alter what the grant is funding.
          +  Key personnel changes or other administrative updates

        We recommend streamlining the steps, improving communication, and
    aligning requirements with real-world project conditions.

          Coordinate Section 106 Reviews--FRA can reduce delays by
    coordinating with DOT's Office of the Secretary (OST) and the White
    House to expedite the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
    acceptance of the final Section 106 exemption of railroad rights-of-way
    (ROW) from review under Section 106 of the National Historic
    Preservation Act. Unnecessary Section 106 reviews can introduce serious
    delays into the grant obligation process.

          Consider Buy America waivers--FRA, in coordination with
    OST and the Office of Management and Budget, should judiciously deploy
    Buy America waivers where appropriate. These waivers can be a useful
    tool when domestic production capacity does not yet exist. We have seen
    the due diligence on waiver requests go awry. Inexperienced analysts
    can incorrectly assume domestic capacity when none practically exists
    or may conduct excessive research to determine non-availability.
    2. Continued Federal Support for Grade Crossing Safety Issues
        Continue to fund Operation Lifesaver (OLI), Section 130, and the
    Rail Crossing Elimination (RCE) program to protect the public. By far
    the most significant concerns with rail safety are related to
    interactions with the public at grade crossing accidents and trespasser
    issues. Operation Lifesaver is an industry- and government-supported
    effort which focuses on educating the public both about the importance
    of staying off railroad tracks and the need for passenger and
    commercial vehicle drivers to exercise caution at grade crossings. The
    federal government has been an important participant in these efforts,
    largely through the FHWA Railway-Highway Crossings Program, known
    widely as the ``Section 130'' program. This program significantly
    improves grade crossing safety by providing funding to improve grade
    crossing protection equipment. More recently, the Rail Crossing
    Elimination program has also been successful in providing options for
    communities to close unnecessary crossings. We recommend that Congress
    continues to fund the OLI, RCE, and Section 130 programs at robust and
    guaranteed levels.
                                   Conclusion
        Investing in short lines is one of the best public-private
    partnerships available. We drive the economy in areas where it is often
    difficult to do so. Rural and small towns across American would be
    closed off from the national economy with limited transportation
    options if freight rail were not present, safe, and efficient.
        Federal grant funding is an example of bipartisan, high-impact,
    efficient infrastructure investment that supports American jobs,
    enhances safety, and strengthens our supply chain--all across the
    United States.
        Support for CRISI, OLI, RCE and Section 130 has been crucial to our
    ability to maintain our infrastructure, improve safety and make
    significant, game-changing improvements to rail service in the
    communities we serve. As you shape the nation's next surface
    transportation bill, we urge that these vital programs and policies be
    secured in legislative text, and that process improvements are
    considered to help maximize the value and impact of each dollar
    granted, ensuring the continued success and growth of the short line
    industry, the nation's freight rail network, and most importantly the
    tens of thousands of critical agricultural, energy, manufacturing, and
    industrial rail shippers.
        Thank you for your time, your attention, and your longstanding
    support of our nation's short line railroads and the customers and
    communities we serve. I look forward to answering your questions.
                                   __________

                                    Addendum

              Short Line Railroad Completed CRISI Project Examples
    Chicago South Shore & South Bend Railroad (CSS)
    FRA Project Name: Chicago South Shore & South Bend Rail Rehabilitation
    and Safety Improvement Project
    CRISI Grant:        $2,831,705
    Local Match:        $707,926 (20%)
    Total Project Cost:   $3,539,631
    Member/District:    Rep. Rudy Yakym (IN-02), Rep. Frank Mrvan (IN-01)

        The project replaced 7.5 miles of 90-lb rail with 115-pound rail on
    Kingsbury Industrial Lead, improving safety associated with the heavier
    rail, and increasing train speed on new section of track to improve car
    cycle times for customers.
        ``The CRISI project being done by CSS shows a commitment to safety
    and the growth of CSS customers located between Michigan City and
    Kingsbury. My company truly appreciates the project to help our company
    grow.'' David Gelwicks, President--Hickman Williams Co.

    Iowa Interstate Railroad (IAIS)
    Project Name: Booneville Bridge Project
    CRISI Grant:        $3,470,500
    Local Match:        $3,470,500 (50%)
    Total Project Cost:   $6,941,000
    Member/District:    Rep. Zach Nunn (IA-03)

        The project replaced the 118-year-old Booneville Bridge over the
    Raccoon River, located approximately 15 miles west of Des Moines. The
    bridge carries over 42,000 carloads per year on the Class II Iowa
    Interstate Railroad's (IAIS) Council Bluffs, Iowa, to Chicago, Ill.,
    service. The bridge was in danger of being put out of service in the
    near future under previous conditions, which would result in costly and
    inefficient rerouting of traffic and economic disruption in Nebraska,
    Iowa, Illinois, and points beyond. The new bridge will be able to
    withstand increasingly common flooding events.
        ``The majority of the 8,000 carloads we ship go over that bridge
    and if that infrastructure was out, it would have a multi-million
    impact on the efficiency and cost-competitiveness of our business.''
    Nick Bowdish, CEO Elite Octane
        Video of Completed Project--here [https://www.youtube.com/
    watch?v=PZbq7d1
    VPD8].

    Iowa Interstate Railroad (IAIS)
    Project Name: IAIS Continuous Welded Rail Upgrade
    CRISI Grant:        $5,579,357
    Local Match:        $6,291,615 (53%)
    Total Project Cost:   $11,870,972
    Member/District:    Rep. Zach Nunn (IA-03), Rep. Randy Feenstra (IA-04)

        The project is a capstone project to complete the replacement of
    jointed rail with modern continuous welded rail (CWR) on the IAIS
    between Council Bluffs and Des Moines, IA. The upgrade will replace the
    last 18.95 miles of jointed rail with CWR and allow for track speeds of
    40 to 49 mph. As freight traffic grows on IAIS, the remaining 1950s-era
    Rock Island Railroad legacy jointed rail decreases the reliability and
    resiliency of the line by requiring slower speeds. Jointed rail has the
    propensity to have joint failures during Iowa's harsh winters creating
    hazards for maintenance of way employees and train crews. Replacing
    jointed rail will increase safety, lower maintenance costs, increase
    rail resiliency, and improve system and service performance by
    increasing train speeds. The project will allow IAIS to meet future
    freight demand for Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois farmers, manufacturers,
    and ethanol refineries.
        ``Jointed rail on the IAIS mainline creates higher maintenance
    costs and leads to slower operating speeds and lower efficiency between
    Omaha and Des Moines for rail customers like my company. Replacing this
    rail will lead to a more resilient railroad which is important for the
    Iowa economy, and for the success of our business. Our business has
    made a sizeable investment in an ethanol plant where its viability is
    solely dependent on the long-term sustainability of the Iowa Interstate
    Railroad.'' Ryan Pellett, C.E.O., JD & Co.

    Lake State Railway (LSRC)
    FRA Project Name: Infrastructure Enhancement Program for Lake State
    Railway's Huron Subdivision
    CRISI Grant:        $7,875,770
    Local Match:        $8,197,230 (51%)
    Total Project Cost:   $16,073,000
    Member/District:    Rep. Jack Bergman (MI-01)

        The project rehabilitated 30.3 miles of track with 115-lb.
    continuous welded rail, tie and turnout renewal and crossing
    rehabilitation. This project allowed for elimination of 23.8 miles of
    excepted track which resulted in increased speed from 10 mph to 25 mph
    and the upgrade of 6 miles from 25 mph to 40 mph. These improvements
    allowed for the full use of the heavier 286-lb. railcars required by
    LSRC customers and Class I railroad interchange partners. The
    elimination of the aging and lighter 85-lb rail enhanced safety along
    the entire segment.
        ``Lake State Railway's service to our facility has allowed our
    operation to be cost competitive despite our remote location in
    relation to the majority of our customers and suppliers. The CRISI
    grant has allowed us to increase the railcar load capacity associated
    with the heavier 286-lb railcars, reducing our cost and helping ensure
    our long-term success.'' Jim Spens, Plant Manager Panel Processing,
    Inc.

    Lancaster & Chester Railroad (L&C)
    FRA Project Name: South Carolina Piedmont Freight Rail Service
    Improvement Program
    CRISI Grant:        $8,752,185
    Local Match:        $4,712,715 (35%)
    Total Project Cost:   $13,465,900
    Member/District:    Rep. Ralph Norman (SC-05)

        The project provided funding for the acquisition of three Tier IV
    locomotives, the rehabilitation of 46 miles and one bridge upgrade to
    allow for the handling of 286-lb. railcars. The project increased track
    speed from10 mph to 25 mph, gave customers the ability to utilize 286-
    lb railcars and decreased locomotive emissions. The upgraded track
    resulted in the railroad attracting three new customers to the line.
        ``Over the last 11 years, Chester County has attracted over $3
    billion in new industrial development creating almost 4,000 new jobs.
    This massive amount of opportunity is a direct result of having the
    short line L&C railroad as our partner.'' Alex Oliphant, City Council
    Member, Chester County, SC

    Napoleon, Defiance & Western (NDW)
    Project Name: NDW Safety Upgrade in Opportunity Zones Project
    Grantee:            Ohio Rail Development Corporation
    CRISI Grant:        $4,112,452
    Local Match:        $4,112,452 (50%)
    Total Project Cost:   $8,224,904
    Member/District:     Rep. Martin Stutzman (IN-03), Rep. Bob Latta (OH-
    05), Rep. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)

        The project upgraded approximately 10 miles of 80-lb. rail with 132
    to 136-lb. rail, and replaced approximately 29,000 ties on 29 miles of
    rail between Woodburn, Indiana and Defiance, Ohio. The project was
    required to reduce the number of derailments previously occurring on
    this segment.
        ``The NDW provides transportation for our tomato paste from
    California to our facility saving us a lot of time and money versus
    going over the road. The rehabilitation also offers us new
    opportunities to move more materials by rail.''--Gavin Serrao,
    Cambell's Soup Logistics Manager, Napoleon, OH
        ``This has been a railroad that's needed a lot of investment for a
    long time. Every State DOT knows there are these railroads that can be
    so much more for the local economy than they are now and NDW brought
    the professionalism, the expertise, and the financial resources to make
    this project possible.'' Matt Dietrich, Ex. Dir. Ohio Rail Development
    Commission
        Video overview of project--here [https://youtu.be/IwFm_a_KWs4].
    Nebraska Kansas Colorado Railway (NKCR)
    Project Name: Velocity Enhanced Rail Transportation Project
    CRISI Grant:        $4,505,542
    Local Match:        $4,505,542 (50%)
    Total Project Cost:   $9,011,084
    Member/District:    Rep. Lauren Boebert (CO-04), Rep. Adrian Smith (NE-
    03)

        The project installed approximately 42,595 ties, 15,990 tons of
    ballast, and resurfaced 562,848 track feet on the NKCR in western
    Nebraska and eastern Colorado. The project allows for removal of slow
    orders on approximately 106.6 miles of track and restores efficient
    operating speeds over most of the line. The improvements reduced
    overall trip times along the corridor by a minimum of four hours and
    reduced operating costs by reducing locomotive utilization and allowing
    for crews to make a round-trip along the line within one day.
        ``The Velocity project will be a major rehabilitation of the
    freight rail line from Sterling, CO, to Wallace, NE, focused on
    removing slow orders where track conditions force trains to slow to a
    crawl. This line is the only rail connection for many agricultural
    customers in western Nebraska and eastern Colorado.'' U.S. Senator Deb
    Fischer (R-NE)

    OmniTRAX Holdings Combined Short Lines
    Project Name: Transportation Investments for Employment and Safety
    (TIES1)
    CRISI Grant:        $37,364,504
    Local Match:        $9,341,126 (20%)
    Total Project Cost:   $46,705,630
    Member/District:    Rep. Sanford Bishop (GA-02)

        The project replaced approximately 1,000 railroad ties per mile on
    135 high-density track miles on three OmniTRAX short line railroads--
    Illinois Railway, Alabama & Tennessee River Railway, and Georgia &
    Florida Railway, which will help sustain current FRA track safety
    standards and maintain current timetable speeds. The project is
    estimated to reduce track-related accidents by 67%, saving $11MM in
    losses, reduce locomotive utilization by 186,000 hours, eliminate 27
    tons of NOx, 1 ton of PM2.5 and 4.5 tons of SO2. The project will
    eliminate the need for 16 subsequent tie spot replacement mobilizations
    saving $43MM.
        ``Covia Holdings is a major supplier of elemental raw materials
    used in a variety of industries, including glass production and housing
    construction. The majority of shipments to Covia's customers throughout
    the U.S. are handled by railroads such as those managed by OmniTrax
    Rail Holdings. Covia supports the TIES Project [and] reasonably
    believes that TIES will improve safety on the Illinois Railway (IR) by
    replacing a simple yet essential element of safe railroad
    infrastructure: the wooden railroad tie. The IR's ability to service
    Covia's plants, uninterrupted, in Illinois is fundamental to Covia's
    daily operations.'' Russell Montgomery, EVP/COO, Covia Holdings LLC

    Red River Valley & Western Railroad
    FRA Project Name: Rural Economic Preservation Through Rail Replacement
    CRISI Grant:        $6,704,544
    Local Match:        $2,915,234 (30.3%)
    Total Project Cost:   $9,620,778
    Member/District:    Rep. Julie Fedorchak, At Large

        The Red River Valley & Western serves the southeast corner of the
    state of North Dakota, linking numerous rural agricultural shippers
    with the national rail system. The project replaced 14.5 miles of old
    jointed rail with continuous welded rail on between Independence and
    Oakes, North Dakota.
        The project has resulted in a safer, dependable rail system that
    will maintain economic competitiveness for current shippers, and
    provides the capacity to meet the anticipated future demand with
    climate change pushing the grain industry and growing conditions
    northward.
        ``North Dakota is heavily reliant on railroads for the shipment of
    bulk commodities from our rural communities to their distant final
    destinations. A large portion of the grains produced in North Dakota
    are shipped over 1,200 miles by rail to Pacific Northwest port
    facilities at Seattle and Portland. North Dakota is therefore keenly
    interested in a safe, efficient, and reliable railroad network to
    provide value to the thousands of tons of bulk agricultural and energy
    products produced each year in our state. Preserving this vital rail
    network is essential for the economic development and sustainment in
    the rural communities served by short lines.'' Commissioners Fedorchak,
    Kroshus, and Christmann, North Dakota Public Service Commission

    Sierra Northern Railroad (SERA)
    FRA Project Name: Sierra Northern Railway's Consolidated Rail
    Infrastructure and Safety Improvement
    CRISI Grant:        $17,415,000
    Local Match:        $18,300,000 (51.3%)
    Total Project Cost:   $35,700,000
    Member/District:    Rep. Tom McClintock (CA-05)

        Video overview of project is here [https://www.youtube.com/
    watch?v=2j8ulXpa
    1A0].
        Sierra Northern Railway (SERA) was challenged to add and manage
    current customers along the 55-mile-long Oakdale Division excepted
    track, built in 1897, servicing Riverbank, California in the Central
    Valley to Standard, California in the Sierra Nevada foothills. As
    excepted track, freight could move at no more than 10 mph along the
    route, taking 5 hours to transport freight from one end to the other.
    The project included replacing 20 miles of track with 115-pound rail,
    90,000 railroad ties, and rehabilitating ten grade crossings.
        The CRISI Grant transformed the operation, adding a 116-acre
    transload site for building manifest unit trans without causing
    gridlock along the active line, and improving delivery time from end to
    end by 250%. The increased throughput has enabled SERA to:
          Quadrupled carload business
          Add new customers--such as a new grainload shipper
          Reduce derailments
          Provided 30 new railroad jobs in the area
          Improved grade crossings and increase speed led to less
    time blocking motoring public
          Took an estimated 5,000 trucks of propane off local
    highways in year one

        ``The project began in 2019, and was completed a year and a half
    later. It has achieved everything we had anticipated, and more for the
    region. It has allowed the Sierra Northern dramatically increase
    carloads by better serving current customers, and by attracting new
    business to rail. We are especially proud of how this project has
    served our local community--taking trucks off the road, especially on
    narrow mountain roads, reducing time spent at railroad crossings, and
    providing more well-paying railroad jobs in our region.'' Ken Beard,
    President, Sierra Northern Railway

    Texas, Gonzales & Northern Railway (TXGN)
    FRA Project Name: Harwood Interchange Improvement Project
    CRISI Grant:        $2,223,768
    Local Match:        $2,223,768 (50%)
    Total Project Cost:   $4,447,536
    Member/District:    Rep. Michael Cloud (TX-27)

        The project extended the siding at the interchange with the Union
    Pacific Railroad (UP) to 9,000 feet. The construction project included
    installing welded rail, steel ties, new modern power switches and the
    replacement of two aging wooden trestles enhanced drainage. With
    concrete culverts. The purpose of the project was to enhance capacity,
    improve service, enhance safe operations and help relieve highway
    congestion by moving shipments from truck to rail.
        The project has allowed TXGN to accommodate UP's Unit Train traffic
    simultaneously with our carload traffic which allowed for double
    capacity at interchange and a more fluid handoff with UP. Prior to the
    CRISI project completion UP could deliver only 1 of those trains while
    then waiting on TXGN to clear the interchange before a second train
    could arrive. The increased operating capacity has saved customers up
    to 24 hours of transit time. The expanded capacity has allowed TXGN to
    attract two new storage customers and annual carloads have increased
    from 3,726 in the year prior to the project to 4,634 carloads in the
    first year following project completion, a 24% increase. Most recently
    TXGN attracted a new major company that has just announced that they
    are building a new facility on the TXGN and will increase carloads by
    700 annually.
        Livestock Nutrition Center (LNC) is a leading feed manufacturing
    and grain handling company with facilities in 5 southwestern states,
    including a facility on the TXGN.
        ``The TXGN CRISI Grant Interchange Project has been a game-changer
    for our operations at Livestock Nutrition Center. By enabling the
    seamless handling of Unit Trains, this project has significantly
    improved the efficiency of our railcar traffic and opened the door for
    potential Unit Train movements into TXGN Railway. Without the
    enhancements brought by this project, we wouldn't have the opportunity
    to consider expanding our location. This improvement has not only
    reduced turnaround times for our railcars, improving utilization and
    operational efficiency, but it has also positioned us to better serve
    our customers and explore new growth opportunities. We are truly
    grateful for the partnership with TXGN Railway and the commitment they
    have shown to helping businesses like ours thrive.'' Maurice Janda,
    Fulfillment Manager, LNC

    Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company (TCWR)
    FRA Project Name: Joint Elimination--Rail Infrastructure and Safety
    Improvement
    CRISI Grant:        $2,000,839
    Local Match:        $2,000,839 (50%)
    Total Project Cost:   $4,001,678
    Member/District:     Michelle Fischbach (MN-7), Tom Emmer (MN-6), Kelly
    Morrison (MN-3)

        The Twin Cities & Western Railroad upgraded 1.3 miles of track with
    slow orders--a local speed restriction imposed that is slower than the
    track's normal speed limit due to deficient track--to high-speed welded
    rail. The replacement resulted in significantly improved safety, as
    measured by decreased year-over-year rail defects found via ultrasonic
    tests from 106 defects in 2017 to 48 defects in 2020 (after project).
    The upgraded rail also reduced annual tie replacement from 20,000
    required in 2019, to 17,000 by 2021.
        For customers, the improved quality of the rail contributed to a
    decrease in shipping time, decreases in delays due to mainline
    derailments, and maintaining efficient pricing due to decreased
    maintenance costs.
        Subsequent CRISI grants in FY 20 and FY 21 replaced rail on an
    additional 2 and 1 miles of track respectively, leading to an overall
    reduction in point-to-point shipping time of 56% across the 3 miles,
    and a further reduction in tie replacement needs of 30%, to 12,000 ties
    per year.
        ``The Twin Cities & Western Railroad is a vital east-west railway
    that carries over 30,000 freight cars annually throughout south-central
    and western Minnesota. Its rail lines are essential to the local and
    regional economy, connecting countless businesses and farmers to their
    commercial needs. Not only would these improvement ensure that our
    railways are safer and more reliable, but they would also minimize
    transportation costs for businesses, enhance Minnesota's economic
    competitiveness, support the regional supply chain and reduce the need
    for future maintenance and repairs. Completing these updates would
    support the needs of countless Minnesotans by improving and modernizing
    the regional rail network.'' Senator Amy Klobuchar, United States
    Senator, Minnesota
        ``Rail is one of the primary arteries of Minnesota commerce. This
    investment in the Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company will increase
    service, while also ensuring the safety of all those who live in
    communities along these vital transportation routes.'' Representative
    Tom Emmer, MN-6

        Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you all for your testimony. I
    appreciate that, and thank you. We will now turn to questions
    from the panel. I recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
        There is a great deal of commonality among all the
    witnesses regarding the specific challenges you experience when
    applying for Federal infrastructure funding. If you had to rank
    the top three challenges, what would they be? Specifically,
    where would NEPA fit in the ranking?
        Just start with Mr. Dietrich and go down the panel.
        Mr. Dietrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think one of the challenges with the discretionary
    grants, first and foremost, is the stop-start and the need to
    address that and use that downtime. You mentioned NEPA
    specifically, and that is definitely in number one or two, in
    terms of advancing the projects. And it is not compliance with
    NEPA, it is the differences in the modal agencies, as I
    mentioned in my testimony.
        We, as Ohio, have actually taken the advantage of--we
    have--we had NEPA assignment for FHWA funding. We just received
    NEPA assignment for FRA, because we think that is important
    enough that, again, getting those into our standard processes
    allows us to meet all the Federal requirements, but to do it
    internally and quicker without all the back and forth.
        So I think those are the two big issues. It is the stop-
    and-start nature of the discretionary grants, as well as trying
    to standardize NEPA. Thank you.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Eucalitto.
        Mr. Eucalitto. I would definitely put NEPA as one of the
    top items under the umbrella of all the regulatory pieces that
    come along with it: section 106, National Historic Preservation
    Act; Endangered Species Act; NEPA; I think all of those fall
    under the umbrella of NEPA, in my mind, as something that needs
    to be addressed. Usually for my State, it is the biggest
    hurdle.
        I think the second piece would be FRA has been given a
    herculean task of standing up a massive program out of the blue
    with the new legislation, and they have been doing their best
    job. But that means there is a lot of opportunity to do it
    better and learn from the mistakes made by the other modal
    administrations.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Hicks.
        Mr. Hicks. I would say NEPA efficiency is in my top two,
    and it goes hand in hand with my number one, with the number
    one being perhaps a two-stage process or a pipeline. and the
    need for that is somewhat based on the NEPA timelines and the
    long timelines that it takes to get NEPA approved.
        So I would say that is where it falls with me, is the need
    to change the process or reduce the amount of NEPA to condense
    the timelines to get projects actually out on the ground.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Ms. Bevil.
        Ms. Bevil. Yes, I would just add for short line railroads,
    our projects, especially under the CRISI grant program, are
    often subject to categorical exclusion from NEPA. And if there
    is a way to speed up that process, that would be very helpful
    in speeding up the projects overall.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. So if NEPA, the NEPA process, was
    streamlined, how would this reduce both the project cost and
    also the time of completion?
        I will start with Mr. Dietrich.
        Mr. Dietrich. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        For example--and again, I will go to NEPA assignment,
    because I think there are a lot of opportunities there--we are
    signing programmatic agreements right now with all the resource
    agencies so that Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife,
    things like that, that rail projects are now included in those
    programmatic agreements so they can process those just like--
    and again, I look at Garrett--we are working with these
    agencies all the time. And so the more we can put these into
    the pipelines, the better we can establish that.
        We are adapting our computer systems internally so that we
    can process these projects. Take the uniqueness out of the
    discretionary grants and just put them into the pipeline like
    every other project. That, sir, I think, is where we can see--
    it's not the big reform stuff, but I think that's the
    opportunity in the nuts and bolts where we can really see this
    stuff progress quicker.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Eucalitto.
        Mr. Eucalitto. And Mr. Chair, I can add a specific example
    in my State where we had to redo our--when we got FRA funding
    after having FTA funding, FRA required to do a new finding of
    no significant interest impact, and that added 6 months onto
    the project before we could start construction, which drove up
    costs by about $90 million. And so that is a huge impact to my
    State and all the taxpayers.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Well, my time is expiring. So, Ms.
    Titus, you are recognized for your questions. Five minutes.
        Ms. Titus. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I was proud to work with my colleagues to provide the $66
    billion of supplemental advance appropriations over the 5 years
    for passenger rail that was in the Bipartisan Infrastructure
    Law. As we begin work on the surface transportation
    authorization, as the ranking member of this subcommittee, one
    of my priorities is to be sure that we do that guaranteed
    funding for rail programs again.
        I think I know the answer to this based on your all's
    testimony, but I would like to just get a one-word answer to
    the question. Just go down the row. First off, have your
    industries or members benefited from the BIL's guaranteed
    funding for rail?
        Mr. Dietrich, yes or no?
        Mr. Dietrich. Yes.
        Mr. Eucalitto. Yes.
        Mr. Hicks. Yes.
        Ms. Bevil. Yes.
        Ms. Titus. Good. That's what I thought. Now, as a followup,
    should this committee include guaranteed funding for rail in
    the next surface transportation authorization?
        Mr. Dietrich.
        Mr. Dietrich. I apologize for my ignorance, but I don't
    necessarily understand what the difference is. A rail title or
    just rail funding?
        Ms. Titus. Just rail money, a guarantee.
        Mr. Dietrich. Yes.
        Ms. Titus. Well, how about a title?
        Mr. Dietrich. I don't--like I said, I am a little bit out
    of my element here, so----
        Ms. Titus [interrupting]. Okay, just give me the money,
    huh?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Dietrich. Sorry.
        Ms. Titus. Whatever you want to call it.
        Mr. Dietrich. Yes.
        Ms. Titus. Okay. That's a good answer.
        Mr. Eucalitto. Yes.
        Mr. Hicks. Yes, we support rail funding.
        Ms. Bevil. Yes, we would like to see advance appropriations
    for CRISI program.
        Ms. Titus. Great. Well, I agree with you, and I think that
    is what we should do.
        Another question, Mr. Eucalitto, I will ask you. In your
    testimony, you asked Congress to reauthorize and fund the
    Corridor ID Program. Now, I talked about the $3 billion grant
    for Brightline, but that doesn't happen overnight. You've got
    to bring it together, you've got to plan. Where is it going to
    go? What is the best use of the money? Help States,
    reorganization, planning, regional groups. Could you talk to us
    a little bit about how you think this will help States, and how
    this will be a good thing to consider into the new bill?
        Mr. Eucalitto. Yes, thank you for the question.
        The Corridor ID Program, I think, is really beneficial
    because it allows us, as States and applicants, to make the
    case as to why we should be making this longer term investment.
    It allows for future applications for capital funding to be
    more well-reasoned and well-justified so we can make the best
    use of the taxpayer dollars we are being given.
        There is a lot of work that goes into trying to plan where
    we should be building future rail service, rail lines, or
    increasing capacity and improving existing rail lines, and that
    takes a lot of work. We need the partnership with the FRA to be
    able to do that work, to do the service development planning,
    to then come back to the FRA, to Congress to make the case why
    we should be continuing to make those investments. Without
    doing that preplanning work ahead of time that Corridor ID
    allows, it's really not 100 percent baked applications for
    future funding.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you.
        Some places we need improvements, some places we need
    expansion, and we need to identify those places and move
    forward on those projects, and this would help to do that.
        Mr. Eucalitto. Absolutely.
        Ms. Titus. Mr. Dietrich, you mentioned about multimodal
    transportation projects, some of the logistical challenges.
    Could you talk a little bit about anything that the FRA could
    do with the Federal Highway Administration to bring that
    coordination that we need, or move it along faster, or do
    grants simultaneously? Elaborate on that.
        Mr. Dietrich. Thank you for the question. That is one of my
    favorite discussions.
        I think that, again, if we could standardize some of these
    processes--literally, my staff has developed a cheat sheet
    between our project development process at the State DOT and
    FRA. And as we are--even when we are talking to consultants, we
    have to tell them which one we are using. So the more we could
    standardize those processes and for the modal agencies to
    accept those processes--and NEPA is just one of them. It goes
    above and beyond that. But the more those could be standardized
    at the U.S. DOT, the easier it will be.
        Garrett had mentioned about FTA funding. We had a project
    with a grade separation where, from the time of the application
    to award, we were awarded FHWA formula funding from our State
    DOT, a substantial amount, $2 million, to progress the project
    work. Because we were able to progress that work, we thought
    everybody would be very happy. When the award came along, we
    actually lost $70,000 of the award because we advanced planning
    without that pre-award authority letter.
        So, there is language in the legislation, especially IIJA,
    that counted those expenses, especially for the RCE project,
    since the award. So, it was the first time in my career that
    bringing additional resources to a project was not met with
    celebration.
        So, I think, again, that standardization of the processes
    and allowing us States, especially the DOTs, to develop these
    projects in the interim. I hope that answers your question, but
    I think it is all about standardization.
        And if I might, I also think it's about scalability. Right
    now, the grant agreements, it's a one-size-fits-all. And
    unfortunately, it seems like it is lowest common denominator.
    So again, if they could be scalable for the type of project
    that we are looking at, I think that would be beneficial, too.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Titus. Maybe you will share that cheat sheet with us.
        Mr. Dietrich. Yes, I will.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Owens, you are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Owens. Thank you, Chairman Webster and Ranking Member
    Titus and today's witnesses. Thank you for convening this
    important hearing as the committee begins to work on the
    surface transportation reauthorization.
        For my home State of Utah, this hearing could never be more
    timely or relevant. Authorized by the FRA just 1 year ago, the
    Savage Tooele Railroad is Utah's first new railroad in decades.
    This 11-mile short line under construction in Tooele County
    will connect the Lakeview Business Park in Grantsville to the
    Union Pacific mainline near Interstate 80. Further south,
    construction is underway for the Savage Railport in Iron
    County, a key component of Utah's Inland Port Authority's Iron
    Springs project area. This facility also aims to provide direct
    access to Union Pacific lines, serving as a regional hub for
    agriculture, enhancing southern Utah's connectivity to global
    markets.
        Both these projects are perfect representations of the role
    of short lines to enhance logistical efficiency to expand
    economic development. However, these projects have not come
    easy. The Utah congressional delegation has collaborated to
    help navigate the very complex approval process. As we look
    ahead for reauthorizing key programs and departments, we must
    find ways to remove the bureaucratic barriers to rail
    investment in our communities.
        Ms. Bevil, could you share your perspective on the
    challenges our short line railroads face when advancing
    projects like the Savage Tooele Railroad project in Utah which
    aims to connect small communities to Class I rail lines?
        Ms. Bevil. Yes, thank you, Congressman.
        Your example of the short line in the State of Utah is a
    fantastic example of how short lines really do connect the
    local economy to the national rail network. Short lines have
    the ability to apply for the CRISI grants, which has been a
    fantastic program. The advanced appropriations that exist for
    those CRISI projects have provided some certainty as we go on
    to know that those programs are available.
        The challenge with the program is the speed. One of our
    railroads applied for a CRISI grant in 2020 and finally
    received the award a year later. And then the agreement--sorry,
    a year to the award, another year to the agreement. All of that
    has to do--some with the environmental process, some with
    getting documents together. It all takes a very long time.
    Speeding up the review process, speeding up categorical
    exclusion, waivers, those things would help short lines
    accomplish these projects much faster.
        Mr. Owens. Regarding those CRISI grants, obviously, it is a
    job-creator for rural communities. Can you share how the short
    lines select local contractors for repair and rehabilitative
    work?
        Ms. Bevil. Yes, absolutely. So short lines, we don't
    typically employ big track gangs to replace our rails. When we
    win these CRISI grants, we have to hire contractors, and those
    contractors provide really good-paying jobs, good, local jobs
    in our communities.
        Mr. Owens. Okay, thank you.
        Mr. Hicks, earlier you suggested that FRA establish a
    project pipeline as a way to prescreen and evaluate projects
    before the grant application is submitted. Can you elaborate on
    how you envision this working in practice?
        Mr. Hicks. Well, I definitely don't have the details all
    worked out on how that would happen. But we have discussed the
    Corridor ID Program, I think that is somewhat of an example on
    how you could establish a pipeline of projects, get them into
    the pipeline, awarded, vetted to do the preliminary
    engineering, do the NEPA, do the things that take a little bit
    more time, and then get a solid list of projects available to
    work from when moved into final design.
        So maybe it is a two-stage process, where you have one
    approval for the preliminary work, and then, after that is
    completed, then you move on to the second stage of authority to
    do the final design and construction. That is somewhat how I
    would see that working.
        Mr. Owens. Okay, thank you.
        And I will yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you.
        Now the ranking member, Mr. Larsen, you are recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        First for Mr. Hicks. In your role in supporting FRA grant
    obligations, do you know how many grants at FRA are on hold for
    review?
        Mr. Hicks. Thank you for the question. No, Congressman
    Larsen, I do not know what that number is. I do know that our
    firm has seen a slowdown of those in the last several months,
    and so recently some----
        Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. I'm sorry, a
    slowdown of those on hold, or a slowdown of grants going out?
        Mr. Hicks. A slowdown on the--excuse me, what was the
    question?
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. A slowdown on grants being on
    hold, or a slowdown on grants going out?
        Mr. Hicks. A slowdown--first there was a slowdown on
    putting them on hold, and now that seems to be moving a little
    bit more.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. A little bit, yes. So it is
    greater than zero?
        Mr. Hicks. Yes, for sure.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. Great, yes. Do you have any sort
    of idea of characterizing them? Are they ones that have been
    awarded but not obligated?
        If it is obligated by the FRA, does FRA seem to move
    forward and we are looking at only ones that have been awarded?
        Mr. Hicks. From my perspective, it seems to be both pre-
    and post-, where just, I don't know, in the last several
    months, just not a lot of movement on both until here recently.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes. Okay, thanks.
        The same for you, Mr. Eucalitto, the same question from
    AASHTO's perspective. On the FRA grants, what are you all
    seeing?
        Mr. Eucalitto. Yes, thank you for the question. So,
    initially, I think we did see, kind of----
        Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Sorry, initially
    as of----
        Mr. Eucalitto [interrupting]. As of January----
        Mr. Larsen of Washington [interposing]. Yes, okay.
        Mr. Eucalitto [continuing]. We saw, like, a pause on action
    on grants both at the staff level and within FRA in getting
    them out the door.
        I will say, from my State's perspective, we are a very--we
    have numerous grants from the FRA because we sit on the
    Northeast Corridor. Within the past month and a half, we have
    seen staff action begin to occur. They have begun processing
    environmental documents. So there has been a re-action of many
    of our grants, which is welcome news for me in my State. I know
    other States are saying the same thing.
        At AASHTO's level, we did express to U.S. DOT the risks of
    any slowdown on grants because when you work in the
    construction industry, especially in the northern climates, you
    have time-of-year restrictions in which you can actually do
    work in the field. And so any delay of any kind to a
    construction project, to any federally funded project, could
    have substantial impacts in postponing it for the next year. So
    we are glad to see some of our grants begin to actually have
    action.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes. Ms. Bevil, on the American
    Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, are you tracking
    that issue of grants being awarded, then paused, then going
    out, or do you have any sense of what is going on there?
        Ms. Bevil. Yes, I think we have had a similar experience
    where there was a short pause in January, but we are seeing
    things moving now.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. And then, Mr. Dietrich, from
    Ohio's perspective.
        Mr. Dietrich. Ohio's perspective is consistent with the
    rest of the committee. We just got some pre-award authority
    letters for an RCE project, and we are getting more
    documentation now----
        Mr. Larsen of Washington [interposing]. Yes, yes.
        Mr. Dietrich [continuing]. For the grant agreements.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. Great, thanks.
        So, Mr. Eucalitto, this week--I would just, kind of trying
    not to be too State-based myself, because I have a broader
    responsibility, but every once in a while, I get to be. I met
    with Washington and Oregon's Chambers of Commerce this week,
    who have a collective view that rail is core infrastructure,
    certainly for our State, we are in a Corridor ID Program.
        From your perspective at AASHTO, are you considering rail
    as core infrastructure as we are moving towards a rewrite of
    the surface transportation bill?
        Mr. Eucalitto. Yes, we absolutely consider rail to be core
    infrastructure.
        AASHTO will be holding our spring meeting next week, and we
    will be voting on numerous resolutions tied to what we would
    like to see Congress do for reauthorization, an entire section
    of resolution just dedicated to rail. We know it is critical.
    It is the connective tissue for our economy, both for passenger
    and for freight. And without it, our economy would grind to a
    halt.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. That's great. With that, I yield
    back. Thank you.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Burlison, you are recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hicks, in your testimony, you highlight that there are
    more than 500 independent rail contracting companies in the
    United States who performed $10 billion worth of rail
    infrastructure construction and maintenance work annually.
        And my question, Mr. Hicks, is can you highlight the work
    that your companies do and how it impacts the broader rail
    industry?
        Mr. Hicks. Absolutely. Thank you for the question,
    Congressman Burlison.
        NRC represents engineers, consultants, railroad
    contractors, railroad suppliers that are from all 50 States,
    all over the country. They help to build, implement, and
    maintain all these projects nationwide, both on freight and
    passenger service. So there are multiple companies out there in
    all of the districts that are performing these services of
    supplying and building these projects nationwide. So it
    contributes to hundreds of thousands of jobs in the
    implementation and construction of the projects and maintenance
    of them.
        Mr. Burlison. Especially under the Biden administration,
    has the implementation of strict Federal regulations made it
    more difficult?
        Mr. Hicks. There has been some difficulties in--I mean, we
    have discussed NEPA delays, things of that nature here. That
    definitely made the cost of the projects increase because time
    is money, and the longer it takes, the more expensive things
    get.
        Mr. Burlison. Okay. And do you have any suggestions for how
    we can approach those?
        Mr. Hicks. I definitely believe that, either through a
    combination of things, of NEPA simplification, or maybe
    assignment to States, or maybe expansion of categorical
    exemptions for commonsense types of projects, would make a lot
    of sense in reducing the delays.
        And, just, consistent management of the projects in FRA
    also helps with consistency, keeping them moving.
        Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
        Mr. Dietrich, in your testimony, you kind of went through
    the differences between the discretionary grants and the ones
    that have flexibility. Specifically, you mentioned that
    ``Historically, Federal transportation funding for construction
    is not obligated until NEPA clearance is achieved . . . ''
    citing that this generally does not pose an issue for
    traditional Federal formula funds granted to States because
    they have the flexibility to adjust their budgets to match the
    project schedules.
        However, for the projects that are specific discretionary
    grants, it's a different story. Can you elaborate on that?
    Because I am not familiar with how this works whatsoever.
        Mr. Dietrich. Yes, Congressman, thank you for the question.
        So, when we get formula funds, we get the allocation of the
    States. And as projects come in, we slot the money in as the
    projects are ready. So NEPA, planning, detailed design,
    whatever, through the project development process, and that
    money is just slotted in.
        So if a project falls behind, then that money would go to a
    different project, where with a discretionary grant, the money
    is project-specific.
        So, if we are following that obligation process--so, say,
    the FRA obligates money for preliminary engineering and NEPA,
    but there is a problem, and NEPA takes longer than anticipated.
    So, the rest of that construction funding is unobligated. And
    then it is only when we are done with NEPA that we go back,
    renegotiate the agreement, sign more agreements with the FRA
    for the next step and the next step and the next step.
        And what I am asking for is if there is a possibility for
    the FRA to look at that obligation process, so when they
    obligate the funds, they obligate the funds for the entire life
    cycle of the project. And that allows us--the money is
    obligated, there is certainty there, we don't have to keep
    going back for amendments, different agreements, but rather,
    you just go through the natural progression of the project.
        Because, as I pointed out in my testimony, what it is, it's
    worst case scenario. We are advancing projects with the hope of
    the money being there. And likewise, the FRA looks like they
    are sitting on a bunch of money not being used, when actually
    it is all committed. So if there is just some way to match that
    obligation to the project commitments, I think it would help
    everybody.
        Mr. Burlison. Okay, and I wanted to get one last question
    in with my time.
        Ms. Bevil, you said that there is approximately--you didn't
    say this, but I know that there is about 315 miles of track of
    short line rail in my district. And given the difficulties and
    the obstacles with grants, can you shed some light on how
    difficult that is for short line or the smaller businesses?
        Ms. Bevil. Sure, sure. It can be challenging, as a small
    business, to plan out work that needs to be done on your short
    line with the timelines that these grants take.
        So, if I am planning a project for 5 years from now, that
    is not going to take care of my needs that I have right now for
    new ties and rail and crossings on my short line railroad. So,
    anything we can do to speed up the process of receiving this
    funding would be helpful to short lines.
        Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Okay, Mr. Moulton, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so proud to work
    with the ranking member on high-speed rail, and we are making
    real progress there, but I want to give more context to
    something she said when she mentioned that no passenger rail
    system in the world exists without subsidies.
        Well, the reality is in America that we heavily subsidize
    highways and airlines and barely give a pittance to passenger
    rail: $535 billion over 35 years for interstates. The gas tax,
    of course, doesn't cover the cost. So since 2008, we have
    transferred $275 billion in taxpayer money from the general
    fund, and this is only direct costs.
        We commissioned a study in Massachusetts to understand the
    true picture of Government subsidies for driving, including
    things like emergency services to handle accidents, because you
    are 17 times more likely to die traveling the same distance by
    car as by train. It works out to $64 billion a year just in
    Massachusetts. So every family in Massachusetts spends an
    average of $14,000 subsidizing everyone else driving, even if
    they don't own a car.
        Now, speaking of safety, we just had two more close calls
    at Reagan National Airport this weekend, months after the worst
    U.S. air disaster in years. So how are the airlines doing with
    subsidies?
        Well, the Federal Government spent $54 billion to just bail
    out the airlines during the pandemic. After 9/11, it was $5
    billion plus $10 billion in loans. Sir Richard Branson, father
    of Virgin Brands, once said that the fastest way to become a
    millionaire is to be a billionaire and buy an airline.
        On top of this, we give massive subsidies to airlines
    without a second thought through the FAA, the TSA, and billions
    of building--airports. Our private airlines would lose money
    hand over fist without that help. Congress just approved $12.5
    billion to modernize air traffic control. You remember that,
    Mr. Chairman? It is very analogous to Positive Train Control,
    the next generation of rail traffic control, and yet Congress
    didn't pay for that at all. We made the railroads pay for it
    themselves. Railroads invested nearly $11.5 billion to install
    PTC. In fact, the only transportation system in the world
    that--or in America, rather--that truly operates without public
    subsidies is our freight rail system, and that speaks to the
    innate efficiency of the things you are talking about.
        So I think that, look, if my colleagues truly believed in
    the free market, we would let these modes compete. That is the
    way other countries handle transportation funding. Rather than
    just pour billions of taxpayer subsidies into highways and
    airports, they find out which solution makes the most sense.
        And so there is not some vast high-speed rail conspiracy
    that infects every other developed country in the world except
    for the United States. It actually just is more efficient. It
    also happens to be better for public safety, economic
    development, housing, the environment. And yet one of the
    biggest cost drivers of high-speed rail projects is the
    environmental reviews. So that makes no sense.
        In terms of a level playing field, Commissioner Eucalitto,
    when I drive from Boston to New York on Interstate 84, why is
    there no stoplight where it intersects with I-91?
        Mr. Eucalitto. We want to make sure to get people through
    efficiently and safely for----
        Mr. Moulton [interrupting]. Right, so you don't have to
    stop, right?
        Mr. Eucalitto. Correct.
        Mr. Moulton. You just--you have a transfer, okay?
        And yet Connecticut says you value the Northeast Corridor
    and you encourage your citizens to ride trains, and yet on the
    busiest passenger rail corridor in the country, where the line
    diverges from Penn Station to Grand Central, there is no
    interchange. Why does Connecticut have no plan to build an
    interchange? Because right now two trains show up at the same
    time, one of them has to stop and wait.
        Mr. Eucalitto. So I know with that specific case, the
    Metropolitan Transportation Authority, MTA in New York, they
    are working on Penn Station access to improve throughput into
    Penn Station. We in Connecticut----
        Mr. Moulton [interrupting]. Well, I would just ask--and you
    take this for the record--how many highway interchanges has
    Connecticut built in the last 100 years? Because you have not
    built a single modern rail interchange like we are just
    discussing at this intersection that is so critical that delays
    thousands of passengers every day. It would be interesting to
    hear that.
        Let me also ask, does Connecticut conduct highway
    maintenance at night to minimize disruptions?
        Mr. Eucalitto. Yes, we do.
        Mr. Moulton. So does every other railroad in the world
    except, to my knowledge, Metro-North. Why does Metro-North only
    conduct maintenance during the day, delaying thousands of
    passengers on Metro-North and Amtrak every single week?
        Mr. Eucalitto. I can take that question to the president of
    Metro-North and get back to you.
        Mr. Moulton. I would appreciate that very much.
        Look, the point is, we ought to just have a level playing
    field. It is crazy that a mode of transportation that is so
    fundamentally good for public safety, good for the environment
    constantly gets hampered by Government reviews and redtape.
    That is why this hearing is so important.
        But we also have to have a comprehensive picture of the
    subsidies here, because it is so out of whack. We are
    subsidizing all the inefficiencies in highways and airlines,
    and we have got this amazingly efficient system that we hang
    out to dry.
        Thanks, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Fong, you are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Fong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing
    on the future of Federal rail assistance. I appreciate the
    testimony from the witnesses.
        As we assess how best to steward taxpayer dollars in
    support of America's transportation infrastructure, we must
    take a hard look at what has worked and what has not. In my
    home State, the California high-speed rail project is,
    regrettably, a textbook example of Government mismanagement and
    fiscal irresponsibility.
        Since 2009, the Federal Railroad Administration has
    allocated approximately $3.5 billion to this project; $2.5
    billion under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; and
    nearly $1 billion in subsequent Federal grants. These funds
    have subsidized a bloated bureaucracy and a project that is
    nowhere near completion. Originally pitched to voters as a $33
    billion system connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles, the
    pricetag now exceeds over $100 billion, with no direct
    connection between either of these cities in sight. Instead, we
    have carved up my community, California's Central Valley, to
    create a stranded asset with no utility.
        This is not just a California problem. It is a national
    issue, because it is Federal taxpayer money being wasted.
    Congress cannot and should not continue to send resources to
    this project that has no accountability, weak performance
    metrics, and no realistic paths to completion.
        The California high-speed rail boondoggle highlights
    exactly what happens when lofty promises collide with poor
    planning and unchecked spending. It should serve as a warning,
    not a blueprint, for future Federal rail investments. As we
    consider rail grants going forward, we must demand results;
    investments must have clear deliverables, cost discipline, and
    independent oversight.
        If I can ask--in terms of one area of investment is short
    line rail projects--Ms. Bevil, first- and last-mile service is
    absolutely essential for supply chain and goods movement for
    shippers, retailers, and the short line rail industry. How does
    first and last mile impact shippers, and what steps are needed
    by Congress to improve efficiency and reliability?
        And what kind of safeguards can we put in to ensure viable
    projects are supported?
        Ms. Bevil. Thank you for the question.
        Short lines impact shippers in an incredibly positive way.
    Most short lines are local. The folks that work on the railroad
    live in the communities where the customers live. We are the
    first mile, last mile. We are there to adjust service. We can
    be flexible and bring the national network to those customers.
    So oftentimes you will hear customers say that they want to
    locate on a short line because of that service.
        Providing that service requires intensive capital
    improvements to our short line railroads. That's track, rail,
    crossings, and the CRISI program really provides a lot of
    benefit in that way. Having advance appropriations, knowing
    that funding is going to be there is important, and being able
    to get those dollars into short line railroads' hands.
        Mr. Fong. Thank you very much. I will just throw--just
    because my opening statement was so focused on high-speed rail
    in California, but it is clearly just the biggest waste of
    money.
        I mean, I represent an area where I see the damage every
    single day. I drive by these corridors, we call it the
    Stonehenge of the Central Valley, where we have billions of
    dollars being spent not only in the Federal Government, but the
    State of California is spending $1 billion a year trying to
    salvage this project with just no private investment; a
    complete bait and switch, I think, to what the voters were
    promised.
        So if I could ask, what kind of safeguards do you envision
    included in the Federal rail assistance to ensure viable
    projects are supported and nonviable projects are not
    supported?
        I will throw it out to the entire panel.
        Mr. Dietrich. Congressman, I don't know if this is
    equivalent, but during my testimony, I said that one of the
    things that we do is we use the Federal funds to supplement our
    State programs. And so I think one of the nature--and one of
    the reasons we have been successful is we don't ask for Federal
    money unless we are putting money into it. And all of our
    projects freight projects involve funding from our Federal
    partners.
        So I think using State programs such as my own is kind of
    a--I don't want to say a litmus test, but a screening process.
    So what makes the CRISI grant program work for us is that it
    goes through the same screening as if we were going to give it
    State money. It just becomes an order of magnitude in a scale
    of: Can we handle this with the State program? Is the scope
    appropriate for Federal funding?
        So I think having those screening mechanisms at the State
    level might get to what you are talking about. Again, it is not
    an apples-to-apples comparison, so I apologize.
        Mr. Fong. I appreciate that. I have run out of time. I
    might trust the Ohio Government better than the Sacramento.
        But, I yield back.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Mrs. Foushee, you are recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Chairman Webster and Ranking
    Member Titus, for holding this hearing. And thank you to the
    witnesses for being here with us today.
        As members of this committee are well aware, prior to the
    passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, there was no
    guaranteed source of funding for intercity passenger rail. The
    18 States who fund Amtrak service, including my home State of
    North Carolina, would have to wait until after Congress
    finished the appropriations process to know how much money
    would be available for passenger rail service and projects that
    year.
        The majority completed the fiscal year 2025 appropriations
    process in the middle of March, halfway through this fiscal
    year. It is not hard to imagine how that would make project
    planning and budgeting for State DOTs immensely difficult in a
    world without the guaranteed BIL funding already in place.
        Mr. Eucalitto, can you speak to the way BIL has impacted
    the ability of States to plan for passenger rail projects?
        Mr. Eucalitto. Yes, thank you for the question.
        When we look at transportation infrastructure investments
    across all modes, having reliability and predictability of
    funding allows us to do long-term planning of where we should
    be investing our funds, where we should be allocating our staff
    resources, which are very limited. If we don't know that
    funding will be there to apply for or to receive, then we may
    be hesitant to invest our staff resources and a lot of our
    planning resources towards those projects.
        The IIJA, having this ability to know that these funds are
    available to go after, States like mine have been able to
    redirect our resources, make long-term plans for infrastructure
    projects that we never thought we would be able to actually
    execute.
        And then I know in other States they have other projects
    that they are looking at implementing. We talked about one in
    Nevada, but also I know North Carolina is heavily investing in
    rail, and those States are now--they see the opportunity, they
    are dedicating the resources at the State level to match those
    Federal funds, and that is the important thing that my
    colleague from Ohio talked about. Everything is matched with
    State and local funds, as well, so it is a force multiplier in
    investments.
        Mrs. Foushee. Indeed. North Carolina is using a Federal-
    State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant, the
    largest grant award in the history of our State, to establish
    the S-Line, providing a better, faster, and more efficient
    connection between North Carolina's rail network and
    Virginia's, and thereby connecting my State to the expansive
    Northeast rail corridor. Any reduction or delay in this grant
    would increase project costs, have a direct and negative impact
    on job creation, and would endanger years of planning and
    collaboration between the North Carolina DOT, freight rail
    companies operating in our State, and the communities in which
    the S-Line has been promised.
        So Mr. Eucalitto, what would happen if the FRA were to
    suddenly reduce the size of one of those grants you and your
    team are currently executing?
        Mr. Eucalitto. So we start a project under the assumption
    that the funds will be there when we need them, and that the
    project will be funded. And we work to make sure that we
    monitor it carefully, and do it the most efficient way
    possible.
        If there was a funding reduction in a rail grant or any
    form of grant, we would look to potentially suspend work on
    that project or have to go to our State legislature to see what
    we would have to move around to supplement the loss in Federal
    funds. It is difficult, then, to look at the landscape of all
    the infrastructure needs in our State: What projects would we
    suspend or pause?
        And in my State DOT, we have a bin, a bin of unfunded
    projects. So in this case, we would put that project--put it in
    the bin, and then hope that funding would become available in
    the future.
        And it would put people out of work who may be lined up to
    work on that project.
        Mrs. Foushee. Thank you for that. And lastly, can you speak
    a little about how you and the Connecticut DOT are working with
    the U.S. DOT to ensure that you are able to protect your
    State's existing grants and execute on the FRA's requirements?
        Mr. Eucalitto. Thank you. The staff at FRA are fantastic
    professionals who have been doing amazing work trying to
    deliver, I think, over a 500-percent increase in rail funding.
    It has been truly impressive. They are under a lot of pressure.
        And so, we have been spending a lot of time meeting with
    FRA staff to work with them to try and find some efficiencies
    for how we can get work out the door faster and more
    efficiently and try to get things moving and put shovels in the
    ground.
        Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. I would like to ask unanimous
    consent that we enter into the record an announcement of
    Secretary Duffy and President Trump issued today, which
    approved 24 rail grants totaling $300 million.
        Without objection, show that ordered.
        [The information follows:]

           Press Release of May 6, 2025, from the U.S. Department of
        Transportation, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Daniel Webster
    Tuesday, May 6, 2025
    Contact: pressoffice@dot.gov
    U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy Approves Another 180 Grants
                         to Get America Building Again
    Secretary Duffy is chipping away at the unprecedented Biden-Buttigieg
            backlog of more than 3,200 unsigned projects.
        Washington, DC.--U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy today
    announced the Department has approved another 180 infrastructure grants
    to get America building again. The latest grants, which total more than
    $3.2 billion, are part of the unprecedented backlog of more than 3,200
    projects the previous administration announced but did not execute.
    Since assuming office, Secretary Duffy and the Department of
    Transportation have approved a total of 329 grants, or roughly 10% of
    the Biden-Buttigieg backlog.
        ``America is building again,'' said U.S. Transportation Secretary
    Sean P. Duffy. ``At the Department of Transportation, that means
    getting back to basics: Building More, Building Efficiently and
    Building Quickly. The last administration liked to grab the headlines
    but didn't want to do the hard work of building. They also tied road
    construction up with red tape and leftist social requirements--adding
    millions in costs and months of delay--all while our outdated
    infrastructure sat in disrepair. This administration has a different
    vision: drain the swamp and make government work for the American
    people.''
                             Alabama's I-10 Bridge:
        The largest grant within this package is $550 million for breaking
    ground on Alabama's I-10 Mobile River bridge and Bayway multimodal
    project. This project will allow the state to implement desperately
    needed infrastructure upgrades by bypassing two aging tunnels and
    replacing the existing Bayway Bridges.
        Completing this project was a major promise [https://
    www.kplctv.com/2019/05/14/pres-trump-promises-new-i-bridge-if-hes-re-
    elected/] made by President Trump.
                                   Reminder:
        The Trump Administration inherited a record number of 3,200
    unobligated grants that had been announced by the previous
    administration but never obligated. This unprecedented backlog of
    unobligated grants delayed critical investments in communities across
    the country. Under Secretary Duffy's direction, the Department is
    working diligently to accelerate the distribution of these long-overdue
    funds and address core infrastructure projects.
        As part of this process, the Department has ripped out burdensome
    DEI, Green New Scam, and social justice requirements that Congress
    deliberately did not mandate. This includes social cost of carbon
    accounting, pointless greenhouse gas emission reporting, and
    discriminatory DEI language.
        Additional examples of removed leftist requirements can be found
    here [https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/grant-agreement-
    schedule-h-and-i-2025].
        Removing these requirements will save taxpayers millions. Road
    construction costs skyrocketed [https://enotrans.org/article/fhwa-
    highway-construction-costs-continued-to-grow-at-24-annual-rate/]
    roughly 70% under the last administration. The greenhouse gas reporting
    burden alone increased project costs and added months to the permitting
    process.
                               Grants Breakdown:
        The latest series of 180 grants approved are outlined below. A more
    detailed breakdown of each grant can be found here [https://
    www.transportation.gov/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act/grants-
    press-release].

        Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Stauber.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Chair Webster. I have said it
    before and I will say it again: NEPA is holding back our supply
    chain infrastructure, our energy independence, and our economy
    as a whole.
        And while we made some important changes to the NEPA
    process in the Fiscal Responsibility Act, the reforms were
    largely ignored by the Biden administration, as they
    interpreted that law as ``just a suggestion.'' Environmental
    assessment, 1-year shot clock; environmental impact statement,
    2-year shot clock; and the Biden administration said that was
    just a suggestion, unfortunately.
        Why would you pass legislation to spend billions of dollars
    on infrastructure and not actively work to remove barriers so
    projects could actually come online in a timely fashion?
        Ms. Bevil, I know CRISI grants are important to the short
    line rail industry. Does NEPA often delay and get in the way of
    short line rail from using their awarded CRISI grants?
        Ms. Bevil. Thank you for the question.
        Yes, I mean, it can delay projects. A majority of short
    line CRISI projects apply for a CE, but even that process can
    take some time. Often we need to hire a consultant to go
    through that process to get the categorical exemption. If it is
    a bigger project--say, a larger bridge or a build-out of some
    stretch of rail--then the NEPA process can take a very long
    time and can add to us completing the project, years.
        Mr. Stauber. Which is years, which is a lot of money and a
    lot of time. Right?
        Ms. Bevil. It is, yes.
        Mr. Stauber. Okay, so you mentioned categorical exclusions.
    Tell us where that would be a benefit. Explain to us why and
    where that would be a benefit for the short lines.
        Ms. Bevil. Sure. So when short lines are doing track
    projects that are on their own property and not disturbing any
    outside land, being able to just submit, for instance--say, a
    grant, CRISI award, was announced and there was a bunch of
    projects that kind of fell into one category. If those could
    just move through quickly and get that categorical exclusion,
    be excluded from the NEPA process any further, that would make
    things go quickly.
        Mr. Stauber. So, you have a--so, let me try to rephrase
    this. You have a short line, let's say a mile of track that you
    wanted to replace in the same location. New track, new steel.
    And you are looking for a categorical exclusion. It is denied.
    You go through the NEPA process, which could take years,
    costing time and money. You are putting that replacement in the
    exact location as the prior track. It doesn't make sense, and
    that is the whole--that is why we have to really look at
    getting these projects online sooner, not skipping out on any
    environmental laws or labor laws.
        The gentleman just talked about projects being delayed. It
    is time and money. So the categorical exclusions in this
    example is perfect. It is in the--it is on the same location,
    same property, same line, just newer steel and maybe newer
    safety features.
        Ms. Bevil. That is correct, and we have no problem
    complying with the environmental laws. We agree to do that. We
    just want that process to happen faster.
        Mr. Stauber. Exactly. I think that the four witnesses here
    can be--can help our American economy by looking at the NEPA
    process and helping us when we are currently doing permitting
    reform.
        I have said it in this committee before. Can anybody tell
    me on this--any witness here tell me, on average, how long it
    takes to open up a mine in the United States of America?
        Twenty-nine years. Twenty-nine years. That's on average.
        I mean, we can do better than that. You are the
    transportation experts. We need to get this running, and we
    need to get it done yesterday. And so I think that all of your
    help is going to really be a positive impact on our rail and
    safety communities.
        So with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Deluzio, you are recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Deluzio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning,
    everyone. I want to focus my questioning on the Railroad
    Crossing Elimination grant program.
        My district in western Pennsylvania, we have got freight
    tracks running all over the district. Ninety-five percent of my
    constituents live within 5 miles of those tracks. Almost half
    live within 1 mile. And we have some of the most dangerous
    crossings not just in Pennsylvania, but in the Northeast
    region. Cheswick in particular, a very dangerous crossing. Lots
    of data about it. McKees Rocks is another. And so I think that
    Railroad Crossing Elimination grant program is essential. It is
    a very important one. I know the railroads agree with this. I
    know communities have been begging us for more action from the
    Federal Government.
        But a complaint that I often hear is that these grants are
    very difficult for small communities to apply for and get. And
    in Pennsylvania, and in western Pennsylvania in particular,
    lots of smaller municipalities, boroughs, townships struggle to
    get this funding.
        And so Mr. Eucalitto, Mr. Dietrich, I will start with each
    of you. What can we do to make it so that smaller communities
    can get these dollars to deal with crossings where--it is in
    their community, these are dangerous crossings. How can they
    get those dollars?
        Mr. Eucalitto. Thank you for the question.
        So this is a common problem we see at the State DOT level
    with rail grants and all modes of transportation. And so what
    we have been doing on the roadway side is, we do a fund swap
    oftentimes because the hardest part is actually using the funds
    once the communities receive them to comply with all the
    Federal regulations.
        So we will often take funds aimed for locals and swap it
    with State funds so they don't have to deal with the Federal
    redtape. That is not available on the railroad side. But I
    think there are things that can be done to make it easier,
    such----
        Mr. Deluzio [interrupting]. Can I--just--if that is an
    approach, does that require something from Congress? And if so,
    what should we be thinking about?
        Mr. Eucalitto. So that is available for the formula fund
    side. I think it is worth looking at the Federal highway
    programs and what they allow for those fund swaps. It works
    great for us at the State DOT level to allow local governments
    to use State funds while leverage--we use the State funds, so
    they don't deal with the redtape.
        We could apply for--on behalf of local governments at the
    State DOT level, that is an approach. But also having, like, a
    uniform, common application, because every grant application is
    different. And so, the local governments have to figure out how
    to apply for that grant application with that specific
    requirement. If there was almost like a common app like for
    college admissions for grants it would be a lot easier for
    local, small communities.
        Mr. Deluzio. And I will tell you--and I know I am not alone
    in this--I have municipalities of a couple hundred people in my
    district who have rail crossings who need these Federal
    dollars.
        Mr. Dietrich, I want you to weigh in, as well.
        Mr. Dietrich. Thank you for the question.
        The way we have handled that in Ohio is, we set up a State
    program--Governor DeWine set up a State program. And what we
    use that for is, we have communities apply to us, and then we
    will determine whether that is something, if we can handle with
    State funds--if it is a smaller project, say, an access road as
    opposed to a grade separation. If it is a grade separation, we
    will work with our DOT districts and go through our local
    program administration process.
        So, we will apply on behalf of the communities, with
    concurrence from ODOT to build the project if we are awarded.
    So as Connecticut does, we will apply on behalf of the local
    communities, but we will use that State money to determine if
    the project is scalable enough, if we can do it just with State
    funds.
        Mr. Deluzio. And that is what you would--that is your
    approach with the current requirements and grant application
    rules, rather than if we were to change something here in
    Congress.
        Mr. Dietrich. Yes, and it gets to more of the complexity of
    just administering Federal funds.
        I mean, I think one of the things that is really important
    to note, we deal with Federal funds all the time, so we are set
    up to do this. But like the short line railroads, the small
    communities, whether it is CRISI, RCE, they just--they are just
    not set up to do it. And I mean, that is something that we as
    States have been taking on, that role. It is a traditional role
    through the formula funds.
        It is not a traditional role through the discretionary
    projects. So we struggle as States on how to best assist local
    communities, how to best assist short lines. Sometimes they
    will get the awards and they will realize that they do not have
    the organizational capacity to administer them.
        So it--I wish I had a--you identified a very, very
    legitimate concern, I just don't really have a good response,
    other than that we take on a lot of that responsibility as
    State DOTs to help communities with it.
        Mr. Deluzio. I thank you both, and I hope the committee
    will be thoughtful about thinking about our smaller communities
    as we get to work on this this coming year. Thank you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Taylor, you are recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman Webster and Ranking Member
    Titus, for holding this hearing today, and thank you to our
    witnesses for your testimony and insight and the sacrifices you
    made to be here.
        I want to especially thank Mr. Dietrich from the Ohio Rail
    Development Commission for testifying before the committee on
    Ohio's successes in growing its rail industry and increasing
    rail safety in our great State.
        Ohio has 44 operating railroads and over 5,000 miles of
    track, making Ohio the third largest rail infrastructure State
    in the Nation. With Ohio's presence in the rail industry, it is
    vital that when Ohio receives Federal grants, the funds are
    delivered promptly.
        Mr. Dietrich, in your testimony, you mentioned how grant
    applications require a great amount of time and resources to
    compile. As I am sure you are aware, many rural communities
    across southern Ohio do not have the resources to hire grant
    writers. Can you elaborate on how the State of Ohio has been
    able to help rural communities receive Federal dollars from the
    Federal Railroad Administration?
        Mr. Dietrich. Thank you, Representative.
        Actually, it goes along with our other question. We
    actually set up a program where communities and railroads will
    apply to us, and we will then be the applicant. We will take on
    responsibility for the grants administration. We were just
    successful--Circleville, we just received an RCE grant for
    that, and we are going to administer that for them. We are
    working with Haverhill right now down in Scioto County through
    that same process. And that was enabled because the Governor
    provided us the State funds so we can do the planning, we can
    do the studies that communities don't have the resources to
    apply for--they don't even have the resources to apply for the
    grants. So that is what we are--that is the role that we are
    playing to help the rural communities.
        Mr. Taylor. Well, as Congressman Fong stated, the Ohio
    Government is surely more trustworthy than the California ones,
    but how are we going to help the rural communities outside of
    Ohio get--is there something Congress can do to make it easier
    for them to get grants?
        Mr. Dietrich. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, the only thing I
    can think of is possibly some training, some training to
    administer.
        There are programs under Federal--under FHWA formula funds,
    the LPA program, local program assistance programs that provide
    training and things like that to local communities. And I think
    that would be something that could be done.
        Mr. Taylor. Okay, thank you.
        Ohio has over 500 miles of short line rail that delivers
    critical goods to businesses and communities. Short line
    railroads across the State and country often rely on CRISI
    grants for infrastructure improvements, safety enhancements,
    and workforce development. Ms. Bevil, in your experience, how
    have CRISI investments benefited railroads and surrounding
    local communities in terms of economic growth and public
    safety?
        Ms. Bevil. Thank you for the question.
        In my experience, we have a railroad in Mississippi--
    actually, the Grenada Railroad--that we partnered with the
    local mayor of the city of Hernando, as well as six other
    mayors, to apply for a CRISI grant in the last round that was
    awarded. And that grant will expand capacity, which will
    eliminate blocked crossings and also upgrade numerous crossings
    across these small towns in Mississippi. That is a way that we
    have really partnered with the locals to promote public safety.
        Mr. Taylor. Okay, thank you.
        Mr. Dietrich, again, we have talked a lot about the NEPA
    process in here today. Do you have an idea of how Ohio,
    administering the NEPA process itself, how much that sped up
    the process of getting permits out?
        Mr. Dietrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman.
        We just received it in December, so we are just embarking
    on that. We anticipate that it will--I can't give you a
    timeline, because, as Ms. Bevil said, a lot of the freight
    projects are just low-level CEs, so they are going to be on a
    project basis.
        The low-level CEs, I think, we will be able to process--
    almost batch them out, I think, especially if they don't
    involve railroad right-of-way. So there is going to be an
    immense amount of time savings on those projects. The larger
    grade crossing elimination projects with real estate
    acquisition, things like that, those would still be more on
    timeline. Our anticipation is they will be more on timeline, as
    if they were FHWA or just standard ODOT-led projects.
        Mr. Taylor. Okay. Thank you all very much.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    thank you and the ranking member for hosting this critical
    hearing, and I thank the witnesses for their time and for their
    testimony today.
        The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was supposed to be a
    turning point for America's rail system. For the first time in
    50 years, we had the funding, the jobs, and the plans to
    deliver modern, safe, and reliable rail service in every corner
    of the country. It was about giving communities, many of which
    had been waiting far too long, access to the transportation
    services that they deserve.
        However, instead of building on this historic investment,
    we are witnessing reckless actions threatening to undo it all.
    Under this administration, we have seen grants slashed, funding
    blocked, and workers laid off. These actions aren't just
    inefficient, they are actively stalling progress, driving up
    costs, and delaying projects essential to providing the rail
    service the American people were promised.
        These cuts are stripping away jobs from the very people who
    are supposed to be rebuilding our infrastructure, upgrading our
    tracks, and designing the rail systems of the future. It is a
    direct hit to the workers who make sure we are on track for
    progress.
        We need more than an empty declaration. We need reliable,
    predictable, and dedicated funding for rail in the next surface
    transportation bill. The American people deserve better service
    now, not 10 years from now. They have been waiting long enough.
    Our investment today will create jobs, improve safety, and
    finally connect people to the services that they need. It is
    time to get back on track. Let's finish the job we started and
    make sure that the promises we have made to the American people
    are kept.
        Mr. Hicks, as we work on the surface transportation bill,
    it is critical that we evaluate how the Federal Railroad
    Administration is delivering on its mission not just
    internally, but through contractors it relies on to carry out
    that work. Gannett Fleming TranSystems holds a contract worth
    up to $50 million to support the Federal Railroad
    Administration in managing and implementing major
    infrastructure grants.
        We all know the grant process can be complex, especially
    with the scale of investment we have seen under the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law. However, with that level of responsibility
    comes an expectation that this process is constantly improving
    and not stalling.
        Mr. Hicks, when did Gannett Fleming TranSystems begin work
    under its $50 million FRA grant, and how many people are
    currently working on this project?
        Mr. Hicks. Thank you for the question, Congressman Johnson.
        Yes, GFT has been actively working supporting FRA since
    about 2010 on multiple contracts over that time that do add up
    to that number----
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia [interrupting]. Under this current
    $50 million contract.
        Mr. Hicks. The current contract----
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia [interrupting]. When did you begin
    work?
        Mr. Hicks [continuing]. I believe was awarded in, I want to
    say, 3Q or 4Q of last year.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And have you----
        Mr. Hicks [interrupting]. And we have not really been doing
    much of anything on it right now.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Why is that?
        Mr. Hicks. Under directive of the FRA to pause action.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So the President and DOGE have cut
    the grant, and you are not able to receive the money to do what
    you were to do under the grant, is that correct?
        Mr. Hicks. There was definitely a pause that came from some
    directive and to us from our client, FRA, to slow down or stop,
    which is recently starting up again, but slowly.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Any other reasons why
    you have not begun work under the grant?
        Mr. Hicks. No, just direction from our client.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right, thank you.
        Ms. Bevil, the investments made through the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law have clearly had a significant impact. Can
    you discuss the ripple effects we are seeing from these
    investments, particularly from shippers and carriers, and what
    will happen when the money dries up or if the grants remain
    paused?
        Ms. Bevil. Sure. One of the major causes of derailments for
    a short line railroad is lack of ties and failure of the track.
    And the CRISI program directly addresses those conditions.
        Putting money into our track then allows our customers to
    have efficient, reliable service. They rely on the short lines
    to get goods to the national rail network, and we need the
    track to get them there. Without the CRISI program, those
    projects will slow down. They will either not happen or they
    will happen over a course of many years versus getting the
    projects done right away.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Nehls, you are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for all our
    witnesses.
        I had an opportunity not so long ago to go down to Fort
    Worth and Western Railroad, located in the great State of
    Texas. It operates over 276 miles in eight counties in our
    State. So Ms. Bevil, I know we have talked a lot about CRISI,
    but explain to the people that are watching this how valuable
    robust funding is for these rail safety programs like CRISI.
        Ms. Bevil. Sure. Most short lines began from purchases from
    larger railroads of unprofitable branch lines, and so, short
    lines have a lot of deferred maintenance. In order to correct
    that maintenance, programs like CRISI really provide the
    ability to invest in the track.
        Mr. Nehls. So I know we have been talking about it,
    inefficiency, Government inefficiency. We have seen it. How
    long does it typically take to achieve a CRISI grant agreement
    with the FRA?
        Ms. Bevil. From the time of application to award, it can
    take 4 or 5 years.
        Mr. Nehls. Okay.
        Ms. Bevil. I have heard of projects taking longer, as well.
        Mr. Nehls. So what is the total length of time between the
    award announcement and the actual disbursement of the funds?
        Ms. Bevil. The time from award announcement to agreement is
    usually a year or so, and then to actual disbursement can be
    another 6 months to a year.
        Mr. Nehls. So, 1 to 2 years. Talk a little bit about the
    element of advanced appropriation funds associated with the
    programs like CRISI in the context of providing long-term
    project planning, program stability, and efficiency.
        Ms. Bevil. Sure. As small businesses, it is so helpful for
    short lines to know that this amount of grant funding is going
    to be available in years to come so that we can plan our
    capital expenditures accordingly.
        Mr. Nehls. Yes, I think it is critical that these--we--
    obviously, we distribute these funds in a timely manner. I
    think we have the right guy in the White House to help us with
    that, and we will support the new administration.
        And at the same time, it is critical that rail safety grant
    programs like CRISI do not go towards mismanaged projects. The
    California high-speed rail--I think Mr. Fong, from his State of
    California, said it very clearly. It is a--just a money pit.
    Nothing good happening there in California. And instead, I
    think it should go to the Class II's, regionals, Class III's,
    the short lines, the switching railroads which connect and
    serve our rural communities and have smaller scale, shovel-
    ready projects that deliver more immediate and widespread
    benefits. So thank you, Ms. Bevil.
        Mr. Dietrich, I am a strong advocate for rail safety, I am.
    Last Congress, I introduced with my friend, Seth Moulton, who
    is a brilliant--he is brilliant, a Democrat that knows a lot
    about rail safety--so we introduced the Railroad Safety
    Enhancement Act of 2024, authorized $1.5 billion for each of
    the fiscal years 2025 through 2028 for the Railroad Crossing
    Elimination program--very, very important--2,000 such
    collisions, 200 fatalities every year. And we need to provide
    and allow for more construction of overpasses and underpasses,
    obviously effectively separating road and rail traffic and
    reducing the likelihood of these accidents.
        I understand the FRA awarded a Railroad Crossing
    Elimination grant to Ohio, to the Ohio Rail Development
    Commission, for the Hines Hill Road separation in Hudson.
    Explain to me how that impacts your industry and how critical
    it is to eliminate these dangerous crossings.
        Mr. Dietrich. Congressman, the RCE program has really been
    a game-changer.
        Mr. Nehls. Yes.
        Mr. Dietrich. Hines Hill is a perfect example of what
    wouldn't have happened. This project has been around for a
    decade or more----
        Mr. Nehls [interposing]. Yes.
        Mr. Dietrich [continuing]. Of the community not being able
    to just have the resources to address it.
        We were able to and--again, we--thankfully, the Governor
    put together a safety program, so we had the money to leverage
    with the local community.
        Mr. Nehls. Beautiful.
        Mr. Dietrich. They applied one time. They didn't get it. So
    we went back, we worked with them, upgraded the application. I
    can say one of the State senators--we embedded a video the
    State senator had of a schoolbus trying to do a 12-point turn
    at a blocked crossing. Talk about a picture saying a thousand
    words about safety.
        Mr. Nehls. Yes, so----
        Mr. Dietrich [interrupting]. But--so that--the RCE program
    is transformative. We have received four additional--we have
    four total projects under the RCE award. Each one of them is
    for long-term projects that the communities have always wanted.
        And, to Congressman Taylor, we talked about rural
    communities, but these are long-term issues for urban
    communities, as well. So it really--the program is--like I
    said, I can't speak enough about how transformative the program
    is.
        Mr. Nehls. Fantastic, thank you.
        I yield.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Ryan, you are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of you
    for being here. I am probably going to hit on some of the
    common themes that, in a good way, are bipartisan and important
    in our districts, and I really appreciate each of you taking
    your time today and the work that you do.
        I represent the Hudson Valley of New York. It is about 2
    hours north of New York City, very significant rail
    infrastructure and presence, thousands of miles of both
    commuter and freight, mostly CSX on the freight side and Amtrak
    and Metro-North in terms of passenger rail. I have over 100
    rail crossings in my district. All of them have been challenged
    at varying degrees in terms of safety and rail safety. But
    there are five specific areas that I just want to quickly talk
    about in leading up to a question about the RCE program that we
    just heard questions from my colleague on.
        So in the city of Kingston, my hometown, actually, 35 very
    fast-moving, heavily weighted trains per day going through a
    densely populated urban area carrying waste, petroleum,
    industrial chemicals, all critical things, but a longstanding
    pattern of safety issues there.
        Same in the city of Newburgh, where we have had near-
    catastrophic derailments collocated next to the major water
    supply for another one of the major urban areas in my district.
        In the town of Ulster, along the CSX freight line, multiple
    tragic fatalities. In one case, due to the literal lack of any
    pedestrian signage at a known crossing site, including most
    recently in 2023.
        In the town of Saugerties, an entirely ungated rail
    crossing on a major road without any warning signs that in 2017
    a constituent riding in a taxi was actually killed as the taxi
    driver was lost and unaware of where they stopped right in the
    path of an oncoming train.
        And finally, in the city of Port Jervis at the western edge
    of my district, where just a few years ago--again, this tragic
    story repeated of a fatality due to a lack of proper signage
    and safety crossings.
        The good news? The good news is that, thanks to the
    Railroad Crossing Elimination program, part of the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law that we have heard so much support from, we
    got a grant in the latest round for the city of Port Jervis to
    develop pedestrian accessibility improvements for an existing
    at-grade crossing.
        And so I just want to continue to foot-stomp this in a
    bipartisan way, the importance of this program, and to say, I
    don't think this should be partisan, but I am worried it might
    become that. As we look towards this next surface reauth, I
    think it would be a grave mistake to cut funding. And I think
    we, obviously, need to add funding, given the American lives at
    stake.
        So with that very long windup--and I appreciate you all
    listening to that--I have got to bring this home for
    constituents in my district--Mr. Dietrich, you talked about
    rail crossing elimination--you were just talking about it--in
    your State, and I think in my colleague's district, actually,
    ironically. So as we look towards the surface bill reauth,
    this, as I said, has to be a top priority.
        I know you have probably not been to Port Jervis in the
    fine State of New York, but can you talk about what the impact
    would be if we were to lose the funding, or if it were
    combined, as we have heard rumors of, to have RCE combined into
    some larger pool which could then get diffused for these needs?
        Mr. Dietrich. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
        Grade separations are difficult for communities. They are
    difficult for--even to rank them separately. Because if you
    do--the RCE program, one of the good things, is it doesn't have
    a benefit-cost analysis associated with it--all the other
    programs do--because it just doesn't cost out that well
    compared to other projects. So I think having the separate
    program for the grade separations is very, very important.
        I also think allowing some of that flexibility--and as I
    said in my testimony--if part of it could be allocated somehow
    so that we could do development so we don't have to apply just
    for the planning funds, I think that would help everybody get
    more of these crossings done.
        And finally, I think it is also to note that while RCE is
    very, very important, we also layer those other projects. So
    like--I mentioned something in the last testimony of
    Circleville in Congressman Taylor's district. We actually
    started that project with FHWA formula funding. So, blending
    these things, it becomes more of a kind of an economic
    development funding stack, as opposed to a traditional local-
    Federal partnership. It is made up of a lot of different
    money----
        Mr. Ryan [interposing]. Yes.
        Mr. Dietrich [continuing]. Including private railroads.
        So I think that is all really important there.
        Mr. Ryan. And I know I have 5 seconds. Do you think, if it
    were not separated out, that we would, in effect, lose these
    critical projects, though?
        I mean, is that a fair assumption, given your expertise?
        Mr. Dietrich. I think getting it to a BCA----
        Mr. Ryan [interposing]. Yes.
        Mr. Dietrich [continuing]. Application would be very hard.
        Mr. Ryan. Yes. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Mrs. Sykes, you are recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for all of
    the witnesses here to testify.
        I am really excited also to hear about so much Ohio love. I
    have been saying on this committee we are the heart of it all,
    and hearing my colleagues from not only California and Texas
    commend us for all the work that we do just lets me know that I
    am on the right track. Pun intended. And so I do want to talk,
    obviously, about the topic at hand, and specifically about
    passenger rail in Ohio. And this is something that has become
    very near and dear to me for a lot of different reasons,
    considering what is happening in Ohio.
        And so with the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure
    Law, there has been a renewed interest in capacity for
    infrastructure from coast to coast. And one in Ohio was
    Amtrak's 3C+D Corridor expansion. This 3C+D is a proposed
    passenger rail line to reconnect Ohio's largest cities--
    Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Dayton--through reliable
    modern rail service.
        However, none of the C's in the 3C+D stand for Canton, and
    there is no A for Akron, which is in Ohio's 13th District. The
    plan would put together the Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati,
    Toledo, Detroit Corridor, and there is no stop in the Akron-
    Canton area. There really isn't a whole lot to offer for the
    eastern part of the State, which, as you know, Mr. Dietrich, is
    fledgling, with lack of economic opportunity and very rural.
    And it would be a boon to have some type of mobility there.
        In fact, back in 2011, former Governor Kasich returned and
    sent back $400 million of Federal rail money back to the
    Federal Government that went to States like California.
    Although we did just get a boon for how our State operated, the
    money that would have come to Ohio over a decade ago went to
    the State of California.
        And Mr. Dietrich, I know that you were the Federal [sic]
    Rail Commission chair at that time, when the decision was being
    made. And so, this conversation is about rail plans and
    projects and why they take so long, but I know that most of the
    argument is about NEPA, but it takes a whole lot longer to
    raise $400 million and turn it away. And that, I would say, is
    probably a more damning problem as to why we don't have rail.
        So if you could, talk to us about that decision that you
    were a part of so many years ago and how it has held back
    passenger rail in Ohio.
        Mr. Dietrich. Thank you for the question.
        While I was Rail Commission director, we were the agency
    that developed the project, and so, that decision was made at
    the executive level and not involving the staff in terms of
    returning the funding.
        I will say that that brings to a point that with, for
    whatever reason, as we develop passenger rail, there is a
    policy component or a policymaker component. And I think that
    is one of the great things about the Corridor ID project is
    that that is one thing that allows for us to do the planning.
        And so, as in the State of Ohio, as you mentioned, we are
    advancing two corridors right now. And what that program allows
    us to do is, it allows us, as a department of transportation,
    as subject matter experts, to advance the project to a point
    where then we can provide that information to the policymakers
    in the State, which is--for us it would be the executive branch
    and the legislative branch and the General Assembly--present
    those projects to them, and then they can then determine
    appropriately whether they want to move on to the next step or
    not.
        Mrs. Sykes. I thank you so much. But it still seems to
    amaze me that sending back $400 million--and I have seen
    estimates of upwards of 16,000 jobs--out of the State of Ohio,
    a State where we are losing population and need as much job
    support and economic development as possible--obviously, I was
    not in the legislature, I was not in Congress when those things
    happened.
        But now that I am, and I have a community who is asking for
    rail, I looked at the State rail plan from 2019. There was a
    request from folks in the community for a stop in the Akron-
    Canton Airport into the community. I have a letter from the
    Akron-Canton Advocacy Alliance, which is the Canton Regional
    Chamber and the Greater Akron Chamber, requesting that Akron-
    Canton be a part of this. And consistently, we have just been
    told no.
        And so, Mr. Dietrich, we haven't had a chance to talk about
    this publicly, but please tell me and share with this committee
    why Ohio's 13th Congressional District and my community is not
    eligible and should not get passenger rail as in your purview.
        Mr. Dietrich. Well, again, it is not ineligible. The
    applications that we submitted, especially the 3C+D, were based
    on historical studies.
        I can say that back--we are--we have revived some of that
    work that was canceled back in 2011. That work did look at a
    routing through Akron, but it was ruled out as not fitting the
    purpose and need of the project. And when I say ``purpose and
    need,'' that is a very technical term, not that it is not
    needed in the community. We are going to be reviewing that
    process through step 2 as we move for that corridor. So all
    those will be reevaluated.
        I would suggest for the Akron community something that
    other communities have done. There is a great deal of--I don't
    want to say misunderstanding, but education needed with
    passenger rail, the differences between commuter rail and
    intercity passenger rail. And I think some of the comments
    there, we have--I have talked to some of the local
    transportation officials there and asked if they could work
    together to provide some kind of clarity there in terms of we
    can't have good times between major cities--like, one request
    was to connect to Pittsburgh, another request was to include in
    the 3C+D, another request was to connect the airport, and
    another request was to look at commuter lines to Cleveland.
    From a technical standpoint, those are all different projects
    to us, and they fall under even different funding sources and
    grant sources.
        So I am happy to, again, continue to have that
    conversation, but I think that is something where we can help
    the community by providing guidance and, as we talked about,
    which is the right program to apply for for these things.
        Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Garcia, you are recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking
    Member, and, of course, our four witnesses.
        Freight movement and the related infrastructure have a
    tremendous impact on Chicago. With over 7,400 miles of railroad
    tracks and thousands of rail crossings, we are very familiar
    with rail and the benefits and challenges that come with it. We
    have got kids in my district who have to choose between
    crawling under idling trains blocking the crossing and being
    late to school. We have got drivers and bicyclists who wait
    half an hour for a train to go by, or attempts at dangerous at-
    grade crossings. And we have got entire communities affected by
    idling trains, which contribute to bad air quality.
        So in 2021, I introduced a bill to establish a grade
    separation program to increase and reduce the collisions at
    rail-highway crossings, and I am proud that the IIJA created a
    grant program that did exactly that called the Railroad
    Crossing Elimination grant program. These grants have already
    been coming to projects in my district and across the country
    to make crossings safer, but we have still have a lot of work
    to do.
        Commissioner Eucalitto, why are programs like Railroad
    Crossing Elimination grant programs critical for States to
    advance rail safety improvements?
        And--two-part question--what types of safety projects can
    be advanced, thanks to the IIJA's increased eligibility?
        Mr. Eucalitto. Thank you for the question.
        As you rightfully pointed out, a lot of times if someone--
    if drivers are waiting, or bikers or pedestrians are waiting
    for extended periods of time, they often will be more likely to
    take risks. It is true on the railroad side, it is true on the
    roadway side where, if people are waiting a long time to cross,
    they may take a risk and cross when it is unsafe.
        And that is what the Rail Crossing Elimination program
    allows for the grade separation. It allows us to take the steps
    to improve safety in the communities in which this railroad
    infrastructure exists. That is something that I think every
    State wants to see continue.
        In my State of Connecticut, we are using State funds right
    now, and we are hopeful to apply for RCE funds in the future to
    try and create a sealed corridor so that our heavily passaged
    travel to Hartford line can have modern safety equipment with
    quad gates, lights, camera detection. And then in some of our
    communities with freight rail, we are doing pedestrian
    crossings and better lighting there for the pedestrians, and
    signals so they know when it is safe to cross and when it is
    not safe to cross.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. And what projects do you think
    could be advanced under the IIJA?
        Mr. Eucalitto. So, many of those grade separation projects
    I don't think would be possible without the IIJA's Rail
    Crossing Elimination program. We have a project in Connecticut
    where we did receive some planning funds to look at how we can
    design a grade-separated crossing on Toelles Road in
    Wallingford, Connecticut. It is heavily traversed by freight on
    the roadway side, crossing with a passenger rail system for
    Amtrak and our State-run passenger rail system. So, without the
    IIJA funding opportunity for us to apply for in the future, I
    don't think we would ever get that program off the ground.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you. In Chicago, the
    railroads, the State of Illinois, and Cook County in the metro
    region have all worked together to identify needed projects to
    improve passenger and freight rail flows through the city of
    Chicago. This series of projects is called CREATE. And without
    Federal investment, there would be no incentive for competitor
    railroads to work together on the capacity constraints of
    Chicago.
        The Nationally Significant Multimodal Freight and Highway
    Projects Program, or INFRA, has funded several CREATE rail
    projects with IIJA funding. Commissioner Eucalitto, what
    benefits do you see in having INFRA funds go to freight rail
    projects?
        Mr. Eucalitto. So, INFRA, it serves for many of our States
    to advance freight projects. It does fund very large-cost
    projects, and previously, without the existence of rail
    crossing elimination or dedicated rail funding, INFRA was
    really the only place we could go for these types of projects.
        And I think it is critical to continue to allow that
    eligibility because it is truly a multimodal system, with our
    roadways intersecting with our railroads and our transit
    systems. And a program like INFRA allows us to do those large
    projects.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you.
        My time has expired. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Ms. Friedman, you are recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Friedman. Thank you, Chair Webster and Ranking Member
    Titus, and to our witnesses for coming to join us today.
        California, which I represent parts of, has very heavily
    used rail lines. I know that everyone thinks that everybody
    just rides their car in Los Angeles, but people take the train,
    too. In fact, my mother lives near Laguna Beach, and I take the
    Surfliner down from Los Angeles very frequently, and there have
    been many times where I have been on that train when it has
    been standing room only. In fact, I have had to go to San Diego
    at times, where they run out of seats and people are standing
    in the aisles. And it is great that people want to be riding
    these trains, but we also need to do more to give people a
    pleasant ride at the same time, and to accommodate all the
    riders that we have.
        That line between--that goes up and down the California
    coast has about 3 million riders annually, and it is the second
    busiest intercity rail corridor in the United States. And it
    has got a lot of challenges, as you know; there are tracks that
    are falling into the ocean, kind of over and over again, and we
    can do a lot better.
        Now, we are seeing private investment in some of our lines
    with Brightline now working on what I think will be one of the
    most popular train lines in the entire country between Las
    Vegas and Los Angeles. It is going to be quite the party train.
    But one thing that we don't have is rail line that is--anybody
    knows about or takes between Los Angeles and Palm Springs or
    Coachella, which are other huge destinations.
        Just a week ago, I had to go to Palm Springs for a meeting,
    and it is not fun. Let me just tell you, to drive--I mean, Palm
    Springs is fun, but driving there is not fun. But we have
    tracks, but we don't have Amtrak service that goes reliably
    between L.A. and Palm Springs. I think there is one train that
    takes, for some reason, 2-plus hours, leaves at about 10:30 at
    night and arrives around 12:31 a.m. in Palm Springs, and I am
    not even sure if it is daily.
        So, we have a lot of opportunities in Los Angeles to
    increase ridership, deal with congestion, get cars off the
    road, and have a more pleasant experience. So, I wanted to ask,
    Mr. Eucalitto, what we can do to improve existing high
    ridership lines in the United States. It is not a NEPA issue,
    but we have places like L.A. to Palm Springs that makes so much
    sense, but we don't have any service at all. We have got L.A.-
    San Diego, where people are taking it. We have maybe eight
    trains a day, but they are overcrowded. So what can we do to
    target fixing and improving these lines?
        Mr. Eucalitto. Thank you for the question.
        So, Connecticut is a heavily rail-dense State. And what we
    encountered is, we inherited a lot of old rail infrastructure.
    Some of our movable rail bridges are 130 years old, and we
    inherited it from the private sector when they went out of
    business. And so, it has been a continuous try and make the
    investments we need to bring it back up to where it needs to be
    in 21st-century standards.
        And so, what IIJA has allowed us to do is make the
    investments we need into our existing infrastructure to do
    better signaling technology, better crossover and change
    points, upgrade the tracks, and improve the overhead power, the
    catenary system, and that will allow us to increase capacity on
    the rail lines and get more trains moving. On the Northeast
    Corridor, we have over 600,000 trips per day, and we can
    increase that by continuing to make the investments in the
    system to bring it up to modern standards.
        Ms. Friedman. Thank you, and let me ask you a followup. Do
    you think that programs like the FRA Restoration and
    Enhancement Grant program, which I am sure you are utilizing,
    are they oversubscribed? Is there a bigger desire and need for
    these grants to upgrade our infrastructure so that we become a
    first-world country? Or is there plenty of money lying around?
        Mr. Eucalitto. I think my State alone could probably use
    all of the available funding for those programs.
        Ms. Friedman. Thank you. And what about cuts that we are
    seeing to the Department of Transportation and others? Is that
    something that is going to help your efforts to modernize and
    improve your system and get people rolling on these rail lines?
    Or do you think that that is just a neutral and okay thing?
        Mr. Eucalitto. So, we have a really great relationship with
    the staff at FRA, as well as the other modes. We are waiting to
    see what happens with all the people who have taken the
    deferred resignations. We do know that administering grants is
    labor intensive, so it is going to require--maybe we are going
    to have to look at do we need to change the whole process
    around if there is going to be a reduced staff capacity. But we
    want to see the most efficient process as possible, but we also
    want to get the money in the ground as quickly as possible.
        Ms. Friedman. Thank you. So clearly, people are using rail,
    they want to use rail more, and they deserve those investments
    from their Government to help make this transportation function
    better.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Nadler, you are recognized.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Eucalitto, you have testified to the
    critical role that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's historic
    rail funding has played in delivering long-deferred projects,
    particularly in the Northeast Corridor. However, even with this
    progress, the demand for rail funding still far exceeds
    available resources. With 69 corridors selected across 44
    States under the Corridor ID Program, short-distance, State-
    supported routes now account for nearly half of all Amtrak
    riders.
        In your view, how important is it for State DOTs and
    ongoing projects that Congress expand funding levels for rail
    programs like CRISI and the Federal-State Partnership in the
    next surface transportation bill?
        Mr. Eucalitto. Thank you for the question.
        So, from AASHTO's perspective, the historic funding that
    was provided in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
    really needs to be a base when you also account for inflation.
    Inflationary costs have driven up project costs for us to do
    any of the work we need to do on the railroad. And so, without
    accounting for that and seeing the increase in the next
    reauthorization to at least account for that inflation, we are
    going to go backwards of where we need to be, because we have
    historic investments that need to be made due to the age of the
    infrastructure that we are trying to repair out there.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you. As part of improving the Northeast
    Corridor, Amtrak is working on the Gateway Program, a series of
    projects to improve travel on the most congested section of the
    track between Newark, New Jersey, and New York Penn Station.
    Recently, Secretary Duffy reduced the previously awarded grants
    for the Northeast Corridor, including two in 2 weeks for Penn
    Station and Dock Bridge, and threatened other Federal grantees.
        Mr. Eucalitto, what could reduced or uncertain funding for
    Northeast Corridor infrastructure projects mean for the
    reliability and capacity of rail service used daily by
    residents in the tristate area?
        Mr. Eucalitto. Due to the size of the investments we need
    to make in our infrastructure on the Northeast Corridor, I
    think we need predictable and reliable funding. And IIJA did
    provide us with at least a vision of how we could have that
    predictable and reliable funding through the efforts of the
    Northeast Corridor Commission. And working with the FRA
    developing that list of priority projects allowed us at the
    State DOTs and the recipients of the funds to actually plan
    ahead, ``here is the work we need to do,'' because these are
    not projects that will be done in a year or two. Some of these
    projects will take a decade to accomplish.
        When you look at having to maintain the rail traffic on
    that railroad, there are no detours around the Northeast
    Corridor, so, we have to continue passing trains while doing
    the infrastructure work. And so, it is very complicated
    compared to the highway side. So, we need that predictability
    and reliability to continue making the investments.
        Mr. Nadler. So, what are the effects of Secretary Duffy's
    reducing previously awarded grants?
        Mr. Eucalitto. I can't speak specifically to the Gateway
    Program, because that is outside of Connecticut. But I can say,
    from Connecticut's perspective, we rely on the Federal grants
    that we receive to know that we are going to put people to work
    and keep them working and deliver the program. If there are any
    delays to that project and getting delivered, it is going to
    ultimately drive up costs.
        And now, we always look to do value engineering, and I
    think there are always ways we can save costs on our projects,
    and we look at that every day. But we need to know that the
    funding is going to be there when we are doing the work.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Eucalitto, as you know, Federal
    grant programs like CRISI and the Federal-State Partnership
    depend not only on strong funding levels, but also on stable
    Federal grant administration, a well-staffed Federal Railroad
    Administration, and timely project execution. In your
    experience, what are the potential impacts on State-led rail
    projects when previously awarded funds are delayed, rescinded,
    or subject to sudden policy shifts?
        And how can Congress help ensure continuity and cost
    efficiency for the remainder of the Bipartisan Infrastructure
    Law and in future grant cycles?
        You just answered the first half of the question, but how
    can Congress help ensure continuity and cost efficiency for the
    remainder of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and in future
    grant cycles?
        Mr. Eucalitto. I think one thing that would be really
    helpful is it--we talk a lot about within the U.S. DOT, but we
    also need to worry about the regulators. So, the Army Corps of
    Engineers, the Coast Guard, we rely heavily on them to process
    our permit applications. And oftentimes, they close up shop
    when they run out of funding, or they are reduced staff, and
    then projects get delayed sometimes up to a year as a result.
        So, while we need to work on ensuring that we have the
    partners at U.S. DOT and FRA, we also need to make sure that we
    continue to look at our regulators to make sure they are able
    to actually process the permits that are necessary for us to do
    the work.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Eucalitto.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Seeing no other people that want to
    talk, the meeting is adjourned. I thank the witnesses for
    presenting themselves and giving us fantastic answers. We
    really appreciate it. The meeting is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                           Submissions for the Record

                                  ----------

      Statement of Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive Officer,
      Association of American Railroads, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
                                 Daniel Webster
        On behalf of the members of the Association of American Railroads
    (AAR), thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the
    record. AAR freight railroad members account for approximately 84
    percent of U.S. freight railroad mileage, 93 percent of U.S. freight
    rail employees, and 97 percent of U.S. freight rail revenue. The major
    freight railroads in Canada and Mexico are AAR members, as are Amtrak
    and several commuter rail systems.
                   Railroads Are Indispensable to Our Economy
        For nearly 200 years, freight railroads have been central to
    America's economic development, linking businesses across the country
    and around the globe. Today, railroads serve nearly every industrial,
    wholesale, retail, and resource-based sector of our economy. Each year,
    America's freight railroads transport more than 1.5 billion tons of
    freight and 28 million carloads and intermodal units--including huge
    volumes of agricultural products, chemicals, construction materials,
    food, manufactured goods, energy supplies, industrial equipment, and
    more--across a network spanning more than 135,000 miles.
        Unlike trucks, barges, and airlines, America's privately-owned
    freight railroads operate overwhelmingly on infrastructure they own,
    build, maintain, and pay for themselves. In 2023 alone, railroads
    invested $26.8 billion of their own money back into the network. These
    investments included track, terminal, and bridge upgrades; locomotive
    and railcar procurement; and expanded intermodal infrastructure.
    Railroad reinvestment modernizes infrastructure, ensures long-term
    resilience, and improves safety across the network to support
    customers, employees, and the communities in which railroads operate.
    While railroads don't receive direct federal funding, the grant
    programs authorized and funded by Congress have been instrumental in
    ensuring our public partners have the necessary resources to address
    the needs of their communities.
     Support Funding Public Entities Partnering with Host Freight Railroads
        Freight railroads support funding for grant programs that enable
    the public sector, including state and local governments and passenger
    railroads, to partner with freight railroads to advance projects of
    mutual interest. These include projects to help reduce road and port
    congestion, enhance safety at highway-rail grade crossings, improve
    port connectivity, facilitate intercity passenger and commuter rail
    service, and improve the quality of life for communities.
        To that end, the following U.S. DOT programs should continue to be
    authorized at existing or increased levels:

          The Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) grant
    program. INFRA funds projects that address significant challenges in
    U.S. transportation infrastructure, particularly highways, bridges,
    railroads, and ports. INFRA encourages the use of private investments,
    state and local funding, and innovative financing to maximize the
    impact of federal dollars. INFRA prioritizes projects that demonstrate
    a significant regional or national impact, alignment with national and
    economic priorities, and readiness for implementation.

          The National Infrastructure Project Assistance grant
    program. Often referred to as the ``Mega'' grant program, this federal
    initiative is designed to support transformational infrastructure
    projects that have significant national or regional impact and are too
    large or complex to be funded by other federal programs alone. Examples
    include large highway expansions, major bridge replacements, and
    multimodal freight and passenger transportation projects. Mega grants
    prioritize projects that combine federal support with state, local, and
    private sector funding, ensuring a shared commitment.

          The Rebuilding American Infrastructure with
    Sustainability and Equity program. Formerly known as TIGER
    (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) and later
    BUILD (Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development), RAISE is
    a discretionary funding initiative that provides competitive grants to
    support infrastructure projects. By prioritizing projects that align
    with national and local priorities, RAISE contributes to the
    development of modern transportation infrastructure across the country.

          The Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety
    Improvements (CRISI) program. CRISI grants are designed to enhance the
    safety, efficiency, and reliability of U.S. freight and passenger rail
    systems. Program goals include improving safety through projects that
    improve rail infrastructure and reduce accidents and fatalities;
    modernizing aging rail infrastructure to enhance reliability and
    capacity; supporting efficient goods movement; and bolstering local and
    regional economies. Emphasis is placed on projects that provide public
    benefits, particularly in rural areas and for smaller railroads.

          Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail
    grant program. This program focuses on ensuring the safety,
    reliability, and efficiency of passenger rail by funding projects that
    bring rail assets to a state of good repair. Eligible projects include
    replacing or rehabilitating deteriorating infrastructure, such as
    tracks, bridges, tunnels, or signal systems; modernizing rail equipment
    or facilities to improve safety and efficiency; and addressing deferred
    maintenance. The program typically requires state or local governments
    or other non-federal entities to contribute matching funds.

        These essential programs are partnerships that solve critical
    transportation challenges by combining federal and non-federal
    resources for specific projects. Without these partnerships, many
    projects that promise substantial public benefits (such as reduced
    highway congestion or increased rail capacity for use by passenger
    trains) in addition to private benefits (such as enabling faster
    freight trains) are likely to be delayed or never started. Cooperation
    makes these projects feasible.
             Support and Streamline Safety Enhancing Grant Programs
        The intersection of rail tracks and roadways is an important
    element of rail infrastructure, and collisions at highway-rail
    crossings are a serious safety concern. According to the Federal
    Railroad Administration, in 2023 nearly 2,200 grade crossing collisions
    were associated with more than 240 fatalities and 770 injuries. These
    accidents can also involve significant property damage, clean-up costs,
    and costs associated with motorist and train delays while the accident
    is investigated and cleared. Train crews, who are usually helpless--and
    blameless--in preventing an accident also bear a heavy burden in the
    aftermath. Grade crossing incidents typically arise from factors
    outside railroad control, and highway-rail crossing warning devices are
    there for the benefit of motorists, not trains. Railroads are committed
    to reducing the frequency of crossing incidents.
        Section 130 of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation
    Assistance Act of 1987 provides Highway Trust Fund money to states and
    local governments to eliminate or reduce hazards at highway-rail
    crossings. Most recently, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
    (IIJA) allocated $245 million in Section 130 funds each year through
    2026 for installing new and upgraded warning devices and for improving
    grade crossing surfaces. The program has helped prevent tens of
    thousands of fatalities and injuries associated with crossing
    accidents. Section 130 funding should continue at current or higher
    levels.
        The safest grade crossing is no crossing at all. When appropriate,
    the elimination of grade crossings yields the biggest safety benefit,
    which is why railroads strongly support the Railroad Crossing
    Elimination Grant Program (RCE). This competitive grant program, run by
    the FRA and created under the IIJA, provides more than $500 million per
    year through 2026 to local and state governments and other public
    entities for grade separation or closure, track relocation, and the
    improvement or installation of grade crossing warning devices. Earlier
    this year, the FRA announced the most recent RCE grants, which total
    more than $1.1 billion and will fund 123 projects associated with more
    than 1,000 grade crossings nationwide. Railroads commend policymakers
    for creating and funding this important program and respectfully
    suggest the program should be expanded to further improve grade
    crossing safety.
                   Streamline the Federal Permitting Process
        Policymakers should also look at ways to ensure the projects funded
    by these grants, as well as other routine infrastructure projects, move
    from planning and review to construction more quickly. While efforts to
    cut red tape associated with project approval and construction have
    borne some fruit in recent years, more can still be done to fast-track
    routine rail construction projects without ignoring environmental or
    historical preservation concerns.
        For example, policymakers could codify that, for rail projects
    whose purpose is to replace existing infrastructure on existing
    operating railroad right-of-way, a categorical exclusion and a finding
    of no significant impact are the only NEPA documentations necessary.\1\
    In addition, policymakers could convert to statute select executive
    orders on streamlining the permitting process, such as timeclocks,
    intermediate deadlines, and One Decision.\2\ Policymakers could also
    continue to streamline the ``Section 106'' historic preservation
    process for projects needed to enhance or maintain rail
    infrastructure.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal
    agencies to assess the environmental impacts of their proposed actions
    before making decisions. A categorical exclusion is a category of
    actions determined not to have significant environmental impacts,
    allowing them to bypass detailed reviews like Environmental Assessments
    (EA) or Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). A finding of no
    significant impact (FONSI) is a determination that a proposed project,
    based on an EA, will not significantly impact the environment,
    eliminating the need for a more detailed EIS. A FONSI ensures
    environmental oversight while allowing projects with minimal impacts to
    proceed efficiently.
        \2\ ``One Decision'' in the context of permitting for large
    projects refers to a streamlined approach where a designated lead
    agency coordinates all necessary reviews and approvals from multiple
    entities to deliver a single, consolidated decision within a clear
    timeframe. This method reduces duplication, ensures regulatory
    certainty, and accelerates project timelines by aligning agency efforts
    and eliminating conflicting requirements.
        \3\ Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires
    federal agencies to assess the impact of their projects on historic
    properties. Streamlining this process means making the review and
    consultation more efficient, potentially speeding up decisions without
    sacrificing protections for historic sites. Section 11504 of the FAST
    Act directed the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to
    issue a final exemption from Section 106 requirements for railroad
    rights-of-way consistent with the exemption issued for interstate
    highways, but railroads continue to face conflicting rulings and
    guidance from state historic preservation offices.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These approaches to environmental review would expedite projects
    that would enhance supply chain fluidity while ensuring comprehensive
    and effective environmental reviews are maintained. The environment
    would still be protected, while supply chains would benefit from
    greater efficiency and more environmentally friendly performance.
                                   Conclusion
        The Bureau of Transportation Statistics forecasts that U.S. freight
    volume (measured by ton-miles) will rise 29 percent from 2023 to 2040.
    For railroads, meeting this demand requires having adequate capacity
    and using it well. Thanks to massive investments over the years,
    freight rail infrastructure today is in excellent overall condition.
    The challenge for railroads, for members of this committee, and for
    other policymakers is to ensure that the current high quality of rail
    infrastructure is maintained, that adequate freight rail capacity
    exists to meet our nation's future transportation needs, and that the
    many public benefits of freight rail continue to accrue.
        Policymakers can help by enacting policies that encourage railroads
    to make investments in their networks, by engaging in partnerships with
    railroads and other transportation modes to ensure our nation has the
    freight transportation capacity needed to remain a first-rate global
    economic power, and by ensuring that the public partners who rely on a
    resilient, efficient transportation network have the funding they need.
    Freight railroads stand ready to work with you to ensure that our
    nation's transportation needs are met in a responsible, environmentally
    sound, and safe manner.

     Statement of David Shannon, General Manager, RailPulse, Submitted for
                       the Record by Hon. Daniel Webster
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am the General
    Manager of the RailPulse, LLC, a technology coalition formed by
    forward-thinking railcar owners who have joined together to create a
    neutral, open-architecture, industry-wide railcar telematics platform.
    The RailPulse platform will transform rail shipping by leveraging the
    latest technologies to gather and share real-time railcar location,
    health and condition information. Our technology platform will enable
    data from GPS and railcar-mounted sensors to drive improved service
    levels, visibility, safety, sustainability, and productivity into North
    American rail-based supply chains.
        We welcome the opportunity to submit this statement for the record
    of the Subcommittee's hearing entitled ``America Builds: Improving the
    Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Rail Assistance.''
        First, a few words about RailPulse. There are four discrete
    segments that own the more than 1.6 million North American freight
    railcar fleet. Shippers--who own approximately 18% of the fleet, the
    seven Class I railroads and their wholly owned subsidiary TTX--who own
    approximately 24% of the fleet, Short Lines--who own about 2% of the
    fleet, and Freight Car Lessors--who own approximately 56% of the fleet.
    Collectively, these four segments have come together to enhance the
    sustainability, efficiency, and safety advantages of rail through a
    standardized technology infrastructure that will accelerate adoption of
    telematics across the entire North American railcar fleet.
        As a result of our experience with the Consolidated Rail
    Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) program, we believe
    certain changes in the program will facilitate and accelerate the
    innovative work being undertaken by RailPulse as well as other
    potential rail carrier and rail equipment manufacturer grantees.
        49 U.S.C. Sec.  22907 (b), requires a rail carrier or rail
    equipment manufacturer (other than a short line), to partner with
    certain public entities to be eligible for a CRISI grant. Specifically,
    the public entities with which a rail carrier or rail equipment
    manufacturer (other than a short line) must partner include:
        (1)  A State (including the District of Columbia),
        (2)  A group of States,
        (3)  An Interstate Compact,
        (4)  A public agency or publicly chartered authority established by
    1 or more States, or
        (5)  A political subdivision of a State.

        We believe that the RailPulse coalition, or any similarly situated
    entity, should be permitted to apply for a CRISI grant, or other
    similar federal grant, without the necessity to partner with one of the
    statutorily prescribed public entities.
        Specifically, as coalition formed with equal representation from
    all classes of freight railcar ownership (including short lines already
    permitted to receive grants directly).
        The stake holders that RailPulse represents have come together with
    a shared goal of increasing in the use of rail transport in North
    America through fostering the accelerated adoption of railcar
    telematics technology for improved service and safety. This objective,
    independent of those of any individual public sponsor, serves the
    national public interest by driving increased use of the most cost
    efficient, safest, and sustainable mode of freight transport while
    simultaneously shifting the transport burden from the publicly funded
    and maintained highway/road network to the private rail industry funded
    and maintained rail network.
        RailPulse appreciates the support of individual public sponsors but
    requiring that grant application and execution be carried out through a
    public entity as sponsor increases the complexity and cost of both the
    application process and subsequent administration and management, i.e.
    reporting, invoicing, etc. of any grant awarded. Essentially, the funds
    available for a project pursuant to the public sponsor requirements
    duplicate work and reduce the funds invested in the project. Ultimately
    the public sponsor requirement either increases the overall grant
    requirement or siphons off grant funds to carry out the duplicative
    work.
        In the case of RailPulse, the applications that we make on behalf
    of industry are not aligned with any single public locality or
    organization but instead serve the national interest. This makes it
    challenging for any public entity, whether an individual locality
    (state, local government) or group of public entities, to prioritize
    supporting a RailPulse application.
        RailPulse, through its role as a centralized, shared infrastructure
    provider for the entire freight rail car industry, is uniquely
    positioned to facilitate the distribution and monitoring of grant funds
    to the 100s (if not 1000s) of railcar owners that seek the grant to
    incentivize and to accelerate equipping railcars with telematics.
        Moreover, by charter, RailPulse is not a profit-making entity.
        Mr. Chairman, RailPulse stands ready to work with any telematics
    vendor and encourages their engagement provided they meet the minimum
    technical requirements to ensure that their products and services can
    be relied upon by the industry.
        We also stand ready to work with the Subcommittee to fashion a
    result that meets both the government's concerns and the industry's
    needs.
        Thank you.

                                    Appendix

                                  ----------

       Questions from Hon. Daniel Webster to Matthew Dietrich, Executive
                   Director, Ohio Rail Development Commission

        Question 1. The Committee frequently hears from railroads,
    particularly smaller operations, regarding the challenges they face
    when trying to comply with the Section 106 Historic Preservation Act
    requirements. The highway system is broadly exempted from these
    requirements, and Congress authorized the Federal Railroad
    Administration (FRA) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
    to issue a similar exemption for rail rights of way and properties as
    well.
        Question 1.a. In 2018 the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
    instead issued a Program Comment to create an exemption based on an
    activities-based method and property-based method. Have you noticed any
    significant improvements to the 106 process since these changes? Do you
    believe the Program Comment fulfilled the intent of Congress?
        Answer. Yes, the Ohio Rail Development Commission has utilized the
    Program Comment on FRA projects and its use resulted in improvement to
    the Section 106 process for those projects. However, for the reasons
    listed in 1b below, it is my opinion that using the Program Comment as
    a template to create more customized Programmatic Agreements in each
    state will more fully realize Congress' intent to achieve parity with
    FHWA projects.

        Question 1.b. What are some improvements to Section 106 that
    Congress could consider in order to alleviate the unnecessary delays,
    costs, and burdens of the program on rail operations infrastructure
    projects?
        Answer. Encourage states to develop programmatic agreements for FRA
    projects. Because of the variety of activities that could occur with
    the Railroad ROW, the activities-based method (tie-replacement, rail-
    replacement, new sidings, etc.) most likely offers the best path
    forward. However, because the Program Comment was developed to address
    projects nationally, there is an opportunity for states to use the
    Program Comment as a template, but refine it for its particular use
    cases. State DOTs can develop programmatic agreements with State
    Historic Preservation Offices that include FRA projects. In that
    process, states can determine if or how to include the FRA program
    comment to streamline project delivery. The programmatic agreements
    with the resource agencies are not full NEPA assignment but would
    greatly benefit the project delivery process.

          Questions from Hon. Seth Moulton to Hon. Garrett Eucalitto,
     Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Transportation, on behalf of
     the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

        Question 1. On the busiest rail corridor in the country, where the
    Northeast Corridor diverges--one line going to Penn Station and the
    other to Grand Central--there's no interchange. That means when there
    are two trains, one is forced to stop and wait. What are the blockers
    to building this specific rail interchange, to enable two trains to
    seamlessly pass to Penn Station and Grand Central, instead of one
    having to wait for the other?
        Answer. Thank you for this question. The interchange between the
    Hell Gate Rail Line and Metro-North's New Haven Line at CP-216/New
    Rochelle is located in New York state, and not Connecticut. With that
    said, I have contacted officials at Metro-North Railroad to help
    respond to this question about this critical location on the Northeast
    Corridor (NEC). Rail traffic today is able to cross tracks seamlessly
    to head to either Penn Station or Grand Central Terminal, though there
    are times, as you have noted, a train may need to wait for an
    approaching train to pass before it can cross over. Proposals such as a
    flyover from New Haven Line Track 3 to the Hell Gate or expanding
    tracks through New Rochelle from four tracks to six tracks have been
    considered by New York officials in the past. However, these projects
    encountered significant community opposition in the past, and they also
    carry costs that far exceed the financial capacity of Metro-North and
    the Connecticut Department of Transportation. In addition, the
    complexity of constructing such improvements without closing this vital
    artery further escalates expenses as train traffic cannot be easily
    diverted and there are no detours. This situation encapsulates the
    utmost importance of federal funding and support in advancing needed
    and transformative upgrades on the NEC, allowing the corridor operates
    at its full potential.

        Question 2. How many highway interchanges has Connecticut built in
    the past 100 years?
        Answer. There are 1053 interchanges in Connecticut all built over
    the past 100 years.

        Question 3. Why does Metro-North Railroad conduct maintenance only
    during the day?
        Answer. While the state of Connecticut cannot directly answer this
    question due to jurisdictional limitations, according to Metro-North,
    we understand the primary drivers of this approach are cost and
    collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), which only allow 10 percent of
    the workforce to work overnight. Unfortunately, the Connecticut
    Department of Transportation and Metro-North lack the operational funds
    to cover the costs associated with additional nighttime work.
        It should be noted that the distribution of track maintenance
    requiring track time is evenly distributed across either off-peak
    outages during the day (1000-1430 hours) and overnight (2300-0430). We
    understand that Metro-North's service design team aims for minimal
    customer disruptions due to track maintenance, and Metro-North in 2024
    recorded its highest on-time performance in its history at 98.3
    percent.

    Questions from Hon. Daniel Webster to Kevin D. Hicks, P.E., Senior Vice
      President and Rail & Freight Market Sector Leader, Gannett Fleming
       TranSystems, on behalf of the National Railroad Construction and
                            Maintenance Association

        Question 1. The Committee frequently hears from railroads,
    particularly smaller operations, regarding the challenges they face
    when trying to comply with the Section 106 Historic Preservation Act
    requirements. The highway system is broadly exempted from these
    requirements, and Congress authorized the Federal Railroad
    Administration (FRA) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
    to issue a similar exemption for rail rights of way and properties as
    well.
        Question 1.a. In 2018 the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
    instead issued a Program Comment to create an exemption based on an
    activities-based method and property-based method. Have you noticed any
    significant improvements to the 106 process since these changes? Do you
    believe the Program Comment fulfilled the intent of Congress?
        Answer. Yes. The issuance of Program Comment for an exemption based
    on an activities-based method and property-based method has enabled a
    range of ``typical'' projects to proceed with a more simplified
    regulatory review. This has streamlined or exempted certain project
    types, allowing ACHP to consult broadly and once on an issue, rather
    than on a per-project basis. The Program Comment also outlines pre-
    approved resolutions, which reduces the need for agencies to resolve
    project effects on a case-by-case basis.
        While the Program Comment process has enabled a set range of
    ``typical'' projects to proceed with a more simplified regulatory
    review, many of the steps in the process are consistent with the
    Section 106 Process, including identifying historic properties,
    categorizing or assessing the project undertaking and resolving issues
    or applying treatment standards. While the steps in the process may
    execute in less time, it can appear that the process itself does not
    provide as streamlined an approach as needed.
        From a practitioner's perspective, Program Comment has fulfilled
    the intent of Congress however additional efficiencies should be
    considered.

        Question 1.b. What are some improvements to Section 106 that
    Congress could consider in order to alleviate the unnecessary delays,
    costs, and burdens of the program on rail operations infrastructure
    projects?
        Answer:
        1.  Consideration should be given to establishing a broader list of
    exempted activities. As seen in practice, there are likely additional
    railroad activities, such as those that occur entirely within existing
    railroad rights-of-way and yards, that typically have little to no
    effects on historic properties including minor/limited track and rail
    additions, sidings, and yard tracks.
          a.  In terms of construction and/or installation of new railroad
    infrastructure, the Program Comment Exempted Activities List includes
    ``minor new construction and installation of railroad or rail transit
    infrastructure that is compatible with the scale, size, and type of
    existing rail infrastructure . . . '' however it does not clearly
    include installations of new track segments such as sidings, limited
    run-around tracks, etc., within mainline rights-of-way and/or existing
    maintenance yards, upgrades or replacements to small signal bungalows
    or moveable bridge control houses, etc.
        2.  Consideration should be given to a self-certified determination
    by project proponents for a subset of actions that FRA has previously
    determined do not adversely affect historic properties. At present, the
    federal agency is responsible for determining if an undertaking is
    covered by one or more activities in the Exempted Activities List. At
    its discretion, the federal agency may require the Project Sponsor to
    provide relevant documentation, such as plans, photographs, or
    materials specifications, so that the federal agency can determine
    whether the Exempted Activities List applies.
          a.  For routine railroad actions that FRA and ACHP determine do
    not affect historic properties, a self-certified determination by
    Project Sponsors could provide efficiency as well as reduce the burden
    on federal staff for reviewing documentation for routine actions.
          b.  This could include routine maintenance and/or operation
    activities such as state of good repair activities; in-kind
    replacements of systems and signals; minor ADA improvements at
    passenger stations; and routine replacement of curbs, gutters, re-
    pavement, bicycle facilities, etc.

     Questions from Hon. Daniel Webster to Kristin Bevil, General Counsel
      and Chief Legal Officer, Pinsly Railroad Company, on behalf of the
             American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association

        Question 1. The Committee frequently hears from railroads,
    particularly smaller operations, regarding the challenges they face
    when trying to comply with the Section 106 Historic Preservation Act
    requirements. The highway system is broadly exempted from these
    requirements, and Congress authorized the Federal Railroad
    Administration (FRA) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
    to issue a similar exemption for rail rights of way and properties as
    well.
        Question 1.a. In 2018 the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
    instead issued a Program Comment to create an exemption based on an
    activities-based method and property-based method. Have you noticed any
    significant improvements to the 106 process since these changes? Do you
    believe the Program Comment fulfilled the intent of Congress?
        Answer. The 2018 Program Comment issued by the Advisory Council on
    Historic Preservation introduced improvements to the Section 106
    process by allowing for both an activities-based and a property-based
    approach to compliance. The short line industry has not noticed any
    significant improvements since the changes were made, the improvements
    have been incremental at best, rather than transformative. Many short
    line railroads continue to encounter delays and uncertainty in
    navigating Section 106, especially when proposed infrastructure
    projects involve older rights-of-way that trigger review--even when the
    scope of work poses no actual threat to historic assets.
        In our view, the Program Comment has not fulfilled Congress's
    intent. The goal was to create an efficient, streamlined process like
    the exemption granted to the highway sector. However, railroads have
    not been granted comparable relief. The administrative burden remains
    significant, especially for smaller operators with limited in-house
    resources or funding for consultants. In practice, the flexibility
    offered by the Program Comment often gets lost in inconsistent
    application and interpretation by agency personnel. The program's
    effectiveness really depends on the project location and context and
    does not seem to prevent delays and can cause added confusion.

        Question 1.b. What are some improvements to Section 106 that
    Congress could consider in order to alleviate the unnecessary delays,
    costs, and burdens of the program on rail operations infrastructure
    projects?
        Answer. To truly reduce unnecessary delays and costs for rail
    infrastructure projects, especially those undertaken by small
    railroads, Congress could consider the following improvements to
    Section 106:

        1.  Provide a categorical exemption for work within existing rail
    rights-of-way, like what has long existed for highways. Routine
    infrastructure maintenance, tie and rail replacement, and minor bridge
    repairs should not be subject to prolonged historic review if they do
    not fundamentally alter a structure or corridor. For example, bridge
    rehab or shoreline stabilization along an active right-of-way,
    especially when it has been in continuous use for decades, should not
    trigger the same level of review as new construction in an untouched
    area. Categorizing low impact work could help reduce unnecessary
    reviews.

        2.  Historical documentation requirements could be reduced as
    railroads often inherit infrastructure with incomplete or missing
    records, and the burden of proving past work can become a major
    obstacle.

        3.  Codify a time-bound review period to ensure that projects are
    not delayed indefinitely. For example, a 45- or 60-day deadline for the
    review process could create predictability and accountability.

        4.  Clarify the scope of what constitutes a significant impact on
    historic resources, particularly when safety improvements or essential
    repairs are involved. The presumption should be that maintenance and
    safety upgrades do not affect historical integrity unless proven
    otherwise.

        5.  Encourage bundling of similar projects under a single review to
    streamline approval for multiple minor actions within a region or
    corridor.

        6.  Support technical assistance and capacity building for short
    lines navigating compliance, through FRA-administered training or a
    small grant program to offset compliance costs.

        7.  Clarity and consistency should be applied across different
    states and agencies. Ambiguity around whether the Program Comment
    applies can cause delays that could have been avoided with more
    concrete guidance.

        These improvements would maintain necessary preservation goals
    while ensuring that regulatory processes do not become barriers to
    improving critical infrastructure, safety, and service reliability--
    especially in rural and underserved communities that rely on short line
    railroads.

                                     [all]