[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 [email protected].
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: [email protected]
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]