"America Builds: Improving the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Rail Assistance"

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                    AMERICA BUILDS: IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY5                     AND EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL RAIL ASSIST-6                     ANCE78=======================================================================910                                (119-18)1112                                HEARING1314                               BEFORE THE1516                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES,17                        AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS1819                                 OF THE2021                              COMMITTEE ON22                   TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE23                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2425                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2627                             FIRST SESSION2829                               __________3031                              MAY 6, 20253233                               __________3435                       Printed for the use of the36             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure3738[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3940     Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-41     transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/42                             transportation4344                                __________4546                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4760-863 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 20254849-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------5051             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE5253                      Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman54                     Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member5556Eleanor Holmes Norton,               Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,57  District of Columbia               Arkansas,58Jerrold Nadler, New York               Vice Chairman59Steve Cohen, Tennessee               Daniel Webster, Florida60John Garamendi, California           Thomas Massie, Kentucky61Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaott Perry, Pennsylvania62Andre Carson, Indiana                Brian Babin, Texas63Dina Titus, Nevada                   David Rouzer, North Carolina64Jared Huffman, California            Mike Bost, Illinois65Julia Brownley, California           Doug LaMalfa, California66Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Bruce Westerman, Arkansas67Mark DeSaulnier, California          Brian J. Mast, Florida68Salud O. Carbajal, California        Pete Stauber, Minnesota69Greg Stanton, Arizona                Tim Burchett, Tennessee70Sharice Davids, Kansas               Dusty Johnson, South Dakota71Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois   Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey72Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Troy E. Nehls, Texas73Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Tracey Mann, Kansas74Marilyn Strickland, Washington       Burgess Owens, Utah75Patrick Ryan, New York               Eric Burlison, Missouri76Val T. Hoyle, Oregon                 Mike Collins, Georgia77Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio,           Mike Ezell, Mississippi78  Vice Ranking Member                Kevin Kiley, California79Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan        Vince Fong, California80Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina   Tony Wied, Wisconsin81Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania Tom Barrett, Michigan82Robert Garcia, California            Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska83Nellie Pou, New Jersey               Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,84Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan     Pennsylvania85Laura Friedman, California           Jeff Hurd, Colorado86Laura Gillen, New York               Jefferson Shreve, Indiana87Shomari Figures, Alabama             Addison P. McDowell, North88                                     Carolina89                                     David J. Taylor, Ohio90                                     Brad Knott, North Carolina91                                     Kimberlyn King-Hinds,92                                       Northern Mariana Islands93                                     Mike Kennedy, Utah94                                     Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri95                                     Jimmy Patronis, Florida9697     Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials9899 Daniel Webster, Florida, Chairman100Dina Titus, Nevada, Ranking Member101Andre Carson, Indiana                David Rouzer, North Carolina102Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Mike Bost, Illinois103Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina   Doug LaMalfa, California104Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania,Bruce Westerman, Arkansas105  Vice Ranking Member                Pete Stauber, Minnesota106Jerrold Nadler, New York             Tim Burchett, Tennessee107Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois   Dusty Johnson, South Dakota108Steve Cohen, Tennessee               Troy E. Nehls, Texas109Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaacey Mann, Kansas110Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Burgess Owens, Utah111Patrick Ryan, New York               Eric Burlison, Missouri112Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio            Vince Fong, California113Laura Friedman, California           Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska,114Mark DeSaulnier, California            Vice Chairman115Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Jefferson Shreve, Indiana116                                     David J. Taylor, Ohio117                                     Mike Kennedy, Utah118                                     Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)119120                               CONTENTS121122                                                                   Page123124Summary of Subject Matter........................................   vii125126                 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE127128Hon. Daniel Webster, a Representative in Congress from the State129  of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines,130  and Hazardous Materials, opening statement.....................     1131    Prepared statement...........................................     2132Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State of133  Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Railroads,134  Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, opening statement..........     3135    Prepared statement...........................................     4136Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of137  Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and138  Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     5139    Prepared statement...........................................     6140141                               WITNESSES142143Matthew Dietrich, Executive Director, Ohio Rail Development144  Commission, oral statement.....................................     8145    Prepared statement...........................................    10146Hon. Garrett Eucalitto, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of147  Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of State148  Highway and Transportation Officials, oral statement...........    12149    Prepared statement...........................................    14150Kevin D. Hicks, P.E., Senior Vice President and Rail & Freight151  Market Sector Leader, Gannett Fleming TranSystems, on behalf of152  the National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association,153  oral statement.................................................    21154    Prepared statement...........................................    23155Kristin Bevil, General Counsel and Chief Legal Officer, Pinsly156  Railroad Company, on behalf of the American Short Line and157  Regional Railroad Association, oral statement..................    27158    Prepared statement...........................................    29159160                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD161162Submissions for the Record by Hon. Daniel Webster:163    Press Release of May 6, 2025, from the U.S. Department of164      Transportation.............................................    53165    Statement of Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive166      Officer, Association of American Railroads.................    71167    Statement of David Shannon, General Manager, RailPulse.......    74168169                                APPENDIX170171Questions from Hon. Daniel Webster to Matthew Dietrich, Executive172  Director, Ohio Rail Development Commission.....................    77173Questions from Hon. Seth Moulton to Hon. Garrett Eucalitto,174  Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Transportation, on175  behalf of the American Association of State Highway and176  Transportation Officials.......................................    77177Questions from Hon. Daniel Webster to Kevin D. Hicks, P.E.,178  Senior Vice President and Rail & Freight Market Sector Leader,179  Gannett Fleming TranSystems, on behalf of the National Railroad180  Construction and Maintenance Association.......................    78181Questions from Hon. Daniel Webster to Kristin Bevil, General182  Counsel and Chief Legal Officer, Pinsly Railroad Company, on183  behalf of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad184  Association....................................................    79185186[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]187188                              May 3, 2025189190    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER191192    TO:      LMembers, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines,193and Hazardous Materials194    FROM:  LStaff, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and195Hazardous Materials196    RE:      LSubcommittee Hearing on ``America Builds:197Improving the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Rail198Assistance''199_______________________________________________________________________200201                               I. PURPOSE202203    The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous204Materials will meet on Tuesday, May 6, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. ET205in 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building to receive206testimony at a hearing entitled, ``America Builds: Improving207the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Rail Assistance.''208The hearing will review the opportunities and challenges grant209applicants encounter in accessing and using Federal Railroad210Administration (FRA) and other Department of Transportation211(DOT) rail discretionary grant programs and the potential for212reform in the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization213bill. At the hearing, Members will receive testimony from214Matthew Dietrich, Executive Director, Ohio Rail Development215Commission; Kevin Hicks, Senior Vice President, TranSystems on216behalf of the National Railroad Contractors Association;217Kristin Bevil, General Counsel and Chief Legal Officer, Pinsly218Railroad Company on behalf of the American Short Line and219Regional Railroad Association; and Garrett Eucalitto,220Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Transportation on221behalf of the American Association of State Highway and222Transportation Officials.223224                             II. BACKGROUND225226    America's freight and intercity passenger railroad networks227are essential for the movement of goods and people across the228country. America's freight rail network consists of almost229140,000 miles of track.\1\ Six Class I freight railroad230carriers and approximately 600 Class II and III (short line)231railroads move roughly 1.6 billion tons of goods each year.\2\232Amtrak is the Nation's primary passenger rail service and233operates over 21,000 miles of track in 46 states, serving over234500 destinations.\3\ In addition, there are approximately 30235commuter railroads in the United States, most of which are236operated by state or regional governmental authorities.\4\ The237primary agency that oversees railroad safety and intercity238passenger and freight rail grant programs is the FRA within the239DOT.\5\ Federal commuter rail funding comes from the Federal240Transit Administration within the DOT.\6\ Congress authorizes241and appropriates funding for Federal discretionary grant242programs to support freight and passenger rail service, some of243which are described below.244---------------------------------------------------------------------------245    \1\ Ass'n of American Railroads, State Fact Sheets, available at246https://www.aar.org/247data-center/railroads-states/#::text=in%20Your%20State-248,Freight%20Rail%20in%20Your249%20State,nearly%20140%2C000%20miles%20of%20track.250    \2\ Id.251    \3\ Amtrak, Amtrak Facts, available at https://www.amtrak.com/252amtrak-facts#::text=253With%2021%2C000%20route%20miles%20in,to%20more%20than%20500%20destinatio254ns.255    \4\ American Public Transp. Ass'n, How Many Commuter Railroads are256in the United States?, (Mar. 16, 2021), available at https://257www.apta.com/faq-items/how-many-commuter-railroads-are-in-the-united-258states/.259    \5\ Fed. Railroad Admin, About Us, available at https://260railroads.dot.gov/about-fra/about-fra.261    \6\ Fed. Transit Admin, Grant Programs, available at https://262www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/grant-programs.263---------------------------------------------------------------------------264265            III. FEDERAL FUNDING AND FINANCING FOR RAILROADS266267CONSOLIDATED RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (CRISI) GRANT268                    PROGRAM269270    The Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety271Improvements (CRISI) grant program was initially authorized in272the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act in 2015273(P.L. 114-94) and reauthorized in the Infrastructure Investment274and Jobs Act (IIJA) (P.L. 117-58) in 2021.\7\ CRISI provides275funding for privately and publicly-operated freight and276intercity passenger rail projects, including those that277``improve railroad safety, efficiency, and reliability;278mitigate congestion at both intercity passenger and freight279rail chokepoints to support more efficient travel and goods280movement . . . and lead to new or substantially improved281Intercity Passenger Rail Transportation corridors.'' \8\282Eligible applicants include individual states (and the District283of Columbia), Federally-recognized Indian tribes, public284agencies, Amtrak or other rail carriers providing intercity285passenger rail transportation, and Class II and Class III286freight railroads.\9\ The Federal cost share of a CRISI grant287award cannot exceed 80 percent of the project cost, with the288remaining funding comprising state/local government or private289sector funding.\10\290---------------------------------------------------------------------------291    \7\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  22907.292    \8\ Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Consolidated Rail293Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Program, 87 Fed. Reg. 54278294(Sept. 2, 2022), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/295documents/2022/09/02/2022-19004/notice-of-funding-opportunity-for-the-296consolidated-rail-infrastructure-and-safety-improvements.297    \9\ Id.298    \10\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Consolidated Rail Infrastructure &299Safety Improvements (CRISI) Grant Program, available at https://300www.transportation.gov/rural/grant-toolkit/consolidated-rail-301infrastructure-safety-improvements-crisi-grant-program.302---------------------------------------------------------------------------303    IIJA funded CRISI at $5 billion with advance appropriations304over five years, in addition to any annual appropriations for305this program.\11\ In September 2023, the FRA announced fiscal306year (FY) 2022 CRISI awards totaling over $1.4 billion for 70307projects, 10 of which fund intercity passenger rail308projects.\12\ In October 2024, FRA announced FY 2023-2024309awards totaling more than $2.4 billion for 122 projects.\13\310---------------------------------------------------------------------------311    \11\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  24911; see also Ben Goldman, Cong. Rsch. Serv.312(IF11920), Passenger Rail Expansion in the Infrastructure Investment313and Jobs Act (IIJA), (last updated Feb. 10, 2022), available at https:/314/crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11920.315    \12\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin, Consolidated Rail316Infrastructure Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program, (last updated Oct.3172, 2023), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/grants-loans/318competitive-discretionary-grant-programs/consolidated-rail-319infrastructure-and-safety-2.320    \13\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin,321Investing in America: Biden-Harris Administration Announces $2.4322Billion in New Rail Projects, (Oct. 29, 2024) available at https://323railroads.dot.gov/about-fra/communications/newsroom/press-releases/324investing-america-biden-harris-administration-1.325---------------------------------------------------------------------------326327AMTRAK GRANTS328329    Amtrak receives annual grants from the Federal Government.330The FAST Act changed the authorization structure of Amtrak to331provide appropriations based on service--Amtrak Northeast332Corridor and Amtrak National Network grants--instead of for333operations and capital/debt service activities.\14\ In addition334to annual appropriations grants, IIJA provides $22 billion in335funding specifically to Amtrak in the form of advanced336appropriations.\15\ The bill authorizes and appropriates over337five years $102 billion for the FRA, and at least another $30338billion in discretionary multimodal grants for which freight339rail, Amtrak, and other intercity passenger rail projects are340eligible.\16\341---------------------------------------------------------------------------342    \14\ Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1662 at Sec. 11101.343    \15\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin, 2022 Bipartisan344Infrastructure Law Funding Table, available at https://345railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2022-02/Bipartisan346%20Infrastructure%20Law%20Funding%20Table%20Jan2022.pdf.347    \16\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  6701 (noting the National Infrastructure348Project Assistance, authorized at $5 billion and appropriated at $10349billion over five years); see also 49 U.S.C. Sec.  6702 (noting the350Local and Regional Project Assistance, authorized at $7.5 billion and351appropriated at $7.5 billion over five years); see also 23 U.S.C. Sec.352149; see also 49 U.S.C. Sec.  224, et seq.; see also 23 U.S.C. Sec.353601, et seq. (describing two Federal loan programs that include this354eligibility, Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing and355Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act).356---------------------------------------------------------------------------357358FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIP FOR INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL GRANT PROGRAM359360    Sections 22106 and 22307 of IIJA authorize the Federal-361State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail (FSP) Grant362Program.\17\ Created in the FAST Act as the Federal State363Partnership for State of Good Repair Grant program, this grant364program was modified in IIJA to not only provide funding for365capital projects that reduce the state of good repair backlog,366but may also improve existing service or establish new367intercity passenger rail service, including privately operated368passenger rail service.\18\ Eligible projects include projects369to replace, rehabilitate, or repair infrastructure, equipment,370or facilities used for providing intercity passenger rail371service to bring assets into a state of good repair or to372improve intercity passenger rail service performance; expand or373establish new intercity passenger rail service; or for the374planning, environmental review, and final design of an eligible375project or group of projects.\19\ Eligible recipients include:376an individual or group of states, including the District of377Columbia, an Interstate Compact, a public agency or publicly378chartered authority established by one or more states, a379political subdivision of a state, Amtrak, a Federally380recognized Indian Tribe, or any combination of these381entities.\20\382---------------------------------------------------------------------------383    \17\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin, Federal-State384Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program, (last updated385Nov. 6, 2023), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/federal-state-386partnership-intercity-passenger.387    \18\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin, Federal-State388Partnership for State of Good Repair Grant Program (FY 2017-2021),389available at https://railroads.dot.gov/grants-loans/federal-state-390partnership-state-good-repair-grant-program-fy-2017-2021.391    \19\ Id.392    \20\ Id.393---------------------------------------------------------------------------394    Because IIJA designated the majority of the advance395appropriated funds for FSP for the Northeast Corridor and set396out specific requirements for funding projects in this region,397FRA issued two separate notices of funding opportunity (NOFOs)398to break out the Northeast Corridor funding from National399Network funding.\21\ On November 6, 2023, FRA announced awards400of $16.4 billion for 25 projects on the Northeast Corridor.\22\401This amount, includes $7.4 billion in phased funding agreements402authorized in the IIJA.\23\ On November 15, 2024, FRA announced403an additional nearly $1.5 billion to 19 projects on the404Northeast Corridor.\24\ On December 8, 2023, FRA announced $8.2405billion for 10 projects on the National Network.\25\ On October4061, 2024, FRA announced a NOFO for National Network funding407totaling over $1 billion.\26\ Applications were due in mid-408December, but remain under review.409---------------------------------------------------------------------------410    \21\ Id.411    \22\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin,412President Biden Advances Vision for World Class Passenger Rail with $16413Billion Investment in America's Busiest Corridor, (Nov. 6, 2023),414available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2023-11/415FRA%2011-23.pdf.416    \23\ Id.417    \24\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin,418Investing in America: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Nearly $1.5419Billion in Additional Upgrades to America's Busiest Rail Corridor,420(Nov. 15, 2024) available at https://railroads.dot.gov/about-fra/421communications/newsroom/press-releases/investing-america-biden-harris-422administration-4.423    \25\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin,424President Biden Announces $8.2 Billion in New Grants, (Dec. 8, 2023),425available at https://railroads.dot.gov/about-fra/communications/426newsroom/press-releases/president-biden-announces-82-billion-new-427grants.428    \26\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin,429INVESTING IN AMERICA: Biden-Harris Administration Makes More Than $1430Billion in Additional Funding Available to Support America's Passenger431Rail Future, (Oct. 1, 2024), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/432about-fra/communications/newsroom/press-releases/investing-america-433biden-harris-administration-0.434---------------------------------------------------------------------------435    On April 17, 2025, FRA rescinded an FSP grant that had been436awarded to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for the437rehabilitation of New York Penn Station.\27\ FRA states that438the project will henceforth be conducted under a single grant439sponsored by Amtrak.\28\ On April 22, 2025, FRA and Amtrak440agreed to a revised scope for rehabilitation of the Dock Bridge441over the Passaic River in New Jersey reducing the cost of the442project by approximately $140 million.\29\ Earlier in the year,443on February 20, 2025, Secretary Duffy announced a review of the444California High Speed Rail Project (CAHSR) proposal and the445nearly $4 billion in Federal funding awarded to the446project.\30\447---------------------------------------------------------------------------448    \27\ Letter from, Kyle Fields, Chief Counsel, Fed. Rail Admin. to449Mr. Janno Lieber, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Metropolitan450Transp. Auth. (Apr. 17, 2025) available at https://railroads.dot.gov/451elibrary/fra-chief-counsel-letter-mr-janno-lieber-41725.452    \28\ Id.453    \29\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin454Trump's Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy Saves Taxpayers $140455Million on NJ Dock Bridge Revitalization Project (Apr. 22, 2025)456available at https://railroads.dot.gov/about-fra/communications/457newsroom/press-releases/trumps-transportation-secretary-sean-p-duffy-458saves.459    \30\ See e.g., Trump has California's high-speed rail in his460sights, but so do Democrats, Politico (April 17, 2025) available at461https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/17/trump-democrats-high-speed-462rail-00295348; Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., U.S.463Transportation Secretary Duffy Announces Review of California High-464Speed Rail Project, (Feb. 20, 2025), available at https://465www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-transportation-secretary-duffy-466announces-review-california-high-speed-rail-project.467---------------------------------------------------------------------------468469RAILROAD CROSSING ELIMINATION (RCE) PROGRAM470471    IIJA authorized $600 million in annual advanced472appropriations over five years (totaling $3 billion) to create473a new RCE grant program to address safety concerns at highway-474rail or pathway-rail grade crossings Nationwide.\31\ The grant475program applies to projects that would separate or close grade476crossings; would relocate tracks, install or improve protective477or preventive measures at crossings such as signs or signals;478and fund planning and designs for eligible projects.\32\479Eligible recipients include individual states, the District of480Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other United States territories and481possessions, Federally recognized Indian Tribes, local482governments, public port authorities, metropolitan planning483organizations, and a group of the entities listed.\33\484---------------------------------------------------------------------------485    \31\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, Sec.  22305, 135 Stat. 695.486    \32\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin, Railroad Crossing487Elimination Program, (last updated Oct. 2, 2023), available at https://488railroads.dot.gov/grants-loans/competitive-discretionary-grant-489programs/railroad-crossing-elimination-grant-program.490    \33\ Id.491---------------------------------------------------------------------------492    In December 2023, FRA awarded over $570 million in FY 2022493funds to eligible projects under the RCE program.\34\ IIJA494stipulates that at least 20 percent of available grant funds495($114.6 million) are made available for rural and tribal land496projects.\35\ Of this 20 percent set aside, five percent of the497total funding is made available for projects in counties with49820 or fewer residents per square mile.\36\ The Federal cost499share for these grants is no more than 80 percent of total500project costs.\37\ On January 10, 2025, FRA announced over $1.1501billion for 123 rail projects to improve or study more than5021,000 highway-rail crossings Nationwide.\38\503---------------------------------------------------------------------------504    \34\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin, Railroad Crossing505Elimination (RCE) Grant Program, (last updated Dec. 4, 2023), available506at https://railroads.dot.gov/grants-loans/competitive-discretionary-507grant-programs/railroad-crossing-elimination-grant-program.508    \35\ Id.509    \36\ Id.510    \37\ IIJA, supra note 31, at 135 Stat. 696.511    \38\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin,512Investing in America: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Over $1.1513Billion in New Rail Grants to Reduce Train-Vehicle Collisions and514Blocked Crossings, (July 9, 2024), available at https://515railroads.dot.gov/about-fra/communications/newsroom/press-releases/516biden-harris-administration-makes-more-11-0.517---------------------------------------------------------------------------518519RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT GRANTS520521    The Restoration and Enhancement Grant program was522authorized in Sections 11104 and 11303 of the FAST Act at $20523million a year.\39\ IIJA authorized and advance appropriated524$50 million each year over five years for the program, which525provides operating assistance grants to initiate, restore, or526enhance intercity rail passenger transportation for up to six527corridors.\40\ Eligible applicants include states or their528political subdivisions, groups of states, interstate compacts,529public agencies or publicly chartered authorities established530by one or more states, Amtrak or other intercity passenger rail531carriers, rail carriers in partnership with any eligible532government entities, or a combination.\41\ For FY 2018 through533FY 2020, the Restoration and Enhancement grant program awarded534over $22.4 million.\42\ On January 10, 2025, FRA announced over535$146.3 million in grants for FY 2021 through FY 2024.\43\536---------------------------------------------------------------------------537    \39\ Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, Pub. L. No. 114-53894, 129 Stat. 1651.539    \40\ IIJA, supra note 31, at Sec.  22105.540    \41\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin, Restoration and541Enhancement Grant Program, (last updated Oct. 2, 2023), available at542https://railroads.dot.gov/grants-loans/competitive-discretionary-grant-543programs/restoration-and-enhancement-grant-program.544    \42\ Id.545    \43\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., INVESTING IN AMERICA: Biden-Harris546Administration Announces Over $1.1 Billion in New Rail Grants to Reduce547Train-Vehicle Collisions and Blocked Railroad Crossings, (Jan. 10,5482025) available at https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/549investing-america-biden-harris-administration-announces-over-11-550billion-new-rail.551---------------------------------------------------------------------------552553CORRIDOR IDENTIFICATION AND DEVELOPMENT (CORRIDOR ID) PROGRAM554555    IIJA created the Corridor ID Program for FRA to identify556and assist in the planning of intercity passenger rail557projects.\44\ The program's goal is to create a pipeline of558intercity passenger rail projects ready for implementation.\45\559Eligible applicants include Amtrak, states, groups of states,560entities implementing interstate compacts, regional passenger561rail authorities, regional planning organizations and other562public entities.\46\ The initial award is $500,000 per project563to facilitate planning and development.\47\ On December 8,5642023, the FRA announced the selection of 69 corridors across 44565states to drive future passenger rail expansion.\48\ The566selections included 15 existing rail routes, add or extend567service on 47 new routes, and advance seven new high-speed rail568projects.\49\ On April 14, 2025, Secretary Duffy announced that569FRA would rescind over $60 million from a previously-awarded570CID grant for Texas Central, a high-speed rail corridor planned571between Dallas and Houston citing higher costs, among other572factors.\50\573---------------------------------------------------------------------------574    \44\ IIJA, supra note 31, at Sec.  22308 (codified at 49 U.S.C.575Sec.  25101).576    \45\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin, Corridor577Identification and Development Program [hereinafter Corridor ID],578available at https://railroads.dot.gov/corridor-ID-program.579    \46\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  25101(b).580    \47\ Corridor ID, supra note 47.581    \48\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., President Biden582Announces $8.2 Billion in New Grants for High-Speed Rail and Pipeline583of Projects Nationwide, (Dec. 8, 2023), available at https://584railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2023-12/FRA%2013-23.pdf.585    \49\ Id.586    \50\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin U.S.587Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy Announces Agreement to Save588Taxpayers Over $60 Million by Ending Grant for Texas High-Speed Rail589Project (Apr. 17, 2025) available at https://www.transportation.gov/590briefing-room/us-transportation-secretary-sean-p-duffy-announces-591agreement-save-taxpayers-over-60.592---------------------------------------------------------------------------593594THE RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING (RRIF) PROGRAM595596    The RRIF program provides direct loans and loan guarantees597to finance the development of railroad infrastructure.\51\598Operating under the DOT's Build America Bureau, RRIF provides599up to $35 billion to finance the development of railroad600infrastructure. Not less than $7 billion of RRIF funds is601reserved for projects benefiting short line freight602railroads.\52\ The program offers users low interest rates,603payment terms up to 35 years, deferrable until up to five years604after substantial project completion, and can fund up to 100605percent of the project cost.606---------------------------------------------------------------------------607    \51\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Build America Bureau, Credit Programs608Guide, 1 (Mar. 2017), available at https://www.transportation.gov/609buildamerica/sites/buildamerica.dot.gov/files/2019-08/610Bureau%20Credit%20Programs%20Guide_March_2017.pdf.611    \52\ Id.612---------------------------------------------------------------------------613    Eligible applicants include state and local governments,614interstate compacts, government sponsored authorities and615corporations, railroads, limited option freight shippers that616own their own or operate their own facilities, and joint617ventures that include at least one of the entities previously618listed. Eligible projects and activities include acquiring,619improving, or rehabilitating intermodal or rail equipment and620facilities, such as tracks, bridges, yards, buildings and621shops.\53\622---------------------------------------------------------------------------623    \53\ Id. at 3-6.624---------------------------------------------------------------------------625    Loans may also be used for Transit-Oriented Development626(TOD), including commercial and residential development.\54\627Such projects should incorporate private investment, be628physically and functionally related to a passenger rail station629or multimodal station that includes rail service, likely to630begin the contracting for construction process no later than 90631days after the RRIF loan is obligated, and has a high632probability of increasing ridership, tenant lease payments or633other activities that generate revenue exceeding costs for the634passenger rail station or service.635---------------------------------------------------------------------------636    \54\ Id.637---------------------------------------------------------------------------638639THE REBUILDING AMERICAN INFRASTRUCTURE WITH SUSTAINABILITY AND EQUITY640                    (RAISE) GRANT PROGRAM641642    RAISE is a DOT discretionary grant program for surface643transportation projects that have a significant regional or644local impact, and support DOT strategic goals to improve645safety, economic efficiency and global competitiveness, reduce646disparities, and achieve environmental objectives.\55\ Eligible647applicants include states, local governments, port authorities,648and metropolitan planning organizations, among others.\56\ IIJA649authorized advanced appropriations for RAISE grants of $1.5650billion annually for FY 2022 to FY 2026.\57\651---------------------------------------------------------------------------652    \55\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Off. of the Sec'y, Notice of Funding653Opportunity for Fiscal Year 2024, Rebuilding American Infrastructure654with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grants, https://655www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-11/RAISE%202024%20NOFO656%2011.30.23_0.pdf; see also IIJA, supra note 31, at 135 Stat. 663.657    \56\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  25101(b).658    \57\ IIJA, supra note 31, at 135 Stat. 675.659---------------------------------------------------------------------------660    In 2023, the RAISE program issued over $2.2 billion in661awards for eligible projects, including at least eighteen662grants for highway-railway grade separation projects and other663rail projects.\58\ In June 2024, DOT announced roughly $1.8664billion in RAISE grant awards, including over 15 freight and665intercity passenger rail projects.\59\ On January 10, 2025, DOT666announced awards of $1.32 billion, including over 10 freight667and intercity rail projects.\60\668---------------------------------------------------------------------------669    \58\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., Biden-Harris670Administration Announces Funding for 162 Community-Led Infrastructure671Projects as Part of the Investing in America Agenda, (June 28, 2023),672available at https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-673administration-announces-funding-162-community-led-infrastructure; see674also U.S. Dep't of Transp., Off. of the Sec'y, RAISE 2023 Fact Sheets,675available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-67606/RAISE%202023%20Fact%20Sheets_2.pdf.677    \59\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., RAISE Fact Sheet, available at https://678www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-07/679RAISE%202024%20Fact%20Sheets_0.pdf.680    \60\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Rebuilding American Infrastructure with681Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant Program, available at https://682www.transportation.gov/RAISEgrants.683---------------------------------------------------------------------------684685THE NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT MULTIMODAL FREIGHT & HIGHWAY PROJECTS686                    PROGRAM (INFRA)687688    The INFRA program was established by the FAST Act and689awards competitive grants for multimodal freight and highway690projects of National or regional significance to improve the691safety, efficiency, and reliability of the movement of freight692and people.\61\ Eligible applicants include states, local693governments, tribal governments, and special purpose districts,694among others.\62\ Among the eligible activities for INFRA695grants are highway-railroad crossings or grade separation696projects.\63\697---------------------------------------------------------------------------698    \61\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., The INFRA Grant Program, (last updated699June 27, 2023), available at https://www.transportation.gov/grants/700infra-grant-program [hereinafter INFRA Grants]; see also Fixing701America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-70294, 129 Stat. 1332, Sec. 1105.703    \62\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., The Infra Grant Program, available at704https://www.transportation.gov/grants/infra-grant-program.705    \63\ Id.706---------------------------------------------------------------------------707    IIJA authorized up to $10.8 billion for INFRA over the708period of FY 2022 through FY 2026.\64\ In FY 2022, DOT awarded709approximately $1.5 billion to freight and highway710infrastructure projects.\65\ DOT consolidated the INFRA grant711program into a single notice of funding opportunity with the712National Infrastructure Project Assistance grants program713(Mega) and the Rural Surface Transportation Grant program714(Rural).\66\ This combined NOFO is known as the Multimodal715Project Discretionary Grant Opportunity (MPDG) and allows716applicants to apply through one application and a common set of717criteria.\67\ DOT issued a NOFO for the MPDG in June 2023,718anticipating the MPDG will award between $5.45 billion and719$5.75 billion from FY 2023 and FY 2024 funding, including720between $3 billion and $3.1 billion for INFRA.\68\ In October7212024, DOT announced $4.2 billion in funding from INFRA and the722Mega grant program.\69\723---------------------------------------------------------------------------724    \64\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act725Authorized Funding, available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/726dot.gov/files/2022-01/DOT_Infrastructure_727Investment_and_Jobs_Act_Authorization_Table_%28IIJA%29.pdf; see728Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects.729    \65\ Tom Ichniowski, US DOT Picks Winners for $1.5B in INFRA730Grants, Engineering News Record, (Sept. 15, 2022), available at https:/731/www.enr.com/articles/54806-us-dot-picks-winners-for-15b-in-infra-732grants.733    \66\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Railroad Admin, Competitive734Discretionary Grant Programs, (last updated Dec. 11, 2023), available735at https://railroads.dot.gov/grants-loans/competitive-discretionary-736grant-programs/competitive-discretionary-grant-programs; see multimodal737projects discretionary grant program.738    \67\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Off. of the Sec'y, NOFO for the DOT FY7392023-2024 MPDG, (last updated June 26, 2023), available at https://740www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-06/MPDG%20NOFO%202023-7412024%20Final_0.pdf [hereinafter MPDG NOFO].742    \68\ Id.743    \69\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., INVESTING IN AMERICA: Biden-Harris744Administration Announces More Than $4.2 Billion From the Bipartisan745Infrastructure Law for Transformational, National Infrastructure746Projects, available at https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/747investing-america-biden-harris-administration-announces-more-42-748billion-bipartisan.749---------------------------------------------------------------------------750751              IV. REQUIREMENTS OF FRA ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS752753    There are several requirements that stakeholders must754follow to access and utilize available Federal financial755assistance. Some grantees may find meeting Federal requirements756challenging. Below is a summation of some of these requirements757and the challenges non-traditional DOT grantees face.758759NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT760761    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires762Federal agencies to assess the impacts of their proposed763decisions on the physical and human environment.\70\ NEPA764provides a framework for environmental planning and decision765making by Federal agencies.\71\ Under NEPA, if the agency766determines an action will not have a significant environmental767impact, the agency may issue a categorical exclusion (CE)768exempting the activity from further NEPA analysis.769---------------------------------------------------------------------------770    \70\ Fed. Railroad Admin., Environment FRA & NEPA, available at771https://railroads.dot.gov/rail-network-development/environment/772environment.773    \71\ Id.774---------------------------------------------------------------------------775    If impacts on the environment are not clearly established,776FRA will conduct an Environmental Assessment (EA) that helps an777agency document and determine whether the impacts of a proposed778action are significant.\72\ If upon investigation, the agency779determines the impacts are minimal, the agency may issue a780Finding of No Significant Impact. If the EA affirms significant781impacts, an agency will require an environmental impact782statement which must identify and quantify potential impacts.783The agency must also propose alternatives to the proposed784action.785---------------------------------------------------------------------------786    \72\ Fed. Railroad Admin., FRA & NEPA Documentation, available at787https://railroads.dot.gov/rail-network-development/environment/fra-788nepa-documentation.789---------------------------------------------------------------------------790    Rail infrastructure projects conducted on existing rights791of way, or those that involve the construction, reconfiguration792or expansion of existing facilities can qualify for a CE.\73\793The American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association794believes creating more clarity around when CEs qualify would795save its members time and resources.\74\796---------------------------------------------------------------------------797    \73\ Fed. Railroad Admin., Additional Information on Categorical798Exclusions, https://railroads.dot.gov/rail-network-development/799environment/additional-information-categorical-exclusions.800    \74\ Regulatory and Legislative Priority Items for the Short Line801Freight Railroad Industry Prepared for the new Trump Administration's802Federal Railroad Administration by the American Short Line and Regional803Railroad Association. (Feb. 2025), [hereinafter ``Short Line804Priorities''] (on file with Comm.).805---------------------------------------------------------------------------806    In addition, FRA grantees may seek opportunities to adopt807other agency's CE as implemented by other DOT and Federal808agencies that regularly interact with rail. These other non-DOT809agencies include the United States Army Corps of Engineers and810the Surface Transportation Board.\75\ The Fiscal Responsibility811Act of 2023 was signed into law on June 3, 2023.\76\ Section812109 of the law allows agencies to voluntarily adopt the CEs813listed by another agency provided the adoption is814appropriate.\77\815---------------------------------------------------------------------------816    \75\ Id.817    \76\ Pub, L. 118-5, 137 Stat 44.818    \77\ Id.819---------------------------------------------------------------------------820821USE OF PRE-AWARD AUTHORITY822823    Pre-award costs are incurred after the award selection824announcement date, but before the grant is obligated.\78\825Recipients may incur costs using non-Federal dollars at their826own risk for later reimbursement or credit once the funds are827obligated. For rail grants managed by the FRA, grant recipients828must request pre-award authority (PAA) from the FRA. The829American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association believes830allowing recipients to segment activities, such as conducting831engineering analysis and the acquisition of materials may help832serve as a hedge against material inflation and reduce the833amount of time to begin construction.\79\834---------------------------------------------------------------------------835    \78\ Fed. Railroad Admin., Federal Railroad Administration Answers836to Frequently Asked Questions about Pre-Award Authority (Sept. 22,8372023), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/8382023-09/Pre-Award%20Authority%20FAQs%20-%209.22.23_PDFa.pdf.839    \79\ Short Line Priorities, supra note 65.840---------------------------------------------------------------------------841842SECTION 106 HISTORICAL PRESERVATION REVIEWS843844    The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires845agencies to consider the impact of their actions on historic846properties.\80\ Section 106 of the NHPA applies to all projects847receiving a Federal grant or requiring a Federal permit848regardless if they qualify for a categorical exclusion under849NEPA. Section 11504 of the FAST Act initiated the creation of850an exemption from Section 106 Advisory Council on Historic851Preservation (ACHP) review for railroad rights-of-way852consistent with the exemption for interstate highways.\81\ The853highways exemption recognizes that ``the integrity of the854system depends on continuing maintenance and upgrades so that855it can continue to move traffic across great distances.'' \82\856The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) issued a857general exemption from Section 106 for the Federal highway858system except for limited number of individual elements in the859system which were so designated by the Federal Highways860Administration.\83\861---------------------------------------------------------------------------862    \80\ 54 USC Sec.  300101.863    \81\ Pub. L. No. 114-94, Sec.  11504, 129 Stat. 1693; see also 70864Fed. Reg. 11,928 (Mar. 10, 2005).865    \82\ 70 Fed. Reg. 11,928 (Mar. 10, 2005).866    \83\ 70 Fed. Reg. 11,928-9.867---------------------------------------------------------------------------868    The ACHP adopted an ``activity-based approach'' and a869``property-based approach for rail'' that differs from the870exemption granted highways.\84\ If Federally-funded projects871are outside of the list of exemptions, railroads can instead872pre-identify projects as historically significant.\85\ That873process requires railroads to conduct a review and examination874of properties involved in a project to identify and qualify875what could be considered of historical significance. This876review is often conducted by third party contractors with877specific expertise. Conducting this type of Section 106 review878can be costly. Short line railroads may find the process cost879prohibitive.880---------------------------------------------------------------------------881    \84\ Id.882    \85\ Id.883---------------------------------------------------------------------------884    ACHP is an independent Federal agency created to implement885HHPA. ACHP is comprised of 24 statutorily designated members886from Federal agencies, preservation organizations, tribes and887expert private citizens who carry out, in part, historic888preservation case reviews and the Section 106 process.\86\889---------------------------------------------------------------------------890    \86\ Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, About the ACHP,891available at https://www.achp.gov/about.892---------------------------------------------------------------------------893894                              V. WITNESSES895896     LMr. Matthew Dietrich, Executive Director, Ohio897Rail Development Commission898     LThe Hon. Garrett Eucalitto, Commissioner,899Connecticut Department of Transportation, on behalf of American900Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials901     LMr. Kevin Hicks, P.E., Senior Vice President,902TranSystems, on behalf of National Railroad Contractors903Association904     LMs. Kristin Bevil, General Counsel and Chief905Legal Officer, Pinsly Railroad Company, on behalf of American906Short Line and Regional Railroad Association907908 AMERICA BUILDS: IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL909                            RAIL ASSISTANCE910911                              ----------912913                          TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2025914915                  House of Representatives,916Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous917                                         Materials,918            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,919                                                    Washington, DC.920    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m. in921Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Daniel Webster922(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.923    Mr. Webster of Florida. The Subcommittee on Railroads,924Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials will come to order.925    I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to926declare a recess at any time during today's hearing.927    Without objection, show that ordered.928    I ask unanimous consent that the Members not on the929subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee in930today's hearing and ask questions.931    Without objection, show that ordered.932    As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document in the933record, please also email it to DocumentsTI@mail.house.gov.934    I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening935statement for 5 minutes.936937OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL WEBSTER OF FLORIDA, CHAIRMAN,938 SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS939940    Mr. Webster of Florida. Most of us are familiar with the941unfortunate and unnecessary reputation of our country for942building and repairing infrastructure. It takes too long, costs943too much.944    Many of what we would today call megaprojects, like the945original Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge and the Triborough946Bridge in New York, took just a few years to build. Hoover Dam947was completed in just 5 years.948    While delays to large projects garner all the media949attention, many of the same laws, processes, and redtape that950add years to project completion time and costs also plague951smaller projects initiated by both freight and passenger952service carriers.953    Recognizing the importance of a safe, efficient, and954reliable freight and passenger rail transportation system,955Congress has authorized several programs to assist those956carriers who, owing to their size or market segments, lack the957resources of larger operators to invest substantial funds in958their infrastructure needs. These include programs like CRISI,959which serves as a vital source of funding to assist short line960railroads to rehabilitate and expand infrastructure necessary961for their mission to provide first- and last-mile freight962service.963    Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of these964programs is the purpose of today's hearing and a goal as the965committee works to reauthorize Department of Transportation966surface transportation programs.967    Additionally, Federal infrastructure funding should support968core programs and the construction of infrastructure.969    The Trump administration has inherited a backlog of more970than 3,000 unobligated DOT grants. Responsibly, the971administration took the time to review these grants to ensure972the best use of taxpayer dollars. Today, the Department973announced it approved more than 180 grants totaling $3.2974billion. I look forward to working with the administration to975reduce the Biden backlog in a timely manner and ensure that976Federal grants are focused on improving critical977infrastructure.978    Again, I look forward to learning the views of today's979witnesses.980    [Mr. Webster of Florida's prepared statement follows:]981982Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel Webster, a Representative in Congress983  from the State of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Railroads,984                   Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials985    Most of us are familiar with the unfortunate and unnecessary986reputation of our country for building and repairing infrastructure: it987takes too long and costs too much.988    Many of what we would today call ``mega projects,'' like the989original Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge and the Triborough Bridge in990New York, took just a few years to build. The Hoover Dam was completed991in just five years.992    While delays to large projects garner all the media attention, many993of the same laws, processes, and red tape that add years to project994completion time and costs also plague smaller projects initiated by995both freight and passenger service carriers.996    Recognizing the importance of a safe, efficient, and reliable997freight and passenger rail transportation system, Congress has998authorized several programs to assist those carriers who, owing to999their size or market segments, lack the resources of larger operators1000to invest substantial funds in their infrastructure.1001    These include programs like CRISI, which serves as a vital source1002of funding to assist short line railroads to rehabilitate and expand1003infrastructure necessary for their mission to provide ``first and last1004mile'' freight service.1005    Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of these programs is the1006purpose of today's hearing and a goal as the Committee works to1007reauthorize Department of Transportation surface transportation1008programs.1009    Additionally, federal infrastructure funding should support core1010programs and the construction of infrastructure.1011    The Trump Administration inherited a backlog of more than 3,0001012unobligated DOT grants. Responsibly, the Administration took the time1013to review these grants to ensure the best use of taxpayer dollars.1014    Today, the Department announced it approved more than 180 grants1015totaling over $3 billion.1016    I look forward to working with the Administration to reduce the1017Biden backlog in a timely manner and ensure that federal grants are1018focused on improving critical infrastructure.10191020    Mr. Webster of Florida. I now recognize Ranking Member1021Titus for 5 minutes for an opening remark.1022    You are recognized.10231024OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DINA TITUS OF NEVADA, RANKING MEMBER,1025 SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS10261027    Ms. Titus. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for1028holding this hearing.1029    Through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, this committee1030made some historic investments in passenger rail, and we are1031seeing the impact of that all across the country. Certainly, we1032are seeing it in Las Vegas. Thanks to a $3 billion grant from1033the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail,1034Brightline West has broken ground on a new high-speed train1035between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. I have been working to bring1036high-speed rail to the Southwest for many years, and I am1037excited that it is becoming a reality.1038    I am also proud that this project is creating good-paying1039union jobs. Rail union workers are building Brightline West,1040and they are going to play a role in operating and maintaining1041it once it is in service. In fact, it has been estimated that1042the project will create 35,000 construction jobs and 1,0001043permanent jobs. And that is nothing to sneeze at.1044    While Brightline West is a success story, I know it is not1045the only model we need to support as we work to improve1046intercity passenger rail. We have got to remember that there is1047not a passenger rail system in the world, in the whole world,1048that operates without some Government investment in capital1049projects.1050    I believe we need to provide robust funding for Amtrak and1051competitive grants in the next transportation authorization1052bill. We don't want to lose all the progress that we have made1053over the past 5 years, and that is what will happen if we don't1054invest. Amtrak services are found in red and blue districts,1055and I am glad to see that some of my Republican colleagues1056voted in favor of amendments to protect Amtrak funding for the1057Northeast Corridor and for the North Carolina rail system1058during last week's markup in this committee.1059    There are many communities across the U.S. that will1060benefit from sustained Federal rail investments. The Federal1061Railroad Administration has identified 69 corridors in 441062States as ready for additional investment. These are in many of1063our districts, with proposed lines, extensions to existing1064routes, or improvements to the rail service in 49 districts in1065this committee alone, 49 in this committee alone.1066    Now, in addition to helping expand passenger rail service,1067Federal rail grants also make our rail networks safer. For1068example, the Railroad Crossing Elimination program helps1069address safety concerns at grade crossings. There are over10702,000 incidents and 200 fatalities at these dangerous1071intersections every year. We can and must do better. The $31072billion Congress allocated to this program is helping eliminate1073these problems, or at least make them safer across the country.1074    I would like to use our time today to hear from our1075witnesses about how investments from the Bipartisan1076Infrastructure Law are improving rail services in your1077communities or with your systems, and I also welcome1078suggestions for how we can work together to speed up the grant1079implementation process. Whether through improving the1080obligation process or ensuring that FRA has sufficient staff to1081execute these grants, I believe that targeted change could help1082speed up that grant implementation and help move the systems1083forward.1084    So, I look forward to working with you, Mr. Webster,1085Chairman Graves, and Ranking Member Larsen on these issues as1086the surface transportation reauthorization process moves1087forward.1088    So thank you, and I yield back.1089    [Ms. Titus' prepared statement follows:]10901091  Prepared Statement of Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress1092     from the State of Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on1093             Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials1094    Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.1095    Through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, this Committee made1096historic investments in passenger rail, and we are certainly seeing the1097impacts of those investments in Las Vegas. Thanks to a $3 billion grant1098from Federal State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail, Brightline1099West broke ground last April on a new high-speed train service from Las1100Vegas to Los Angeles.1101    I have been working to bring high speed rail to Southern Nevada for1102decades, and I am excited that it is finally becoming a reality. I am1103also proud that the project is creating good-paying, union jobs. Rail1104union workers are building the Brightline West line and will play a1105role in operating and maintaining it once it is in service. Overall,1106the project is expected to create 35,000 construction jobs and 1,0001107permanent jobs.1108    And while Brightline West is a success story, I know that it is not1109the only model we need to support as we work to improve intercity1110passenger rail service across the United States. There is not a1111passenger rail system in the world that operates without some1112government investment in capital projects.1113    We need to provide robust funding for Amtrak and competitive grants1114in the next surface transportation reauthorization so we do not lose1115all the progress we have been making over the past five years. Amtrak1116services Red and Blue Districts alike, and I was glad to see some of my1117Republican colleagues vote in favor of amendments to protect Amtrak1118funding for the Northeast Corridor and for North Carolina rail1119investments during last week's markup in this Committee.1120    There are many communities across the United States that will1121benefit from sustained federal rail investments. The Federal Railroad1122Administration has identified 69 corridors in 44 states as ready for1123additional investment. These corridors are in many of our districts,1124with proposed lines, extensions to existing routes or improvements to1125passenger rail service in 49 districts in this Committee alone.1126    In addition to helping expand passenger rail service, federal rail1127grants also make our rail networks safer. For example, the Railroad1128Crossing Elimination Program helps address safety concerns at grade1129crossings. There are over 2,000 incidents and 200 fatalities at these1130dangerous intersections each year. We can and must do better. The $31131billion Congress allocated to this program is helping eliminate or make1132these intersections safer across the United States.1133    I would like to use our time today to hear from our witnesses about1134how investments from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law are improving1135rail service in your communities. I also welcome suggestions for how we1136can work together to speed up the grant implementation process. Whether1137it be through improving the obligation process or ensuring that the FRA1138has sufficient staff to execute these grants, I believe targeted1139changes could speed up grant implementation.1140    I look forward to working with Chairman Graves, Ranking Member1141Larsen, and Subcommittee Chairman Webster on these issues during the1142surface transportation reauthorization process.1143    I yield back.11441145    Mr. Webster of Florida. I now recognize the ranking member1146of the full committee.1147    Mr. Larsen, you are recognized for 5 minutes.11481149 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING1150     MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE11511152    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair Webster and1153Ranking Member Titus, for holding today's hearing.1154    Today's hearing is about efficiency and effectiveness in1155delivering rail improvements. I support these goals, and yet I1156am concerned this administration is more worried about the1157rhetoric than rolling up its sleeves to get there. In his first1158100 days, the President has driven up costs and cut critical1159services. We have seen chaos and confusion in the constant1160freezing and unfreezing of transportation grants, attacks on1161the workforce that deliver these transportation investments,1162and conditions placed on grants that have nothing to do with1163transportation.1164    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was a transformational1165investment in many things, including passenger rail. After 501166years of underinvestment, Amtrak and the recipients of rail1167competitive grants can plan and succeed, thanks to 5 years of1168guaranteed funding for capital projects. This funding has1169allowed Amtrak to address decades of deferred maintenance and1170begin construction on long-delayed capital projects. This1171investment has allowed Brightline West to begin construction,1172as Ranking Member Titus has highlighted.1173    Funding has been announced to support safety improvements1174all over the country, including my district. In early 2025, the1175city of Everett was awarded $18 million to eliminate two1176existing crossings with Burlington Northern Santa Fe through1177the construction of an overpass and roundabout near the Smith1178Island terminal. In 2023, the city of Burlington was awarded $21179million in a planning grant to identify which of the city's 161180at-grade crossings is most suitable for grade separation.1181    Nationally, these investments helped create 1.7 million1182construction and manufacturing jobs across the country, and1183these are jobs with good wages and benefits. That is why it is1184hard to understand why the administration has, over the past1185100 days, halted progress and put millions of dollars, hundreds1186of thousands of jobs, and thousands of projects at risk.1187Secretary Duffy testified last month before the Senate1188Environment and Public Works Committee that roughly 3,2001189previously awarded projects were on hold.1190    Now, the BIL invested more than $48 billion in 445 projects1191to improve rail safety and expand passenger rail travel1192nationwide, and still the administration has refused to tell us1193which of these projects are on hold.1194    In the Pacific Northwest, Washington State and Oregon are1195committed to advancing the Cascadia high-speed rail project.1196This project will connect people and communities, increase our1197regional economic competitiveness, and improve the quality of1198life across the region with high-speed rail between Vancouver,1199BC, Seattle, and Portland. It will connect workers to good1200jobs, it will increase access to affordable housing, and offer1201greater mobility for almost 10 million people.1202    Now, similarly, the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity1203Passenger Rail is matching billions of dollars in State and1204private investment in passenger rail improvements, including1205bridges and tunnels on the Northeast Corridor.1206    The BIL is improving transportation in every State and1207every congressional district, which is why it is concerning the1208administration is trying to undermine that progress.1209    Just last month, Secretary Duffy reduced previously awarded1210grants for rail infrastructure in New York, Newark, Dallas, and1211Houston. He also sent a letter to put all Federal grant1212recipients on notice that previously awarded grants will be1213reviewed and possibly paused to ensure they align with the1214administration's priorities. If jobs and investments aren't the1215administration's priorities, what are?1216    Halting the flow of benefits from appropriations already1217approved by Congress is a strange way to launch the golden age1218of infrastructure. It is not efficient, it is not effective.1219Instead, we should be working on a bipartisan basis to keep it1220going.1221    Meanwhile, the Department continues to signal that mass1222layoffs are coming, even though U.S. DOT staff who administer1223grants are there to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the1224money Congress allocates. The FRA is a grantmaking agency.1225Approximately 2.2 percent of its budget is for salaries and1226benefits. Federal workforce cuts provide minimal cost1227reductions and will make the Department less efficient.1228    Moving forward, public investment is vital to building a1229truly national intercity passenger rail system. Every passenger1230rail system in the world developed with some form of public1231investment. Highways, transit, airports, and harbor maintenance1232projects have access to dedicated revenue, and it is time that1233we provide long-term funding certainty for intercity passenger1234rail.1235    I am committed to building on the successes of the1236investments in the BIL and ensuring that this committee can say1237that America builds rail at hearings for many years to come.1238    I want to thank the witnesses for being here, and I look1239forward to the discussion.1240    With that, I yield back.1241    [Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]12421243 Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress1244    from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on1245                   Transportation and Infrastructure1246    Thank you, Chairman Webster and Ranking Member Titus, for holding1247today's hearing.1248    Today's hearing is about efficiency and effectiveness in delivering1249rail improvements. I support these goals, and yet I am concerned this1250Administration is more worried about rhetoric than rolling up its1251sleeves to get us there.1252    In his first 100 days, President Trump has driven up costs and cut1253critical services.1254    We have seen chaos and confusion in the constant freezing and1255unfreezing of transportation grants, attacks on the workforce that1256delivers these transportation investments, and conditions placed on1257grants that have nothing to do with transportation.1258    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was a transformational investment1259in passenger rail.1260    After 50 years of underinvestment, Amtrak and the recipients of1261rail competitive grants can plan and succeed thanks to five years of1262guaranteed funding for capital projects.1263    This funding has allowed Amtrak to address decades of deferred1264maintenance and begin construction on long-delayed capital projects.1265    This investment has allowed Brightline West to begin construction,1266as Ranking Member Titus highlighted.1267    Funding has been announced to support safety improvements across1268the country, including in my district:1269      In early 2025, the City of Everett was awarded $181270million to eliminate two crossings with Burlington Northern Santa Fe1271through the construction of an overpass and roundabout near the Smith1272Island terminal.1273      In 2023, the City of Burlington was awarded a $2 million1274planning grant to identify which of the city's 16 at-grade crossings is1275most suitable for grade separation.12761277    Nationally, these investments helped create 1.7 million1278construction and manufacturing jobs across the country.1279    These are jobs with good wages and benefits.1280    That's why it is hard to understand why the Administration has,1281over the past hundred days, halted progress and put millions of1282dollars, hundreds of thousands of job, and thousands of projects at1283risk.1284    Secretary Duffy testified last month before the Senate Environment1285and Public Works Committee that roughly 3,200 previously awarded1286projects were on hold.1287    The BIL invested more than $48 billion in 445 projects to improve1288rail safety and expand passenger rail travel nationwide.1289    Still, the Administration refuses to even tell us which of these1290projects are on hold.1291    In the Pacific Northwest, Washington state and Oregon are committed1292to advancing the Cascadia high-speed rail project.1293    Cascadia will connect people and communities, increase economic1294competitiveness, and improve the quality of life across the region with1295high-speed rail between Vancouver, B.C., Seattle, and Portland, Oregon.1296It will connect workers in my district to good jobs, increase access to1297affordable housing and offer greater mobility for almost ten million1298people.1299    Similarly, the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger1300Rail is matching billions of dollars in state and private investment in1301passenger rail improvements including bridges and tunnels on the1302Northeast Corridor.1303    The BIL is improving transportation in every state and every1304Congressional district, which is why it's concerning that the1305administration is trying to undermine the BIL's progress.1306    Just last month, Secretary Duffy reduced previously awarded grants1307for rail infrastructure in New York, Newark, Dallas, and Houston. He1308also sent a letter to put all federal grant recipients on notice that1309previously awarded grants will be reviewed, and possibly paused, to1310ensure they align with this Administration's priorities. If jobs and1311investments aren't the Administration's priorities, what are?1312    Halting the flow of benefits from appropriations already approved1313by Congress is a strange way to launch the golden age of1314infrastructure.1315    It is not efficient. It is not effective. Instead, we should be1316working on a bipartisan basis to keep it going.1317    Meanwhile, the Department continues to signal that mass layoffs are1318coming even though USDOT staff who administer grants are there to1319prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the money Congress allocates.1320    The FRA is a grantmaking agency. Approximately 2.2 percent of its1321budget is for salaries and benefits. Federal workforce cuts provide1322minimal cost reductions and make the Department less efficient.1323    Moving forward, public investment is vital to building a truly1324national intercity passenger rail system. Every passenger rail system1325in the world developed with some form of public investment.1326    Highways, transit, airports, and harbor maintenance projects have1327access to dedicated revenue. It's time to provide long-term funding1328certainty for intercity passenger rail.1329    I am committed to building on the successes of the investments in1330the BIL and ensuring this Committee can say that ``America Builds1331Rail'' at hearings for many years to come.1332    Thank you to the witnesses for being here, and I look forward to1333the discussion.1334    Mr. Webster of Florida. I, too, would like to welcome the1335witnesses, and thank you for spending your time to come and1336share with us your insights. And I look forward to hearing what1337you have to say.1338    Briefly, I would like to explain our lighting system. There1339are three lights. Green is go, yellow is slow down, it is time1340to end, and red means stop. Pretty simple.1341    I ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full statements1342be included in the record.1343    Without objection, show that ordered.1344    I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing1345remain open until such time as the witnesses have provided1346answers to any questions that might be submitted in writing.1347    Without objection, show that ordered.1348    I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open1349for 15 days for any additional comments and information1350submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record1351of today's hearing.1352    Without objection, show that ordered.1353    As your written testimony has been made a part of the1354record, the subcommittee asks you to limit your remarks to 51355minutes.1356    We will start with Mr. Dietrich.1357    You are recognized for 5 minutes.13581359 TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW DIETRICH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OHIO RAIL1360 DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION; HON. GARRETT EUCALITTO, COMMISSIONER,1361  CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE1362   AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION1363OFFICIALS; KEVIN D. HICKS, P.E., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND RAIL1364& FREIGHT MARKET SECTOR LEADER, GANNETT FLEMING TRANSYSTEMS, ON1365 BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL RAILROAD CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE1366ASSOCIATION; AND KRISTIN BEVIL, GENERAL COUNSEL AND CHIEF LEGAL1367  OFFICER, PINSLY RAILROAD COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN1368          SHORT LINE AND REGIONAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION13691370 TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW DIETRICH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OHIO RAIL1371                     DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION13721373    Mr. Dietrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member1374Titus, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Matthew1375Dietrich, and I am the executive director of the Ohio Rail1376Development Commission.1377    We are part of the Ohio Department of Transportation, and1378we work on projects involving rail infrastructure, including1379short line grants, rail coordination for highway projects, and1380grade crossing safety. We use State, private, and Federal1381funding, including FHWA formula funding and FRA discretionary1382grants for our work. We have used both the RCE and CRISI grant1383programs to supplement and leverage our State programs, a short1384line program, and a grade crossing safety program started by1385Governor Mike DeWine. We used the Governor's safety funds to1386match RCE funding specifically for grade separations, and we1387use our FHWA section 130 funds for at-grade crossings that1388cannot be separated.1389    First, you have my written remarks, so I would like to1390summarize, but I hope to leave you with two takeaways.1391    The RCE and CRISI grant programs are critical to the1392improvement of the freight rail infrastructure and safety. I1393can say without these programs, many of the 24 projects that we1394have received funding for just simply would not have happened1395without the Federal programs.1396    Second, the more we can use standard project delivery1397processes that State DOTs around the country use to deliver1398other projects, the faster we will be able to complete them.1399With that, I have offered the following suggestions to1400streamline the project delivery.1401    As you all know, grade separations are large projects that1402take a long time. Therefore, the applicants use the funding1403they have available, which is often State or FHWA formula1404funds. Because modal agencies' project development processes1405differ slightly, there is a great deal of time spent1406retrofitting these applications and creating barriers to1407development. This work could be avoided if the FRA would accept1408other modal agency standards and processes, especially when it1409comes to NEPA.1410    The FRA could also provide pre-award authority letters with1411the notification of award to grantees. There is a natural lag1412time with these Federal grants from NOFO to submission to1413notification to the kickoff meeting. My organization has taken1414advantage of pre-award authority letters, but even those pre-1415award authority letters require additional paperwork after the1416kickoff meeting. If the FRA could provide pre-award authority1417letters immediately with the notification of award, grant1418recipients could continue to develop these projects1419concurrently with the administrative processes.1420    The documentation for a project awarded to my organization1421is the same required for an organization that has never1422received any Federal funding. If the FRA developed a tiered1423grant process that could streamline grant administration for1424States, these projects could advance more quickly. For example,1425a great deal of the grant documentation isn't focused on the1426project, but on the governance and compliance. As a recipient1427of Federal funds in the State DOT, my entire organization is1428structured for Federal compliance. So, having separate1429documents is not only redundant, but it takes a lot of time and1430a lot of legal review.1431    Another thing is that FRA could prequalify States to1432administer grants by allowing us to take more responsibility of1433administration. And I look to the NEPA assignment as a possible1434blueprint. Many States, including Ohio, have NEPA assignment1435where we assume Federal responsibilities. If a program like1436this could be expanded to cover the administration of1437discretionary grants, we could take some burden off of our1438Federal colleagues while at the same time accelerating1439projects.1440    It was mentioned about the obligation process. The1441obligation process right now for discretionary grants is the1442same for formula funds. Formula funds: States have flexibility;1443discretionary grant projects: you don't. That means that there1444is obligation--if you have construction, it is sitting out1445there, possibly for years, as you are going through the1446process. This creates a worst case scenario. So if FRA could1447revise its obligation process to more accurately represent the1448commitments of the agency, that would add certainty and1449eliminate the need to continually revise and renegotiate grant1450agreements as we move forward.1451    Finally, consider allocating a portion of the program to1452States so we can develop the projects. Of the last award, 1231453awards, only 33 received construction funding. If we as States1454could have a small portion to develop projects, then we could1455not only develop more complete projects, but I think it would1456increase the number and quality of the application pool.1457    And please accept these comments as constructive criticism.1458We want to work together with all of you, with our FRA1459colleagues, to make this program better and a success. And1460thank you for the opportunity.1461    [Mr. Dietrich's prepared statement follows:]14621463 Prepared Statement of Matthew Dietrich, Executive Director, Ohio Rail1464                         Development Commission1465    Good morning Chairman Webster, Vice Chairman Begich, Ranking Member1466Titus, and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Matthew Dietrich. I1467am Executive Director of the Ohio Rail Development Commission, part of1468the Ohio Department of Transportation tasked with rail infrastructure1469development, rail coordination for highway projects and grade crossing1470safety. I speak from the perspective of a state department of1471transportation that routinely administers federal transportation1472funding. The Rail Commission delivers projects using both Federal1473Railroad Administration (FRA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)1474funds and both formula funds and discretionary grant awards. My1475organization has received multiple grant awards from the US Department1476of Transportation. Since 2010 the Rail Commission has been awarded and1477administered twenty-four (24) federal discretionary grants.1478    These discretionary grants, specifically Railroad Crossing1479Elimination (RCE) and Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety1480Investment (CRISI), are critical to improving freight rail1481infrastructure and safety. My organization has been successful1482leveraging private freight railroad and state funding for these1483programs to complete projects that simply would not have happened1484without the federal funding.1485    While the Rail Commission has experience with numerous federal1486discretionary grant programs funding rail infrastructure, my comments1487today focus on the FRA's RCE Program. This program shows both the1488challenges associated with federal discretionary grants but also the1489opportunities to make the process more efficient and more effective.1490First, I think it is important to note that grade crossing elimination1491projects are safety projects. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine created a state1492program to address grade crossing safety in the state. We have used1493those funds to leverage the federal RCE Program for grade separations,1494which are roadway bridges over or under rail lines. We chose this1495approach for two reasons. First, the safest crossing is one that does1496not exist and often the only way to eliminate at-grade railroad1497crossings without causing significant disruption to communities is to1498separate the roadway from the railroad. Second, we use Section 1301499funding from the FHWA to address safety issues at railroad-highway1500crossings where grade separations are not feasible.1501    Based on my agency's experience over the years, below are six ways1502that project delivery could be streamlined while still meeting all1503federal requirements:1504  Accept projects developed under the project development process of1505                      other US DOT Administrations1506    Grade separation projects are large, expensive infrastructure1507projects that, by definition, include multiple transportation modes. A1508great deal of time and resources are needed just to get a project to a1509stage that is suitable for submission of a federal grant application.1510One of the challenges with all discretionary programs is the1511uncertainty of funding. Therefore, applicants must balance the amount1512of work undertaken to develop the project with the uncertainty of the1513funding outcome, source, and timeline. Based on available funds,1514projects are often initiated following the processes of a different1515modal agency, such as the FHWA. While there are very good reasons for1516these differences in project approaches by the modal Administrations,1517in some cases, these differences create barriers to project1518implementation. Much work is needed to determine how these projects1519initiated following the project development process of one USDOT1520Administration can be retrofitted into the process of another USDOT1521Administration. This effort adds unnecessary work to both the1522application process as well as the project development process after1523the project is selected and funds are awarded. The Rail Commission won1524an RCE grant for a grade separation in Fostoria, Ohio, in the first1525year of the program. Between the time of application submission and the1526award announcement, we secured additional FHWA funding through standard1527Ohio DOT programs to advance the planning and engineering work and1528progressed that work following FHWA procedures. Rather than accelerate1529the project, the additional funding and work created delay and resulted1530in FRA determining that $70,000 of the RCE award was no longer eligible1531because we had progressed the work. It was the first instance in my1532career that identifying more funding for a project became an obstacle1533to overcome. This work could be avoided if the FRA accepted other1534approved USDOT Administrations' processes, such as NEPA, to develop1535projects.1536     Provide Pre-Award Authority Letters with notification of award1537    The time lags between application due dates, award notifications1538and kick-off meetings create project downtime that could be utilized by1539grant recipients to advance projects. My organization has taken the1540opportunity to seek pre-award authority letters from the FRA for our1541projects, but even this requires the submission of information to the1542FRA beyond the application. The statutory language of the RCE Program1543allows project development work initiated after the creation date of1544the program in the IIJA to be an eligible part of the project. At the1545current time, the Rail Commission has five grant awards under this1546program. Work has stopped on three of the projects because we have not1547received pre-award authority. These delays could be avoided if the FRA1548provided a pre-award authority letter with the notification of an1549award. While not full obligation of funding, these pre-award letters1550allow grant recipients to continue to develop these projects1551concurrently with the administrative processes. For several CRISI1552projects, the Rail Commission has been able to use pre-award authority1553from the FRA to purchase materials and conduct NEPA work while the rest1554of the project documentation is finalized. This process not only1555allowed the projects to advance more quickly but also mitigated some of1556the impacts of inflation on material costs. At the current time, we1557have a RCE award for a grade separation in Circleville, Ohio. Despite1558the fact that we have non-FRA funding allocated to the project, work on1559the project has stopped because we would jeopardize the FRA funding1560without pre-award authority.1561  Streamline the grant documentation process for state DOT recipients1562    My fellow DOT colleagues are entrusted to administer billions of1563federal transportation dollars following processes that have been1564developed over, and informed by, decades of experience. Yet, the1565documentation for a project awarded to my organization is the same1566documentation that is required for another entity that has never1567administered federal funding. If the FRA developed a tiered grant1568agreement process that considers the recipients' experience and1569authority administering federal funding, these projects could advance1570more quickly. For instance, lengthy legal review is required for grant1571documentation that is not related to the actual project but focused on1572governance and compliance. As a recipient of federal funding, our1573entire organizational structure is designed to comply with federal1574regulations so the need to have standalone documents is redundant and1575creates additional steps unrelated to project delivery.1576                 Prequalify states to administer grants1577    Another way for the FRA to streamline project delivery is the1578creation of a pre-qualification program for states to assume more1579direct responsibility for project delivery after award. A precedent and1580possible blueprint for this suggestion is National Environmental Policy1581Act (NEPA) Assignment. Many states, including Ohio, have received1582authority from US DOT Administrations to assume the federal1583responsibilities regarding NEPA. In Ohio, we have NEPA Assignment for1584both Federal Highway and Federal Rail programs. Expanding this program1585to encompass the administration of discretionary grants would reduce1586the burden on federal staff while simultaneously allowing states to1587more quickly advance awarded projects. For example, now that Ohio has1588NEPA Assignment for FRA projects, we have and continue to modify our1589programmatic agreements with resource agencies to include rail1590infrastructure projects and we are updating our internal manuals and1591computer systems to process rail projects. This work will remove the1592uniqueness of the administering FRA discretionary grants and allow us1593to use the standard project delivery processes that ODOT uses to1594deliver its overall program of projects.1595                   Reconsider the obligation process1596    Until grants are federally obligated, there is risk to all parties.1597In the case of Ohio's projects, almost all grant awards include1598construction funding. Historically, federal transportation funding for1599construction is not obligated until NEPA clearance is achieved. This is1600not an issue for traditional federal formula funds to states because1601the states have flexibility to adjust budgets to match project1602schedules. However, discretionary grants are project specific. The1603funding cannot be flexed by the recipients to other projects that might1604be on an accelerated timeline. The result is that for discretionary1605grant awards, portions of federal grant awards are left committed but1606unobligated for years. Because all of our infrastructure grants include1607construction funding, we currently have over $150 million in1608unobligated grant funds even though we are actively working on many of1609those projects. This creates a worst-case scenario for these projects:1610the grantee must develop the project without certainty of funding even1611after award and FRA appears to have significant balances of unused1612funding. If the FRA obligation process were revised to more accurately1613represent the commitments of the agency, such as entering into grant1614agreements and obligating funding earlier in the process, the certainty1615would provide assurance to grantees and accelerate work by eliminating1616the need to continually revise and renegotiate grant documents to move1617to the next step in the process.1618              Allocation to states for project development1619    In addition to the process changes I have suggested, an additional1620step to advance projects more efficiently would be to allocate a1621portion of program funding to states to develop projects. As I stated1622earlier, these are large infrastructure projects that span multiple1623federal fiscal years. I think it is telling that of the 123 awards from1624the FY 23-24 RCE Program, just 34 received construction funding.1625Allocating a portion of the funding to states based on criteria such as1626railroad mileage and population would accomplish two goals: allow1627states to develop projects on timelines that are not dictated by the1628next Notice of Funding Opportunity and improve the quality and1629readiness of discretionary grant applications that are submitted to the1630FRA for funding. The Rail Commission is currently using the one-time1631state funding provided by Governor DeWine's Administration for grade1632crossing safety to conduct project development activities for potential1633RCE project applications. Allocation of funding to states would allow1634us to further this work through the NEPA process for new projects.1635    I provide these comments not as criticism of the US DOT but as1636suggestions from someone with decades of experience administering1637federal transportation funding to help collectively move these critical1638safety projects forward in the quickest, most efficient way possible.1639While my observations today are focused on the RCE Program, many of1640these recommendations can also be applied to other federal rail funding1641programs.1642    Thank you for the opportunity to offer these suggestions and I am1643happy to answer any questions.16441645    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.1646    Mr. Eucalitto.16471648TESTIMONY OF HON. GARRETT EUCALITTO, COMMISSIONER, CONNECTICUT1649    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN1650   ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS16511652    Mr. Eucalitto. Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, and1653members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to1654testify today. My name is Garrett Eucalitto, and I serve as the1655commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Transportation,1656and I am currently the president of the American Association of1657State Highway and Transportation Officials, or AASHTO. Today,1658it is my honor to testify on behalf of AASHTO, which represents1659all State departments of transportation, the District of1660Columbia, and Puerto Rico. I am proud to bring perspective from1661across the country and share what we are experiencing in1662Connecticut.1663    Transportation is more than pavement and steel. It is a1664force multiplier for nearly every aspect of our lives. It is1665how people get to work and school, how we visit family and1666friends for important milestones, and how goods move from1667factories to store shelves. Transportation is the quiet1668foundation that supports our economy, our communities, and our1669way of life.1670    When our transportation system functions well, it is1671invisible. And when it doesn't, impacts are widespread. We need1672to view infrastructure as a national platform, rather than a1673one-off project. Roads in Connecticut fuel supply chains in1674Georgia. Rail lines in the Northeast support commerce across1675the Midwest. Success isn't local, it is networked. And to keep1676that network strong, we need sustained, strategic investment1677that reflects the scale and complexity of the system we are1678depending on.1679    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided1680historic investment in our rail transportation system, with1681$102 billion in Federal rail funding from fiscal years 20221682through 2026. This infusion of investment has been critical to1683State DOT passenger and freight rail efforts. Years of deferred1684projects are now finally moving forward. Much of the railroad1685infrastructure in our country was built in the 1800s and has1686been neglected for generations.1687    The Fed-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail1688Grant Program has been instrumental in tackling many of these1689repair backlogs, boosting system performance, and fueling the1690modernization of our rail services, creating a faster, more1691connected transportation network. For example, in Connecticut,1692we are making progress replacing our aging, heavily used,1693movable railroad bridges, including the 129-year-old Norwalk1694River Bridge, known as the WALK Bridge. About a decade ago, the1695WALK Bridge sustained numerous catastrophic mechanical failures1696which crippled the entire Northeast Corridor. Now, thanks to1697the Federal funding, a replacement project is underway, and we1698will no longer have to fear the impacts to passenger and1699freight traffic because of another mechanical failure.1700    Bold investments like these will transform passenger rail1701service, improve the reliability of freight rail, and ensure1702people and goods can travel safely and quickly throughout our1703country. None of this would be possible without dedicated,1704sustained Federal support. We need reliable, predictable1705funding to plan decades' worth of capital improvements. Fits1706and starts of funding make it difficult to plan and implement1707any project. This wouldn't be acceptable on our highway side,1708and it shouldn't be acceptable on the railroad side.1709    Without formula funding like highway and transit1710infrastructure, our railroad investments are dependent on1711discretionary grant programs. This makes us more attuned to1712opportunities to improve the grants application process and1713administrative procedures. Duplicative permitting requirements1714and convoluted regulatory environments can delay the delivery1715of much-needed rail projects, which ultimately drives up costs.1716While it is not unique to the railroad sector due to the1717difficulties working in an active rail territory, the impact1718can be more pronounced. This inclusion of a dedicated rail1719title in the next surface transportation reauthorization bill1720will be critical to maintaining the current momentum of State1721DOT passenger and freight rail efforts.1722    But without administrative changes to improve the1723efficiency of our grant programs and legislative changes to1724eliminate costly, redundant regulatory hurdles, project1725sponsors will continue to encounter project delays, increased1726costs, and inefficiency. We do need a long-term reauthorization1727that extends current IIJA funding levels that keeps pace with1728inflation, all while giving State DOTs the ability to1729efficiently deliver projects that keep our communities safe and1730keep our economy moving.1731    AASHTO and its members are committed to implementing the1732IIJA and its historic investment in rail. With so much aging1733rail infrastructure, this is going to take a lot of time and1734effort. But we are on the way to building a future age of rail1735in America.1736    Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look1737forward to answering questions.1738    [Mr. Eucalitto's prepared statement follows:]17391740Prepared Statement of Hon. Garrett Eucalitto, Commissioner, Connecticut1741Department of Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of1742               State Highway and Transportation Officials1743                              Introduction1744    Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus and Members of the1745Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.1746    My name is Garrett Eucalitto, and I serve as Commissioner of the1747Connecticut Department of Transportation (Connecticut DOT), and I am1748currently the President of the American Association of State Highway1749and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Today, it is my honor to testify1750on behalf of AASHTO, which represents the state departments of1751transportation (state DOTs) of all 50 states, the District of Columbia,1752and Puerto Rico.1753    After earning degrees in political science, government, and1754international relations and affairs, I started my career here in1755Washington, D.C., spending six years with former Sen. Joe Lieberman,1756where I championed Connecticut's transportation priorities at the1757federal level.1758    I moved back to Connecticut to work in the state's budget office,1759overseeing infrastructure policy, and later served as Transportation1760Program Director at the National Governors Association in Washington,1761D.C., helping governors advance transportation priorities. In 2020 I1762was appointed Deputy Commissioner of the Connecticut DOT, before1763stepping into my current role as Commissioner in 2023.1764    Today, I have the privilege of leading one of Connecticut's largest1765state agencies. Our team of 3,300 dedicated professionals manages a1766nearly $3 billion budget to deliver a multimodal transportation system1767that is safe, efficient, and reliable.1768    Connecticut is a small, yet mighty state that sits within the heart1769of the Northeast Corridor, one of the busiest and economically vital1770transportation systems in the world. The Northeast Corridor region is1771home to more than 50 million people, and growing, and represents the1772world's fifth largest economy. The Northeast Corridor region1773contributes 30 percent of all U.S. jobs and generates 20 percent of the1774nation's Gross Domestic Product. Each day, this essential backbone of1775American mobility carries more than 750,000 passengers and 70 freight1776trains--serving as a lifeline for our economy and our communities. The1777Northeast Corridor, with its 457 miles of track, 17 tunnels, and over17781,100 bridges, is not only an engineering marvel of the past, but an1779American asset that demands renewed commitment today.1780    Rail is critical to the state of Connecticut, and a key component1781of Connecticut DOT's infrastructure and operations portfolio. With over1782230 route miles of passenger rail, half of which is owned by1783Connecticut DOT, and 582 miles of freight rail, with forty percent1784owned by Connecticut DOT, we invest heavily in railroad infrastructure1785to keep our economy moving. Connecticut DOT also owns over 400 pieces1786of rolling stock to support the passenger rail operations that1787crisscross the state. More than 43 million people and 2.9 million tons1788of weight move by rail within and through Connecticut annually. The1789Connecticut DOT supports a range of passenger rail services, ensuring1790access and mobility for tens of thousands of daily commuters and1791travelers across the region. Just like our interstate highway system,1792our state's rail system is a key component of the nation's overall1793transportation infrastructure and economy, and we depend on a strong1794federal partnership.1795    The nation's infrastructure is interconnected, crisscrossing state1796lines and regions. The successes playing out in Connecticut and1797throughout the country would not be possible without federal support. I1798would like to extend AASHTO's utmost gratitude to you and your1799colleagues on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee1800on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials (Subcommittee) for your1801dedicated and tireless leadership on surface transportation policy and1802in your oversight of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)1803implementation. As AASHTO members look forward to the reauthorization1804of surface transportation programs prior to the IIJA's expiration in1805September 2026, the nation's state DOTs want to thank this Subcommittee1806and Congress for the sound policy and stable funding provided through1807this multiyear bill.1808    As this Subcommittee continues to work on the reauthorization of1809surface transportation programs, I want to discuss the following topics1810as part of my testimony today:1811      Provide an overview of the IIJA rail program successes1812      Provide an overview of the challenges state DOTs have1813experienced since the passage of the IIJA1814      Provide an overview of the rail program policy1815recommendations currently being considered by AASHTO members1816Overview--Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) Rail Successes1817                             and Challenges1818    The IIJA provided historic investment in our rail transportation1819system, with $102 billion in federal rail funding from Fiscal Years18202022 through 2026.\1\ This infusion of investment has been critical to1821state DOT passenger and freight rail efforts. This funding was split1822mainly across the Amtrak National and Northeast Network, the1823Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Grant Program,1824the Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program, and the Federal-State1825Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Northeast Corridor and1826National Grant Program (including the Corridor Identification and1827Development Grant Program). As state departments of transportation have1828worked to deliver IIJA-funded rail projects, successes and challenges1829have emerged.1830---------------------------------------------------------------------------1831    \1\ Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act information from FRA.1832Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Information from FRA - FRA.1833(n.d.). https://railroads.dot.gov/IIJA1834---------------------------------------------------------------------------1835    As a result of the IIJA, 19 federal grants worth over $2.3 billion1836have been allocated for rail improvement projects in Connecticut. Years1837of deferred projects, including many listed on the Federal Railroad1838Administration (FRA) Major Backlog Projects list, are now moving1839forward.1840    Of note, we are making progress replacing our aging, deteriorated1841moveable bridges, including the 129-year-old Norwalk River Railroad1842Bridge, known locally as the WALK Bridge, and the 119-year-old Devon1843Railroad Bridge in Stratford and Milford. Led by our partners at1844Amtrak, crews are also currently replacing the 118-year-old Connecticut1845River Bridge, which connects Connecticut's shoreline towns of Old Lyme1846and Old Saybrook to Rhode Island and beyond.1847    We are modernizing the New Haven Line power system by replacing1848outdated equipment. We are reconstructing rail overpass bridges,1849enhancing security infrastructure, and upgrading all tracks on the New1850Haven Line to meet modern safety standards. We are expanding the1851Hartford Line by restoring a second track through the entire corridor1852from New Haven to Springfield, Massachusetts, to boost both frequency1853and speed of passenger service.1854    The Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant1855Program has been instrumental in funding these crucial projects that1856not only reduce the state's repair backlog but also improve performance1857and pave the way for both new and expanded intercity passenger rail1858services, including those operated by private entities.1859      Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) Rail Successes1860    An overarching key success of the IIJA was the inclusion of a1861dedicated rail title with significant levels of authorized federal1862funding. These landmark funding levels have allowed state DOTs and1863freight railroads to actualize years of rail planning. The beneficial1864economic and social impacts of these investments highlight the need for1865continued federal support for rail program funding in the next surface1866transportation reauthorization bill.1867    State DOTs are committed to improving safety throughout the1868transportation system. This includes working with the rail industry to1869manage the many concerns that arise from rail-highway crossings. The1870IIJA included several programs dedicated to addressing this issue.1871    The creation of the Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program in1872the IIJA and the implementation of beneficial changes to the Federal1873Highway Administration's Section 130 Railway-Highway Program are key1874examples. The Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program provided an1875additional stream of federal funding focused on rail crossing safety1876improvements, which has accelerated the speed with which state DOTs can1877make rail safety improvements.\2\1878---------------------------------------------------------------------------1879    \2\ Railroad crossing elimination grant program. Railroad Crossing1880Elimination Grant Program - FRA. (n.d.). https://railroads.dot.gov/1881grants-loans/railroad-crossing-elimination-grant-program1882---------------------------------------------------------------------------1883    There are many important examples of projects around the country1884that are benefiting from these programs.1885    The Texas DOT received a Fiscal Year 2022 Railroad Crossing1886Elimination Grant Program award for the US 90 Grade Separation Project.1887The project will support the construction of two at-grade rail1888crossings. It will close the at-grade crossing along Waco Street and1889build a grade-separated bridge to eliminate the US 90 highway-rail1890crossing over existing Union Pacific Railroad tracks.\3\1891---------------------------------------------------------------------------1892    \3\ Railroad crossing elimination (RCE) program FY2022 selections.1893Railroad Crossing Elimination (RCE) Program FY2022 Selections - FRA.1894(n.d.). https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/railroad-crossing-1895elimination-rce-program-fy2022-selections1896---------------------------------------------------------------------------1897    The Michigan DOT received a Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Railroad Crossing1898Elimination Grant Program award for the Grade Separation of M-85 and1899Canadian National (CN) Railroad Project. The `project will eliminate a1900dangerous at-grade crossing on one of the Downriver Region's busiest1901traffic corridors, where freight tracks intersect with highway and1902pedestrian rights-of-way at M-85, a critical north-south route between1903Detroit and Trenton.' \4\1904---------------------------------------------------------------------------1905    \4\ FY23-24 railroad crossing elimination (RCE) grant program1906selections. FY23-24 Railroad Crossing Elimination (RCE) Grant Program1907Selections - FRA. (n.d.). https://railroads.dot.gov/FY23-24-RCE-Grant-1908Program-Selections1909---------------------------------------------------------------------------1910    The Connecticut DOT received two Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Railroad1911Crossing Elimination Grant Program awards for two high-risk grade1912crossings in the state. One $400,000 award is being used to study the1913feasibility of closing the existing at-grade crossing at Toelles Road1914(FRA Crossing #500637X) on the Hartford Line rail corridor and1915construct a new roadway bridge to carry Toelles Road over the Amtrak-1916owned Hartford Line and U.S. Route 5 (U.S. 5). The Toelles Road at-1917grade crossing is Connecticut's #1 ranked crossing on the FRA's1918Accident Prediction Report. Between January 2019 through July 2024,1919there were 207 calls for service and 39 police department incidents at1920the Toelles Road crossing.1921    Another grant of $2.4 million was awarded to study alternative1922options and develop preliminary engineering plans for the consolidation1923of crossings on the state-owned Metro-North Railroad (MNR) Danbury1924Branch in Norwalk and Danbury, CT. Despite prior improvements and1925ongoing education and outreach efforts, collisions continue to occur,1926including a tragic and fatal crash at the Commerce Street crossing in192720231928    In addition, the IIJA modified the Section 130 Railway-Highway1929Program by changing the federal cost share to 100 percent and1930increasing flexibility with how funds can be applied.\5\ Enhancements1931to the Section 130 Railway-Highway Program have allowed states the1932flexibility to address railway-highway safety in a way that meets each1933state's unique needs.1934---------------------------------------------------------------------------1935    \5\ Rail-Highway Crossings Program Questions & Answers guidance.1936Rail-Highway Crossings Program Questions & Answers Guidance - FHWA.1937(n.d.). https://highways.dot.gov/safety/hsip/xings/rail-highway-1938crossings-program-questions-answers-guidance1939---------------------------------------------------------------------------1940    Funding from the Section 130 program is helping improve safety1941around rail crossings across the country, including in Connecticut1942through the installation of new vehicular gates and railroad flashers,1943upgraded traffic control signals with railroad pre-emption,1944installation of pavement markings, and much more. Section 130 funding1945has been put to good use at the Connecticut DOT; there are nearly1946twenty projects in design or in construction, and one recently1947completed project was in North Canaan, where we replaced crossing1948surfaces and made geometric improvements at freight rail grade1949crossings on U.S. Routes 7 & 44, accompanied by sidewalks and gates and1950bells.1951    Another success from the IIJA was the inclusion of the Federal-1952State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program and the1953Corridor Identification and Development (Corridor ID) Grant Program.\6\1954The Corridor ID grant program creates a pipeline of projects that are1955ready for capital investment through programs like the Federal-State1956Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program. Each project in1957the current Corridor ID inventory and projects selected under the1958Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program1959have significant, discernible positive impacts on communities and state1960economies.1961---------------------------------------------------------------------------1962    \6\ Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail (FSP)1963grant program. Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail1964(FSP) Grant Program - FRA. (n.d.). https://railroads.dot.gov/federal-1965state-partnership-intercity-passenger1966---------------------------------------------------------------------------1967    This program has also provided key support for rail projects in1968several states.1969    The North Carolina DOT received a Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Federal1970State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program award for1971the North Carolina--Raleigh to Richmond (R2R) Innovating Rail Program.1972The `project is part of a phased effort to develop a new passenger rail1973route between Raleigh, NC, and Richmond, VA, along the CSX1974Transportation ``S-Line'' as part of the Southeast Corridor connecting1975North Carolina with Virginia, Washington, D.C., and the Northeast1976Corridor. The project involves completion of final design, right-of-way1977acquisition, and construction activities to build additional parts of1978the Southeast Corridor from Raleigh to Wake Forest, NC, including new1979and upgraded track, eleven grade separations, and closure of multiple1980at-grade crossings.' \7\1981---------------------------------------------------------------------------1982    \7\ FY22-23 Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail1983Program (national) selections. FY22-23 Federal-State Partnership for1984Intercity Passenger Rail Program (National) Selections - FRA. (n.d.).1985https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/fy22-23-FSP-National-rail-program-1986selections1987---------------------------------------------------------------------------1988    The Florida DOT received a Fiscal Year 2022 Corridor ID Grant1989Program award for the proposed Jacksonville, Orlando, and Miami1990corridor. The `proposed corridor would provide new or enhanced service1991on one or more existing alignments.' \8\1992---------------------------------------------------------------------------1993    \8\ FY22 Corridor Identification and Development Program1994selections. FY22 Corridor Identification and Development Program1995Selections - FRA. (n.d.). https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/fy22-CID-1996program-selections1997---------------------------------------------------------------------------1998    Additionally, the IIJA succeeded in providing Amtrak with necessary1999stability through funding for the National Network and the Northeast2000Corridor.\9\ State DOTs with state-supported intercity passenger rail2001benefit when Amtrak has sufficient federal funding and the IIJA has2002provided this stability while also working to address accountability2003through forums such as the State Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail2004Committee (SAIPRC) and the Northeast Corridor Commission.2005---------------------------------------------------------------------------2006    \9\ FRA. (n.d.). Amtrak Annual Grant Program Fact Sheet. https://2007railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2025-01/2008Amtrak%20Annual%20Grants%20fact%20sheet_1.23.25_PDFa.pdf2009---------------------------------------------------------------------------2010    Amtrak secured a 2023 Federal State Partnership for Intercity2011Passenger Rail Grant to replace the aging Connecticut River Bridge with2012a modern, moveable structure south of the current one. This long-2013awaited replacement comes after the bridge, built in 1907, was deemed2014``structurally deficient'' in 2006 and was at risk for 15 years due to2015chronic underfunding.2016    The new bridge will boost safety and speed for passengers by 552017percent on the Northeast Corridor's Acela Express, Northeast Regional,2018and Shore Line East. Amtrak received more than $800 million in grant2019funds for this project, and the remainder of this historic $1.3-billion2020project is funded by Amtrak and the state of Connecticut.2021    These bold investments are transforming passenger rail service2022along the Northeast Corridor.2023    The IIJA also provided robust funding for the Consolidated Rail2024Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) grant program.\10\ The2025CRISI program funding has a wide array of eligible uses and has2026bolstered states' ability to grow freight connectivity and enhance2027safety.2028---------------------------------------------------------------------------2029    \10\ Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements2030(CRISI) program. Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety2031Improvements (CRISI) Program - FRA. (n.d.). https://railroads.dot.gov/2032grants-loans/consolidated-rail-infrastructure-and-safety-improvements-2033crisi-program2034---------------------------------------------------------------------------2035    Here are some examples of how state DOTs are using this program to2036provide much-needed mobility benefits:2037    The Colorado DOT was awarded a grant under the Fiscal Year 2023-20382024 round of funding for the CRISI Grant Program. The `project will2039design, install, and test PTC on a portion of the Front Range2040Subdivision, including constructing a new siding. Additionally, the2041project will improve several railroad crossings at five high-priority2042locations along the Subdivision. This will enhance safety and2043efficiency, as the project will reduce crashes, increase travel-time2044savings, and increase economic savings.' \11\2045---------------------------------------------------------------------------2046    \11\ FY 2023-2024 Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety2047Improvements (CRISI) program: Project Summaries. FY 2023-20242048Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI)2049Program: Project Summaries - FRA. (n.d.). https://railroads.dot.gov/2050elibrary/fy-2023-24-crisi-program-project-summaries2051---------------------------------------------------------------------------2052    The Georgia DOT received a Fiscal Year 2023-2024 CRISI Grant2053Program award for the CaterParrott Railroad (CPR) Short Line Upgrade2054Project. The project includes the `rehabilitation and upgrade of track,2055bridges, and siding and construction of a new rail spur on the2056CaterParrott Railroad in Lowndes and Berrien Counties.' \12\2057---------------------------------------------------------------------------2058    \12\ FY 2023-2024 Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety2059Improvements (CRISI) program: Project Summaries. FY 2023-20242060Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI)2061Program: Project Summaries - FRA. (n.d.). https://railroads.dot.gov/2062elibrary/fy-2023-24-crisi-program-project-summaries2063---------------------------------------------------------------------------2064    The Connecticut DOT has received two CRISI grants in recent years2065to help fund new stations along the Hartford Line, an inter-city rail2066line that is part of the Northeast Corridor. The new Enfield station2067benefited from a $13.86 million CRISI grant, while the new Windsor2068Locks station received $17.49 million is CRISI funding. These grant2069dollars were instrumental in moving these two projects across the2070design finish line and into eventual construction. Also in Connecticut,2071the Housatonic Railroad received $5.37 million to improve 18 miles of2072railroad and upgrade bridges, increasing freight rail capacity.2073    The inclusion of a dedicated rail title in the next surface2074transportation reauthorization bill will be critical to maintaining the2075current momentum of state DOT passenger and freight rail efforts. For2076Connecticut DOT, these programs have proven to be a critical component2077of our multi-modal transportation program.2078     Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) Rail Challenges2079    One key challenge that state DOTs have experienced since the2080passage of the IIJA is the extended time it takes from a grant2081announcement and award to the signing of a grant agreement and eventual2082obligation of funds. I want to be clear: FRA faced a herculean task2083following the passage of IIJA, which included a 561 percent increase in2084rail infrastructure funding compared to the FAST Act. Not only did they2085have to hire hundreds of additional staff, but they had to stand up a2086significantly enhanced grant administration program, all while2087attempting to make awards to the states eager to get to work building.2088At the same time, states have identified numerous processes and2089procedures that could be improved to accelerate the obligation of2090funds.2091    One way to address this situation would be the creation of a more2092efficient process to approve pre-award authority for Federal Railroad2093Administration (FRA) grants. This would allow state DOTs to expedite2094project delivery and reduce cost escalations. The FRA defines pre-award2095authority as costs incurred after the award selection announcement date2096but before the grant is obligated.\13\ AASHTO members have been working2097to identify mechanisms that would increase the speed with which federal2098discretionary rail grant agreements are signed--not just FRA grants but2099across all USDOT modes.2100---------------------------------------------------------------------------2101    \13\ Federal Railroad Administration answers to frequently asked2102questions about pre-award authority. Federal Railroad Administration2103Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Pre-Award Authority - FRA.2104(n.d.). https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/federal-railroad-2105administration-answers-frequently-asked-questions-about-pre-award2106---------------------------------------------------------------------------2107    State DOTs have also continued to experience challenges with2108project delivery and permitting requirements. Too often, these2109requirements can be duplicative and can unnecessarily delay the2110delivery of much-needed rail projects--with project costs escalating as2111a result.2112    AASHTO members believe there are reasonable modifications to2113project delivery and permitting requirements that could more2114efficiently and effectively move rail projects forward without doing2115damage to the environment. For example, Congress should direct2116executive branch agencies to fully implement the One Federal Decision2117process to speed up the review timeline for projects and improve the2118accountability for all parties involved in a project's development.2119Congress should also take steps to modernize the use of the National2120Environmental Policy Act--including by modifying the definition of a2121``major project'' and ``federal action.''2122    Additionally, with many large projects receiving funding from2123multiple federal partners, coordination amongst the various federal2124modal agencies should be improved, preferably with the agencies2125accepting their peer agencies' environmental reviews and quickly2126designating a lead oversight agency/project sponsor. These types of2127changes would better align federal resource agencies' review and2128permitting actions that improve transportation and environmental2129outcomes while reducing delays.2130    State DOTs also continue to encounter challenges with the2131consistency of federal rail funding, and they would benefit from2132measures to provide more consistent funding to enhance planning and2133project delivery efforts. Stable federal funding is essential to2134maintain the flow of anticipated investment in rail transportation2135improvements, maintenance, and operations; the absence of this2136stability leads to project delays that escalate costs.2137    The process to reach a final agreement on FRA awards can take up to213818 months or longer, which accounts to virtually two full construction2139seasons. This is due, in part, to requirements for bi-weekly meetings2140with the FRA, which has proven to be time-consuming and results in a2141drawn out, less efficient, process. The FRA also has separate and2142different workflow provisions for various grant program terms and2143conditions. For example, Attachment 1 Terms and Conditions require2144multiple agreements and signatures, instead of one signature.2145Attachment 2 Terms and Conditions are transmitted via email, rather2146than using an online platform. The Federal Transit Administration2147utilizes a web-based automated system where all grant documents are2148housed in a shared platform; having a similar FRA module would2149eliminate back-and-forth emails.2150    As an example, the Connecticut DOT was notified in November 20232151that it was awarded $465 million in the Fiscal Year 2022 and 20232152Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Program for2153Projects on the Northeast Corridor (FSP-NEC) for the Norwalk River2154Railroad Bridge; this is a project that began construction in May 2023.2155That grant was obligated by FRA in January 2025.2156    Additionally, there are improvements to the financial processing of2157grants that could make the process much more efficient for awardees.2158Grantees should be able to seek federal reimbursement at a defined2159percentage, for example, 80 percent federal and 20 percent state, and2160not based on the total project cost, provided the non-federal match is2161met. Currently, the FRA determines the federal share percentage based2162on the total project cost resulting in odd percentages carried out to2163four decimal places. This extends the federal reimbursement schedule2164and puts more burden on both the grantee and the FRA staff. Once the2165project is fully billed to the federal contribution, the grantee will2166continue with the non-federal share until completion and simply2167continue with all federal reporting requirements as required by the FRA2168Grant Agreement. This would continue to keep the FRA fully informed of2169project progress as well as expenditures throughout the life of the2170project. This would streamline the FRA reimbursement requests and2171ultimately require less FRA and grantee staff time for processing,2172aligning the FRA with the processes followed by the Federal Transit2173Administration and Federal Highway Administration.2174    I want to thank the leadership of FRA for their openness to process2175improvements, and willingness to discuss efficiencies in the federal2176rail assistance programs, such as those I describe in my testimony.2177Over the past few months, Connecticut has seen several grant awards2178begin to advance, and state DOTs are aligned in the desire to more2179effectively put federal funding to work.2180  AASHTO Surface Transportation Reauthorization Policy Recommendations2181    AASHTO has adopted an overarching vision for surface transportation2182reauthorization that covers state DOT work across the USDOT modal2183administrations. This overarching vision for surface transportation2184reauthorization calls for a world-class, multimodal transportation2185system that supports and strengthens the nation's transportation2186infrastructure for a strong economy with improved safety and mobility.2187    Achieving this vision requires the following:2188      Federal funding stability: Stable federal funding is2189necessary to keep the pipeline of planned investments in transportation2190improvements, maintenance, and operations moving forward; a disruption2191to this stability will translate into project delays that increase2192costs, resulting in fewer projects per dollar.2193      Formula-based federal funding paired with state2194contributions: This approach to federal funding reflects the proven2195federal-state commitment that ensures the flexibility necessary for2196each state to best meet its unique investment needs.2197      Current funding levels plus inflation must be the2198baseline: The baseline for the next bill must grow from current levels2199and keep up with inflation to advance safety and mobility in a2200meaningful way.2201      User pay principles for all vehicles: Congress should2202ensure all vehicle types pay their fair share to fund transportation2203and to sustain the Highway Trust Fund.22042205    On this last point, I want to note that this Committee has started2206to discuss options for raising revenue for the Highway Trust Fund as2207part of its reauthorization process. The shortfall in the Highway Trust2208Fund is a serious issue and AASHTO members are grateful that the2209Committee understands this challenge.2210    As part of implementing that vision, AASHTO is currently looking at2211the following draft surface transportation reauthorization policy2212recommendations developed by the AASHTO Council on Rail Transportation,2213to include:22142215      Provisions to clarify that a state, or a political2216subdivision of a state, that provides equipment, track, right-of-way,2217or financial support for intercity passenger service, but does not2218operate the railroad, is not a rail carrier or railroad and not subject2219to the regulatory requirements applicable to railroads.22202221      Reauthorization of funding for capital and operating2222expenses for Amtrak Northeast Corridor and Amtrak National Network2223(including state-supported corridors) at no less than the Fiscal Year22242022 through 2026 levels, the indexing authorized levels to inflation,2225and the addition of eligibility for states for capital and operating2226assistance.22272228      Reauthorization of the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure2229and Safety Improvements Program at no less than the Fiscal Year 20222230through 2026 levels, maintenance of the current federal cost share, and2231clarification on eligibility for early project planning efforts.2232      +  Further, that a set-aside be created from the CRISI Program2233for grants to states for eligible activities under 49 USC 22907. This2234draft recommendation directs the Federal Railroad Administration to2235consider state input when finalizing factors for this set-aside.22362237      Reauthorization of the Section 130 Railway-Highway2238Crossing Program at no less than the Fiscal Year 2022 through 20262239levels, in addition to maintenance of the current 100 percent federal2240cost share for projects. Further, the Council recommends an increase in2241authorized funding levels in relation to the Highway Safety Improvement2242Program.22432244      Reauthorization of the Railroad Crossing Elimination2245Grant Program at no less than the Fiscal Year 2022 through 2026 levels2246and to maintain, at a minimum, the current federal cost share for2247projects.2248      +  Further recommended is support for United States Department of2249Transportation efforts to modernize its National Environmental Policy2250Act procedures in line with other AASHTO recommendations, including2251providing consistency across the department through efforts like `One2252Federal Decision.'22532254      Reauthorization of the Federal-State Partnership for2255Intercity Passenger Rail Northeast Corridor and Federal-State2256Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail National Grant Program at no2257less than the Fiscal Year 2022 through 2026 levels and maintenance of2258the current federal cost share.2259      +  Additionally recommended is the elimination of the 22905(c)2260letter requirements for railroad projects in cases where the operating2261railroad is not the owner of the rail asset but has an existing2262contract that includes maintenance responsibilities, to facilitate the2263delivery of projects for this program and other applicable rail grant2264programs. Additionally, clarification is requested to ensure that a226522905(c) letter is required only for construction, not preconstruction2266activities.22672268      Reauthorization of the Corridor ID grant program at no2269less than the Fiscal Year 2022 through 2026 levels, and that the2270current federal cost share is maintained.22712272      Reauthorization of the Restoration and Enhancement Grant2273Program at no less than the Fiscal Year 2022 through 2026 levels,2274maintenance of the current federal cost share, and clarification on2275prioritization for projects selected through the Corridor ID Grant2276Program.22772278      Reauthorization of the Interstate Rail Compact Grant2279Program at no less than the Fiscal Years 2022 through 2026 levels and2280maintenance of the current federal cost share. The addition of a state2281or group of states as eligible applicants under this program is also2282recommended.22832284      Creation of a provision requiring that if the Federal2285Railroad Administration enters into an agreement with a state to2286conduct rail inspections, it must also include bridge inspections, if2287requested by the state.22882289      A study to be conducted by the Government Accountability2290Office examining whether a pooled insurance arrangement for public2291entities supporting passenger rail could be implemented via an2292interstate compact or federal grant, with the identification of a2293trustee for funds generated for disbursement in the event of court-2294ordered liability.22952296      Reauthorization of the following Federal State Committees2297at no less than the Fiscal Year 2022 through 2026 levels:2298      +  The State-Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Committee,2299      +  And the Northeast Corridor Commission2300      +  As well as Operations Lifesaver23012302      Reauthorization of the Next Generation Corridor Equipment2303and Pool Committee (NGEC) at $1 million per year for FY 2026 through FY23042030, and allowance for the establishment of a percentage set aside for2305the NGEC within Federal Railroad Administration capital grants awarded2306for the acquisition of passenger equipment.2307                               Conclusion2308    AASHTO and its members continue to take seriously the2309responsibility to implement the IIJA and its historic investment in2310rail transportation. Thank you again for the honor and opportunity to2311testify today, and I am happy to answer any questions.23122313    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.2314    Mr. Hicks, you are recognized for 5 minutes.23152316 TESTIMONY OF KEVIN D. HICKS, P.E., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND2317     RAIL & FREIGHT MARKET SECTOR LEADER, GANNETT FLEMING2318 TRANSYSTEMS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL RAILROAD CONSTRUCTION2319                  AND MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION23202321    Mr. Hicks. Good morning, Chairman Webster, Ranking Member2322Titus, and members of this esteemed subcommittee. My name is2323Kevin Hicks, and I am a senior vice president and rail and2324freight market sector leader at Gannett Fleming TranSystems, or2325GFT. I currently serve on the board of directors of the2326National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association, the2327NRC, and as the chairman of the NRC's Policy and Legislative2328Committee. In my role at GFT, I work on business development2329and project delivery nationally for clients in the railroad2330industry.2331    Since 2010, GFT has been helping Federal Government to2332deliver railroad infrastructure projects both through our2333design services for railroad owners, through public agency2334projects building railroad infrastructure that expands freight2335and passenger rail capacity, and also by assisting the FRA in2336oversight of the successful delivery of projects that have some2337Federal investment through an FRA grant. The firm has provided2338oversight for over 500 grants across the U.S.2339    Prior to joining GFT, I spent the first 25 years of my2340career with the Union Pacific Railroad, serving in many2341engineering positions and ultimately working my way up to AVP2342and chief engineer of design. Though I now currently reside in2343Omaha, Nebraska, I grew up in Congressman Burlison's district2344in the town of Ash Grove, Missouri. I am honored to join this2345distinguished panel today and to provide a perspective on this2346important topic.2347    As I mentioned in my opening, I serve on the board of2348directors of the NRC. While GFT is just one member company2349within the NRC, our member companies generate more than 100,0002350jobs nationwide, supplying, building, and maintaining freight,2351passenger, and industrial rail networks. The NRC supports the2352continued funding of the FRA grant programs at existing or2353increased funding levels.2354    We appreciate the committee focusing its attention on the2355issue of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal2356rail assistance. Let me preface my comments by saying that I2357think the staff of the FRA is full of hard-working and talented2358individuals, and my comments are not an indictment on them.2359    Let me first describe at a high level a few of the issues2360from our perspective. More detailed information is included in2361my written testimony.2362    First, the selection process is slow. The grant award2363selection can take around 6 months after the application is2364submitted. With the influx of funding from the IIJA, the size2365and complexity of the NOFOs has increased, which has impacted2366the speed of selecting projects.2367    Second, the grant takes too long to obligate. It takes 6 to236818 months, on average, to obligate a grant after selection. It2369takes too long to deliver projects. And the waste, due to2370delays in the forms of administrative and planning costs,2371inflation, and lost opportunities for alternative use of2372capital hinder us from achieving our capacity expansion goals.2373Regarding NEPA, it takes a very long time to obtain2374environmental clearances. The project sponsor is not able to2375engage with FRA or U.S. DOT on the NEPA process until the grant2376is awarded.2377    Third, delays to project implementation. Numerous factors2378impact project readiness, and most of these factors are outside2379of the FRA's control. But the FRA could do more to avoid future2380delays by having project sponsors better define the status of2381these factors in advance of obligation.2382    Now, I will turn to some ideas to help enhance the process.2383Our recommendations for reforms focus around three key themes:2384creating project pipelines, sufficient and consistent staffing,2385and stakeholder agreements.2386    Congress should consider directing FRA to identify a pre-2387approved--or at least a prior vetted--pipeline of projects. FRA2388should consider further standard standardization of the grant2389applications, thereby reducing the effort required both in2390preparation and in review.2391    In addition, the agreements and scopes of work should be2392more formulaic and template-based.2393    FRA could also consider consolidating existing grant2394programs and having separate programs for preliminary2395engineering, or PE, and NEPA versus final design and2396construction grants.2397    For final design and construction grants, FRA should2398require PE and NEPA to be completed in order to be eligible for2399funding. This would help to ensure that the projects selected2400for final design and construction are truly ready to be2401delivered in an acceptable timeframe.2402    FRA should also commit to an expedited NEPA process2403timeline and eliminate NEPA requirements where States have2404existing or duplicative requirements.2405    To help make the grant agreement processing time more2406efficient, there needs to be sufficient and consistent FRA2407staffing with experience, capacity, and the ability to make2408decisions. Empowering FRA project managers to be decisionmakers2409would help address the problem.2410    And regarding stakeholder agreements, the FRA should2411require PE, cost estimates, and stakeholder concurrence within2412grant applications. A sign-off form or letter template would2413make it easier for the FRA to collect and verify stakeholder2414concurrence.2415    Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective2416today. I look forward to answering any questions you might2417have.2418    [Mr. Hicks' prepared statement follows:]24192420 Prepared Statement of Kevin D. Hicks, P.E., Senior Vice President and2421 Rail & Freight Market Sector Leader, Gannett Fleming TranSystems, on2422     behalf of the National Railroad Construction and Maintenance2423                              Association2424                              Introduction2425    Good morning, Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, and Members2426of this esteemed subcommittee. My name is Kevin Hicks and I am a Senior2427Vice President and Rail & Freight Market Sector Leader at Gannett2428Fleming TranSystems (GFT). I currently serve on the Board of Directors2429of the National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association (the2430``NRC''). I also serve as the Chairman of the NRC Policy & Legislative2431Committee.2432    As you may know, the NRC is an association that advances the mutual2433interests of railway contractors and suppliers who construct, maintain,2434and supply both freight and passenger railroads. Founded in 1978, the2435NRC connects members with other railway industry professionals and2436government legislators and policymakers. Together we work to create a2437positive business climate and to make railway construction and2438maintenance safer and more efficient.2439    Although NRC members often compete against each other, our2440collaboration furthers the railway construction industry and benefits2441American freight, transit and commuter rail lines, our member2442contractors and suppliers, the general public, and our own professional2443growth.2444    In my role at GFT I work on business development and project2445delivery nationally for clients in the railroad, ports and maritime,2446energy, and warehousing businesses.2447    Prior to joining GFT, I spent the first 25 years of my career with2448the Union Pacific Railroad, serving in many positions, and ultimately2449working my way up to AVP and chief engineer of design.2450    In addition to my role with the NRC, I am an active member of2451several industry and professional organizations, including the American2452Railway Engineering and Maintenance Association, the Railway Tie2453Association, the Missouri S&T Corporate Development Council, and the2454Inspire University Transportation Center at Missouri S&T.2455    Though I now currently reside in Omaha, Nebraska, I grew up in2456Congressman Burlison's district in the town of Ash Grove, Missouri.2457    I am honored to join this distinguished panel today and to provide2458our perspective on this important topic.2459Gannett Fleming TranSystems2460    GFT is an Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) firm2461shaping the Infrastructure of Life: water, power, transportation, and2462buildings. Our team of 5000+ experts design, construct, and engineer2463resilient, creative solutions that uplift communities across North2464America and beyond.2465    GFT has been engrained in the US freight rail industry for over2466forty years. Our experts are engaged in the planning, permitting,2467design, and construction management of a broad spectrum of railroad2468infrastructure, including bridges, at-grade crossings and grade2469separations, line and yard capacity expansions, and intermodal facility2470construction and expansions.2471    Since 2010, GFT has been helping the federal government to deliver2472railroad infrastructure projects, both through our design services for2473railroad owners, through public agency projects building railroad2474infrastructure that expands freight and passenger rail capacity, and2475also by assisting the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in2476oversight of the successful delivery of projects that have some portion2477of federal investment through an FRA grant. In the FRA grant oversight2478work, the firm's professional engineering, transportation planning, and2479environmental practitioners work with the grant recipients to comply2480with federal requirements and assure that each project's scope is2481delivered without any extra cost to the federal government and that the2482promised public benefits are successfully delivered per the intent of2483the public expenditure. The firm has provided oversight for over 5002484grants across the eastern and western U.S.2485NRC and the Rail Contracting Industry2486    While GFT is just one member company within the NRC, our member2487companies generate more than 100,000 jobs nationwide supplying,2488building and maintaining freight, public transit and industrial rail2489networks.2490    As I mentioned in my opening, I serve on the Board of Directors of2491the NRC. The NRC is a U.S. trade association that represents nearly 4002492companies in the rail contracting and rail supply industry, with2493employees in all 50 states. Most NRC member companies are small family2494owned, multi-generational businesses with operations, manufacturing2495facilities, and offices located all across the United States.2496    NRC members perform every type of rail infrastructure work--from2497design and engineering to basic construction and maintenance to highly2498specialized and custom design-build jobs. This work includes building2499new tracks, repairing and maintaining existing track, laying and2500replacing rail, welding and grinding, surfacing, ballast distribution,2501tie insertion and removal, grade crossings, signal systems, switches2502and turnouts, bridge deck replacement and maintenance, track design,2503crane rail, inspection services, emergency maintenance, and more.2504    The freight railroad industry has grown dramatically since the2505partial de-regulation of the industry by the Staggers Act in 1980. The2506prevalence of rail transit systems throughout the country has also2507increased dramatically over the last generation resulting in increased2508urbanization and density. The size of the rail construction and2509maintenance contractor and supplier community has grown in proportion.2510More than 500 independent rail contracting companies in the United2511States perform more than $10 billion worth of rail infrastructure2512construction and maintenance work every year.2513    In addition to the contracting community, in 2020, the rail supply2514industry directly employed almost 240,000 workers, who directly2515contributed $27.7 billion of value-added economic activity across the2516United States.\1\ Rail suppliers also deliver secondary benefits that2517other modes of transportation cannot, such as reductions in road2518congestion, highway fatalities, fuel consumption, greenhouse gases,2519cost of logistics, and public infrastructure maintenance costs.2520---------------------------------------------------------------------------2521    \1\ Rail Supply Industry: Manufacturing and Services Keeping the2522American Economy on Track. January 2023. www.remsa.org/files/2523RailSupplyIndustry_EconomicImpactStudy.pdf2524---------------------------------------------------------------------------2525    NRC members serve every type of railway owner, including Class 1,2526short line and regional railroads, industrial track owners, the U.S.2527military, port facilities and terminals, and rail transit agencies2528operating light rail, streetcars, subways, metro, commuter rail2529operations, and intercity passenger rail systems.2530  Issues with the Federal Discretionary Grants Process and Potential2531                               Solutions2532    Again, we appreciate the committee focusing its attention on the2533issue of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of federal rail2534assistance.2535    Let me preface my comments by saying that I think the staff of the2536FRA is full of hardworking and talented individuals and my comments are2537not an indictment on them. Rather, the grant process that has been2538established at the FRA has put burdens on the staff often times putting2539them in positions that do not make the grants process efficient or2540effective.2541    Also, the NRC supports the continued funding of the FRA grant2542programs at existing or increased funding levels. Spending on2543infrastructure, especially rail infrastructure, is truly a sound2544investment that pays dividends to our economy, supply chain, and our2545transportation network. These funds will also help stimulate additional2546infrastructure investment by states, localities, and private sector2547partners, and will help to onshore additional manufacturing jobs here2548in the U.S.2549    I will focus my comments first on describing some of the current2550issues from our perspective, identifying the responsible parties, and2551finally, offering some recommendations for reforms in the next surface2552transportation reauthorization bill that the committee will soon be2553drafting.2554    My comments focus around three key themes: 1) creating project2555pipelines, 2) sufficient and consistent staffing; and 3) stakeholder2556agreements.25571. Selection Process is Slow2558    Issue: Grant award selection takes about 6 months after the2559application is submitted. It takes FRA a long time to evaluate the2560large number of applications received as all the federal rail grant2561programs are vastly oversubscribed. This is a vicious spiral that2562forces FRA staff to be in a constant cycle of publishing a Notice of2563Funding Opportunity (NOFO), awarding grants, and then immediately2564drafting the next NOFO.2565    With the influx of funding from the IIJA, the size and complexity2566of the NOFOs has increased which has also impacted the speed of2567selecting projects. These delays are especially felt by our NRC member2568contractors who are usually engaged at the end of this process. These2569delays result in changing budgets that jeopardize the projects and2570places additional risks onto contractors.2571    Recommendations: Congress should consider directing FRA to identify2572a ``pre-approved'' or at least a prior vetted pipeline of projects. FRA2573NOFOs should have more stringent requirements (e.g. require projects to2574have more burden of proof of readiness) and/or eligibility to shrink2575the applicant pool. FRA should consider further standardization of the2576grant applications, e.g., a more defined template, thereby reducing the2577effort required both in preparation and in review. FRA could also2578consider consolidating existing grant programs and having separate2579programs for preliminary engineering (PE) and NEPA versus final design2580and construction grants. For final design and construction grants, FRA2581should require PE/NEPA to be completed in order to be eligible for2582funding.25832. Grants Take Too Long to Obligate2584    It takes 6-18 months on average to obligate a grant after2585selection. It takes too long to deliver projects, and the waste due to2586delays in the form of administrative and planning costs, inflation, and2587lost opportunities for alternative use of the capital, hinder us from2588achieving our capacity expansion goals. The expediting of2589transportation projects can be accomplished while retaining all current2590environmental safeguards.2591    Next, I will detail several obligation-related issues in more2592detail:2593            Obligation prerequisite--NEPA2594    Issue: It continues to take a very long time to obtain2595environmental clearances. The project sponsor is not able to engage2596with FRA or USDOT on the NEPA process until the grant application is2597selected. Many times, the project sponsor does not have the capacity to2598complete NEPA themselves, and it takes a few months to hire an2599environmental consultant.2600    Recommendations: FRA should establish a process to evaluate2601projects and allow them to proceed with NEPA before applying for a2602grant (e.g. establish a pipeline). FRA should also commit to an2603expedited NEPA process and eliminate NEPA requirements where states2604have existing or duplicative requirements, like in California or2605Washington. Sufficient and consistent FRA staffing would also help2606minimize the NEPA process timeframe. FRA should also require that2607project sponsors be ready to submit documentation within a certain2608timeframe (e.g. must submit environmental assessment within 1 month of2609selection) or consider having a separate grant or step in the grant2610program only for completing NEPA. This is similar to what the FRA2611Corridor ID program is attempting to establish, although that program2612has also moved in too slow of a manner. This would give the resulting2613project priority for funding, similar to the NEC inventory established2614in the FRA Federal-State Partnership program. Congress should also2615consider directing the FRA to establish a separate grant program, or2616step within existing programs, for projects to complete the NEPA2617process, and then require a completed NEPA document as proof of2618eligibility for funding for a final design/construction project.2619Finally, the FRA should allocate a larger percentage of its funding to2620agency staffing focused on expediting project delivery.2621            Obligation prerequisite--NEPA Categorical Exclusions (CEs)2622    Issue: Many rail projects, particularly those on short line or2623regional railroads, consist of ordinary ties, rail, ballast, and2624surfacing type work that falls under a NEPA Categorical Exclusion (CE).2625The FRA requires a CE worksheet to prove, with a ``legally defensible2626evidentiary record,'' that the project qualifies for a CE. This2627requires significant work, including resource mapping and appendices,2628to prove eligibility for a CE.2629    In addition, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act2630of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to consider the effects on2631historic properties of projects they carry out, assist, fund, permit,2632license, or approve throughout the country. If a federal or federally-2633assisted project has the potential to affect historic properties, a2634Section 106 review will take place. This requires a Secretary of the2635Interior (SOI) qualified archeologist and State Historic Preservation2636Office consultation to be completed before the FRA can approve the CE2637worksheet. This process causes many delays to rail projects attempting2638to receive a CE.2639    Recommendation: The CE process should be streamlined to a simple2640grantee self-certification for an ordinary track rehabilitation2641project.2642    Regarding Section 106, Congress should consider the creation of a2643national rail network that can be recognized for its historical2644importance, but only certain elements require compliance with Section2645106, exempting the national rail network from Section 106 the same way2646the Interstate Highway System is exempt. At a minimum, Congress should2647expand the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) issued2648Section 106 Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail2649Properties Within Rail Rights-of-Way to cover a broader list of2650activities, such as construction of additional yard or industrial2651tracks within the footprint of an existing yard or industrial facility.2652            Obligation prerequisite--Preliminary Engineering (PE)2653    Issue: It takes a while for project sponsors to have PE, cost2654estimates, and stakeholder concurrence ready for FRA review. Many times2655project sponsors do not even hire a consultant to complete PE until the2656grant is awarded and sometimes sponsors struggle with getting2657stakeholder concurrence, which can add to project delays.2658    Recommendations: The FRA should require PE, cost estimates, and2659stakeholder concurrence with grant applications. Again, project2660sponsors should complete PE/NEPA before being awarded a final design or2661construction grant. For stakeholder concurrence, a sign-off form or2662letter template would make it easier for the FRA to collect and verify2663stakeholder concurrence. Short of that, the FRA should at a minimum2664define the stakeholder concurrence requirements and define the format2665required.2666            Obligation prerequisite--49 U.S.C. Sec.  229052667    Issue: Project sponsors often struggle with obtaining the 229052668railroad agreement with the host railroad. It often gets caught up as a2669provision within a larger design, construction or maintenance2670agreement.2671    Recommendation: The FRA already provides simple template language2672which could be extracted as a separate 1-page agreement. If the host2673railroads would be willing to sign a 22905-only agreement, separate2674from the larger overarching agreements and the FRA would require 229052675agreement with the grant application, this could potentially speed up2676the project timeline.2677            Grant Agreement Processing Time2678    Issue: The FRA is very flexible, customizing the grant agreement2679scope of work for each individual project. Multiple disciplines at the2680FRA (e.g. Project Managers, Grant Managers, Engineers, Planners,2681Environmental Specialists, Legal, etc.) must review the ``Attachment26822'' (SOW, schedule, budget, performance measures) for each individual2683grant and this takes a long time. In addition, larger multimodal USDOT2684grants like BUILD and Mega must also undergo additional USDOT OST2685Office of the Secretary review.2686    Recommendation: This process can be expedited by sufficient and2687consistent FRA/USDOT staffing with experience, capacity, and the2688ability to make decisions. Empowering FRA project managers to be2689decisionmakers would help address this problem. In addition, the2690agreements and scopes of work should be made more formulaic and2691template-based.2692    Currently, the FRA builds in flexibility so that sponsors are not2693trapped with a hyper-specific SOW. The project sponsors also need to2694understand that they are being asked to fill in a binding contract2695document, and that they should not just copy and paste from a SOW with2696their contractor. Better education could help, along with fewer choices2697and less flexibility. For example, if grant agreements included a2698standard SOW by project type (e.g. Task 1 is always the project2699management plan, Task 2 is always final design, Task 3 is always2700construction) then that would minimize opportunities for customization.2701    Finally, FRA engineering reviews should be limited to ensuring the2702PE and final design are in alignment with the grant agreement and not2703in conflict with industry standards, especially with grantees that are2704familiar with these standards and grants. FRA engineering reviews2705should only occur on request to smaller or less experienced grantees.27063. Delays to Project Implementation2707    Issue: Numerous factors impact project readiness, including2708railroad coordination and approvals, utility coordination and2709relocations, right of way acquisition, permitting and additional2710funding.2711    Recommendation: Most if not all of these factors are outside of the2712FRA's control, but the FRA could do more to avoid future delays by2713having project sponsors better define the status of these factors in2714advance of obligation. The FRA could also conduct risk reviews later in2715the grant process based on project scope, readiness, and budget.2716      Additional Recommendations for Reforming the Grants Process2717    Finally, as this committee begins the process of reauthorizing2718surface transportation programs, Congress should direct the FRA to2719speed up and streamline the discretionary grant process to reduce2720waste, cost overruns, and unnecessary project delays. The NRC offers2721the following broad grants recommendations that we suggest will help2722America build and improve the federal rail discretionary grant process:27232724      Standardize environmental approval processes across USDOT2725modal agencies.27262727      Provide pre-award spending authority for advance2728construction and pre-construction activities across funding programs2729available to rail infrastructure projects. USDOT should provide clear2730and consistent guidance to grant recipients.27312732      Provide each successful grantee with a target date for a2733completed grant agreement. Responsibility for meeting a target date2734would be shared by USDOT and the grantee.2735      +  FRA should model its grant management system after FTA's2736Transit Award Management System (TrAMS).27372738      Make the grant process easier for smaller entities by2739establishing a page limit for NOFOs and grant applications. The2740complexity of NOFOs has grown and has disproportionately impacted2741smaller entities with less resources and personnel.27422743      Codify authority for flexing and transferring funds2744between USDOT modal agencies when appropriate.2745                                Closing2746    Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective today on2747improving the efficiency and effectiveness of federal rail assistance2748and building America's rail network. I look forward to answering any2749questions you may have.27502751    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.2752    Now, Ms. Bevil, you are recognized.27532754  TESTIMONY OF KRISTIN BEVIL, GENERAL COUNSEL AND CHIEF LEGAL2755  OFFICER, PINSLY RAILROAD COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN2756          SHORT LINE AND REGIONAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION27572758    Ms. Bevil. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the2759subcommittee, my name is Kristin Bevil. I am general counsel2760and chief legal officer of Pinsly Railroad Company. I also2761serve as an elected vice president on the board of the American2762Short Line and Regional Railroad Association.2763    The Pinsly Railroad Company owns eight short line railroads2764across the country that offer freight services, transloading,2765railcar storage, and industrial development opportunities. At2766Pinsly, we operate 850 miles as the first-mile/last-mile to our2767customers, connecting them to the national rail network.2768    Most short lines began with the purchase of an unprofitable2769branch line from a much larger railroad. Those short lines2770didn't have a lot of money, weren't in great shape, and didn't2771have much traffic, often suffering from years of deferred2772maintenance. But the local entrepreneurs who took over these2773lines to make a go of it, including the Pinsly family, which is2774our company's namesake, were very successful. In fact, today,2775there are 600 short line railroads that manage one-third of the2776freight rail network.2777    Short lines operate in 49 States, support 478,000 jobs, and2778produce $56 billion in value added to the economy, and yet2779account for only 6 percent of the freight industry's total2780revenue. We are small businesses that are critical to the2781communities in this Nation.2782    For decades, this subcommittee has supported policies that2783have allowed short line railroads to survive and even thrive.2784Almost all of you on this committee have a short line railroad2785in your district, and these Pinsly's Grenada Railroad operates2786in Congressman Cohen's district.2787    This hearing today focuses on Federal rail assistance and2788its efficiency and effectiveness. Let me assure you, Federal2789dollars are critical to our efforts to grow as short lines.2790Although we invest up to one-third of our own revenue in2791maintenance, the backlog of projects to upgrade rail and2792bridges to modern standards on short lines is $12 billion. That2793is a staggering number. Fortunately, this committee and2794Congress has provided several grant programs that have allowed2795short lines to grow our customer base, provide quality jobs,2796and drive the economy forward in rural and smalltown America.2797    As Congress looks to reauthorize the surface transportation2798bill, our top priority is robust and advanced appropriated2799funding for the CRISI grant program. It is the only Federal2800grant program that short lines are eligible to apply for2801directly, and it has been transformational. Two hundred and2802forty CRISI grants have been awarded to short line railroads.2803Advance appropriations allow for certainty and predictability,2804and will ensure that more railroads will apply.2805    My testimony provides examples of completed CRISI projects2806with specific benefits and statements of support. None of those2807would have been possible without the CRISI program.2808    The Pinsly Railroad and our customers have benefited2809directly from CRISI grants. Our Florida Gulf and Atlantic2810Railroad spans the panhandle of Florida and provides critical2811transportation of aggregates that are used by the Florida2812Department of Transportation to build Florida's highways and2813roads. A CRISI grant enabled us to upgrade that line to a more2814efficient, reliable service all along that route, which helped2815our customer, Anderson Columbia, grow its aggregate business2816and ensured that the Florida DOT has the materials it needs to2817maintain Florida's highways.2818    While short line investment is the best bang for the buck2819to be had for the public dollar, the CRISI grant program does2820have some room for improvement. The time from award2821announcement to obligation and funding is simply too long.2822Delays can cause overruns and costs, and our customers miss2823opportunities when we have to wait and wait.2824    Good options to speed up the process include batch2825processing of NEPA categorical exclusions, more aggressive use2826of pre-award authority, or setting deadlines for agency2827processing. This program can move faster with no real2828additional risk, and that would be good for getting America to2829build.2830    The rail crossing elimination in section 130 programs and2831the support of Operation Lifesaver are also very valuable to2832our industry, as they address the risk of injuries at grade2833crossings.2834    As you shape the Nation's next surface transportation bill,2835we urge that these vital programs and policies be secured in2836legislative text, and that process improvements are considered2837to help maximize the value and impact of each dollar.2838    Thank you for your longstanding support of our short line2839railroads, our customers, and the communities that we serve. I2840look forward to answering any questions.2841    [Ms. Bevil's prepared statement follows:]28422843 Prepared Statement of Kristin Bevil, General Counsel and Chief Legal2844Officer, Pinsly Railroad Company, on behalf of the American Short Line2845                   and Regional Railroad Association2846                              Introduction2847    Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee:2848    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today as you2849examine how to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal rail2850assistance through important rail safety grant programs.2851    My name is Kristin Bevil, and I am the General Counsel and Chief2852Legal Officer for Pinsly Railroad Company. I also serve as an elected2853Regional Vice President on the Executive Board of the American Short2854Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA). Thus, I have a broad2855view of the impact of federal grant programs on my company, as well as2856on short lines across the country.2857    The Pinsly Railroad Company owns and operates eight short line2858railroads--Florida Gulf & Atlantic Railroad (FGA), Grenada Railroad2859(GRYR), Camp Chase Railway (CAMY), Chesapeake & Indiana Railroad2860(CKIN), Vermilion Valley Railroad (VVRR), Hondo Railway (HRR), North2861Florida Industrial Railroad (NFL) and Pioneer Valley Railroad (PVRR).2862Pinsly Railroad Company's railroad subsidiaries offer freight services,2863transloading, railcar storage, and industrial development2864opportunities. We directly employ 175 employees and serve over 1502865customers across the nation. Operating 850 route miles, we make2866connections for 150 shippers in 8 states, and 91 communities.2867                The Short Line Railroad Freight Industry2868    Short line railroads are a critical component of rural and small-2869town America's economic fabric. These lines often represent the sole2870link to the national rail network, providing first- and last-mile2871connections for more than 10,000 shippers, supporting hundreds of2872thousands of jobs and billions in economic output. The typical short2873line employs about 30 people, operates about 80 route miles, and makes2874about $8 million in revenue per year. While we operate approximately287530% of the national network (or 50,000 route miles) and handle about287620% of the freight cars in service, our members earn only about 6% of2877the total revenue earned by the country's freight railroads.2878[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]28792880    As you will note from the map above, almost every Member of this2881Subcommittee has one or more short lines operating in their district,2882and in many cases these short lines are one of the significant2883businesses in their town.2884     Importance of the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety2885                          Improvements Program2886    Our industry is one of entrepreneurial grit. Short lines were born2887out of necessity following the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, which allowed2888for the sale of unprofitable, deferred-maintenance branch lines that2889were otherwise headed for abandonment from large Class I railroads to2890local operators who believed in their potential. Rehabilitating and2891operating these lines is enormously capital-intensive. Short lines2892routinely reinvest up to a third of their revenues into infrastructure2893maintenance and upgrades--far more than most other industries. As an2894example, Pinsly has invested over $25 million annually into our2895infrastructure for routine maintenance--and that does not include major2896infrastructure projects, many of which could not be accomplished with2897regular annual revenue. This is where the Consolidated Rail2898Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) program, a vital federal2899rail grant program, becomes essential.2900The CRISI Program: A Cornerstone of Short Line Growth and Viability2901    Since its creation in 2015, the CRISI grant program has provided2902the only reliable and accessible source of federal infrastructure2903funding directly available to short line railroads. By allowing small2904business private railroads to apply directly, unlike other federal2905programs that require a public sponsor, CRISI has leveled the playing2906field and empowered small railroads to pursue safety, efficiency, and2907capacity upgrades that would otherwise be financially impossible.2908    Of the 240 CRISI awards made to date, over $2.7 billion has gone to2909projects benefiting short lines. In the most recent combined FY23-242910round, short lines received 81 out of 122 awards--over $1.2 billion in2911funding. These awards were matched by local and private investments2912ranging from 20% to as much as 80%, demonstrating that CRISI leverages2913public dollars effectively and attracts private capital that otherwise2914would not be invested.2915    Examples of short line projects that CRISI has supported, and the2916project's impact are attached to this testimony in an Addendum.2917CRISI Grants Deliver Clear and Measurable Benefits2918    CRISI projects have produced six core benefits, which I would like2919to briefly highlight:29202921    1.  Addressing Critical Infrastructure Needs--Short lines often2922inherit infrastructure in poor condition with significant deferred2923maintenance--these lines were often at risk of abandonment if not for2924the short line purchase. CRISI enables transformational projects like2925bridge replacements and rail upgrades that remove bottlenecks and2926enable industry-standard 286,000-pound railcars, improving2927interoperability and competitiveness.29282929    2.  Improving Safety--Rail safety begins with sound infrastructure.2930CRISI funds replace worn ties and rails, reducing derailments and2931making rail service safer for employees and communities alike.29322933    3.  Creating and Sustaining Jobs--Short line rehabilitation2934projects are labor-intensive and rely on local contractors. These2935projects support good-paying jobs in rural communities and generate2936long-term employment through service expansion.29372938    4.  Enhancing Environmental Outcomes--Rail is the most fuel-2939efficient mode of freight transport. CRISI-funded upgrades facilitate2940modal shift from truck to rail, reduce emissions, and allow for cleaner2941locomotive technologies.29422943    5.  Promoting Rural Economic Development--CRISI investments enable2944service to new and growing businesses.29452946    6.  Improving Service for Customers--Small improvements--such as2947500 feet of new track or the elimination of a chronic derailment risk--2948can make an enormous difference in the transportation costs and2949competitiveness of rural shippers.2950The Importance of Predictable and Robust Funding2951    The advanced appropriations provided through the previous surface2952transportation law--$1 billion annually through Fiscal Year (FY) 2026--2953have been a game changer. Predictable funding allows small businesses2954to plan ahead, secure match funding, and complete upfront engineering2955work required for competitive applications. Without advanced2956appropriations, many short lines would be unable to pursue these grants2957due to the uncertainty and high upfront costs involved and the money2958would be less effectively spent.2959    Short lines are small businesses with limited human and financial2960resources. The grant application process is time consuming and, to be2961competitive, requires significant up-front investment by applicants.2962For example, for more complex projects, costly engineering work must be2963conducted to assemble a competitive project scope and budget that can2964demonstrate project readiness. Short lines must also marshal committed,2965matching funds of at least 20%, but often up to 50% to be competitive2966with larger applicants.2967    The annual appropriations process is always uncertain, and that2968uncertainty makes it difficult for applicants to start those upfront2969activities until they know if there will be adequate resources for2970which to compete.2971    It is essential that the next surface transportation2972reauthorization not only extends CRISI but also preserve its advanced2973appropriations structure. Without it, federal investment becomes less2974effective, fewer projects move forward, and the communities that rely2975on short lines are left behind.2976CRISI Grant Award Process Recommendations2977    The CRISI program has proven to be powerful, effective, and broadly2978supported on a bipartisan basis. However, as demonstrated by the2979experience of the Pinsly Railroad, there are clear opportunities to2980improve the grant process. Delays between award announcements and2981actual construction, as well as obstacles to making necessary project2982adjustments as conditions evolve, significantly reduce the2983effectiveness of CRISI funding--not just for railroads like ours, but2984for the shippers and communities that rely on us.2985    These delays are not isolated incidents. Unfortunately, they are2986all too common among short line railroads seeking to modernize their2987infrastructure.2988    Short lines are ready to get to work. By the time we apply for2989CRISI grants, we have already invested limited financial resources--2990along with substantial time and planning--just to be in a position to2991compete for funding.2992    Our shippers, who rely on us for critical access to domestic and2993international markets, are eager to see safer, more efficient rail2994service become a reality.2995    And the communities we serve--where local expertise is employed to2996carry out these projects--are waiting to realize the economic benefits2997that come with upgraded infrastructure: new business investment,2998expanded manufacturing, and job creation.2999    To maximize the impact of the CRISI program, we must address these3000systemic delays. Streamlining implementation and allowing for greater3001flexibility in project management will ensure that federal dollars3002translate more quickly and effectively into real-world benefits.3003Pinsly Railroad Awarded CRISI grants:3004            1. Florida Gulf & Atlantic Railroad (Pinsly subsidiary),3005                    ``Florida Panhandle Rural Capacity Expansion3006                    Project'', FY20 FRA CRISI Grant, $8,300,000.003007    The Florida Gulf & Atlantic Railroad was awarded a CRISI grant in3008June 2022 to rehabilitate a rail line previously owned by a Class I3009that had suffered from deferred maintenance. The project included301085,000 new rail ties, bridge replacements and crossing upgrades. The3011project rehabilitated the infrastructure allowing Florida Gulf &3012Atlantic Railroad to provide service efficiently and safely to3013aggregate commodities customers in support of the Florida Department of3014Transportation's highway projects. The grant agreement was executed in3015May 2023, nearly a year after the award was announced and a Notice to3016Proceed was not received until December 2023. Construction took place3017in 2024. The project was further delayed when Florida Gulf & Atlantic3018came in under budget and had an opportunity to further improve the3019infrastructure by submitting a Grant Adjustment Request Form to3020increase tie density and add an additional mile of work. The change3021took 45 days to approve. While most construction was complete in 2024,3022the final report was submitted and closed out April 2025, three years3023after the grant was awarded. Shawn Snyder, Vice President of Anderson3024Columbia, a Florida Gulf & Atlantic customer said, ``Florida Gulf and3025Atlantic services three asphalt plants in the Panhandle from3026Jacksonville to Pensacola. The reliability of the service once they3027take control of the cars has been excellent. With Anderson Colombia3028being so reliant on the rail, seeing the commitment through the rail3029and Florida Gulf & Atlantic, specifically, gives us comfort in our3030markets that we will be stable or have the ability to grow as the3031markets grow. It's been a great partnership over the last couple of3032years.''3033            2. Florida Gulf & Atlantic Railroad (Pinsly subsidiary),3034                    ``Florida Panhandle Rail Resiliency and3035                    Connectivity Project'', FY22 FRA CRISI Grant,3036                    $23,198,945.003037    The grant for the ``Florida Panhandle Rail Resiliency and3038Connectivity Project'' was awarded in September 2023. The project is3039focused on resiliency and hardening of infrastructure to withstand3040hurricanes and major storms. Pre-award authority was received in March30412024. Engineering Design review was submitted for approval in July30422024. Almost two years and two hurricanes later, we think we will have3043a grant agreement soon.3044            3. Grenada Railroad (Pinsly subsidiary), ``Central3045                    Mississippi Rail Resiliency and Capacity Expansion3046                    Project'', FY23-24 FRA CRISI Grant, $18,247,915.003047    The Grenada Railroad is a railroad that was saved from abandonment3048and as a result of both private and public investment, has3049significantly increased the number of customers served by the line.3050According to Governor Tate Reeves, ``Mississippi's economic momentum3051would not be as robust without the functioning rail line that moves3052input goods and finished products all over America.'' The recently3053awarded grant for the ``Central Mississippi Rail Resiliency and3054Capacity Expansion Project'' will increase capacity for significant3055growth through additional sidings, rail tie replacement, joint3056elimination and improved grade crossings across the line. Announcement3057of the grant award was made in October 2024 and Grenada Railroad is3058working closely with FRA to get a grant agreement in place.3059            4. Pioneer Valley Railroad Company (Pinsly subsidiary),3060                    ``The Tunnel Hill Reclamation and Pioneer Valley3061                    Railroad Development Project'', FY23-24 FRA CRISI3062                    Grant, $8,868,942.003063    The Pioneer Valley Railroad, in collaboration with WIN Waste3064Innovations (WIN), was awarded a CRISI grant to fund infrastructure3065improvements at the Tunnel Hill Reclamation (THR) facility in New3066Lexington, Ohio, and at the PVRR rail line which spans across Holyoke3067and Westfield, Massachusetts. The announcement of the award was made in3068October 2024, and the Pioneer Valley Railroad team is working closely3069with FRA to get a grant agreement in place.3070    The CRISI program can be further improved, and made even more3071impactful, in the following ways:30723073      Protect CRISI's Ability to Bolster the Freight Rail3074Network--ASLRRA discourages set-asides within CRISI for passenger rail3075projects or expansions of the program to include major new eligible3076applicants such as commuter railroads. With so many challenges facing3077our freight supply chain, short lines need to remain viable competitors3078for these limited funds. While we have no opposition to passenger rail,3079there are other federal grant programs that provide passenger rail3080applicants with funding levels that dwarf CRISI.30813082      Speed--CRISI projects should move from announcement to3083obligation to completion faster than they currently do. For almost all3084short line projects, most of which are quite simple in the context of3085infrastructure investments, this would result in better outcomes for3086the public, for short lines, for communities, and for shippers with no3087additional risk, and would help avoid the significant cost escalation3088associated with delay.30893090      Encourage the use of pre-award authority (PAA)--More3091extensive use of PAA would allow CRISI grant awards for small railroad3092infrastructure projects to move more quickly and efficiently. PAA3093authorizes grant recipients to begin their projects immediately at3094their own risk rather than being stuck in limbo during the current3095lengthy federal approval process. When questions of the National3096Environmental Policy Act Process (NEPA) clearance as a necessary3097precedent arise in the context of PAA, the agency should consider3098segmented provision of PAA for non-ground disturbing elements of scope3099such as engineering analyses and acquisition of materials. Prompt3100acquisition of materials can be a particularly useful step to mitigate3101project cost inflation risk, and delays in completing engineering and3102design work correspondingly delay entry into the construction phase of3103a project.31043105      Increase Transparency across the Grant Lifecycle to3106Enable Benchmarking and Process Improvement--Congress could require3107that FRA file regular reports on the status of processing grants, from3108award notification through obligation to close out, to the3109transportation authorizing and appropriating committees. This data will3110help stakeholders understand how long it takes the agency to move3111through the process for each award to achieve grant obligation and3112begin work. It will also create some beneficial pressure encouraging3113the agency to innovate to move the process faster.31143115      Publish regular grant status reports--FRA could3116proactively shine light on the status of processing grants, from award3117notification through obligation to closeout. This data would be useful3118for setting realistic stakeholder expectations regarding the timeline3119for the agency to execute the process for each award to achieve grant3120obligation. Regular (e.g., quarterly) public reporting would also3121foster accountability and incentivize a faster program. These reports3122could include:3123      a)  Key milestones of approval of pre-award authority, if3124applicable, and approval of the environmental decision document for the3125project.3126      b)  Internal deadlines for moving grants through this process.3127      c)  Delays outside the control of FRA personnel.31283129      Optimize grant application processes and program3130accessibility--FRA should consider a mechanism to share and analyze3131high level CRISI grant application information with ASLRRA. This3132information is publicly shared for programs like RAISE that have only3133public applicants, but not for CRISI, due to the broader eligibility.3134ASLRRA could work directly with FRA under an information sharing3135agreement to enable better analysis of what parts of the short line3136population are either not applying for CRISI grants or not applying3137successfully. Such collaboration could help the agency and the3138association to work together better to improve outreach to ensure that3139the CRISI program is broadly accessible, especially to the smallest3140railroads.31413142      Improve Notices of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) and the3143application review process--The prior administration's NOFOs included3144requirements beyond those in the program statute in the section on3145``administrative and national policy requirements.'' These requirements3146caused confusion among applicants as to how their applications would be3147reviewed and what project implementation steps they would need to take.3148FRA should carefully review these requirements as they revise their3149standard NOFO text and strike requirements conditioning grant agreement3150execution on policies that are not required by the grant program3151statute.31523153      Improve Elements of the NEPA Process--railroads are an3154environmentally friendly way to move goods. We encourage efforts to3155ensure NEPA requirements reflect this sustainable way to move freight3156and do not undermine it. Specifically, we believe there could be room3157within USDOT's NEPA implementing regulations to expand definitions of3158selected categorical exclusions (CEs) without risking significant3159environmental impacts. Bundling like CEs for review and approval is an3160effective procedure for expediting grant awards that Congress can3161encourage.31623163      Grant Adjustment Request Form Process--The Grant3164Adjustment Request Form (GARF) process is a procedure used by grant3165recipients to request changes to the terms of a grant. These changes3166might include things like:3167      +  Budget modifications (e.g., moving funds between categories)3168      +  Time extensions for completing the project.3169      +  Scope changes to alter what the grant is funding.3170      +  Key personnel changes or other administrative updates31713172    We recommend streamlining the steps, improving communication, and3173aligning requirements with real-world project conditions.31743175      Coordinate Section 106 Reviews--FRA can reduce delays by3176coordinating with DOT's Office of the Secretary (OST) and the White3177House to expedite the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's3178acceptance of the final Section 106 exemption of railroad rights-of-way3179(ROW) from review under Section 106 of the National Historic3180Preservation Act. Unnecessary Section 106 reviews can introduce serious3181delays into the grant obligation process.31823183      Consider Buy America waivers--FRA, in coordination with3184OST and the Office of Management and Budget, should judiciously deploy3185Buy America waivers where appropriate. These waivers can be a useful3186tool when domestic production capacity does not yet exist. We have seen3187the due diligence on waiver requests go awry. Inexperienced analysts3188can incorrectly assume domestic capacity when none practically exists3189or may conduct excessive research to determine non-availability.31902. Continued Federal Support for Grade Crossing Safety Issues3191    Continue to fund Operation Lifesaver (OLI), Section 130, and the3192Rail Crossing Elimination (RCE) program to protect the public. By far3193the most significant concerns with rail safety are related to3194interactions with the public at grade crossing accidents and trespasser3195issues. Operation Lifesaver is an industry- and government-supported3196effort which focuses on educating the public both about the importance3197of staying off railroad tracks and the need for passenger and3198commercial vehicle drivers to exercise caution at grade crossings. The3199federal government has been an important participant in these efforts,3200largely through the FHWA Railway-Highway Crossings Program, known3201widely as the ``Section 130'' program. This program significantly3202improves grade crossing safety by providing funding to improve grade3203crossing protection equipment. More recently, the Rail Crossing3204Elimination program has also been successful in providing options for3205communities to close unnecessary crossings. We recommend that Congress3206continues to fund the OLI, RCE, and Section 130 programs at robust and3207guaranteed levels.3208                               Conclusion3209    Investing in short lines is one of the best public-private3210partnerships available. We drive the economy in areas where it is often3211difficult to do so. Rural and small towns across American would be3212closed off from the national economy with limited transportation3213options if freight rail were not present, safe, and efficient.3214    Federal grant funding is an example of bipartisan, high-impact,3215efficient infrastructure investment that supports American jobs,3216enhances safety, and strengthens our supply chain--all across the3217United States.3218    Support for CRISI, OLI, RCE and Section 130 has been crucial to our3219ability to maintain our infrastructure, improve safety and make3220significant, game-changing improvements to rail service in the3221communities we serve. As you shape the nation's next surface3222transportation bill, we urge that these vital programs and policies be3223secured in legislative text, and that process improvements are3224considered to help maximize the value and impact of each dollar3225granted, ensuring the continued success and growth of the short line3226industry, the nation's freight rail network, and most importantly the3227tens of thousands of critical agricultural, energy, manufacturing, and3228industrial rail shippers.3229    Thank you for your time, your attention, and your longstanding3230support of our nation's short line railroads and the customers and3231communities we serve. I look forward to answering your questions.3232                               __________32333234                                Addendum32353236          Short Line Railroad Completed CRISI Project Examples3237Chicago South Shore & South Bend Railroad (CSS)3238FRA Project Name: Chicago South Shore & South Bend Rail Rehabilitation3239and Safety Improvement Project3240CRISI Grant:        $2,831,7053241Local Match:        $707,926 (20%)3242Total Project Cost:   $3,539,6313243Member/District:    Rep. Rudy Yakym (IN-02), Rep. Frank Mrvan (IN-01)32443245    The project replaced 7.5 miles of 90-lb rail with 115-pound rail on3246Kingsbury Industrial Lead, improving safety associated with the heavier3247rail, and increasing train speed on new section of track to improve car3248cycle times for customers.3249    ``The CRISI project being done by CSS shows a commitment to safety3250and the growth of CSS customers located between Michigan City and3251Kingsbury. My company truly appreciates the project to help our company3252grow.'' David Gelwicks, President--Hickman Williams Co.32533254Iowa Interstate Railroad (IAIS)3255Project Name: Booneville Bridge Project3256CRISI Grant:        $3,470,5003257Local Match:        $3,470,500 (50%)3258Total Project Cost:   $6,941,0003259Member/District:    Rep. Zach Nunn (IA-03)32603261    The project replaced the 118-year-old Booneville Bridge over the3262Raccoon River, located approximately 15 miles west of Des Moines. The3263bridge carries over 42,000 carloads per year on the Class II Iowa3264Interstate Railroad's (IAIS) Council Bluffs, Iowa, to Chicago, Ill.,3265service. The bridge was in danger of being put out of service in the3266near future under previous conditions, which would result in costly and3267inefficient rerouting of traffic and economic disruption in Nebraska,3268Iowa, Illinois, and points beyond. The new bridge will be able to3269withstand increasingly common flooding events.3270    ``The majority of the 8,000 carloads we ship go over that bridge3271and if that infrastructure was out, it would have a multi-million3272impact on the efficiency and cost-competitiveness of our business.''3273Nick Bowdish, CEO Elite Octane3274    Video of Completed Project--here [https://www.youtube.com/3275watch?v=PZbq7d13276VPD8].32773278Iowa Interstate Railroad (IAIS)3279Project Name: IAIS Continuous Welded Rail Upgrade3280CRISI Grant:        $5,579,3573281Local Match:        $6,291,615 (53%)3282Total Project Cost:   $11,870,9723283Member/District:    Rep. Zach Nunn (IA-03), Rep. Randy Feenstra (IA-04)32843285    The project is a capstone project to complete the replacement of3286jointed rail with modern continuous welded rail (CWR) on the IAIS3287between Council Bluffs and Des Moines, IA. The upgrade will replace the3288last 18.95 miles of jointed rail with CWR and allow for track speeds of328940 to 49 mph. As freight traffic grows on IAIS, the remaining 1950s-era3290Rock Island Railroad legacy jointed rail decreases the reliability and3291resiliency of the line by requiring slower speeds. Jointed rail has the3292propensity to have joint failures during Iowa's harsh winters creating3293hazards for maintenance of way employees and train crews. Replacing3294jointed rail will increase safety, lower maintenance costs, increase3295rail resiliency, and improve system and service performance by3296increasing train speeds. The project will allow IAIS to meet future3297freight demand for Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois farmers, manufacturers,3298and ethanol refineries.3299    ``Jointed rail on the IAIS mainline creates higher maintenance3300costs and leads to slower operating speeds and lower efficiency between3301Omaha and Des Moines for rail customers like my company. Replacing this3302rail will lead to a more resilient railroad which is important for the3303Iowa economy, and for the success of our business. Our business has3304made a sizeable investment in an ethanol plant where its viability is3305solely dependent on the long-term sustainability of the Iowa Interstate3306Railroad.'' Ryan Pellett, C.E.O., JD & Co.33073308Lake State Railway (LSRC)3309FRA Project Name: Infrastructure Enhancement Program for Lake State3310Railway's Huron Subdivision3311CRISI Grant:        $7,875,7703312Local Match:        $8,197,230 (51%)3313Total Project Cost:   $16,073,0003314Member/District:    Rep. Jack Bergman (MI-01)33153316    The project rehabilitated 30.3 miles of track with 115-lb.3317continuous welded rail, tie and turnout renewal and crossing3318rehabilitation. This project allowed for elimination of 23.8 miles of3319excepted track which resulted in increased speed from 10 mph to 25 mph3320and the upgrade of 6 miles from 25 mph to 40 mph. These improvements3321allowed for the full use of the heavier 286-lb. railcars required by3322LSRC customers and Class I railroad interchange partners. The3323elimination of the aging and lighter 85-lb rail enhanced safety along3324the entire segment.3325    ``Lake State Railway's service to our facility has allowed our3326operation to be cost competitive despite our remote location in3327relation to the majority of our customers and suppliers. The CRISI3328grant has allowed us to increase the railcar load capacity associated3329with the heavier 286-lb railcars, reducing our cost and helping ensure3330our long-term success.'' Jim Spens, Plant Manager Panel Processing,3331Inc.33323333Lancaster & Chester Railroad (L&C)3334FRA Project Name: South Carolina Piedmont Freight Rail Service3335Improvement Program3336CRISI Grant:        $8,752,1853337Local Match:        $4,712,715 (35%)3338Total Project Cost:   $13,465,9003339Member/District:    Rep. Ralph Norman (SC-05)33403341    The project provided funding for the acquisition of three Tier IV3342locomotives, the rehabilitation of 46 miles and one bridge upgrade to3343allow for the handling of 286-lb. railcars. The project increased track3344speed from10 mph to 25 mph, gave customers the ability to utilize 286-3345lb railcars and decreased locomotive emissions. The upgraded track3346resulted in the railroad attracting three new customers to the line.3347    ``Over the last 11 years, Chester County has attracted over $33348billion in new industrial development creating almost 4,000 new jobs.3349This massive amount of opportunity is a direct result of having the3350short line L&C railroad as our partner.'' Alex Oliphant, City Council3351Member, Chester County, SC33523353Napoleon, Defiance & Western (NDW)3354Project Name: NDW Safety Upgrade in Opportunity Zones Project3355Grantee:            Ohio Rail Development Corporation3356CRISI Grant:        $4,112,4523357Local Match:        $4,112,452 (50%)3358Total Project Cost:   $8,224,9043359Member/District:     Rep. Martin Stutzman (IN-03), Rep. Bob Latta (OH-336005), Rep. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)33613362    The project upgraded approximately 10 miles of 80-lb. rail with 1323363to 136-lb. rail, and replaced approximately 29,000 ties on 29 miles of3364rail between Woodburn, Indiana and Defiance, Ohio. The project was3365required to reduce the number of derailments previously occurring on3366this segment.3367    ``The NDW provides transportation for our tomato paste from3368California to our facility saving us a lot of time and money versus3369going over the road. The rehabilitation also offers us new3370opportunities to move more materials by rail.''--Gavin Serrao,3371Cambell's Soup Logistics Manager, Napoleon, OH3372    ``This has been a railroad that's needed a lot of investment for a3373long time. Every State DOT knows there are these railroads that can be3374so much more for the local economy than they are now and NDW brought3375the professionalism, the expertise, and the financial resources to make3376this project possible.'' Matt Dietrich, Ex. Dir. Ohio Rail Development3377Commission3378    Video overview of project--here [https://youtu.be/IwFm_a_KWs4].3379Nebraska Kansas Colorado Railway (NKCR)3380Project Name: Velocity Enhanced Rail Transportation Project3381CRISI Grant:        $4,505,5423382Local Match:        $4,505,542 (50%)3383Total Project Cost:   $9,011,0843384Member/District:    Rep. Lauren Boebert (CO-04), Rep. Adrian Smith (NE-338503)33863387    The project installed approximately 42,595 ties, 15,990 tons of3388ballast, and resurfaced 562,848 track feet on the NKCR in western3389Nebraska and eastern Colorado. The project allows for removal of slow3390orders on approximately 106.6 miles of track and restores efficient3391operating speeds over most of the line. The improvements reduced3392overall trip times along the corridor by a minimum of four hours and3393reduced operating costs by reducing locomotive utilization and allowing3394for crews to make a round-trip along the line within one day.3395    ``The Velocity project will be a major rehabilitation of the3396freight rail line from Sterling, CO, to Wallace, NE, focused on3397removing slow orders where track conditions force trains to slow to a3398crawl. This line is the only rail connection for many agricultural3399customers in western Nebraska and eastern Colorado.'' U.S. Senator Deb3400Fischer (R-NE)34013402OmniTRAX Holdings Combined Short Lines3403Project Name: Transportation Investments for Employment and Safety3404(TIES1)3405CRISI Grant:        $37,364,5043406Local Match:        $9,341,126 (20%)3407Total Project Cost:   $46,705,6303408Member/District:    Rep. Sanford Bishop (GA-02)34093410    The project replaced approximately 1,000 railroad ties per mile on3411135 high-density track miles on three OmniTRAX short line railroads--3412Illinois Railway, Alabama & Tennessee River Railway, and Georgia &3413Florida Railway, which will help sustain current FRA track safety3414standards and maintain current timetable speeds. The project is3415estimated to reduce track-related accidents by 67%, saving $11MM in3416losses, reduce locomotive utilization by 186,000 hours, eliminate 273417tons of NOx, 1 ton of PM2.5 and 4.5 tons of SO2. The project will3418eliminate the need for 16 subsequent tie spot replacement mobilizations3419saving $43MM.3420    ``Covia Holdings is a major supplier of elemental raw materials3421used in a variety of industries, including glass production and housing3422construction. The majority of shipments to Covia's customers throughout3423the U.S. are handled by railroads such as those managed by OmniTrax3424Rail Holdings. Covia supports the TIES Project [and] reasonably3425believes that TIES will improve safety on the Illinois Railway (IR) by3426replacing a simple yet essential element of safe railroad3427infrastructure: the wooden railroad tie. The IR's ability to service3428Covia's plants, uninterrupted, in Illinois is fundamental to Covia's3429daily operations.'' Russell Montgomery, EVP/COO, Covia Holdings LLC34303431Red River Valley & Western Railroad3432FRA Project Name: Rural Economic Preservation Through Rail Replacement3433CRISI Grant:        $6,704,5443434Local Match:        $2,915,234 (30.3%)3435Total Project Cost:   $9,620,7783436Member/District:    Rep. Julie Fedorchak, At Large34373438    The Red River Valley & Western serves the southeast corner of the3439state of North Dakota, linking numerous rural agricultural shippers3440with the national rail system. The project replaced 14.5 miles of old3441jointed rail with continuous welded rail on between Independence and3442Oakes, North Dakota.3443    The project has resulted in a safer, dependable rail system that3444will maintain economic competitiveness for current shippers, and3445provides the capacity to meet the anticipated future demand with3446climate change pushing the grain industry and growing conditions3447northward.3448    ``North Dakota is heavily reliant on railroads for the shipment of3449bulk commodities from our rural communities to their distant final3450destinations. A large portion of the grains produced in North Dakota3451are shipped over 1,200 miles by rail to Pacific Northwest port3452facilities at Seattle and Portland. North Dakota is therefore keenly3453interested in a safe, efficient, and reliable railroad network to3454provide value to the thousands of tons of bulk agricultural and energy3455products produced each year in our state. Preserving this vital rail3456network is essential for the economic development and sustainment in3457the rural communities served by short lines.'' Commissioners Fedorchak,3458Kroshus, and Christmann, North Dakota Public Service Commission34593460Sierra Northern Railroad (SERA)3461FRA Project Name: Sierra Northern Railway's Consolidated Rail3462Infrastructure and Safety Improvement3463CRISI Grant:        $17,415,0003464Local Match:        $18,300,000 (51.3%)3465Total Project Cost:   $35,700,0003466Member/District:    Rep. Tom McClintock (CA-05)34673468    Video overview of project is here [https://www.youtube.com/3469watch?v=2j8ulXpa34701A0].3471    Sierra Northern Railway (SERA) was challenged to add and manage3472current customers along the 55-mile-long Oakdale Division excepted3473track, built in 1897, servicing Riverbank, California in the Central3474Valley to Standard, California in the Sierra Nevada foothills. As3475excepted track, freight could move at no more than 10 mph along the3476route, taking 5 hours to transport freight from one end to the other.3477The project included replacing 20 miles of track with 115-pound rail,347890,000 railroad ties, and rehabilitating ten grade crossings.3479    The CRISI Grant transformed the operation, adding a 116-acre3480transload site for building manifest unit trans without causing3481gridlock along the active line, and improving delivery time from end to3482end by 250%. The increased throughput has enabled SERA to:3483      Quadrupled carload business3484      Add new customers--such as a new grainload shipper3485      Reduce derailments3486      Provided 30 new railroad jobs in the area3487      Improved grade crossings and increase speed led to less3488time blocking motoring public3489      Took an estimated 5,000 trucks of propane off local3490highways in year one34913492    ``The project began in 2019, and was completed a year and a half3493later. It has achieved everything we had anticipated, and more for the3494region. It has allowed the Sierra Northern dramatically increase3495carloads by better serving current customers, and by attracting new3496business to rail. We are especially proud of how this project has3497served our local community--taking trucks off the road, especially on3498narrow mountain roads, reducing time spent at railroad crossings, and3499providing more well-paying railroad jobs in our region.'' Ken Beard,3500President, Sierra Northern Railway35013502Texas, Gonzales & Northern Railway (TXGN)3503FRA Project Name: Harwood Interchange Improvement Project3504CRISI Grant:        $2,223,7683505Local Match:        $2,223,768 (50%)3506Total Project Cost:   $4,447,5363507Member/District:    Rep. Michael Cloud (TX-27)35083509    The project extended the siding at the interchange with the Union3510Pacific Railroad (UP) to 9,000 feet. The construction project included3511installing welded rail, steel ties, new modern power switches and the3512replacement of two aging wooden trestles enhanced drainage. With3513concrete culverts. The purpose of the project was to enhance capacity,3514improve service, enhance safe operations and help relieve highway3515congestion by moving shipments from truck to rail.3516    The project has allowed TXGN to accommodate UP's Unit Train traffic3517simultaneously with our carload traffic which allowed for double3518capacity at interchange and a more fluid handoff with UP. Prior to the3519CRISI project completion UP could deliver only 1 of those trains while3520then waiting on TXGN to clear the interchange before a second train3521could arrive. The increased operating capacity has saved customers up3522to 24 hours of transit time. The expanded capacity has allowed TXGN to3523attract two new storage customers and annual carloads have increased3524from 3,726 in the year prior to the project to 4,634 carloads in the3525first year following project completion, a 24% increase. Most recently3526TXGN attracted a new major company that has just announced that they3527are building a new facility on the TXGN and will increase carloads by3528700 annually.3529    Livestock Nutrition Center (LNC) is a leading feed manufacturing3530and grain handling company with facilities in 5 southwestern states,3531including a facility on the TXGN.3532    ``The TXGN CRISI Grant Interchange Project has been a game-changer3533for our operations at Livestock Nutrition Center. By enabling the3534seamless handling of Unit Trains, this project has significantly3535improved the efficiency of our railcar traffic and opened the door for3536potential Unit Train movements into TXGN Railway. Without the3537enhancements brought by this project, we wouldn't have the opportunity3538to consider expanding our location. This improvement has not only3539reduced turnaround times for our railcars, improving utilization and3540operational efficiency, but it has also positioned us to better serve3541our customers and explore new growth opportunities. We are truly3542grateful for the partnership with TXGN Railway and the commitment they3543have shown to helping businesses like ours thrive.'' Maurice Janda,3544Fulfillment Manager, LNC35453546Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company (TCWR)3547FRA Project Name: Joint Elimination--Rail Infrastructure and Safety3548Improvement3549CRISI Grant:        $2,000,8393550Local Match:        $2,000,839 (50%)3551Total Project Cost:   $4,001,6783552Member/District:     Michelle Fischbach (MN-7), Tom Emmer (MN-6), Kelly3553Morrison (MN-3)35543555    The Twin Cities & Western Railroad upgraded 1.3 miles of track with3556slow orders--a local speed restriction imposed that is slower than the3557track's normal speed limit due to deficient track--to high-speed welded3558rail. The replacement resulted in significantly improved safety, as3559measured by decreased year-over-year rail defects found via ultrasonic3560tests from 106 defects in 2017 to 48 defects in 2020 (after project).3561The upgraded rail also reduced annual tie replacement from 20,0003562required in 2019, to 17,000 by 2021.3563    For customers, the improved quality of the rail contributed to a3564decrease in shipping time, decreases in delays due to mainline3565derailments, and maintaining efficient pricing due to decreased3566maintenance costs.3567    Subsequent CRISI grants in FY 20 and FY 21 replaced rail on an3568additional 2 and 1 miles of track respectively, leading to an overall3569reduction in point-to-point shipping time of 56% across the 3 miles,3570and a further reduction in tie replacement needs of 30%, to 12,000 ties3571per year.3572    ``The Twin Cities & Western Railroad is a vital east-west railway3573that carries over 30,000 freight cars annually throughout south-central3574and western Minnesota. Its rail lines are essential to the local and3575regional economy, connecting countless businesses and farmers to their3576commercial needs. Not only would these improvement ensure that our3577railways are safer and more reliable, but they would also minimize3578transportation costs for businesses, enhance Minnesota's economic3579competitiveness, support the regional supply chain and reduce the need3580for future maintenance and repairs. Completing these updates would3581support the needs of countless Minnesotans by improving and modernizing3582the regional rail network.'' Senator Amy Klobuchar, United States3583Senator, Minnesota3584    ``Rail is one of the primary arteries of Minnesota commerce. This3585investment in the Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company will increase3586service, while also ensuring the safety of all those who live in3587communities along these vital transportation routes.'' Representative3588Tom Emmer, MN-635893590    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you all for your testimony. I3591appreciate that, and thank you. We will now turn to questions3592from the panel. I recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.3593    There is a great deal of commonality among all the3594witnesses regarding the specific challenges you experience when3595applying for Federal infrastructure funding. If you had to rank3596the top three challenges, what would they be? Specifically,3597where would NEPA fit in the ranking?3598    Just start with Mr. Dietrich and go down the panel.3599    Mr. Dietrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.3600    I think one of the challenges with the discretionary3601grants, first and foremost, is the stop-start and the need to3602address that and use that downtime. You mentioned NEPA3603specifically, and that is definitely in number one or two, in3604terms of advancing the projects. And it is not compliance with3605NEPA, it is the differences in the modal agencies, as I3606mentioned in my testimony.3607    We, as Ohio, have actually taken the advantage of--we3608have--we had NEPA assignment for FHWA funding. We just received3609NEPA assignment for FRA, because we think that is important3610enough that, again, getting those into our standard processes3611allows us to meet all the Federal requirements, but to do it3612internally and quicker without all the back and forth.3613    So I think those are the two big issues. It is the stop-3614and-start nature of the discretionary grants, as well as trying3615to standardize NEPA. Thank you.3616    Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Eucalitto.3617    Mr. Eucalitto. I would definitely put NEPA as one of the3618top items under the umbrella of all the regulatory pieces that3619come along with it: section 106, National Historic Preservation3620Act; Endangered Species Act; NEPA; I think all of those fall3621under the umbrella of NEPA, in my mind, as something that needs3622to be addressed. Usually for my State, it is the biggest3623hurdle.3624    I think the second piece would be FRA has been given a3625herculean task of standing up a massive program out of the blue3626with the new legislation, and they have been doing their best3627job. But that means there is a lot of opportunity to do it3628better and learn from the mistakes made by the other modal3629administrations.3630    Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Hicks.3631    Mr. Hicks. I would say NEPA efficiency is in my top two,3632and it goes hand in hand with my number one, with the number3633one being perhaps a two-stage process or a pipeline. and the3634need for that is somewhat based on the NEPA timelines and the3635long timelines that it takes to get NEPA approved.3636    So I would say that is where it falls with me, is the need3637to change the process or reduce the amount of NEPA to condense3638the timelines to get projects actually out on the ground.3639    Mr. Webster of Florida. Ms. Bevil.3640    Ms. Bevil. Yes, I would just add for short line railroads,3641our projects, especially under the CRISI grant program, are3642often subject to categorical exclusion from NEPA. And if there3643is a way to speed up that process, that would be very helpful3644in speeding up the projects overall.3645    Mr. Webster of Florida. So if NEPA, the NEPA process, was3646streamlined, how would this reduce both the project cost and3647also the time of completion?3648    I will start with Mr. Dietrich.3649    Mr. Dietrich. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.3650    For example--and again, I will go to NEPA assignment,3651because I think there are a lot of opportunities there--we are3652signing programmatic agreements right now with all the resource3653agencies so that Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife,3654things like that, that rail projects are now included in those3655programmatic agreements so they can process those just like--3656and again, I look at Garrett--we are working with these3657agencies all the time. And so the more we can put these into3658the pipelines, the better we can establish that.3659    We are adapting our computer systems internally so that we3660can process these projects. Take the uniqueness out of the3661discretionary grants and just put them into the pipeline like3662every other project. That, sir, I think, is where we can see--3663it's not the big reform stuff, but I think that's the3664opportunity in the nuts and bolts where we can really see this3665stuff progress quicker.3666    Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Eucalitto.3667    Mr. Eucalitto. And Mr. Chair, I can add a specific example3668in my State where we had to redo our--when we got FRA funding3669after having FTA funding, FRA required to do a new finding of3670no significant interest impact, and that added 6 months onto3671the project before we could start construction, which drove up3672costs by about $90 million. And so that is a huge impact to my3673State and all the taxpayers.3674    Mr. Webster of Florida. Well, my time is expiring. So, Ms.3675Titus, you are recognized for your questions. Five minutes.3676    Ms. Titus. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.3677    I was proud to work with my colleagues to provide the $663678billion of supplemental advance appropriations over the 5 years3679for passenger rail that was in the Bipartisan Infrastructure3680Law. As we begin work on the surface transportation3681authorization, as the ranking member of this subcommittee, one3682of my priorities is to be sure that we do that guaranteed3683funding for rail programs again.3684    I think I know the answer to this based on your all's3685testimony, but I would like to just get a one-word answer to3686the question. Just go down the row. First off, have your3687industries or members benefited from the BIL's guaranteed3688funding for rail?3689    Mr. Dietrich, yes or no?3690    Mr. Dietrich. Yes.3691    Mr. Eucalitto. Yes.3692    Mr. Hicks. Yes.3693    Ms. Bevil. Yes.3694    Ms. Titus. Good. That's what I thought. Now, as a followup,3695should this committee include guaranteed funding for rail in3696the next surface transportation authorization?3697    Mr. Dietrich.3698    Mr. Dietrich. I apologize for my ignorance, but I don't3699necessarily understand what the difference is. A rail title or3700just rail funding?3701    Ms. Titus. Just rail money, a guarantee.3702    Mr. Dietrich. Yes.3703    Ms. Titus. Well, how about a title?3704    Mr. Dietrich. I don't--like I said, I am a little bit out3705of my element here, so----3706    Ms. Titus [interrupting]. Okay, just give me the money,3707huh?3708    [Laughter.]3709    Mr. Dietrich. Sorry.3710    Ms. Titus. Whatever you want to call it.3711    Mr. Dietrich. Yes.3712    Ms. Titus. Okay. That's a good answer.3713    Mr. Eucalitto. Yes.3714    Mr. Hicks. Yes, we support rail funding.3715    Ms. Bevil. Yes, we would like to see advance appropriations3716for CRISI program.3717    Ms. Titus. Great. Well, I agree with you, and I think that3718is what we should do.3719    Another question, Mr. Eucalitto, I will ask you. In your3720testimony, you asked Congress to reauthorize and fund the3721Corridor ID Program. Now, I talked about the $3 billion grant3722for Brightline, but that doesn't happen overnight. You've got3723to bring it together, you've got to plan. Where is it going to3724go? What is the best use of the money? Help States,3725reorganization, planning, regional groups. Could you talk to us3726a little bit about how you think this will help States, and how3727this will be a good thing to consider into the new bill?3728    Mr. Eucalitto. Yes, thank you for the question.3729    The Corridor ID Program, I think, is really beneficial3730because it allows us, as States and applicants, to make the3731case as to why we should be making this longer term investment.3732It allows for future applications for capital funding to be3733more well-reasoned and well-justified so we can make the best3734use of the taxpayer dollars we are being given.3735    There is a lot of work that goes into trying to plan where3736we should be building future rail service, rail lines, or3737increasing capacity and improving existing rail lines, and that3738takes a lot of work. We need the partnership with the FRA to be3739able to do that work, to do the service development planning,3740to then come back to the FRA, to Congress to make the case why3741we should be continuing to make those investments. Without3742doing that preplanning work ahead of time that Corridor ID3743allows, it's really not 100 percent baked applications for3744future funding.3745    Ms. Titus. Thank you.3746    Some places we need improvements, some places we need3747expansion, and we need to identify those places and move3748forward on those projects, and this would help to do that.3749    Mr. Eucalitto. Absolutely.3750    Ms. Titus. Mr. Dietrich, you mentioned about multimodal3751transportation projects, some of the logistical challenges.3752Could you talk a little bit about anything that the FRA could3753do with the Federal Highway Administration to bring that3754coordination that we need, or move it along faster, or do3755grants simultaneously? Elaborate on that.3756    Mr. Dietrich. Thank you for the question. That is one of my3757favorite discussions.3758    I think that, again, if we could standardize some of these3759processes--literally, my staff has developed a cheat sheet3760between our project development process at the State DOT and3761FRA. And as we are--even when we are talking to consultants, we3762have to tell them which one we are using. So the more we could3763standardize those processes and for the modal agencies to3764accept those processes--and NEPA is just one of them. It goes3765above and beyond that. But the more those could be standardized3766at the U.S. DOT, the easier it will be.3767    Garrett had mentioned about FTA funding. We had a project3768with a grade separation where, from the time of the application3769to award, we were awarded FHWA formula funding from our State3770DOT, a substantial amount, $2 million, to progress the project3771work. Because we were able to progress that work, we thought3772everybody would be very happy. When the award came along, we3773actually lost $70,000 of the award because we advanced planning3774without that pre-award authority letter.3775    So, there is language in the legislation, especially IIJA,3776that counted those expenses, especially for the RCE project,3777since the award. So, it was the first time in my career that3778bringing additional resources to a project was not met with3779celebration.3780    So, I think, again, that standardization of the processes3781and allowing us States, especially the DOTs, to develop these3782projects in the interim. I hope that answers your question, but3783I think it is all about standardization.3784    And if I might, I also think it's about scalability. Right3785now, the grant agreements, it's a one-size-fits-all. And3786unfortunately, it seems like it is lowest common denominator.3787So again, if they could be scalable for the type of project3788that we are looking at, I think that would be beneficial, too.3789    Thank you.3790    Ms. Titus. Maybe you will share that cheat sheet with us.3791    Mr. Dietrich. Yes, I will.3792    Ms. Titus. Thank you.3793    I yield back.3794    Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Owens, you are recognized for 53795minutes.3796    Mr. Owens. Thank you, Chairman Webster and Ranking Member3797Titus and today's witnesses. Thank you for convening this3798important hearing as the committee begins to work on the3799surface transportation reauthorization.3800    For my home State of Utah, this hearing could never be more3801timely or relevant. Authorized by the FRA just 1 year ago, the3802Savage Tooele Railroad is Utah's first new railroad in decades.3803This 11-mile short line under construction in Tooele County3804will connect the Lakeview Business Park in Grantsville to the3805Union Pacific mainline near Interstate 80. Further south,3806construction is underway for the Savage Railport in Iron3807County, a key component of Utah's Inland Port Authority's Iron3808Springs project area. This facility also aims to provide direct3809access to Union Pacific lines, serving as a regional hub for3810agriculture, enhancing southern Utah's connectivity to global3811markets.3812    Both these projects are perfect representations of the role3813of short lines to enhance logistical efficiency to expand3814economic development. However, these projects have not come3815easy. The Utah congressional delegation has collaborated to3816help navigate the very complex approval process. As we look3817ahead for reauthorizing key programs and departments, we must3818find ways to remove the bureaucratic barriers to rail3819investment in our communities.3820    Ms. Bevil, could you share your perspective on the3821challenges our short line railroads face when advancing3822projects like the Savage Tooele Railroad project in Utah which3823aims to connect small communities to Class I rail lines?3824    Ms. Bevil. Yes, thank you, Congressman.3825    Your example of the short line in the State of Utah is a3826fantastic example of how short lines really do connect the3827local economy to the national rail network. Short lines have3828the ability to apply for the CRISI grants, which has been a3829fantastic program. The advanced appropriations that exist for3830those CRISI projects have provided some certainty as we go on3831to know that those programs are available.3832    The challenge with the program is the speed. One of our3833railroads applied for a CRISI grant in 2020 and finally3834received the award a year later. And then the agreement--sorry,3835a year to the award, another year to the agreement. All of that3836has to do--some with the environmental process, some with3837getting documents together. It all takes a very long time.3838Speeding up the review process, speeding up categorical3839exclusion, waivers, those things would help short lines3840accomplish these projects much faster.3841    Mr. Owens. Regarding those CRISI grants, obviously, it is a3842job-creator for rural communities. Can you share how the short3843lines select local contractors for repair and rehabilitative3844work?3845    Ms. Bevil. Yes, absolutely. So short lines, we don't3846typically employ big track gangs to replace our rails. When we3847win these CRISI grants, we have to hire contractors, and those3848contractors provide really good-paying jobs, good, local jobs3849in our communities.3850    Mr. Owens. Okay, thank you.3851    Mr. Hicks, earlier you suggested that FRA establish a3852project pipeline as a way to prescreen and evaluate projects3853before the grant application is submitted. Can you elaborate on3854how you envision this working in practice?3855    Mr. Hicks. Well, I definitely don't have the details all3856worked out on how that would happen. But we have discussed the3857Corridor ID Program, I think that is somewhat of an example on3858how you could establish a pipeline of projects, get them into3859the pipeline, awarded, vetted to do the preliminary3860engineering, do the NEPA, do the things that take a little bit3861more time, and then get a solid list of projects available to3862work from when moved into final design.3863    So maybe it is a two-stage process, where you have one3864approval for the preliminary work, and then, after that is3865completed, then you move on to the second stage of authority to3866do the final design and construction. That is somewhat how I3867would see that working.3868    Mr. Owens. Okay, thank you.3869    And I will yield back. Thank you.3870    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you.3871    Now the ranking member, Mr. Larsen, you are recognized for38725 minutes.3873    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.3874    First for Mr. Hicks. In your role in supporting FRA grant3875obligations, do you know how many grants at FRA are on hold for3876review?3877    Mr. Hicks. Thank you for the question. No, Congressman3878Larsen, I do not know what that number is. I do know that our3879firm has seen a slowdown of those in the last several months,3880and so recently some----3881    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. I'm sorry, a3882slowdown of those on hold, or a slowdown of grants going out?3883    Mr. Hicks. A slowdown on the--excuse me, what was the3884question?3885    Mr. Larsen of Washington. A slowdown on grants being on3886hold, or a slowdown on grants going out?3887    Mr. Hicks. A slowdown--first there was a slowdown on3888putting them on hold, and now that seems to be moving a little3889bit more.3890    Mr. Larsen of Washington. A little bit, yes. So it is3891greater than zero?3892    Mr. Hicks. Yes, for sure.3893    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Great, yes. Do you have any sort3894of idea of characterizing them? Are they ones that have been3895awarded but not obligated?3896    If it is obligated by the FRA, does FRA seem to move3897forward and we are looking at only ones that have been awarded?3898    Mr. Hicks. From my perspective, it seems to be both pre-3899and post-, where just, I don't know, in the last several3900months, just not a lot of movement on both until here recently.3901    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes. Okay, thanks.3902    The same for you, Mr. Eucalitto, the same question from3903AASHTO's perspective. On the FRA grants, what are you all3904seeing?3905    Mr. Eucalitto. Yes, thank you for the question. So,3906initially, I think we did see, kind of----3907    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Sorry, initially3908as of----3909    Mr. Eucalitto [interrupting]. As of January----3910    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interposing]. Yes, okay.3911    Mr. Eucalitto [continuing]. We saw, like, a pause on action3912on grants both at the staff level and within FRA in getting3913them out the door.3914    I will say, from my State's perspective, we are a very--we3915have numerous grants from the FRA because we sit on the3916Northeast Corridor. Within the past month and a half, we have3917seen staff action begin to occur. They have begun processing3918environmental documents. So there has been a re-action of many3919of our grants, which is welcome news for me in my State. I know3920other States are saying the same thing.3921    At AASHTO's level, we did express to U.S. DOT the risks of3922any slowdown on grants because when you work in the3923construction industry, especially in the northern climates, you3924have time-of-year restrictions in which you can actually do3925work in the field. And so any delay of any kind to a3926construction project, to any federally funded project, could3927have substantial impacts in postponing it for the next year. So3928we are glad to see some of our grants begin to actually have3929action.3930    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes. Ms. Bevil, on the American3931Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, are you tracking3932that issue of grants being awarded, then paused, then going3933out, or do you have any sense of what is going on there?3934    Ms. Bevil. Yes, I think we have had a similar experience3935where there was a short pause in January, but we are seeing3936things moving now.3937    Mr. Larsen of Washington. And then, Mr. Dietrich, from3938Ohio's perspective.3939    Mr. Dietrich. Ohio's perspective is consistent with the3940rest of the committee. We just got some pre-award authority3941letters for an RCE project, and we are getting more3942documentation now----3943    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interposing]. Yes, yes.3944    Mr. Dietrich [continuing]. For the grant agreements.3945    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Great, thanks.3946    So, Mr. Eucalitto, this week--I would just, kind of trying3947not to be too State-based myself, because I have a broader3948responsibility, but every once in a while, I get to be. I met3949with Washington and Oregon's Chambers of Commerce this week,3950who have a collective view that rail is core infrastructure,3951certainly for our State, we are in a Corridor ID Program.3952    From your perspective at AASHTO, are you considering rail3953as core infrastructure as we are moving towards a rewrite of3954the surface transportation bill?3955    Mr. Eucalitto. Yes, we absolutely consider rail to be core3956infrastructure.3957    AASHTO will be holding our spring meeting next week, and we3958will be voting on numerous resolutions tied to what we would3959like to see Congress do for reauthorization, an entire section3960of resolution just dedicated to rail. We know it is critical.3961It is the connective tissue for our economy, both for passenger3962and for freight. And without it, our economy would grind to a3963halt.3964    Mr. Larsen of Washington. That's great. With that, I yield3965back. Thank you.3966    Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Burlison, you are recognized3967for 5 minutes.3968    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.3969    Mr. Hicks, in your testimony, you highlight that there are3970more than 500 independent rail contracting companies in the3971United States who performed $10 billion worth of rail3972infrastructure construction and maintenance work annually.3973    And my question, Mr. Hicks, is can you highlight the work3974that your companies do and how it impacts the broader rail3975industry?3976    Mr. Hicks. Absolutely. Thank you for the question,3977Congressman Burlison.3978    NRC represents engineers, consultants, railroad3979contractors, railroad suppliers that are from all 50 States,3980all over the country. They help to build, implement, and3981maintain all these projects nationwide, both on freight and3982passenger service. So there are multiple companies out there in3983all of the districts that are performing these services of3984supplying and building these projects nationwide. So it3985contributes to hundreds of thousands of jobs in the3986implementation and construction of the projects and maintenance3987of them.3988    Mr. Burlison. Especially under the Biden administration,3989has the implementation of strict Federal regulations made it3990more difficult?3991    Mr. Hicks. There has been some difficulties in--I mean, we3992have discussed NEPA delays, things of that nature here. That3993definitely made the cost of the projects increase because time3994is money, and the longer it takes, the more expensive things3995get.3996    Mr. Burlison. Okay. And do you have any suggestions for how3997we can approach those?3998    Mr. Hicks. I definitely believe that, either through a3999combination of things, of NEPA simplification, or maybe4000assignment to States, or maybe expansion of categorical4001exemptions for commonsense types of projects, would make a lot4002of sense in reducing the delays.4003    And, just, consistent management of the projects in FRA4004also helps with consistency, keeping them moving.4005    Mr. Burlison. Thank you.4006    Mr. Dietrich, in your testimony, you kind of went through4007the differences between the discretionary grants and the ones4008that have flexibility. Specifically, you mentioned that4009``Historically, Federal transportation funding for construction4010is not obligated until NEPA clearance is achieved . . . ''4011citing that this generally does not pose an issue for4012traditional Federal formula funds granted to States because4013they have the flexibility to adjust their budgets to match the4014project schedules.4015    However, for the projects that are specific discretionary4016grants, it's a different story. Can you elaborate on that?4017Because I am not familiar with how this works whatsoever.4018    Mr. Dietrich. Yes, Congressman, thank you for the question.4019    So, when we get formula funds, we get the allocation of the4020States. And as projects come in, we slot the money in as the4021projects are ready. So NEPA, planning, detailed design,4022whatever, through the project development process, and that4023money is just slotted in.4024    So if a project falls behind, then that money would go to a4025different project, where with a discretionary grant, the money4026is project-specific.4027    So, if we are following that obligation process--so, say,4028the FRA obligates money for preliminary engineering and NEPA,4029but there is a problem, and NEPA takes longer than anticipated.4030So, the rest of that construction funding is unobligated. And4031then it is only when we are done with NEPA that we go back,4032renegotiate the agreement, sign more agreements with the FRA4033for the next step and the next step and the next step.4034    And what I am asking for is if there is a possibility for4035the FRA to look at that obligation process, so when they4036obligate the funds, they obligate the funds for the entire life4037cycle of the project. And that allows us--the money is4038obligated, there is certainty there, we don't have to keep4039going back for amendments, different agreements, but rather,4040you just go through the natural progression of the project.4041    Because, as I pointed out in my testimony, what it is, it's4042worst case scenario. We are advancing projects with the hope of4043the money being there. And likewise, the FRA looks like they4044are sitting on a bunch of money not being used, when actually4045it is all committed. So if there is just some way to match that4046obligation to the project commitments, I think it would help4047everybody.4048    Mr. Burlison. Okay, and I wanted to get one last question4049in with my time.4050    Ms. Bevil, you said that there is approximately--you didn't4051say this, but I know that there is about 315 miles of track of4052short line rail in my district. And given the difficulties and4053the obstacles with grants, can you shed some light on how4054difficult that is for short line or the smaller businesses?4055    Ms. Bevil. Sure, sure. It can be challenging, as a small4056business, to plan out work that needs to be done on your short4057line with the timelines that these grants take.4058    So, if I am planning a project for 5 years from now, that4059is not going to take care of my needs that I have right now for4060new ties and rail and crossings on my short line railroad. So,4061anything we can do to speed up the process of receiving this4062funding would be helpful to short lines.4063    Mr. Burlison. Thank you.4064    I yield back.4065    Mr. Webster of Florida. Okay, Mr. Moulton, you are4066recognized for 5 minutes.4067    Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so proud to work4068with the ranking member on high-speed rail, and we are making4069real progress there, but I want to give more context to4070something she said when she mentioned that no passenger rail4071system in the world exists without subsidies.4072    Well, the reality is in America that we heavily subsidize4073highways and airlines and barely give a pittance to passenger4074rail: $535 billion over 35 years for interstates. The gas tax,4075of course, doesn't cover the cost. So since 2008, we have4076transferred $275 billion in taxpayer money from the general4077fund, and this is only direct costs.4078    We commissioned a study in Massachusetts to understand the4079true picture of Government subsidies for driving, including4080things like emergency services to handle accidents, because you4081are 17 times more likely to die traveling the same distance by4082car as by train. It works out to $64 billion a year just in4083Massachusetts. So every family in Massachusetts spends an4084average of $14,000 subsidizing everyone else driving, even if4085they don't own a car.4086    Now, speaking of safety, we just had two more close calls4087at Reagan National Airport this weekend, months after the worst4088U.S. air disaster in years. So how are the airlines doing with4089subsidies?4090    Well, the Federal Government spent $54 billion to just bail4091out the airlines during the pandemic. After 9/11, it was $54092billion plus $10 billion in loans. Sir Richard Branson, father4093of Virgin Brands, once said that the fastest way to become a4094millionaire is to be a billionaire and buy an airline.4095    On top of this, we give massive subsidies to airlines4096without a second thought through the FAA, the TSA, and billions4097of building--airports. Our private airlines would lose money4098hand over fist without that help. Congress just approved $12.54099billion to modernize air traffic control. You remember that,4100Mr. Chairman? It is very analogous to Positive Train Control,4101the next generation of rail traffic control, and yet Congress4102didn't pay for that at all. We made the railroads pay for it4103themselves. Railroads invested nearly $11.5 billion to install4104PTC. In fact, the only transportation system in the world4105that--or in America, rather--that truly operates without public4106subsidies is our freight rail system, and that speaks to the4107innate efficiency of the things you are talking about.4108    So I think that, look, if my colleagues truly believed in4109the free market, we would let these modes compete. That is the4110way other countries handle transportation funding. Rather than4111just pour billions of taxpayer subsidies into highways and4112airports, they find out which solution makes the most sense.4113    And so there is not some vast high-speed rail conspiracy4114that infects every other developed country in the world except4115for the United States. It actually just is more efficient. It4116also happens to be better for public safety, economic4117development, housing, the environment. And yet one of the4118biggest cost drivers of high-speed rail projects is the4119environmental reviews. So that makes no sense.4120    In terms of a level playing field, Commissioner Eucalitto,4121when I drive from Boston to New York on Interstate 84, why is4122there no stoplight where it intersects with I-91?4123    Mr. Eucalitto. We want to make sure to get people through4124efficiently and safely for----4125    Mr. Moulton [interrupting]. Right, so you don't have to4126stop, right?4127    Mr. Eucalitto. Correct.4128    Mr. Moulton. You just--you have a transfer, okay?4129    And yet Connecticut says you value the Northeast Corridor4130and you encourage your citizens to ride trains, and yet on the4131busiest passenger rail corridor in the country, where the line4132diverges from Penn Station to Grand Central, there is no4133interchange. Why does Connecticut have no plan to build an4134interchange? Because right now two trains show up at the same4135time, one of them has to stop and wait.4136    Mr. Eucalitto. So I know with that specific case, the4137Metropolitan Transportation Authority, MTA in New York, they4138are working on Penn Station access to improve throughput into4139Penn Station. We in Connecticut----4140    Mr. Moulton [interrupting]. Well, I would just ask--and you4141take this for the record--how many highway interchanges has4142Connecticut built in the last 100 years? Because you have not4143built a single modern rail interchange like we are just4144discussing at this intersection that is so critical that delays4145thousands of passengers every day. It would be interesting to4146hear that.4147    Let me also ask, does Connecticut conduct highway4148maintenance at night to minimize disruptions?4149    Mr. Eucalitto. Yes, we do.4150    Mr. Moulton. So does every other railroad in the world4151except, to my knowledge, Metro-North. Why does Metro-North only4152conduct maintenance during the day, delaying thousands of4153passengers on Metro-North and Amtrak every single week?4154    Mr. Eucalitto. I can take that question to the president of4155Metro-North and get back to you.4156    Mr. Moulton. I would appreciate that very much.4157    Look, the point is, we ought to just have a level playing4158field. It is crazy that a mode of transportation that is so4159fundamentally good for public safety, good for the environment4160constantly gets hampered by Government reviews and redtape.4161That is why this hearing is so important.4162    But we also have to have a comprehensive picture of the4163subsidies here, because it is so out of whack. We are4164subsidizing all the inefficiencies in highways and airlines,4165and we have got this amazingly efficient system that we hang4166out to dry.4167    Thanks, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.4168    Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Fong, you are recognized for 54169minutes.4170    Mr. Fong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing4171on the future of Federal rail assistance. I appreciate the4172testimony from the witnesses.4173    As we assess how best to steward taxpayer dollars in4174support of America's transportation infrastructure, we must4175take a hard look at what has worked and what has not. In my4176home State, the California high-speed rail project is,4177regrettably, a textbook example of Government mismanagement and4178fiscal irresponsibility.4179    Since 2009, the Federal Railroad Administration has4180allocated approximately $3.5 billion to this project; $2.54181billion under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; and4182nearly $1 billion in subsequent Federal grants. These funds4183have subsidized a bloated bureaucracy and a project that is4184nowhere near completion. Originally pitched to voters as a $334185billion system connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles, the4186pricetag now exceeds over $100 billion, with no direct4187connection between either of these cities in sight. Instead, we4188have carved up my community, California's Central Valley, to4189create a stranded asset with no utility.4190    This is not just a California problem. It is a national4191issue, because it is Federal taxpayer money being wasted.4192Congress cannot and should not continue to send resources to4193this project that has no accountability, weak performance4194metrics, and no realistic paths to completion.4195    The California high-speed rail boondoggle highlights4196exactly what happens when lofty promises collide with poor4197planning and unchecked spending. It should serve as a warning,4198not a blueprint, for future Federal rail investments. As we4199consider rail grants going forward, we must demand results;4200investments must have clear deliverables, cost discipline, and4201independent oversight.4202    If I can ask--in terms of one area of investment is short4203line rail projects--Ms. Bevil, first- and last-mile service is4204absolutely essential for supply chain and goods movement for4205shippers, retailers, and the short line rail industry. How does4206first and last mile impact shippers, and what steps are needed4207by Congress to improve efficiency and reliability?4208    And what kind of safeguards can we put in to ensure viable4209projects are supported?4210    Ms. Bevil. Thank you for the question.4211    Short lines impact shippers in an incredibly positive way.4212Most short lines are local. The folks that work on the railroad4213live in the communities where the customers live. We are the4214first mile, last mile. We are there to adjust service. We can4215be flexible and bring the national network to those customers.4216So oftentimes you will hear customers say that they want to4217locate on a short line because of that service.4218    Providing that service requires intensive capital4219improvements to our short line railroads. That's track, rail,4220crossings, and the CRISI program really provides a lot of4221benefit in that way. Having advance appropriations, knowing4222that funding is going to be there is important, and being able4223to get those dollars into short line railroads' hands.4224    Mr. Fong. Thank you very much. I will just throw--just4225because my opening statement was so focused on high-speed rail4226in California, but it is clearly just the biggest waste of4227money.4228    I mean, I represent an area where I see the damage every4229single day. I drive by these corridors, we call it the4230Stonehenge of the Central Valley, where we have billions of4231dollars being spent not only in the Federal Government, but the4232State of California is spending $1 billion a year trying to4233salvage this project with just no private investment; a4234complete bait and switch, I think, to what the voters were4235promised.4236    So if I could ask, what kind of safeguards do you envision4237included in the Federal rail assistance to ensure viable4238projects are supported and nonviable projects are not4239supported?4240    I will throw it out to the entire panel.4241    Mr. Dietrich. Congressman, I don't know if this is4242equivalent, but during my testimony, I said that one of the4243things that we do is we use the Federal funds to supplement our4244State programs. And so I think one of the nature--and one of4245the reasons we have been successful is we don't ask for Federal4246money unless we are putting money into it. And all of our4247projects freight projects involve funding from our Federal4248partners.4249    So I think using State programs such as my own is kind of4250a--I don't want to say a litmus test, but a screening process.4251So what makes the CRISI grant program work for us is that it4252goes through the same screening as if we were going to give it4253State money. It just becomes an order of magnitude in a scale4254of: Can we handle this with the State program? Is the scope4255appropriate for Federal funding?4256    So I think having those screening mechanisms at the State4257level might get to what you are talking about. Again, it is not4258an apples-to-apples comparison, so I apologize.4259    Mr. Fong. I appreciate that. I have run out of time. I4260might trust the Ohio Government better than the Sacramento.4261    But, I yield back.4262    Mr. Webster of Florida. Mrs. Foushee, you are recognized4263for 5 minutes.4264    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Chairman Webster and Ranking4265Member Titus, for holding this hearing. And thank you to the4266witnesses for being here with us today.4267    As members of this committee are well aware, prior to the4268passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, there was no4269guaranteed source of funding for intercity passenger rail. The427018 States who fund Amtrak service, including my home State of4271North Carolina, would have to wait until after Congress4272finished the appropriations process to know how much money4273would be available for passenger rail service and projects that4274year.4275    The majority completed the fiscal year 2025 appropriations4276process in the middle of March, halfway through this fiscal4277year. It is not hard to imagine how that would make project4278planning and budgeting for State DOTs immensely difficult in a4279world without the guaranteed BIL funding already in place.4280    Mr. Eucalitto, can you speak to the way BIL has impacted4281the ability of States to plan for passenger rail projects?4282    Mr. Eucalitto. Yes, thank you for the question.4283    When we look at transportation infrastructure investments4284across all modes, having reliability and predictability of4285funding allows us to do long-term planning of where we should4286be investing our funds, where we should be allocating our staff4287resources, which are very limited. If we don't know that4288funding will be there to apply for or to receive, then we may4289be hesitant to invest our staff resources and a lot of our4290planning resources towards those projects.4291    The IIJA, having this ability to know that these funds are4292available to go after, States like mine have been able to4293redirect our resources, make long-term plans for infrastructure4294projects that we never thought we would be able to actually4295execute.4296    And then I know in other States they have other projects4297that they are looking at implementing. We talked about one in4298Nevada, but also I know North Carolina is heavily investing in4299rail, and those States are now--they see the opportunity, they4300are dedicating the resources at the State level to match those4301Federal funds, and that is the important thing that my4302colleague from Ohio talked about. Everything is matched with4303State and local funds, as well, so it is a force multiplier in4304investments.4305    Mrs. Foushee. Indeed. North Carolina is using a Federal-4306State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant, the4307largest grant award in the history of our State, to establish4308the S-Line, providing a better, faster, and more efficient4309connection between North Carolina's rail network and4310Virginia's, and thereby connecting my State to the expansive4311Northeast rail corridor. Any reduction or delay in this grant4312would increase project costs, have a direct and negative impact4313on job creation, and would endanger years of planning and4314collaboration between the North Carolina DOT, freight rail4315companies operating in our State, and the communities in which4316the S-Line has been promised.4317    So Mr. Eucalitto, what would happen if the FRA were to4318suddenly reduce the size of one of those grants you and your4319team are currently executing?4320    Mr. Eucalitto. So we start a project under the assumption4321that the funds will be there when we need them, and that the4322project will be funded. And we work to make sure that we4323monitor it carefully, and do it the most efficient way4324possible.4325    If there was a funding reduction in a rail grant or any4326form of grant, we would look to potentially suspend work on4327that project or have to go to our State legislature to see what4328we would have to move around to supplement the loss in Federal4329funds. It is difficult, then, to look at the landscape of all4330the infrastructure needs in our State: What projects would we4331suspend or pause?4332    And in my State DOT, we have a bin, a bin of unfunded4333projects. So in this case, we would put that project--put it in4334the bin, and then hope that funding would become available in4335the future.4336    And it would put people out of work who may be lined up to4337work on that project.4338    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you for that. And lastly, can you speak4339a little about how you and the Connecticut DOT are working with4340the U.S. DOT to ensure that you are able to protect your4341State's existing grants and execute on the FRA's requirements?4342    Mr. Eucalitto. Thank you. The staff at FRA are fantastic4343professionals who have been doing amazing work trying to4344deliver, I think, over a 500-percent increase in rail funding.4345It has been truly impressive. They are under a lot of pressure.4346    And so, we have been spending a lot of time meeting with4347FRA staff to work with them to try and find some efficiencies4348for how we can get work out the door faster and more4349efficiently and try to get things moving and put shovels in the4350ground.4351    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield.4352    Mr. Webster of Florida. I would like to ask unanimous4353consent that we enter into the record an announcement of4354Secretary Duffy and President Trump issued today, which4355approved 24 rail grants totaling $300 million.4356    Without objection, show that ordered.4357    [The information follows:]43584359       Press Release of May 6, 2025, from the U.S. Department of4360    Transportation, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Daniel Webster4361Tuesday, May 6, 20254362Contact: pressoffice@dot.gov4363U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy Approves Another 180 Grants4364                     to Get America Building Again4365Secretary Duffy is chipping away at the unprecedented Biden-Buttigieg4366        backlog of more than 3,200 unsigned projects.4367    Washington, DC.--U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy today4368announced the Department has approved another 180 infrastructure grants4369to get America building again. The latest grants, which total more than4370$3.2 billion, are part of the unprecedented backlog of more than 3,2004371projects the previous administration announced but did not execute.4372Since assuming office, Secretary Duffy and the Department of4373Transportation have approved a total of 329 grants, or roughly 10% of4374the Biden-Buttigieg backlog.4375    ``America is building again,'' said U.S. Transportation Secretary4376Sean P. Duffy. ``At the Department of Transportation, that means4377getting back to basics: Building More, Building Efficiently and4378Building Quickly. The last administration liked to grab the headlines4379but didn't want to do the hard work of building. They also tied road4380construction up with red tape and leftist social requirements--adding4381millions in costs and months of delay--all while our outdated4382infrastructure sat in disrepair. This administration has a different4383vision: drain the swamp and make government work for the American4384people.''4385                         Alabama's I-10 Bridge:4386    The largest grant within this package is $550 million for breaking4387ground on Alabama's I-10 Mobile River bridge and Bayway multimodal4388project. This project will allow the state to implement desperately4389needed infrastructure upgrades by bypassing two aging tunnels and4390replacing the existing Bayway Bridges.4391    Completing this project was a major promise [https://4392www.kplctv.com/2019/05/14/pres-trump-promises-new-i-bridge-if-hes-re-4393elected/] made by President Trump.4394                               Reminder:4395    The Trump Administration inherited a record number of 3,2004396unobligated grants that had been announced by the previous4397administration but never obligated. This unprecedented backlog of4398unobligated grants delayed critical investments in communities across4399the country. Under Secretary Duffy's direction, the Department is4400working diligently to accelerate the distribution of these long-overdue4401funds and address core infrastructure projects.4402    As part of this process, the Department has ripped out burdensome4403DEI, Green New Scam, and social justice requirements that Congress4404deliberately did not mandate. This includes social cost of carbon4405accounting, pointless greenhouse gas emission reporting, and4406discriminatory DEI language.4407    Additional examples of removed leftist requirements can be found4408here [https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/grant-agreement-4409schedule-h-and-i-2025].4410    Removing these requirements will save taxpayers millions. Road4411construction costs skyrocketed [https://enotrans.org/article/fhwa-4412highway-construction-costs-continued-to-grow-at-24-annual-rate/]4413roughly 70% under the last administration. The greenhouse gas reporting4414burden alone increased project costs and added months to the permitting4415process.4416                           Grants Breakdown:4417    The latest series of 180 grants approved are outlined below. A more4418detailed breakdown of each grant can be found here [https://4419www.transportation.gov/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act/grants-4420press-release].44214422    Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Stauber.4423    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Chair Webster. I have said it4424before and I will say it again: NEPA is holding back our supply4425chain infrastructure, our energy independence, and our economy4426as a whole.4427    And while we made some important changes to the NEPA4428process in the Fiscal Responsibility Act, the reforms were4429largely ignored by the Biden administration, as they4430interpreted that law as ``just a suggestion.'' Environmental4431assessment, 1-year shot clock; environmental impact statement,44322-year shot clock; and the Biden administration said that was4433just a suggestion, unfortunately.4434    Why would you pass legislation to spend billions of dollars4435on infrastructure and not actively work to remove barriers so4436projects could actually come online in a timely fashion?4437    Ms. Bevil, I know CRISI grants are important to the short4438line rail industry. Does NEPA often delay and get in the way of4439short line rail from using their awarded CRISI grants?4440    Ms. Bevil. Thank you for the question.4441    Yes, I mean, it can delay projects. A majority of short4442line CRISI projects apply for a CE, but even that process can4443take some time. Often we need to hire a consultant to go4444through that process to get the categorical exemption. If it is4445a bigger project--say, a larger bridge or a build-out of some4446stretch of rail--then the NEPA process can take a very long4447time and can add to us completing the project, years.4448    Mr. Stauber. Which is years, which is a lot of money and a4449lot of time. Right?4450    Ms. Bevil. It is, yes.4451    Mr. Stauber. Okay, so you mentioned categorical exclusions.4452Tell us where that would be a benefit. Explain to us why and4453where that would be a benefit for the short lines.4454    Ms. Bevil. Sure. So when short lines are doing track4455projects that are on their own property and not disturbing any4456outside land, being able to just submit, for instance--say, a4457grant, CRISI award, was announced and there was a bunch of4458projects that kind of fell into one category. If those could4459just move through quickly and get that categorical exclusion,4460be excluded from the NEPA process any further, that would make4461things go quickly.4462    Mr. Stauber. So, you have a--so, let me try to rephrase4463this. You have a short line, let's say a mile of track that you4464wanted to replace in the same location. New track, new steel.4465And you are looking for a categorical exclusion. It is denied.4466You go through the NEPA process, which could take years,4467costing time and money. You are putting that replacement in the4468exact location as the prior track. It doesn't make sense, and4469that is the whole--that is why we have to really look at4470getting these projects online sooner, not skipping out on any4471environmental laws or labor laws.4472    The gentleman just talked about projects being delayed. It4473is time and money. So the categorical exclusions in this4474example is perfect. It is in the--it is on the same location,4475same property, same line, just newer steel and maybe newer4476safety features.4477    Ms. Bevil. That is correct, and we have no problem4478complying with the environmental laws. We agree to do that. We4479just want that process to happen faster.4480    Mr. Stauber. Exactly. I think that the four witnesses here4481can be--can help our American economy by looking at the NEPA4482process and helping us when we are currently doing permitting4483reform.4484    I have said it in this committee before. Can anybody tell4485me on this--any witness here tell me, on average, how long it4486takes to open up a mine in the United States of America?4487    Twenty-nine years. Twenty-nine years. That's on average.4488    I mean, we can do better than that. You are the4489transportation experts. We need to get this running, and we4490need to get it done yesterday. And so I think that all of your4491help is going to really be a positive impact on our rail and4492safety communities.4493    So with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.4494    Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Deluzio, you are recognized for44955 minutes.4496    Mr. Deluzio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning,4497everyone. I want to focus my questioning on the Railroad4498Crossing Elimination grant program.4499    My district in western Pennsylvania, we have got freight4500tracks running all over the district. Ninety-five percent of my4501constituents live within 5 miles of those tracks. Almost half4502live within 1 mile. And we have some of the most dangerous4503crossings not just in Pennsylvania, but in the Northeast4504region. Cheswick in particular, a very dangerous crossing. Lots4505of data about it. McKees Rocks is another. And so I think that4506Railroad Crossing Elimination grant program is essential. It is4507a very important one. I know the railroads agree with this. I4508know communities have been begging us for more action from the4509Federal Government.4510    But a complaint that I often hear is that these grants are4511very difficult for small communities to apply for and get. And4512in Pennsylvania, and in western Pennsylvania in particular,4513lots of smaller municipalities, boroughs, townships struggle to4514get this funding.4515    And so Mr. Eucalitto, Mr. Dietrich, I will start with each4516of you. What can we do to make it so that smaller communities4517can get these dollars to deal with crossings where--it is in4518their community, these are dangerous crossings. How can they4519get those dollars?4520    Mr. Eucalitto. Thank you for the question.4521    So this is a common problem we see at the State DOT level4522with rail grants and all modes of transportation. And so what4523we have been doing on the roadway side is, we do a fund swap4524oftentimes because the hardest part is actually using the funds4525once the communities receive them to comply with all the4526Federal regulations.4527    So we will often take funds aimed for locals and swap it4528with State funds so they don't have to deal with the Federal4529redtape. That is not available on the railroad side. But I4530think there are things that can be done to make it easier,4531such----4532    Mr. Deluzio [interrupting]. Can I--just--if that is an4533approach, does that require something from Congress? And if so,4534what should we be thinking about?4535    Mr. Eucalitto. So that is available for the formula fund4536side. I think it is worth looking at the Federal highway4537programs and what they allow for those fund swaps. It works4538great for us at the State DOT level to allow local governments4539to use State funds while leverage--we use the State funds, so4540they don't deal with the redtape.4541    We could apply for--on behalf of local governments at the4542State DOT level, that is an approach. But also having, like, a4543uniform, common application, because every grant application is4544different. And so, the local governments have to figure out how4545to apply for that grant application with that specific4546requirement. If there was almost like a common app like for4547college admissions for grants it would be a lot easier for4548local, small communities.4549    Mr. Deluzio. And I will tell you--and I know I am not alone4550in this--I have municipalities of a couple hundred people in my4551district who have rail crossings who need these Federal4552dollars.4553    Mr. Dietrich, I want you to weigh in, as well.4554    Mr. Dietrich. Thank you for the question.4555    The way we have handled that in Ohio is, we set up a State4556program--Governor DeWine set up a State program. And what we4557use that for is, we have communities apply to us, and then we4558will determine whether that is something, if we can handle with4559State funds--if it is a smaller project, say, an access road as4560opposed to a grade separation. If it is a grade separation, we4561will work with our DOT districts and go through our local4562program administration process.4563    So, we will apply on behalf of the communities, with4564concurrence from ODOT to build the project if we are awarded.4565So as Connecticut does, we will apply on behalf of the local4566communities, but we will use that State money to determine if4567the project is scalable enough, if we can do it just with State4568funds.4569    Mr. Deluzio. And that is what you would--that is your4570approach with the current requirements and grant application4571rules, rather than if we were to change something here in4572Congress.4573    Mr. Dietrich. Yes, and it gets to more of the complexity of4574just administering Federal funds.4575    I mean, I think one of the things that is really important4576to note, we deal with Federal funds all the time, so we are set4577up to do this. But like the short line railroads, the small4578communities, whether it is CRISI, RCE, they just--they are just4579not set up to do it. And I mean, that is something that we as4580States have been taking on, that role. It is a traditional role4581through the formula funds.4582    It is not a traditional role through the discretionary4583projects. So we struggle as States on how to best assist local4584communities, how to best assist short lines. Sometimes they4585will get the awards and they will realize that they do not have4586the organizational capacity to administer them.4587    So it--I wish I had a--you identified a very, very4588legitimate concern, I just don't really have a good response,4589other than that we take on a lot of that responsibility as4590State DOTs to help communities with it.4591    Mr. Deluzio. I thank you both, and I hope the committee4592will be thoughtful about thinking about our smaller communities4593as we get to work on this this coming year. Thank you.4594    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.4595    Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Taylor, you are recognized for45965 minutes.4597    Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman Webster and Ranking Member4598Titus, for holding this hearing today, and thank you to our4599witnesses for your testimony and insight and the sacrifices you4600made to be here.4601    I want to especially thank Mr. Dietrich from the Ohio Rail4602Development Commission for testifying before the committee on4603Ohio's successes in growing its rail industry and increasing4604rail safety in our great State.4605    Ohio has 44 operating railroads and over 5,000 miles of4606track, making Ohio the third largest rail infrastructure State4607in the Nation. With Ohio's presence in the rail industry, it is4608vital that when Ohio receives Federal grants, the funds are4609delivered promptly.4610    Mr. Dietrich, in your testimony, you mentioned how grant4611applications require a great amount of time and resources to4612compile. As I am sure you are aware, many rural communities4613across southern Ohio do not have the resources to hire grant4614writers. Can you elaborate on how the State of Ohio has been4615able to help rural communities receive Federal dollars from the4616Federal Railroad Administration?4617    Mr. Dietrich. Thank you, Representative.4618    Actually, it goes along with our other question. We4619actually set up a program where communities and railroads will4620apply to us, and we will then be the applicant. We will take on4621responsibility for the grants administration. We were just4622successful--Circleville, we just received an RCE grant for4623that, and we are going to administer that for them. We are4624working with Haverhill right now down in Scioto County through4625that same process. And that was enabled because the Governor4626provided us the State funds so we can do the planning, we can4627do the studies that communities don't have the resources to4628apply for--they don't even have the resources to apply for the4629grants. So that is what we are--that is the role that we are4630playing to help the rural communities.4631    Mr. Taylor. Well, as Congressman Fong stated, the Ohio4632Government is surely more trustworthy than the California ones,4633but how are we going to help the rural communities outside of4634Ohio get--is there something Congress can do to make it easier4635for them to get grants?4636    Mr. Dietrich. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, the only thing I4637can think of is possibly some training, some training to4638administer.4639    There are programs under Federal--under FHWA formula funds,4640the LPA program, local program assistance programs that provide4641training and things like that to local communities. And I think4642that would be something that could be done.4643    Mr. Taylor. Okay, thank you.4644    Ohio has over 500 miles of short line rail that delivers4645critical goods to businesses and communities. Short line4646railroads across the State and country often rely on CRISI4647grants for infrastructure improvements, safety enhancements,4648and workforce development. Ms. Bevil, in your experience, how4649have CRISI investments benefited railroads and surrounding4650local communities in terms of economic growth and public4651safety?4652    Ms. Bevil. Thank you for the question.4653    In my experience, we have a railroad in Mississippi--4654actually, the Grenada Railroad--that we partnered with the4655local mayor of the city of Hernando, as well as six other4656mayors, to apply for a CRISI grant in the last round that was4657awarded. And that grant will expand capacity, which will4658eliminate blocked crossings and also upgrade numerous crossings4659across these small towns in Mississippi. That is a way that we4660have really partnered with the locals to promote public safety.4661    Mr. Taylor. Okay, thank you.4662    Mr. Dietrich, again, we have talked a lot about the NEPA4663process in here today. Do you have an idea of how Ohio,4664administering the NEPA process itself, how much that sped up4665the process of getting permits out?4666    Mr. Dietrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman.4667    We just received it in December, so we are just embarking4668on that. We anticipate that it will--I can't give you a4669timeline, because, as Ms. Bevil said, a lot of the freight4670projects are just low-level CEs, so they are going to be on a4671project basis.4672    The low-level CEs, I think, we will be able to process--4673almost batch them out, I think, especially if they don't4674involve railroad right-of-way. So there is going to be an4675immense amount of time savings on those projects. The larger4676grade crossing elimination projects with real estate4677acquisition, things like that, those would still be more on4678timeline. Our anticipation is they will be more on timeline, as4679if they were FHWA or just standard ODOT-led projects.4680    Mr. Taylor. Okay. Thank you all very much.4681    And I yield back.4682    Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for46835 minutes.4684    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to4685thank you and the ranking member for hosting this critical4686hearing, and I thank the witnesses for their time and for their4687testimony today.4688    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was supposed to be a4689turning point for America's rail system. For the first time in469050 years, we had the funding, the jobs, and the plans to4691deliver modern, safe, and reliable rail service in every corner4692of the country. It was about giving communities, many of which4693had been waiting far too long, access to the transportation4694services that they deserve.4695    However, instead of building on this historic investment,4696we are witnessing reckless actions threatening to undo it all.4697Under this administration, we have seen grants slashed, funding4698blocked, and workers laid off. These actions aren't just4699inefficient, they are actively stalling progress, driving up4700costs, and delaying projects essential to providing the rail4701service the American people were promised.4702    These cuts are stripping away jobs from the very people who4703are supposed to be rebuilding our infrastructure, upgrading our4704tracks, and designing the rail systems of the future. It is a4705direct hit to the workers who make sure we are on track for4706progress.4707    We need more than an empty declaration. We need reliable,4708predictable, and dedicated funding for rail in the next surface4709transportation bill. The American people deserve better service4710now, not 10 years from now. They have been waiting long enough.4711Our investment today will create jobs, improve safety, and4712finally connect people to the services that they need. It is4713time to get back on track. Let's finish the job we started and4714make sure that the promises we have made to the American people4715are kept.4716    Mr. Hicks, as we work on the surface transportation bill,4717it is critical that we evaluate how the Federal Railroad4718Administration is delivering on its mission not just4719internally, but through contractors it relies on to carry out4720that work. Gannett Fleming TranSystems holds a contract worth4721up to $50 million to support the Federal Railroad4722Administration in managing and implementing major4723infrastructure grants.4724    We all know the grant process can be complex, especially4725with the scale of investment we have seen under the Bipartisan4726Infrastructure Law. However, with that level of responsibility4727comes an expectation that this process is constantly improving4728and not stalling.4729    Mr. Hicks, when did Gannett Fleming TranSystems begin work4730under its $50 million FRA grant, and how many people are4731currently working on this project?4732    Mr. Hicks. Thank you for the question, Congressman Johnson.4733    Yes, GFT has been actively working supporting FRA since4734about 2010 on multiple contracts over that time that do add up4735to that number----4736    Mr. Johnson of Georgia [interrupting]. Under this current4737$50 million contract.4738    Mr. Hicks. The current contract----4739    Mr. Johnson of Georgia [interrupting]. When did you begin4740work?4741    Mr. Hicks [continuing]. I believe was awarded in, I want to4742say, 3Q or 4Q of last year.4743    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And have you----4744    Mr. Hicks [interrupting]. And we have not really been doing4745much of anything on it right now.4746    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Why is that?4747    Mr. Hicks. Under directive of the FRA to pause action.4748    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So the President and DOGE have cut4749the grant, and you are not able to receive the money to do what4750you were to do under the grant, is that correct?4751    Mr. Hicks. There was definitely a pause that came from some4752directive and to us from our client, FRA, to slow down or stop,4753which is recently starting up again, but slowly.4754    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Any other reasons why4755you have not begun work under the grant?4756    Mr. Hicks. No, just direction from our client.4757    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right, thank you.4758    Ms. Bevil, the investments made through the Bipartisan4759Infrastructure Law have clearly had a significant impact. Can4760you discuss the ripple effects we are seeing from these4761investments, particularly from shippers and carriers, and what4762will happen when the money dries up or if the grants remain4763paused?4764    Ms. Bevil. Sure. One of the major causes of derailments for4765a short line railroad is lack of ties and failure of the track.4766And the CRISI program directly addresses those conditions.4767    Putting money into our track then allows our customers to4768have efficient, reliable service. They rely on the short lines4769to get goods to the national rail network, and we need the4770track to get them there. Without the CRISI program, those4771projects will slow down. They will either not happen or they4772will happen over a course of many years versus getting the4773projects done right away.4774    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.4775    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.4776    Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Nehls, you are recognized for 54777minutes.4778    Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for all our4779witnesses.4780    I had an opportunity not so long ago to go down to Fort4781Worth and Western Railroad, located in the great State of4782Texas. It operates over 276 miles in eight counties in our4783State. So Ms. Bevil, I know we have talked a lot about CRISI,4784but explain to the people that are watching this how valuable4785robust funding is for these rail safety programs like CRISI.4786    Ms. Bevil. Sure. Most short lines began from purchases from4787larger railroads of unprofitable branch lines, and so, short4788lines have a lot of deferred maintenance. In order to correct4789that maintenance, programs like CRISI really provide the4790ability to invest in the track.4791    Mr. Nehls. So I know we have been talking about it,4792inefficiency, Government inefficiency. We have seen it. How4793long does it typically take to achieve a CRISI grant agreement4794with the FRA?4795    Ms. Bevil. From the time of application to award, it can4796take 4 or 5 years.4797    Mr. Nehls. Okay.4798    Ms. Bevil. I have heard of projects taking longer, as well.4799    Mr. Nehls. So what is the total length of time between the4800award announcement and the actual disbursement of the funds?4801    Ms. Bevil. The time from award announcement to agreement is4802usually a year or so, and then to actual disbursement can be4803another 6 months to a year.4804    Mr. Nehls. So, 1 to 2 years. Talk a little bit about the4805element of advanced appropriation funds associated with the4806programs like CRISI in the context of providing long-term4807project planning, program stability, and efficiency.4808    Ms. Bevil. Sure. As small businesses, it is so helpful for4809short lines to know that this amount of grant funding is going4810to be available in years to come so that we can plan our4811capital expenditures accordingly.4812    Mr. Nehls. Yes, I think it is critical that these--we--4813obviously, we distribute these funds in a timely manner. I4814think we have the right guy in the White House to help us with4815that, and we will support the new administration.4816    And at the same time, it is critical that rail safety grant4817programs like CRISI do not go towards mismanaged projects. The4818California high-speed rail--I think Mr. Fong, from his State of4819California, said it very clearly. It is a--just a money pit.4820Nothing good happening there in California. And instead, I4821think it should go to the Class II's, regionals, Class III's,4822the short lines, the switching railroads which connect and4823serve our rural communities and have smaller scale, shovel-4824ready projects that deliver more immediate and widespread4825benefits. So thank you, Ms. Bevil.4826    Mr. Dietrich, I am a strong advocate for rail safety, I am.4827Last Congress, I introduced with my friend, Seth Moulton, who4828is a brilliant--he is brilliant, a Democrat that knows a lot4829about rail safety--so we introduced the Railroad Safety4830Enhancement Act of 2024, authorized $1.5 billion for each of4831the fiscal years 2025 through 2028 for the Railroad Crossing4832Elimination program--very, very important--2,000 such4833collisions, 200 fatalities every year. And we need to provide4834and allow for more construction of overpasses and underpasses,4835obviously effectively separating road and rail traffic and4836reducing the likelihood of these accidents.4837    I understand the FRA awarded a Railroad Crossing4838Elimination grant to Ohio, to the Ohio Rail Development4839Commission, for the Hines Hill Road separation in Hudson.4840Explain to me how that impacts your industry and how critical4841it is to eliminate these dangerous crossings.4842    Mr. Dietrich. Congressman, the RCE program has really been4843a game-changer.4844    Mr. Nehls. Yes.4845    Mr. Dietrich. Hines Hill is a perfect example of what4846wouldn't have happened. This project has been around for a4847decade or more----4848    Mr. Nehls [interposing]. Yes.4849    Mr. Dietrich [continuing]. Of the community not being able4850to just have the resources to address it.4851    We were able to and--again, we--thankfully, the Governor4852put together a safety program, so we had the money to leverage4853with the local community.4854    Mr. Nehls. Beautiful.4855    Mr. Dietrich. They applied one time. They didn't get it. So4856we went back, we worked with them, upgraded the application. I4857can say one of the State senators--we embedded a video the4858State senator had of a schoolbus trying to do a 12-point turn4859at a blocked crossing. Talk about a picture saying a thousand4860words about safety.4861    Mr. Nehls. Yes, so----4862    Mr. Dietrich [interrupting]. But--so that--the RCE program4863is transformative. We have received four additional--we have4864four total projects under the RCE award. Each one of them is4865for long-term projects that the communities have always wanted.4866    And, to Congressman Taylor, we talked about rural4867communities, but these are long-term issues for urban4868communities, as well. So it really--the program is--like I4869said, I can't speak enough about how transformative the program4870is.4871    Mr. Nehls. Fantastic, thank you.4872    I yield.4873    Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Ryan, you are recognized for 54874minutes.4875    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of you4876for being here. I am probably going to hit on some of the4877common themes that, in a good way, are bipartisan and important4878in our districts, and I really appreciate each of you taking4879your time today and the work that you do.4880    I represent the Hudson Valley of New York. It is about 24881hours north of New York City, very significant rail4882infrastructure and presence, thousands of miles of both4883commuter and freight, mostly CSX on the freight side and Amtrak4884and Metro-North in terms of passenger rail. I have over 1004885rail crossings in my district. All of them have been challenged4886at varying degrees in terms of safety and rail safety. But4887there are five specific areas that I just want to quickly talk4888about in leading up to a question about the RCE program that we4889just heard questions from my colleague on.4890    So in the city of Kingston, my hometown, actually, 35 very4891fast-moving, heavily weighted trains per day going through a4892densely populated urban area carrying waste, petroleum,4893industrial chemicals, all critical things, but a longstanding4894pattern of safety issues there.4895    Same in the city of Newburgh, where we have had near-4896catastrophic derailments collocated next to the major water4897supply for another one of the major urban areas in my district.4898    In the town of Ulster, along the CSX freight line, multiple4899tragic fatalities. In one case, due to the literal lack of any4900pedestrian signage at a known crossing site, including most4901recently in 2023.4902    In the town of Saugerties, an entirely ungated rail4903crossing on a major road without any warning signs that in 20174904a constituent riding in a taxi was actually killed as the taxi4905driver was lost and unaware of where they stopped right in the4906path of an oncoming train.4907    And finally, in the city of Port Jervis at the western edge4908of my district, where just a few years ago--again, this tragic4909story repeated of a fatality due to a lack of proper signage4910and safety crossings.4911    The good news? The good news is that, thanks to the4912Railroad Crossing Elimination program, part of the Bipartisan4913Infrastructure Law that we have heard so much support from, we4914got a grant in the latest round for the city of Port Jervis to4915develop pedestrian accessibility improvements for an existing4916at-grade crossing.4917    And so I just want to continue to foot-stomp this in a4918bipartisan way, the importance of this program, and to say, I4919don't think this should be partisan, but I am worried it might4920become that. As we look towards this next surface reauth, I4921think it would be a grave mistake to cut funding. And I think4922we, obviously, need to add funding, given the American lives at4923stake.4924    So with that very long windup--and I appreciate you all4925listening to that--I have got to bring this home for4926constituents in my district--Mr. Dietrich, you talked about4927rail crossing elimination--you were just talking about it--in4928your State, and I think in my colleague's district, actually,4929ironically. So as we look towards the surface bill reauth,4930this, as I said, has to be a top priority.4931    I know you have probably not been to Port Jervis in the4932fine State of New York, but can you talk about what the impact4933would be if we were to lose the funding, or if it were4934combined, as we have heard rumors of, to have RCE combined into4935some larger pool which could then get diffused for these needs?4936    Mr. Dietrich. Thank you for the question, Congressman.4937    Grade separations are difficult for communities. They are4938difficult for--even to rank them separately. Because if you4939do--the RCE program, one of the good things, is it doesn't have4940a benefit-cost analysis associated with it--all the other4941programs do--because it just doesn't cost out that well4942compared to other projects. So I think having the separate4943program for the grade separations is very, very important.4944    I also think allowing some of that flexibility--and as I4945said in my testimony--if part of it could be allocated somehow4946so that we could do development so we don't have to apply just4947for the planning funds, I think that would help everybody get4948more of these crossings done.4949    And finally, I think it is also to note that while RCE is4950very, very important, we also layer those other projects. So4951like--I mentioned something in the last testimony of4952Circleville in Congressman Taylor's district. We actually4953started that project with FHWA formula funding. So, blending4954these things, it becomes more of a kind of an economic4955development funding stack, as opposed to a traditional local-4956Federal partnership. It is made up of a lot of different4957money----4958    Mr. Ryan [interposing]. Yes.4959    Mr. Dietrich [continuing]. Including private railroads.4960    So I think that is all really important there.4961    Mr. Ryan. And I know I have 5 seconds. Do you think, if it4962were not separated out, that we would, in effect, lose these4963critical projects, though?4964    I mean, is that a fair assumption, given your expertise?4965    Mr. Dietrich. I think getting it to a BCA----4966    Mr. Ryan [interposing]. Yes.4967    Mr. Dietrich [continuing]. Application would be very hard.4968    Mr. Ryan. Yes. Thank you.4969    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.4970    Mr. Webster of Florida. Mrs. Sykes, you are recognized for49715 minutes.4972    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for all of4973the witnesses here to testify.4974    I am really excited also to hear about so much Ohio love. I4975have been saying on this committee we are the heart of it all,4976and hearing my colleagues from not only California and Texas4977commend us for all the work that we do just lets me know that I4978am on the right track. Pun intended. And so I do want to talk,4979obviously, about the topic at hand, and specifically about4980passenger rail in Ohio. And this is something that has become4981very near and dear to me for a lot of different reasons,4982considering what is happening in Ohio.4983    And so with the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure4984Law, there has been a renewed interest in capacity for4985infrastructure from coast to coast. And one in Ohio was4986Amtrak's 3C+D Corridor expansion. This 3C+D is a proposed4987passenger rail line to reconnect Ohio's largest cities--4988Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Dayton--through reliable4989modern rail service.4990    However, none of the C's in the 3C+D stand for Canton, and4991there is no A for Akron, which is in Ohio's 13th District. The4992plan would put together the Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati,4993Toledo, Detroit Corridor, and there is no stop in the Akron-4994Canton area. There really isn't a whole lot to offer for the4995eastern part of the State, which, as you know, Mr. Dietrich, is4996fledgling, with lack of economic opportunity and very rural.4997And it would be a boon to have some type of mobility there.4998    In fact, back in 2011, former Governor Kasich returned and4999sent back $400 million of Federal rail money back to the5000Federal Government that went to States like California.5001Although we did just get a boon for how our State operated, the5002money that would have come to Ohio over a decade ago went to5003the State of California.5004    And Mr. Dietrich, I know that you were the Federal [sic]5005Rail Commission chair at that time, when the decision was being5006made. And so, this conversation is about rail plans and5007projects and why they take so long, but I know that most of the5008argument is about NEPA, but it takes a whole lot longer to5009raise $400 million and turn it away. And that, I would say, is5010probably a more damning problem as to why we don't have rail.5011    So if you could, talk to us about that decision that you5012were a part of so many years ago and how it has held back5013passenger rail in Ohio.5014    Mr. Dietrich. Thank you for the question.5015    While I was Rail Commission director, we were the agency5016that developed the project, and so, that decision was made at5017the executive level and not involving the staff in terms of5018returning the funding.5019    I will say that that brings to a point that with, for5020whatever reason, as we develop passenger rail, there is a5021policy component or a policymaker component. And I think that5022is one of the great things about the Corridor ID project is5023that that is one thing that allows for us to do the planning.5024    And so, as in the State of Ohio, as you mentioned, we are5025advancing two corridors right now. And what that program allows5026us to do is, it allows us, as a department of transportation,5027as subject matter experts, to advance the project to a point5028where then we can provide that information to the policymakers5029in the State, which is--for us it would be the executive branch5030and the legislative branch and the General Assembly--present5031those projects to them, and then they can then determine5032appropriately whether they want to move on to the next step or5033not.5034    Mrs. Sykes. I thank you so much. But it still seems to5035amaze me that sending back $400 million--and I have seen5036estimates of upwards of 16,000 jobs--out of the State of Ohio,5037a State where we are losing population and need as much job5038support and economic development as possible--obviously, I was5039not in the legislature, I was not in Congress when those things5040happened.5041    But now that I am, and I have a community who is asking for5042rail, I looked at the State rail plan from 2019. There was a5043request from folks in the community for a stop in the Akron-5044Canton Airport into the community. I have a letter from the5045Akron-Canton Advocacy Alliance, which is the Canton Regional5046Chamber and the Greater Akron Chamber, requesting that Akron-5047Canton be a part of this. And consistently, we have just been5048told no.5049    And so, Mr. Dietrich, we haven't had a chance to talk about5050this publicly, but please tell me and share with this committee5051why Ohio's 13th Congressional District and my community is not5052eligible and should not get passenger rail as in your purview.5053    Mr. Dietrich. Well, again, it is not ineligible. The5054applications that we submitted, especially the 3C+D, were based5055on historical studies.5056    I can say that back--we are--we have revived some of that5057work that was canceled back in 2011. That work did look at a5058routing through Akron, but it was ruled out as not fitting the5059purpose and need of the project. And when I say ``purpose and5060need,'' that is a very technical term, not that it is not5061needed in the community. We are going to be reviewing that5062process through step 2 as we move for that corridor. So all5063those will be reevaluated.5064    I would suggest for the Akron community something that5065other communities have done. There is a great deal of--I don't5066want to say misunderstanding, but education needed with5067passenger rail, the differences between commuter rail and5068intercity passenger rail. And I think some of the comments5069there, we have--I have talked to some of the local5070transportation officials there and asked if they could work5071together to provide some kind of clarity there in terms of we5072can't have good times between major cities--like, one request5073was to connect to Pittsburgh, another request was to include in5074the 3C+D, another request was to connect the airport, and5075another request was to look at commuter lines to Cleveland.5076From a technical standpoint, those are all different projects5077to us, and they fall under even different funding sources and5078grant sources.5079    So I am happy to, again, continue to have that5080conversation, but I think that is something where we can help5081the community by providing guidance and, as we talked about,5082which is the right program to apply for for these things.5083    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back.5084    Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Garcia, you are recognized for50855 minutes.5086    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking5087Member, and, of course, our four witnesses.5088    Freight movement and the related infrastructure have a5089tremendous impact on Chicago. With over 7,400 miles of railroad5090tracks and thousands of rail crossings, we are very familiar5091with rail and the benefits and challenges that come with it. We5092have got kids in my district who have to choose between5093crawling under idling trains blocking the crossing and being5094late to school. We have got drivers and bicyclists who wait5095half an hour for a train to go by, or attempts at dangerous at-5096grade crossings. And we have got entire communities affected by5097idling trains, which contribute to bad air quality.5098    So in 2021, I introduced a bill to establish a grade5099separation program to increase and reduce the collisions at5100rail-highway crossings, and I am proud that the IIJA created a5101grant program that did exactly that called the Railroad5102Crossing Elimination grant program. These grants have already5103been coming to projects in my district and across the country5104to make crossings safer, but we have still have a lot of work5105to do.5106    Commissioner Eucalitto, why are programs like Railroad5107Crossing Elimination grant programs critical for States to5108advance rail safety improvements?5109    And--two-part question--what types of safety projects can5110be advanced, thanks to the IIJA's increased eligibility?5111    Mr. Eucalitto. Thank you for the question.5112    As you rightfully pointed out, a lot of times if someone--5113if drivers are waiting, or bikers or pedestrians are waiting5114for extended periods of time, they often will be more likely to5115take risks. It is true on the railroad side, it is true on the5116roadway side where, if people are waiting a long time to cross,5117they may take a risk and cross when it is unsafe.5118    And that is what the Rail Crossing Elimination program5119allows for the grade separation. It allows us to take the steps5120to improve safety in the communities in which this railroad5121infrastructure exists. That is something that I think every5122State wants to see continue.5123    In my State of Connecticut, we are using State funds right5124now, and we are hopeful to apply for RCE funds in the future to5125try and create a sealed corridor so that our heavily passaged5126travel to Hartford line can have modern safety equipment with5127quad gates, lights, camera detection. And then in some of our5128communities with freight rail, we are doing pedestrian5129crossings and better lighting there for the pedestrians, and5130signals so they know when it is safe to cross and when it is5131not safe to cross.5132    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. And what projects do you think5133could be advanced under the IIJA?5134    Mr. Eucalitto. So, many of those grade separation projects5135I don't think would be possible without the IIJA's Rail5136Crossing Elimination program. We have a project in Connecticut5137where we did receive some planning funds to look at how we can5138design a grade-separated crossing on Toelles Road in5139Wallingford, Connecticut. It is heavily traversed by freight on5140the roadway side, crossing with a passenger rail system for5141Amtrak and our State-run passenger rail system. So, without the5142IIJA funding opportunity for us to apply for in the future, I5143don't think we would ever get that program off the ground.5144    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you. In Chicago, the5145railroads, the State of Illinois, and Cook County in the metro5146region have all worked together to identify needed projects to5147improve passenger and freight rail flows through the city of5148Chicago. This series of projects is called CREATE. And without5149Federal investment, there would be no incentive for competitor5150railroads to work together on the capacity constraints of5151Chicago.5152    The Nationally Significant Multimodal Freight and Highway5153Projects Program, or INFRA, has funded several CREATE rail5154projects with IIJA funding. Commissioner Eucalitto, what5155benefits do you see in having INFRA funds go to freight rail5156projects?5157    Mr. Eucalitto. So, INFRA, it serves for many of our States5158to advance freight projects. It does fund very large-cost5159projects, and previously, without the existence of rail5160crossing elimination or dedicated rail funding, INFRA was5161really the only place we could go for these types of projects.5162    And I think it is critical to continue to allow that5163eligibility because it is truly a multimodal system, with our5164roadways intersecting with our railroads and our transit5165systems. And a program like INFRA allows us to do those large5166projects.5167    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you.5168    My time has expired. I yield back, Mr. Chair.5169    Mr. Webster of Florida. Ms. Friedman, you are recognized5170for 5 minutes.5171    Ms. Friedman. Thank you, Chair Webster and Ranking Member5172Titus, and to our witnesses for coming to join us today.5173    California, which I represent parts of, has very heavily5174used rail lines. I know that everyone thinks that everybody5175just rides their car in Los Angeles, but people take the train,5176too. In fact, my mother lives near Laguna Beach, and I take the5177Surfliner down from Los Angeles very frequently, and there have5178been many times where I have been on that train when it has5179been standing room only. In fact, I have had to go to San Diego5180at times, where they run out of seats and people are standing5181in the aisles. And it is great that people want to be riding5182these trains, but we also need to do more to give people a5183pleasant ride at the same time, and to accommodate all the5184riders that we have.5185    That line between--that goes up and down the California5186coast has about 3 million riders annually, and it is the second5187busiest intercity rail corridor in the United States. And it5188has got a lot of challenges, as you know; there are tracks that5189are falling into the ocean, kind of over and over again, and we5190can do a lot better.5191    Now, we are seeing private investment in some of our lines5192with Brightline now working on what I think will be one of the5193most popular train lines in the entire country between Las5194Vegas and Los Angeles. It is going to be quite the party train.5195But one thing that we don't have is rail line that is--anybody5196knows about or takes between Los Angeles and Palm Springs or5197Coachella, which are other huge destinations.5198    Just a week ago, I had to go to Palm Springs for a meeting,5199and it is not fun. Let me just tell you, to drive--I mean, Palm5200Springs is fun, but driving there is not fun. But we have5201tracks, but we don't have Amtrak service that goes reliably5202between L.A. and Palm Springs. I think there is one train that5203takes, for some reason, 2-plus hours, leaves at about 10:30 at5204night and arrives around 12:31 a.m. in Palm Springs, and I am5205not even sure if it is daily.5206    So, we have a lot of opportunities in Los Angeles to5207increase ridership, deal with congestion, get cars off the5208road, and have a more pleasant experience. So, I wanted to ask,5209Mr. Eucalitto, what we can do to improve existing high5210ridership lines in the United States. It is not a NEPA issue,5211but we have places like L.A. to Palm Springs that makes so much5212sense, but we don't have any service at all. We have got L.A.-5213San Diego, where people are taking it. We have maybe eight5214trains a day, but they are overcrowded. So what can we do to5215target fixing and improving these lines?5216    Mr. Eucalitto. Thank you for the question.5217    So, Connecticut is a heavily rail-dense State. And what we5218encountered is, we inherited a lot of old rail infrastructure.5219Some of our movable rail bridges are 130 years old, and we5220inherited it from the private sector when they went out of5221business. And so, it has been a continuous try and make the5222investments we need to bring it back up to where it needs to be5223in 21st-century standards.5224    And so, what IIJA has allowed us to do is make the5225investments we need into our existing infrastructure to do5226better signaling technology, better crossover and change5227points, upgrade the tracks, and improve the overhead power, the5228catenary system, and that will allow us to increase capacity on5229the rail lines and get more trains moving. On the Northeast5230Corridor, we have over 600,000 trips per day, and we can5231increase that by continuing to make the investments in the5232system to bring it up to modern standards.5233    Ms. Friedman. Thank you, and let me ask you a followup. Do5234you think that programs like the FRA Restoration and5235Enhancement Grant program, which I am sure you are utilizing,5236are they oversubscribed? Is there a bigger desire and need for5237these grants to upgrade our infrastructure so that we become a5238first-world country? Or is there plenty of money lying around?5239    Mr. Eucalitto. I think my State alone could probably use5240all of the available funding for those programs.5241    Ms. Friedman. Thank you. And what about cuts that we are5242seeing to the Department of Transportation and others? Is that5243something that is going to help your efforts to modernize and5244improve your system and get people rolling on these rail lines?5245Or do you think that that is just a neutral and okay thing?5246    Mr. Eucalitto. So, we have a really great relationship with5247the staff at FRA, as well as the other modes. We are waiting to5248see what happens with all the people who have taken the5249deferred resignations. We do know that administering grants is5250labor intensive, so it is going to require--maybe we are going5251to have to look at do we need to change the whole process5252around if there is going to be a reduced staff capacity. But we5253want to see the most efficient process as possible, but we also5254want to get the money in the ground as quickly as possible.5255    Ms. Friedman. Thank you. So clearly, people are using rail,5256they want to use rail more, and they deserve those investments5257from their Government to help make this transportation function5258better.5259    Thank you, and I yield back.5260    Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Nadler, you are recognized.5261    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Eucalitto, you have testified to the5262critical role that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's historic5263rail funding has played in delivering long-deferred projects,5264particularly in the Northeast Corridor. However, even with this5265progress, the demand for rail funding still far exceeds5266available resources. With 69 corridors selected across 445267States under the Corridor ID Program, short-distance, State-5268supported routes now account for nearly half of all Amtrak5269riders.5270    In your view, how important is it for State DOTs and5271ongoing projects that Congress expand funding levels for rail5272programs like CRISI and the Federal-State Partnership in the5273next surface transportation bill?5274    Mr. Eucalitto. Thank you for the question.5275    So, from AASHTO's perspective, the historic funding that5276was provided in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act5277really needs to be a base when you also account for inflation.5278Inflationary costs have driven up project costs for us to do5279any of the work we need to do on the railroad. And so, without5280accounting for that and seeing the increase in the next5281reauthorization to at least account for that inflation, we are5282going to go backwards of where we need to be, because we have5283historic investments that need to be made due to the age of the5284infrastructure that we are trying to repair out there.5285    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. As part of improving the Northeast5286Corridor, Amtrak is working on the Gateway Program, a series of5287projects to improve travel on the most congested section of the5288track between Newark, New Jersey, and New York Penn Station.5289Recently, Secretary Duffy reduced the previously awarded grants5290for the Northeast Corridor, including two in 2 weeks for Penn5291Station and Dock Bridge, and threatened other Federal grantees.5292    Mr. Eucalitto, what could reduced or uncertain funding for5293Northeast Corridor infrastructure projects mean for the5294reliability and capacity of rail service used daily by5295residents in the tristate area?5296    Mr. Eucalitto. Due to the size of the investments we need5297to make in our infrastructure on the Northeast Corridor, I5298think we need predictable and reliable funding. And IIJA did5299provide us with at least a vision of how we could have that5300predictable and reliable funding through the efforts of the5301Northeast Corridor Commission. And working with the FRA5302developing that list of priority projects allowed us at the5303State DOTs and the recipients of the funds to actually plan5304ahead, ``here is the work we need to do,'' because these are5305not projects that will be done in a year or two. Some of these5306projects will take a decade to accomplish.5307    When you look at having to maintain the rail traffic on5308that railroad, there are no detours around the Northeast5309Corridor, so, we have to continue passing trains while doing5310the infrastructure work. And so, it is very complicated5311compared to the highway side. So, we need that predictability5312and reliability to continue making the investments.5313    Mr. Nadler. So, what are the effects of Secretary Duffy's5314reducing previously awarded grants?5315    Mr. Eucalitto. I can't speak specifically to the Gateway5316Program, because that is outside of Connecticut. But I can say,5317from Connecticut's perspective, we rely on the Federal grants5318that we receive to know that we are going to put people to work5319and keep them working and deliver the program. If there are any5320delays to that project and getting delivered, it is going to5321ultimately drive up costs.5322    And now, we always look to do value engineering, and I5323think there are always ways we can save costs on our projects,5324and we look at that every day. But we need to know that the5325funding is going to be there when we are doing the work.5326    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Eucalitto, as you know, Federal5327grant programs like CRISI and the Federal-State Partnership5328depend not only on strong funding levels, but also on stable5329Federal grant administration, a well-staffed Federal Railroad5330Administration, and timely project execution. In your5331experience, what are the potential impacts on State-led rail5332projects when previously awarded funds are delayed, rescinded,5333or subject to sudden policy shifts?5334    And how can Congress help ensure continuity and cost5335efficiency for the remainder of the Bipartisan Infrastructure5336Law and in future grant cycles?5337    You just answered the first half of the question, but how5338can Congress help ensure continuity and cost efficiency for the5339remainder of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and in future5340grant cycles?5341    Mr. Eucalitto. I think one thing that would be really5342helpful is it--we talk a lot about within the U.S. DOT, but we5343also need to worry about the regulators. So, the Army Corps of5344Engineers, the Coast Guard, we rely heavily on them to process5345our permit applications. And oftentimes, they close up shop5346when they run out of funding, or they are reduced staff, and5347then projects get delayed sometimes up to a year as a result.5348    So, while we need to work on ensuring that we have the5349partners at U.S. DOT and FRA, we also need to make sure that we5350continue to look at our regulators to make sure they are able5351to actually process the permits that are necessary for us to do5352the work.5353    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Eucalitto.5354    I yield back.5355    Mr. Webster of Florida. Seeing no other people that want to5356talk, the meeting is adjourned. I thank the witnesses for5357presenting themselves and giving us fantastic answers. We5358really appreciate it. The meeting is adjourned.5359    [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]53605361                       Submissions for the Record53625363                              ----------53645365  Statement of Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive Officer,5366  Association of American Railroads, Submitted for the Record by Hon.5367                             Daniel Webster5368    On behalf of the members of the Association of American Railroads5369(AAR), thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the5370record. AAR freight railroad members account for approximately 845371percent of U.S. freight railroad mileage, 93 percent of U.S. freight5372rail employees, and 97 percent of U.S. freight rail revenue. The major5373freight railroads in Canada and Mexico are AAR members, as are Amtrak5374and several commuter rail systems.5375               Railroads Are Indispensable to Our Economy5376    For nearly 200 years, freight railroads have been central to5377America's economic development, linking businesses across the country5378and around the globe. Today, railroads serve nearly every industrial,5379wholesale, retail, and resource-based sector of our economy. Each year,5380America's freight railroads transport more than 1.5 billion tons of5381freight and 28 million carloads and intermodal units--including huge5382volumes of agricultural products, chemicals, construction materials,5383food, manufactured goods, energy supplies, industrial equipment, and5384more--across a network spanning more than 135,000 miles.5385    Unlike trucks, barges, and airlines, America's privately-owned5386freight railroads operate overwhelmingly on infrastructure they own,5387build, maintain, and pay for themselves. In 2023 alone, railroads5388invested $26.8 billion of their own money back into the network. These5389investments included track, terminal, and bridge upgrades; locomotive5390and railcar procurement; and expanded intermodal infrastructure.5391Railroad reinvestment modernizes infrastructure, ensures long-term5392resilience, and improves safety across the network to support5393customers, employees, and the communities in which railroads operate.5394While railroads don't receive direct federal funding, the grant5395programs authorized and funded by Congress have been instrumental in5396ensuring our public partners have the necessary resources to address5397the needs of their communities.5398 Support Funding Public Entities Partnering with Host Freight Railroads5399    Freight railroads support funding for grant programs that enable5400the public sector, including state and local governments and passenger5401railroads, to partner with freight railroads to advance projects of5402mutual interest. These include projects to help reduce road and port5403congestion, enhance safety at highway-rail grade crossings, improve5404port connectivity, facilitate intercity passenger and commuter rail5405service, and improve the quality of life for communities.5406    To that end, the following U.S. DOT programs should continue to be5407authorized at existing or increased levels:54085409      The Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) grant5410program. INFRA funds projects that address significant challenges in5411U.S. transportation infrastructure, particularly highways, bridges,5412railroads, and ports. INFRA encourages the use of private investments,5413state and local funding, and innovative financing to maximize the5414impact of federal dollars. INFRA prioritizes projects that demonstrate5415a significant regional or national impact, alignment with national and5416economic priorities, and readiness for implementation.54175418      The National Infrastructure Project Assistance grant5419program. Often referred to as the ``Mega'' grant program, this federal5420initiative is designed to support transformational infrastructure5421projects that have significant national or regional impact and are too5422large or complex to be funded by other federal programs alone. Examples5423include large highway expansions, major bridge replacements, and5424multimodal freight and passenger transportation projects. Mega grants5425prioritize projects that combine federal support with state, local, and5426private sector funding, ensuring a shared commitment.54275428      The Rebuilding American Infrastructure with5429Sustainability and Equity program. Formerly known as TIGER5430(Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) and later5431BUILD (Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development), RAISE is5432a discretionary funding initiative that provides competitive grants to5433support infrastructure projects. By prioritizing projects that align5434with national and local priorities, RAISE contributes to the5435development of modern transportation infrastructure across the country.54365437      The Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety5438Improvements (CRISI) program. CRISI grants are designed to enhance the5439safety, efficiency, and reliability of U.S. freight and passenger rail5440systems. Program goals include improving safety through projects that5441improve rail infrastructure and reduce accidents and fatalities;5442modernizing aging rail infrastructure to enhance reliability and5443capacity; supporting efficient goods movement; and bolstering local and5444regional economies. Emphasis is placed on projects that provide public5445benefits, particularly in rural areas and for smaller railroads.54465447      Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail5448grant program. This program focuses on ensuring the safety,5449reliability, and efficiency of passenger rail by funding projects that5450bring rail assets to a state of good repair. Eligible projects include5451replacing or rehabilitating deteriorating infrastructure, such as5452tracks, bridges, tunnels, or signal systems; modernizing rail equipment5453or facilities to improve safety and efficiency; and addressing deferred5454maintenance. The program typically requires state or local governments5455or other non-federal entities to contribute matching funds.54565457    These essential programs are partnerships that solve critical5458transportation challenges by combining federal and non-federal5459resources for specific projects. Without these partnerships, many5460projects that promise substantial public benefits (such as reduced5461highway congestion or increased rail capacity for use by passenger5462trains) in addition to private benefits (such as enabling faster5463freight trains) are likely to be delayed or never started. Cooperation5464makes these projects feasible.5465         Support and Streamline Safety Enhancing Grant Programs5466    The intersection of rail tracks and roadways is an important5467element of rail infrastructure, and collisions at highway-rail5468crossings are a serious safety concern. According to the Federal5469Railroad Administration, in 2023 nearly 2,200 grade crossing collisions5470were associated with more than 240 fatalities and 770 injuries. These5471accidents can also involve significant property damage, clean-up costs,5472and costs associated with motorist and train delays while the accident5473is investigated and cleared. Train crews, who are usually helpless--and5474blameless--in preventing an accident also bear a heavy burden in the5475aftermath. Grade crossing incidents typically arise from factors5476outside railroad control, and highway-rail crossing warning devices are5477there for the benefit of motorists, not trains. Railroads are committed5478to reducing the frequency of crossing incidents.5479    Section 130 of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation5480Assistance Act of 1987 provides Highway Trust Fund money to states and5481local governments to eliminate or reduce hazards at highway-rail5482crossings. Most recently, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act5483(IIJA) allocated $245 million in Section 130 funds each year through54842026 for installing new and upgraded warning devices and for improving5485grade crossing surfaces. The program has helped prevent tens of5486thousands of fatalities and injuries associated with crossing5487accidents. Section 130 funding should continue at current or higher5488levels.5489    The safest grade crossing is no crossing at all. When appropriate,5490the elimination of grade crossings yields the biggest safety benefit,5491which is why railroads strongly support the Railroad Crossing5492Elimination Grant Program (RCE). This competitive grant program, run by5493the FRA and created under the IIJA, provides more than $500 million per5494year through 2026 to local and state governments and other public5495entities for grade separation or closure, track relocation, and the5496improvement or installation of grade crossing warning devices. Earlier5497this year, the FRA announced the most recent RCE grants, which total5498more than $1.1 billion and will fund 123 projects associated with more5499than 1,000 grade crossings nationwide. Railroads commend policymakers5500for creating and funding this important program and respectfully5501suggest the program should be expanded to further improve grade5502crossing safety.5503               Streamline the Federal Permitting Process5504    Policymakers should also look at ways to ensure the projects funded5505by these grants, as well as other routine infrastructure projects, move5506from planning and review to construction more quickly. While efforts to5507cut red tape associated with project approval and construction have5508borne some fruit in recent years, more can still be done to fast-track5509routine rail construction projects without ignoring environmental or5510historical preservation concerns.5511    For example, policymakers could codify that, for rail projects5512whose purpose is to replace existing infrastructure on existing5513operating railroad right-of-way, a categorical exclusion and a finding5514of no significant impact are the only NEPA documentations necessary.\1\5515In addition, policymakers could convert to statute select executive5516orders on streamlining the permitting process, such as timeclocks,5517intermediate deadlines, and One Decision.\2\ Policymakers could also5518continue to streamline the ``Section 106'' historic preservation5519process for projects needed to enhance or maintain rail5520infrastructure.\3\5521---------------------------------------------------------------------------5522    \1\ The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal5523agencies to assess the environmental impacts of their proposed actions5524before making decisions. A categorical exclusion is a category of5525actions determined not to have significant environmental impacts,5526allowing them to bypass detailed reviews like Environmental Assessments5527(EA) or Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). A finding of no5528significant impact (FONSI) is a determination that a proposed project,5529based on an EA, will not significantly impact the environment,5530eliminating the need for a more detailed EIS. A FONSI ensures5531environmental oversight while allowing projects with minimal impacts to5532proceed efficiently.5533    \2\ ``One Decision'' in the context of permitting for large5534projects refers to a streamlined approach where a designated lead5535agency coordinates all necessary reviews and approvals from multiple5536entities to deliver a single, consolidated decision within a clear5537timeframe. This method reduces duplication, ensures regulatory5538certainty, and accelerates project timelines by aligning agency efforts5539and eliminating conflicting requirements.5540    \3\ Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires5541federal agencies to assess the impact of their projects on historic5542properties. Streamlining this process means making the review and5543consultation more efficient, potentially speeding up decisions without5544sacrificing protections for historic sites. Section 11504 of the FAST5545Act directed the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to5546issue a final exemption from Section 106 requirements for railroad5547rights-of-way consistent with the exemption issued for interstate5548highways, but railroads continue to face conflicting rulings and5549guidance from state historic preservation offices.5550---------------------------------------------------------------------------5551    These approaches to environmental review would expedite projects5552that would enhance supply chain fluidity while ensuring comprehensive5553and effective environmental reviews are maintained. The environment5554would still be protected, while supply chains would benefit from5555greater efficiency and more environmentally friendly performance.5556                               Conclusion5557    The Bureau of Transportation Statistics forecasts that U.S. freight5558volume (measured by ton-miles) will rise 29 percent from 2023 to 2040.5559For railroads, meeting this demand requires having adequate capacity5560and using it well. Thanks to massive investments over the years,5561freight rail infrastructure today is in excellent overall condition.5562The challenge for railroads, for members of this committee, and for5563other policymakers is to ensure that the current high quality of rail5564infrastructure is maintained, that adequate freight rail capacity5565exists to meet our nation's future transportation needs, and that the5566many public benefits of freight rail continue to accrue.5567    Policymakers can help by enacting policies that encourage railroads5568to make investments in their networks, by engaging in partnerships with5569railroads and other transportation modes to ensure our nation has the5570freight transportation capacity needed to remain a first-rate global5571economic power, and by ensuring that the public partners who rely on a5572resilient, efficient transportation network have the funding they need.5573Freight railroads stand ready to work with you to ensure that our5574nation's transportation needs are met in a responsible, environmentally5575sound, and safe manner.55765577 Statement of David Shannon, General Manager, RailPulse, Submitted for5578                   the Record by Hon. Daniel Webster5579    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am the General5580Manager of the RailPulse, LLC, a technology coalition formed by5581forward-thinking railcar owners who have joined together to create a5582neutral, open-architecture, industry-wide railcar telematics platform.5583The RailPulse platform will transform rail shipping by leveraging the5584latest technologies to gather and share real-time railcar location,5585health and condition information. Our technology platform will enable5586data from GPS and railcar-mounted sensors to drive improved service5587levels, visibility, safety, sustainability, and productivity into North5588American rail-based supply chains.5589    We welcome the opportunity to submit this statement for the record5590of the Subcommittee's hearing entitled ``America Builds: Improving the5591Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Rail Assistance.''5592    First, a few words about RailPulse. There are four discrete5593segments that own the more than 1.6 million North American freight5594railcar fleet. Shippers--who own approximately 18% of the fleet, the5595seven Class I railroads and their wholly owned subsidiary TTX--who own5596approximately 24% of the fleet, Short Lines--who own about 2% of the5597fleet, and Freight Car Lessors--who own approximately 56% of the fleet.5598Collectively, these four segments have come together to enhance the5599sustainability, efficiency, and safety advantages of rail through a5600standardized technology infrastructure that will accelerate adoption of5601telematics across the entire North American railcar fleet.5602    As a result of our experience with the Consolidated Rail5603Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) program, we believe5604certain changes in the program will facilitate and accelerate the5605innovative work being undertaken by RailPulse as well as other5606potential rail carrier and rail equipment manufacturer grantees.5607    49 U.S.C. Sec.  22907 (b), requires a rail carrier or rail5608equipment manufacturer (other than a short line), to partner with5609certain public entities to be eligible for a CRISI grant. Specifically,5610the public entities with which a rail carrier or rail equipment5611manufacturer (other than a short line) must partner include:5612    (1)  A State (including the District of Columbia),5613    (2)  A group of States,5614    (3)  An Interstate Compact,5615    (4)  A public agency or publicly chartered authority established by56161 or more States, or5617    (5)  A political subdivision of a State.56185619    We believe that the RailPulse coalition, or any similarly situated5620entity, should be permitted to apply for a CRISI grant, or other5621similar federal grant, without the necessity to partner with one of the5622statutorily prescribed public entities.5623    Specifically, as coalition formed with equal representation from5624all classes of freight railcar ownership (including short lines already5625permitted to receive grants directly).5626    The stake holders that RailPulse represents have come together with5627a shared goal of increasing in the use of rail transport in North5628America through fostering the accelerated adoption of railcar5629telematics technology for improved service and safety. This objective,5630independent of those of any individual public sponsor, serves the5631national public interest by driving increased use of the most cost5632efficient, safest, and sustainable mode of freight transport while5633simultaneously shifting the transport burden from the publicly funded5634and maintained highway/road network to the private rail industry funded5635and maintained rail network.5636    RailPulse appreciates the support of individual public sponsors but5637requiring that grant application and execution be carried out through a5638public entity as sponsor increases the complexity and cost of both the5639application process and subsequent administration and management, i.e.5640reporting, invoicing, etc. of any grant awarded. Essentially, the funds5641available for a project pursuant to the public sponsor requirements5642duplicate work and reduce the funds invested in the project. Ultimately5643the public sponsor requirement either increases the overall grant5644requirement or siphons off grant funds to carry out the duplicative5645work.5646    In the case of RailPulse, the applications that we make on behalf5647of industry are not aligned with any single public locality or5648organization but instead serve the national interest. This makes it5649challenging for any public entity, whether an individual locality5650(state, local government) or group of public entities, to prioritize5651supporting a RailPulse application.5652    RailPulse, through its role as a centralized, shared infrastructure5653provider for the entire freight rail car industry, is uniquely5654positioned to facilitate the distribution and monitoring of grant funds5655to the 100s (if not 1000s) of railcar owners that seek the grant to5656incentivize and to accelerate equipping railcars with telematics.5657    Moreover, by charter, RailPulse is not a profit-making entity.5658    Mr. Chairman, RailPulse stands ready to work with any telematics5659vendor and encourages their engagement provided they meet the minimum5660technical requirements to ensure that their products and services can5661be relied upon by the industry.5662    We also stand ready to work with the Subcommittee to fashion a5663result that meets both the government's concerns and the industry's5664needs.5665    Thank you.56665667                                Appendix56685669                              ----------56705671   Questions from Hon. Daniel Webster to Matthew Dietrich, Executive5672               Director, Ohio Rail Development Commission56735674    Question 1. The Committee frequently hears from railroads,5675particularly smaller operations, regarding the challenges they face5676when trying to comply with the Section 106 Historic Preservation Act5677requirements. The highway system is broadly exempted from these5678requirements, and Congress authorized the Federal Railroad5679Administration (FRA) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation5680to issue a similar exemption for rail rights of way and properties as5681well.5682    Question 1.a. In 2018 the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation5683instead issued a Program Comment to create an exemption based on an5684activities-based method and property-based method. Have you noticed any5685significant improvements to the 106 process since these changes? Do you5686believe the Program Comment fulfilled the intent of Congress?5687    Answer. Yes, the Ohio Rail Development Commission has utilized the5688Program Comment on FRA projects and its use resulted in improvement to5689the Section 106 process for those projects. However, for the reasons5690listed in 1b below, it is my opinion that using the Program Comment as5691a template to create more customized Programmatic Agreements in each5692state will more fully realize Congress' intent to achieve parity with5693FHWA projects.56945695    Question 1.b. What are some improvements to Section 106 that5696Congress could consider in order to alleviate the unnecessary delays,5697costs, and burdens of the program on rail operations infrastructure5698projects?5699    Answer. Encourage states to develop programmatic agreements for FRA5700projects. Because of the variety of activities that could occur with5701the Railroad ROW, the activities-based method (tie-replacement, rail-5702replacement, new sidings, etc.) most likely offers the best path5703forward. However, because the Program Comment was developed to address5704projects nationally, there is an opportunity for states to use the5705Program Comment as a template, but refine it for its particular use5706cases. State DOTs can develop programmatic agreements with State5707Historic Preservation Offices that include FRA projects. In that5708process, states can determine if or how to include the FRA program5709comment to streamline project delivery. The programmatic agreements5710with the resource agencies are not full NEPA assignment but would5711greatly benefit the project delivery process.57125713      Questions from Hon. Seth Moulton to Hon. Garrett Eucalitto,5714 Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Transportation, on behalf of5715 the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials57165717    Question 1. On the busiest rail corridor in the country, where the5718Northeast Corridor diverges--one line going to Penn Station and the5719other to Grand Central--there's no interchange. That means when there5720are two trains, one is forced to stop and wait. What are the blockers5721to building this specific rail interchange, to enable two trains to5722seamlessly pass to Penn Station and Grand Central, instead of one5723having to wait for the other?5724    Answer. Thank you for this question. The interchange between the5725Hell Gate Rail Line and Metro-North's New Haven Line at CP-216/New5726Rochelle is located in New York state, and not Connecticut. With that5727said, I have contacted officials at Metro-North Railroad to help5728respond to this question about this critical location on the Northeast5729Corridor (NEC). Rail traffic today is able to cross tracks seamlessly5730to head to either Penn Station or Grand Central Terminal, though there5731are times, as you have noted, a train may need to wait for an5732approaching train to pass before it can cross over. Proposals such as a5733flyover from New Haven Line Track 3 to the Hell Gate or expanding5734tracks through New Rochelle from four tracks to six tracks have been5735considered by New York officials in the past. However, these projects5736encountered significant community opposition in the past, and they also5737carry costs that far exceed the financial capacity of Metro-North and5738the Connecticut Department of Transportation. In addition, the5739complexity of constructing such improvements without closing this vital5740artery further escalates expenses as train traffic cannot be easily5741diverted and there are no detours. This situation encapsulates the5742utmost importance of federal funding and support in advancing needed5743and transformative upgrades on the NEC, allowing the corridor operates5744at its full potential.57455746    Question 2. How many highway interchanges has Connecticut built in5747the past 100 years?5748    Answer. There are 1053 interchanges in Connecticut all built over5749the past 100 years.57505751    Question 3. Why does Metro-North Railroad conduct maintenance only5752during the day?5753    Answer. While the state of Connecticut cannot directly answer this5754question due to jurisdictional limitations, according to Metro-North,5755we understand the primary drivers of this approach are cost and5756collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), which only allow 10 percent of5757the workforce to work overnight. Unfortunately, the Connecticut5758Department of Transportation and Metro-North lack the operational funds5759to cover the costs associated with additional nighttime work.5760    It should be noted that the distribution of track maintenance5761requiring track time is evenly distributed across either off-peak5762outages during the day (1000-1430 hours) and overnight (2300-0430). We5763understand that Metro-North's service design team aims for minimal5764customer disruptions due to track maintenance, and Metro-North in 20245765recorded its highest on-time performance in its history at 98.35766percent.57675768Questions from Hon. Daniel Webster to Kevin D. Hicks, P.E., Senior Vice5769  President and Rail & Freight Market Sector Leader, Gannett Fleming5770   TranSystems, on behalf of the National Railroad Construction and5771                        Maintenance Association57725773    Question 1. The Committee frequently hears from railroads,5774particularly smaller operations, regarding the challenges they face5775when trying to comply with the Section 106 Historic Preservation Act5776requirements. The highway system is broadly exempted from these5777requirements, and Congress authorized the Federal Railroad5778Administration (FRA) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation5779to issue a similar exemption for rail rights of way and properties as5780well.5781    Question 1.a. In 2018 the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation5782instead issued a Program Comment to create an exemption based on an5783activities-based method and property-based method. Have you noticed any5784significant improvements to the 106 process since these changes? Do you5785believe the Program Comment fulfilled the intent of Congress?5786    Answer. Yes. The issuance of Program Comment for an exemption based5787on an activities-based method and property-based method has enabled a5788range of ``typical'' projects to proceed with a more simplified5789regulatory review. This has streamlined or exempted certain project5790types, allowing ACHP to consult broadly and once on an issue, rather5791than on a per-project basis. The Program Comment also outlines pre-5792approved resolutions, which reduces the need for agencies to resolve5793project effects on a case-by-case basis.5794    While the Program Comment process has enabled a set range of5795``typical'' projects to proceed with a more simplified regulatory5796review, many of the steps in the process are consistent with the5797Section 106 Process, including identifying historic properties,5798categorizing or assessing the project undertaking and resolving issues5799or applying treatment standards. While the steps in the process may5800execute in less time, it can appear that the process itself does not5801provide as streamlined an approach as needed.5802    From a practitioner's perspective, Program Comment has fulfilled5803the intent of Congress however additional efficiencies should be5804considered.58055806    Question 1.b. What are some improvements to Section 106 that5807Congress could consider in order to alleviate the unnecessary delays,5808costs, and burdens of the program on rail operations infrastructure5809projects?5810    Answer:5811    1.  Consideration should be given to establishing a broader list of5812exempted activities. As seen in practice, there are likely additional5813railroad activities, such as those that occur entirely within existing5814railroad rights-of-way and yards, that typically have little to no5815effects on historic properties including minor/limited track and rail5816additions, sidings, and yard tracks.5817      a.  In terms of construction and/or installation of new railroad5818infrastructure, the Program Comment Exempted Activities List includes5819``minor new construction and installation of railroad or rail transit5820infrastructure that is compatible with the scale, size, and type of5821existing rail infrastructure . . . '' however it does not clearly5822include installations of new track segments such as sidings, limited5823run-around tracks, etc., within mainline rights-of-way and/or existing5824maintenance yards, upgrades or replacements to small signal bungalows5825or moveable bridge control houses, etc.5826    2.  Consideration should be given to a self-certified determination5827by project proponents for a subset of actions that FRA has previously5828determined do not adversely affect historic properties. At present, the5829federal agency is responsible for determining if an undertaking is5830covered by one or more activities in the Exempted Activities List. At5831its discretion, the federal agency may require the Project Sponsor to5832provide relevant documentation, such as plans, photographs, or5833materials specifications, so that the federal agency can determine5834whether the Exempted Activities List applies.5835      a.  For routine railroad actions that FRA and ACHP determine do5836not affect historic properties, a self-certified determination by5837Project Sponsors could provide efficiency as well as reduce the burden5838on federal staff for reviewing documentation for routine actions.5839      b.  This could include routine maintenance and/or operation5840activities such as state of good repair activities; in-kind5841replacements of systems and signals; minor ADA improvements at5842passenger stations; and routine replacement of curbs, gutters, re-5843pavement, bicycle facilities, etc.58445845 Questions from Hon. Daniel Webster to Kristin Bevil, General Counsel5846  and Chief Legal Officer, Pinsly Railroad Company, on behalf of the5847         American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association58485849    Question 1. The Committee frequently hears from railroads,5850particularly smaller operations, regarding the challenges they face5851when trying to comply with the Section 106 Historic Preservation Act5852requirements. The highway system is broadly exempted from these5853requirements, and Congress authorized the Federal Railroad5854Administration (FRA) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation5855to issue a similar exemption for rail rights of way and properties as5856well.5857    Question 1.a. In 2018 the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation5858instead issued a Program Comment to create an exemption based on an5859activities-based method and property-based method. Have you noticed any5860significant improvements to the 106 process since these changes? Do you5861believe the Program Comment fulfilled the intent of Congress?5862    Answer. The 2018 Program Comment issued by the Advisory Council on5863Historic Preservation introduced improvements to the Section 1065864process by allowing for both an activities-based and a property-based5865approach to compliance. The short line industry has not noticed any5866significant improvements since the changes were made, the improvements5867have been incremental at best, rather than transformative. Many short5868line railroads continue to encounter delays and uncertainty in5869navigating Section 106, especially when proposed infrastructure5870projects involve older rights-of-way that trigger review--even when the5871scope of work poses no actual threat to historic assets.5872    In our view, the Program Comment has not fulfilled Congress's5873intent. The goal was to create an efficient, streamlined process like5874the exemption granted to the highway sector. However, railroads have5875not been granted comparable relief. The administrative burden remains5876significant, especially for smaller operators with limited in-house5877resources or funding for consultants. In practice, the flexibility5878offered by the Program Comment often gets lost in inconsistent5879application and interpretation by agency personnel. The program's5880effectiveness really depends on the project location and context and5881does not seem to prevent delays and can cause added confusion.58825883    Question 1.b. What are some improvements to Section 106 that5884Congress could consider in order to alleviate the unnecessary delays,5885costs, and burdens of the program on rail operations infrastructure5886projects?5887    Answer. To truly reduce unnecessary delays and costs for rail5888infrastructure projects, especially those undertaken by small5889railroads, Congress could consider the following improvements to5890Section 106:58915892    1.  Provide a categorical exemption for work within existing rail5893rights-of-way, like what has long existed for highways. Routine5894infrastructure maintenance, tie and rail replacement, and minor bridge5895repairs should not be subject to prolonged historic review if they do5896not fundamentally alter a structure or corridor. For example, bridge5897rehab or shoreline stabilization along an active right-of-way,5898especially when it has been in continuous use for decades, should not5899trigger the same level of review as new construction in an untouched5900area. Categorizing low impact work could help reduce unnecessary5901reviews.59025903    2.  Historical documentation requirements could be reduced as5904railroads often inherit infrastructure with incomplete or missing5905records, and the burden of proving past work can become a major5906obstacle.59075908    3.  Codify a time-bound review period to ensure that projects are5909not delayed indefinitely. For example, a 45- or 60-day deadline for the5910review process could create predictability and accountability.59115912    4.  Clarify the scope of what constitutes a significant impact on5913historic resources, particularly when safety improvements or essential5914repairs are involved. The presumption should be that maintenance and5915safety upgrades do not affect historical integrity unless proven5916otherwise.59175918    5.  Encourage bundling of similar projects under a single review to5919streamline approval for multiple minor actions within a region or5920corridor.59215922    6.  Support technical assistance and capacity building for short5923lines navigating compliance, through FRA-administered training or a5924small grant program to offset compliance costs.59255926    7.  Clarity and consistency should be applied across different5927states and agencies. Ambiguity around whether the Program Comment5928applies can cause delays that could have been avoided with more5929concrete guidance.59305931    These improvements would maintain necessary preservation goals5932while ensuring that regulatory processes do not become barriers to5933improving critical infrastructure, safety, and service reliability--5934especially in rural and underserved communities that rely on short line5935railroads.59365937                                 [all]