STATE AND FEDERAL PASSENGER AND FREIGHT SURVEY NCRRP Libby Ogard Jeannie Beckett

Survey  500 s to AASHTO, TRB, passenger and freight stakeholders  1500 member distribution list from American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association  Selected Class 1 and regional/short line railroads  Investment community supplemental interviews

Percent Responses by Type

State Response Some States have no programs. Amounts range between $2-$40 million More states are moving toward multimodal funding

State Response  Grants are often preferred, easier to award then loans.  Few Dedicated Funding Programs limit grant program expansion.

Ranking of Rail Fund Objectives StateAgencyPerspective

Program Objectives in Order of Importance  No difference between Group and State response  Economic Development is a Common Theme  Rail investment not seen as mode conversion tool

State Investments  State investment is dependent upon funding and business objectives.  Limited funding for passenger rail.  Often Legislative barriers.

Are there Institutional Restrictions for State Rail Programs?  “Can’t own rolling stock or operate railroads”  “State owns railroad but there are restrictions on what rail can do”  “Can’t lend money to private business”  “State can not own rail”  “Gas tax revenues are restricted”

State’s Self Assessment of Success  “More funding needed for safety, surface and infrastructure”  “State expectations are low”  “Need funding for projects existing programs can’t meet”  “Need to establish measurements to understand progress”

Existing Program Improvements Needed  “More funding needed for Industrial Rail Service”  “Rail completes with five other modes for state funding”  “Grade crossing protection funding inadequate”  “Funding needed for PTC mandate – especially short lines”  “Without sufficient funding can’t support forgivable loan program”  “Performance measures needed”  “RRIF credit risk premium is a hurdle many can’t overcome”  “Need Federal formula funds for rail infrastructure”

Essential Elements of Innovative Projects  Maximum multimodal flexibility  Public-Private partnerships and better vision for the future  Responsive  Stakeholder and political support  Something the Railroads will use  Simple, streamlined, with efficient oversight  Quick access to funds  A value proposition that will incent private investment  Design Build Opportunities  Something that does not require State Transportation Funding

Website  A data base if over 200 State Programs  Searchable by program types  Publicly Available  Demonstrations available at TRB Annual Meeting 2015

Feedback?  Examples?  Attributes?  Recommendations?  Program Eligibility?  Funding objectives?  Measurements? InnovationProgram Funding

Questions?