1
1. Grant Program Delivery
2. RRIF Updates
3. Monitoring & Technical Assistance
Corey Hill, Director, Office of Program Delivery, FRA
2
Corey Hill – Grant Program Delivery
3
Federal Funding for FRA Programs (FY08-FY14)
Rail Program Federal Funding ($M) % Obligated % Outlaid
Amtrak Capital & Operating $11,252 100% 98%
HSIPR $10,040 99% 25%
RRIF $980 N/A N/A
TIGER $423 90% 35%
Sandy Relief $296 73% 45%
Rail Line Relocation $90 87% 50%
Railroad Safety Technology $50 99% 77%
FY14 Redistribution $42 48% 1%
Capital Assistance to States $30 72% 71%
Disaster Assistance $20 91% 88%
TOTAL $23,223 99% 65%
Applications under DOT review; announcements pending
Applications due to FRA by September 15th
4
Keeping Projects On Schedule: Deliverable Submission
Deliverables Due to FRA by Month (2010-2017)
Overdue Deliverables
Are for Construction
215
57%
Deliverable Status as of 9/2/2014
Deliverable StatusOverdueAwaiting DocumentReceived
5
Anticipated Deliverable Completion Dates
Date Not Received Received % Received
Today 1,005 1,387 58%
Mar 2015 379 2,013 84%
Sept 2015 231 2,161 90%
March 2015
Today
September 2015
• The majority of deliverables are scheduled to be completed by next year
• Timely deliverable submissions are crucial to ensure projects stay on schedule and complete on time
Deliverable StatusOverdueAwaiting DocumentReceived
6
Project Delivery – Grant Closeouts
195 active grants in FRA’s portfolio – 25 have exceeded their period of performance end date
Today March 2015 September 2015
0
50
100
150
200
250
195
9971
96124
ClosedActive
49% scheduled to be closed
64% scheduled to be closed
7
HSIPR ARRA Outlays – 3 Years Remain
FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17$0
$1,000,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$3,000,000,000
$4,000,000,000
$5,000,000,000
$6,000,000,000
$7,000,000,000
$8,000,000,000
Outlays
$2.2B in outlays to date
Must spend $5M per day to meet 2017 deadline
8
Corey Hill – Monitoring & Technical Assistance
9
MTAC Program – Status Update
• Through the Volpe Center, 10 task orders have been awarded
9 regional task orders 1 task order for vehicle/equipment support
• 1st FRA Rail Program Delivery Meeting Held August 4-6, 2014
MTAC• Significant contractor resources
• More technical expertise
• Consistent nationwide approach
10
MTAC Program – Next Steps
• Webinars Anticipate 1-3 before next spring
FRA will be soliciting input for topics stakeholders would like covered by webinars
Most requested topic from August Rail Program Delivery Meeting was “Lessons Learned” from projects across the country
• Conference in 2015
• Continued analysis of trends and feedback received through MTAC Program
11
Michael Lestingi, Director, Office of Policy and Planning
12
Transportation Technology Center
13
Transportation Technology Center
• July 28, 1968 - Congress authorizes the development of an intermodal research facility
• May 19, 1971 - Formal dedication of the High Speed Ground Test Center by Secretary of
Transportation, John Volpe
• Until 1982 the facility was developed and operated by FRA and Urban Mass Transit
Administration (now FTA)
• Now managed under contract to FRA by the Transportation Technology Center, Inc. a wholly
owned subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads
• 52 Square miles of land leased from the State of Colorado
• 48 miles of track including a high-speed loop of 13 miles capable of 165 mph
• Laboratory equipment capable of testing full size rail cars
• Current uses of TTC include new equipment testing and FRA and AAR research
13
14
Class II and Class III Railroad Capital Needs Study—Preliminary Findings
1. Charge from Congress
2. Study Approach
3. Survey Results
4. Key Take Aways
Scott Greene, Chief, Freight Rail Policy Division, FRA
15
Class II and Class III Capital Needs
Charge from Congress in Appropriations Report:
• Summarize the capital investment needs of the Class II and Class III railroads.
• Assess how the capital needs are being met by sources other than the Federal Government.
16
Study Approach
Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute (UGPTI) in conjunction with ASLRRA and AAR surveyed Class II and Class III carriers
FRA conducted interviews with railroad financial experts, railroad holding companies, banks, and short line railroads.
Study needed to take a long view because of the evolution of this segment of the rail industry.
17
Study Approach
How has the industry been able to survive since the growth in the number of short lines following Staggers and concerns in the early 90’s about sustaining operations?
Carriers faced unique challenges accessing capital.
Over the past 20 years, the emergence of the railroad holding company has changed the relationship between lenders and short line railroads.
Risk is now spread among carriers under the umbrella of the holding company.
18
Survey Results
UGPTI surveyed 470 railroads.
Response from 149 railroads but only 115 provided sufficient data to assess needs.
To meet current needs respondents require spending of $599 million. When expanded to entire short line segment of the industry, preliminary estimates show required current spending levels at $1.6 billion.
Estimated spending over the next 5 years is $1.23 billion—$986 million for infrastructure & $247 million for equipment. When expanded to industry, estimates are $5.3 billion.
Total spending needs are $6.9 billion.
19
Survey Results: Source of Funds
Cash Flow; 73%
Com-mercial Loans;
5%
Owner; 3% Fed.
Grants/Loans;
7%
State Grants/Loans; 9%Other; 1%
20
Emergence of the Holding Company
21
Key Take Aways
While carriers under holding companies have been able to access capital, challenges remain.
Difficulties in obtaining all the capital from one source.
Holding companies reported that they need private and government programs to meet needs.
Track upgrades to 286K are critical as well as investment in the bridges to accommodate traffic and maintain a state of good repair. Investment has been incremental.
Sources of funding include private capital markets, State programs, RRIF, TIGER, and 45G tax credits.
22
Key Take Aways
Consolidation of short lines under holding companies will continue, where there is value or potential value.
Concern going forward is with independent short lines that are poor performers.
States will need to assess how these carriers can help meet future transportation needs.
State Rail Plans and State Freight Plans are essential in state transportation planning efforts.
All is not rosy. Holding companies have changed the lending calculus, but they are piecing together and spreading thinly all of the investment dollars they can get.
23
Regional Rail Planning
1. FRA Planning Framework
2. Southwest Multi-State Study
3. Call for Statements of Interest and Qualifications
David Valenstein, Chief, Environment & Planning Division, FRA
Kyle Gradinger, Planner, Environment & Planning Division, FRA
24
FRA Planning Framework
National Rail Planning
Regional (Multi-state) Rail Plans
Corridor Plans
State Rail Plans
25
National Rail Planning
Contents • Criteria for federal investment
• Models, methodologies, & guidance
NEPA Guidance for project sponsors
FRA Role Establish investment policies and develop models/guidance
What does the map look like?
NationalPlanning Parameters
Tier I Corridors & Terminal Areas
Tier II Projects
“Tier 0”Regional Rail Plans
CITY
Standardized Criteria, Tools, & Guidance
26
NationalPlanningParameters
Tier I Corridors & Terminal Areas
Tier II Projects
“Tier 0”Regional Rail Plans
CITY
Standardized Criteria, Tools, & Guidance
Contents • Regional network vision• Regional service plan• Institutional/financial plans
NEPA n/a
FRA Role • Provide toolkits and best practices
• Facilitate cross-border institutional relationships
• Fund projects consistent with adopted regional plans
What does the map look like?
Regional Planning
Tier I Corridors & Terminal Areas
Tier II Projects
CITY
27
Elements of a Regional Rail Plan
Adopted Regional Rail Plan
Baseline Conditions & Market Assessment
Prioritized Investments & Map
State-by-State
Adoption
(incl. incorporation
into STIPs and State Rail Plans as needed)
Draft Regional Rail Plan
Governance Strategies
Costs, Benefits & Funding
Generalized Network Vision & Service Plan
28
Tier I Corridors & Terminal Areas
“Tier 0”Regional Rail Plans
NationalPlanning Parameters
Tier II Projects
CITY
Standardized Criteria, Tools, & Guidance
CITY
Contents • Corridor alignments• Terminal area plans• Detailed service plans
NEPA Service-level (Tier I)
FRA Role • Provide service development planning and NEPA guidance
• Review/approve grant or loan deliverables
What does the map look like?
CITY
Corridor Planning (Tier I)
29
Elements of a Tier I Corridor Plan
Technical analysis of rail service, consistent w/ NEPA Purpose and Need
Progressively narrows to reasonable alternatives using tools to assess:• Engineering feasibility
• Ridership
• Operational Impacts
• Costs and Public Benefits
Leads to Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan (PRCIP):
• NEPA review and Service Development Plan (SDP)
30
SDP prepared at end of PRCIP planning phase
Primary objectives of SDP are to:• Demonstrate rationale for service
• Address Purpose and Need identified through NEPA
• Summarize technical analysis for proposed alternative
• Demonstrate operational and financial feasibility
• Describe implementation and phasing of Service Development Program
Elements of a Tier I Corridor Plan
31
NationalPlanning Parameters
Project-level Planning (Tier II)
Contents • Project-level engineering• Construction/delivery plans• Project management plans
NEPA Project-level (Tier II)
FRA Role • Provide project delivery guidance• Review/approve grant or loan
deliverables
What does the map look like?
Tier I Corridors & Terminal Areas
Tier II Projects
“Tier 0”Regional Rail Plans
CITY
Standardized Criteria, Tools, & Guidance
32
Key components of a comprehensive, multi-modal planning approach that define rail’s role in a broader transportation network and guide public investment in the transportation network
Reflect States’ visions for passenger and freight rail and harmonize individual studies, plans and projects
Opportunity to show the full extent of State’s rail programs – including costs and benefits
Signal to lawmakers and FRA about State’s goals
State Rail Plans
33
State Rail Plans Within the FRA Planning Framework
National PlanningParameters
Tier I Corridors & Terminal Areas
Tier II Projects
“Tier 0”Regional Rail Plans
CITYState Rail Plans
Standardized Criteria, Tools, & Guidance
34
State Rail Plan
Integration of State Rail Plans with Other Plans
Statewide LRTP
Metropolitan Transportation Planning
State Freight PlanState Rail Plans
National Corridors
Public PrivatePartnerships
Local/ShortlinePlans
Private RailroadInvestment Plans
35
Southwest Multi-State Study
Study Overview
Planning Context
Network Analysis Approach
Preliminary Network Vision
Study Recommendations
Lessons Learned about Process
36
Study Purpose and Objectives:
• Identify network of “candidate corridors” for further evaluation and planning using CONNECT tool.
• Identify institutional challenges and opportunities related to multi-state rail development and delivery.
More than 20 stakeholders from six states met multiple times over seven months.
Overview
37
Source: CONNECT Beta Version, 2012.
Land Development Patterns
Demographics
Economic Activity
Existing and Forecast Travel
Planning Context
38
Network Analysis Approach
Table 1 Operating recovery ratio performance
Stand-alone1 Network1
Multi-state Corridor
San Diego–San Francisco (C.E.)
Las Vegas–Los Angeles (C.E.)
Los Angeles–Phoenix (C.E.)
San Diego–Phoenix (C.E.)
Las Vegas–Phoenix–Tucson (C.E.)
San Francisco–Reno (Regional)
Las Vegas–Salt Lake City (C.E.)
Phoenix–Tucson (Regional)
Las Vegas–Reno (C.E.)
Phoenix–Albuquerque (Feeder)
Reno–Salt Lake City (Feeder)
1Operating recovery ratio: X = <1; 1 < X < 2; X > 2;
39
Source: CONNECT Beta Version, 2012.
Rail Network and Service Concepts
Preliminary Network Vision
40
Integrate the SW Multi-State Rail Planning Study into existing and ongoing transportation planning efforts
Establish a SW Rail Working Group to initiate implementation of the Study’s governance recommendations
Convene a voluntary CA-AZ-NV Passenger Rail Policy & Planning Group
Form a Blue Ribbon Commission to guide a Phoenix-Southern California Corridor Study
Study Recommendations
41
Federal involvement is important
Provide clear definition of study purpose and potential outcomes
Incorporate other modes into process
Initiate development of goals and P&N early in multi-state process
Concentrate stakeholder efforts on in-person workshops
No one-size-fits-all governance approach
Lessons Learned about Process
Multi-phaseOwnership
Knowledge sharing
Multi-phaseOwnership
Knowledge sharing
OperationsMarketing and customer
serviceService standards
Cost and revenue sharing
OperationsMarketing and customer
serviceService standards
Cost and revenue sharing
Design and Construction
Interoperability standards
Design and Construction
Interoperability standards
PlanningMulti-State VisionData for Project
EvaluationGrant Applications
Operating StandardsSafety Standards
PlanningMulti-State VisionData for Project
EvaluationGrant Applications
Operating StandardsSafety Standards
Needs for multi-state coordination
42
Federally-led Regional Planning Studies
FRA wants to build on the Southwest Study and encourages other regions to conduct similar regional efforts in line with the Planning Framework
FRA has funding authority provided under the FY14 Omnibus Appropriations Act (Public Law 113-76)
FRA will be releasing a Call for Statements of Interest and Qualifications in the coming weeks
Note: This is not a grant or funding opportunity for states. It is an opportunity to participate in an FRA-led planning process
43
Rationale: Why do stakeholders want FRA to conduct a study in their region?
Stakeholders: Who will participate in the study?
Previous Work: What Regional or Multi-State Planning has been completed in the region?
Governance: What institutional arrangements exist to support planning and rail development in the region?
Commitment: How are the states and stakeholders willing to support the study?
Applicants Will Be Asked to Describe:
44
Thank you!
Questions?
David Valenstein(202) 493-6368
Kyle Gradinger(202) 493-6191
Mitch Behm Assistant Inspector GeneralSurface Transportation
Update from the DOTOffice of Inspector General
Office of Inspector GeneralU.S. Department of Transportation
What is a FederalInspector General?
The DOT Inspector General
The DOT Inspector General
OIG’sReturn on Investment
$ 41Return for Each Budget Dollar Spent
in Fiscal Year 2013
The DOT OIG Audit Offices
OIG’s Office onSurface Transportation
We cover all that remainsAll that moves, but . . .
Who gives us our marching orders?
OIG Recent Rail Work
OIG Current and Pending Rail Work
Future OIG Rail Focus
Questions and Answers?
58
Corey Hill – RRIF Updates
59
RRIF Loan Portfolio Overview
Loans
States
Billion
33
$1.7RRIF Loan Portfolio
• 24 active loans totaling $1.2 billion
• 9 loans totaling $480 million repaid in full
• 72% of loans have been executed with Class II and III railroads
26
• 10 applications requesting $5.5 billion under review
• 3 prospective applications seeking a total of $525 million
60
• Over the past year, FRA has implemented numerous changes to:
Improve efficiency and effectiveness of RRIF Build greater transparency and accountability for all stakeholders Decrease time to process applications
• RRIF Program Guide released in July 20141. Program Objectives
2. Eligibility Requirements
3. Loan Terms
4. Application and Review Process
5. Evaluation Criteria and Program Fees
6. Program Administration and Monitoring
7. Draft and Final Application Checklists
RRIF Program Enhancements
61
• FRA wants to establish partnerships with States so that States can serve as a resource and provide additional support to potential applicants, primarily short line railroads
• The benefits of the partnerships include: Reduced costs for applicants
Reduced application process time
Enhance State funding (if available) with Federal funding
• FRA has established partnerships with two states, and is in discussions with an additional four states to establish partnerships
RRIF State Partnerships
Top Related