Corey Hill, Director, Office of Program Delivery, FRA
1. Grant Program Delivery
2. RRIF Updates
3. Monitoring & Technical Assistance
1
Corey Hill – Grant Program Delivery
2
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%
$23,223
99%
65%
TOTAL
Applications under DOT review; announcements pending
Applications due to FRA by September 15th
3
Keeping Projects On Schedule: Deliverable Submission
Deliverables Due to FRA by Month (2010-2017)
Deliverable Status
Overdue
Awaiting Document
Received
Deliverable Status as of 9/2/2014
215
Overdue
Deliverables
57%
Are for
Construction
4
Anticipated Deliverable Completion Dates
Today
• 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
March 2015
Date
Not Received
Received
% Received
Today
1,005
1,387
58%
Mar 2015
379
2,013
84%
Sept 2015
231
2,161
90%
September 2015
Deliverable Status
Overdue
Awaiting Document
Received
5
Project Delivery – Grant Closeouts
195 active grants in FRA’s portfolio – 25 have exceeded their period of performance end date
250
49% scheduled
to be closed
200
150
64% scheduled
to be closed
96
124
100
195
50
Closed
Active
99
71
0
Today
March 2015
September 2015
6
HSIPR ARRA Outlays – 3 Years Remain
Outlays
$8
Must spend $5M per day
to meet 2017 deadline
$7
Billions
$6
$5
$4
$3
$2.2B in outlays to date
$2
$1
$0
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
7
Corey Hill – Monitoring & Technical Assistance
8
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
9
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
10
Michael Lestingi, Director, Office of Policy and Planning
11
Transportation Technology Center
12
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
13
Scott Greene, Chief, Freight Rail Policy Division, FRA
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
14
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.
15
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.
16
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.
17
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.
18
Survey Results: Source of Funds
Owner, 3%
Fed.
Grants/Loans,
7%
State
Grants/Loans,
9%
Other, 1%
Commercial
Loans, 5%
Cash Flow,
73%
19
Emergence of the Holding Company
20
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.
21
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.
22
David Valenstein, Chief, Environment & Planning Division, FRA
Kyle Gradinger, Planner, Environment & Planning Division, FRA
Regional Rail Planning
1. FRA Planning Framework
2. Southwest Multi-State Study
3. Call for Statements of Interest
and Qualifications
23
FRA Planning Framework
National Rail Planning
Regional (Multi-state) Rail Plans
Corridor Plans
State Rail Plans
24
National Rail Planning
National
Planning
Parameters
• Criteria for federal
investment
• Models, methodologies, &
guidance
NEPA
Guidance for project sponsors
FRA Role
Establish investment policies
and develop models/guidance
Standardized Criteria,
Tools, & Guidance
“Tier 0”
Regional
Rail Plans
Tier I
Corridors &
Terminal
Areas
Contents
What does the map look like?
CITY
Tier II
Projects
25
Regional Planning
National
Planning
Parameters
Contents •
•
•
Standardized Criteria,
Tools, & Guidance
NEPA
Regional network vision
Regional service plan
Institutional/financial plans
n/a
FRA Role • Provide toolkits and best
•
“Tier 0”
Regional
Rail Plans
Tier I
Corridors &
Terminal
Areas
•
practices
Facilitate cross-border
institutional relationships
Fund projects consistent with
adopted regional plans
What does the map look like?
CITY
Tier II
Projects
26
Elements of a Regional Rail Plan
Baseline Conditions &
Market Assessment
Generalized Network
Vision & Service Plan
Governance Strategies
Prioritized
Investments & Map
Costs, Benefits &
Funding
Draft
Regional
Rail Plan
State-byState
Adoption
Adopted
Regional
Rail Plan
(incl.
incorporation
into STIPs and
State Rail
Plans as
needed)
27
Corridor Planning (Tier I)
National
Planning
Parameters
Standardized Criteria,
Tools, & Guidance
“Tier 0”
Regional
Rail Plans
Contents
•
•
•
NEPA
Service-level (Tier I)
FRA Role
•
•
Corridor alignments
Terminal area plans
Detailed service plans
Provide service development
planning and NEPA guidance
Review/approve grant or loan
deliverables
What does the map look like?
Tier I
Corridors &
Terminal
Areas
CITY
Tier II
Projects
28
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)
29
Elements of a Tier I Corridor Plan
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
30
Project-level Planning (Tier II)
National
Planning
Parameters
“Tier 0”
Regional
Rail Plans
Tier I
Corridors &
Terminal
Areas
Contents
•
•
•
NEPA
Project-level (Tier II)
FRA Role
•
•
Standardized Criteria,
Tools, & Guidance
Project-level engineering
Construction/delivery plans
Project management plans
Provide project delivery guidance
Review/approve grant or loan
deliverables
What does the map look like?
CITY
Tier II
Projects
31
State Rail Plans
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
32
State Rail Plans Within the FRA Planning Framework
National
Planning
Parameters
Standardized Criteria,
Tools, & Guidance
“Tier 0”
Regional
Rail Plans
Tier I
Corridors &
Terminal
Areas
CITY
State
Rail
Plans
Tier II
Projects
33
Integration of State Rail Plans with Other Plans
National
Corridors
State Rail Plan
Statewide LRTP
Private Railroad
Investment Plans
State
Rail
Plans
State Freight Plan
Public Private
Partnerships
Metropolitan
Transportation
Planning
Local/Shortline
Plans
34
Southwest Multi-State Study
Study Overview
Planning Context
Network Analysis Approach
Preliminary Network Vision
Study Recommendations
Lessons Learned about Process
35
Overview
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.
36
Planning Context
Land Development Patterns
Demographics
Economic Activity
Existing and Forecast Travel
Source: CONNECT Beta Version, 2012.
37
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)

1
Operating recovery ratio: X = <1; 1 < X < 2; X > 2;
38
Preliminary Network Vision
Rail Network and Service Concepts
Source: CONNECT Beta Version, 2012.
39
Study Recommendations
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 PhoenixSouthern California Corridor Study
40
Lessons Learned about Process
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
Needs for multi-state coordination
Multi-phase
Operations
Ownership
Knowledge sharing
Marketing and customer
service
Service standards
Cost and revenue sharing
Design and
Construction
Interoperability standards
Planning
Multi-State Vision
Data for Project
Evaluation
Grant Applications
Operating Standards
Safety Standards
41
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
42
Applicants Will Be Asked to Describe:
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?
43
Thank you!
Questions?
David Valenstein
(202) 493-6368
David.Valenstein@dot.gov
Kyle Gradinger
(202) 493-6191
Kyle.Gradinger@dot.gov
44
Office of Inspector General
U.S. Department of Transportation
Update from the DOT
Office of Inspector General
Mitch Behm
Assistant Inspector General
Surface Transportation
What is a Federal
Inspector General?
The DOT Inspector General
The DOT Inspector General
OIG’s
Return on Investment
$
Return for Each Budget Dollar Spent
in Fiscal Year 2013
The DOT OIG Hotline
1-800-424-9071
hotline@oig.dot.gov
www.oig.dot.gov/hotline
The DOT OIG Audit Offices
OIG’s Office on
Surface Transportation
We
Allcover
that moves,
all that but
remains
...
Who gives us our marching
orders?
OIG Recent Rail Work
OIG Current and Pending
Rail Work
Future OIG Rail Focus
Questions and Answers?
Corey Hill – RRIF Updates
58
RRIF Loan Portfolio Overview
33
Loans
26
States
$1.7
Billion
RRIF Loan Portfolio
• 24 active loans totaling $1.2 billion
• 10 applications requesting $5.5 billion under
review
• 9 loans totaling $480 million repaid in full
• 72% of loans have been executed with Class
II and III railroads
• 3 prospective applications seeking a total of
$525 million
59
RRIF Program Enhancements
•
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 2014
1. 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
60
RRIF State Partnerships
•
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
61