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

David.Valenstein@dot.gov

Kyle Gradinger(202) 493-6191

Kyle.Gradinger@dot.gov

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 Hotline

1-800-424-9071

hotline@oig.dot.gov

www.oig.dot.gov/hotline

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