Department of Transportation

ISTEA - Onset of (Some) Federal Funding for Freight Railroads

Except for some specified loan/loan guarantee language in 4R, none of the above laws provided significant federal funding for freight railroads. Congress and various Presidents were reticent to authorize/appropriate public funds due to the private ownership of most freight railroads and their rights-of-way, and thus not appropriate recipients for public monies. There was similar reluctance from many railroads to accept such assistance.  Over time, however, this aversion to granting/receiving public funding began to lessen, especially in light of the enormous capital and infrastructure needs of railroads, many of which had practiced deferred maintenance for many years. There was also realization that by providing private railroads public funds, it might extend the useful life of publicly owned transportation facilities such as highways and bridges.

In 1991, the groundbreaking Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) required state and local transportation plans to consider freight and intermodal issues and to include railroad representatives within local transportation planning entities, generally called Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). In addition, funds from two specific ISTEA programs - the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and the Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program - could be tapped for certain rail-related projects. Specifically, with STP, federal funds could be used for certain railroad clearance projects involving highways; whereas with CMAQ, funds could be used for transportation projects which helped reduce air pollution in nonattainment areas (which include a large part of New York State). While the amount of STP and CMAQ funds used on railroad-related projects was modest, ISTEA at least opened the federal funding door for freight railroads.

TEA-21 - The Funding Door Opens Further

In 1998, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Concerning railroads, TEA-21 continued the provisions from ISTEA that allowed a small portion of CMAQ and STP funds to be used for certain rail-related projects. In addition, TEA-21 authorized, but did not appropriate funds for several other distinctly rail-related programs:

• Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program (MAGLEV)
• High Speed Rail Development (HSRD)
• Light Density Rail Line Pilot (LDRLP)
• Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF)

Of these four programs, RRIF has had the most positive impact on freight railroads (both MAGLEV and HSRD were more geared toward passenger rail, while LDRLP had little impact on freight roads, either positive or negative). RRIF provided credit assistance, in the form of direct loans and loan guarantees, to public or private sponsors of intermodal and rail projects. As of April 2019, 35 RRIF loan agreements have been made, totaling almost $6.3 billion. Finally, one other TEA-21 provision - the National Corridor Planning and Border Infrastructure Program - designed to improve the safe and efficient movement of people and goods at or across the U.S. border, was tapped for several freight rail-related projects, including Alameda Corridor East (ACE), a massive highway/railroad grade separation project in California's San Gabriel Valley.

SAFETEA-LU - Continued Federal Funding and Support for Freight Railroads

The next comprehensive federal transportation law was the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users of 2005 (SAFETEA-LU). Overall, SAFETEA-LU increased the average annual authorization, from TEA-21's $33 billion to $49 billion. In addition, it also included several provisions pertaining to freight railroads and freight traffic, from both a programmatic and financial perspective. Programmatic provisions included a Freight Intermodal Distribution Pilot Grant Program (FIDPGP), designed to provide grants to certain states to facilitate and support certain intermodal freight transportation initiatives. Financial provisions in SAFETEA-LU relating to freight railroads and traffic included numerous programs pertaining mostly to maintenance and capital needs. Detailed information can be found on the USDOT Web site.

Perhaps the most eagerly anticipated provision within SAFETEA-LU, from both a freight and passenger rail perspective, was the one that sharply increased authorized funding under the Section 130 Program (Railway-Highway Crossings) from $165 million to $225 million annually(the annual amount has periodically been raised, and in Federal FY 2020 is $245 million).  In FY 2020, New York State received over $6.8 million.  In existence for almost 40 years, Section 130 provides funds for various safety improvements at highway-rail grade crossings, and has led to dramatically decreased numbers of grade crossing accidents, injuries, and fatalities.

MAP-21 - Short-Term Stopgap Financing Measure

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012 (or MAP-21) was considered a stopgap measure by many transportation professionals. While it included little new authorizing language relating to freight railroads, MAP-21 did establish a National Freight Policy (NFP) within USDOT. It is expected freight rail will be a major component of any such policy or program that USDOT develops. The latest extension of MAP-21 expired in December 2015 and was replaced with a new FAST Act (see below).  Please note MAP-21, the new FAST Act, and future measures are all authorizing documents.  In general, actual expenditures of federal funds are subject to the annual appropriation process in Congress.

FAST Act - Dedicated Funding and Vital Safety Measures

In December 2015, a comprehensive federal transportation measure was signed into law (P.L. 114-94).  Dubbed the "FAST Act" (Fixing America's Surface Transportation), it included both a number of eligible funding programs for freight rail as well as a number of railroad safety provisions.  It also included funding authorization for Amtrak, which in the past had usually been done through a stand-alone measure.  But as always, actual funds expended on either Amtrak or other transportation modes is determined through the annual Congressional appropriations process.

Funding Provisions

The FAST Act authorized funds over the next five years for freight transportation (including freight railroads) through several new programs, including a $4.5B competitive program, the Nationally and Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program (NSFHPP); and a $6.3B formula-based program, the National Highway Freight Program (NHFP).  NSFHPP specifically carved out $500M for multi-modal initiatives, such as freight rail projects which improve movement of freight on the nation's highways.

Another new program was Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI), designed to improve the safety, efficiency, and reliability of passenger and freight railroad systems.  In the current federal FY $248M was awarded in CRISI funds.  

The FAST Act also continued other funding streams from previous federal transportation measures which benefitted, either directly or indirectly, freight railroads.  These included a five-year $1.4B authorization for the Transportation Infrastructure and Innovation Act (TIFIA).  TIFIA provides credit assistance through direct loans, loan guarantees, or standby lines of credit in order to finance transportation projects of national or regional significance.  In the past, TIFIA has ben tapped for freight rail projects in a number of states.

Another important funding provision continued under FAST was CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality), which was authorized for $11.8B over five years.  CMAQ is a program states and localities use to reduce emissions and improve air quality.  In the past, CMAQ has been used for freight rail projects in a number of states, including New York.

A third continued provision impacting freight railroads was the Railroad Rehabilitation Loan Program (RRIF).  RRIF provides direct loans and loan guarantees to certain railroad entities.  In the past, freight railroads have utilized RRIF for a number of important infrastructure projects.  Amtrak has also used RRIF to purchase new electric locomotives. 

Finally, two other provisions authorized in FAST which indirectly benefitted freight railroads were a $199M one-time funding for commuter railroads to implement positive train control (PTC) technology (in many states, including New York, freight railroads operate over commuter rail tracks); and continued Section 130 funding (Railway-Highway Crossings). 

This is just a brief summary of FAST Act provisions on funding opportunities for freight railroads.  Click below for a detailed analysis of the law provided by Congress.gov, the official website for U.S. federal legislative information:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/22

Safety Provisions

Besides funding provisions above, FAST included a number of safety measures impacting railroads.  These include a requirement for railroads to provide certain local officials with a public version of their most recent bridge inspection report and to share safety information with local communities.  Concerning rail transportation of hazardous materials, where information was previously made available for first responders only after an incident had occurred, it is now required to be shared before a train carrying hazardous materials arrives in an affected jurisdiction.

FAST also included provisions regarding rail transport of oil, such as requiring USDOT to initiate a study on the appropriate level of insurance railroads hauling hazardous materials should have, and asking USDOT to require railroads improve their plans for responding to oil spills.  Class I railroads will now be required to provide information on the identity, quantity, and location of crude oil movements to emergency responders.  Further, FAST heightened oil tanker standards by requiring new tank cars be equipped with "thermal blankets" and top fittings protection, and all legacy tank cars be retrofitted to these new standards.  Finally, FAST enhanced bridge safety by creating a process for states to monitor bridge conditions.

As above with funding, this is just a brief summary of FAST rail safety provisions.  For more detailed information and analysis, see the Congressional link above.

Freight Plans

FAST directed USDOT to develop a national Multimodal Freight Policy and Network and create a National Freight Strategic Plan, in order to assess the condition of the nation's multimodal freight network and ways it can be improved.  Most significant it that it required the Plan to include port facilities, freight rail lines, and waterways.  The FAST Act will expire on September 30, 2020.

Other Federal Funding for Freight Railroads

In addition to the above five laws (ISTEA, TEA-21, SAFETEA-LU, MAP-21, FAST Act) other federal programs have been tapped for freight rail projects. For the most part, such funds have been limited in scope and earmarked for specific projects in specific states. Further, federal funding more geared toward passenger rail needs (intercity, commuter, or heavy/light rail) have tangentially benefitted freight railroads. For example, when commuter rail and/or heavy/light rail has been either established or expanded along existing freight rail corridors, these corridors are often either upgraded for joint passenger/freight service (as with New Jersey Transit's River Line in New Jersey, between Camden and Trenton); or provided with separate rights-of-way for passenger and freight trains (as in New Mexico and its Rail Runner commuter service).

New York State and Local Assistance to Railroads

In addition to the various federal initiatives, mentioned above, New York State and its various localities have long supported its railroads. In the 1800's, beneficial State and local legislation and financing helped establish freight and passenger rail service throughout New York State. In the early-mid 1900's, public-private partnerships spurred both construction of magnificent railroad stations and elimination of numerous grade crossings. As railroads started to decline in New York (as elsewhere) after World War II, crucial State assistance ensured that vital rail service continue in many areas of New York. More recently, in the 1970's, a series of landmark Statewide transportation bond acts financed 110 MPH passenger rail service between Albany and New York City and provided freight railroads with funds to undertake necessary capital and infrastructure improvements. Finally, the State Legislature passed a measure designed to provide property tax relief for railroads. Today, the State continues its historic commitment to railroads through a number of financing venues, most notably the Passenger and Freight Rail Assistance Program (PFRAP), and other annual appropriations.  For more information on PFRAP, click here.

RAILROAD WEIGHTS AND CLEARANCES

Background/History

Though technical and arcane, the twin issues of railroad car weights and clearances (heights) are important from both an industry and public policy perspective.  Briefly, concerning clearances/heights, railroad locomotives and cars (both passenger and freight) are subject to certain height (and width) restrictions.  For example, current height allowances for freight trains in New York State generally range from 15 feet 6 inches (referred to as Plate "C") up to 20 feet 3 inches (Plate "H"), whereas allowances for passenger trains are frequently less than 15 feet 6 inches.  Such lower clearances on certain passenger rail corridors generally preclude most or all freight service from operating over them or require the use of freight equipment below a certain height.  Briefly, concerning weight restrictions, allowable rail car weights in New York State range from less than 263,000 pounds (or <263K) to as much as 315,000 pounds (or 315K).  This link will take you to New York's Rail Plan, within which are maps on allowable railcar clearances and railcar weight limits in the State.  Within the document, the weights map is on page 61 and the clearances map is on page 63.

Selected Clearance Information (Federal, NYS, Other States, Other Countries)

Currently, there are a number of laws and regulations dealing with railroad clearances.  The major regulator of railroads at the federal level is the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).  At this time, the FRA does not prescribe railroad clearance dimensions.  Instead, individual states (usually through their Department of Transportation) prescribe these dimensions.  The FRA suggests two trade associations where one can obtain further clearance information - the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA) and the Railway Industrial Clearance Association (RICA).  Links to the web sites of these two associations are provided below.

In New York, clearance policy is located primarily in Section 51-a of the State Railroad Law (titled "Clearances").  In general, New York State policy calls for clearances of 22 feet, with certain exceptions.  Section 51-a, however, authorizes the NYSDOT Commissioner to grant an exemption (or waiver) and allow for lower clearances in certain specified circumstances.  Currently, in New York, clearances are up to 20 feet, 3 inches along much of the track of four separate railroads (CSX, Norfolk Southern, Delaware and Hudson, and New York, Susquehanna and Western); are less than 20 feet, 3 inches along most other freight lines; and are less, sometimes much less, along the lines of most passenger-only tracks.  This is just a brief summary of overall New York State railroad clearance policy; it is suggested to further read Section 51-a for more detailed information.

Clearance policies/laws in other states are roughly akin to that in New York.  For example, in Connecticut it is 20 feet, 6 inches; in Illinois, 21 feet, 3 inches; in Pennsylvania, an even 22 feet; and in California, 22 feet, 6 inches.  As in New York, most other states allow a certain regulator (usually the DOT commissioner or his/her designated representative) to allow for lower clearances in certain circumstances.  Since many trains operate across numerous state lines, it is important for railroad operators be aware of all state clearance laws and regulations.

There is a wide variation in railway clearances in other countries.  In most of Europe, the presence of extensive electrification (whereby overhead wires are at a relatively low height) generally has lead to lower overall clearance levels.  For example, in the Netherlands it is 15 feet, 5 inches while in Sweden it is 15 feet, 9 inches.  Clearances are also relatively low in the Asian countries of Japan and South Korea (both at 14 feet, 9 inches).  Certain clearances are higher in Australia (21 feet); India (23 feet, 5 inches); and Russia (20 feet, 2 inches).

In most countries, passenger rail is an intergral part of the transportation network, so it is more important for clearances to be geared toward passenger (or lower) rather than freight (or higher) service.  In comparison, though passenger rail remains important in both the United States and Canada, freight rail service is much more prevalent than elsewhere around the globe.  As a result, overall railroad clearances are higher in North America than in most other countries and continents.

Selected Car Weight Information (263K, 286K, 315K)

Unlike railroad clearances, which are largely set by states, there are no specific "laws" relating to car weights, on either the federal or state level.  Instead, individual railroads largely develop their various car weight requirements and/or limitations.  In general, larger railroads (referred to as "Class I" roads) have higher weight limits (either 286,000 pounds or even 315,000 pounds) while smaller railroads (referred to as "Class II" or "Class III" roads) have weight limits less than 286,000 pounds, such as 263,000 pounds (these limits are usually abbreviated to 263K, 286K, and 315K).

As depicted in the map within the State Rail Plan (see link above), rail car weight limits in New York can be summarized as follows - mostly 315K along the CSX main line, between both western New York and Albany and between Albany and New Jersey); mostly 286K along other Class I roads (other CSX routes, Norfolk Southern, Delaware and Hudson); between 263K/273K and 286K along most Class II roads; and either between 263K and 273K or less than 263K along most Class III roads.  One particular choke point in the past was on Norfolk Southern's main line between Binghamton and Buffalo, especially its crucial Portageville Bridge (located in Livingston and Wyoming Counties).  While most of this line is rated 286K, the bridge was only rated between 263K and 273K, and thus limited the type of freight that could be carried.  Happily, in a historic partnership between NYSDOT and Norfolk Southern, this bridge was replaced, with the new structure able to handle heavier trains.  Finally, weight limits on rail lines used primarily or solely for passenger service generally vary between 263K and 286K. 

Since rail car weight limits are determined by individual railroads, limits in other states are roughly akin to those in New York.  For example, CSX lines in other states are mostly rated 286K (with some stretches of track rated as high as 315K or less than 286K); while both Union Pacific and BNSF (the two major Class I railroads operating west of the Mississippi River) have much track rated 315K and the rest 286K.  As in New York, weight limits for Class II and III roads in other states generally range between 263K and 286K, but are less than 263K in many cases.

Rail car weight limits in other countries, as with clearance restrictions, vary quite widely.  Countries which have at least some track with relatively high weight limits include Australia, Canada, China, and Russia.  China, in particular, has experienced a recent rail construction boon, both passenger (conventional, high-speed, Maglev); and freight, including new track within the country and track connections to adjacent countries.  For more information about rail car weights around the world, check out the web site of the International Heavy Haul Association (IHHA), a worldwide non-governmental, scientific, and technological association of heavy haul railways and their advocates.  A link to their web site is provided below. 

Policy Implications - Higher Clearances and Heavier Trains

In order to achieve higher weight limits, in New York, other states, and other countries, a number of necessary infrastructure improvements will need to be done, including installation of new and stronger rail and ties and strengthening and rebuilding of railroad bridges.  While these projects will have a steep price tag, short- and long-term benefits will be substantial, including operation of higher and heavier trains, thereby leading to more efficient and cheaper rail service.  Already, the US/Canadian freight rail network, with its high railway clearances and rail car weight limits, is the envy of the rest of the world.  

Links

• Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
• Surface Transportation Board (STB)
• American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA)
• Railway Industrial Clearance Association (RICA)
• International Heavy Haul Association (IHHA)
• Association of American Railroads (AAR)
• American Short Line and Regional Rail Association (ASLRRA)