1. 1 1.Grant Program Delivery 2.RRIF Updates 3.Monitoring & Technical Assistance Corey Hill, Director, Office of Program Delivery, FRA

2. 2 Corey Hill – Grant Program Delivery

3. 3 Federal Funding for FRA Programs (FY08-FY14) Rail Program Federal Funding ($M) % Obligated% Outlaid Amtrak Capital & Operating $11,252100%98% HSIPR $10,04099%25% RRIF $980N/A TIGER $42390%35% Sandy Relief $29673%45% Rail Line Relocation $9087%50% Railroad Safety Technology $5099%77% FY14 Redistribution $4248%1% Capital Assistance to States $3072%71% Disaster Assistance $2091%88% TOTAL $23,22399%65% Applications under DOT review; announcements pending Applications due to FRA by September 15th

4. 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 Status Overdue Awaiting Document Received

5. 5 Anticipated Deliverable Completion Dates DateNot ReceivedReceived% Received Today1,0051,387 58% Mar 20153792,013 84% Sept 20152312,161 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 Status Overdue Awaiting Document Received

6. 6 Project Delivery – Grant Closeouts 195 active grants in FRA’s portfolio – 25 have exceeded their period of performance end date 49% scheduled to be closed 64% scheduled to be closed

7. 7 HSIPR ARRA Outlays – 3 Years Remain Must spend $5M per day to meet 2017 deadline

8. 8 Corey Hill – Monitoring & Technical Assistance

9. 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 1 st FRA Rail Program Delivery Meeting Held August 4-6, 2014 MTAC Significant contractor resources More technical expertise Consistent nationwide approach

10. 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. 11 Michael Lestingi, Director, Office of Policy and Planning

12. 12 Transportation Technology Center

13. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 19 Survey Results: Source of Funds

20. 20 Emergence of the Holding Company

21. 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. 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. 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. 24 FRA Planning Framework National Rail Planning Regional (Multi-state) Rail Plans Corridor Plans State Rail Plans

25. 25 National Rail Planning ContentsCriteria for federal investment Models, methodologies, & guidance NEPAGuidance for project sponsors FRA RoleEstablish investment policies and develop models/guidance What does the map look like? National Planning Parameters Tier I Corridors & Terminal Areas Tier II Projects “Tier 0” Regional Rail Plans CITY Standardized Criteria, Tools, & Guidance

26. 26 National Planning Parameters 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. 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. 28 Tier I Corridors & Terminal Areas “Tier 0” Regional Rail Plans National Planning 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. 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. 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. 31 National Planning 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. 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. 33 State Rail Plans Within the FRA Planning Framework National Planning Parameters Tier I Corridors & Terminal Areas Tier II Projects “Tier 0” Regional Rail Plans CITY State Rail Plans Standardized Criteria, Tools, & Guidance

34. 34 State Rail Plan Integration of State Rail Plans with Other Plans Statewide LRTP Metropolitan Transportation Planning State Freight Plan State Rail Plans National Corridors Public Private Partnerships Local/Shortline Plans Private Railroad Investment Plans

35. 35 Southwest Multi-State Study Study Overview Planning Context Network Analysis Approach Preliminary Network Vision Study Recommendations Lessons Learned about Process

36. 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. 37 Source: CONNECT Beta Version, 2012. Land Development Patterns Demographics Economic Activity Existing and Forecast Travel Planning Context

38. 38 Network Analysis Approach

39. 39 Source: CONNECT Beta Version, 2012. Rail Network and Service Concepts Preliminary Network Vision

40. 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. 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-phase Ownership Knowledge sharing Multi-phase Ownership Knowledge sharing Operations Marketing and customer service Service standards Cost and revenue sharing Operations Marketing and customer service Service standards Cost and revenue sharing Design and Construction Interoperability standards Design and Construction Interoperability standards Planning Multi-State Vision Data for Project Evaluation Grant Applications Operating Standards Safety Standards Planning Multi-State Vision Data for Project Evaluation Grant Applications Operating Standards Safety Standards Needs for multi-state coordination

42. 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. 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. 44 Thank you! Questions? David Valenstein (202) 493-6368 David.Valenstein@dot.gov Kyle Gradinger (202) 493-6191 Kyle.Gradinger@dot.gov

45. Mitch Behm Assistant Inspector General Surface Transportation Update from the DOT Office of Inspector General U.S. Department of Transportation

46. What is a Federal Inspector General?

47. The DOT Inspector General

49. OIG’s Return on Investment Return for Each Budget Dollar Spent in Fiscal Year 2013

50. The DOT OIG Hotline 1-800-424-9071 hotline@oig.dot.gov www.oig.dot.gov/hotline

51. The DOT OIG Audit Offices

52. OIG’s Office on Surface Transportation We cover all that remainsAll that moves, but...

53. Who gives us our marching orders?

54. OIG Recent Rail Work

55. OIG Current and Pending Rail Work

56. Future OIG Rail Focus

57. Questions and Answers?

58. 58 Corey Hill – RRIF Updates

59. 59 RRIF Loan Portfolio Overview Loans States Billion 33 $1.7 RRIF 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. 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 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 RRIF Program Enhancements

61. 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