Without question, the major change for intercity passenger rail programs will be going from $13.2 billion per year in real money with long-term certainty provided through the advance appropriations of IIJA to being back to the mercies of the annual appropriations cycle and the lower funding levels that can be expected therein. The BUILD America 250 Act authorizes a total of $12.9 billion per year for future appropriations, but there’s no indication that the appropriations committee would be able to delivery on funding levels anywhere close to those amounts. (The annual appropriation for rail in FY26 was $2.9 billion, so the authorized level is more than quadruple that amount.)

With that paramount context acknowledged, there are also a number of interesting program and policy changes made in the passenger rail provisions of the bill.

CRISI: Starting with CRISI (the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Program), the program is reauthorized for future appropriations with a few minor policy changes. The requirement for cost benefit analyses is now waived for planning and research activities that are eligible for grant funding, and the cost share is also waived for projects that will prevent “trespassing” across rail tracks and reduce associated injuries and fatalities. The selection criteria for the grants would also be amended to include safety considerations and whether the project improve the movement of people and goods. Should the program receive appropriated funding, there would also be a set-aside for funding for a rail technology and asset pilot program.

Fed-State Partnership National Intercity Passenger Railroad Partnership Program: For the grant program previously known as the Federal-State partnership for intercity passenger rail, here renamed as ‘National intercity passenger railroad partnership program’, there are some significant policy changes. The name change signals one large change in the program, which is a greater emphasis on other providers of rail, and the program adds grant eligibility for “a rail carrier other than Amtrak that provides intercity rail passenger transportation.” It also changes references to Amtrak routes, broadening terms to include any “intercity passenger rail route.”

The bill repeals the Restoration and Enhancement Grants from IIJA, and instead adds a category of grants to this new national partnership program that would “provide operating assistance for up to 5 years to eligible entities for the purpose of restoring, enhancing, or initiating intercity rail passenger transportation.” For projects to restore or initiate service, those amounts of operating assistance would be limited to 70% of net operating costs in first year of service and winding down by 10 percentage points per year to 30% in 5^th year of service. For project to enhance service, the limits would start at 60% of net costs in first year and wind down to 20% in 5^th year. Applicants for the operating assistance grants would be prioritized if they can demonstrate that their intercity rail passenger service would be financially sustainable beyond the grant period. Priority will also be given to routes selected under the Corridor Identification and Development Program. Operating assistance grants could be used in combination with other federal grants, and the secretary can award an appropriate portion of the grant to Amtrak as compensation for access to Amtrak-owned reservation system, stations, and facilities.

The funding for the operating assistance grants will be provided through a set-aside of up to 5 percent of funds appropriated to the national partnership program.

Corridor ID: The Corridor ID program is continued in the bill, with a few reforms that appear designed to streamline and others that could create more work for applicants. The program revisions would allow eligible entities to concurrently undertake project development work. It also adds a provision that they include projected operating revenue to their service development plan, and requires a financial contingency plan to account for unforeseen project cost increases or delays, as well as a description of other proposed modal alternatives to the proposed corridor, and analysis of the effect of corridor service on freight rail.

The bill also clarifies and expands the role for the Secretary to play in partnering on service development plans: rather than just consult, the Secretary is directed to also review the methodologies and assumptions that the entity used to develop their financial plan, and then either to concur or conditionally concur with that financial plan, or to allow the eligible entity to solicit a third-party review.

Corridor ID is structured such that USDOT would submit an annual project pipeline report to Congress, similar to the Capital Investment Grant program. This bill expands the details on what information USDOT must submit and also provides guidance to USDOT on how to prioritize new corridors for appropriations requests.

In a separate section outside of Corridor ID, Section 10303 of the bill creates a new role for USDOT involvement in intercity passenger rail, directing the Secretary to examine intercity passenger rail service and evaluate the feasibility of establishing expanding services through route-specific reports. The bill notes that the Secretary may explore potential routes throughout the United States to determine which might be most feasible, but also includes some suggestions: from Kansas City to Oklahoma City, from Akron to Canton OH, from DC to Florida, between LA, San Diego, and San Luis Obispo, from Austin to San Antoinio and then to Monterrey in Mexico, and from Scranton to NYC.

Project delivery: The bill includes several new environmental review streamlining provisions specifically for rail, including in section 1206 of the bill that allows agencies to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration during the environmental review if the alternative has already been considered in a State rail plan approved by the Secretary. Rail projects could also acquire right of way and real property in advance of completing NEPA and be reimbursed for such expenses once the project is approved for funding. Another provision expands the ability of States to develop programmatic agreements with FRA to make categorical exclusion determinations.

Emergency Relief: A new program established in this bill would enable FRA to provide emergency relief funds to states, public agencies, publicly chartered authorities, political subdivisions of states, Class II or Class III railroads and intercity passenger railroads to repair damages to rail infrastructure following a natural disaster. The non-federal share of such funds could be provided in the form of equipment and supplies or could also be waived.

Amtrak reforms: In addition to the regular bevy of Amtrak reporting and GAO studies that the bill would initiate, including a new report on their long-distance equipment maintenance costs, there’s also new language that makes clear the Congressional interest in any governance changes that Amtrak may choose to consider. In Sec 10216, the bill includes a new requirement that should Amtrak choose to vote “on any corporate restructuring plan, including changes to Amtrak subsidiaries” that Amtrak will have to offer a 60 day opportunity for public comment with a notice that includes their legal authority for the restructuring. Such notice would also have to explain how the restructuring would “facilitate Amtrak’s statutory mission and other goals.” Then following the receipt of comments, Amtrak would have to provide a written response to Congressional committees describing how they will implement the comments received or justifying why they won’t, as well as an analysis of how restricting would affect Amtrak service, capital projects, workforce, and other impacts. Just in case.

Lest you think that the existing statutory Amtrak working group to provide recommendations to improve Amtrak’s onboard food and beverage service was sufficient, this bill includes a GAO study to examine the quality of food services provided and possible improvements and a comparison of current dining options to established dietary guidelines. And more, Amtrak must also establish an advisory committee to implement the GAO recommendations and to report on said implementation and to issue a final report describing “how, if at all, food and beverage service of Amtrak has changed.”

Amtrak funds (subject to appropriations) will also include a set-aside for accessibility improvements.

Intercity Compacts: One change in made in the Fed State partnership program, CRISI and RRIF is the addition of eligibility for interstate rail compacts. Such compacts are described in section 10301, which allows Secretary to enter into agreements with interstate rail compacts to establish, manage, and finance multistate equipment pools. Administration of these compacts will be eligible under the existing grant program for Interstate Rial Compacts, increasing maximum grants sizes from $1 million to $5 million. Funding amounts of $8 million are set aside from national partnership program to fund these interstate rail compacts.

CAHSR: Per this bill, a new CA High speed rail working group will have to assess and make recommendations regarding the California High-Speed Rail project. The bill spells out that the group shall include members with technical qualifications, professional standing, and relevant experience, including from the California High Speed Rail Authority. Then in addition to those qualified individuals, it “shall also include”—their words not mine—individuals who are designated by the majority and minority leaders of both houses and four members designated by the Secretary of transportation.

The working group will consider whether the project will achieve the outcomes and criteria legally required under California Prop 1A e.g. maximum operating speeds of not less than 200 miles per hour and nonstop service travel times of 160 minutes from San Francisco to LA. It will further consider whether the service will require a local, State, or Federal operational subsidy and the amount thereof, and whether the route will reduce highway and aviation congestion, the cost and timeline for completion, committed sources of funding, economic justification, impact on other infrastructure investments in CA, and report to Congress in two years.

USDOT is not allowed to make a grant to the California High-Speed Rail Authority until that deadline for the working group report passes. (The grant prohibition is tied only to the due date passing, not to actual receipt of the report.) USDOT shall “consider” said report in any future funding decisions for California high speed rail.