Prototype News

Same vecchie stronzate stanche, different railroad. This time, it’s CSX. In my humble opinion, it’s non funzionerà, because we’ve seen these tactics before, at Norfolk Southern. Circle the target, buy a bunch of shares, then proceed to buttarci addosso della merda, trashing the CEO and twisting or fabricating numbers while you’re at it.

Yes, folks, Ancora Holdings, the endless-loop tape (like those junky telephone answering devices I used to sell at Radio Shack back in the 1970s), has resurfaced at CSX with basically the same playbook. I’ll give Ancora credit for placing four solid board members—Gil Lamphere, Sameh Fahmy, William Clyburn Jr., Richard Anderson—at Norfolk Southern. But that’s about all they managed to do, thankfully. The way they distorted the CSX vs. NS operating comparisons during the 2023 NS proxy battle was “extremely unprofessional,” one highly respected analyst remarked to me. As for the CEO they trashed and failed to oust, Alan Shaw, he sadly wound up opening and falling out his own exit door. Nothing to do with Ancora.

It appears there are two other hedge funds interested in CSX. TOMS Capital Investment Management (which as far as I know is not affiliated with Tom’s of Maine, purveyor of environmentally friendly, aluminum-free deodorant and other personal hygiene products), has taken a small financial position in CSX, as did Third Point Capital. I don’t know much about either, nor do I know their intentions. According to Reuters, “Unlike some activist investors, [TOMS Capital] prefers to stay in the background and push for changes out of the limelight, rather than launching public and noisy campaigns.” According to Institutional Investor, “Once famed for [Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer] Dan Loeb’s blistering activist letters, Third Point is now quietly reshaping itself into more of a credit-driven manager.”

Now it’s Joe Hinrichs Ancora is trashing. Here are a few slimy, silly, fundamentally fabricated, intrinsically insulting samples:

• “According to statistics from the Surface Transportation Board and Ancora’s analysis, Mr. Hinrichs has literally overseen CSX going from first to worst in terms of operational performance among Class I rails.”
• “Aside from bolstering employee engagement, making use of the Company’s private planes and manicuring his social media footprint, we are hard pressed to find any real accomplishments tied to Mr. Hinrichs.”
• “In recent years CSX, has seen a massive increase in Operating Ratio, from 58% when Mr. Hinrichs joined in 2022 to 67% year-to-date 2025.”
• “Mr. Hinrichs seems to have built a leadership team of junior varsity executives. For example, we believe COO Mike Cory is a mediocre operator and was likely pushed out of his prior role at [CN].” 
• “Regulators will have a much easier time reviewing multiple rail mergers at once. From a practical perspective, they will be able to compare competitive considerations and the impact on customers on a side-by-side basis to determine how the respective combinations benefit all stakeholders. From a timeline perspective, getting something done as early as possible during the pro-business [POTUS 47] Administration should also be a priority.”

The STB will not have an easier time dealing with two mergers. If anything, it will complicate things, potentially dragging them out.

Care to read Ancora’s entire now-not-so-private letter? I’ve attached it below. Download and read it if you have nothing better to do with your valuable time. Spoiler alert: It’s mostly, as my Uncle Alberto used to say, a bunch of malarky. You may find it maddening. You may laugh out loud. You may want to have an airline “barf bag” handy. The only maddening thing is that some people will actually believe Ancora’s stronzate.

Think I’m just blowing smoke here, or letting off steam? Here’s what Citi has to say about the situation (bold emphasis mine):

“The Ancora letter to CSX strikes us as unnecessarily aggressive, possibly counterproductive: Ancora Holdings released a letter to CSX’s Board on Aug. 19 urging the company to pursue a merger and/or consider terminating its CEO Joe Hinrichs. We find this letter a bit confounding, given: 1) its aggressive tone, which we believe is largely unwarranted; 2) its timing, as CSX has been showing improvement on the service issues that impacted the company earlier this year; 3) Ancora’s relatively small holdings, which we calculate as less than 0.2% of CSX shares outstanding; 4) what appears to be a misrepresentation of certain facts; 5) its suggestion that CSX faces ‘permanent impairment of value’ if it does not act imminently; and 6) the suggestion that CSX has not been open to strategic alternatives.

“By pushing CSX to be a forced seller, we worry that Ancora risks deteriorating CSX’s negotiating position. We believe a patient approach is likely more prudent. Ancora claims are somewhat difficult to reconcile with reality As part of its letter, Ancora claimed that CSX has delivered “anemic shareholder returns,” but we calculate CSX as tied for the best share-price performance among Class I rail peers since September 2022 when current CEO Hinrichs joined the company. While we recognize that part of these gains have come in recent months as speculation has increased that CSX could be a takeout candidate, its shares have performed in-line with peers for much of the past few years. Meanwhile, underperformance for rails vs. the S&P 500 has largely been due to a broader freight recession that has impacted transports broadly, as we view CSX and other transport companies as well positioned for when macro conditions inflect.

“Additionally, whereas Ancora expresses ‘great respect’ for CSX Vice Chairman Paul Hilal, it is concerned with the Board’s ‘poor judgment … and undermining shareholders best interests,’ We find these claims somewhat contradictory, as we believe Mr. Hilal (an experienced investor whom we also hold in high regard) would likely have good intuition on the best avenues to maximize shareholder value.

“On its most recent earnings call, CEO Hinrichs explicitly noted: ‘We are absolutely focused on delivering shareholder value and are always open to anything that can help us achieve this objective.’ This leads us to believe that the reason CSX has not publicly announced an exploration of strategic alternatives is because it needs a willing ‘dance partner,’ and alternatives are limited—with its principal merger alternative (BNSF) and a second, less likely partner (CPKC) making limited public comment, even as we remain highly confident the companies are considering their strategic options behind closed doors.

“Patience may be the better approach. With a merger process that is expected to take about18 months, we are inclined to disagree on the immediate urgency of CSX pursuing strategic alternatives. CPKC CEO Keith Creel has already committed to be a ‘loud voice’ in the STB review of UP+NS, noting regulatory approval is far from certain, with myriad concessions and carveouts potentially on the table. Additionally, if the STB does approve UP+NS, it would likely trigger a wave of further rail industry consolidation, in which CSX would be a desirable asset. Post-merger, CSX would continue to own highly valuable land and track, which would continue to hold appeal to BNSF.

“We believe rail shippers would be highly incentivized to ensure that CSX remains a viable competitive alternative in the East. As such, we believe an equally prudent course of action for CSX may be to bide its time and see what concessions it can extract as part of the STB review process and/or observe the extent to which the STB is even open to transcontinental mergers (a proposition that remains untested). Whereas pursuing a merger may ultimately prove the right course of action, we are struggling to see how turning CSX into a forced seller would be the best course of action, other than perhaps for investors with very short-term investment horizons.”  

“Short-term investment horizons” indeed. Our industry is at a critical point. Some would call it a tipping point. Those of us who truly care about it—not the Ancoras of the world—must unite and stay focused. Tune out the noise. Avoid drowning in the swamp, or getting snared in prickly hedges.

Much of this smells, badly. So what’s Ancora’s point? Driving up the stock price? Lining its pockets? Satisfying some primitive urge, expanding its territory by marking it, like a dog?

Woof!

The post Ancora Drops Rusty Anchor at CSX appeared first on Railway Age.

The move—which some analysts and industry observers might infer as a pre-merger-announcement strategy—follows Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern’s July announcement that they plan to merge and create the first U.S. transcontinental railroad.

BNSF and CSX said they will introduce direct domestic intermodal services between Southern California and Charlotte, N.C., and Jacksonville, Fla.; service between Phoenix, Ariz., and Atlanta, Ga., in an aim to convert over-the-road freight to rail; and direct international intermodal services between the Port of New York and New Jersey, and Norfolk, Va., and Kansas City.

These new services “will offer immediate value for customers by increasing flexibility and optionality,” according to the railroads, which noted that further details will be announced soon.

Between Phoenix and Flagstaff, Ariz., two new 10,000-foot sidings will be added “enabling more efficient meet/pass operations on the route connecting to BNSF’s Southern Transcon,” the railroads noted.

“This collaboration between BNSF and CSX demonstrates the power of partnership, delivering greater flexibility, efficiency and value for our customers,” BNSF Group Vice President of Consumer Products Jon Gabriel said. “We are looking forward to these offerings providing immediate, streamlined service to the supply chain across key markets nationwide.”

“Through this new connectivity, CSX and BNSF are connecting Western and Eastern U.S. markets, creating faster, more reliable service,” commented Drew Johnson, Vice President, Intermodal Sales and Marketing at CSX. “Together, we’re opening access to key markets and strengthening options for our mutual customers.”

Separately, Schneider, CSX, and Canadian Pacific Kansas City reported last December that they would offer a new intermodal service “providing continuous rail service between points in Mexico and Texas and points in the Southeastern United States.”

The post BNSF, CSX Teaming on Intermodal Services appeared first on Railway Age.

We recently noted we’re already getting tired of writing about Union Pacific+Norfolk Southern; so, invariably, here’s a piece on UP+NS …

The ultimate success of the UP+NS merger application before the Surface Transportation Board (STB) will depend on satisfying the public interest test in the merger rules, and a key piece of that is making a strong case for taking trucks off the highway. It’s an easy argument to make for a merger that eliminates interchanges and transitions interline services to single-line services.

UP and NS have ball-parked the benefits at around $1.75 billion in EBITDA synergies, which grosses up to $3.48 billion in revenues using the LTM (Last Twelve Months) consolidated EBITDA margin of 50.2%,. Dividing this by the consolidated revenue per load of $2,251 results in about 1.55 million additional loads (10% above current). In terms of time frame, these market share gains are expected within three years of the deal closing (in early 2027), so by the summer of 2030 UPNS would expect to be hauling about 1.55 million more loads than they otherwise would have done as independent entities.

(Editor’s Note: LTM should really be PTM, Past Twelve Months. Think about it: If it really was the Last Twelve Months, it would mean the company is out of business. Right? — William C. Vantuono, Nitpicker-in-Chief)

If the merger goes through, we’ll obviously be rooting for them to succeed in this regard, but it’s still an aggressive target in our view, and whether they achieve it or not will depend on the power of single-line service.

Are the market share benefits of single-line service more modest or dramatic?

The benefits are also in two pieces: 1) A one-time gain in share after the interchanges are removed. 2) A superior ongoing growth profile of single-line vs. the prior interchange services. There’s no way to test for part 1, but we can look at historical data to get a sense for whether single-line traffic does indeed have better growth dynamics than interchange traffic over time.

We’ll start with Union Pacific’s carload business, and the chart shows total freight tonnage hauled between 2006 and 2024. We’re using tonnage rather than loads to remove distortions from different equipment of varying capacities. We’ve taken total tonnage on the railroad and then removed intermodal, coal and grain to get a sense for what UP’s core carload traffic has been doing. The blue columns show tonnage for single-line service, while the yellow columns show tonnage on interchange service, either originated on UP and delivered to another carrier, or received from another carrier and delivered to destination by UP.

In terms of growth during the 18-year period, single-line tonnage grew from 144 to 173 million tons, which is a CAGR of 1%, vs. just 0.3% for interline service. While 1% is unremarkable, the superior growth profile vs. interchange is what you’d expect.

If we run the same analysis for Norfolk Southern, the picture isn’t so tidy, with single-line underperforming interchange over the period. Single-line tonnage fell from 115 to 86 million tons, a –1.6% CAGR, due in part to three meltdowns in 2014, 2018 and 2022, and the switch to PSR in 2018, with its associated lane rationalization and hump yard closures (UP also adopted PSR in 2018 and had one less meltdown). In contrast, interline tonnage was 2.1 million tons higher over the same period.

Shifting to intermodal, and the plot thickens further. The data we’re using comes from the Freight Commodity Statistics submissions by the railroads to the STB, which in Union Pacific’s case paints a more dire picture than the intermodal volume data reported weekly and accompanying quarterly financial results, given there’s a difference in how intermodal is defined between the two sets of data.

Total intermodal tonnage starts at 27 million in 2006, takes a hit during the financial crisis and fails to bounce back, and then tails off again following the PSR adoption in 2018 and associated lane rationalization. There’s a modest bounce back to 17 million tons in 2024, but we’re still looking at a dismal tonnage CAGR of –2.5% over the period; due in part to average weight per load falling from 12.1 to 10.6 tons. Interline fared even worse, shedding an additional five million tons at a CAGR of –3.3%.

Where did those 10 million tons of single-line intermodal freight go? It wasn’t to BNSF, which gained 3.6 million tons over the same period. Shifting trade patterns may have removed some, but it’s hard not to conclude that millions of tons of intermodal freight that used to be on Union Pacific has been put back on the highways—in other words, the opposite of what they’re now pledging to do. Even if we (generously) use the intermodal volume load counts reported weekly, the annual CAGR between 2006 and 2024 is just 0.1%. Union Pacific is the one Class I railroad that hasn’t been able to grow intermodal (due in part to prioritizing pricing and margins, which isn’t irrational).

Did Norfolk Southern fare any better? Yes it did, with single-line service generating an additional 6 million tons of intermodal freight at a CAGR of 1.4% since 2006, vs. flat interline growth. If this merger ultimately goes through, it sounds like UP management needs to put the NS intermodal guys in charge.

Now, let’s drill down into a couple of smaller, but key, traffic types…

Automotive is another service-sensitive commodity and uniquely interline-heavy, given production is spread across all three USMCA countries (at least for now), and you can see that in Union Pacific’s chart, where interline tonnage is more than double single-line. It’s also a weak picture that mimics the intermodal chart, with tonnage fading after the 2018 PSR adoption and into the pandemic that results in negative tonnage growth over the period. Single-line tonnage shrank at a CAGR of –2.3% between 2006 and 2024, while interline tonnage softened at –1.2%. Again, shifting trade patterns may well be to blame, but in terms of the raw numbers, single-line underperformed interline.

Norfolk Southern did worse, due largely to a high starting point in 2006 and a huge hit during the recession. Again, we have dismal tonnage growth of –6.4% for single-line and –2.4% for interline tonnage, with interline tonnage now running higher than single-line.

Let’s look at chemicals, because it has a different profile again. It’s a bit of a natural monopoly for the railroads because it’s typically long-distance bulk, and shippers prefer to put it on the railroads than highways because they’re safer. Union Pacific has a good track record with chemicals, with single-line tonnage growing from 16.5 to almost 30 million tons over the past 18 years, at a CAGR of 3.3%. Interline tonnage gained 3 million tons at a lower CAGR of 0.6%. We’re back to normalcy, with single-line outperforming. The Norfolk Southern chemicals chart is a bit of a nothing-burger. Single-line tonnage has barely changed: 0.1% CAGR; while interline wasn’t much better: 0.2% CAGR.

We’ll skip charts here because these aren’t service-sensitive commodities, and this section of the report is getting too long, but for the record: Between 2006-2024, Union Pacific single-line coal tonnage fell from 164 to 57 million (–5.7% CAGR) and interline tonnage from 98 to 19 million (–8.7% CAGR).

Norfolk Southern single-line coal tonnage fell from 138 to 60 million (-4.5% CAGR) and interline tonnage from 46 to 15 million (-6.0% CAGR). Union Pacific single-line grain tonnage fell from 27 to 23 million (-0.9% CAGR) and interline tonnage grew from 13 to 17 million (+1.7% CAGR). Norfolk Southern single-line grain tonnage fell from 17.5 to 15 million (-0.9% CAGR) and interline tonnage grew from 3.7 to 5.1 million (+1.8% CAGR).

Each of these individual commodity analyses is flawed in the sense that shifting trade patterns can muddy the waters and distort the outcomes, so you need to do a few of them across different traffic types to get a sense for whether single-line service does indeed produce a better growth outcome over time compared to interline service. Readers can look at the charts and arrive at their own conclusions, but it’s not a slam dunk, in our view, with interline service outperforming single-line in half of the charts we show (ignoring the big natural monopolies of coal and grain).

Logic suggests that single-line service is materially better (how can it not be?), and that first Union Pacific carload chart should be most representative of the advantage. However, our takeaway from this exercise it that single-line service is not an automatic win button. You’re still asking customers for a larger share of wallet vs. trucking vendors they like and trust, and there will be a lot of reluctance there, and in some cases (around the watershed, for example) you’re reaching out to customers that either haven’t used rail in the past or haven’t used rail on certain lanes. That’s an even tougher sell.

The post UP+ NS Single-Line Service is Not an Automatic Win Button appeared first on Railway Age.

The Women in Rail 2025 Conference, presented by Railway Age and RT&S, will feature a dynamic panel of executives, who will help you move forward in your current position or make a larger leap.

In this not-to-be-missed session, “Executive Edge: Branding, Negotiation and Presence,” the panelists will offer advice on how you can successfully market yourself—from developing an executive presence and asking for a raise to building a network, a skills portfolio, and your personal brand.

This is just one of many sessions scheduled for the third-annual in-person Women in Rail Conference, taking place in Chicagoland on Oct. 15-16. It will also include a celebratory luncheon for the Railway Age 2024 Women in Rail and RT&S 2025 Women in Railroad Engineering award honorees, and the chance to network with a wide-reaching group of like-minded professionals. All this will take place at a new, larger venue: the Hyatt Regency Schaumburg. Plus, don’t miss a special tour of Canadian Pacific Kansas City’s (CPKC) Bensenville Yard.

“I am truly honored to join this panel alongside such accomplished leaders for what promises to be a powerful and meaningful conversation. Branding, negotiation, and presence are essential tools that enable leaders to build confidence, lead with authenticity, and execute with impact. What excites me most is the opportunity to exchange stories and insights—there is incredible value in learning how other women in rail have navigated their leadership journeys. I believe this session will ignite confidence, foster connection, and inspire breakthrough moments—leaving attendees not only motivated but equipped with practical strategies to show up authentically and thrive.” – Ashley Nelson, Chief Human Resources Officer, AITX

Join us Oct. 15 to be part of a conversation with:

Anna Guzman, Vice President – HR Business Partner, Wabtec

Anna Guzman is a progressive human resources leader who builds trusting relationships to shape culture, facilitate change, influence behavior, and solve problems. She is passionate about fostering a culture of employees who are committed to driving positive change. Her skill set includes talent development, strategic organizational design, integration, executive coaching, and union/non-union leadership and M&A. Based in Chicago, Guzman began her HR career at GE Transportation on the HR Leadership Program (HRLP) and from there took on several roles of increasing responsibility, which included supporting operations, both union and non-union sites, services and equipment teams, as well as corporate functions. She joined Wabtec in 2019 as it merged a broad range of freight, transit, and electronics products with GE Transportation’s equipment, services, and digital solutions in the locomotive, mining, marine, stationary power, and drilling industries. Guzman’s current role as Vice President – HR Business Partner includes supporting the Digital Intelligence and Global Engineering Technology organizations.

Cherise Myers, Director of Workforce Development, American Public Transportation Association (APTA)

Cherise Myers joined APTA in 2023 with 20 years of experience in leadership development, program management, and executive team coaching. As the Director of Workforce Development at APTA, she engages members in strategies and solutions to attract, hire, train and engage our nation’s workforce in transportation careers. Myers worked in New York City for the nation’s largest transportation organization for 16 years. At a time when our country faces unprecedented workforce challenges, she taps into her experience to provide tools that fuel resiliency and solutions that maximize productivity. As an ICF Professional Certified Coach (PCC), Myers partners with executives and teams around the nation to align them with their mission and accomplish KPI’s (Key Purpose Indicators) to drive performance. She also manages proposals and contracts while leading teams in designing interactive workshops, staff retreats, global summits, international conferences, and coaching experiences to accelerate learning and upskill teams. Myers has a broad range of experience and certifications in the areas of change management, asset management, leadership development, team building, employee engagement, and more. She is also a keynote speaker who inspires executives, managers, supervisors, and essential workers to thrive in our industry’s “new norm.”

Ashley Nelson, Chief Human Resources Officer, AITX

Ashley Nelson is an innovative, results driven leader. As the Chief Human Resources Officer at American Industrial Transport – AITX, she supports domestic and global business initiatives by executing people-focused programs and practices to achieve the organization’s goals. She is dedicated to modernizing and transforming the HR function which is fueled by her passion of continuous improvement and influencing organizational change. Nelson has nearly two decades of HR experience in the rail and manufacturing industries. She holds a bachelor’s degree from Missouri State University, a master’s degree from Lindenwood University, is PHR and SHRM-CP certified, and recently received her certificate in Executive Compensation from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Nelson serves on multiple Board of Directors including: HR Executive Network of Greater St. Louis as their Membership Director, the O’Fallon Chamber of Commerce and Industries as the 2024 immediate past Board Chair, and HavenHouse St. Louis as their Vice President. Last year, she became a No. 1 International Best-Selling Author.

Kari Wagner, Vice President Commercial Strategy, The Greenbrier Companies

Kari Wagner is the Vice President of Commercial Strategy at The Greenbrier Companies, where she brings a fresh perspective and bold energy to the rail industry. She joined the company in August 2021, following a successful 25-year career leading commercial and strategic initiatives in the medical device sector. Wagner is passionate about delivering innovative and valued railcar products and services to customers. She serves on the RailPulse Board, helping to shape the future of rail telematics, and plays a key role in driving Greenbrier’s strategic plan. She also founded Greenbrier’s Women’s Leadership Group, driven by the belief that the future of leadership won’t be defined by gender—just by excellence. Wagner holds a degree from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, an MBA from the University of Oregon, and a PhD in Working Mom Management—a credential she wears with pride and a sense of humor having survived those years.

These “Executive Edge: Branding, Negotiation and Presence” panelists will be joined at the 2025 Women in Rail Conference by a diverse group of railroaders with a shared commitment to our industry’s future. Among them: Annie Adams, Chief Human Resources Officer, Norfolk Southern; Jennifer Hamann, EVP & Chief Financial Officer, Union Pacific; Sarah Watterson, President, Brightline West; Jenni Benton, SVP Commercial, Patriot Rail; Vianey De la Mora, Director General, Mexican Railway Association (AMF); Kari Gonzales, President & CEO, MxV Rail; Henrika Buchanan, SVP, National Practice Consultant, Transit & Rail Market Sector, HNTB; Paul Hubler, Chief Strategy Officer, Metrolink;  and many more.

Speakers will offer their candid thoughts on topics ranging from marketing yourself to ESG and new technologies.

Industry support for the 2025 Women in Rail Conference is already strong, including sponsorship from: AITX, GATX, TrinityRail, CN, CPKC, RailPros, R. J. Corman, API, Genesee & Wyoming, The Greenbrier Companies, UTLX, Progress Rail, Patriot Rail, Union Pacific, The National Association of Railway Business Women, and The League of Railway Women.

To inquire about sponsorship opportunities, contact Jonathan Chalon at jchalon@sbpub.com or (212) 620-7224.

View the agenda and confirmed speakers for Railway Age / RT&S Women in Rail 2025 >>

Through Oct. 2, Railway Age is accepting nominations for its 2025 Women in Rail Awards program, which will honor 25 trailblazers for their achievements in our November issue and at the 2026 Railway Age / RT&S Women in Rail Conference. These outstanding railroaders will be selected based on their leadership, vision, innovation, and accomplishments. This award celebrates female leaders in rail and pioneers with a track record of breaking down barriers and helping to create industry opportunities for women. Entries will be judged by Barbara Wilson, Senior Advisor at Railroad Financial Corporation, and Catherine Rinaldi, Executive Vice President of Gateway Development Commission, with input from the Railway Age staff. Both Wilson and Rinaldi will participate at the 2025 Railway Age / RT&S Women in Rail Conference.

Submit your nomination now >>

The post Executives Offer Personal Branding Advice at WIR 2025 appeared first on Railway Age.

The Texas Transportation Commission on Aug. 21 approved the Regional Transportation Council’s (RTC) July decision to commit $3.5 million to keep the Heartland Flyer rolling, according to the RTC. The action allows the Amtrak service linking Fort Worth and Oklahoma City to continue operating for the next year.

This is the second time in recent months the RTC has stepped in with funding. In January, it said it approved up to $100,000 in Regional Revenue funding to cover a potential shortfall through the end of the fiscal year.

The Heartland Flyer, which has operated since 1999, faced “the end of the line” after the Texas Department of Transportation’s funding request was not included in the state’s final budget. The 206-mile route is jointly funded by TxDOT and the Oklahoma Department of Transportation.

“The RTC and the North Central Texas Council of Governments are grateful to the Texas Transportation Commission for approving use of Regional Revenue funding for the Heartland Flyer,” NCTCOG Director of Transportation Michael Morris said. “This interim funding will help secure the future of the Heartland Flyer, which serves as a vital link for both commuters and leisure travelers between Fort Worth and Oklahoma City. We extend our thanks to Amtrak, the Texas Department of Transportation, the Texas Transportation Commission and all partners involved in making this historic action happen. We look forward to working with them to build a strong future for passenger rail.”

“On behalf of our Amtrak guests who count on daily Heartland Flyer trains, we thank the Texas Transportation Commission for approving the state’s share of funding of the service from the NCTCOG and its RTC,” said Jennifer Mitchell, Amtrak Executive Vice President. “We will work with the Commission, TxDOT, NCTCOG and other interested parties in Texas for a longer-term state funding solution. More than 80,000 passengers rode this service last year, up by 11% from the previous 12 months, on trains that are an economic benefit to both Texas and Oklahoma.”

According to the RTC, the new funding approval is also a benefit for special events hosted in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, like the FIFA World Cup in 2026.

“We are also happy to announce continued Heartland Flyer service in time for our tradition of welcoming guests to ride Amtrak to and from the annual Red River rivalry game between the UT Longhorns and OU Sooners on Oct. 11 at the Cotton Bowl in Dallas,” Jennifer Mitchell noted.

KC Streetcar has commenced full-service simulated testing on the expanded route from the River Market to the University of Missouri-Kansas City. “This simulation replicates full passenger service with seven to eight streetcars operating along the route,” the agency reported Aug. 21. Testing will take place during regular streetcar service hours for several weeks, it noted. 

The grand opening of the KC Streetcar Main Street Southern Extension is set for Oct. 24, according to project partners Kansas City, Mo.; KC Streetcar Authority; and Kansas City Area Transportation Authority. (See map below.)

The project is a 3.5-mile, 15-stop extension of the KC Streetcar system that will connect the current southern terminus at Union Station to the University of Missouri – Kansas City at 51st Street and Brookside Boulevard. It will bring the total system to nearly six miles.

The project includes improved public spaces and pedestrian access, as well as the addition of eight new streetcars from CAF USA, bringing the fleet total to 14. It will also connect with regional transit, including through the New Plaza Transit Center.

Project planning began in April 2017, and the official groundbreaking took place April 6, 2022. With a total cost of $352 million, the extension is fully funded through a combination of $200 million in federal grant funds provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and $152 million in local funds provided by the Main Street Rail Transportation Development District.

Kansas City serves as project manager of the Main Street Extension design and construction and is the FTA grant recipient. Construction was led by KC Streetcar Constructors, a joint venture of Herzog Contracting Corp. and Stacy and Witbeck and supported by Burns & McDonnell and JE Dunn Construction. The project is overseen by the joint partnership of Kansas City, KC Streetcar Authority and Kansas City Area Transportation Authority.

As part of the full-service simulated testing now under way, KC Streetcar said the team is evaluating arrival and departure times, streetcar spacing, streetcar schedules, turn back operations, and layover time, and will make iterative adjustments as needed. Testing is also providing an opportunity for ongoing operator training on the new alignment, ensuring that all streetcar staff are fully prepared for passenger service, it noted. In addition, the newly established KC Streetcar Operations Control Center will be activated. This dispatch center will serve as the central hub for monitoring, managing, and coordinating the entire streetcar system.

During testing, downtown streetcar service will continue without interruption, maintaining normal hours and service levels, according to KC Streetcar.

Average daily ridership in July 2025 was 669,203 unlinked passenger trips across all modes, SEPTA reported Aug. 21. System-wide ridership last month increased 4% from the same month last year. On average, there were 28,788 more trips per day in July 2025 than in July 2024. According to SEPTA, the growth is largely driven by B, L, Bus, and Regional Rail.

SEPTA Metro ridership was up 5%—an increase of 11,340 average weekday trips—from July 2024. Ridership on the B and L continues to outpace system-wide growth, according to the transit authority, which noted that ridership for the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup Soccer tournament was included in the June data.

Trolley ridership decreased by 1% or 540 unlinked trips per weekday. SEPTA noted that ridership typically declines in July due to the Trolley Tunnel Closure, which this year ran from July 11 through Aug. 10.

According to the transit authority, the G experienced strong ridership growth in July with a 23% increase in weekday ridership.

Regional Rail ridership grew by 9% with approximately 81,331 unlinked trips per weekday, which SEPTA said is roughly 6,631 additional passengers relative to this time last year.

Weekday bus ridership was up 3% or approximately 10,680 unlinked trips from July 2024. “Weekend ridership growth is slightly outpacing growth on weekdays,” SEPTA noted. “Saturday ridership has increased 4% and Sunday ridership has increased by 7%.”

“July is typically the lowest ridership month of the calendar year,” SEPTA pointed out. “Ridership is down relative to May and June however this is an annual occurrence.

• SEPTA Beginning 20% Service Cuts Aug. 24
• SEPTA Releases Reduced-Service Schedules
• SEPTA FY26 Budget Includes Service Cuts, Fare Hikes
• Second of a Series: Philadelphia Leads the Way
• 2025 Passenger Rail Outlook: ‘Murphy Was an Optimist!’

With the recent installation of Next Generation Fare Gates at San Bruno Station, BART has completed gate installation at 48 stations and is on track to wrap up the systemwide project across all 50 stations in the five counties it serves by the end of 2025, the agency reported Aug. 21.

“Next Generation Fare Gates feature clear swing barriers that are much more difficult to push through or jump over compared to the old gates BART had used for decades,” BART said. “The new gates are bolstered by a one-of-its-kind locking mechanism designed to boost their resilience. The gates also improve access for paying riders. They have LED lighting on the swing barriers and are equipped with 3D sensors that can detect if someone is in a wheelchair or has a bike, stroller, or luggage with them.”

Gate installations began last September on the concourse level of 24th Street/Mission Station.

Installation work at the San Bruno Station and the other four non-airport stations in San Mateo County was fully funded by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority through voter-approved Measure W, according to BART. SFO funded the new gates at San Francisco International Airport Station.

“The installation of these game-changing fare gates is the result of a collaborative effort,” San Mateo County Board of Supervisors President David Canepa said. “I’m proud to say we have hit the reset button on the relationship between San Mateo County and BART. BART and San Mateo County share the goal of increasing ridership through making stations safer and cleaner. These gates represent a critical step in what will be an ongoing partnership to put riders first.”

“We carry approximately 25% of transit boardings among all operators in San Mateo County,” BART General Manager Bob Powers said. “I think even more people in San Mateo County will ride BART because of these fare gates and how they are changing the station environment by serving as a deterrent against unwanted behavior.”

According to BART, the new gates are getting “mostly positive reviews” from riders. “A survey of riders indicated the number of those who reported seeing someone fare evade dropped by nearly 1/3 from just a year ago as new gates have been installed in more stations,” it reported.

In related news, BART recently became the Bay Area’s first Tap and Ride system. Also, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority is sticking with a single-bore tunnel for the final phase of the BART Silicon Valley Extension.

Brightline on Aug. 20 launched its first credit card affiliate collaboration with Capital One.

“The initiative will spotlight the Capital One Venture, VentureOne and Venture X cards,” the railroad reported. “These cards are specifically tailored for travelers who crave flexibility and rewards, and their offerings align seamlessly with the needs of Brightline customers. Guests will encounter Capital One’s Venture Suite across digital platforms, select stations, and onboard environments.” Riders who sign up for and are approved for the credit cards can redeem miles for any travel purchase, including Brightline tickets.

“This collaboration brings together two forward-thinking brands that are reshaping their industries,” said Barbara Drahl, Senior Vice President of Marketing and Commercial Strategy at Brightline. “Capital One’s bold, customer-centric approach aligns perfectly with our mission to redefine modern transportation and connect communities across Florida in smarter, more inspiring ways.”

Brightline covers 235 miles between Miami and Orlando (see map above). It launched the first phase of its South Florida operations in 2018, connecting Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach. Stations in Boca Raton and Aventura opened in 2022. Construction of its 170-mile, $6 billion phase two extension from West Palm Beach to Orlando began in 2019 and service launched in September 2023.

In related news, Brightline recently teamed with JetBlue and announced a partnership with McLaren Applied.

The post Transit Briefs: Amtrak, KC Streetcar, SEPTA, BART, Brightline appeared first on Railway Age.

The Alaska Railroad Corp. (ARRC) on Aug. 21 honored the career of Conductor Warren Redfearn, who turned in his conductor’s uniform after almost 50 years. Following a passenger coach dedication ceremony in his honor of Vista Dome No. 521 at ARRC’s Talkeetna Depot, Redfearn enjoyed a farewell ride as honorary conductor aboard the Hurricane Turn flagstop train.

Growing up in Anderson, Alaska, Redfearn remembers taking the train as a part of life. Before the Parks Highway was completed, the Tanana River would become seasonally impassable due to ice conditions, and the family would ride the railroad to Fairbanks to go grocery shopping. Redfearn remembers his first ride aboard the Alaska Railroad at age 10 to visit Denali National Park. “I followed the conductor everywhere, but I never once thought of doing the job myself,” he said.

That opportunity came in 1975, as ARRC was scaling up employment to support the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. Redfearn says a friend who had just hired on at ARRC suggested he turn in an application. He did and was promptly hired—but not without a warning from the hiring manager. “She said, ‘Sonny, this is a temporary 90-day job, not a career.’” said Redfearn. “I was a smart aleck teenager. I said, ‘Ma’am, I don’t want no stinking career. I’m going to college.’ The railroad can’t count, ’cause they just notified me my 90 days are up”. He started as a brakeman before quickly advancing to conductor, a role he has held for the better part of half a century.

It didn’t take long for Redfearn to learn which kinds of jobs he liked. “Work trains are fun because you see an accomplishment,” he said, referring to train operations in support of ARRC capital projects. “Hauling in materials, positioning the train to dump gravel. I like being able to point to a new roadbed or bridge and say I helped build that.”

But passenger trains were always his favorite. “Freight doesn’t talk to you,” he said. “I love Alaska, and I love sharing Alaska with the people on the train. I still get excited to share moose and bears and the mountains with visitors.”

Redfearn’s love of passenger trains was evident during his time working on the Hurricane Turn. The route, which is the last flagstop train service in the U.S., provides access for remote cabins north of Talkeetna that can’t be reached by the road system. Redfearn took a liking to the route and the unique opportunities afforded by the flexible flagstop train. If there was time in the schedule, he’d stop the train at Twin Bridges to let passengers step out and enjoy the view at a particularly nice bend in the Indian River. A similar stop at Curry, along with a conversation with a local business owner, led to the development of a new tour option: the River, Rails and Trails Tour from Mahay’s Riverboat, in which passengers ride the train to Curry and then disembark for a guided tour of the area and jetboat ride back to Talkeetna.

Onboard the Hurricane Turn, Redfearn made a special effort to ensure his youngest passengers enjoyed the ride. “I still think of my first ride on the Alaska Railroad, and how that conductor let me follow him around,” he said. “When I became a conductor, I would always do my best to make sure that every kid had the best time possible.” That included on-board Alaska trivia contests and a special gift of a ‘golden spike’ – that is, discarded railroad spikes Redfearn would receive from ARRC section crews and spray paint gold.

Redfearn also appealed to ARRC management to add a Vista-Dome passenger coach to the Hurricane Turn. The Vista-Dome dates to 1952 and at the time of its introduction was considered the leading standard of passenger coaches, featuring a panoramic, glass-enclosed observation dome at the top of a short flight of stairs. “One of my biggest thrills on the Hurricane was getting that car on there,” said Redfearn.

“In many ways, Warren exemplifies the best of the Alaska Railroad,” said ARRC President and CEO Bill O’Leary. “The pride he takes in his work is obvious, whether it’s helping local off-gridders unload their gear from the baggage car or going above and beyond to share the best of Alaska with our visitors. This organization has been incredibly fortunate to benefit from 50 years of Warren’s considerable energy and professional excellence. He’ll be missed by many as we wish him all the best in a well-deserved retirement.”

The post Warren Redfearn, ARRC’s Longest-Serving Conductor, Retires appeared first on Railway Age.

AGG on Aug. 20 announced the appointment of three new members to its Board of Directors: Chief Maureen Brown of Opaskwayak Cree Nation (OCN), Western Investment Company of Canada President and CEO Paul Rivett, and Gary Rennick. Together, the company says, “they bring a strong blend of business acumen, Indigenous leadership, and rail operations expertise to guide AGG through its next phase of growth.”

Rivett joins the board with extensive management and board experience across Canada. He was previously involved in the establishment of AGG with Fairfax Financial, where he worked jointly to support the effort that resulted in the repurchase of the Hudson Bay Railway and Port of Churchill. His family’s deep connections to Churchill date back to the port’s original construction in 1937 through Wolfe Stevedores Ltd.

Brown of OCN also joins the Board. OCN is a vital partner in AGG’s operations, with significant operations, training and staffing activities located in OCN and The Pas, Manitoba. Chief Brown’s leadership “will ensure that the perspectives and priorities of OCN and northern Indigenous communities remain central to AGG’s mission,” the company said.

Rennick brings decades of senior railway experience as a former CN executive. His deep knowledge of railway operations, financial management, and industry strategy “strengthens AGG’s capacity to deliver safe and efficient transportation and training services across northern Manitoba,” the company noted.

“With expanded freight operations, new construction and upgrades at the Port of Churchill, and upcoming modernization projects, AGG is investing in the long-term strength of Canada’s Arctic trade corridor,” said Mike Spence, Mayor of Churchill and Chair of the AGG Board of Directors. “As an Indigenous and community-owned company, we welcome Paul, Maureen, and Gary to our Board. Their leadership and expertise will be critical as we continue to build strong partnerships and deliver results for northern communities and all of Canada.”

AGG says its Board continues to reflect its unique ownership model, which includes 41 Indigenous and northern communities, including 29 First Nations.

After three years of leading the South Carolina Ports Authority as President and CEO, Barbara Melvin has announced her resignation, with plans to pursue other opportunities. She will be replaced by CFO and Vice President of Administration Phillip Padgett, who will serve in an interim capacity, effective immediately.

Melvin joined SC Ports in 1998, serving in a variety of roles and leading major infrastructure initiatives like the Charleston Harbor Deepening Project.

“I am grateful for the opportunity to have served South Carolina and the Ports Authority over these many years,” said Melvin. “However, for personal and professional reasons, I want to pursue other opportunities. I take pride in what has been accomplished by the Port while I have served it in multiple roles. Knowing the resiliency of the Ports Authority and its people, I have no doubt even more success is in its future,” said Melvin.

Bill Stern, Chairman of the SC Ports Board of Directors, accepted her resignation on behalf of the Board.

“The Board thanks Barbara for her long public service to the State through her work at the Ports Authority,” said Stern. “She has been instrumental in moving the Ports Authority in a positive direction as CEO these last three years and advancing several critical infrastructure projects, including overseeing the reopening of the Leatherman Terminal. We wish her the best as she embarks upon new challenges and opportunities.”

Padgett joined SC Ports in 2016 as Controller. As CFO he is responsible for the financial, risk management and real estate activities of the Port.

“I look forward to continue serving the Port and leading our team as interim CEO until a replacement is named,” said Padgett. “SC Ports remains committed to providing reliable and efficient port service to our customers and continuing to serve as a trusted partner to the entire South Carolina maritime community.”

NYS&W on Aug. 21 announced that it has appointed Katherine Bourdon as General Counsel, effective Aug. 20, 2025. She brings more than 20 years of experience in the railroad and transportation industry, including 15 years as an attorney, strengthening NYS&W’s legal strategy across its regional network.

Bourdon will lead NYS&W’s legal affairs, with responsibilities including regulatory compliance, litigation, and contract management, while serving as a key legal advisor to the President and the Board of Directors. She joins the company from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), where she provided legal counsel on rail infrastructure programs and federal grant initiatives.

Prior to the FRA, Bourdon worked as an attorney at the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB) and held positions at both national infrastructure law firms and a Northern Virginia litigation firm. Bourdon earned her undergraduate degree from the Pamplin College of Business at Virginia Tech and her Juris Doctor from The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law. Upon earning her law degree, Bourdon served as a judicial law clerk for Judge Charles E. Erdmann on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

“Katherine’s extensive experience in railroad regulatory matters, litigation, and legal strategy makes her an ideal fit for NYS&W,” said NYS&W President James Bonner. “She will continue to manage the critical and complex needs of our organization.”

The post People News: Arctic Gateway Group, SC Ports, NYS&W appeared first on Railway Age.

BNSF’s largest Logistics Center ever is now open at North Houston in Cleveland, Texas, the Class I recently announced via a LinkedIn post.

Built for businesses ready to scale fast, the Logistics Center, which is rail-served with mainline rail access and includes seamless connections to I-69 and SH-105, is shovel-ready with 1,200 acres of opportunity.

“This is a game-changer for anyone looking to grow in a high-demand marker,” BNSF stated in the post.

More information is available here.

Amtrak President Roger Harris visited CPKC’s new state-of-the-art U.S. operations center in Kansas City, Mo., where he congratulated CPKC railroaders for once again earning top marks on Amtrak’s annual Host Railroad Report Card.

The Host Railroad Report Card (download below) ranks freight railroads for keeping Amtrak intercity passenger trains for running on time. It is the ninth straight year CPKC (and Canadian Pacific before it) earned the industry-leading A grade. 

CPKC hosts portions of five Amtrak services:

• Empire Builder and Borealis:c(four times daily between Minneapolis and Chicago)
• Hiawatha Service: (12 times daily between Milwaukee and Chicago)
• Ethan Allen Express: (two times daily between New York City and Burlington, Vt.)
• Adirondack: (two times daily between New York City and Montreal)

“It takes a strong and focused team to deliver consistently high performance, and CPKC has shown its dedication to that task, having now won the Top Performing Amtrak Host Railroad award for nine years in a row, every year since the award’s inception,” Harris said during his Aug. 21 visit to present Amtrak’s “Best Host Railroad” award. 

The Best Host Railroad award is based on Host Responsible Delays (HRDs) per 10,000 train miles, a critical measure of the efficiency and reliability of host railroad operations. CPKC’s consistent track record “reflects the dedication and teamwork of its railroaders in supporting Amtrak services,” the Class I said.

Harris toured the new Operations Center, opened in 2024, meeting train dispatchers and other railroaders involved in the safe, efficient operations of freight and intercity passenger trains across CPKC’s U.S. network. Harris was accompanied by Jennifer Mitchell, Executive Vice President, Strategy & Planning; Gery Williams, Executive Vice President, Service Delivery & Operations; and Yoel Weiss, Director Host Railroads.

The visit highlighted the importance of collaboration between Amtrak and its host railroads in “delivering reliable passenger rail service, reaffirming a strong partnership built on operational excellence and shared commitment to customer satisfaction.”

“CPKC is honored to once again receive this recognition of the success we have achieved as a host railroad providing industry-leading service to Amtrak on our lines,” said CPKC Vice President of Transportation Danny Torres, who hosted the tour.

CN and Norfolk Southern (NS) earned a B+ on the Host Railroad Report Card, while BNSF and CSX earned a B, and Union Pacific (UP) earned a B-.

The post Class I Briefs: BNSF, CPKC appeared first on Railway Age.

The August ITS Supply Chain Report confirms that the “trucking sector saw modest expansion in July despite larger global economic uncertainty and rising industry costs,” ITS Logistics, a Nevada-based third-party logistics (3PL) firm, reported Aug. 21. Additionally, the drayage sector experienced the “second-highest volume of U.S. imports ever recorded,” coming in just 555 TEUs (Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units) shy of the all-time high in May 2022, it said, and in warehousing, PPI (Producer Price Index) rose to 153.982, “hinting at a slight recovery following a sharp decline from May to June.” Overall economic performance was “still strained by inflation and labor concerns,” but “did cool down enough to satisfy markets,” ITS Logistics reported.

“While capacity has tightened with ongoing carrier exits, the real story is that cost pressures remain significant and freight rates, broadly, are still challenged—just barely covering the bills,” ITS Logistics Chief Commercial Officer Josh Allen said. “This isn’t broad-based recovery. The opportunities that exist are selective, shaped by tariff volatility and a shifting regulatory environment.”

According to the 3PL firm, the Logistics Managers Index (LMI) revealed a reading of 59.2, “with growth being driven by smaller logistics companies and demand for freight movement of front-loaded goods from ports and distribution centers.” As noted in a recent FreightWaves report, it added, “smaller firms—companies with less than 1,000 employees—and upstream companies are what impacted activity in the supply chain during July, with both reporting higher inventories.” Smaller companies, the report continued, “confirmed swift expansion in inventory at 64.8, while upstream firms experienced an expansion of 58.5, versus the contraction among downstream companies at 47.6. The decline in stock levels across retailers was attributed to the intermittent nature of tariffs. Additionally, warehousing also saw a modest uptick in the PPI, reflecting early stabilizing and potential normalization of operational activity.”

ITS Logistics said that across the U.S., the top ten import gateways all saw strong gains in import volumes—“a rise that reflects traditional seasonal demand, as well as suspected front-loading activity ahead of tariff policy changes.” The convergence, it noted, resulted in the second-highest import volume on record, just shy of post pandemic-fueled operations in May 2022.

“These isolated positive influxes across the supply chain, such as port volumes and LMI growth, contrast broader inflation trends,” Josh Allen pointed out. “More than likely, these gains will average out over the coming months.”

Fuel prices are a growing challenge across the freight industry, according to ITS Logistics, which recently introduced the ITS Logistics Fuel Card. “In one survey, more than half of U.S. transport and shipping firms reported spending at least 20% of their operating budget on fuel,” the 3PL firm reported.

On Aug. 20, it was announced that “Federal Reserve officials raised concerns surrounding the state of the labor market and inflation,” ITS Logistics noted. “The majority of officials agreed that lowering interest rates now would be too soon, while the July meeting minutes also showed a difference of opinions across the collective among the central bankers, whose vote to hold their key rate steady came despite receiving objections from two Fed governors who were in favor of cutting. Policymakers also voiced concerns about rising threats to the economy that would justify further monitoring.”

Separately, ITS Logistics recently issued the August forecast for its US Port/Rail Ramp Freight Index, reporting that “[e]xport volumes remain challenged as tariff negotiations continue, while inbound volumes, especially to the U.S. West Coast, are still strong.”

• ITS Logistics Releases July Supply Chain Report
• ITS Logistics Issues July US Port/Rail Ramp Freight Index

The post ITS Logistics Issues August Supply Chain Report appeared first on Railway Age.

The Great Plains Transportation Museum’s former Santa Fe FP45 locomotive is headed to Mid-America Car in Kansas City, Mo., for a cosmetic restoration. Over the past two years, the museum has been raising funds to repaint FP45 93. The campaign received support from actor Michael Gross, who starred in the 1980s show Family Ties.

Locomotive 93 was built by EMD in 1967 and used in passenger service until 1971. It was then used in freight service on the Santa Fe and later BNSF Railway until 1998, when it was retired and donated to the Wichita museum. 

“We’re thrilled to see 93 headed toward the cosmetic restoration it deserves,” said GPTM President Heather Gatton. “We are anxious to see 93 in the freshly applied red and silver Super Fleet scheme that was created when Mike Haverty became the railroad’s president in June 1989. Locomotive 93 was last painted by Santa Fe in January 1990, so the timing is right to refresh its appearance.”

—Railfan & Railroad Staff

The post Santa Fe FP45 to be Restored appeared first on Railfan & Railroad Magazine.

This year, Railway Age and RT&S are pleased to venture to Pittsburgh on Oct. 1-2 for the much-anticipated 2025 Light Rail Conference, featuring a packed lineup of LRT professionals who are significantly influencing today’s rail transit industry. Among the list of reasons to attend is a detailed-filled presentation, TDI Pop-Up Metro New-Start Initiatives, about the innovative, practical, low-cost concept for LRT and other passenger rail applications.

This edition of our annual in-person Light Rail Conference will be filled with dynamic panels and the chance to network with a wide-reaching group of like-minded professionals. This event will offer a comprehensive review of the specialized technical, operational, environmental, and socio-economic issues associated with light rail transit (LRT) in an urban environment.All this will take place at the Fairmont Pittsburgh.

Pop-Up Metro is “a kit for building a railroad for operation on existing track, a fresh transit infrastructure alternative utilizing existing low-density freight rail lines and North America’s only battery-propelled passenger cars,” as described by Railroad Development Corp. “Pop-Up Metro offers a reliable, low-cost, and sustainable option allowing communities considering rail options to prove both the concept and the market in an expedited, economic, low-risk manner. Pop-Up Metro is offered as a Turnkey ‘Kit’ incorporating trains, ADA complaint modular platforms, charging equipment, maintenance infrastructure, training, and operating plan as an annual lease, eliminating the high up-front capital commitment typically associated with light Metro start-ups or service extensions.” Pop-Up Metro is currently using 1.8 miles of Pennsylvania’s East Broad Top Railroad for its test track. In February 2025, TDI Greenway and RDC partnered to strengthen growth for rapidly deployed light metro, light-rapid transit, very light rail (VLR) and tram solutions on secondary freight and passenger routes worldwide. The joint venture led to a merger between TDI and RDC’s rail mobility division, Pop-Up Metro (PUM) LLC. TDI is headquartered in the U.K., while PUM provides a U.S . footprint, as both work to expand transit solutions around the world.

Presenters are Henry Posner III, Chair, and Ida Posner, COO, Railroad Development Corporation; Nate Asplund, President, Pop-Up Metro LLC; and Thomas R. Hickey, Transportation Strategist, West Chester Intersection, LLC. Railway Age Contributing Editor David Peter Alan is moderator.

Presented Oct. 1-2 at the Fairmont Pittsburgh, the 2025 Railway Age and RT&S Light Rail Conference is a must-attend premier conference on LRT for transportation professionals in planning, operations, civil engineering, signaling, and vehicle engineering. Students at the undergraduate and graduate levels are also welcome.

Transit leaders on the program include Andy Lukaszewicz and  Justin Selepack of Pittsburgh Regional Transit (PRT), Bryan K. Moore and Casey Blaze of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA), Henry Posner and Ida Posner of Railroad Development Corporation (RDC), Harry Skoblenick of Alstom, Barbara M. Schroeder ofBenesch,  Rachel J. Burckardt of WSP USA, and many more.

Key sessions will focus on:

• Strategic insights into major new-builds and expansion projects.
• Engineering sessions illustrating how to best support long-term efficiency and safety.
• Capital program oversight, risk mitigation, and performance tracking.
• Resilience planning, sharing adaptive strategies for extreme weather events.
• Improvements to customer-facing technologies such as fare collection, communications and security.
• The viability and scalability of alternative propulsion technologies.
• Confronting funding challenges.

Supporting Organizations

Industry support for the Railway Age / RT&S 2025 Light Rail Conference is already strong, including sponsorship from 4AI Systems, Piper Networks, Benesch, and RDC.

Learn More

• View the confirmed speakers and agenda, and take advantage of the early bird rate for Railway Age / RT&S 2025 Light Rail.
• To inquire about sponsorship opportunities, contact Jonathan Chalon at jchalon@sbpub.com or (212) 620-7224.

The post Pop-Up Metro Spotlighted at 2025 Light Rail Conference appeared first on Railway Age.

Those railroads achieved a rate of return on net investment (ROI) equal to or greater than the Board’s calculation of the average cost of capital for the freight rail industry, which for 2024 was 10.68%, according to the STB’s Aug. 14 decision (scroll down to download). The annual cost of capital—reported last month—represents the STB Office of Economics’ estimate of the average rate of return needed to persuade investors to provide capital to the industry.

If the railroads’ annual cost of capital was determined to be 10% or less, BNSF and Norfolk Southern would have been revenue adequate.

By comparing the 2024 cost of capital to the 2024 ROIs—calculated from data reported in the carriers’ Annual Report R-1 Schedule 250 filings, which do not include rail operations in Canada or Mexico—a revenue adequacy figure has been determined for each of the six Class I’s in operation as of Dec. 31, 2024.

Following are the 2024 Class I ROIs (railroads in bold are revenue adequate):

• BNSF: 10.17%
• CSX: 13.72%
• Grand Trunk Corp. (the U.S. affiliate of CN): 6.64%
• Norfolk Southern: 10.52%
• Soo Line/Kansas City Southern Railway Company (the U.S. affiliate of Canadian Pacific Kansas City): 5.68%
• Union Pacific: 16.19%

Railway Age provides the revenue adequacy results for 2018-23 here:

—For 2023, the STB found that three Class I’s were revenue adequate; the cost of capital for the year was 9.87%. Below are the 2023 Class I ROIs (railroads in bold are revenue adequate):

• BNSF: 10.63%
• CSX: 14.27%
• Grand Trunk Corp. (the U.S. affiliate of CN): 7.81%
• Norfolk Southern: 8.03%
• Soo Line/Kansas City Southern Railway Company (the U.S. affiliate of Canadian Pacific Kansas City): 5.10% (On April 14, 2023, Kansas City Southern merged with Canadian Pacific to form Canadian Pacific Kansas City.)
• Union Pacific: 15.98%

—The STB found that five Class I’s were revenue adequate for 2022; the 2022 cost of capital was 10.58%. Below are the 2022 Class I ROIs (railroads in bold are revenue adequate):

• BNSF: 12.89%
• CSX: 16.17%
• Grand Trunk Corp. (the U.S. affiliate of CN): 8.99%
• Kansas City Southern: 9.19%
• Norfolk Southern: 14.55%
• Soo Line (the U.S. affiliate of Canadian Pacific): 13.31%
• Union Pacific: 17.96%

—The STB found that the same five Class I’s were revenue adequate for 2021; the cost of capital for the year was 10.37%. Following are the 2021 Class I ROIs (railroads in bold were revenue adequate):

• BNSF: 13.19%
• CSX: 15.51%
• Grand Trunk Corp. (the U.S. affiliate of CN): 7.79%
• Kansas City Southern: 8.25%
• Norfolk Southern: 13.18%
• Soo Line (the U.S. affiliate of Canadian Pacific): 13.51%
• Union Pacific: 17.03%

—For 2020, five Class I’s—BNSF, CSX, Kansas City Southern, Soo Line and Union Pacific—were found to be revenue adequate; the 2020 cost of capital was 7.89%. Below are the 2020 Class I ROIs (railroads in bold were revenue adequate):

• BNSF: 11.60%
• CSX: 11.35%
• Grand Trunk Corp. (the U.S. affiliate of CN): 7.20%
• Kansas City Southern: 8.06%
• Norfolk Southern: 7.52%
• Soo Line (the U.S. affiliate of Canadian Pacific): 10.68%
• Union Pacific: 14.44%

—For 2019, the five Class I’s found to be revenue adequate were BNSF, CSX, Norfolk Southern, Soo Line and Union Pacific; the cost of capital for the year was 9.34%. Below are the 2019 Class I ROIs (railroads in bold were revenue adequate):

• BNSF: 12.04%
• CSX: 12.84%
• Grand Trunk Corp. (the U.S. affiliate of CN): 7.47%
• Kansas City Southern: 6.20%
• Norfolk Southern: 11.59%
• Soo Line (the U.S. affiliate of Canadian Pacific): 11.34%
• Union Pacific: 15.55%

—For 2018, the STB determined that three Class I’s—CSX, Soo Line and Union Pacific—were revenue adequate; the cost of capital for the year was 12.22%. Following are the 2018 Class I ROIs (railroads in bold were revenue adequate):

• BNSF: 11.89%
• CSX: 13.18%
• Grand Trunk Corp. (the U.S. affiliate of CN): 7.69%
• Kansas City Southern: 8.03%
• Norfolk Southern: 11.63%
• Soo Line (the U.S. affiliate of Canadian Pacific): 13.49%
• Union Pacific: 15.80%

In a related development, the STB recently discontinued proceedings in which it sought comment on proposed modifications to its procedures for annually determining whether Class I railroads are revenue adequate. The decision is “in the interest of administrative efficiency,” as the Board is “prioritizing other, mission-critical matters at this time,” it said.

• WCTL Seeks Revenue Adequacy Remedy
• STB Chided on Rail Revenue Constraint

The post For 2024, Two Class I’s Deemed ‘Revenue Adequate’ appeared first on Railway Age.

One of the busiest areas we operate in is the southern part of our network. To keep operations running smoothly there, we need to make sure our terminals—where railcars are sorted and loaded onto trains—are working efficiently. When our terminals are running well, it generates capacity and opportunities for us to grow. That’s good for our business—and even better for our customers.

When I started out as a conductor, we relied on instinct and experience. Visibility was limited to what you could observe firsthand. Fast forward to today: We’re using real-time data and automation to completely change the rail operations landscape.

At the core of this shift is Terminal Command Center (TCC), a digital platform that provides us with a live look at what’s happening in terminals across our 23-state network. TCC provides insight into current crew productivity and how cars are flowing through the terminal—data that helps us ensure we are moving freight according to plan. With this information all in one place, our teams can quickly respond to challenges, keep operations on track and make better decisions—faster.

Think of a terminal as a large-scale sorting facility where railcars get routed and grouped by geographical destination, then connected to the right train for on-time delivery to our customers. Terminals are some of the most critical points in a railcar’s journey—and efficiency here means we eliminate hours, and in some cases days, from customer transit times. Technology is helping us by unlocking performance in real time.

One major benefit: We can identify production slowdowns immediately. If an engine is sitting too long or a task isn’t moving along, we don’t have to wait hours. TCC helps us flag gaps in workflow and improve how teams are scheduled and deployed.

At Houston’s Settegast Yard, we’re already seeing the benefits of terminal modernization. A tool called Mobile NX lets employees switch tracks remotely with handheld devices instead of walking miles to do it manually. It’s more efficient, safer and frees up time for crews to focus on other productive activities.

Soon, we’ll deploy aDynamic Bowl Optimizer, which will allow yards to automatically adjust track usage based on traffic and demand, unlocking more railcar blocking capabilities without additional infrastructure. The result is fewer car touches and better transit times.

We’re also integrating intelligent planners and testing camera-based technologies to make tasks even safer. These innovations, combined with the expertise of our people, position us to handle more volume with greater consistency—and to do it safely.

TCC isn’t just a new dashboard. It’s a smarter way of working that empowers our teams to problem solve, reduce delays and deliver results. And in a business where every minute matters, that makes a big difference.

I see it in the way our teams respond—proactively and more efficiently, with the right tools at their fingertips. This progress extends beyond digital screens; it is tangible across our network. We’re providing customers with smarter, safer and faster service than ever before.

The post How UP’s Real-Time Tech Is Powering Rail Growth appeared first on Railway Age.

The FRA’s decision follows the release last month of its Compliance Review Report, which found the CHSRA project is “in default” of the terms of two federal grants.

Following the “Compliance Review, and consideration of all information submitted by CHSRA, FRA has concluded that CHSRA cannot deliver on its commitments,” FRA Acting Administrator Drew Feeley wrote in the FRA’s final decision letter dated July 16 (download below). He explained: “FRA has determined CHSRA has breached the commitments made in the FY10 Agreement [which obligated $929 million through the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program grant] and the FSP Agreement [which obligated $3.07 billion under the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail grant program]. Based on CHSRA’s inability to complete the EOS [Early Operating Segment or 171-mile corridor between Merced, Calif., and Bakersfield, Calif.] by December 31, 2033, the CHSR Project does not adequately serve the purpose of the statute under which the FY10 Agreement was authorized and funded, and this failure constitutes a Project Material Change under the FSP Agreement. Furthermore, anything short of an operational EOS by December 31, 2033, undermines FRA’s basis for selecting the CHSR Project. For these reasons, as set forth in this letter, FRA has determined to terminate the FY10 Agreement and the FSP Agreement, effective today, and will de-obligate the associated funds.”

USDOT in its announcement reported that “FRA will start exploring how these [revoked] funds can be made available to viable and meritorious passenger rail projects.” Additionally, it said it has directed FRA “to review other obligated and unobligated grants related to the CHSRA project,” and will “consult with the Department of Justice on the finding of FRA’s Compliance Review.”

That 310-page review included what USDOT called nine “key findings”:

1. “CHSRA has executed numerous change orders and will likely have many more change orders in the near future to account for contractor expenses as a result of project delays.
2. “CHSRA has already missed its deadline for finalizing its rolling stock procurement.
3. “CHSRA has at least a $7 billion funding gap to complete the EOS, with no credible plan to secure additional funds.
4. “CHSRA does not have a viable path to complete the EOS by 2033 per its commitment in the FY10 Agreement and the FSP Agreement.
5. “CHSRA relies on volatile non-federal funding sources, which present significant project risk.
6. “CHSRA lacks time and money to electrify the EOS by 2033.
7. “CHSRA’s budget contingency is inadequate to cover anticipated contractor delay claims.
8. “CHSRA has overrepresented its ridership projections for the EOS substantially.
9. “CHSRA lacks the capacity to deliver the EOS by 2033.”

Following the Compliance Review, FRA sent CHSRA a formal Notice of Proposed Determination to Terminate, and pursuant to that Notice, CHSRA provided responses.

In one, CHSRA CEO Ian Choudri issued what the Authority called “a firm and detailed rebuttal” in a letter to Drew Feeley. Choudri’s 14-page response was said to “correc[t] the record on the FRA’s unfounded, outright misleading and disingenuous assertions and methodologies, highlighting elements of the review as nothing more than rhetoric aimed at justifying a pre-ordained conclusion.”

“Termination of the Cooperative Agreements is unwarranted and unjustified,” said Choudri. “FRA’s conclusions are based on an inaccurate, often outright-misleading, presentation of the evidence. Among other things, the FRA distorts data that the Authority has furnished to the FRA, includes citations to reports that do not support its conclusions, and employs opaque and disingenuous methodologies. I must also take this opportunity to dispute, in the strongest possible terms, the misleading claim that the Authority has made ‘minimal progress to advance construction, The Authority’s work has already reshaped the Central Valley. We have built many of the viaducts, overpasses, and underpasses on which the first 119 miles of high-speed rail track will run. Major structures completed include the 4,741-foot San Joaquin River Viaduct in Fresno and the Hanford Viaduct in Kings County, the largest high-speed rail structure in the Central Valley, spanning the length of twenty-one football fields. A railyard for materials laydown and logistics to allow for high-speed rail construction is under construction and scheduled for completion this year. These are momentous achievement. Combining feats of engineering, complex logistical and legal coordination, and, on average, the labor of more than 1,700 workers in the field every day, mostly in Fresno, Kings, and Tulare Counties. In total, 53 structures and 69 miles of guideway have been completed.”

CHSRA also said it “rejected the FRA’s claim that it lacks a plan to close a projected $7 billion funding gap,” pointing to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed extension of California’s Cap-and-Trade program, now referred to as Cap-and-Invest, “which would guarantee at least $1 billion annually through 2045.” The Authority also noted its forthcoming Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) “to engage private partners for potential innovative and creative partnerships that could improve cost and schedule of project delivery.”

Choudri also took issue with the review process, stating that the FRA’s own monitoring report in October 2024 “found no significant compliance issues, and that the FRA’s new position is outwardly inconsistent with its own prior findings. There have been no meaningful changes in the past eight months that justify FRA’s dramatic about-face. Instead, the FRA has looked at essentially the same facts it considered in the fall of 2024 and simply reached a different conclusion. Hostility to public investments in high-speed rail, and to California’s leadership—hostility that dates back to FRA’s initial attempt to revoke federal funding to the Program in May 2019—appears to be the real basis for the proposed determination.”

The letter also “underscores that environmental clearance is complete from downtown San Francisco to downtown Los Angeles and that electrification of the Caltrain corridor between San Francisco and San Jose is finished.”

USDOT in its July announcement said that “[n]either response [from CHRSA] satisfactorily addressed FRA’s significant concerns, as described in the Compliance Review, and FRA has therefore decided to terminate the [FY10 and FSP] agreements.”

Drew Feeley pointed out in FRA’s July decision letter that “CHSRA’s criticisms of FRA’s Compliance Review are unfounded and CHSRA has not adequately demonstrated it will complete the EOS by 2033.” He noted that “CHSRA fails to address the substantive concerns underlying FRA’s decision“; “FRA relied on sound data for the Compliance Review“; “FRA’s decision to terminate the cooperative agreements is timely“; “FRA relied on CHSRA’s representations but did not endorse CHSRA’s prior performance“; “CHSRA’s civil construction project progress does not adequately demonstrate CHSRA’s ability to deliver the EOS“; “CHSRA provides only vague and speculative plans that do not demonstrate CHSRA’s ability to complete the EOS“; and “FRA’s termination decision is not driven by animus toward the CHSR Project.“

Specifically, among his comments:

• “Rather than addressing the event of default, CHSRA raises concerns regarding the Compliance Review and suggests FRA failed to consider the documentation CHSRA provided. In doing so, it attempts to obfuscate its own failures with glossy artist renderings, while nitpicking some of FRA’s references and contending that FRA has assented to CHSRA’s delays and budget gaps. CHSRA almost exclusively highlights progress that is not part of the EOS commitment. For example, CHSRA’s response disproportionately details peripheral project elements that are unrelated to the EOS itself. If anything, CHSRA’s focus on the Salesforce Transit Center, electrification of the Caltrain commuter service, and Los Angeles Metro projects, to name a few, demonstrate that CHSRA is not taking its EOS commitment seriously. Rather than presenting a plan to document that it can complete the EOS on time and on budget, CHSRA chooses instead to highlight tangential projects. CHSRA’s dissembling is not a basis for FRA to ignore the terms of the Cooperative Agreements.“
• “CHSRA generally challenges some of the factual bases underlying FRA’s conclusions and highlights certain documents that it believes refute FRA’s factual findings. FRA reviewed project documentation, among other relevant sources, as part of its Compliance Review process. As described in its Notice, the document request was one component of FRA’s decision. The purpose of this component of the review was to gather project documentation to give FRA a more complete understanding of how CHSRA is managing the CHSR Project. FRA temporally bounded the document request to focus on more recent project documentation and reduce the burden on CHSRA. In its Final Response, CHSRA now argues that FRA somehow forfeited its rights to consider any material that was not provided by CHSRA within the scope of FRA’s document request. In attempting to direct FRA’s review of its own grant, CHSRA fails to cite any authority or provide any reason why FRA should have limited its decision to only those documents within the document request period. FRA’s oversight authority as the grantmaking agency allows FRA broad discretion to consider any relevant information regarding recipient compliance. The Notice clearly explains the sources FRA relied on for its decision, and CHSRA’s attempt to limit the scope of FRA’s consideration is without merit.“
• “FRA has reason now to conclude the EOS cannot be delivered by CHSRA as promised. In less than a year since the obligation of the FSP Agreement, CHSRA’s delays have already burned through most of the schedule contingency. CHSRA argues that FRA is taking drastic action based on one missed project milestone. CHSRA again attempts to dismiss FRA’s concerns as minor administrative matters instead of addressing the substantive reasons underlying FRA’s decision. FRA is taking action now because FRA has no confidence CHSRA can deliver the EOS by 2033, a fundamental commitment CHSRA made in the Cooperative Agreements. The erosion of schedule contingency and the missed milestone only serve to illustrate FRA’s concerns. FRA outlined similar concerns with the project budget. Notably, FRA has seen reports that the $7 billion funding gap has already grown to $10 billion in the short time since FRA initiated its Compliance Review.“
• “CHSRA faults FRA for not acknowledging the progress that CHSRA has made on the Project so far. FRA does not dispute that CHSRA has advanced civil work along the 119-mile First Construction Segment. However, CHSRA again completely misses the concerns underlying FRA’s decision, which focus primarily on CHSRA’s ability to deliver the EOS by 2033. FRA’s concern, as described in the Compliance Report, is focused on the cost, the rate of progress, and CHSRA’s management of the EOS. While some progress has been made on civil construction, the budget gap continues to grow and the schedule continues to lose ground. FRA considered the rate of current progress in its projections and in determining that CHSRA cannot deliver the EOS on time or consistent with the agreed upon budget. In addition, the many projects CHSRA identifies in its Final Response suggest it is focusing its energy on projects other than the EOS. CHSRA’s response shows it has focused on off-system projects (e.g., the SalesForce Transit Center), but it has yet to lay track on any portion of the EOS.“
• “Further, Governor Newsom’s proposed plan to set a $1 billion-dollar minimum funding floor from cap-and-trade proceeds for CHSRA is insufficient to overcome the CHSR Project’s budget issues. FRA acknowledges that a funding floor, if enacted, would alleviate some funding volatility with the Project’s reliance on the State’s Cap and Trade Program, but a funding floor does not guarantee available funding to support the Project, as this assumes first enactment (a significant hurdle), then that the State will receive sufficient revenue from the project, the State Legislature will not sunset the program, and the State will not defer high-speed rail costs to address more critical State priorities. These factors are outside of CHSRA’s control and continued reliance on a singular source of funding has substantial risk. Furthermore, the funding floor does not commit any additional State monies to the project and therefore does not address the substantial funding gap needed to complete the EOS. As a result, FRA’s concerns regarding project funding remain, and CHSRA has not provided documentation adequately demonstrating that it can right-size the project budget, avoid costly delays, and deliver the EOS by 2033.“
• “CHSRA accuses FRA of making its termination decision due to hostility against the CHSR Project. Not so. As explained in its Compliance Report and in this letter, FRA’s decision is the result of a comprehensive look at the CHSR Project and based on CHSRA’s inability to deliver the EOS by 2033 in breach of the commitments made in the Cooperative Agreements. FRA designed the Compliance Review to allow it to take a complete look at the CHSR Project. FRA notified CHSRA of the review and sought CHSRA input throughout the process through document requests and regular meetings. FRA memorialized its decision and provided CHSRA with an opportunity to respond. In making its decision, FRA relied largely on official reports produced by CHSRA and by California oversight bodies. Then, FRA publicly released a detailed report outlining its findings and conclusions, both favorable and unfavorable to CHSRA. For example, in the Compliance Report, FRA concludes that CHSRA has generally complied with its reporting requirements and in producing deliverables. However, FRA also found that CHSRA cannot deliver the EOS as promised, which was the basis for FRA’s proposed decision.“

Gov. Newsom’s Office on July 16 said in response to the POTUS 47 Administration “illegally terminating federal grant agreements funding California high-speed rail,” that the state is “putting all options on the table” to fight the action.

“Canceling these grants without cause isn’t just wrong—it’s illegal,” CHSRA CEO Choudri said as part of the statement released by the Governor’s Office. “These are legally binding agreements, and the Authority has met every obligation, as confirmed by repeated federal reviews, as recently as February 2025. America’s only high-speed rail project underway is fast approaching the track-laying phase, with 171 miles under active construction and design, 15,500 jobs created, and more than 50 major structures completed. This is no time for Washington to walk away on America’s transportation future.”

The Governor’s Office noted that “[i]n the last year, [California] high-speed rail has marked significant progress—with all environmental reviews spanning 463 miles from Los Angeles to the Bay Area complete, the electrification of Caltrain complete, trainset selection underway, station and track construction on deck, continued work with partner rail systems to create a southwest regional high-speed rail network, and more than 15,000 good paying jobs created. Passenger service is expected in the coming years, between 2030 and 2033.”

According to a KSEE24/CBS47 report, CHSRA Board Member Henry Perea Sr. “says this project will continue despite the [USDOT] announcement.” 

“Until somebody says, stop, we’re going to keep building—and we’re building,” Perea said, according to the Fresno, Calif.-based media outlet. 

“Perea says he anticipated this announcement, and the CHSRA was prepared,” KSEE24/CBS47 reported. “He says they have enough money to keep working.”

Gov. Newsom summed up in a July 16 statement: “With projects like the Texas high-speed rail failing to take off, we are miles ahead of others. We’re now in the track-laying phase and building America’s only high-speed rail. California is putting all options on the table to fight this illegal action.”

On July 17, the Governor’s Office announced that CHSRA is filing suit again the POTUS 47 Administration. In a statement it said the “lawsuit alleges that termination of the agreements is petty, political retribution, motivated by POTUS 47’s personal animus toward California and the high-speed rail project, not by facts on the ground.” 

POTUS 47’s “termination of federal grants for California high-speed rail reeks of politics,” Gov. Newsom said. “It’s yet another political stunt to punish California. In reality, this is just a heartless attack on the Central Valley that will put real jobs and livelihoods on the line. We’re suing to stop [POTUS 47] from derailing America’s only high-speed rail actively under construction.”

“A bipartisan congressional committee is investigating whether California’s High-Speed Rail Authority knowingly misrepresented ridership projections and financial outlooks, as alleged by the [POTUS 47] administration, to secure federal funding,” the Los Angeles Times reported Aug. 20. “In a letter sent to Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy on Tuesday, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chair James Comer (R-Ky.) requested a staff briefing and all communications and records about federal funding for the high-speed rail project and any analysis over the train’s viability.”

According to the newspaper, Comer wrote in the letter, which copied U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia of California, senior Democrat on the committee: “The Authority’s apparent repeated use of misleading ridership projections, despite longstanding warnings from experts, raises serious questions about whether funds were allocated under false pretenses.”

A CHSRA spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times that the committee’s investigation was “‘another baseless attempt to manufacture controversy around America’s largest and most complex infrastructure project,’ and added that the project’s chief executive, Ian Choudri, previously addressed the claims and called them ‘cherry-picked and out-of-date, and therefore misleading.’”

• CAHSR: ‘Building a Dream’ to Nightmare?
• CHSR: USDOT Drives Another Coffin Nail. (Updated with Full CHSRA Response)
• New York Times Editorial: There Is a Liberal Answer to the Trump-Musk Wrecking Ball
• Whither (Wither?) California High-Speed Rail (Reprise)
• Will Duffy Deep-Six CHSR?
• 2025 Passenger Rail Outlook: ‘Murphy Was an Optimist!’
  

The post FRA Revokes California High-Speed Rail Funding, CHSRA Fires Back (UPDATED 8/21) appeared first on Railway Age.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has proposed updated guidelines to remove what it claims is the “overly complex social cost of carbon calculation” as part of the rating criteria for transit grants under the Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program.

The CIG program is the federal government’s largest discretionary grant program to fund transit capital investments including rapid transit, commuter rail, light rail, streetcars and bus rapid transit. “Following feedback from our transit industry partners, FTA is proposing to remove the [calculation] from the Environmental Benefits section of the CIG Policy Guidance,” FTA said. “Instead, FTA will revert back (sic.) to a previously used methodology that relies on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) designation based on which city a transit project is located.”

FTA has requested feedback on these new standards “to continue the process of updating CIG Policy Guidance, which provides direction to project sponsors pursuing CIG construction grants,” and has published a proposed interim guidance update for public comment. “The proposed revisions address Executive Orders (E.O.) 14148, Initial Recissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions; 14154, Unleashing American Energy; and 14151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, signed by the President in early 2025,” FTA added. 

FTA is also publishing a Request for Information (RFI) “to solicit public input on a comprehensive update to the CIG program guidance at a later date. Federal law requires FTA to update CIG Policy Guidance at least every two years.”

Comments to the proposed CIG Interim Guidance are due by Sept. 2, 2025, in the Regulations.gov docket and Sept. 18 for the RFI in Regulations.gov docket.

Editor’s Comment: Much like its most recent press release on MTA New York City Transit roadway worker safety, the FTA tacked a rather silly, sophomoric headline on this one: “Federal Transit Administration to Ditch Green New Deal Carbon Scam, Move to Unleash American Energy.” Yeah …. OK! By the way, the correct syntax is simply “revert,” not ”revert back.” – William C. Vantuono

The post FTA Looks to Jettison CIG Carbon Calculation appeared first on Railway Age.