DOT meeting gives rough outlook for train infrastructure aid

Iowa government officials and community leaders, most of them from the Washington area, met with the state DOT Tuesday afternoon for a briefing on possible government aid to railway projects preparing for a likely merger between railway giants Kansas City Southern and Canadian Pacific.

Iowa DOT Railroad Crossings Program Manager Kris Klop outlined the main sources of government aid, but said most avenues required backing from the railroad to be financially feasible, as the state could not obligate the company to agree.

“We don’t have regulatory authority to require the railroads to make any repairs,” he said. “When states try to pass laws pertaining to blocked crossings or other things of that nature and then try to enforce them, then the railroads will take them to federal court … and a federal judge will say you’re impeding interstate commerce, and federal law trumps state law.”

As a results, infrastructure demands on railways are usually leveraged through opt-in solutions like grants, which require railroad cooperation.

“I’m not trying to talk disparagingly about the railroads, I’m just saying that they’re a private business whose goal is to make a profit,” Klop said. “If they’re constantly doing these types of projects, that kind of cuts into their bottom line, that’s the realistic consequence … rather than having to split 50-50 with the railroad, if you’re paying 20% and they’re paying 20%, it’s a lot sweeter for everybody.”

Section 130 funds have limited uses, lengthy time frames

Klop outlined The Railway-Highway Crossings Section 130 Program as one possible approach. The program covers 90% of a given crossing’s construction costs, with the remaining 10% split between the railway and the road authority, negotiated between the two ahead of time.

The funds, like every option presented, are limited in scale and subject to lengthy timelines, with $5.7 million spread across the state every year.

“Keep in mind that we have over 5,000 public railroad crossings in the state, so there’s already a great need to do projects prior to the situation with CP and KCS,” Klop said. “We can’t take an entire year’s worth of funding from the federal government and put it toward trying to get ahead of what’s occurring with that merger, when we have definite needs in other parts of the state.”

Section 130 funds are specifically used for “active warning devices,” like flashing lights and crossing guards, according to Klop. That makes them difficult to use for popular installations like quiet zones, which cost around $250-$350,000 per crossing.

“That program is used to increase safety at railroad crossings, the FHWA is very adamant that that money not be used to install equipment to establish quiet zones,” Klop said. “If the project is done and that added safety later on down the road leads to the establishment of a quiet zone, then that’s fine … but we can’t spend (Section 130) funds to establish quiet zones. I want that to be clear.”

On top of those limitations, Klop said aid from the federal program was hardly achievable on short notice, using an extensive process marked with bureaucratic delays as each crossing requires separate applications, all of which need approval from every party involved.

“From the time that the project is approved from our transportation commission to the time they go out there and start constructing signals, you could be talking a year and a half to two years,” he said. “It’s not a fast process by the nature of everything that has to occur … this isn’t going to happen overnight, and I want that to be clear to everybody.”

State aid exists, but is in short supply

Klop said Iowa had a $900,000 annual crossing repair program, an amount that is both limited and mostly planned out for the next several years.

“It’s a very popular program, so right now applications in line are backing the program up until fiscal year ‘26,” he said. “There’s a caveat to that in that we can review crossings, and … at best, it might score high enough that (it’s) able to move forward. I want to be realistic with how everything works, it’s not like you’re going to put in an application and then a week later we’ll be out there.”

Klop urged the city to reach out to the railroad if high-traffic, low-quality crossings like the one on 12th Avenue didn’t qualify in time.

“Usually railroads require 50% or more to be paid by the roadway authority because they’re the ones initiating it,” he said. “In light of the efforts CP is doing right now to reach out to communities, it might be a good time to reach out and see if something could be done there because they might be a little more forthcoming, trying to appease everybody.”

Bipartisan infrastructure bill targets “crossing elimination”

The federal infrastructure bill passed in November established $600 million for railroad crossings.

“’Crossing elimination’ is kind of a misnomer, it’s actually a ‘crossing danger elimination fund,’” Klop said. “It’s not money to eliminate railroad crossings, it’s to enhance safety at railroad crossings. It’s a competitive grant program, so it could be something like doing a grade separation, building a bridge, pedestrian grade separations, things of that nature.”

That program has only recently developed into a coherent policy option, with the first call for nationwide applications opening soon.

“Congress passed it, but they were working through how they were going to administer it,” Klop said. “They’ve just worked out the grant program … I think the first notice of funding opportunity is going to come out between May and July.”

Washington Mayor Jaron Rosien said the program was attractive, nonetheless.

“It just makes sense for us, and council gets behind that as well,” he said. “There’s more leverage when we work together, and we certainly need to pursue anything that gets results.”

Officials hope to expand their options

While the anticipated merger is likely to increase demand for crossing investments, Klop said that was unlikely to increase the availability of aid.

“I’m not aware of anything coming … and there is no specific money from the federal government or the state that goes directly to mitigating the merger effects,” he said.

Washington area officials expressed concerns about their limited options, and considered lobbying for more federal support in a discussion after the meeting.

“It seems very bureaucratic, more than I could have imagined,” Rosien said. “I’m intrigued by the federal earmark process … It seems like we should absolutely do that.”

Washington County Engineer Jacob Thorius said there simply wasn’t enough cash to go around.

“We’ve worked with the city of Ainsworth on the crossing there on the west side of town,” he said. “We did the application in 2020, and we should get approved for funding this year, which means funding will be available in ‘24. There’s just not enough money available, and to make something happen sooner you have to be willing to pony up.”

Thorius said that would take some tough calls, possibly including shutting down traffic through some crossings.

“This is a tough conversation to have, but what might help to get the railroad to pony up a little more money is truly being willing to close one or two crossings in town,” he said. “It’s a hard decision, and Joe Public doesn’t like it, but there are some crossings in town that can be eliminated, that the railroad would appreciate … it’s still going to cost city money, but that may be a way to get something to happen sooner, not having to go through the process.”

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com