Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Freight Rail topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rail operators urge state to keep funding freight rail repairs to keep trucks off highways
Summary
Short-line freight operators and rail proponents urged the committee to continue and expand the Rail Freight Infrastructure Program (RFIP), saying state investments in bridges, ties and track rehabilitation support jobs, economic competitiveness and remove heavy trucks from roads.
Get email alerts on the Freight Rail topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owners and operators of Connecticut short-line railroads urged the Transportation Committee to continue and expand state funding for freight-rail infrastructure rehabilitation, arguing that grant programs repair century-old bridges, restore tracks, support local businesses and remove heavy truck traffic from state highways.
Why RFIP matters: Freight-rail operators said the Rail Freight Infrastructure Program (RFIP) funds projects — bridge decks, track replacement, crossing work and signals — that are beyond the normal operating budgets of small short-line companies. “This program improves rail infrastructure in every part of Connecticut and it has a huge positive impact for our business customers large and small,” said Howard Pankadel, chair of the Connecticut Railroad Association.
Economic and environmental benefits: Witnesses testified that investments create jobs, retain customers and reduce truck miles on interstate highways, which lowers wear-and-tear and greenhouse gas emissions. The Naugatuck line operator and Connecticut short-line owners described multi‑million‑dollar needs on multiple corridors and asked the legislature to keep RFIP funding in this budget cycle.
DOT, regional planning alignment: DOT witnesses and regional rail advocates told lawmakers the grant program has produced measurable repairs and that continuing the program at regular intervals is important to avoid infrastructure backlogs. Lawmakers asked for specifics on project lists, matching requirements and economic outcomes.
Ending: No vote was taken. Committee members asked for project-level estimates and comparisons with neighboring states’ freight funding programs as they consider how to balance short-term operating subsidies and longer-term capital investments in the transportation budget.

