North Carolina’s general assembly recently opted not to allocate the $28 million in funding required to unlock federal matches for the state’s new passenger rail to Asheville. The route is awaiting step 2 of the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) “Corridor ID” program, which collects both state and federal funding to create new passenger rail service. While the initial wave of 69 corridor announcements generated massive excitement in December 2023, the FRA has been slow and selective in rolling out the subsequent Step 2 funding.

A handful of select projects have managed to break through the bottleneck. For example, the Pacific Northwest's Cascadia High-Speed Rail successfully secured $50 million to kick off planning in November 2024, and the Boston-Albany corridor received a $3.5 million Step 2 grant in May 2025 to advance its Service Development Plan. However, other states have been left waiting in the dark. Consequently, uncertainty about the federal timeline has now trickled down to the North Carolina legislature, stalling local financial commitments.

In another bleak sign, the federal government is working on its surface transportation reauthorization act. Currently, various versions of this bill lack dedicated funding for passenger rail or remove entire targeted grant programs.

So how do states, rail agencies, Amtrak, and advocates plan for passenger rail when the traditional federal funding mechanisms seem so unpredictable?

We can look to Colorado and Georgia for examples. They are pushing forward with different approaches that rely on varying levels of local action and federal involvement. (California is another interesting example, though its costs and scale are much higher than the projects being chartered in other states).

Colorado: Taking Funding into Their Own Hands

In Colorado, the state recently announced that its longtime plans for the Front Range Passenger Rail Project will be moving forward under a new name: the Colorado Connector, or "CoCo".

To finance the extensive planning phases without relying entirely on Washington, Colorado utilized a mix of state and local mechanisms:

• Restructuring Existing Commissions: The state legislature officially created the Front Range Passenger Rail District in 2021, mandating that funds from previous commissions be transferred directly to this new entity to maintain planning momentum.

• State Innovation Funds: To fund early operations and the ongoing Service Development Plan, the state legislature passed bills establishing new transportation innovation funds. This pooled existing state revenues, including a congestion impact fee on short-term car rentals and an extraction fee on oil and gas production.

To fund the build-out capital costs and daily operations, the district has launched a large-scale publicity campaign and is aiming to put a fractional sales tax measure on the November 2026 ballot for the restructured Front Range Passenger Rail District. Initial service requires no federal matches according to their public plan. In the future, full build-out work would likely accompany a federal grant or congressional appropriation for the project.

Georgia: Direct Congressional Action

In Georgia, the state took a different route. Rather than waiting on broader grant program announcements, advocates and state leaders requested a direct congressional appropriation early. In 2022, they successfully secured $8 million in Congressionally Directed Spending for their Atlanta-Savannah service development plan. While further funding for construction has yet to be finalized, this direct federal carve-out means their planning phases are fully funded and moving forward faster than competing projects.

What This Means for Corridor ID Projects

There’s a number of ways states like Ohio can achieve passenger rail and while Corridor ID continues, other options can be worked in parallel. This includes creating planning districts and seeking direct federal appropriations.

Ohio is already one of the cheaper and faster states to build rail projects in. Our state has extensive rail network experience, more efficient environmental reviews with delegated NEPA, and the ability to use value-based design-build cost formulas to select contractors offering the best output, not just the lowest cost. All these things make rail investments in Ohio some of the best value investment across the United States.