All Aboard Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 30, 2025
Bottom line
The 'All Aboard Act of 2025' proposes a massive federal investment of over $205 billion over five years to modernize, electrify, and expand the U.S. rail network, with a strong emphasis on passenger rail, environmental improvements, and labor protections.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a new State rail formula grant program, creates a 'Green Railroads Fund' for competitive grants to enable or improve electrified rail operations, and significantly expands funding for existing passenger rail programs like the Federal-State Intercity Partnership Program and CRISI. It also directs the EPA to create a rail air pollution grant program and establishes rail workforce training centers, all backed by substantial federal appropriations.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill is a crucial investment in modernizing America's aging infrastructure, combating climate change through widespread rail electrification, improving public health in environmental justice communities by reducing emissions, and creating high-quality union jobs. They would highlight the benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions, increased passenger rail capacity, enhanced safety, and a more competitive transportation system.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that the bill's authorized spending of over $205 billion is fiscally irresponsible and would significantly increase the national debt. Concerns could also be raised that the ambitious electrification goals are unrealistic or too costly, or that the extensive labor requirements could inflate project costs and hinder the pace of infrastructure development. Some may also argue against federal overreach into state and private rail operations.
The bill is moderately complex due to its multiple programs and cross-references, but an informed reader can evaluate its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Sec. 3
State Rail Formula Funding Program
This section establishes a new formula grant program for States, authorizing $3.5 billion over five years. States can use these funds for developing rail plans, operating rail services, and maintaining or expanding rail infrastructure. The program aims to support goals like achieving zero-emission locomotives by 2047, expanding high-performance passenger rail, and reconnecting communities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this program provides consistent, predictable funding to states, enabling long-term planning and investment in rail infrastructure and services, which is essential for a national rail network.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that formula grants can lead to less efficient allocation of funds compared to competitive programs, or that the goals are overly ambitious without sufficient federal oversight.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between providing flexible funding to states for local priorities and ensuring these funds align with national goals for electrification and high-performance rail.
Sec. 4
Green Railroads Fund
This section creates a competitive grant program, authorizing $50 billion over five years, to enable or improve electrified rail operations. Eligible entities include states, Amtrak, freight railroads (under partnership conditions), and Indian Tribes. Projects prioritize reducing air pollution in environmental justice communities and expanding high-performance passenger rail. It also includes strict labor requirements and a study on co-locating transmission infrastructure with rail.
Sec. 5(a)
Expansion of Federal-State Intercity Partnership Program
This section authorizes $80 billion over five years for the Federal-State Intercity Partnership Program (Amtrak). It amends existing law to give priority to projects that install or upgrade infrastructure for high-performance passenger rail, regardless of location. It also expands the cost-benefit analysis criteria to include anticipated positive impacts of electrification.
Sec. 5(b)
Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement (CRISI) Program Expansion
This section authorizes $30 billion over five years for the CRISI program. It expands eligibility to include Class I railroads, but only if they use funds for electrification infrastructure, employ project labor agreements, hire from local communities, and partner with other eligible entities. It also adds numerous eligible activities related to zero-emission locomotive infrastructure and prioritizes rail electrification projects, especially in environmental justice communities.
Sec. 5(c)
Direct Amtrak Funding and Climate Resilience Fund
This section authorizes $30 billion over five years directly for Amtrak's use. Of this amount, $5 billion is specifically earmarked for climate resiliency improvement projects, aimed at increasing Amtrak's infrastructure resilience against climate-related changes like flooding, sea level rise, and extreme temperatures.
Sec. 5(d)
Railroad Crossing Elimination Program Funding
This section authorizes $10 billion over five years for the Railroad Crossing Elimination Program (under 49 U.S.C. 22909). This program provides grants for projects that improve safety and mobility at railroad crossings, such as grade separations or closures.
Sec. 5(e)
Restoration and Enhancement Program Funding
This section authorizes $1 billion over five years for the Restoration and Enhancement Program (under 49 U.S.C. 22908). This program provides grants for projects that restore or enhance intercity passenger rail service, particularly on routes not served by Amtrak.
Sec. 6
Rail Air Pollution Grant Program
This section directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a grant program under the Clean Air Act, authorizing $500 million over five years. The grants are specifically for addressing air pollution generated by railyards.
Sec. 7(d)
Rail Workforce Training Centers
This section authorizes $500 million over five years to establish a Passenger Rail Workforce Training Center and a Freight Rail Workforce Training Center. These centers, in partnership with organized labor, will develop and carry out training and educational programs for rail employees, focusing on maintenance, operations, emerging technologies (like zero-emission locomotives), safety, and career advancement for underrepresented populations.
This section specifies that a person conducting passenger rail operations or performing work in support of such operations on federally funded infrastructure shall be considered a 'rail carrier' and 'employer' for the purposes of specific federal labor laws (Railroad Retirement Act, Railway Labor Act, Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act). However, it includes exceptions for building and construction industry employers performing construction work, and for contractors performing work consistent with a collective bargaining agreement.
Sec. 7(b)
Why it matters:This is a highly technical and politically sensitive provision. Its placement and detailed exceptions are likely a result of careful negotiation to define the scope of federal rail labor laws in the context of new infrastructure projects, particularly concerning contractors and construction work.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that workers on federally funded rail projects, particularly those involved in operations, receive the benefits and protections afforded by established federal rail labor laws, preventing a race to the bottom in wages and benefits.
Case against: Opponents, particularly some contractors or freight railroads, might argue that extending these specific rail labor laws to certain types of work or entities could increase project costs, create jurisdictional disputes, or complicate contracting arrangements, potentially slowing down project delivery.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant impact on labor costs, worker benefits, and contracting practices for new rail infrastructure projects, particularly those involving passenger rail operations.
This section amends 49 U.S.C. 24305 to allow Amtrak or States to use federal grant funding received from other federal programs (specifically titles 23 or 49, or other federal laws) to cover the non-Federal share of costs required for intercity passenger rail investments, unless specifically prohibited by law or inconsistent with a grant agreement.
Sec. 5(f)
Why it matters:This is a significant flexibility provision that could greatly ease the financial burden on states and Amtrak for matching federal grants. It's a common legislative tactic to include such provisions to maximize the utility of federal funds without increasing the headline appropriation amount.
Case for: Proponents argue this flexibility is crucial for states and Amtrak to leverage federal investments, especially for large, complex rail projects that often require significant local matching funds. It helps ensure projects move forward by reducing financial barriers.
Case against: Critics might argue that allowing federal funds to cover other federal matching requirements could dilute the intent of specific grant programs or reduce the incentive for states to commit their own resources to projects.
Estimated impact: Potentially billions of dollars in increased federal leverage for rail projects, by allowing federal funds to satisfy matching requirements that would otherwise need state or local contributions.
This section amends 23 U.S.C. 130(e)(1) to mandate that at least half of the funds set aside each fiscal year for the Railway-Highway Crossings program (Section 130) shall be available specifically for the installation of protective devices at railway-highway crossings.
Sec. 5(g)
Why it matters:This is a targeted policy directive to ensure a specific type of safety improvement receives dedicated funding. It's a common practice to include such directives within broader funding bills to ensure certain priorities are met.
Case for: Proponents argue that mandating funds for protective devices directly addresses a critical safety need at crossings, which are often sites of serious accidents. This ensures tangible safety improvements are prioritized.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a mandate reduces flexibility for states to address their most pressing crossing safety needs, which might not always involve protective devices (e.g., grade separations, closures).
Estimated impact: Directs a significant portion of the existing Railway-Highway Crossings program funds (which are authorized separately from this bill) towards a specific type of safety improvement, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars annually.