All Aboard Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 29, 2025
Bottom line
This bill seeks to transform the U.S. rail system through massive federal investment, focusing on electrification, passenger rail expansion, and environmental improvements, with significant implications for climate goals, transportation infrastructure, and labor.
What it actually does
The All Aboard Act of 2025 proposes a comprehensive federal investment and policy framework to modernize and expand the United States rail network. It establishes new grant programs for states to develop rail plans and electrify infrastructure, creates a 'Green Railroads Fund' for electrified rail operations, significantly expands funding for existing passenger rail programs like Amtrak and CRISI, and addresses rail-related air pollution and workforce development. The bill sets ambitious goals for achieving zero-emission locomotives and expanding high-performance passenger rail by mid-century.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is a critical step towards combating climate change by transitioning the rail sector to zero-emission technologies, while simultaneously creating hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs through infrastructure development. They contend it will improve national connectivity, offer a competitive alternative to short-haul flights, and deliver measurable health benefits to environmental justice communities disproportionately affected by rail pollution.
Opponents contend
Critics may raise concerns about the bill's substantial cost, arguing that the $205 billion authorization represents an excessive federal expenditure. They might also question the feasibility and economic impact of the aggressive electrification timelines and mandates, particularly on freight rail operations, and express skepticism about the government's ability to manage such a large-scale, complex infrastructure overhaul efficiently.
The bill is moderately complex due to its multiple programs and amendments to existing law, but its structure allows for a clear understanding of its main provisions within a reasonable reading time for an informed reader.
Sec. 3
State Rail Formula Funding
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 essential, predictable funding for states to develop long-term rail strategies and address critical infrastructure needs, fostering a more robust and sustainable national rail network.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that a formula grant approach may not always direct funds to the most impactful or strategically important projects, potentially leading to less efficient allocation compared to competitive grants.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between providing predictable, broad-based state funding (formula grants) and ensuring that funds are directed to projects with the highest national strategic value or return on investment.
Sec. 4
Green Railroads Fund
This section establishes a competitive grant program, authorizing $50 billion over five years, to enable or improve electrified rail operations. Eligible entities include states, Amtrak, Class I, II, and III railroads (with partnerships), and Indian Tribes. Funds can be used for purchasing electric locomotives, installing electrification infrastructure, updating rail yards, and workforce development. Priority is given to projects reducing air pollution in environmental justice communities and expanding high-performance passenger rail.
Sec. 5(a)
Federal-State Intercity Partnership Program Expansion
This section authorizes $80 billion over five years for the Federal-State Intercity Partnership program. 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 (under specific conditions like electrification, labor agreements, and partnerships) and broadens eligible activities to include projects facilitating zero-emission locomotive infrastructure, such as electrifying routes, purchasing electric equipment, and acquiring rights-of-way for passenger rail expansion. It also adds workforce development and community engagement requirements for applications.
Sec. 5(c)
Amtrak Funding and Climate Resilience Fund
This section authorizes $30 billion over five years for Amtrak's use. Of this amount, $5 billion is specifically allocated to a Climate Resilience Fund, which Amtrak can use for projects to increase resilience against climate-related changes such as flooding, sea level rise, extreme storms, and temperatures.
Sec. 5(d)
Railroad Crossing Elimination Program Funding
This section authorizes $10 billion over five years for the Railroad Crossing Elimination Program established under section 22909 of title 49, United States Code. This program provides grants for projects that improve safety and mobility by eliminating or separating railroad crossings.
Sec. 5(e)
Restoration and Enhancement Program Funding
This section authorizes $1 billion over five years for the Restoration and Enhancement Program under section 22908 of title 49, United States Code. This program supports projects to restore intercity passenger rail service and improve the performance of existing routes.
Sec. 6
Rail Air Pollution Grant Program
This section directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a grant program, authorizing $500 million over five years, to address air pollution generated by railyards. These grants would be provided under sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act.
Sec. 7(d)
Rail Workforce Training Centers
This section establishes a Passenger Rail Workforce Training Center and a Freight Rail Workforce Training Center, authorizing $500 million over five years. These centers, in partnership with organized labor and rail carriers, 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 pathway partnerships for underrepresented populations.
Defines 'zero-emission locomotive' as a locomotive that does not emit any criteria pollutant, toxic pollutant, or greenhouse gas from any onboard source of power at any power setting, including propulsion power.
Sec. 2(14)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms upfront, but the specific wording of this definition is crucial as it sets a high bar for the bill's environmental goals and dictates what technologies qualify for funding.
Case for: Supporters would argue that a strict definition of 'zero-emission' is necessary to ensure that federal investments genuinely contribute to climate and air quality goals, preventing loopholes for technologies with partial emissions.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a stringent definition could limit technological flexibility, exclude promising hybrid or near-zero technologies, and make the transition to 'zero-emission' more difficult or costly to achieve within the bill's timelines.
Estimated impact: This definition directly influences the types of projects and technologies eligible for billions in federal funding, shaping the future of rail propulsion.
Requires any freight train or light engine used in connection with the movement of freight in a project funded by a Green Railroads Fund grant to have a crew consisting of at least two individuals: a certified locomotive engineer and a certified conductor.
Sec. 4(e)(1)(C)
Why it matters:This is a significant labor policy that is tied to federal funding, a common tactic to implement policy preferences without enacting a universal regulatory mandate. It's a condition of receiving a grant, not a blanket rule.
Case for: Proponents, particularly labor unions, argue that a two-person crew is essential for safety, providing redundancy and additional operational oversight, especially as rail traffic increases and new technologies are introduced.
Case against: Freight rail companies often argue that mandating two-person crews is an unnecessary operational cost, especially with advancements in automation and safety technology, and that crew size should be determined by operational needs and collective bargaining.
Estimated impact: Could significantly increase operating costs for freight railroads that receive grants and currently operate with single-person crews in certain contexts, potentially impacting freight rates.
Clarifies that certain entities performing work for or in support of passenger rail operations with federal funding are considered 'rail carriers' and 'employers' for specific federal railroad labor laws (Railroad Retirement Act, Railway Labor Act, Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act), but not for other laws. It also carves out exceptions for building and construction industry employers and contractors performing work consistent with collective bargaining agreements.
Sec. 7(b)
Why it matters:This provision addresses a long-standing and complex legal issue regarding the applicability of railroad-specific labor laws to contractors and new operators in the rail industry. Its technical nature makes it difficult for a casual reader to grasp its full implications, but it is critical for labor relations and employment classifications.
Case for: Proponents (labor unions) argue this ensures that workers performing railroad-specific tasks, especially on federally funded projects, receive the protections and benefits intended for railroad employees, preventing a race to the bottom in labor standards.
Case against: Opponents (some contractors or new operators) might argue that this expands the scope of complex and often more costly railroad labor laws to entities that are not traditional rail carriers, potentially increasing administrative burdens and discouraging participation in federally funded projects.
Estimated impact: Clarifies employment status and labor law applicability for potentially thousands of workers and numerous contractors involved in federally funded rail projects, impacting benefits, collective bargaining rights, and operational costs.
Amends section 130(e)(1) of title 23, United States Code, to mandate that at least half of the funds set aside each fiscal year for railway-highway crossings shall be available for the installation of protective devices at such crossings.
Sec. 5(g)
Why it matters:This is a policy rider that directs a specific allocation of funds within an existing program, rather than creating a new program or being directly related to the primary focus of passenger rail expansion. It ensures a minimum investment in a particular type of safety improvement.
Case for: Proponents argue that mandating funds for protective devices directly addresses a critical safety need at railway-highway crossings, which are points of high risk for accidents and fatalities.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a specific mandate reduces flexibility for states and local authorities to prioritize crossing improvements based on local conditions and needs, potentially diverting funds from other effective safety measures.
Estimated impact: Directs a significant portion of the $10 billion authorized for railroad crossing elimination (Sec. 5(d)) towards a specific type of safety improvement, ensuring substantial investment in protective devices.