Nationally Significant Multimodal Freight and Highway Projects (INFRA)

Overview

FY2026 NOFO issued June 2, 2026, ~$626.7M available (combining FY2023/2024/2026 appropriations), strong commercial-truck-parking emphasis this cycle. Minimum award $5M (small projects <$100M) / $25M (large projects >$100M). Federal share up to 80%, grant cost share up to 60%. Shares a single combined NOFO with MEGA and Rural Surface Transportation Grant (the "MPDG").

Uses

• Transload Intermodal
• Grade Crossing
• Grade Separation

Funding

Typical award

$5,000,000

Max share

80%

Match Rules

What can count toward the non-federal share, by source. Full matrix across every program →

• Other federal grant funds (general)Confirmed (statute)

  Up to 80% total federal assistance for most states; a state with population density ≤80 persons/sq mi (2010 census) instead follows 23 USC 120(b)'s cap.

  Read directly (2026-09-21) — previously sourced only to FHWA's federal-share fact sheet, which this supersedes as primary citation. Statute text: "Federal assistance other than a grant under this section may be used to satisfy the non-Federal share of the cost of a project for which such a grant is made" (subject to the caps above).

  23 USC 117(j)(2) →

  Source changed — pending re-verification

• CDBGConfirmed (statute)

  Not named specifically — covered by the general other-federal-assistance provision, same 80%/low-density-state cap as any other federal source.

  Read directly (2026-09-21). CDBG is not named anywhere in 23 USC 117 — it simply falls under the general "Federal assistance other than a grant under this section" language, same as any other federal source. Previously sourced only to FHWA's fact sheet; this replaces it.

  23 USC 117(j)(2) →

  Source changed — pending re-verification

• In-kind contributionsUnconfirmed

  No program-specific NOFO/statute language found (checked 2026-09-21; transportation.gov/highways.dot.gov blocked automated fetches on several attempts). Falls back to the general federal default: 2 CFR 200.306(b) allows in-kind (third-party) contributions toward cost sharing when verifiable, not used for another federal award, and necessary/reasonable/allowable — the same regulation CRISI's and RCE's own NOFOs cite by name for their confirmed in-kind rows, but there is no confirmation this program's own NOFO does the same.

  Source changed — pending re-verification

• Title 23 formula fundsConfirmed (statute)

  Not named specifically — covered by the general other-federal-assistance provision, same 80%/low-density-state cap as any other federal source.

  Read directly (2026-09-21). STBG/HSIP/Section 130 are not named anywhere in 23 USC 117 — same general "Federal assistance other than a grant under this section" provision as any other federal source. Previously sourced only to FHWA's fact sheet; this replaces it.

  23 USC 117(j)(2) →

  Source changed — pending re-verification

• TIFIA loanConfirmed (statute)

  Repayable from non-Federal funds.

  Read directly (2026-09-21) — resolves the original doc author's own hedge ("my reading, not verified" against an excerpt-only source). Statute text: "The proceeds of a secured loan under the TIFIA program may be used for any non-Federal share of project costs required under this title [23, where INFRA/23 USC 117 lives] or chapter 53 of title 49, if the loan is repayable from non-Federal funds." Direct, on-point, no longer an inference.

  23 USC 603(b)(8) →

  Source changed — pending re-verification

• RRIF loanUnconfirmed

  Checked (2026-09-21): 23 USC 117(j)(2)'s broad "Federal assistance other than a grant" language could plausibly cover RRIF the way 23 USC 603(b)(8) explicitly covers TIFIA — but unlike TIFIA, RRIF has no equivalent named provision, and there is live, real agency disagreement specifically about RRIF's treatment: FTA has stated it treats RRIF (and TIFIA) loans as part of a project's FEDERAL share, while other modal agencies treat them as non-federal share (a 2018 FTA Dear Colleague letter drew formal Congressional pushback over this — Reps. DeFazio and Norton). Not resolved either way; staying unconfirmed rather than extrapolating from TIFIA's clear statutory language.

  Source changed — pending re-verification

• Regional commission fundsSource-side authority

  Whichever regional commission covers the project area (Appalachian Regional Commission, Delta Regional Authority, or Northern Border Regional Commission) may have its own statutory authority to pay part of the non-federal share on another federal grant program — see notes for the specific citation per commission.

  Researched and verified directly (2026-09-21). Three separate regional-commission statutes each grant source-side authority, none naming any rail/port program specifically: ARC — 40 USC 14321(a)(4), "Notwithstanding any law limiting the federal share in any other federal or federal grant program, amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used to increase that federal share, as the Commission decides is appropriate." DRA — 7 USC 2009aa-3, may raise a project's federal share up to 90% using DRA funds, conditioned on the administering federal agency certifying the project meets that program's own requirements. NBRC (and Subtitle V regional commissions generally) — 40 USC 15507 ("available for the payment of the non-Federal share for any project carried out under another Federal grant program") plus 40 USC 15506(b). Same caveat as the CDBG rows: this is generic source-side authority — none of these three statutes confirms this program's own NOFO or statute actually accepts it.

  40 USC 15507 →

  Source changed — pending re-verification

Eligibility

• State Agency
• Mpo Rpo
• Port Authority
• Tribal Government

Terms

• Mechanism: Competitive Grant
• Authorized under 23 U.S.C. §117
• SAM.gov registration: required

How to Apply