Staff Reports
The Department of Transportation’s new program, America’s Great Corridors of Commerce (AGCC), could finally turn the empty strips of land along highways and railroads into fast lanes for transmission lines, fiber and other critical infrastructure. U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy has opened a Federal Register Request for Information to get the plan moving — and the idea deserves serious attention, not the usual bureaucratic hair-splitting.
What AGCC would actually do
AGCC proposes allowing state departments of transportation and railroad right‑of‑way owners to lease land to private “Corridor Managers.” These managers would design, build, finance and operate utility tunnels or above‑ground lines and then lease space to electric transmission companies, fiber providers and other infrastructure firms. DOT talks about 160,000 miles of highways and 140,000 miles of freight rail as potential hosts, 30–50 year concessions, “dig‑once” savings, and federal concierge help to speed permitting. The Federal Register RFI asks for input on safety, NEPA, financing tools like TIFIA and RRIF, and how to protect ratepayers.
Why conservatives should support — with common‑sense guardrails
This is classic conservative policy: use public assets, partner with the private sector, and cut red tape so Americans pay less. If done right, colocating transmission lines in existing rights‑of‑way can bring down per‑mile costs, speed buildout, and create lease revenue for state DOTs and railroads — revenue that could repair roads and bridges without new taxes. But “done right” is the key phrase. Lower construction costs don’t automatically mean lower electric bills. How FERC, regional grid operators and state public utility commissions allocate costs will decide whether savings reach consumers.
Red flags: long concessions and regulatory shortcuts
The plan has bright spots and warning lights. Long 30–50 year concessions mean private managers could control vital corridors for decades — a feature, not a bug, for investors, but a risk for public oversight. DOT even hints projects might be structured to avoid certain federal regulations. And the promise of categorical NEPA exclusions to speed permits smells like a shortcut that could invite lawsuits and local opposition. We want faster builds, not backdoor rule‑bending that leaves communities and ratepayers holding the bag.
Next steps and what to watch
The RFI is the opening playbook: comments will shape the RFEI and DOT expects to designate initial corridors in rounds. State DOTs, railroads and utilities should step forward with transparent proposals. State public utility commissions and FERC need to make clear how cost allocation and lease revenue will affect retail rates. Conservatives should cheer the innovation and public‑private partnership, but insist on strict oversight: require that lease revenue benefits taxpayers and customers, protect rail safety and maintenance access, and avoid long private monopolies over public rights‑of‑way. If Washington wants to lower electric bills, it can start by cutting costs — not accountability.
