[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FEDERAL REGULATORY OVERREACH IN THE
RAILROAD INDUSTRY: IMPLEMENTING THE
RAIL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT
=======================================================================
(112-18)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 17, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-481 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey Columbia
GARY G. MILLER, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri BOB FILNER, California
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
TOM REED, New York MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
BILLY LONG, Missouri STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BOB GIBBS, Ohio LAURA RICHARDSON, California
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee
JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida
JEFF DENHAM, California
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
(ii)
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
GARY G. MILLER, California CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri JERROLD NADLER, New York
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia RICK LARSEN, Washington
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
TOM REED, New York, Vice Chair GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana LAURA RICHARDSON, California
BILLY LONG, Missouri ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana (Ex Officio)
JEFF DENHAM, California
JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
TESTIMONY
Gallegly, Hon. Elton, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.................................................. 3
Giulietti, Joseph J., Executive Director, South Florida Regional
Transportation Authority....................................... 3
Hamberger, Edward R., President and Chief Executive Officer,
Association of American Railroads.............................. 3
Manion, Mark D., Executive Vice President and Chief Operating
Officer, Norfolk Southern Railway.............................. 3
Pierce, Dennis R., National President, Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers and Trainmen......................................... 3
Souser, Mackenzie, of Camarillo, California...................... 3
Strang, Jo, Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief
Safety Officer, Federal Railroad Administration................ 3
Victor, Paul, President, Anacostia & Pacific Railroad Company,
Inc............................................................ 3
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Reed, Hon. Tom, of New York...................................... 56
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Gallegly, Hon. Elton............................................. 57
Giulietti, Joseph J.............................................. 60
Hamberger, Edward R. and Manion, Mark D., joint statement........ 85
Pierce, Dennis R................................................. 112
Souser, Mackenzie................................................ 124
Strang, Jo....................................................... 128
Victor, Paul..................................................... 149
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Casey, Joseph M., General Manager, Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority, written statement.................... 24
Dooley, Cal, President and Chief Executive Officer, American
Chemistry Council, March 16, 2011, letter to Hon. Bill Shuster,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania.... 14
Fenton, John E., Chief Executive Officer, Southern California
Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink), written statement......... 16
Giulietti, Joseph J., Executive Director, South Florida Regional
Transportation Authority:
Responses to questions from Hon. Corrine Brown, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Florida......... 68
Responses to questions from Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania................... 72
Hamberger, Edward R., President and Chief Executive Officer,
Association of American Railroads, responses to questions from
Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida..................................................... 107
Joseph, Mark L., Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Veolia Transportation, Inc., March 16, 2011, letter to Hon.
John L. Mica, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida, and Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Pennsylvania................................. 20
Pierce, Dennis R., National President, Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers and Trainmen, responses to questions from Hon.
Corrine Brown, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida........................................................ 118
Strang, Jo, Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief
Safety Officer, Federal Railroad Administration:
Supplementary remarks..........................................39, 40
Response to request for information from Hon. Corrine Brown, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Florida......... 51
Responses to questions from Hon. Corrine Brown, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Florida......... 138
Responses to questions from Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania................... 146
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Joseph, Mark L., Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Veolia Transportation, Inc., March 24, 2011, letter to Hon.
John L. Mica, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida, and Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Pennsylvania................................. 153
West, Ford B., President, The Fertilizer Institute, March 25,
2011, letter to Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Pennsylvania................................. 158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65481.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65481.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65481.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65481.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65481.005
FEDERAL REGULATORY OVERREACH IN THE
RAILROAD INDUSTRY: IMPLEMENTING THE
RAIL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines
and Hazardous Materials,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Shuster
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Shuster. The hearing will come to order. I thank
everybody for coming here today. And this is going to--the
opening of this committee hearing is going to be a little bit
disjointed. There is some razzle-dazzle. We are going to have
votes here approximately at 10:15. And we would like our friend
from California and his guest to make sure that they get
through their testimony before we have to head off to vote.
So, again, good morning. Welcome, everybody, to the
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials
hearing on regulatory overreach in the railroad industry, and
the implementation of the Rail Safety Improvement Act. We are
specifically--we will be focusing on the Federal Railroad
Administration's final rule implementing the requirements for
freight and passenger railroads to install positive train
control, or PTC, system by December 31, 2015. And so, I am
looking forward to hearing everybody's testimony today.
And with that I will yield to the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
convening this hearing this morning of the rail subcommittee.
This is a very important hearing, and people--I think it is
very important that we put also a human face on some of the
issues that challenge the Congress and the Administration.
I was requested by Mr. Gallegly to have a witness, and he
chose this morning's first witness. And I think, again, that it
is very important that the Congress try, when we enact laws,
when the Administration enacts regulations, that we do so in a
responsible fashion to all parties. And we will hear more about
that from both his comments and the comments of his witness
today.
So, again, I thank you for convening this. I look forward
to hearing from them, and yield back.
Mr. Shuster. Well, I thank the gentleman, and I yield for
the opening statement the ranking member of the full committee,
Mr. Rahall, from West Virginia.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you very much, Chairman Shuster. I
appreciate your having these hearings, the first hearing the
committee has held to oversee implementation of the Rail Safety
Improvement Act of 2008, which reauthorized FRA and mandated
several significant rail safety initiatives, including those
relating to the positive train control technologies.
I have concerns with how the FRA is implementing the PTC
mandate, and whether the mandate can actually be implemented by
the deadline provided in the legislation. We all want a safe
system, but it has to be done right, and not rushed.
The FRA's final rule, in many ways, appears to go beyond
the legislative mandate. For example, the FRA told the freight
railroads they would have to implement PTC on rail lines where
hazmat was transported in 2008, even though the railroads may
not use those lines to transport hazmat in 2015. Nothing in the
law mentions 2008; the only date is the deadline.
With respect to the deadline, the law required the
railroads to submit their implementation plans for PTC within
18 months of enactment. In these plans, the railroads are
required to provide information about the extent to which they
will implement PTC, provide a schedule for progressive
implementation, and prioritize implementation on the basis of
risk. Those plans have been submitted.
But according to GAO, while Amtrak has installed PTC on
about 250 miles of track, and 2 freight railroads have piloted
PTC systems, other railroads have not yet begun implementation,
largely because they are awaiting FRA standards of how the
differing PTC systems must be interoperable.
Further, although railroads have worked with suppliers to
develop PTC systems, some components are not yet available, and
the software needed to test and operate those components remain
under development. Once they are developed, then they need to
go through the testing in the field to make sure the system
operates safely.
On top of that, the financial situation for commuter
railroads is tenuous. These railroads depended on funding from
the Federal Government and States that are already suffering
significant physical restraints which make it difficult for
them to cover the $2 billion in PTC costs or, worst case
scenario, those railroads could start diverting funding from
other critical areas such as maintenance, which could lead to
other accidents, something I am sure the authors of the
legislation did not envision.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding these
hearings, and welcome the witnesses.
Mr. Shuster. Thank the gentleman. And with that, again, we
are joined by colleague Elton Gallegly from California's 24th
District, and Ms. Mackenzie Souser from Camarillo, California.
Congressman Gallegly represents the Simi Valley of north Los
Angeles, which includes Chatsworth where, on September 12,
2008, the tragic train accident resulted in 25 fatalities, and
135 other individuals were injured.
My thoughts and prayers certainly went with the victims and
their families--in particular, Mackenzie, who is the daughter
of Doyle Souser, who was killed in that tragic accident. And we
are going to begin with Congressman Gallegly and Mackenzie. And
then after that we will see what we--if we have votes or not,
and we will come back after the vote.
So Mr. Gallegly, proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ELTON GALLEGLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; MACKENZIE SOUSER OF CAMARILLO,
CALIFORNIA; JO STRANG, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RAILROAD
SAFETY/CHIEF SAFETY OFFICER, FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION;
MARK D. MANION, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING
OFFICER, NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY; EDWARD R. HAMBERGER,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN
RAILROADS; JOSEPH J. GIULIETTI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTH
FLORIDA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; PAUL VICTOR,
PRESIDENT, ANACOSTIA & PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, INC.; AND
DENNIS R. PIERCE, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE
ENGINEERS AND TRAINMEN
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Chairman Shuster. I want
to thank Chairman Mica and my good friend, Ranking Member Nick
Rahall, for inviting me to testify this morning at this
hearing. I also greatly appreciate the fact that you invited
one of my constituents, Mackenzie Souser, who will be here to
testify as well today.
Mr. Chairman, on September 12, 2008, a Metrolink commuter
train and a Union Pacific freight train collided near
Chatsworth, California, resulting in 25 deaths and more than
150 injuries, 135-plus serious-to-critical injuries, many of
which were very catastrophic and will be lifelong injuries.
This was the worst train accident in California history. I use
the word ``accident'' lightly, because many of us do not
believe it was an accident, that it was something that clearly
should have been prevented.
Although there is going to be litigation relating to this
matter, an extensive investigation conducted by the NTSB,
depositions taken as part of the case and interviews with
Veolia employees, found that the operator of Metrolink system,
Veolia Transportation, a French company, had a culture of
ignoring risk and accepting rule-breakings from the locomotive
engineer who was driving the train.
Here are some of the relevant facts related to the
Chatsworth Metrolink tragedy. Robert Sanchez, the engineer who
was driving the train at the time of the accident, had already
been cited in 2006 for having his cell phone on while operating
in a train. This violation of written rules put Veolia on
notice regarding Sanchez's cell phone usage while he was on
duty.
And only one month before the collision, the conductor on
Mr. Sanchez's train saw Mr. Sanchez using his cell phone, and
reminded him it was a violation of the rules. The conductor
reported his violation to the supervisor. However, no formal or
informal action was taken against Mr. Sanchez to stop his cell
phone usage.
On the very day of the crash, just before the afternoon
train runs began, the same conductor called another conductor,
asking his advice about stopping Mr. Sanchez from his dangerous
texting conduct since Veolia management had done nothing to
stop it. The other conductor advised him to ask a union
official the next day to intercede with Veolia's management.
Despite this knowledge of cell phone use by Mr. Sanchez in
the weeks leading up to the crash, Mr. Sanchez sent as many as
180 text messages every day he was on duty. Most of these text
messages were sent by Mr. Sanchez while he was operating the
train. The poster that we have over here illustrates the number
of text messages just the week preceding this tragedy. In fact,
on the day of the crash, Mr. Sanchez had already sent a total
of 43 text messages. And on the afternoon of the shift, 13 were
sent prior to the crash. And, if you notice, there were fewer
text messages on the day of the crash than there had been
earlier in the week, only because the crash stopped the text
messages definitely.
Twenty-two seconds later, in a blind curve, without any
warning, the Metrolink train hit a freight train traveling 40
miles per hour head on, derailing the lead locomotives and
jamming the Metrolink locomotive backwards into most of the
first passenger car. In an instant, close to 200 people were
killed or severely injured.
Mr. Chairman, I refuse, as I said, to call what happened on
September 12, 2008, an accident. It is a tragedy, but it was
not an accident. It should have never happened. For the victims
and many families, this tragedy on September the 12th has been
compounded by a Federal law that limits damages relating to all
claims arising from a passenger railroad accident to be capped
at $200 million.
The Federal cap on all damages, which was included in the
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 states that ``the
aggregate allowable awards to all passengers against all
defendants for all claims'' arising from a single accident
cannot exceed $200 million. That was 15 years ago, and there
was no indexing for the cost of living. And, of course, we all
know that health care costs have increased significantly in the
past 15 years.
Mr. Chairman, the Chatsworth tragedy was devastating to 180
families in my congressional district. For this reason, I have
called on the executives of Veolia to step up and at least
cover the real damages--not the punitive damages, but the real
damages--caused by this tragedy.
Veolia, a French company, is the largest transportation
company in the world. They operate rail systems that are
subsidized by the taxpayers of this country, and they operate
throughout the United States. Both public transportation
entities and the American public at large count on Veolia to
operate safe transportation systems and act like responsible
corporate citizens. And they have not done that.
I, therefore, call on Veolia to take responsibility for the
devastation they have caused, and do the right thing by the
people of this country, who have lost so much through no fault
of their own, only counting on public transportation to get
them home safely from work.
Again, I thank you very much for allowing me to testify
today, and I would yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman. And now we will
recognize Miss Souser. Can I call you Mackenzie? OK. I know you
have probably got some butterflies in your stomach. That is a
good thing. That is a good thing. But first thing, make sure
you turn the mic on, pull it up close to you. It is going to be
a breeze for you.
I can tell you that there is only one person in the room
that has got more nerves going on in their stomach than you,
and that is your mother. I have been watching her over there.
So just take your time, do not be rushed. You are going to
probably hear some bells go off in the middle of your speech,
and do not panic.
Ms. Souser. OK.
Mr. Shuster. It is not going to be a fire alarm.
Ms. Souser. OK.
Mr. Shuster. There you go.
Ms. Souser. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. But again, just take your time, take a deep
breath, and go ahead and proceed whenever you are ready.
Ms. Souser. My name is Mackenzie Souser, and I am from
Camarillo, California. And I just wanted to thank you for
inviting me here today.
My dad, Doyle Souser, an executive at a manufacturing
company, left work on the afternoon of Friday, September 12th,
and boarded the Metrolink 111 train to come home from work. He
usually took the later train, but was coming home early to cook
a barbeque dinner for a struggling family in our community. I
was excited, because my 13th birthday party was scheduled for
the next day.
My dad always helped with all the details of our family
events. After dinner on Friday, we were going to finish the
rest of the preparations for my party. Instead, on that Friday
afternoon, my dad's train, which was filled with passengers,
collided head-on, at full speed, with a freight train on a bend
in Chatsworth in Los Angeles County. The 80-mile-per-hour force
caused the Metrolink locomotive to completely enter the first
passenger car and ignite into flames. Twenty-four hours later,
we learned that my dad was riding in the front of the first
car, and was one of the 24 passengers killed.
The Chatsworth Metrolink collision was the worst ever in
California's history. In addition to all the people who died,
more than 135 others were injured, many seriously and
permanently. The survivors of the crash, which not only include
those who were injured, but those of us who are trying to make
it each day without someone we depended on, do not refer to
this event as an ``accident.'' It really was not just an
accident.
According to the National Transportation Safety Board, the
collision was caused when the engineer of the Metrolink train,
Robert Sanchez, ran through a red signal while using his
personal cell phone to send text messages. The NTSB also
determined that the engineer, an employee of Veolia
Transportation and Connex, sent and received 43 text messages
and made 3 phone calls while on duty on the day of the crash.
Two days before the collision, the Veolia engineer sent or
received 125 text messages during the time he was responsible
for operating the train. He would regularly send and receive an
average of 180 text messages each day. Many of the texts were
sent to teenage boys he was communicating with. The engineer
had recently invited a teenager for a ride-along in the cabin
with him, and allowed him to have contact with the controls.
The engineer had been planning on letting the same teenager
actually drive the train on the evening of the collision.
Within a few minutes and a few text messages, my life was
changed, my family's life was changed, and over 160 other
families' lives were changed drastically by this avoidable
disaster. I am telling you this because I would never want
anyone to go through the same traumatic losses I have for the
past 2\1/2\ years. I am simply not a normal teenager any more
without my dad. The best part of every day was when my dad came
home from work and our family would have dinner together. I
struggle every day with the fact that my dad, who was the sole
breadwinner for our family, is not coming home ever again.
Mr. Shuster. Take your time.
Ms. Souser. Sorry.
Mr. Shuster. It is all right. Take your time. Want some
water?
Ms. Souser. Sorry. My dad was my best friend, and a strong
Christian influence, who helped me become a responsible young
adult. I miss spending time with him and talking about cars and
watching cooking TV shows, going to movies, playing in our
backyard, and discussing many other things. I miss joining him
at work for father-daughter day, which he would let me do when
I wanted to spend the day with him.
I remember observing the great relationship my mom and dad
shared. It was a wonderful example of a beautiful marriage. I
hope some day to find a husband that will treat me like my dad
treated my mom.
My loss is not only physical, but it is also emotional. My
dad was also my brother Zach's best friend. It is so hard to
watch my brother trying to grow up without his best buddy and
male role model. Others my age get to worry about normal
teenage concerns while I worry about my mom, our family
finances, and our future, and how my brother and I will go to
college. I worry about what we would do if someone broke into
our home during the night, or if there was ever a fire. And it
is hard knowing that my dad will not be there to walk my older
sister, Kelsey, or me down the aisle when we get married, or be
here for us ever again.
As a teenager, I am very familiar with the popularity of
text messaging. Every teenager I meet should know that driving
and texting do not mix. My mom and I relied on the pilot of the
plane that brought us here today to do his job very carefully.
In the same way, my dad and all the other passengers relied on
the Veolia engineer to pay attention to the signals, and drive
the train according to all the important safety rules. Those
rules said no cell phones and no unauthorized people in the
driver's seat.
The engineer's supervisors knew that he was using his cell
phone while on duty. It is so hard for me to understand why
they did not immediately investigate and put a stop to this. We
learned that the engineer had been reprimanded recently before
the collision. But then we learned that what he got in trouble
for had nothing to do with text messaging or allowing kids to
ride with him. It had to do with not bringing a train into one
of the stations on time. This means that the company was
concerned about profits, and not about major safety issues and
the hundreds and hundreds of safety violations that were going
on.
The truth is that the engineer's company took such a big
gamble with my dad's and all the other passengers' lives. This
was wrong. It is also wrong that in these unbelievable
circumstances Veolia is relying on the Federal law that limits
how much it has to reimburse all of the survivors for their
injuries.
My dad always taught me to accept full responsibility under
any circumstances where I ever hurt someone. He never said,
``Well, Mackenzie, just try to make things 30 percent or 50
percent better.'' My dad knew that being 100 percent
responsible was not only fair to the person I hurt, he also
knew that if I had to be fully responsible for any harm I
caused, I would be more careful about my actions in the future.
My family is so grateful to Congressman Gallegly for trying
to fix this problem with legislation that would increase the
damages cap. Congressman Gallegly has provided several
opportunities for the survivors to meet one another, share our
stories and suffering, and honor our loved ones.
My family will appear before the judge soon, and tell him
about all of our losses. We have been trying to make it for
2\1/2\ years without my dad's support. And we have a long road
ahead. If there is no change in the law, or Veolia does not
offer additional funds, the judge will have to determine some
fair way to reduce each award so everyone's case fits inside
the limit. I can only imagine how difficult this will be.
Thank you for doing anything in the meantime to hold those
who refuse to follow or enforce important safety rules 100
percent responsible for the harm they may cause. And also,
thank you for helping honor my dad, Doyle Souser, and all of
the others whose lives were taken or forever damaged by this
tragedy. [Applause.]
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much, Mackenzie. You did a
great job, and your dad would be very, very proud of you today.
Ms. Souser. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. I understand there might be a couple of
questions from Members. The gentlelady from California.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is
certainly--young lady, that took a lot of courage. And thank
you for being so honest and so forthright.
There is a couple of things that I have. One of them is
indicating in the chart--and this is to Mr. Gallegly--is on the
chart. And can you specifically say what it said about the
engineer's phone usage while he was actually driving the train?
By the way, what time was the accident, what time of day?
Ms. Souser. 4:42.
Mrs. Napolitano. 4:42? Any idea what time this individual
started his shift?
Mr. Gallegly. I'm sorry?
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, because if it only went to that
portion, then the rest of it would have been more messages.
[Chart.]
Mr. Gallegly. The shift started about 3:30, when Mr.
Sanchez boarded the train, and the train was on its way from
the western San Fernando Valley into Ventura County, with the
first stop in Simi Valley. But if you look at this chart, these
are the days that Mr. Sanchez was on duty. And by the way, we
can go back and show charts like this for weeks before that
Veolia was aware of.
But just on the week preceding the tragedy, you can see--
this was the day that he worked. Seventy percent of the time
that he was texting was when he was operating the train. These
were 2 days that he was not working. These were the only text
messages he made. Blue indicates the number of text messages,
which were, like, 10 and 10. But the day he was on the train on
the previous Friday, 43 text messages. On Monday about 55. On
Tuesday----
Mrs. Napolitano. So what does it say, Mr. Gallegly, about
the man's usage of the cell phone? What are you indicating?
What does that say?
Mr. Gallegly. I am sorry?
Mrs. Napolitano. What does it say? What is it really--where
you are pointing out to, what is the bottom line?
Mr. Gallegly. What I am pointing out to is the bottom line
is the number of text messages that were made on these days.
This line here is both the morning and afternoon shift, when he
was driving the train. So you can tell that, clearly, two-
thirds to 75 percent of all the text messages that he was
making was during the process of time while he was operating
the train, not when he was at home or away on a day off.
And on Wednesday of the week 2 days preceding the crash,
there were 184 text messages made, and about 130 of those text
messages were made while he was actually operating the train.
And we move to Friday, prior to 4:42, the time of the
collision. He had made almost 100 text messages that day, with
over 45 during the course of the time that he was driving the
train. His shift would have lasted, I believe, until 8:35 that
night, or at least another 4 hours, which would have probably
indicated why there were fewer text messages on the day of the
crash. It is because he only operated the train up until the
collision time.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. And if the actual damages, such
as those medical expenses we have heard about, we saw from the
tragedy, exceed the $200 million cap, who will pay for the
medical bills? What options do the victims have?
Mr. Gallegly. Obviously, some of the victims have certain
insurance. But all of the insurances have limitations or caps.
But obviously, when those caps run out, it is going to be the
taxpayers and public hospitals and so on that are going to be
paying this.
And I might mention that of those 135 people that were
seriously and critically injured, we have several that already
have doctor bills over $1 million, have not received anything
to date. And, in addition to that, many of these folks are
going to require health care the rest of their natural life,
many of whom are in their twenties and thirties, and will never
be able to work another day.
We did have one person that had just graduated from medical
school and was ready to start being a doctor. She had half of
her brain removed and was scarred permanently for life.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. I have always believed that the
States should be allowed to regulate railroads in their areas
where the Federal Government has not acted. We have tried that
before. As long as it does not hurt interstate commerce. And we
are still battling on that issue.
But as you discuss in your statement, the cap is $200
million. However, Veolia could go beyond the cap and fully
compensate all victims of the disaster. Do you know whether
they have insurance coverage that could compensate the victims,
and what amount the insurance is?
Mr. Gallegly. My understanding is that they have, at the
time of the crash, approximately $700 million in insurance for
an accident like this. When I asked them about the issue of
$200 million, they felt that $200 million would more than
adequately cover any potential tragedy. And I asked them if
that was the case, why did they have $700 million worth of
insurance. And I still am waiting for the answer to that.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. I recognize Mr. Mica for a question.
Mr. Mica. Well, just a couple of things. While, first of
all, someone was not paying attention to the performance of the
engineer in this case, and that is a shortcoming of our safety
program, that needs to be corrected. We did put some provisions
after this crash in for positive train control. I am concerned
now that we may be spreading some of that money too thin. It
needs to be where we have the greatest risk, and trying to make
certain that we get in place that control as soon as possible,
that technology as soon as possible where, again, there is a
risk.
What concerns me is--and I think you alluded to it--is
the--one, the adequacy of the level of liability
responsibility. And then, did you tell me that a foreign
entity--there was some questions as to their responsibility in
making payments? And does that need to be corrected under
current law, Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. I clearly believe that it does. I think that
this was a--probably an unintended consequence of the 1997
bill. You know, sometimes we do not understand problems that
are created--not intentionally, but they are.
And clearly, the fact that when you have the number of
people that were critically injured and the number of people
that perished, the numbers--seems like--$200 million seems like
a lot of money. But when you start adding it up, when you have
to start, as Mackenzie alluded to, the judge's task in deciding
who is going to get what, knowing clearly, clearly, there will
not be the money to take care of the victims----
Mr. Mica. But did the foreign entity----
Mr. Gallegly. Well, the foreign entity here, of course,
was----
Mr. Mica. Not--they were not required to be liable? And did
they have coverage?
Mr. Gallegly. Well, the issue is that I believe that was an
unintended consequence. They are, since they were operating a
public transit system that was covered, they are arguing that,
as a result of that legislation, their liability is capped at
$200 million, even though they had multiples of that type of
coverage because, obviously, you do not go out and buy $600
million or $700 million worth of insurance, unless you think
potentially you may have a need for it.
Mr. Mica. So there is a question, again, in clarifying the
loss of--when you have an instance like this, that if you do
have a set cap, and then, say, a responsibility above that,
that we need to better define, again, those terms.
Mr. Gallegly. And, clearly, I do not know how that is going
to affect retroactively to the previous tragedy, but clearly we
need to fix this in the future.
We do not have to look too far to see what happened down in
the Gulf with the BP tragedy. And there were limits of
liability there. But--and I am not here to defend BP under any
set of circumstances, but they did step up to the plate and
offer and have paid many multiples of what their actual legal
limits were. And I would hope that Veolia, in this case, for
the victims that we have--not only for the victims, but for the
American taxpayers as well, because that is where, ultimately,
the burden is going to lie, at the feet of the American
taxpayers, for an incident that clearly, clearly was the
responsibility of the company that is foreign-based.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. There is under 3 minutes to vote. The
gentleman from New Jersey has a brief question, I believe, and
then we are going to recess.
Mr. Sires. I just wonder if, after this accident, have you
noticed that the company has taken any steps to make sure this
does not happen, to monitor these engineers to make sure that
they--that nobody else is doing anything similar to this?
Mr. Gallegly. Well, you know, of course they lost the
contract with Metrolink and it was not renewed.
As it relates--we have changed some of the regulations and
so on and so forth. But the thing that I think is most
disturbing is that the leaders of Veolia have said that their
hearts and prayers are with the victims. However, their
pocketbooks so far have not been.
Mr. Sires. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman. And I thank the
gentleman from California for being here today, and thank the
Sousers. Thank you for being here.
We are going to stand in recess for approximately 15
minutes.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the chairman.
[Recess.]
Mr. Shuster. Come to order. I do not think we are going to
be interrupted by votes again. We are going to be good to go.
So, smooth sailing.
Again, thank everybody for coming today to our hearing on
positive train control. I appreciate all of the witnesses for
being here today, and look forward to hearing your testimony.
That certainly was powerful testimony that we heard from Miss
Mackenzie and, of course, what happened in California, which, I
believe, is right--it was avoidable, and we have got to do more
to make sure those types of things do not happen.
And of course I think we have already taken some action in
personal responsibility by people who are operating trains,
planes, automobiles, whatever, heavy equipment. That is where
safety starts, first and foremost, with the individual. So we
got to make sure we keep that in mind.
Throughout our government, I am deeply concerned with the
regulatory overreach that we have seen. I believe it cripples
the economy. It stifles job creation, and ties our Nation up
with red tape. I applaud President Obama for his recent
comments on reducing the regulatory burden--for calling for a
government-wide review of burdensome regulations.
However, it seems like, at every turn, another agency is
moving forward with new cumbersome expensive rulemakings. There
is a significant disconnect between what--the President's words
and the actions of his administration.
Positive train control is an example of regulatory
overreach that I would like to focus on here today. PTC
describes technology designed to automatically stop or slow a
train before certain accidents caused by human error. Section
104 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act mandated that Class I
railroad carriers and inner-city passenger rail and commuter
rail entities must implement PTC systems by December 31, 2015.
In January 2010, the FRA published its final rule to
implement the PTC mandate. The rule has raised great concern
and strong objections, specifically because the FRA regulations
appear to have gone beyond the scope of the Rail Safety
Improvement Act and the PTC mandate.
FRA's own cost benefit analysis of the final rule
implementing PTC states that an immediate regulatory mandate
for PTC could not be justified, based upon the normal cost
benefit principles, relying on direct safety benefits. The
safety benefits of PTC systems were relatively small, in
comparison to the large capital maintenance costs. The FRA
estimated a cost benefit ratio of 15:1 for installation of PTC
system when it issued its notice of proposed rulemaking, and an
even higher cost benefit ratio of 22:1 in its final rule.
The 20-year costs are estimated to be a whopping $13.2
billion. Notably, the PTC rule has been targeted by the Obama
administration's regulatory review task force. Earlier this
year at an Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, Cass Sunstein
the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, made note of this same point.
When asked to identify an example of a regulation that
benefits had not justified the cost, Sunstein highlighted
positive train control. And I quote, ``The only big one that
comes to mind is positive train control. The monetarizable
benefits were lower than the monetarized costs. There are not a
lot like that.'' So it is the poster child of a regulation that
has been mandated that does not have a benefit, or does have a
very, very small benefit to cost--cost benefit ratio.
Another issue is the base year used for PTC route
determination. In its final rule, the FRA orders railroads to
install PTC on rail lines that carry toxic inhalation, or TIH
materials, in 2008. Yet nothing in the Rail Safety Improvement
Act calls for using 2008 as the base year. Only 2015 is
mentioned in the statute.
Using 2008 as the base year makes little sense, because the
TIH traffic patterns in 2015 will be vastly different than they
were in 2008. If left unchanged, the 2008 baseline year will
mean railroads will have to spend hundreds of millions of
dollars to deploy PTC on thousands of miles of rail lines on
which neither passengers nor TIH materials will be moved in
2015.
Commuter rails also have serious concern regarding the PTC
mandate, particularly given the dire financial straits that
many of these public agencies face during our current economic
recession. The additional $2 billion price tag for
implementation of PTC on commuter rail systems is out of reach
for almost all commuter rail agencies. Commuter rails argue
that PTC mandate would have the unintended consequences of
degrading safety by requiring the deferral of needed state-of-
good repair projects in order to fund initial phases of PTC.
Finally, although short line and regional railroads are not
explicitly required to install PTC equipment on their lines,
under the Rail Safety Improvement Act the PTC mandate affects
them in the case of interchanges of freight between short lines
and Class I's that take place on Class I track. In many cases,
such interchanges will occur on sections of track that are PTC-
equipped. There has not been a cost analysis of the impact of
PTC requirements in the short line and regional railroads. But
industry representatives estimate as many as 140 smaller
railroads will be required to upgrade their equipment to be
PTC-compatible.
Again, I look forward to hearing from all our witnesses
today. And with that, I would like to yield to the ranking
member for her opening statement.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am pleased to be
at this subcommittee meeting to see how the Federal Railroad
Administration is implementing the Rail Safety Improvement Act
of 2008. Rail safety is an extremely important issue that
affects the lives of many.
When I was chair of the subcommittee in 2007, rail safety
was my top priority, and we tackled that issue first. We
started out with 2 days of hearing, and then followed up with
additional hearings, including one field hearing, over the
course of several months before developing legislation. We
invited all of the interested parties to participate in the
discussion: the FRA, the railroad labor, safety groups, and
families involved in rail accidents, and the National
Transportation Safety Board.
I asked that the National Transportation Safety Board be
invited to this hearing, but the request was denied. However, I
discussed that with Mr. Mica, and he indicated to me that at
the end of this month we are going to have a series of
hearings, and we will have an opportunity to invite
participants that was not able to participate in this hearing
and other hearings that we have had throughout the country.
So, I am looking forward to getting some of the other
stakeholders to the table so we can have these in-depth
discussions. And those hearings--I do not know whether we have
scheduled those dates, but I understand, Mr. Shuster, it is
going to be at the end of the month we are going to have 2 days
of hearings here in Washington.
Mr. Shuster. Yes. The last week of March? Yes, the last
week.
Ms. Brown. The last week in March we are going to have 2
days of hearings. So we will get an opportunity to invite some
of our other stakeholders who we have not been able to get
before the committee. Because I think it is very important that
we get all of the stakeholders in the room, and be able to
discuss how we move forward.
Prior to the Rail Safety Improvement Act, our Nation's rail
safety program had not been authorized in over a decade. As a
result, we did a lot of good things to help improve rail
safety. We reformed hours of service standard for rail workers
to allow them to rest between work shifts. We required that one
railroad that still had camp cars to retrofit them or replace
them, and we are still waiting on an update on that. We
required more training for workers and ensured that injured
workers have access to prompt medical attention. We improved
track and crossing, and we required installation of positive
train control on main lines where passengers and certain
hazardous materials was transported.
I support the PTC requirements in law. But I do have some
major concerns with how FRA is implementing it. With that said,
I think that the committee needs to be careful about weakening
rail safety. Serious accidents, injuries, and fatalities
continue to occur. In fact, human error remains one of the
leading causes of rail incidents. And, according to the
Government Accounting Office, the number of fatalities have
spiked over the years as a result of specific incidents,
including one in South Carolina, another in North Dakota,
several in Texas, and, of course, the tragic accident that
occurred in California. I would hate for another tragedy to
occur like this one in California.
As the economy grows in high-speed, and intercity passenger
rails are developed in this country, we have to stay focused on
improving safety, and we all really have to work together.
Before I close, I have a question for--I think I have
already asked the question about when we was going to have the
hearing. And I want to thank again the chairman for having this
hearing.
Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentlelady from Florida. And your
question, to be very specific, surface transportation
reauthorization stakeholders hearings on March 30th and 31st,
and Member hearings will be the first week of April.
Ms. Brown. Thank you very much.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent for
testimony to be placed in the record from the American
Chemistry Council, from Metrolink, and from Veolia.
[No response.]
Mr. Shuster. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65481.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65481.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65481.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65481.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65481.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65481.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65481.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65481.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65481.014
Mr. Shuster. Now we will turn to our witnesses. I will
introduce all of you across the board, and then I will let you
go one at a time, obviously.
First, Jo Strang, who is the associate administrator,
office of safety, Federal Highway Administration; Mark Manion,
who is the executive vice president and chief operating officer
of Norfolk Southern, accompanied by Ed Hamberger from the
Association of American Railroads; Joseph Giulietti, the
executive director of the South Florida Regional Transportation
Authority; Paul Victor, the president of the Anacostia and
Pacific Railroad Company; and Dennis Pierce, the national
president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and
Trainmen. Again, thank all of you for being here. And before I
recognize our first witness, Mr. Meehan would like to make a
comment.
Mr. Meehan. Yes. Mr. Chairman, for the record, may I ask as
well--you asked for unanimous consent to submit statements, and
I would like to ask if I could have a statement submitted by
the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority on the
same issue of PTC.
Mr. Shuster. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65481.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65481.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65481.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65481.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65481.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65481.020
Mr. Meehan. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. And with that, Ms. Strang, you may
proceed. And I ask you to all adhere to the 5-minute timeframe.
I have been enforcing it. I know there has been a special
request by Mr. Manion and Mr. Hamberger to show a 1-minute
tape. As long as it is just 1 minute--got it.
So, adhere to 5 minutes, please.
Ms. Strang. OK, thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman
Shuster, Ranking Member Brown, and members of the subcommittee.
I am honored to appear before you today on behalf of Secretary
LaHood and Administrator Szabo to discuss the implementation of
the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, commonly referred to
as RSIA.
RSIA is the most sweeping piece of safety legislation ever
passed by Congress, requiring more than 40 final rules,
guidance documents, model laws, reports, and studies. By
requiring the installation of positive train control (PTC)
systems, it addresses the risks of carrying certain toxic
chemicals and also prevents collisions involving passenger
trains, such as the one that was one of the worst passenger
train collisions in recent history in California.
FRA has been working hard to implement RSIA, and I am
pleased to report that FRA has issued final rules for PTC,
bridge inspection, State-specific action plans, and updates to
hours of service recordkeeping and reporting regulations. We
have issued five notices of proposed rulemaking and one advance
notice of proposed rulemaking. We have also completed seven
reports to Congress, as well as the model State law for sight
distance at passive crossings.
The most complex requirement, in terms of technical
complexity and breadth of undertaking, is PTC. PTC is designed
to prevent four types of catastrophic events: train-to-train
collisions; overspeed derailments; movement over misaligned
switches; and incursions into roadway work zones.
RSIA requires the installation of PTC on intercity
passenger and commuter routes and on routes over which certain
toxic materials are carried. The deadline for installation, as
set by the statute, is December 31, 2015. By early 2010, FRA
had published the final regulations necessary to provide
guidance to railroads required to install PTC.
We undertook a number of efforts to reduce the cost through
the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee process, and provided in
the final rules several exceptions and exclusions, such as
passenger yard and terminal exceptions, limited passenger
operations, some exclusions for Class II and III railroads--
both for locomotives operating on the host railroad's PTC
territory and for Class II and III railroad lines carrying
limited amounts of passenger and freight traffic.
Total PTC route miles, without any exceptions, would have
been 82,000, and the total actually being implemented by
approval of those allowances that we have received by request
so far will be around 73,000 route miles, thus providing
significant cost savings to the industry.
FRA and the AAR have reached a settlement agreement to hold
AAR's lawsuit challenging portions of the PTC rule in abeyance
while FRA issues two notices of proposed rulemaking. The first
would propose eliminating the two tests that would potentially
require PTC to be installed on track segments not specifically
required to be equipped by Congress. The other will address
other PTC concerns that are not involved in the litigation.
The two NPRMs will allow FRA to solicit the input of
stakeholders and the general public in making decisions on
whether safety can be better served by amendments to the rule.
This approach is consistent with the President's recently
issued Executive Order 13563, requiring agencies to review
their significant regulations and ensure that the safety
benefits justify the costs imposed by the rules.
FRA has worked tirelessly to implement the requirements of
the Act, and will diligently complete the remainder of the
rulemakings, reports, and guidance documents required by the
Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. I thank you for your time.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much. You came in way under the
1 minute. Mr. Hamberger can utilize that time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Shuster. With that, Mr. Manion, please proceed.
Mr. Manion. Thank you, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member
Brown, and other Members of the Committee, for the opportunity
to discuss the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 on behalf of
Norfolk Southern and other members of the Association of
American Railroads.
For Norfolk Southern and America's other freight and
passenger railroads, safe operations are an imperative. From
1980 to 2010, the U.S. train accident rate has improved 77
percent, and the grade crossing collision rate has improved 81
percent. 2010 was the American railroad industry's safest year
ever. Our employees are remarkably safe, too. In that time
period, the employee injury rate has been reduced 82 percent.
It is safer to work for us than it is to work in a grocery
story. We demonstrate that safety is the right thing to do, and
safety is good business.
The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 addresses a range
of provisions. One of those involves positive train control, or
PTC, technologies designed to automatically slow or stop a
train before certain accidents caused by human error. While PTC
is the most expensive and far-reaching mandate in railroad
history, let me make it clear we are not seeking changes in the
PTC mandate for passenger trains.
However, there are problematic issues with regard to PTC
deployment. One such problematic requirement centers on the
complexity of PTC systems required to comply with a 2015
deadline. As the GAO has indicated, implementing PTC without
the full benefit of solid sound engineering principles and
practices commonly used in development of technology of similar
complexity and scope has the potential of significantly slowing
the rail network, and may not produce expected safety benefits
due to reliability issues.
A second issue centers on costs. According to FRA's own
estimates, PTC will cost railroads up to $13.2 billion to
install and maintain over 20 years. But it will return only $1
in safety benefits for every $20 spent. Yes, you heard
correctly. This is money that could otherwise be invested in
the economic recovery and in safe, environmentally friendly and
fuel-efficient railroad infrastructure.
A third concern relates to PTC effectiveness. Only 4
percent of mainline accidents over the last 7 years might have
been prevented by PTC. By contrast, track and equipment-caused
accidents accounted for 60 percent. It would be more effective
to focus our resources on reducing those track and equipment-
caused accidents.
Railroads are aware that some of the accidents that PTC
systems are designed to prevent can be serious, with
significant injuries and loss of life. However, there are less
costly and less complicated technologies and operating
practices that can provide greater overall safety improvements
for railroad operations.
A fourth issue is that FRA is requiring PTC installation
based on 2008 traffic levels, even though 2015 is the deadline
that is cited in the statute. This is not logical. Freight
movement patterns are dynamic. They change, based on customer
demand and other factors. By our calculation, we will have to
spend more than $500 million to deploy PTC on more than 10,000
miles of track where it will not even be required by the time
2015 arrives.
While we have agreed to hold the litigation over the 2008
baseline issue and second display in abeyance, the industry
awaits final action over the issues to be addressed in the new
rulemaking proceedings.
My last perspective involves the so-called business
benefits, supposedly totaling billions of dollars, to be
achieved through PTC. Those benefits simply will not happen.
PTC will not allow us to run more trains, reduce delays, save
fuel, or improve fleet utilization. And it should not be touted
as being able to do so. Fortunately, we already have systems
that do those things.
To conclude, the railroad industry is safe and getting
safer. We are fully dedicated and engaged in meeting the
requirements and deadlines placed upon us, and in working with
FRA, Congress, and all safety stakeholders to ensure the best
outcomes. We are, however, concerned that the final rules
implementing the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 do not
support continuation of the beneficial long-term safety trend.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you.
And, without objection, AAR has a 1-minute?
Mr. Hamberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We talk in our
written testimony about alternative risk reduction strategies
for TIH-only lines, not for passenger lines. And I have,
literally, a 1-minute clip of some of those technologies to
give the subcommittee an idea of what we are working on, in
partnership with the FRA, at the Transportation Technology
Center in Pueblo, Colorado. And if I have any luck, it will
work right now.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Shuster. Thank you for that. And with that, Mr.
Giulietti, you may proceed. I pronounced it correctly?
Mr. Giulietti. Yes, you did. Thank you, Chairman.
Good morning, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Brown, and
members of the Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials
Subcommittee. My name is Joe Giulietti, and I am appearing
before you today on behalf of the American Public
Transportation Association, APTA, and more than 1,500
organizations, as well as the South Florida Regional
Transportation Authority, where I serve as the executive
director and oversee the Tri-Rail commuter railroad. I thank
you for the opportunity to testify today to discuss the Rail
Safety Improvement Act, and offer insights to the very
important matters related to the implementation of positive
train control, or PTC. A copy of my full testimony has been
submitted to the subcommittee. I will summarize my testimony,
and will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
First, let me take a moment to tell you about my background
and why I was asked by my colleagues to speak with you this
morning on behalf of our industry on this very important
subject. I am in my 40th year in this industry, and I have had
a wide range of experience in both passenger and freight
railroad operations.
I started as a brakeman, worked in both passenger and
freight railroad operations. I have worked as a locomotive
engineer, a railroad foreman or a transportation manager. I
have worked for Penn Central, Amtrak, Conrail, Metro North
Commuter Railroad in New York, and now Tri-Rail. I have worked
in New Haven, Boston, New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, and
Florida. And I have worked closely during my career with the
Federal Railroad Administration, the Federal Transit
Administration, as well as the National Transportation Safety
Board.
Additionally, I taught the engineers school, trained
engineers and conductors, and worked as a manager of operating
rules, where I co-authored at least two operating rulebooks,
qualified train dispatchers, and served as a superintendent of
the New Haven and Harlem lines into New York.
Currently, I am the co-chair on the commuter and intercity
rail legislative subcommittee. I am the immediate past chair of
all commuter rail CEOs at APTA and the vice chair for commuter
and intercity rail.
The main message I want to leave with you today is that the
commuter rail CEOs across the country are committed to the goal
of installing positive train control, PTC, for our systems as
soon as possible. We all believe that PTC will add an
additional layer of safety to our systems that will greatly
enhance the level of safety. We are committed to PTC being
operational at all systems as quickly as possible.
But I am here to report to you we have encountered
obstacles that will have to be addressed to ensure the success
in this endeavor. And if we are to have success, it has become
apparent that we will need more time than has been allowed
under the law.
Ensuring that the system will work, currently there is no
system market-ready that meets this mandate for commuter rail.
There are indeed PTC systems that have been developed and will
likely be deployed on freight lines, but none have been fully
vetted in a commuter rail environment. And because the lead
time necessary to purchase and install and test even well-known
existing signal systems can be a multi-year process, we are
concerned that the PTC technology we know of is untested in the
commuter rail environment.
As you may have heard, our colleagues with Metrolink
Commuter Rail system in Los Angeles are committed to having
their PTC operational as early as 2012. We applaud their
efforts in Los Angeles. As an industry, we all have a stake in
their success. We are closely monitoring their progress and
experience, because their success will determine whether a
system can be manufactured that will meet our industry needs.
We need your help with spectrum, the new technology that
requires that radio frequency be utilized to ensure the safety
of operations. To date, no spectrum has been set aside by the
FCC for this safety-critical operation.
Some of our systems have utilized--or have unfulfilled
applications to the FCC, while others are desperately trying to
negotiate bandwidth, when we do not know for sure we can
achieve the spectrum necessary to ensure the integration of
this system. Please have the FCC make bandwidth available to
this industry for this system.
And, three, we need additional Federal funding assistance.
We need additional targeted funding arrangements from the
Department of Transportation that provides sufficient resources
to afford this safety-critical system, and allocate our
resources to it. We also fully support sending immediate
available funding to Los Angeles to ensure Metrolink and North
County Transit District's success, so that we can learn and
hopefully model our systems around what they learn.
Research funding from the Federal Government has already
provided $20 million to a software company that is developing
the radio system to make this technology work. That company has
been purchased by four of the Class I railroads in their
efforts to ensure that they can get the system implemented.
We support their efforts at compliance. We ask you to
ensure that they make this technology available to our systems
for public purpose. Not only are we striving with the freight
railroads to jointly meet this standard, but we also operate
over each other's trackage. And therefore, we are together in
this. And all technological advances must be fully available.
We are in tough financial times, and we recognize that
commuter railroads, like so many other public transportation
agencies, have tough choices and challenges to keep them
viable.
Again, let me reiterate that we begin first with ensuring
safety to the best of our collective abilities, and the
introduction of PTC will significantly increase our industry's
safety and operations. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Giulietti.
And with that, Mr. Paul Victor, please proceed.
Mr. Victor. Good morning. I am Paul Victor, president of
the New York and Atlantic Railway, a 250-mile short line that
operates freight service over the Long Island Railroad. We
carry approximately 22,000 carloads annually, including 350
cars a year of hazmat LPG gas. This means we take approximately
180,000 one-way truck trips off the highways of New York City
and Long Island, annually.
New York and Atlantic is one of five short lines owned by
Anacostia Rail Holdings. And of these, four railroads would be
required to install PTC. Because the New York and Atlantic
Railway operates over one of the busiest passenger corridors in
the country, I have been heavily involved in the positive train
control issue, and our railroad is heavily impacted by this
mandate.
I am also appearing here on behalf of the American Short
Line and Regional Rail Association, which represents the
Nation's 550 Class II and Class III railroads. As you know,
short line railroads are not, in practice, required to install
PTC. However, the PTC mandate, due to the integrated network of
North American rail operations, joint facility matters
including track rights interchange and reciprocal switching,
blur the line of the short line exemption.
In addition, short line operations and routes that are
shared with passenger and/or commuter services will also
require short lines to come on stream with PTC-equipped
locomotives.
PTC will be costly. Looking just at Anacostia Rail
Holdings, the company I work for, we own or lease 36
locomotives on the 4 railroads that will require PTC. Twenty-
seven will need to be equipped. The estimated cost is currently
estimated at $2.2 million. This cost includes both equipping
eight units with an Amtrak-compatible system, as well as 19
units to be equipped with a GPS-based nationwide system.
This cost equals about 92 percent of the combined annual
capital expenditure budget, literally. We must reallocate our
dollars for installation of PTC in lieu of almost all other
infrastructure and equipment improvements. Ultimately, we would
end up with PTC-equipped locomotives, but a less safe railroad
network to run them on.
I have worked in the railroad industry my entire adult
life, and understand that even a single injury or fatality is
something to be avoided. But surely it is reasonable for public
policymakers to balance the need for action and the cost of
that action. PTC will be an enormous financial burden on our
small businesses with very little impact on the safety of our
railroad operations. Indeed, it is likely to have an adverse
impact on our short line safety. Implementing the PTC mandate
will take millions of dollars away from short line track and
bridge rehabilitation that does more to improve railroad safety
than any other expenditure we can make.
Short line railroads tend to serve light-density customers
with a cost benefit ratio of adding new services, often a very
close call. One of the key factors in making that call is the
cost of installing and/or maintaining the so-called switch into
the customer's facility. This is the equivalent of connecting a
house to the electrical grid. In this case, the electrical
meter has become the controversial and needed switch to connect
the potential shipper to the network.
Future switch installation costs will be much higher in PTC
territory. This added cost could drive potential customers away
from rail by changing their tipping point. Where will the
traffic go then? It will end up on our already overcrowded
highway system.
PTC will impact all new shippers and receivers, large and
small, to the extent that it will drive traffic from rail to
truck, it will increase the truck traffic and the highway
congestion associated with that traffic.
I know that the PTC mandate will remain. I am not here to
suggest that New York and Atlantic be exempt from that mandate.
We operate in a highly dense passenger corridor, and we want to
do so safely, and want to utilize every available tool to do
so. We understand the valuable of PTC. One, it is prudently
developed and installed. I am suggesting that the Federal
Government has imposed an enormously expensive mandate that
cannot be afforded by most short lines, and will dramatically
reduce the short line's ability to invest in other more
directly beneficial safety improvements.
Presumably, the government believes this mandate is in the
public interest. And, if that is the case, I would hope that
the government will provide public monies to help pay for the
cost.
I appreciate the opportunity to present these thoughts, and
will welcome any questions. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Victor.
And now, Mr. Dennis Pierce.
Mr. Pierce. Good morning, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member
Brown, and other committee members. My name is Dennis Pierce, I
am national president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers and Trainmen organization. I am also president of the
Teamsters Rail Conference. I appreciate the opportunity to
address the subcommittee today on behalf of the BLET and the
Teamster Rail Conference, and with the endorsements of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and the United Transportation
Union.
The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 was a
comprehensive, wide-ranging, far-reaching piece of legislation,
and it was the first rail safety act in 14 years. When Congress
felt compelled to act in the aftermath of the Chatsworth
tragedy, stakeholders were still fine-tuning the bill. BLET,
UTU, and AAR were still discussing adjustments to the hours of
service, but none of those adjustments were adopted. Thus, the
bill that Congress passed contains some flaws that have since
come to light.
FRA was given a massive but imperfect bill that included an
extraordinary number of statutory mandates with short
deadlines. The agency's resources and personnel were not
increased sufficiently to fulfill the tasks that were assigned.
The Railroad Safety Advisory Committee, which has shepherded
nearly every significant safety rulemaking for the past 15
years has been working non-stop for almost 2\1/2\ years
handling RSI mandates. So we do disagree with the criticism of
how FRA has handled PTC implementation.
I understand the industry and FRA appear to have settled
their dispute over the 2008 baseline and in-cab display screen
aspects of the PTC final rule. So there is no need for me to
address those issues at this time, except to remind the
subcommittee that the NTSB supported the baseline language.
I do also want to address the industry's complaints about
PTC cost. We have repeatedly appeared before Congress
concerning the dangers of non-signaled dark territory and
inexpensive technologies like switch position detectors that
are readily available to address the risk. Because Congress
didn't order it, the railroads chose not to widely install it.
And that choice is one factor that led us to PTC.
Over the past 19 years, some 70 BLET members were killed in
the line of duty. And PTC could have prevented nearly 50 of
those deaths. To me there is no such thing as Federal
regulatory overreach when it comes to returning our members
safely to their families. It is appalling to me that profits
would be placed ahead of our members' lives.
While I am here I also want to talk about the hot-button
issue for operating crews, and that is hours of service.
Tremendous work has been done building a scientific foundation
for the passenger and commuter rail hours of service
regulations. But this service, because it is scheduled, the
studies showed there is significantly less risk of fatigue and
the regulations will be less strict, less costly, and more
effective than the laws governing freight operations. Similar
studies have shown a much lower risk of fatigue on scheduled
freight service as well, and a number of waivers have been
granted by FRA for relief from the 6-days-worked/48-hours-off
provision of the law, so long as no overnight hours are worked.
We are drafting technical corrections for you to consider, and
one will be to make scheduled freight assignments subject to
the passenger/commuter rail regulations.
Most importantly, the law is not combating fatigue to the
degree Congress intended in unscheduled freight service. Train
line-ups are as unreliable as ever, and we believe it is time
to move to a 10-hour call.
Further, the AAR agreed with us and the UTU 2\1/2\ years
ago, that 8 hours off duty was sufficient at the away-from-home
terminal, and it is time to put that understanding in the law.
Finally, because it is not based on science, the 6-days-
worked/48-hours-off provision is not mitigating fatigue in
unscheduled railroad service. The law allows the railroads to
create a situation where employees who are truly fatigued do
not qualify for 48 hours off. Conversely, the application of
the law requires others who are not fatigued to take 48 hours
off.
All of these subjects will be addressed in our technical
corrections that we will be submitting soon. Thank you,
Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Brown. I will be happy to answer any
questions the subcommittee may have.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Pierce. I appreciate that. Now
we will go to our questions. I am going to start. I am going to
probably do two rounds, because I have got a number of
questions. So I will take 5 minutes and then yield to the
ranking member and the other members.
The first question I have to the FRA is, what is plan B? I
mean if we cannot meet this--if the cost is a tremendous
burden--and I am going to ask you a question about the abeyance
that--the court challenge. But are you going through a process
to figure out what plan B is?
Ms. Strang. Yes. While we cannot get into the specifics,
because the court case is only in abeyance and it has not been
dismissed, we plan on issuing two notices of proposed
rulemaking.
The first notice would revisit the issue of the two tests
that were not required by Congress. So it would essentially
take out the residual risk analysis and the other analysis so
that those burdens would not necessarily be placed on the
industry. But we would want to get the advice and comments of
the public, and make sure that the public agrees that those
are, you know, wise choices to make.
Mr. Shuster. And it would be--the court challenge, the
abeyance, my understanding--I think there is four issues. I
just want to read off the four issues. My understanding of what
the abeyance says--and tell me if I understand it correctly--
that it addresses the new proposed rules during the abeyance,
and the 2008 to the 2015 PTC baseline map issue, de minimis or
limited train operations, switch movements on main lines in
rail yards and on non-PTC-equipped locomotives, and failures of
the PTC-equipped locomotives en route. Those four things that--
--
Ms. Strang. Right. Essentially, there are two notices. The
first notice would look at the routing issue, and the second
notice would deal with the other items that are not part of the
litigation. But we expect that we will receive a petition for
rulemaking from the AAR that will outline all of their issues
that they would like us to reconsider.
Mr. Shuster. When you say the ``routing,'' is that the map?
Ms. Strang. That would essentially be the route map issue,
yes.
Mr. Shuster. OK. And again, the President stands up almost
weekly now and says that we are going to reduce regulations. I
talked with Mr. Szabo a couple weeks ago. And the question I
have to across the Administration is, do you guys get that
message?
I mean, do you hear what he is saying? Because, again, it
is all across the Administration that the President stands up
one day, and then you get the Secretary of Transportation, FRA,
you got other agencies, EPA, coming with new rules and
regulations that are, you know, a tremendous burden on business
and, in this case, do not have the cost benefit analysis and, I
might add--and I am going to go through a line of questioning
later--that is going to take away from and possibly make it
less safe out there, because we are not spending the money on
various things.
So, again, has it been clear, the message coming from the
President, to Secretary LaHood and Mr. Szabo?
Ms. Strang. Yes. In fact, we had a public meeting March
14th, where the AAR and other organizations presented us with
views on how we should do a retrospective look-back into all of
the regulations, and they presented a list of regulations that
they would like us to revisit.
Mr. Shuster. OK. Thank you. They did not start the clock,
so I do not know if I violated the 5-minute rule. So with that
I will yield to the ranking member, and I am going to come
around for a second round of questions.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, thank you. Before I get started with
my questions, I have a little housekeeping that I need to get
in order.
Norfolk Southern, I have a question to you. It is
pertaining to Carolina, the intercity passenger rail. There are
some problems, or some rumors, which--I do not like rumors--
that you all are holding up the agreement for North Carolina
because of Illinois. And I want to know--I want a win with this
intercity passenger rail, and I want to know when you all are
going to sign it. But the FRA administrator agreed to have a
meeting yesterday in Illinois. It was canceled. I was told that
by the end of yesterday that I would get a call, letting me
know when it is going to be rescheduled.
I know most of you all do not know what I am talking about,
but those two do know. And can you all answer my questions?
Mr. Manion. Congresswoman Brown, I would be pleased to.
First of all, as far as the canceling of that meeting, I do not
believe we had anything to do with that. We are ready, willing,
and able to discuss the project in North Carolina. It has got a
lot of good public benefit to it. The project in Illinois,
specifically at Englewood, outside of Chicago, has got a lot of
benefit to it, from a public standpoint and from a rail
standpoint----
Ms. Brown. And I toured it. I know exactly what you are
talking about.
Mr. Manion. Absolutely. And so we are ready to negotiate,
and we would like to conclude both of those deals, both of
those projects, and we will be present at the next meeting, as
scheduled.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. I need a win. Yes, ma'am?
Ms. Strang. I am sorry, I am not authorized to----
Ms. Brown. Can you take a message back?
Ms. Strang. I absolutely will.
Ms. Brown. All right, all right. I want an answer today. I
was told that I would get the answer by yesterday when the
meeting was going to be rescheduled. I need that answer today.
And my flight leaves at 8:00, so that gives you all day long.
From FRA--you all are the ones that are supposedly scheduling
the meeting. You understand what I am saying.
Ms. Strang. Yes, I do.
Ms. Brown. And no one is confused. Let me go on to the
questioning.
Ms. Strang. Sure.
[Following are supplementary remarks submitted by Ms.
Strang after the hearing:]
FRA worked collaboratively with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, the North Carolina
Railroad, and Amtrak to develop an agreement with the
Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) facilitating the
construction of improvements on the Piedmont corridor
between Raleigh and Charlotte, supported by $520
million in funds from the American Reinvestment and
Recovery Act of 2009. This process concluded on March
21, 2011, after months of negotiation to reach an
agreement that protected both the passenger rail
investments and preserved the capacity for freight
operations on the corridor. FRA continues to work with
NS and the State of Illinois to develop a similar
agreement to facilitate a $133 million project in
Chicago to construct a railroad-to-railroad overpass
between Metra commuter tracks and the shared NS and
Amtrak corridor.
Ms. Brown. I guess I am going to start with--I am concerned
about the loan program, and why is it that we authorize it, we
funded it, you have awarded funds--this is FRA--but no one has
received any of those funds, and there are programs that need
the funds so they can implement the safety controls on those
particular lines.
Ms. Strang. For the RRIF loan program?
Ms. Brown. No, ma'am, not the RRIF loan.
Ms. Strang. Oh, the technology----
Ms. Brown. The grants.
Ms. Strang. OK.
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Ms. Strang. We have awarded the $50 million in technology
grants that we had for 2010. We do not have a future grant
program envisioned for 2011. It was rescinded in the House
version of the appropriations. We do have a request for it in
our 2012 budget request.
Ms. Brown. I understand. But no one has received any of the
funds.
Ms. Strang. The money has all been obligated.
Ms. Brown. It has been obligated?
Ms. Strang. Yes, it has. And, in fact, several of the grant
recipients are here.
Ms. Brown. Right, but they have not gotten the money. It is
just like the money is in the bank, but it----
Ms. Strang. It has been obligated. So I can try to find out
where the hold-up is.
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Ms. Strang. I do know that some of the grant recipients
have received their funds. But I will check and make sure that
I get back to you.
Ms. Brown. And let us be clear. Because the House passed
something does not mean that the Senate is going to take it up,
or the President. But it does not mean that the President is
going to sign it.
Ms. Strang. I understand.
[Following are supplementary remarks submitted by Ms.
Strang after the hearing:]
Of the $50 million that FRA received in fiscal year
2010 for railroad safety technology grants, FRA has
obligated approximately $49.3 million to date.
Approximately $87,000 was not awarded. All FRA grants
are awarded on a reimbursable basis. This means that
once FRA has obligated funds for the grantee, the
grantee has the ability to spend against those funds
immediately. It is the responsibility of the grantee to
submit evidence to FRA of its spending (i.e., invoices)
for review. Once FRA determines that the costs are
appropriate and in line with the grant agreement, FRA
will approve the funding, and the accounting system
will issue an electronic payment directly into the
grantee's specified account.
Ms. Brown. All right. And I want another round, because I
did not get a chance to ask my questions. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. We will definitely give you another round.
Ms. Brown. All right.
Mr. Shuster. And I will tack on that 30 seconds you saved.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Shuster. No one on my side. So, Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
both for your tireless efforts on the Rail Safety Improvement
Act.
Critical in my district. We have 160 trains a day going
through my district now, and 14,000 containers going through
my--many of them carrying hazardous material. And they
transport $400 billion of trade through the rest of the Nation.
So, to me, it is critical, because it is going to increase. And
I will have 1 train every 10 minutes going through my whole
district. So you understand why I have great interest in the
safety aspect of this.
The Rail Safety Act did not solve my State regulatory
issues, but that is another issue for another time. But the
views and estimates drafted by the Majority, as has been
pointed out, were approved by this committee yesterday, but
opposed the proposed increase in funding and staffing for FRA
included in the President's budget. What impact would this have
on the safety program?
And then the second question to the Administration is, can
FRA shift personnel to accomplish if the cuts remain?
Ms. Strang. I am sorry, ma'am, I am not sure I understand
your question. Is the question about our 2012 budget request?
Mrs. Napolitano. No, this is about----
Ms. Strang. 2011?
Mrs. Napolitano [continuing]. Estimates drafted. We
approved, this committee approved cuts to the specific area of
assistance that we have been talking about, the----
Ms. Strang. Right.
Mrs. Napolitano. And also the 2010 leftover will also be
removed.
Ms. Strang. OK. The 2010 grant program has been fully
obligated, so there is no leftover to be removed.
On the 2011 request for the grant program, FRA will not
have a negative consequence of the grant program being removed,
in terms of our personnel. If our funding level remains
adequate so that we can continue to support the development of
positive train control, which is a resource-intensive effort--
it requires a lot of technical expertise and the ability to
test and certify the positive train control systems, so that we
know that they are safe.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, we can go to that later. But there
is another question that I have for some of the railroad folks.
And I looked at the charts that Mr. Gallegly earlier, in regard
to the use of texting, et cetera.
But in California, if I remember correctly, several years
ago I got into the issue with the California Public Utilities
Commission that they were not being given the report on
accidents in the yard. So, in other words, it was only
accidents that were outside of the yard, the locomotive yards.
And to me, that would skew the number of accidents, because
those accidents are also reportable, or should be reportable,
to be able to have a better feeling as to where we can begin to
work with the Administration and the railroads in addressing
those issues.
Mr. Manion. Congresswoman Napolitano, I presume you are
referring to accidents that are caused by some kind of
electronic cell phone usage, or something like that?
Mrs. Napolitano. No, no, no. I am talking about any
accidents, any accidents within the rail yard. The California
Public Utilities Commission, up to a couple years ago, had no
idea how many of them were in the yard, whether it is human
error, infrastructure, whatever.
Mr. Manion. Yes. We report according to the dollar
threshold of the accident.
Now, the fact of the matter is that, just by the nature of
it, accidents within yards are frequently less expensive than
accidents out on the main line. But we report equally, whether
it is a yard accident or whether it is a main line accident. We
report those to the FRA, according to the threshold.
Mrs. Napolitano. Do you report those to the State entities,
also?
Mr. Manion. That is correct. Where we are required to do
so, we would----
Mrs. Napolitano. As of when, sir?
Mr. Manion. Pardon me?
Mrs. Napolitano. As of when? Has it been a standing order,
regulation?
Mr. Manion. This is--there has been--as far as our
reporting procedures go, I am not familiar with any change.
Mrs. Napolitano. I would like to ask Mr. Pierce if he has
any comment on this.
Mr. Pierce. On the reporting itself, or----
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pierce. As far as we know, the reporting are dollar
threshold-based, and they are equal on the main line and in the
yard----
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Hamberger?
Mr. Hamberger. I would just offer that whatever is reported
to the FRA is public. So there is no hiding the ball here. I do
not know what the requirement is in California. And Mr. Manion
here operates out of Norfolk, Virginia. So--but whatever is
reported to the FRA is public, and I am sure is----
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would go a second
round, please.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Sires.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome. You know,
I represent a district that has a lot of lines and a lot of
everything, trucks--so I am a big proponent of putting a lot of
the merchandise on rail, so we can get the trucks off the road.
And I have been a proponent for many years.
And I am very interested in the safety, especially when it
comes to commuter rail. You know, we have had a number of
accidents in my district. And I was just wondering, Mr. Manion,
and you made a statement before that this has been the safest
year on record, in terms of rail. Can you give me a--what do
you give that credit to? What do you attribute it to?
Mr. Manion. You know, I credit it to a number of things.
One is we have--the rail industry in general has a relentless
pursuit of reducing injuries and reducing accidents. And it is
something that is ingrained in the culture of the industry. So,
from the standpoint of training and education with our
employees, that is where we spend a tremendous amount of time.
And then, in addition to that, there is a lot of emphasis
placed on improved technology, which also helps with regard to
reducing accidents and injuries.
Mr. Sires. Has that suffered because of the downturn in the
economy? You know, have you made any cutbacks or anything on
that, you know----
Mr. Manion. With respect to 2010, we thankfully saw some
very nice improved volumes. And 2010's performance was the
result of just continued emphasis on reducing accidents and
injuries.
Mr. Sires. Can somebody tell me if PTC is used in other
countries? You know, how effective is it in other countries?
Mr. Victor. Yes, I can. It has been in effect in Panama
since about 2005. And in 2007, representatives of the FRA went
to Panama to take a look at that system. That is the only one
that is PTC-based.
Mr. Sires. I rode the AVE Train in Spain from Madrid to
Barcelona. And they told me they had these monitors on--they
actually took us to the cockpit, and they actually had these
monitors on the rail, in the middle, which works with the
computer, I guess, in the cockpit. And if a train is coming
toward the train, it automatically slows this train down. Is
that what--you know, the technology, is that something similar?
Mr. Victor. It would be similar. That is a transponder-
based technology. The one in Panama is GPS-based.
Mr. Sires. There are sensors in the track.
Mr. Victor. Yes. The transponder one is track-based. The
one in Panama is GPS-based. Together with track sensors, a
critical--parts.
Mr. Sires. OK. Mr. Manion?
Mr. Manion. Congressman Sires, if I might add to that, in
Europe, as you say, they do use technology that involves
transponders. Specifically it is something that they refer to
as close-gap wireless communications. And in their environment,
where the shorter, lighter, faster, shorter distance trains--
that is the technology that works for them.
When we are looking at employing PTC on thousands of miles,
perhaps as much as 75,000 miles of tracks, that is not feasible
to use that same type of technology. It is not going to work in
the U.S. environment. One of the primary reasons it is not
going to work is because you have got all of these individual
little components scattered through your railroad track. And
anything that goes through there, including our maintenance
gangs, our production work, are going to damage those
components, those transponders, and all those pieces of
equipment that are scattered out along the railroad track.
So, in our case, what we are having to do--and this is one
of the big challenges for employing PTC throughout the U.S.--we
have to use wireless communication instead of transponders.
Employing wireless communication over the size network we have
got, and doing it in an interoperable way, where railroads have
to be able to communicate with other railroads, where we have
to be able to communicate with not only our own dispatching
centers, but other railroads' dispatching centers, that type of
widespread wireless communication has never been accomplished
in this country or successfully in Europe. So this is one of
the big challenges we have.
Mr. Sires. Thank you very much. I also want to thank you--
without a question, without a complaint, you respond pretty
good. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. Sorry about that. I am having a rough day. I
got a cold, if nobody has noticed, so--but I bumped the gavel,
I did not gavel you down.
My question is--we will go to the second round of
questions, it sounds like everybody wants a second crack.
Ms. Brown. A third----
Mr. Shuster. We may get that, too, Ms. Brown.
To the extent that the mandate to implement PTC--how has
that diverted--and this is to Mr. Manion, Mr. Giulietti, and
Mr. Victor--has it diverted you away from other safety
technologies that could be implemented that we could see a cost
benefit that is going to save--because the focus here is we
certainly want to be as safe as possible. But if we are
mandating $13 billion, what is it going to take away from? And
can you be specific about that in--start with you Mr. Manion.
Mr. Manion. Well, when we are looking at $13-give-or-take
billion, we feel like we could spend less money more wisely in
other ways. And the fact is there are a--there is a myriad of
technologies out there that we would like to continue to
pursue, or further develop. You saw evidence of some of this on
the video that we looked at with TTCI.
There are things we can do on the rail car side, for
example, as far as improving design of rail equipment,
specifically tank cars. There is all sorts of detector
technologies, detectors, for example, that find problems with
rail wheels, problems with the axels, problems with the trucks
that are centered under the cars. There is all kinds of track-
related issues that we have to work on. And we have testing
equipment, we have geometry cars. We do all those things. But
we can intensify those efforts with more spending.
One of the really significant areas that the railroad
industry has is finding flaws in rail before they become
accidents or incidents. Rail, broken rails, are a significant
thing, and have been for years. And we do all sorts of testing
in order to find problems before they occur. But we need more
development. We need to put more into rail testing, in order to
get further ahead of that.
And the fact of the matter is, Congressman Shuster, if you
take these issues that involve track-related accidents, and
issues that involve car, rail car-related accidents, all that
comprises 60 percent of the accidents we have; 60 percent are
related to those 2 things. That is where we would like to focus
the dollars we spend. As troublesome and problematic as the
PTC-related accidents can be, they only represent 4 percent of
the accidents that take place.
Mr. Shuster. So you can save lives and damage to----
Mr. Manion. That is correct. The fact is those 60 percent
of accidents, they result in a lot of damage and injury and
worse.
Mr. Shuster. Mr. Giulietti?
Mr. Giulietti. Thank you, Chairman. I would like to answer
it in two ways. One, because of the fact of the funding and the
situation that we are in, waiting for an extension, several of
our properties have had to lock down their capital budgets and
change what was already in capital programs to go forward.
Some quick examples, Northern Indiana, who was supposed to
go into changing out their base rail to 100-pound rail, they
have got 25 miles they cannot go ahead with. Metro North cannot
do a change shed, they are looking at renovations of their
electrical substations that cannot be done if they have to go
and dedicate the funds now. Long Island Railroad has tracks and
bridge upgrades that were supposed to be done that are being
deferred. We have the same thing going on with APTA, and their
state of good repair.
And for some of us, the situation and the request for the
2018 extension is because they already have cab signals in
place, and they have a safety network that is in place, where
others of us are not in that same situation, and that is why we
are all behind the PTC, but you can understand, in order to
accomplish this, what has to be done or deferred in order to
meet that.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. Mr. Victor?
Mr. Victor. Within the short line world we have and stand
together with our friends at APTA, where we operate over
commuter lines. And, really, we are absolutely in a parallel
universe. And our ability to pay, considering the size of our
operations is equally difficult for us to contemplate, as I
stated before, with 92 percent of our capital budget for PTC
for a year.
More broadly speaking, for the short line industry as a
whole, it becomes equally burdensome, considering the density
levels and sizes of our operations, typically, across the U.S.
rail network. So we certainly have the same concerns and issues
that the commuter agencies will have, as well as companies of
our size trying to cope with this in lieu of more critical
investments in equipment and infrastructure.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. My 5 minutes have expired, so I
will yield to the----
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. We are probably going to go a third round. I
am pretty sure of----
Ms. Brown. OK. I am going to start with Mr. Manion, but
then I will go to Mr. Pierce. But this question is for the
entire panel.
There are hundreds of FRA-reported incidents on the major
railroad lines since 2010, many of which were trains that
passed stop signals. Any one of them could result in serious
accidents. Now, when we had the accident in California and
South Carolina, the House and the Senate both dealt with PTC.
We pulled together a bill. All of you all came together and
supported it. Now it seems like you have a change in heart.
What would you do differently, or what would you do
equally, that would protect the passengers, workers, and the
public from human failures? What would you do? Because you all
had the opportunity to come to the table prior to us passing
the bill. We passed this bill with your support, and now, you
know just like everything else, you know, we want to change.
Mr. Manion. Well, Congresswoman Brown, you know, we equally
are concerned about the devastating accidents that can happen
as a result of passing red signals. And as I stated in my
opening comments, our position is that we are not opposed to
PTC with respect to our lines that have got passenger train----
Ms. Brown. You are talking about the technology, though.
You said that the technology is not there, and there are other
things that you could do, other technology----
Mr. Manion. That is right, that is right. And a couple of
those----
Ms. Brown. That would be equal to?
Mr. Manion. Yes. A couple of those things are this. We can
operate in a manner where we provide what we will call temporal
separation, where we keep a safety buffer zone ahead of and
behind the passenger trains being operated. And, in fact, on
Norfolk Southern we employ some of that now, where we have what
we call--separated by signals, we keep a full block ahead and a
full block behind passenger trains on some of our lines, not
all of our lines.
In addition to that, the other technologies that I was
speaking to earlier with regard to approving technology, as far
as the railroad track itself and the rail, and the technologies
that detect problems with the equipment, those are some of the
most significant things we can do to prevent accidents.
So, the reality of it is those accidents caused by going by
red signals are a smaller portion of the accidents taking
place. And while we want to work on those also, we want to work
on the 60 percent piece that are the bigger part of the
accidents taking place. And if I may, just very quickly, we
work very hard on reducing the number of incidents that take
place where trains go by a red signal. That is through
education. That is training. That is getting our people to
focus and be alert.
And I can say--and I say this with some pride--speaking for
Norfolk Southern, because I am obviously most familiar with our
statistics, we have dramatically reduced those number of
incidents. Over the last 4 years we reduced our incidents by
about one-half. And we were the industry leader at that point.
So we take it extremely seriously. Thank you for your question.
Ms. Brown. Mr. Pierce?
Mr. Pierce. [No response.]
Ms. Brown. Did you get the question?
Mr. Pierce. I am not sure which part of it you are pointing
at me.
Ms. Brown. Do you think that other things, other than the--
that can be implemented, other than the PTC, that would have
safety equivalent?
Mr. Pierce. OK. There are open switchpoint technologies
available in non-signaled dark territory that we have been
advocating for years. The accident at Graniteville would have
been avoided with such technology.
When it comes to the actual violations, we are equally
concerned whenever a violation occurs. As you said, any time an
authority or red signal violation occurs, it is that close to
an accident. Remedial training, when it gets into operator
error or involvement of the employees, we advocate for that.
But many times the employee is just terminated, and a new
employee is hired. So there is no learning experience from the
event.
So there are steps that we would like to take to try to
make improvements in those safety numbers. But PTC is the one
that would prevent people from leaving their authority and
having these accidents, in our opinion.
Ms. Brown. So, when you try to negotiate or discuss some of
those things that the workers would recommend, what happens?
Mr. Pierce. It varies, railroad by railroad, as to how
those are greeted. Each railroad handles that side of it
differently.
Ms. Brown. Mr. Hamberger, aren't you the center of the
railroad?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hamberger. I happen to be sitting at the center of the
desk here, but I would not call myself the center of the
railroad. I am not quite sure what you are----
Ms. Brown. Well, I am trying to say what can we do, working
together, all stakeholders, we all--I hope all of the goals are
the same.
Mr. Hamberger. Yes, ma'am. Yes. I would like to correct a
misimpression that I think you may have. We are not here asking
for changes in the regulation--in the statute. We are here
talking about the lawsuit that we filed, and that has now been
held in abeyance because of the agreement for new regulations
with the FRA. We believe that the FRA went beyond the statute,
and that was our concern.
We are also drawing attention here today, as you take a
look at new legislation, that you might want to take a look at
not just PTC-preventable accidents, but when you look at the
entire risk profile, using an accidental release of a TIH tank
car, for example, there are other ways that you can reduce that
risk profile in a much more predictable way, and a much safer
way, and reduce that profile more than you can with PTC.
And that is what we are just drawing to your attention
today. It is something you might want to take a look at, as you
take a look at this new bill. Should we take a look at not just
PTC, but instead of that, take a look at how we can reduce the
risk of an accidental release from a TIH tank car, and take a
look at the whole panoply of technologies that are out there,
and not mandate just--say it has to be PTC.
Mr. Shuster. Go ahead.
Ms. Brown. Just 30 more seconds. What I am saying--I hear
what you are saying, but are you hearing what I am saying?
Because when you all discuss it, then all of the players should
be in the room. Because I think the workers can give you some
recommendations that it would be equivalent, it would be safety
across the board. And I think it makes sense.
I want the railroads to make money. But, most important, I
want it to be safe for our communities.
Mr. Shuster. Mr. Manion, go ahead----
Mr. Manion. Congresswoman Brown, I would just add that one
of the great things about this is that we work closely with our
employees in the BLE and the UTU, our conductors and our
locomotive engineers.
One case in point, not to drag it out, we have what is
called stop signal committees. And they are all over the
railroad. And this is management and the labor organizations
working together in order to find ways to reduce the number of
accidents that result from violating those stop signals. It is
very much a team effort.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Manion.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. We are going to do a third round, I think----
Ms. Brown. OK, thank you.
Mr. Shuster [continuing]. I have a couple more questions.
Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am glad to
hear that, because I know a few years ago in the hearing with
state senators and the assembly and myself, it was indicated to
us that the training given employees was a CD and a booklet.
And hopefully things have changed since then. And I am hoping
that this is--translates to a better safety process within the
industry.
Chairman Young was in the office recently, and I need to
thank them, because they have invested in a lot of
infrastructure in the Alameda Corridor east, which was long
overdue, since it is going to have an increase in traffic to
bring those goods to the rest of the Nation. The new rails, the
long, long, long, long rail and the new cross ties apparently
made quite a bit of difference. However, there is not enough
being invested by railroads in the great separation cost.
And that, to me, is a great issue, because this would help
the on-time delivery to the rest of the Nation. I am hoping
that we begin to look at how do we increase that participation,
not just 3 percent, but hopefully more than that, and the other
2 percent in kind. That would be helpful, especially since the
Class I railroads had been able to garner $12.1 billion in
revenues, and they are doing well. Hopefully they can invest
some of that into the new system that we are talking about.
There is a lot of issues that come to mind. The cracked
wheel on your video was reminding me of the hairline crack in
the joints with the epoxy that caused a derailment in my city
of Whittier a few years back. And that, I believe, went to a
safer process of welding those rails, rather than just
providing the epoxy.
And to our young lady, Ms. Strang, yesterday the
Administration's proposal of $223 million--this is on page 19
of the cost estimates provided to this committee--$223 million
for the FRA safety and operations, representing an increase of
personnel to do all of the above of regional safety inspectors,
headquarters, and regulatory safety staff, et cetera, et
cetera. Committee strongly opposed out-of-control growth in
government and bureaucracies and rejected the proposal. So you
need to acquaint yourself that this is now part of what is
being proposed for this current bill.
So, to any of you, what can help us translate to our
constituency--because that is who we need to protect--that the
railroads are not just interested in making money, but are
interested in providing safety processes, including worker
safety of the employees? How do we translate that to telling
our constituency? Go for it.
Mr. Hamberger. Well, I am going to defer to Mr. Manion to
go into a little bit more detail about the culture of this
industry, and of his company. But you mentioned $12 billion,
and let me correct you. That is not the revenue of the
industry. That is the capital expenditure this industry is
putting back into its infrastructure.
Mrs. Napolitano. Oh, good.
Mr. Hamberger. And that is almost--about 20 percent of
every revenue dollar goes back into capital expenditures,
another 20 percent back into maintenance. And I did not have a
chance to answer Mr. Sires's question about why is the accident
rate going down. The accident rate is going down in no small
part because the rail is better, the engine--locomotives are
better, the signaling systems are better. And that is because
we have not been sitting on the sideline, but we have, in fact,
been doing what the President has asked corporate America to
do, get back in the game, creating American jobs, and that is
what we have been doing.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for the correction. You are
right. It was my fault, I misquoted it.
And so, how--when was the last time you invested in such an
amount?
Mr. Hamberger. That is a record amount, as far as
percentages. For the past decade it has been about 17 percent
of all revenue back into CAPEX.
Mrs. Napolitano. Good.
Mr. Hamberger. About 20 percent back into maintenance. Last
year, and in 2009, in the depths of the recession, the top 3
years on record prior to 2011 were 2008, 2009, and 2010, in the
middle of a recession.
Mrs. Napolitano. And is there any estimate on how some of
the investment of the $12.1 billion might be into the area of
the--this process we are talking about?
Mr. Hamberger. I have indeed had a chance to go through the
announcements by the individual railroads. And the number that
springs to mind is that $960 million of the 2011 capital
expenditures would be for positive train control.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. And just to clarify, is 17
percent--what you have been averaging, you are almost 20
percent this year--is that the highest of any industry? In the
utilities we invest quite a bit of the revenue, but I do not
think it is as high as yours. Is that accurate?
Mr. Hamberger. That is our read, yes, sir.
Mr. Shuster. The highest----
Mr. Hamberger. It is five times higher than the average
manufacturing industry----
Mr. Shuster. Right.
Mr. Hamberger [continuing]. In the country. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. Other problems that I think we have
talked a little bit about here today with PTC, one is the
spectrum issue. It is my understanding that the Class I's have
purchased a big chunk of spectrum already. Is that--you can
answer that in just a second.
But the spectrum--Mr. Giulietti, you can talk a little bit
about that, but I want to also point out to you that this
committee does not determine what is going to happen with the
spectrum, it is the Energy and Commerce Committee. We would be
happy to take that away from them, but I think Fred Upton might
have something to say about that.
But could you talk a little bit about the spectrum issue?
And then the next thing I want to follow up with is the
interoperability. What is happening there? What are the
problems with--would you talk--I guess spectrum and
interoperability probably go sort of hand in hand.
But, Mr. Giulietti, why don't you start with the spectrum?
Mr. Giulietti. The spectrum issue actually comes down to--
there is two concerns with it. One is that it is not readily
available. There is many of our systems, particularly in the
dense populated areas, that cannot get this spectrum. There
is--some of our systems have had applications for over a year
with the FCC, waiting for some spectrum.
And we are also in a terrible position because--and that is
why the request for the FCC--had they made available some of
the spectrum that might be in the safety network, we would be
able to go and move forward, particularly from a public
purpose, because this, even though not put in from another
committee, this is a safety mandate. And we truly wanted to
push that message forward, that as a safety mandate, we would
hope there would be support with the FCC to make access to the
safety network and spectrum, so that we could all be there.
In terms of the interoperability, a system like mine is
going to be totally dependent on a freight railroad like CSX,
and what they are able to procure, and to be able to make it
work together. So that is why, when I say to you that we are
hand in hand with this, though the freight railroads have had
success in some areas, they also are dealing with the same
issues of trying to get that spectrum, particularly in areas
where the spectrum is already grabbed.
Mr. Shuster. And are you working--is APTA working with the
Energy and Commerce Committee? I do not know what your----
Mr. Giulietti. The answer would be yes, we have our
petitions in, and there is a letter that is already in.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. Mr. Manion, can you talk about that
spectrum issue? And is it accurate, that Class I's have
purchased a chunk and they have what they need?
Mr. Manion. Congressman Shuster, yes, I would be glad to.
The four Class I's, the four major Class I's, originally
purchased spectrum, 220 megahertz spectrum, and it remains to
be seen how much additional spectrum needs to be purchased. We
are more than willing to share what we have. And we all
recognize that, in the end, we all need--we need to have enough
for everyone to operate, obviously those, in addition to the
four Class I's.
So, as we move along--and this is one of the things that
makes it necessary that we really be guarded about the timeline
it takes to get all this done. How much spectrum is really
going to be needed? And then, from an interoperable standpoint,
how do we develop all that is necessary? How do we make sure
that we have got all our technology in order to ensure that the
interoperability actually works?
Mr. Shuster. Right.
Mr. Manion. We have got some great plans and ideas, but
this is something that has not been done. So it puts this very
much in question, as far as the timeline goes.
Mr. Shuster. So we were wrong in the cost, we do not know
how much spectrum we need, and the interoperability, we are not
sure if it is even going to work when we put it together?
Mr. Manion. I could not state it better.
Mr. Shuster. Mr. Victor, question for you on the cost. Has
anybody done a study on what it would cost the short lines to
implement this? And I know not all of them necessarily have to
do it. But has there ever been a study who would have to do it,
what kind of cost?
You made a remark that was 92 percent of your capital
investment would have to go toward PTC.
Mr. Victor. Yes, 92 percent relates to the 4 roads in our
group.
Mr. Shuster. I am sorry, the what?
Mr. Victor. Relates to the four railroads owned by
Anacostia Rail Holdings in order to be PTC-compliant. And that
estimate is based on two component parts: one, kind of the
broader, freight-based system, which is GPS-based; and the
other, to be compatible with the northeast corridor, since New
York and Atlantic operates adjacent to what is northeast
corridor territory. And we have a cost, really, for just arming
locomotives. So in our cost is not the fixed network, it is
just arming locomotives.
Generally speaking, the figure outside of the northeast
corridor is somewhere around $40,000 to $60,000 per unit. And,
in addition, if you are going to install it on physical
segments of short lines on top of that, you will have the cost
associated with each physical point you would have to wire in.
And by the time you get through, right now the CAPEX history of
PTC expenditures for all short lines is roughly zero. I mean,
in terms of cash out.
But yet, the short lines, as an industry, across the board,
excluding PTC, I just received a note that, industry wide, our
CAPEX is running about 30 percent of gross revenue. So, we are
heavily reinvesting in our properties, to make sure--and,
again, getting back on focus, we have all the physical issues
that have been discussed.
But at the end of the day, going forward, in, really, in
step with a lot of concerns is we need to go forward, but
ultimately there has to be a source of funding to pay for it.
Mr. Shuster. All right. Thank you. Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. Thank you. Ms. Strang, you indicated earlier
that we obligated all of the grant money program. Perhaps you
need to go back and visit with the agency, because my
understanding that only a half of it has been awarded, and no
one has received the funds. And so we need an update.
And I want to put it in the record, because I think this is
very important. I mean we are talking--people are talking about
calling money back, and we really need the money out in the
fields, doing what we intended--for it to happen.
Ms. Strang. Yes, ma'am. I will get back to you for the
record.
[The information follows:]
De-obligation of the grant funds would have a
significant adverse impact on the resolution of known
technical issues that have already been identified. As
I indicated earlier, since the grant funds are only
actually paid out as reimbursements in response to
submitted invoices for grant work accomplished, there
will be funds that were awarded, but not actually
provided to the grantee. Loss of these funds would
automatically preclude completion of the grant tasks,
leaving critical technical issues unresolved. Since the
grant projects were specifically chosen to address PTC
technical issues shared by multiple railroads, the
failure to complete the grant projects will affect the
ability of multiple railroads to implement PTC in a
timely manner, as well as further increase the overall
PTC system implementation costs as individual railroads
undertake independent and duplicative efforts to
resolve the technical issues.
Ms. Brown. OK. Let me move on. The RRIF loan program.
Commuter railroads claim that--and this is probably with the
RRIF loan program, I know that we had a hearing recently on
it--and has any commuter or short line railroads approached FRA
about applying for the loan program for the purpose of the PTC?
Ms. Strang. Yes. We have had pre-application discussions
with four railroads, with Canadian Pacific, with Denton County,
and we had some discussions with New York Metropolitan Transit
Authority. However, they have recently decided that they did
not want to pursue a loan for PTC. They were going to pursue it
for the East Side Access project.
Ms. Brown. Can you give us a status of the retrofit of
replacement camp cars?
Ms. Strang. Yes. We have issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking that covers all of the retrofit issues on camp cars,
so--including addressing issues such as drinking water,
showers, toilets, sleeping rooms, placement of the cars so that
they are not in noisy environments or dangerous environments,
where people could be exposed to hazardous materials releases
or other such things.
The comment period closed on March 4th, and we will be
issuing a final rule as quickly as we can.
Ms. Brown. Mr. Manion, do you want to respond to that?
Because I think your railroad is the only one that still has
camp cars.
Mr. Manion. Congresswoman Brown, we still do have camp
cars. In fact----
Ms. Brown. And I understand the staff visited the very nice
ones.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Manion. Well, and we appreciate you recognizing that.
We have gone to a lot of expense to retrofit our camp cars.
They have essentially all been rebuilt, with the exception of a
handful. We have got almost 300 active units now, and where
they were 8-person occupancy cars, they are now 4-person.
And what we find is that our employees, for the most part--
and we even take surveys on this type of thing--our employees
prefer to stay in the cars, because it takes--it cuts down on a
lot of what they would otherwise be traveling long distances to
get to hotels when they are out on the road, and out in the
middle of nowhere in many cases. So they work very successfully
for us. We do not use them exclusively, but we do use them to a
large degree.
Ms. Brown. OK. Mr. Pierce, do you want to respond to that?
Mr. Pierce. I would probably have to defer to my
maintenance brothers, but the version that I get from them
would vary from Mr. Manion's comments slightly. And I am not
sure they are that wild about the camp cars.
Ms. Brown. OK. Mr. Giulietti, I heard yesterday from
Metrolink and Metro about your testimony here. They are
concerned that you are taking the position of delaying the PTC.
You want to respond to that?
Mr. Giulietti. Yes, I would. We have 27 commuter rail
properties, and they are all in various stages of trying to
implement as many of the safety networks available. What has
happened is we sat down, as a commuter rail industry, and we
have been talking this. And that is why I think you heard in my
testimony that we are extremely supportive of the Metrolink,
and would like to see any available Federal funds move there,
because they are trying to not only meet the mandate, but to be
more aggressive than that and get it in by 2012.
We need them to be successful. Their success--because what
we are afraid of is we do not want to be caught in a position
of investing in unproved technology. We want them to prove that
the technology will work. And that is why we are asking for a
little bit of relief in time. We truly appreciate the position
they are in. They are afraid that asking, as an industry, is
going to take us out of the PTC request. As you have heard
here, there is not a freight railroad or, for that matter, a
public railroad that is asking for any relief from going
forward with the PTC. It is a matter of trying to rationalize
it and wait for the technology to get there.
So, I would like to say that I understand their concern. We
have listened to their concern. We are on the phone with them.
We have tried to craft it out so that we are extremely
supportive of them. But understand that we also have an
industry issue, in that we cannot afford right now to make
investments that might not go the right way.
Ms. Brown. My understanding they have received a grant but
just have not gotten it yet for safety, to implement the
program.
Mr. Giulietti. I am being advised that that was State
money, it was not Federal money that they had gotten to go
forward.
Ms. Brown. OK.
Mr. Giulietti. I do not know the answer, beyond that.
Ms. Brown. OK. Well, thank you very much. I think this has
been a great hearing.
Mr. Shuster. I have a couple more questions. Mr. Pierce, I
wanted to get your opinion on PTC, and what is BLET's position
on PTC, and should we go forward, should we delay it? What are
your thoughts?
Mr. Pierce. Thank you, Chairman. We have been advocating
some form of positive train control for decades. Technology
that would save a life--we heard a very compelling testimony
from the child of one of the decedents in the Chatsworth
accident, and it kind of puts this whole thing into context for
me, that any time you can save a life--and technology could do
that--we have to advocate that we get the technology. So,
sooner than later is what we have been asking for.
I have actually ridden the ETMS technology on BNSF. I think
it is a very good product. I think it will prevent what we have
discussed earlier with the exceeding the authority red signal
violations. And in doing so, I think it will dramatically make
it almost avoidable, would be the good word, as far as
collisions that we are out here actually trying to stop.
So, we are in favor of it. I know that there are
discussions with FRA and the carriers on the when and the how--
the how fast and who pays for it. We have been advocating it
for years, and we are going to continue to.
Mr. Shuster. Well, and I think everybody that sat here is
not saying do not do it, they are saying let's do it in a
reasonable way that we do not take away from other safety
issues.
Because, I mean, do you agree with what they had said about
some of the safety in the rail--making sure that we are
replacing rail, so it is not broken and cracked, and things
like that? I mean, doesn't that have an impact on--a
significant impact on safety, where you are concerned?
Mr. Pierce. There are many aspects of the safety program,
and it is obvious that it is all a finance issue. And I
understand the prioritization of where they put the money. But
at the same time, the dramatic outcome of the catastrophic
event of a collision like Chatsworth I think kind of drives it
toward having a higher priority, in our opinion.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. Question on a different subject--
well, I guess the same subject, but--the de minimis exception
for TIH traffic. What does AAR believe is a meaningful
exception on that? Ed--or Mr. Hamberger or Mr. Manion?
Mr. Manion. Well, the de minimis exception is something
that we would like to see put in place, and we have had
conversations with FRA about that. And, you know, it will be
good if we can get to the point where allowance is made so that
the various portions of the railroad that have much lighter
density of TIH traffic will be accepted from the PTC
requirement.
But the larger issue is that that still represents, even if
we get those kind of exceptions, even if we get the change on
the map to a more extended period of time, that still only
reduces the amount of PTC and the amount of cost by a
relatively small amount, 20 percent perhaps. So, in our
estimation, there is a lot that needs to be done beyond that to
take a more rational look at the scope of PTC that is put out.
Mr. Hamberger. And to be fair, Mr. Chairman, the FRA did
have a de minimis provision, both for passenger and for TIH--
they did not call it de minimis for passenger--limited
operations. And there were some restrictions in the rule with
respect to TIH that we have been talking with the FRA about,
and we will be addressing that in our petition, which I am told
will be ready in about 3 weeks.
Mr. Shuster. Three weeks. Mr. Giulietti, I see you shaking
your head. You want to comment on that exception? I know it is
not----
Mr. Giulietti. Several of the passenger systems met with
the AAR and the freight railroads. We understand their position
on this. We have been very supportive of it. We understand that
there needed to be an upgrading of that map, so that it indeed
took that into consideration.
The focus has been on where the passenger systems are, and
that is why I wanted to say that, yes, I can say that we are
very supportive on that issue, because it does require--or it
does put it in a position that they can focus on those areas
where the passenger side of it is much more the pressing need.
Mr. Shuster. All right. Thank you very much. And I would
ask that Mr. Manion and Mr. Giulietti and Mr. Victor--that is a
good Irish name, isn't it, Giulietti, it is fitting on Saint
Patrick's Day----
Mr. Giulietti. My mother's name is Moran. I would have worn
a green tie, but you know----
Mr. Shuster. I would ask that the three representing--Mr.
Manion, Mr. Giulietti, and Mr. Victor, if you could, supply to
the committee a detailed safety implementation--things that you
are--that you believe would add safety to the railroad, to your
operations. As we talked a little bit about before, the more
detail I get, the more specifics--I prefer to have specifics,
because you know, talking about broad safety issues does not
usually cut it around here.
The other thing is safety projects that are being delayed
because of PTC. You know, not something that 5 years ago you
delayed, but something that you specifically said, ``Look, we
are not going forward with this, because we have got to put
money in the bank to make sure we are prepared, as we move
forward,'' I would appreciate if you could, in the next week or
so, provide that to the committee.
And, Ms. Strang, I would urge you to listen to what the
President is saying. We are going to reduce regulation,
regulation that is--does not have a cost benefit, that is
stopping companies--railroads, in this case--from spending
money on things that would have an impact on safety and moving
forward. I would encourage you to heed the President's word.
Every time he says it, I perk up and listen to him. And then I
wait for another regulatory agency to come forward with some
type of regulation that is going to cost money and jobs and
stop this economy from moving forward.
And, Ms. Strang, I will give you the final word if you want
to respond to me.
Ms. Strang. I would be delighted to. We are very committed
to reviewing our regulations and being consistent with the
President's Executive order. We have had very good discussions
with the AAR, and believe that we can find a way forward that
is acceptable, both to the public and to the railroads, and is
consistent with safety.
So, we will be working hard on our notices of proposed
rulemaking and awaiting a petition.
Mr. Shuster. I would just like you remind you that Mr.
Sunstein made this the poster child----
Ms. Strang. We are very well aware.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Shuster. OK. Just wanted to remind you. All right.
Again, I thank everybody for coming today and participating. I
thought I lost my gavel again, but thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]