[Senate Hearing 113-209]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-209
POWER OUTAGE ON METRO-NORTH'S NEW HAVEN LINE: HOW TO PREVENT FUTURE
FAILURES ALONG PASSENGER RAIL'S BUSIEST CORRIDOR
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
AND MERCHANT MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE,
SAFETY, AND SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 28, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
87-089 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking
BILL NELSON, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK WARNER, Virginia DAN COATS, Indiana
MARK BEGICH, Alaska TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TED CRUZ, Texas
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts JEFF CHIESA, New Jersey
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
James Reid, Deputy Staff Director
John Williams, General Counsel
David Schwietert, Republican Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND MERCHANT MARINE
INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY, AND SECURITY
MARK WARNER, Virginia, Chairman ROY BLUNT, Missouri, Ranking
BARBARA BOXER, California Member
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK BEGICH, Alaska DAN COATS, Indiana
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii TED CRUZ, Texas
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 28, 2013................................. 1
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 1
Witnesses
Jim Himes, U.S. Representative, Fourth Congressional District,
Connecticut.................................................... 3
Elizabeth Esty, U.S. Representative, Fifth Congressional
District, Connecticut.......................................... 5
Howard Permut, President, MTA Metro-North Railroad............... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Craig Ivey, President, Consolidated Edison Company of New York... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
James P. Redeker, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of
Transportation................................................. 13
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Otto Lynch, P.E., Fellow, Structural Engineering Institute,
American Society of Civil Engineers............................ 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Hon. Christopher Murphy, U.S. Senator from Connecticut........... 48
John Hartwell, Member, Connecticut Commuter Rail Council......... 54
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Joseph H. Boardman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Amtrak 59
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Joseph McGee, Vice President, The Business Council of Fairfield
County......................................................... 62
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Appendix
Letter dated October 25, 2013 to Senator Jay Rockefeller from
Robert A. Mezzo, Mayor, Bourough of Naugatuck.................. 73
Letter dated October 25, 2013 to Senator Jay Rockefeller from
Neil M. O'Leary, Mayor, The City of Waterbury.................. 74
Letter dated October 25, 2013 to Senator Jay Rockefeller from
Samuel S. Gold, AICP, Acting Executive Director, Council of
Governments, Central Naugatuck Valley.......................... 75
Response to written questions submitted to Howard Permut by:
Hon. Richard Blumenthal...................................... 75
Hon. Christopher Murphy...................................... 76
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Richard
Blumenthal to Craig Ivey....................................... 77
POWER OUTAGE ON METRO-NORTH'S NEW
HAVEN LINE: HOW TO PREVENT FUTURE
FAILURES ALONG PASSENGER RAIL'S BUSIEST CORRIDOR
----------
MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and
Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Bridgeport, CT.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
Bridgeport City Council Chambers, Bridgeport City Hall, Hon.
Richard Blumenthal, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. I am very pleased to call to order this
field hearing of the United States Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, a field hearing that I would like
to thank Senator Rockefeller, our Chairman, for permitting us
to hold here in Bridgeport, Connecticut. I thank him and the
staff of the Commerce Committee for their excellent planning
and to Jeff Long of my staff, and I thank the City of
Bridgeport for hosting us here this morning.
This hearing is really prompted by the breakdown in service
that occurred on September 25, barely more than a month ago, in
the Mount Vernon area. But it is really the result of much
broader and deeper problems that have manifested themselves
over many years and that are the subject of complaints to me,
repeated complaints to me and I suspect to many of my
colleagues and elected officials who are here this morning, and
I thank them very much for being here.
Let me just take one comment from a Westport commuter who
wrote to me, quote, ``Enough is enough. The outage due to the
electrical problem obviously is a major failure, one for which
the cause should be determined and the appropriate people held
responsible.'' But the fact is that this is only the latest
manifestation of the serious service deterioration that Metro-
North riders have been putting up with for some time.
When I'm asked why we are having this hearing, I think that
letter from a Westport commuter sums it up as well as anything
I can say. The fact of the matter is that I was dismayed and
frustrated and outraged as much as that commuter and others by
the 12-day service disruption caused by Con Ed's failure to
carry out its work and prepare adequately for the possibility
of a large-scale power outage.
We're here today as part of a continuing fact finding and
investigation that I intend to carry on beyond this hearing,
because it has larger implications for service not only in the
Northeast, but throughout the country. The fact of the matter
is that this outage and disruption in service was due either to
inadequate management or insufficient funding in necessary
equipment, infrastructure, and other essentials, or both.
The failure to plan for this kind of contingency and
provide backup sources of power was a failing that we cannot
permit to be repeated. It simply cannot recur. So the goal
today is not only to hold accountable whoever was responsible,
but also to make sure that it's prevented in the future.
This hearing will focus closely on Con Edison and the
particular equipment that was permitted to last beyond its
normal design life, specifically the feeder cable that was 36
years old, 6 years over its recommended use. But it will also
focus on Metro-North and others who could and should have
planned for the contingency that occurred to avoid this
disruption.
My hope is that there will be lessons learned, enabling us
to avoid this kind of occurrence in the future. I'll be
interested to learn whether Federal regulations should be
strengthened, regulations of the Federal Railway
Administration. The May 17 derailment which preceded this
breakdown in service and caused disruption on the same line
involved requirements for electrical maintenance and other
kinds of maintenance that perhaps were involved here as well.
We're going to be exploring whether Metro-North and similar
railroads should be required to have backup sources as a matter
of the Federal Railway Administration's requirements.
One point is very clear, and that is that Con Ed should be
reimbursing Metro-North, Amtrak, and others for all the costs
that occurred in this service outage--$2 million a day is
estimated to have been the cost for Metro-North, $62 million in
costs to Connecticut's economy, and other costs incurred by
riders and commuters. So that kind of reimbursement ought to be
a given.
Another question is whether Amtrak should be doing more.
Its contribution over the last 10 years of $64 million to
upgrade and improve equipment compared to the $3.2 billion
invested in that infrastructure raises the question about
whether it should be expected to shoulder a fair share.
And perhaps most immediately, and the reason that we have
Commissioner Redeker here, is that there are other substations
along the line in Connecticut, three more now, two more
planned, where the same points of vulnerability may exist.
Those substations are serviced by CL&P and Northeast Utilities
as well as United Illuminating, and we'll want to know at this
hearing or in fact finding to be pursued, whether more has to
be done to make sure that those lines are secure, reliable, and
safe.
Finally, I'm concerned about reports that Con Edison is
understaffed, that the failure to ensure adequate staffing
means that an important operation, maintenance activities, are
not done properly. We know, for example, in the last four years
that Con Edison has cut nearly 17 percent of its full time work
force, even though the company recently testified at the New
York State Public Service Commission hearing that its loads
have grown.
At my and Senator Schumer's request, the New York Public
Service Commission is conducting its own investigation. We will
eagerly await the results of that investigation and also the
investigation, apparently, that Con Ed is doing on its own. I'm
disappointed that Con Ed so far has not provided the
preliminary review that's mentioned in a September 30 New York
Times article. If that review is available, I ask that it be
provided to the Committee.
I hope that we can anticipate the continued cooperation of
both Con Ed and Metro-North, as well as others who are
represented here today. And I want to thank them for being here
today to give us the benefit of what they have found so far.
Our first panel is composed of two of our elected
representatives, two Members of Congress, who represent the
individuals who are affected most immediately, United States
Congressman Jim Himes and United States Congresswoman Elizabeth
Esty.
Thank you so much for being here today. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JIM HIMES, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, FOURTH
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, CONNECTICUT
Mr. Himes. Good morning, Senator Blumenthal, and thank you
very much for holding this hearing here in Bridgeport. I'm
delighted to be joined by my colleague, Elizabeth Esty, a
member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of
the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as by any number of
state-elected officials, municipal officials, and, of course,
representatives of Metro-North and Con Edison.
I'm happy you're holding this hearing, because this is the
second time in 6 months that my constituents in the Fourth
District of Connecticut and your constituents, Senator, have
had both their safety and their economic well-being put at risk
by crumbling infrastructure. You and I visited the scene of a
very dangerous accident just two miles up the road here, where,
thank God, there was no loss of life. But it could have, as we
acknowledged at the time, been much worse.
One month after the outage that inconvenienced and did
economic damage to many of our constituents, we reflect on what
went wrong and how the problem was handled. It is important
that we achieve total clarity regarding what occurred and how
it can be avoided in the future.
It is also clear we must re-review plans for redundant
power during maintenance projects. We owe it to the 125,000
travelers who ride Metro-North every day to do our best to
ensure these kinds of prolonged outages do not occur again in
the future.
Just as important as accountability is understanding that
this outage underscores the urgent need to invest in our aging
transportation energy and infrastructure. Talk to any one of
the business groups in this area, and they will tell you that
one of the--perhaps the main reason why businesses find it
difficult to move into the area is the aging infrastructure,
the difficulty of moving employees around and getting them to
their places of work. This is something that is essential
economically for Fairfield County and, frankly, for Connecticut
as a whole.
Between last year's power outages that left passengers in
sweltering heat, this year's train derailment caused by
unstable rails and loose embankments, and now this wide scale
power outage, it is clear that there is more we can and must do
to bring our national infrastructure into the 21st century.
According to Transportation for America, today, in
Connecticut's Fourth District, over 40 percent of our highway
and roadway bridges are either structurally deficient or
functionally obsolete and in dire need of repair.
This represents, like all that we've talked about in the
rail world, both an unacceptable lack of transportation
efficiency and a dangerous public safety concern. It is clear
that we need to commit long-term Federal, state, municipal, and
private sector funding to infrastructure improvement.
Infrastructural neglect compromises our safety. Nearly 45
percent of the 34,000 annual U.S. highway fatalities occur in
crashes where substandard road conditions, obsolete designs, or
roadside hazards were a factor. The train derailment on the
Bridgeport-Fairfield border this spring is just the latest
reminder of the very real danger of failing to invest in our
transportation infrastructure.
As a father and a husband, I worry about the safety of my
family on Connecticut's highways and railroads. And, of course,
I worry about the safety of each and every one of my
constituents. As a representative of the citizens of the Fourth
District of Connecticut, I will do everything I can to prevent
future accidents caused by inadequate infrastructure.
There's a lot of work we need to do. But I remain
optimistic that we can get the job done. With so much at stake,
with safety and with jobs and with the economic vitality of
this region at stake, we simply cannot afford not to make these
crucial investments in our outdated infrastructure. In the
weeks and months ahead, as we continue investigating the recent
power outage, I hope we can begin a long needed discussion on
making a down payment for our safety and in Connecticut's
economic vibrancy by investing in transportation and energy
infrastructure that is in dire need of repair.
This process, of course, will be to some degree about
accountability, and it's important that we understand what
happened and who was responsible for avoiding what happened.
But at the end of the day, our infrastructure is in the
position that it is in because all of us, from the Federal to
the state to the municipal to the private sector, have not been
adequate stewards of this essential life blood of our economy.
So I look forward to working with Metro-North, Amtrak, Con
Edison, with you, Senator, and with my colleagues at the
Federal, state, and municipal level to make sure that we have a
region that is economically vibrant and safe for our
constituents in the 21st Century. Thank you.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Congressman Himes.
Congresswoman Esty?
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ESTY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, FIFTH
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, CONNECTICUT
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal, for chairing this
hearing here today. And I want to thank and acknowledge Senator
Murphy, who I know will be joining us, Representative Himes and
all of our colleagues in the Connecticut delegation, and all
the state and local officials who are here today for our
continued collaboration and work on this matter on behalf of
the citizens of Connecticut.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the power
outage along Metro-North's New Haven Line. As Representative
Himes underscored, and you did, yourself, Senator, the
disruption around the New Haven Line is unacceptable and an
avoidable failure that caused significant damage both to our
state's economy and to people's lives.
The analysis conducted by the Connecticut Department of
Economic and Community Development estimates the incident cost
the Connecticut economy $62 million and reduced state revenues
by $2 million and, beyond that, interrupted lives of
approximately 62,500 Metro-North commuters over the eight work
days that work was suspended. Many of these people depend on
reliable rail service for their livelihoods. In this day and
age, it is simply inexcusable for the loss of one feeder cable
to an electrical substation to impose such a costly burden on
our state and on its residents.
As a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee and especially as a member of the Rail Subcommittee,
I've called on my colleagues in the House to hold similar
hearings, because it is a matter of critical importance both
for our state and for our country. When our transportation
infrastructure fails, negative consequences cascade across
state boundaries.
In this case, the service disruption on Metro-North also
harmed Amtrak customers and disrupted travel for customers all
along the entire Northeast Corridor. The failure of the Con
Edison electrical line shows how one vulnerable piece of
infrastructure can threaten service reliability on a massive
scale across our state and beyond. That's why this hearing is
so important and why I will continue to urge the House
Subcommittee on Railroad to hold its own hearing.
This concern is especially timely because my committee will
soon be addressing legislation reauthorizing Amtrak, and that
deliberation must be informed by a clear understanding of
Amtrak's infrastructure needs. The only way we can prevent
service failures like this one from happening again is to
understand what caused them in the first place. Only then will
we be able to make the necessary investments and policy changes
to ensure reliable service both for commuters in Connecticut
and for the growing ranks of rail passengers nationwide.
To that end, I'd like to make three broad points. First,
the investments ahead for Amtrak, especially along the
Northeast Corridor, are going to be significant. I'm sure Mr.
Boardman and Commissioner Redeker will cover this in greater
detail. But just consider the following facts.
In 2012, Amtrak's total traction power consumed almost 940
million kilowatt hours at a cost of $92 million. The 25 Hz
network powering service from New York to Washington, D.C., was
installed between 1910 and 1938. This equipment is long overdue
and in need of replacement.
Amtrak's state of good repair program identifies equipment
that will directly affect train delays in the event of a
failure and either rehabilitates or replaces that equipment
first. Still, it will take continued and significant investment
to get the energy substations along that route to a state of
good repair.
Second, I believe passenger rail is a good investment, and
that continuing to improve Amtrak's service on the Northeast
Corridor will bear enormous positive returns over time.
Ridership is at an all-time high, with 46 percent growth along
the Northeast Corridor since 1998. Amtrak's operating profit
along the Northeast Corridor was $308 million last year. On-
time performance is improving, and Amtrak is the least energy
intensive mode of travel when measured in terms of BTU per
passenger mile.
Third, Congress must also evaluate the service providers on
whom Amtrak and Metro-North rely. Amtrak and Metro-North cannot
provide reliable service to commuters unless partners like Con
Edison are also reliable. Metro-North didn't damage the
electrical cables in question, and it wasn't a lack of Federal
investment that caused Mount Vernon substation to fail. That's
why we need to consider the roles and responsibilities of
utilities like Con Edison to prevent these kinds of failures.
There are troubling indications of woefully insufficient
standards and practices that exposed our transportation system
and our constituents to unacceptable risk. Senator, as you have
already referenced, in the last four years, Con Edison has cut
nearly 17 percent of its full time workforce, even though loads
have increased.
It's my understanding that in the wake of Superstorm Sandy,
reports were filed with Governor Cuomo's Moreland Commission
that expressed concerns regarding insufficient staffing levels.
These concerns were reflected in the Moreland Commission's
final report which recommended that, quote, ``Utilities should
review existing staffing levels and evaluate the impacts of an
aging workforce on their ability to respond to a major event.''
It would be inexcusable if, after the findings of the
Moreland Commission, low staff levels either contributed to the
New Haven Line outage or hindered Con Edison's ability to
respond. I hope Mr. Ivey addresses these concerns.
This outage should never have happened. We owe it to our
constituents to get to the bottom of what happened. And we owe
it to our country to have the kind of 21st Century
transportation system in which this will not happen again.
Thank you, Senator Blumenthal, for inviting us here to
testify, and I look forward to hearing from the other
witnesses.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you both. Thank you for being
here today. Thank you for your leadership, and I know that you
are very directly concerned and involved in these issues. I
really thank you for your very thoughtful and insightful
testimony here today. Thank you very much.
I know that you have other engagements, and you'll have to
leave before the conclusion of the hearing. But you being here
is very, very important. Thank you very much to both of you.
Our next panel will consist of Howard Permut, President of
MTA Metro-North Railroad; Craig Ivey, President of Consolidated
Edison; James Redeker, Commissioner of the Connecticut
Department of Transportation; and Otto Lynch, a Fellow of the
Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of
Civil Engineers. My thanks to each of you for being here today.
I'm going to dispense with an elaborate lengthy introduction of
each of you because I think you're well known to me and other
members of the Committee.
Perhaps we can begin with you, Mr. Permut.
STATEMENT OF HOWARD PERMUT, PRESIDENT,
MTA METRO-NORTH RAILROAD
Mr. Permut. Good morning Senator Blumenthal and members of
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
My name is Howard Permut, President of Metro-North Railroad,
and I thank you for holding this critically important hearing
today. I would also like to thank Congressman Himes and
Congresswoman Esty for speaking here this morning. As the
elected representatives of our customers who travel on the New
Haven Line in the state of Connecticut, I value their input and
perspective.
Between September 25 and October 7, service on Metro-
North's New Haven Line was severely curtailed when the only in-
service electric feeder cable that was providing power to a
critical eight-mile section of the line failed. For those 12
days, the Nation's busiest commuter railroad corridor was cut
in two, crippling both the New Haven Line and Amtrak's
Northeast Corridor service and resulting in very limited and,
at times, difficult transportation options for these customers.
The electric feeder that failed is one of two feeder cables
that connect to a Metro-North substation in Mount Vernon. That
substation then converts the electricity it receives from Con
Edison's system to a voltage that can be used for the
railroad's traction power needs. On September 25, one feeder
was already offline to advance work to modernize and expand the
capability of that substation.
Prior to taking the feeder offline, Metro-North and Con Ed
had many discussions of how to best accomplish the work. We
assessed the risk of only having one feeder in service. Part of
that assessment included prior history of performance and
preparation.
In 2006, Metro-North reconfigured this same substation to
enable one feeder to be taken out of service while continuing
to provide sufficient traction power from the remaining single
feeder so that Con Ed could do work elsewhere on its system.
After Metro-North's reconfiguration was completed, we were able
to operate without any problem on one feeder for a total of 38
days while Con Ed performed their work. We also operated on one
feeder during this past summer, a good test of performance,
giving us more confidence in our ability to provide service.
Nevertheless, on September 25, something went wrong in the
freeze pit where work was being done by Con Ed, and the
railroad's service plan was insufficient to meet our customers'
needs. Craig Ivey and I both agree that our companies will
redouble efforts to ensure that we are better prepared in the
future.
As soon as the power failure occurred, the employees of
both companies sprang into action. At Metro-North, our goal was
to provide as much service as possible as soon as possible. Con
Ed began working on providing an alternate power source.
The truth is that there is no alternative transportation
service that can carry 132,000 daily customers. Initially,
through a combination of diesel trains and buses, we could
provide 33 percent of a regular New Haven Line schedule. Con
Edison was able to reengineer, secure, and install a temporary
power source, allowing us to operate a limited number of
electric trains.
With that assistance, we were able to increase the number
of trains to approximately 50 percent to 60 percent of a full
schedule. In addition, our partners at the state and local
level, as well as our colleagues at New York City Transit,
helped us create a robust park-and-ride program, with a total
of 8,600 free park-and-ride spaces at four sites in the Bronx
and Westchester County. We also added rail cars on the Hudson
and Harlem trains during this disruption.
Ultimately, these options provided service alternatives for
approximately 70 percent of our customers. Throughout the
disruption, we worked constantly to communicate with our
customers through the use of our website, e-mail alerts,
station and train announcements, social media, press releases
and press conferences. Customer service representatives were on
hand to provide assistance on the phone and in person at
stations.
After Con Edison completed their work on the new feeder
line, our service was finally restored on Monday, October 7.
Restoring the service was nothing short of a herculean effort
by everyone involved at both Metro-North and Con Ed. I want to
personally thank these men and women, all of whom worked
tirelessly in performing such a monumental task in trying to
deliver service to our customers during this difficult period.
We recognize the hardship that this event caused our
customers, and because of the unparalleled magnitude and
duration of this disruption, the MTA Board authorized Metro-
North to credit a future ticket purchase for New Haven Line
customers holding monthly or weekly tickets valid for travel
during this period. This credit can be applied between now and
March 31. Mail and Ride customers will have the credit
automatically deducted from the price of their December monthly
ticket.
Con Edison is conducting an investigation into what caused
the feeder to fail. In addition, the New York State Department
of Public Service is conducting an independent analysis of what
happened, what went into planning the work and both Metro-
North's and Con Ed's response. Metro-North will participate
fully in this analysis.
But the reality is that power supply is only one area of
the New Haven Line infrastructure that requires attention. For
example, there are four moveable bridges in the state of
Connecticut, all of which are more than a century old, that
need replacement. And while our maintenance forces work hard to
keep them safe for train operation and functioning as a movable
bridge, they must be replaced in the coming years. If not, we
could be facing a disruption just as significant as the one we
just experienced for a far longer period of time.
Governor Cuomo has recognized the need to invest in
transportation. As a result, New York State has provided $4.8
billion in direct funding to all public transportation in the
state, with $4.3 billion going to support the services provided
by the MTA. This is more than 46 other states combined. In the
last 10 years, the State of Connecticut has also invested $3.2
billion in the New Haven Line infrastructure and rolling stock.
Yet despite this level of self-help, the fact is that
Federal investment in mass transit and Amtrak is simply
insufficient to address our current state of good repair needs,
let alone to build redundancy and contingency. This critical
underfunding of our public works and infrastructure has to
change. We look forward to working with you to increase the
investment necessary for maintaining the rail infrastructure in
a state of good repair.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today,
and I welcome any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Permut follows:]
Prepared Statement of Howard Permut, President,
MTA Metro-North Railroad
Good morning Senator Blumenthal, Senator Murphy and members of the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. My name is
Howard Permut, President of Metro-North Railroad and I thank you for
holding this critically important hearing. I would also like to thank
Congressman Himes and Congresswoman Esty for speaking here this
morning. As the elected representatives of our customers who travel on
the New Haven Line in the state of Connecticut, I value their input and
perspective.
Between September 25 and October 6, service on Metro-North's New
Haven Line was severely curtailed when the only in-service electric
feeder cable that was providing power to a critical 8-mile section of
the line failed. For those 11 days, the Nation's busiest commuter
railroad corridor was cut in two, crippling both the New Haven Line and
Amtrak's Northeast Corridor service and resulting in very limited and,
at times difficult, transportation options for these customers.
The electric feeder that failed is one of two feeder cables that
connect to a Metro-North substation in Mount Vernon. That substation
then converts the electricity it receives through Con Ed's system to a
voltage that can be used for the railroad's traction power needs. On
September 25, one feeder was already off-line to advance work to
modernize and expand the capability of that substation.
Prior to taking the feeder off-line, Metro-North and Con Ed had
many discussions of how to best accomplish the work. We assessed the
risk of only having one feeder in service. Part of that assessment
included prior history of performance and preparation. In 2006, Metro-
North reconfigured this same substation to enable one feeder to be
taken out of service while continuing to provide sufficient traction
power from the remaining single feeder so that Con Ed could do work
elsewhere on its system. After Metro-North's reconfiguration was
completed, we were able to operate without any problem on one feeder
for a total of 38 days while Con Ed performed their work. We also
operated on one feeder during this past summer--a good test of
performance, giving us even more confidence in our ability to provide
service.
Nevertheless, on September 25, something went wrong in the ``freeze
pit'' where work was being done by Con Ed and the railroad's service
plan was insufficient to meet our customers' needs. Craig Ivey and I
both agree that our companies will redouble efforts to ensure that we
are better prepared in the future.
As soon as the power failure occurred, the employees of both
companies sprang into action. At Metro-North, our goal was to provide
as much service as possible as soon as possible. Con Ed began working
on providing an alternate power source.
The truth is there is no alternative transportation service that
can carry 132,000 daily customers. Initially, through a combination of
diesel trains and buses, we could only provide 33 percent of a regular
New Haven Line schedule. Con Ed was able to re-engineer, secure and
install a temporary power source, allowing us to operate a limited
number of electric trains. With that assistance, we were able to
increase the number of trains to approximately 50 to 60 percent of a
full schedule. In addition, our partners on the state and local level,
as well as our colleagues at New York City Transit, helped us create a
robust park-and-ride program--with a total of 8,600 free park-and-ride
spaces at 4 sites in the Bronx and Westchester County. We also added
rail cars on Hudson and Harlem Line trains during this disruption.
Ultimately, all these options provided service alternatives for
approximately 70 percent of our customers.
Throughout the service disruption, we worked constantly to
communicate with our customers through the use of our website, e-mail
alerts, station and train announcements, social media, press releases
and press conferences. Customer service representatives were on hand to
provide assistance on the phone and in person at stations.
After Con Edison completed their work on the new feeder line, our
service was finally restored on Monday, October 7. Restoring the
service was nothing short of a herculean effort by everyone involved at
both Metro-North and Con Ed. I want to personally thank these men and
women, all of whom worked tirelessly in performing such a monumental
task in trying to deliver service to our customers during this
difficult period.
We recognize the hardship that this event caused our customers and,
because of the unparalleled magnitude and duration of this disruption,
the MTA Board authorized Metro-North to credit a future ticket purchase
for New Haven Line customers holding monthly or weekly tickets valid
for travel during this period. This credit can be applied between now
and March 31. Mail&Ride customers will have the credit automatically
deducted from the price of their December monthly ticket.
Con Edison is conducting an investigation into what caused the
feeder to fail. In addition, the New York State Department of Public
Service is conducting an independent analysis of what happened, what
went into planning the work and both Metro-North's and Con Ed's
response. Metro-North will participate fully in this analysis.
But the reality is that power supply is only one area of the New
Haven Line infrastructure that requires attention. For example, there
are four moveable bridges in the state of Connecticut--all of which are
more than a century old--that need replacement. And while our
maintenance forces work hard to keep them safe for train operation and
functioning as a movable bridge, they must be replaced in the coming
years. If not, we could be facing a disruption just as significant as
the one we just experienced for a far longer period of time.
Governor Cuomo has recognized the need to invest in transportation.
As a result, New York State has provided $4.8 billion in direct funding
to all public transportation in the state, with $4.3 billion going to
support the services provided by the MTA. This is more than 46 other
states--combined.
In the last 10 years, the State of Connecticut has also invested
$3.2 billion in the New Haven Line infrastructure and rolling stock.
Yet despite this level of self-help, the fact is that Federal
investment in mass transit and Amtrak is simply insufficient to address
our current state of good repair needs--let alone to build redundancy
and contingency. This critical underfunding of our public works and
infrastructure has to change. We look forward to working with you to
increase the investment necessary for maintaining the rail
infrastructure in a state of good repair.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and I
welcome any questions you have.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Permut.
Mr. Ivey?
STATEMENT OF CRAIG IVEY, PRESIDENT, CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY
OF NEW YORK
Mr. Ivey. Good Morning, Senator Blumenthal. My name is
Craig Ivey, and I am the President of Con Edison of New York,
the utility which provides electric, gas, and steam to the City
of New York and parts of Westchester County. I want to thank
you for the opportunity to participate in this morning's
hearing. I would also like to recognize Senator Murphy,
Congressman Himes, and Congresswoman Esty for their ongoing
engagement in this issue.
Before I begin, I want to express on behalf of Con Edison
that we clearly recognize the hardships endured by Metro-
North's commuters during the train service interruption and
regret the set of circumstances that led to the disruption. And
I want to make clear to this panel, as well as to Metro-North
riders, that we are committed to doing everything within our
role to support the MTA to prevent anything like this from
happening again, particularly as the agency's substation
project moves forward.
I also want to commend our employees and Metro-North
employees, who reacted so quickly and professionally in this
emergency to restore partial service, and then full service, to
the New Haven line.
On September 13, 2013, one of the two Con Edison
transmission lines, or feeders, serving the Metro-North New
Haven Corridor was taken out of service at Metro-North's
request to accommodate work they were conducting at their Mount
Vernon substation. To clarify, this is Metro-North's
substation, not Con Edison's substation. The feeder was
scheduled to be out of service from September 13, 2013, until
October 13 so that the line could be repositioned and
reconnected to their new equipment in Mount Vernon.
On Wednesday, September 25, at 5:22 a.m., the remaining in-
service feeder cable failed and caused a total loss of power
supply to Metro-North's Mount Vernon substation. A preliminary
review indicates that the feeder fault was related to our work
on the scheduled feeder shutdown. I will go into greater detail
shortly.
Within a few days of the feeder failure, Con Edison
successfully erected a temporary substation at the Harrison
station to provide enough power to allow for the partial
restoration of Metro-North service on September 30. This was an
innovative, unconventional, and ultimately successful effort to
transform low voltage, residential 13,000 volt power into
higher voltage, 27,000 volt power, for the train line.
On October 3, we were able to reconnect and reenergize the
138,000 feeder that had been removed from service at Metro-
North's request 10 days sooner than scheduled. This
reconnection allowed Metro-North to return to its regular
commuter schedule on Monday, October 7. Our crews worked around
the clock to expedite repairs to the failed feeder, which was
reenergized on October 19, returning the Metro-North supply to
its normal configuration of two transmission feeders.
We are conducting a thorough review of the cause of the
feeder failure to understand how this incident occurred and
prevent it from happening again. The New York Public Service
Commission is also conducting its own independent review.
High-voltage transmission feeders are housed in oil-filled
pipes. As a result, removing these feeders from service is a
complex process. We have to freeze the insulating oil in the
pipe within a freeze pit in order to contain the oil.
We located the fault on the failed feeder just outside of
the freeze pit work area. We found that the ground surrounding
the work area was frozen, which we believe contributed to the
failure.
Having completed these freeze operations for decades,
approximately 20 times a year, we have no records of a
condition of this nature developing at any other time. Our
investigation will include a forensic analysis of the cable,
the pipe, and the surrounding work area to help pinpoint the
cause.
It is important to note that Con Edison continuously
assesses the condition of its underground feeder cables with
respect to possible degradation due to aging. Over the past
several years, several sample sections of cable similar in
construction to those supplying the Metro-North Railroad have
been subjected to in-depth engineering evaluations. These
evaluations and our experience with these cable systems
indicate that the condition and performance of the cable is
primarily a function of the thermal and electrical stresses to
which the cable is subjected as opposed to the age of the
cable.
Con Edison recognizes how critical Metro-North service is
to the New York-Connecticut area. Con Edison bears an equally
monumental responsibility in powering our dynamic region. This
is why we are having extensive discussions with Metro-North
regarding their future substation replacement work and the need
to ensure that this type of event does not happen again.
Thank you, and I look forward to taking your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ivey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Craig Ivey, President,
Consolidated Edison Company of New York
Good morning Senator Blumenthal. My name is Craig Ivey and I am the
President of Con Edison of New York, the utility which serves electric,
gas and steam to the City of New York and parts of Westchester County.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to participate this morning's
hearing. I would also like to recognize Senator Murphy, Congressman
Himes and Congresswoman Esty for their ongoing engagement in this
issue.
Before I begin, I want to express on behalf of Con Edison that we
clearly recognize the hardships endured by Metro-North's commuters
during the train service interruption and regret the set of
circumstances that led to the disruption. And I want to make clear to
this panel, as well as to Metro-North riders, that we are committed to
doing everything within our role to support the MTA to prevent anything
like this from happening again, particularly as the agency's substation
project moves forward.
I also want to commend our employees, and Metro-North employees,
who reacted so quickly and professionally in this emergency to restore
partial service, and then full service, to the New Haven line.
On September 13, 2013, one of the two Con Edison transmission
lines, or feeders, serving the Metro-North New Haven corridor was taken
out of service at Metro-North's request to accommodate work they were
conducting at their Mount Vernon substation. To clarify, this is Metro-
North's substation, not Con Edison's substation. The feeder was
scheduled to be out of service from September 13, 2013 until October
13, at the request of Metro-North, so that the line could be
repositioned and reconnected to their new equipment in Mount Vernon.
On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 at 5:22 a.m. the remaining in-
service feeder cable failed and caused a total loss of power supply to
Metro-North's Mount Vernon Substation. A preliminary review indicates
that feeder fault was related to our work on the scheduled feeder
shutdown. I will go into greater detail shortly. Within a few days of
the feeder failure, Con Edison successfully erected a temporary
substation at the Harrison station to provide enough power to allow for
the partial restoration of Metro-North service on September 30. This
was an innovative, unconventional and ultimately successful effort to
transform low voltage, residential (13kV) power into higher voltage
(27kV) power for the train line.
On October 3, we were able to reconnect and re-energize the 138kV
feeder that had been removed from service at Metro-North's request.
This reconnection allowed Metro-North to return to its regular commuter
schedule on Monday, October 7.
Our crews worked around-the-clock to expedite repairs to the failed
feeder, which was re-energized on October 19, returning the Metro-North
supply to its normal configuration of two transmission feeders.
We are conducting a thorough review of the cause of the feeder
failure to understand how this incident occurred and prevent it from
happening again. The New York Public Service Commission is also
conducting its own independent review. High-voltage transmission
feeders are housed in oil-filled pipes. As a result, removing these
feeders from service is a complex process. We have to freeze the
insulating oil in the pipe within a ``freeze pit'' in order to contain
the oil.
We located the fault on the failed feeder just outside of the
``freeze pit'' work area. We found that the ground surrounding the work
area was frozen, which we believe contributed to the failure. Having
completed these freeze operations for decades--approximately 20 times a
year--we have no records of a condition of this nature developing at
any other time. Our investigation will include a forensic analysis of
the cable, the pipe and surrounding work area to help pinpoint the
cause.
It is important to note that Con Edison continuously assesses the
condition of its underground feeder cables with respect to possible
degradation due to aging. Over the past several years, several sample
sections of cable similar in construction to those supplying the Metro-
North Railroad have been subjected to in-depth engineering evaluations.
These evaluations and our experience with these cable systems indicate
that the condition and performance of the cable is primarily a function
of the thermal and electrical stresses to which the cable is subjected
as opposed to the age of the cable.
Con Edison recognizes how critical Metro-North service is to the
NY-CT area. Con Edison bears an equally monumental responsibility in
powering our dynamic region. This is why we are having extensive
discussions with the Metro-North regarding their future substation
replacement work and the need to ensure that this type of event does
not happen again.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Ivey.
Commissioner Redeker?
STATEMENT OF JAMES P. REDEKER, COMMISSIONER, CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Redeker. Good morning, Senator Blumenthal. Thank you
for this chance to testify. I am Jim Redeker, the Commissioner
of the Connecticut Department of Transportation, and I am also
the current Chair of the Northeast Corridor Commission. I'm
honored to have the opportunity to discuss the power outage on
the Metro-North New Haven Line, the impacts it had on the
Northeast Corridor, and the need to ensure investments in the
infrastructure to sustain this critical transportation and
economic driver in the region and for the entire Northeast
Corridor.
For over 160 years, the New Haven Line has been an
essential transportation and economic link between Manhattan,
the northern suburbs of New York City, and the cities in
southwestern and central Connecticut. The New Haven Line is
also critical to the entire Northeast Corridor, linking Boston
to New York and Washington.
The New Haven Line is the single busiest rail line in North
America. Over 39 million passengers are served by Metro-North
annually on the commuter system, and an additional 3 million
intercity passenger trips are served by Amtrak. The ridership
performance is record setting, indicating the attractiveness
and importance of the New Haven Line to Connecticut, to New
York, and the entire region.
The State of Connecticut plays a unique role in the
Northeast Corridor, since the state owns 46 miles of the
Northeast Corridor infrastructure between New Haven and the New
York border, as well as three branch lines. In total,
Connecticut owns 235 track miles on the Northeast Corridor and
branches.
As the owner, Connecticut has invested significant state
and Federal resources to upgrade the rail infrastructure,
including track, catenary, and bridges. Connecticut has funded
the replacement of 405 New Haven Line electric passenger
vehicles and the construction of related maintenance facilities
to support that fleet.
As a result of the state's investment, progress toward a
state of good repair has been strong. In the last 10 years,
Connecticut has invested over $3.2 billion in the New Haven
Line, and out of that, two-thirds or $2 billion has been funded
by state bond funds, while the remainder is Federal Transit
Administration rail formula or discretionary funding.
Unfortunately, even this amount of funding is not enough to
address the infrastructure upgrades or improvements necessary
for the New Haven Line. And Connecticut is not alone in
addressing the backlog of investment in infrastructure. The
Northeast Corridor relies on over 1,000 bridges and tunnels,
many of which were constructed a century ago and are in
desperate need of replacement or repair.
Key segments of the Northeast Corridor are operating at or
near capacity, such as the Hudson River tunnels between New
York and New Jersey, which carry 70,000 riders a day and have
no space for additional trains during rush hour. Major
components of the Northeast Corridor electrical and signaling
systems date back to the 1910s, making service on the corridor
highly susceptible to malfunctions and delay.
Major investments in the corridor are essential to reduce
delays, achieve a state of good repair, and build capacity for
growth. In 2010, the Northeast Corridor infrastructure master
plan estimated that the corridor required $2.6 billion in
annual expenditures over 20 years, or $52 billion total, to
achieve a state of good repair and build infrastructure capable
of supporting passenger rail demand forecast for 2030.
Investment levels over the past several decades have been
critical in supporting the Northeast Corridor's enviable record
of continuous safe operation, but have barely covered the cost
of normalized replacement of basic components. They fall far
short of the levels needed to address repair backlogs and meet
future needs. The Northeast Corridor Commission is currently in
the process of developing an updated capital investment plan
for the corridor that will address the needs of freight,
commuter, and intercity services.
The New Haven Line receives power from four substations.
The substation in Mount Vernon, New York, which experienced the
failure on September 25 is the single point of power between
Pelham and Harrison, New York.
In Connecticut, there are three substations that provide
power for the New Haven Line. These are designed so that if one
substation is offline, the others can provide redundant power.
In addition, Connecticut is constructing two new substations,
one in New Haven and one in Cos Cob. With the addition of these
two new substations, there will be additional power to support
the expansion of service with the new M8 rail fleet and provide
complete redundancy in Connecticut to power the New Haven Line
if any of the substations is offline.
These projects are scheduled to be completed by the end of
the calendar year. They provide an example of the proactive
strategic investments Connecticut is making to upgrade the New
Haven Line and support future improvement and expansion of
service for all users of the line.
Unfortunately, on September 25, there was an unprecedented
failure of the power supply at the substation in Mount Vernon,
New York. The substation was undergoing a planned necessary
upgrade, but a failure of a feeder cable left the New Haven
Line without power in a critical section of New York. As a
result, no Metro-North or Amtrak electric trains operated,
leaving well over 130,000 customers without train service, and
for 11 days, the Nation's busiest rail line was crippled.
Impacts to New York and Connecticut customers and
businesses had a compelling economic impact that cannot be
simply modeled. The impact on people's livelihood and mobility
was profound. While we don't know what caused the failure, we
certainly know that thousands of people were without the
critical service, and we obviously need to do everything
possible to avoid a similar incident from occurring again. To
that end, we await feedback from Con Edison so critical lessons
learned might be included in all future projects.
I want to take a moment to reflect on the efforts to
provide service during the 11 days without Mount Vernon
substation in service. As soon as the incident occurred,
Connecticut DOT was in direct contact with Metro-North to
initiate the delivery of substitute services. Recognizing there
is no solution that can provide full capacity of the New Haven
Line, the MTA, Metro-North, and Connecticut DOT developed and
implemented substitute rail, bus, and park-and-ride options
that provided the most service that could possibly be delivered
during the repair period.
With the ultimate addition of temporary power by Con
Edison, substitute services ultimately were able to provide
options for an estimated 85 percent of normal weekday New Haven
peak ridership. The immediate response by Governor Malloy to
urge people to find alternatives, telecommute, or stay home was
instrumental in the ability to manage this crisis. Consistent
and thorough updates on the progressive addition of service
were also communicated, and, above all, customers and other
citizens rose to deal with the crisis and deserve a great deal
of credit as they coped through this long service impact.
The impact that this outage had resulted in an
unprecedented action by the MTA board of directors to authorize
a credit to customers. The action is not something that should
be taken lightly, but it was clearly due to a once in a
lifetime failure that had an extraordinary impact. In fact,
this singular action is not recommended for the ongoing
business practices that govern the New Haven Line.
The New Haven Line, as part of the Northeast Corridor, is a
critical transportation and economic system. The line has seen
and will continue to see significant investments in ongoing
maintenance and system upgrades. Its performance as the busiest
rail commuter line in the country is exceptional. On average,
it delivers consistent, high-quality, reliable service that
exceeds 95 percent on-time performance.
The quality of the system is improving consistently with
the rapid delivery of new rail cars, upgraded power supply and
catenary systems, new stations, and new parking. Those
investments have also seen the implementation of the most
significant additional weekday and weekend services in the
history of the line. The results are proven by the growth in
ridership in all markets in this region and for trips along the
Northeast Corridor.
Thank you for your time. I'll be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Redeker follows:]
Prepared Statement of James P. Redeker, Commissioner,
Connecticut Department of Transportation
Good morning Senator Blumenthal, Senator Murphy, and members of the
Subcommittee. I am Jim Redeker, Commissioner of the Connecticut
Department of Transportation (CTDOT). I am also the current Chair of
the Northeast Corridor Commission. I am honored to have the opportunity
to discuss the power outage on Metro-North's New Haven Line (NHL), the
impacts it had on the Northeast Corridor (NEC), and the need to ensure
investments in the infrastructure to sustain this critical
transportation and economic driver in the region and for the entire
Northeast Corridor.
New Haven Line--Infrastructure and Investments
For over 160 years, the New Haven Line has been an essential
transportation and economic link between Manhattan, the northern
suburbs of New York City and the cities in southwestern and central
Connecticut. The New Haven Line is also critical to the entire
Northeast Corridor, linking Boston to New York and Washington. The New
Haven Line is the single busiest rail line in North America. Over 39
million passengers are served by Metro-North annually on the commuter
system, and an additional 3 million intercity passenger trips are
served by Amtrak. The ridership performance is record-setting,
indicating the attractiveness and the importance of the New Haven Line
to Connecticut, to New York and to the entire region.
The State of Connecticut has a unique role on the NEC, since the
State owns 46 miles of the NEC infrastructure between New Haven and the
New York border as well as three branch lines. In total, Connecticut
owns 235 track miles on the NEC and three branch lines. As the owner,
Connecticut has invested significant state and Federal resources to
upgrade the rail infrastructure, including track, catenary and bridges.
Connecticut has funded the complete replacement of 405 New Haven Line
electric passenger vehicles (M8 rail cars) and the construction of
related new maintenance facilities to support that fleet. As a result
of the State's investment, progress toward a State of Good Repair has
been strong. In the last 10 years, Connecticut has invested over $3.2
billion in the NHL. Of that, two-thirds, or over $2 billion has been
funded by state bond funds, while the remainder is Federal Transit
Administration rail formula or discretionary funding.
Unfortunately, even this amount of funding is not enough to address
the infrastructure upgrades or improvements necessary for the New Haven
Line. And Connecticut is not alone in addressing the backlog of
infrastructure investments. The NEC relies on over 1,000 bridges and
tunnels, many of which were constructed over a century ago and are in
desperate need of replacement or repair. Key segments of the NEC are
operating at or near capacity, such as the Hudson River Tunnels between
New York and New Jersey, which carry over 70,000 riders daily and have
no space for additional trains during rush hour. Major components of
the NEC's electrical and signaling systems date back to the 1910s,
making service on the Corridor highly susceptible to malfunctions and
delay. Major investment in the Corridor is essential to reduce delays,
achieve a state-of-good-repair, and build capacity for growth. In 2010,
the NEC Infrastructure Master Plan (Master Plan) estimated that the
Corridor required approximately $2.6 billion in annual expenditures
over twenty years ($52 billion total) in order to achieve state-of-
good-repair and build infrastructure capable of supporting passenger
rail demand forecasts for 2030. Investment levels over the past several
decades have been critical in supporting the NEC's enviable record of
continuous safe operation but have barely covered the costs of
normalized replacement of basic components. They fall far short of the
levels needed to address repair backlogs and meet future needs. The NEC
Commission is currently in the process of developing an updated capital
investment plan for the NEC that will address the needs of freight,
commuter and intercity services.
New Haven Line Power
The New Haven Line receives power from four substations. The
substation in Mount Vernon, New York which experienced the failure on
September 25, 2013 is the single point of power between Pelham and
Harrison, New York. In Connecticut, there are three substations that
provide power for the New Haven Line. These are designed so that if one
substation is off line, the others can provide redundant power. In
addition, Connecticut is constructing two new substations--one in New
Haven and one in Cos Cob. With the addition of these two new
substations, there will be additional power to support the expansion of
service with the new M8 rail fleet and provide complete redundancy in
Connecticut to power the New Haven Line if any of the substations is
off line. These projects are scheduled to be completed by the end of
this calendar year. These projects are an example of the proactive,
strategic investments Connecticut is making to upgrade the New Haven
Line and support the future improvement and expansion of service for
all the users of the line.
Power Outage
Unfortunately, on September 25 there was an unexpected failure of
the power supply at the substation in Mount Vernon, New York. The
substation was undergoing a planned, necessary upgrade, but the failure
of a feeder cable left the New Haven Line without power in the critical
section in New York. As a result, no Metro-North or Amtrak electric
trains could be operated, leaving well over 130,000 customers without
train service. For eleven days, the Nation's busiest rail line was
crippled. The impacts to New York and Connecticut customers and
businesses had a compelling economic impact that cannot be simply
modeled. The impact on people's livelihood and mobility was profound.
While we do not know what caused the failure, we certainly know
that thousands of people were without this critical service, and we
obviously need to seek to do everything possible to avoid a similar
incident from occurring again. To that end, we await feedback from Con
Edison so that critical lessons learned might be included in all future
projects of this kind.
Customer Service
I want to take a moment to reflect on the efforts made to provide
service to customers during the eleven days without the Mount Vernon
substation in service. As soon as the incident occurred, Connecticut
DOT was in direct contact with Metro-North to initiate the delivery of
substitute services. Recognizing that there is no solution that can
provide the full capacity of the New Haven Line, the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA), Metro-North and CTDOT developed and
implemented substitute rail, bus and park/ride options that provided
the most service that could possibly be delivered during the repair
period. With the ultimate addition of temporary power by Con Edison,
the substitute services ultimately were able to provide options for an
estimated 85 percent of normal weekday New Haven Line peak ridership.
The immediate response by Governor Dannel Malloy to urge people to
find alternatives, telecommute or to stay home was instrumental in the
ability to manage this crisis. Consistent and thorough updates on the
progressive addition of service were also communicated. Above all,
customers and other citizens rose to deal with the crisis and deserve a
great deal of credit as they coped through this long service impact.
The impact that this outage had resulted in an unprecedented action
by the MTA Board of Directors to authorize a credit to customers. This
action is not something that should be taken lightly, but it was
clearly due to the once-in-a-lifetime failure that had an extraordinary
impact. In fact, this singular action is not recommended for the
ongoing business practices that govern the New Haven Line.
Summary
The New Haven Line, as part of the Northeast Corridor, is a
critical transportation and economic system. The line has seen, and
will continue to see, significant investments in ongoing maintenance
and in system upgrades. Its performance, as the busiest rail commuter
line in the country, is exceptional. On average, it delivers
consistent, highly reliable service that exceeds 95 percent on-time
performance. And the quality of the system is improving consistently
and rapidly with the delivery of all new rail cars, upgraded power
supply and catenary systems, new stations and new parking. Those
investments have also seen the implementation of the most significant
additional weekday and weekend services in the history of the line. The
results are proven by the growth in ridership in all markets in this
region and for trips along the entire Northeast Corridor.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Commissioner.
Mr. Lynch, thank you for being here today. I know you've
submitted lengthy testimony, and all of the testimony is going
to be made part of the record along with the exhibits that you
submitted. So let me suggest that you summarize your testimony
this morning. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF OTTO LYNCH, P.E., FELLOW,
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING INSTITUTE,
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Mr. Lynch. My name is Otto Lynch, and I'm a member of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, and I'm currently serving
on their Committee on America's Infrastructure, representing
the energy division. The ASCE would like to commend you for
having this hearing today on the power outages and the larger
issues related to the need for power delivery redundancy and
improved reliability for the nation's electric grid.
Virtually all infrastructure systems, from trains and
traffic lights, to clean drinking water delivery and wastewater
disposal, rely on electricity. This hearing today, on the eve
of the anniversary of Superstorm Sandy, serves as an important
reminder of just how vulnerable we are and how quickly one
event can have a crippling effect on our communities when we
are not adequately prepared.
I am here to testify not on the specific events, but on the
big picture questions to keep them from happening again here or
anywhere in America. Our infrastructure is the foundation on
which the national economy depends, yet it is taken for granted
by most Americans. Most of us do not notice until the road is
closed, the water stops running, the lights go out, or the
commuter trains quit working.
ASCE's 2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure graded
the Nation's infrastructure a D+. This is based on 16
categories and found that the Nation needs to invest
approximately $3.6 trillion by 2020 across those sectors to
maintain the national infrastructure in good condition. The
energy category also received a D+ in the 2013 Report Card.
To update just our energy systems would cost $736 billion
between now and 2020. Unfortunately, we are only on schedule to
spend $629 billion. That leaves an investment gap of $107
billion.
America relies on an aging infrastructure, electrical grid,
and pipeline distribution systems, some of which originated in
the 1880s. This interconnected system includes power plants, a
transmission grid, and distribution networks. The transmission
grid forms the critical link between generation infrastructure
and the distribution of electricity to households and
businesses. Like our interstate highway system, failing to
maintain adequate investment in this national asset has created
congestion and the inability for power to flow efficiently from
point A to point B.
At one time, the U.S. had the best electric grid in the
world. Unfortunately, that is no longer true. Aging equipment
has resulted in an increasing number of intermittent power
disruptions as well as a vulnerability to cyber attacks. It is
my understanding that in this specific case, the underground
transmission line was 36 years old and was only designed for 30
years.
Reliability issues are also emerging due to the complex
process of rotating in new renewable energy sources and
retiring our older energy sources. According to a recent report
by the Executive Office of the President of the United States,
``Economic Benefits of Increasing Electric Grid Resilience Due
to Weather Outages,'' severe weather is the leading cause of
power outages in the United States.
The Edison Electric Institute reports that while
transmission system outages do occur, over 90 percent of the
outages occur along distribution systems. With respect to the
failures in our distribution systems, The National Electrical
Safety Code, which is adopted by all states except California,
currently exempts all utility structures less than 60 feet
tall, or distribution structures, from meeting the loads
normally required in extreme weather for other structures.
Structures greater than 60 feet tall, transmission
structures, must meet the minimum ASCE requirements. The only
storm hardening that structures less than 60 feet tall must
meet was last revised in 1941, and the minimum load was
actually decreased at that time.
Florida Power and Light began a storm hardening program in
2007 that included a significant decision to design all
structures, regardless of height, according to the ASCE
standards. As a result, in May 2013, it was announced that
Florida Power and Light's experience with the recent tropical
storms shows main power lines that have been hardened are
roughly half as likely to experience an outage during severe
weather.
On the transmission side, congestion at key points in the
electric transmission grid has been rising over the last five
years, which raises concerns with distribution, reliability,
and cost of service. This congestion can lead to system-wide
failures and unplanned outages. As we saw with the blackout of
2003 and other recent blackouts, these outages are not only an
inconvenience, but they put public safety at risk and increase
costs to consumers and businesses. The ASCE has determined that
the average cost of a 1-hour power outage is just over $1,000
for a commercial business.
Although we currently have adequate power generation, we
are shifting to more and more renewable energy sources and also
retiring our coal plants. You don't build a new wind farm on
the side of a retired coal plant. Thus, we are seeing a major
shift in the locations of our power sources. We now have to
transmit electricity from entirely different regions of our
country than we ever have before. I equate it to moving the
fuse panel on your house to the other side. As such, just like
you would have to rewire your house, we are essentially having
to rewire all of America.
We would like to build more transmission lines for
redundancy purposes. But the permitting and siting of these
needed lines, especially when they are redundant, meets very
stiff public resistance, which can result in significant
project delays or even cancellations while significantly
driving up the cost. It shouldn't take 10 or 15 years to permit
a transmission line that only takes less than a year to build.
It shouldn't take five times as much to permit the line as it
costs to build it.
As detailed in the ASCE Failure to Act Study, unless
investment is accelerated, the performance of the U.S. economy
will suffer. Americans will lose jobs. Personal income will
fall. Business productivity will go down, and U.S. exports will
fall. If we invest an additional $11 billion per year from now
until 2020, we can prevent these losses. This investment gap is
not insurmountable. I would venture to say if we could
streamline the permitting process, the annual investment could
be significantly lowered.
There are a number of solutions that can help ensure that
the Nation's interconnected electric grid remains reliable and
efficient. First, we need to adopt a national energy policy
that anticipates and adapts to future energy needs and promotes
the development of sustainable energy sources, while increasing
the efficiency of energy use, promoting conservation, and
decreasing dependence on fossil fuels as sources are depleted.
Such a policy must be adaptable and scalable to local and state
policy.
Two, we need to provide mechanisms for timely approval of
transmission lines to minimize the time from preliminary
planning to operation. Three, we should design and construct
additional transmission grid infrastructure to efficiently
deliver power from remote geographic locations to developed
regions that have the greatest demand requirements.
Four, we need to encourage the adoption of the same minimum
design standards and storm loads for distribution poles as are
used for transmission poles based on ASCE standards. And,
finally, we need to continue research to improve and enhance
the Nation's transmission and generation infrastructure as well
as the development of technologies such as smart grid, real-
time forecasting for transmission capacity, and sustainable
energy generation which provide a reasonable return on
investment.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lynch follows:]
Prepared Statement of The American Society of Civil Engineers
``The Need to Maintain and Modernize the Nation's Electric Grid''
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)\1\ would like to
commend the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
for holding a hearing on the power outages that recently affected
Metro-North's New Haven line, and the larger issues related to the need
for redundancy and improved reliability for the Nation's electric grid.
Virtually all infrastructure systems from trains and traffic lights, to
clean drinking water delivery and wastewater disposal, rely on
electricity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country's oldest national
civil engineering organization. It represents more than 146,000 civil
engineers individually in private practice, government, industry, and
academia who are dedicated to the advancement of the science and
profession of civil engineering. ASCE is a non-profit educational and
professional society organized under Part 1.501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code. www.asce.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This hearing today, on the eve of the anniversary of Hurricane
Sandy, serves as an important reminder of how vulnerable we are, and
how quickly one event can have a crippling effect on our communities
when we are not adequately prepared.
An Aging Infrastructure System
Our infrastructure is the foundation on which the national economy
depends, yet it is taken for granted by most Americans. Most of us do
not notice until the road is closed, the water stops working, or the
lights go out.
Deteriorating and aging infrastructure is not only an
inconvenience, it financially impacts our families, local communities,
and our entire country. Our inability to keep our infrastructure in
good working condition undermines our Nation's competitiveness and
economic strength.
As stewards of the Nation's infrastructure, civil engineers are
responsible for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of
our vital public works. With that responsibility comes the obligation
to periodically assess the state of the infrastructure, report on its
condition and performance, and advise on the steps necessary to improve
it.
ASCE's 2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure \2\ graded the
Nation's infrastructure a ``D+'' based on 16 categories and found that
the Nation needs to invest approximately $3.6 trillion by 2020 across
those sectors to maintain the national infrastructure in good
condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ www.infrastructurereportcard.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy category also received a grade of ``D+'' in the 2013
Report Card. To update just our energy systems would cost $736 billion
between now and 2020. Unfortunately, we are only on track to spend $629
billion during that time period, leaving an investment gap of $107
billion.
The Report Card highlights the fact that, like everything,
infrastructure has a lifespan. Good maintenance can extend that
lifespan, but not forever, and a lack of maintenance can shorten it.
This is not something that happens dramatically overnight, but a
gradual worsening over time.
Far too many of our infrastructure systems lack the funding needed
for proper maintenance and we continue to see categories that simply
are not seeing the investment to improve day to day performance and
save money in the long-term. The backlog of projects to maintain and
modernize our infrastructure keeps growing.
Conditions of the Nation's Electric Grid
America relies on an aging electrical grid and pipeline
distribution systems, some of which originated in the 1880s. This
interconnected system includes power plants, a transmission grid, and
distribution networks. The transmission grid forms the critical link
between generation infrastructure and distribution of electricity to
households and businesses. Like our interstate highway system, failing
to maintain adequate investment in this national asset has created
congestion and the inability for power to flow efficiently from point A
to point B.
Aging equipment has resulted in an increasing number of
intermittent power disruptions, as well as vulnerability to cyber
attacks. Reliability issues are also emerging due to the complex
process of rotating in new energy sources and ``retiring'' older
infrastructure. According to a recent report by the Executive Office of
the President of the United States, Economic Benefits of Increasing
Electric Grid Resilience to Weather Outages, severe weather is the
leading cause of power outages in the United States.\3\ The Edison
Electric Institute reports that while transmission system outages do
occur, roughly 90 percent of all outages occur along distribution
systems.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Economic Benefits of Increasing Electric Grid Resilience to
Weather Outages, Executive Office of the President (of the Unities
States), August 2013. p. 3 http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/08/
f2/Grid Resiliency Report_FINAL.pdf
\4\ Edison Electric Institute. ``Underground vs. Overhead
Distribution Wires: Issues to Consider.'' Washington, D.C. Accessed
July 22, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Electrical Safety Code,\5\ which is adopted by all
states except California, currently exempts all utility structures less
than 60 feet tall, i.e., ``distribution poles'', from meeting the loads
normally required in extreme weather for other structures derived by
ASCE standards.\6\Structures greater than 60 feet tall, i.e.,
transmission structures, must meet these minimum ASCE standards. The
only `storm loading' that structures less than 60 feet tall must meet
was last revised in 1941, and the minimum load was actually decreased
at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 2012 National Electrical Safety Code, p. 191-203, http://
standards.ieee.org/about/nesc/
\6\ ASCE 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, http://www.asce.org/
Product.aspx?id=2147487569&productid=194395836
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Power and Light (FPL) began a Storm Hardening program in
2007 that included a significant decision to design all structures,
regardless of height, according to the ASCE standard. As a result, in
May 2013 it was announced that ``FPL's experience with the recent
tropical storms shows main power lines that have been hardened are
roughly half as likely to experience an outage during severe weather.''
\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ FPL announces plan to accelerate strengthening of Florida's
electric grid during annual storm drill, May 2, 2013, http://
www.fpl.com/news/2013/050213.shtml
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congestion at key points in the electric transmission grid has been
rising over the last five years, which raises concerns with
distribution, reliability and cost of service. This congestion can also
lead to system-wide failures and unplanned outages. These outages are
not only an inconvenience, but they put public safety at risk and
increase costs to consumers and businesses. The average cost of a one-
hour power outage is just over $1,000 for a commercial business.
In the near term, it is expected that energy systems have adequate
capacity to meet national demands. From 2011 through 2020, demand for
electricity in all regions is expected to increase 8 percent or 9
percent in total, based on population growth and projections from the
U.S. Energy Information Administration. After 2020, capacity expansion
is forecast to be a greater problem, particularly with regard to
generation, regardless of the energy resource mix. Excess capacity is
expected to decline in a majority of regions, and generation supply
could dip below demand by 2040 in every area except the Southwest
without prudent investments.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ASCE, Failure to Act: Economic Impact of Current Investment
Trends in Electricity Infrastructure, 2012, p. 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The permitting and siting of needed transmission lines often meets
with public resistance, which can result in significant project delays
or eventual cancellations while driving up costs. Over three times as
many low-voltage line projects, which are typically built in more urban
areas, were delayed in 2011, compared to high-voltage lines.\9\ The
result is that while new transmission lines are anticipated and
planned, they are not being built due to permitting issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ NERC 2011 Long-Term Reliability Assessment, p. 35
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment for transmission has been increasing annually since 2001
at a nearly 7 percent annual growth rate. For local distribution
systems, however, national-level investment peaked in 2006 and has
since declined to less than the level observed in 1991.\10\
Construction spending has decreased in recent years, although the aging
of local distribution networks, lack of funding for maintenance, and
resulting equipment failures have received public attention and put
pressure on some utilities to make improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Transmission and distribution numbers from Edison Electric
Institute, 2012 Report, table 9-1; generation investment was estimated
from reporting forms of the EIA and Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, with averages applied for investment cost per kilowatt hour
for applicable generating technologies [close up space between lines]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Implications of Continued Underinvestment
In an effort to examine the broader economy's link to the health of
the Nation's infrastructure, ASCE released a series of economic studies
in 2012 that answers a critical question--what does a ``D+'' mean for
America's economic future? The study on energy, Failure to Act: The
Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Electricity
Infrastructure shows that an investment in our Nation's generation,
transmission, and distribution systems can improve reliability, reduce
congestion, and build the foundation for economic growth.
While investments in the transmission sector have been promising
since 2005, unless the investment gap is filled, electricity
interruptions will rise, increasing costs for households and
businesses.
Interruptions may occur in the form of equipment failures,
intermittent voltage surges and power quality irregularities due to
equipment insufficiency, or blackouts or brownouts as demand exceeds
capacity for periods of time. The periods of time can be unpredictable
in terms of frequency and length.
By 2020, there is estimated to be an investment shortfall of $107
billion across generation, transmission and distribution systems needed
to keep up with the projected demand for energy. Shortfalls in grid
investments (transmission and distribution) are expected to account for
almost 90 percent of the investment gap, equaling nearly $95B in
additional dollars needed to modernize the grid.
By 2020, the cumulative costs of service interruptions to
households will be $71 billion, or $565 per household over the period.
Businesses will lose approximately $126 billion.
Thus, the total cost to the U.S. economy will be $197 billion from
now until 2020, and annual costs to the economy will average $20
billion by 2020. These costs are not felt equally across the United
States, with larger cost increases in the South and West.
Unless investment is accelerated, the performance of the U.S.
economy will suffer.
Americans will lose jobs. The U.S. economy will end up with
an average of 529,000 fewer jobs than would otherwise occur by
the year 2020. Impacts will fall heavily on the retail and
consumer spending sectors with a 40 percent drop in employment
in retail, restaurants, and bars as households spend more on
electricity.
Personal Income Will Fall: Personal income will fall by a
total of $656 billion by 2020.
Business productivity will go down. GDP is expected to fall
by a total of $496 billion by 2020.
U.S. exports will fall. The U.S. will lose $10 billion in
exports in 2020, which could grow to $40 billion by 2040. The
hardest hit industrial sectors will be:
Aerospace
Electronic components
Air transport
If we invest an additional $11 billion per year from now until
2020, we can prevent these losses. This investment gap is not
insurmountable.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Moving Forward to Modernize our Nation's Electric Grid
There are a number of solutions that can help ensure that the
Nation's interconnected electric grid remains reliable and efficient:
Adopt a national energy policy that anticipates and adapts
to future energy needs and promotes the development of
sustainable energy sources, while increasing the efficiency of
energy use, promoting conservation, and decreasing dependence
on fossil fuels as sources are depleted. Such a policy must be
adaptable and scalable to local and state policy.
Provide mechanisms for timely approval of transmission lines
to minimize the time from preliminary planning to operation.
Design and construct additional transmission grid
infrastructure to efficiently deliver power from remote
geographic generation sources to developed regions that have
the greatest demand requirements.
Encourage the adoption of the same minimum design methods
and storm loads for distribution poles as are used for
transmission structures derived by ASCE standards.
Continue research to improve and enhance the Nation's
transmission and generation infrastructure as well as the
deployment of technologies such as smart grid, real-time
forecasting for transmission capacity, and sustainable energy
generation which provide a reasonable return on investment.
Conclusion
Electricity is the basis for a competitive U.S. economy and
contributes to the success or failure of American businesses. Our
quality of life also depends on access to affordable and reliable
energy.
Looking ahead in the 21st century, our Nation is increasingly
adopting technologies that will automate our electric grid and help
manage congestion points. In turn, this will require robust integration
of transmission and distribution systems so that the network continues
to be reliable. Investments in the grid, select pipeline systems, and
new technologies have helped alleviate congestion problems in recent
years, but capacity and an aging system will be issues in the long
term.
To compete in the global economy, improve our quality of life and
raise our standard of living, we must maintain and modernize America's
infrastructure and the electric grid.
Appendix
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thank you very much to all
of you. I'm going to begin my questioning with Mr. Ivey, if I
may. Let me just say I appreciate that all of you agree, and I
strongly share the view, that our nation needs to make
additional investments in infrastructure.
As you may know, I proposed a National Railway Trust Fund,
similar to our highway fund, to help provide the funds that are
necessary for that investment. Our nation has been laggard and
lax in making sufficient investments, and so I think we begin
on that common ground.
We begin also, I think, on the common ground that this
failure had costs that are intolerable and disruptive, not only
to the commuters that you serve, but also to freight and our
economy. The ripple effects were far reaching and profound.
Mr. Ivey, speaking about cost, can you commit to us today
that Con Ed will reimburse Metro-North for the refunds that it
has to make to its riders?
Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Senator. Con Edison recognizes the
critical role that this line plays to the New York and
Connecticut area. We also know that adequate contingency plans
are important for critical infrastructure providers, whether
they are water treatment facilities or hospitals.
The MTA has already provided for refunds for customers. We,
as a utility, don't believe our customers should bear the risk
when a customer decides to take one of the feeders out of
service, because we do know that failures can happen. In this
case, it's a very improbable circumstance, but the failure did
occur. But we think it unfair to ask our customers to bear the
risk when a customer takes a piece of equipment out of service
at their request.
Senator Blumenthal. It was your line that failed, was it
not?
Mr. Ivey. Yes, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. And it was your responsibility to
maintain and make sure that line served the substation owned by
Metro-North. Is that correct?
Mr. Ivey. Again, Metro-North requested on September 13 that
one of the two feeders that serve the Mount Vernon substation
be taken out of service to facilitate their upgrade. We were
performing freeze operations in order to facilitate that work
on our feeders. As I said in my testimony, this is a process
that we've done over many years, back decades. The earliest
procedures on this were written back in the 1950s. Our
employees were following time-tested, documented procedures for
these freeze operations.
As I said earlier, we're going to do forensic analysis on
the cable, the pipe, and the work area, to learn what has
occurred here. We think it more likely than not that the freeze
operations contributed to the failure of the in-service feeder.
So that's something, as I said earlier, that the Public Service
Commission of New York is going to review, and they're going to
be part of that investigation.
But, again, it goes back to our customers not bearing the
risk when an individual customer like Metro-North decides to
take one of the two feeders out of service. And we're doing
work--again, it's unfortunate. The circumstances around the
feeder failure is something we've not seen in our history. We
do a number of these operations on an annualized basis, and we
just haven't seen this occur.
Senator Blumenthal. Those two substations were served by
two feeder cables side by side, correct?
Mr. Ivey. That's correct.
Senator Blumenthal. And you've provided me and my office
with a diagram showing the two feeder cables, 38W09 and 38W10,
correct?
Mr. Ivey. That's correct.
Senator Blumenthal. And they were, in effect, right next to
each other, correct?
Mr. Ivey. The freeze pit that you're describing there is--
the dimensions are eight foot by six foot by five foot deep,
and the two feeders coming through that freeze pit, as the
picture you have described--my recollection is that the feeders
are roughly two feet apart. So we're conducting freeze
operations on the one feeder. Inside the freeze pit, we
actually protect the other feeder while we're performing
operations on the one.
Senator Blumenthal. In effect, you surround the feeder
cable on which work is being done with a freeze jacket,
correct?
Mr. Ivey. With a jacket, yes, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. And you pump in the liquid nitrogen to
freeze the cable.
Mr. Ivey. That's correct.
Senator Blumenthal. And in this instance, through whatever
mechanism or dynamic that occurred in the freeze pit, the other
cable suffered damage as a result, correct?
Mr. Ivey. That's correct. It's important to note that
inside the freeze pit--an excavation, if you will, eight foot
by six foot by five foot deep--we protected the other in-
service feeder. So the area where the failure occurred was
outside the freeze pit some five feet below grade, not visible
to any of the workers that were----
Senator Blumenthal. And, normally, there would be no
failing as a result of this procedure. Is that correct?
Mr. Ivey. That's correct. We do----
Senator Blumenthal. And in this instance, the cables --at
least one of the cables, the one that failed, was 36 years old,
correct?
Mr. Ivey. I believe these particular cables were installed
roughly in 1976, Senator, as I recall it.
Senator Blumenthal. And the normal design life is 30 years.
Mr. Ivey. We believe that thermal and mechanical issues are
more correlated to failures of these feeders than age. We've
done engineering evaluations on these cables, and we've pulled
cables out of the field that are of this vintage that are 60
years of age, and we find that the thermal insulation is very
much not degraded at all with an awful lot of life left.
Additionally, as we look back at the performance of these
feeders over 10, 20, 30, 40 years, we tend to see three to four
failures on an annualized basis on a base of around 700 miles
of these sorts of cable systems. So as we look backward, we see
really strong performance of these feeder cables, regardless of
the age. And as we take feeders out and do engineering
evaluations, we don't find degradation of the insulation level
which would be indicative of a potential of a future failure.
Senator Blumenthal. So my belief--and I think a rational
person would conclude--is that the fact that this cable was 6
years beyond its normal design life was a contributing factor,
if not the cause, of perhaps its deteriorating and ultimately
its failing. You would deny that that was a rational and
logical conclusion?
Mr. Ivey. Again, we have to go through the forensic
analysis of the cable, the pipe, and the work area.
Senator Blumenthal. And you're doing that forensic analysis
now?
Mr. Ivey. That starts this week, I believe.
Senator Blumenthal. And when will it be done?
Mr. Ivey. Early November, as I recall, Senator, we'll
finish the analysis on the cable, the pipe. That's our
projected date. But it's important, again, to note that we're
saying it's more likely than not that the operations we were
doing at the freeze pit likely contributed to the cause of the
failure.
I said in my direct testimony we saw freezing of the ground
outside the freeze pit, not visible to the naked eye, five feet
below grade. And I believe, absent this work, we're not talking
about this feeder failure. These feeders have a long history of
very good performance. We've not seen feeder failures on these
feeders. So there's strong performance with these feeders. So,
again, age is not the factor that causes these feeders to fail.
Senator Blumenthal. And I apologize for putting it in sort
of simplistic layman's language. But, in effect, the feeder
cable, 6 years beyond its normal design life, was somehow
impacted by this freezing which caused it to fail. Is there any
other reason that your forensic analysis would disclose other
than that failing being the result of the freezing?
Mr. Ivey. I believe, again, it's more likely than not that
what the forensic analysis will confirm are early indications
that the freeze operations contributed to the failure of the
feeder.
Senator Blumenthal. And are you saying that the fact that
it was 6 years beyond its normal design life was irrelevant or
should be dismissed as a possible cause?
Mr. Ivey. Our experience has indicated that age is not the
factor. It's mechanical and thermal loading of these feeders
that contribute to failure, not--age is not the factor here. In
fact, these feeders, again, that go into the Mount Vernon
substation were installed in 1976. We've not seen any failures
on these feeders.
Senator Blumenthal. But one way or the other, it was your
equipment that failed, correct?
Mr. Ivey. It was, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. So why should you not cover the cost?
Mr. Ivey. Again, this particular failure is something we've
not seen. Our employees were following documented, time-tested
procedures. Again, we want to learn about what happened here by
going through the forensic analysis and gain benefit from the
lessons learned. But we have not seen this sort of phenomenon
before.
I understand this is an absolute inconvenience to the folks
of Connecticut and New York in terms of the impact on this
line. So I'm not minimizing that for a second. But, again, we
have to finish the analysis, confirm what happened here and
why, so we can build those lessons learned into what we do
going forward.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, may I just suggest that my own
view, with all due respect, is that there is an obligation. It
certainly is an ethical, in my view, obligation, if not a legal
obligation, for Con Ed to make whole, to compensate, to
reimburse Metro-North and others who suffered as a result of
Con Ed's failure of equipment.
And it may have been the result of a failure to replace a
feeder cable that was 6 years beyond its normal design life. It
may have had to do with the way the freeze operation was
conducted. But, again, I would urge that you cover the cost.
Let me ask you--did you warn Metro-North about the
potential risk of this operation?
Mr. Ivey. Meaning the freeze operation?
Senator Blumenthal. The potential negative impacts of the
freeze operation that was necessary to enable Metro-North to
work on its station.
Mr. Ivey. To my knowledge, we did not provide any warning
that there was potential impact of the freeze operation. Again,
it's important to note that we've done this 20 times a year
over a long period of time. We have time-tested, well
documented procedures that our employees follow, and we just
haven't seen the freeze operations impact an adjacent feeder.
Senator Blumenthal. So there was no warning to Metro-North
that this freeze operation might have risks of the feeder cable
failing.
Mr. Ivey. Not to my knowledge.
Senator Blumenthal. Was there any preparation in terms of
contingency for the possibility that that feeder cable would
fail and, therefore, in effect, no power would be provided to
the railroad?
Mr. Ivey. In this instance, on September 13, we take out
the one feeder on a scheduled basis in order to facilitate
Metro-North's work at the Mount Vernon substation. We know at
that point that we're down to a single feeder, in a single
contingency situation. Equipment does fail. It's improbable in
this instance. But failures do occur.
I don't know Metro-North's capabilities in terms of diesel
train losses and capability to move passengers along the New
Haven Line. What I do know at that point is we're down to a
single feeder, and equipment does fail. So I would defer to Mr.
Permut at Metro-North regarding their contingency plans for the
improbable instance of a feeder failure.
Senator Blumenthal. There was, in fact, no contingency
plan, correct?
Mr. Ivey. Again, I would defer to Mr. Permut about the
contingency plan in order to move passengers along this line.
After the failure, Senator, as you know, we worked--in about 3
days time stood up a temporary substation at Harrison. Despite
what occurred in advance of the outage, we knew people were
being impacted by the outage to this line.
So we worked very closely with Metro-North and its
engineers, and we essentially built a substation in three days.
And on that Saturday before announcing service levels on
Monday, we tested trains on that line, using residential power
to serve train load. We had a successful test, and we announced
incremental services. So, essentially, we created a contingency
after the outage in order to provide enhanced levels of service
to the line.
Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Ivey, I want to express my
appreciation for the work done by the men and women who work
for you in so quickly reacting and the enormous effort that it
took to construct that temporary station. So my questions are
not without appreciation for the extraordinary effort and time
and, indeed, expense. How much did it cost to construct that
temporary substation?
Mr. Ivey. I don't remember precisely, but in round numbers
around $4 million to stand up that temporary substation.
Senator Blumenthal. $4 million?
Mr. Ivey. Around $4 million.
Senator Blumenthal. And in the diagram that, again, you've
provided my office, that substation is represented by the red
diagram here?
Mr. Ivey. That's correct.
Senator Blumenthal. And that was at a cost of about $4
million. But that substation was unplanned, correct?
Mr. Ivey. That's correct.
Senator Blumenthal. So the plan, in effect, had to be done
on the fly in reaction to this massive outage that occurred at
3 a.m. on September 25.
Mr. Ivey. That's correct.
Senator Blumenthal. Wouldn't it have been a better practice
either to have a backup or at least to have a plan?
Mr. Ivey. Again, in my view, it would be the responsibility
of Metro-North to determine, in the unlikely event of a single
feeder failing, what the contingency plan would be. What would
be the contingency plan? I would use an analogy, Senator, if
you would allow me. If we had a hospital that had two feeds,
and they asked Con Edison to take one of the two feeders out of
service to upgrade their equipment, we would facilitate that.
Then they would be on one feeder in that instance.
I don't see it as my job to figure out how large their
generator should be, what maintenance and what loads. That's
really--I don't know their business, like I don't know Metro-
North's business. I don't know their capacity to replace
electric trains with diesel trains. And, really, I think I
would have to rely on them to determine their ability to move
people along this really important corridor.
Senator Blumenthal. The contingency plan, in other words,
or the backup system would be solely Metro-North's
responsibility. Is that your view?
Mr. Ivey. We believe--yes, and that Metro-North had a
contingency plan for this improbable event.
Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Permut, was there a contingency
plan?
Mr. Permut. From our perspective, Senator--and I think it's
important that we start with just a little background for a
minute. We had been in discussions between Con Edison and
Metro-North for a number of years in this project, and we had
been discussing risk. As Mr. Ivey indicated, the probability of
an event was extremely low, and that was our understanding as
well. Saying that, it's clear that something went wrong, and
the plans that we had were not sufficient to run the New Haven
Line.
As I said in my testimony, as part of the second part of
this project, as well as on an ongoing basis, we have agreed to
work together to look at what the contingency could be. It's
very clear to us that we are unable to have an adequate service
plan for our customers if we don't have sufficient electric
power.
This is, as was pointed out, the largest electric line in
the country. We cannot come anywhere close to providing the
service that our customers deserve and we'd like to deliver
without having an adequate amount of power. So as we go
forward, we are going to be working together looking at the
question of contingencies tied to the power supply, because we
know that if there's not power, we cannot operate close to a
regular service.
Mr. Redeker testified--and I can explain further if you'd
like--that we are working in Connecticut on providing
electrical redundancy so we can operate service if we lose a
substation. And that's two projects that will be done within a
matter of a few months.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, I'm going to turn to Connecticut
in just a moment.
I should mention, as you can all see, that we've been
joined by my colleague, Senator Murphy, and I'm sure he'll have
some questions, too. I don't mean to monopolize the proceedings
here.
But your point, Mr. Permut, if I can just cut through what
you just said, is that, essentially, there was no plan in this
instance for the Mount Vernon substation, either Dunwoodie or
Washington Street substation, in the event that power was lost.
Mr. Permut. Senator, there was not a plan. And, again, I
would just state that there is no--absent having electrical
power, we cannot provide New Haven Line service.
Senator Blumenthal. But there is the possibility for having
a backup. And I'm going to ask Mr. Lynch in just a moment about
the protocols and what those protocols prescribe for backup
power in this kind of situation. But wouldn't it have been
prudent to have either a backup source of power or at least a
contingency plan, which eventually had to be devised ad hoc on
the fly?
Mr. Permut. Let me respond to that. I think that, clearly,
when we look back, if we had had an alternative source of
power, we would have avoided this--a third source of power
during this operation, we would have avoided this very, very
unfortunate event. To develop that is something, as I
mentioned, again, the parties had talked about. There are
significant costs associated with that. And as you know, and as
you actually stated, we are constantly balancing issues of
spending money on contingency versus spending money--money we
desperately need--to just bring the line into a regular state
of good repair. So that's the type of thought process that we
follow.
The contingency that was set up at Harrison was an
improvement. But understand that because of the nature of the
high-voltage power that New Haven gets--and the best Con Edison
could do, using, as I think Mr. Ivey explained, their network--
that allowed us, after they did all that work, which was
extremely important, to run three trains, electric trains in
that section, at the same time. The normal New Haven Line
schedule requires 10 trains, 10 electric trains. So that's a
contingency, but it's a partial contingency.
Senator Blumenthal. What was the cost of the 12 days of
disrupted service?
Mr. Permut. Senator, we're still calculating that. We have
some preliminary estimates. I would----
Senator Blumenthal. You're making refunds, or at least
you're giving your customers credit.
Mr. Permut. There are refunds, and we lost a significant
number of riders because of the service was--people didn't want
to take the train. We couldn't collect tickets as well because
the trains were so jammed. We also, at extra cost, had a lot of
people doing a lot of work. We had the bussing cost.
So on order of magnitude is between, I would say, $8
million and $12 million, and we are still looking at and will
be gathering that data over the next weeks. We'll see how many
people are asking for the refunds. As you know, we just started
that last week, and we'll be calculating that and we'll be
finalizing that.
Senator Blumenthal. The estimate that I saw was about $2
million a day. Is that wrong?
Mr. Permut. No, no, that's--I'm not sure of the source. Our
estimate right now for the 12 days is between $8 million to $12
million.
Senator Blumenthal. Are you concerned that there may be the
same vulnerability, Mr. Permut, with respect to other
substations that exist in Connecticut?
Mr. Permut. I'm always concerned about the risks we have on
the New Haven Line. We have an old infrastructure. I'm very
concerned about, particularly, the bridges, the catenary
system. The moveable bridges are 120 years old. The catenary
system is 100 years old. So I'm always concerned about that.
With regard to the substations in Connecticut, we have, as
I think Mr. Redeker testified, three substations. They're far
apart. That's historically what the railroad inherited with the
New Haven Line built. So we have in round numbers, Senator, a
substation about every 20 miles between Harrison, New York,
which is where the Con Ed system ends and CL&P starts, and New
Haven.
Over the past years, Connecticut has invested in expanding
that supply system. They've built new substations, and they've
expanded the substations, both for redundancy and so we could
operate more service. The service has grown so dramatically in
the past 30 years.
At this point in time, we have two very important projects
that will give us full--right now, we have redundancy for about
30 miles of the 55 miles between Harrison and New Haven, which
means that if we lost one substation in that 30-mile section,
we could continue to operate. The two projects that Connecticut
is funding, one in Cos Cob and one in New Haven, will give us
full redundancy from Harrison to New Haven for 55 miles.
Senator Blumenthal. And when you say full redundancy, do
you mean a second backup for every substation?
Mr. Permut. I mean if they lose a substation--substations
will typically have more than one feed. So it's not a matter of
losing one feed. It's a matter of losing the substation.
Typically, the way the New Haven Line is built--because it's AC
traction and you have fewer substations. When you look at the
subway, when you look at Metro-North's Harlem and Hudson lines,
you have substations every few miles, and they are designed so
if we lose one substation, which happens, the line can continue
to operate. That's a fairly common occurrence.
On the New Haven Line, it's somewhat different because of,
again, how it was built. So when these two projects are
completed, which should be by the first quarter of 2014, we
will then be able to operate between Harrison and New Haven if
we lose one of the substations completely.
Senator Blumenthal. So if one of the feeder cables fails,
or one of the substations fails, there will be a backup that--
--
Mr. Permut. Yes.
Senator Blumenthal.--will be absolutely reliable.
Mr. Permut. That's right. The power can come from another
substation.
Senator Blumenthal. Do you agree, Commissioner?
Mr. Redeker. Yes, I do. The goal of these two projects is
complete redundancy, and our schedule for that is a little
delayed because we've had to shift resources to the Mount
Vernon area with Metro-North. But we believe that within a
couple of months, we will be completely redundant with those
systems throughout the New Haven Line.
Senator Blumenthal. So as of 2014, there's no possibility
that this kind of breakdown in service could occur for the
reasons that it did in Mount Vernon?
Mr. Redeker. That's correct.
Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Lynch, let me ask you before I turn
to Senator Murphy--the protocol is moving in a direction of
``N-2'', meaning that there are two backups for this kind of
feeder cable, ``N-1'' being the one backup situation. Is that
generally correct, that the recommendation of the American
Society of Civil Engineers is moving in that direction?
Mr. Lynch. In general, in the industry--speaking outside of
ASCE--the industry desires to have an ``N-1'', that is, so that
you can take any line out for service, maintenance, whatever
you need to do. We would love to have ``N-1''. It's hard to
get.
As I mentioned earlier, just to add a line that isn't
needed--it's very hard to go out and tell the public that we're
going to build a new line so that we can have that ``N-2''
contingency--``you mean, it's not going to be used?'' ``Well,
yes, it's going to be used if we need it.'' It's just
impossible to do. The public doesn't want that. They don't want
to pay for it. They don't want to see it. They don't want to
deal with it.
In the case that I'm hearing right here, from what I'm
hearing at this table, it appears to me there was a redundant
system. It's just that one of them was already taken out. Could
there have been a third one? Sure. Who's going to pay for that?
Who's going to permit it? Where can we put that line at? I
don't know the specifics of the exact situation, but that would
be very nice. Is it realistic? I'm not sure.
Senator Blumenthal. When work is done on one cable or one
line, the chances of outage are always there, and the
improbable often happens, correct?
Mr. Lynch. I wouldn't say often. It can happen.
Senator Blumenthal. So prudent planning would dictate that
there be some kind of backup, correct?
Mr. Lynch. Yes. And as engineers, we would love to do that.
Unfortunately, there's cost and everything else that's involved
with doing that, and we have to consider that.
Senator Blumenthal. And the entire New Haven Line, when it
comes to electric power, really is only as strong as its
weakest point, because if the weakest point fails, as we saw in
Mount Vernon, the entire line is crippled, correct?
Mr. Lynch. Yes, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Mr. Lynch. I would like to add, as I sit here, our nation
is running on less redundancy than that railroad is out there.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Senator Murphy?
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER MURPHY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
want to thank you for convening this hearing and having what
has been a laser-like focus on protecting Connecticut consumers
and repairing and upgrading our infrastructure. As a member of
this committee, you have been on top of this crisis since day
one. And having taken the unusual step of bringing the
Committee here to Connecticut shows that you are not giving up
in your efforts to try to learn from the mistakes made here.
I want to thank you for giving me the courtesy of being
able to join the Committee to ask a few questions. And given
that this is really your hearing, Mr. Chairman, I only have a
few. Let me just apologize for being a little late and not
hearing the testimony of my colleagues. But I'm glad that
you've assembled two very esteemed panels to talk about what
happened and what happens going forward.
I have maybe just a few questions to add to yours regarding
the specific situation at hand. I think, Mr. Chairman, you did
a wonderful job of outlining some of the most important
questions about what happened and how we learn going forward.
And then I may have a few broader questions about the fragility
of the line with respect to other potential liabilities down
the line.
First, Mr. Permut, as a lay person who doesn't spend his
time on this committee examining these issues in the depth that
Senator Blumenthal does, can you just explain to me how the
responsibility for investment in electrical infrastructure
along the line and feeding into the line is divided up today
between the MTA and Con Edison? Who takes care of what pieces
of the infrastructure as that arrangement stands today?
Mr. Permut. Let me say that we have arrangements with three
utilities, Con Edison, Connecticut Light and Power, and United
Illuminating. Because of the nature of the high voltage that
comes into the New Haven Line, anything we do has to be done
with the utility, because together we have to plan--if we want
to build a substation or make a change, it has to be consistent
with the feeder network. So there's regular ongoing dialog
between ourselves and the utilities.
The other part of the discussion is between ourselves and
Connecticut, the Connecticut Department of Transportation. And
we make the judgments jointly as to how to spend scarce public
dollars. What are the best investments to be made? We made a
judgment call, as Mr. Redeker pointed out, about four or 5
years ago to invest in the power system in Cos Cob and New
Haven to provide additional power, to provide a level of
redundancy.
So once that decision is made between the parties--and we
will get input from the utilities because that's the only way
we know what's feasible and what it costs--then that project is
implemented either by the State of Connecticut or by Metro-
North staff working with the appropriate utility.
Senator Murphy. So in this case, where you had Con Ed doing
either upgrades or improvements or repair work, how is that
cost distributed, and who pays for that work?
Mr. Permut. Well, in this particular case, we had two
separate contracts. There's a contract with NIPA, who was the
project manager, and then we had a separate agreement with Con
Edison to do the work necessary to allow us to do the work at
the substation. The cost for that is borne by Metro-North in
the agreement with Con Edison.
Senator Murphy. You had some back and forth with Senator
Blumenthal about the improvements that you're going to be doing
along a portion of the line due early 2014 to create
redundancies. And, Mr. Permut, you referred to ongoing
discussions you're having about future options to increase
redundancy, I assume, over the rest of the line. Can you just
talk about what the options are to create redundancies along
the other section of the line?
Mr. Permut. Well, the other section is the section between
Harrison and Pelham, which was powered by this Mount Vernon
substation. And Mr. Ivey and I had agreed--our priority,
obviously, was to get the service back, and then, as Mr. Ivey
mentioned, to bring the second feeder back, which happened
about 10 days ago.
We also agreed that the next step was to review what the
options are to provide additional redundancy in this section
both during the second phase of this project at Mount Vernon as
well as on a permanent basis, since this section will be
different than the rest of the New Haven Line where you'll have
that redundancy. So our engineering people have just started
that discussion, and it would be premature for me to say right
now it's this option or this option or this option.
Senator Murphy. Give me a time frame. Give me a time frame
of when a decision could be made and then, given the potential
options, what the time frame would be for implementation.
Mr. Permut. I think by the end of the year, we'll have a
better sense of what the options are and what the time frame is
that goes with that. I can't give you a good sense on how long
it will take, because each option will have its own time frame
and have its own implications. So we have to jointly look at
that, and I don't want to prematurely say something that would
turn out to be incorrect.
Senator Murphy. Mr. Chairman, if you would allow me to ask
one broader question while I have the panel----
Senator Blumenthal. Sure.
Senator Murphy.--in front of me. What we're really talking
about here is the fact that we have a string that runs from
Boston to Washington, D.C., and in a multitude of different
ways, that string could be cut at any moment by a collision, a
storm hitting a portion of the string, an electrical
disturbance. And any time you cut that string, it essentially
stops or greatly curtails service along the entirety of the
stretch.
And this isn't our only liability. We have numerous other
liabilities. We've talked about the decaying state of the
bridges along the line in Connecticut, which we hope is not the
next shoe to drop.
But here's the broader question. How on earth do we come up
with the financing necessary to prevent the next crisis and the
next interruption in service happening, when, today, our
stretch of rail line is one of the few profitable ones for
Amtrak, throwing off anywhere from $200 million to $300 million
to the rest of the country, and we have a list of $50 billion
worth of repairs along the full extent of the Northeast
Corridor that need to be done over the next 10 to 20 years just
to maintain the state of good repair? It seems to me that we
have to be thinking out of the box in terms of how we come up
with the money to allow you to invest in the kind of work that
you need to do, above and beyond just the work that you're
going to need to do to create redundancies along the electrical
feeder system.
So let me present that question to you, Howard, and then to
you, Commissioner Redeker, to just give us a quick snapshot.
And I know you could talk about this for the entire afternoon.
But what are the financing mechanisms that we need to be
talking about in the United States Congress to try to give you
the resources to make the investments that you know you need to
make and everybody knows you need to make?
Mr. Permut. Senator, let me say I think that that
discussion and the determination of fund sources is one for the
U.S. Senate and for the Congress itself. I don't think it's the
place of myself, either from an expertise standpoint or from a
responsibility standpoint, to really identify within the
national priority how that should be done.
I will say--which is very concerning to us--that the last
time Congress passed a bill, funding for transit was roughly
flat. That bill runs out at the end of next year, and it's
desperately needed, the money for both transit and Amtrak, for
the railroads for transit and Amtrak. That's absolutely a
critical requirement so we can address these needs.
As the operator of the service, we can prioritize what our
needs are. But in the end, it's the funding sources and the
funding partners who will be critical in making that
determination and making that happen.
Senator Murphy. Commissioner Redeker?
Mr. Redeker. Yes, thank you. It is a national dilemma, and
I think that it's important to recognize that it is something
that is being worked on through the Northeast Corridor
Commission for the Northeast Corridor; certainly by Congress in
terms of reauthorization of important legislation like PRIIA;
and states, as members and, frankly, as operators.
You mentioned that Amtrak makes some profit. But Amtrak has
a huge need from an expense point of view. I think if we look
at existing funding mechanisms, we know that they're inadequate
to do the job that we've identified. And I think actions like
the PRIIA Act that came up with some new solutions about cost
allocation, you know, give us some new tools. But they too will
be inadequate.
What I think is important is that as we plan for the
future, first, we identify a realistic amount of funding
necessary annually to achieve a state of good repair--that's
fundamental to this corridor so that it doesn't have these
flaws--and invest those dollars smartly so that projects that
are replacement or upgrades of an old infrastructure come with
built-in redundancy. Clearly, the impact from storms--
Superstorm Sandy, as we face that anniversary--indicates that
systems with redundancy, different routes, different
alternatives, are important.
We, as part of a national effort for the future of high-
speed rail, are looking at just that issue. Is there an ability
to invest in that existing state of good repair, but also be
looking at redundant or alternative systems to provide those
options in the case of a tragic event or a storm or
unanticipated outage?
So I think if we pick the right number--because if we just
say $52 billion without identifying what that means annually
and where that might come from in any stretch of the
imagination, be that from the operators, from the states, from
the Federal Government--clearly, I think each one of those has
a role to play. And what we've seen in other countries is the
successful investments in a railroad infrastructure come from a
Federal Government. It's a national asset, and the
infrastructure itself is typically funded principally through
the Federal Government.
The capacity of states taking on more obligations is
stretched, just as every other one. That's not going to be a
full solution either. But I think a realistic number worked
through annually is something that, if we put our minds
together, we probably can achieve.
Senator Murphy. I would just respectfully disagree with
you, Mr. Permut. I understand maybe the discomfort that comes
with proposing a policy solution as an operator. But I think
the stakes are so grave here that you and your organization,
knowing your customers and knowing the infrastructure better
than anyone, should have a seat at the table and a leading seat
at the table in proposing solutions. I know that that's not an
easy thing to do when you're just trying to keep a line up and
operating.
Mr. Permut. Well, Senator, if I may, I think what's most
important that we have to do is represent our customers and
inform the dialog as to what's needed and what the implications
are. We do advocate for our customers. We do advocate for the
funding.
What I was addressing, and possibly a little more narrowly
than the question, was which is the best mechanism, be it a gas
tax or something else, increasing the gas tax. I didn't feel,
and I don't feel that it would be Metro-North's role to be
putting forward that type of detail. Clearly, with regard to
what the need is and advocating for the need and advocating for
the customers, we will do that, and we have done that, and we
will continue to do so.
Senator Murphy. Final question to Commissioner Redeker. Let
me just ask a hard question about choices. And you're talking
about allocating enough money for new improvements to make sure
that you build in redundancies. So let me just make sure that
we're doing this right.
You have a certain pot of money that could be used to
increase speed or frequency of travel along an existing line,
or perhaps not make as big an investment in speed and frequency
and instead build a redundant system next to it. Are we always
better off spending the additional money to build redundancy,
or are we better off using that money to increase speed and
frequency and just take the chance that the system may fail for
a couple of hours or a couple of days, but that that will be
offset by the increased delivery to consumers on the day that
the system is running?
And that is not a loaded question. I just think it's a
worthwhile question to ask, given the fact that we do have
limited money, and we're going to have to choose to use it
either on building redundancy or on moving more quickly down
the list of the projects that we know have to be done.
Mr. Redeker. The answer from my perspective is that
building simply a redundant system for the sake of redundancy
is an expense. And I think it's been mentioned that it's
extraordinary when it comes to infrastructure and out of the
question, too expensive for us with the resources we have.
But if we look at smart investments for the state of good
repair, things that also bring travel time improvements,
frequency and capacity improvements, and if we can at the same
time, using the substations in Connecticut as an example,
provide redundancy so that we spend the same dollars or just a
little more when we do an investment to add redundancy, then we
ultimately build a better system. So I think we have to look at
that.
The choices about priorities really do come, for me, from
the proper economic cost-benefit investment scenario. We have
to look at what are the costs and what are the benefits from
every dollar we spend, so we choose to make the right
investments. But I think if we do that and look at better,
faster, cheaper ways to deliver projects, we might be able to
add components like redundancy as we do them.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Senator Murphy.
I want to come back to that larger question that Senator
Murphy asked and really suggest, Mr. Permut and Commissioner
and members of this panel and others, that there really is a
need for leadership in this area. There's a need for specific
proposals.
I urge that there be an infrastructure bank as a means of
providing that financing and, at the very least, that there be
a national rail trust fund, as I mentioned earlier, similar to
the Highway Trust Fund. To be very blunt, your customers, Mr.
Permut, I think, have very little conception about how
deteriorating and aging infrastructure is imperiling their
service and, very possibly, their lives.
They saw it back in May, when a derailment and collision
caused grave injuries to more than 50 people and jeopardized
lives and livelihoods for a substantial period of time. But
they had no idea that the joints connecting two rails were
weakened, and, in fact, the NTSB very likely will conclude that
that infrastructure deterioration or decay was responsible for
the derailment that eventually caused the collision. They had
no idea that feeder cables were going through this maintenance
and work beginning September 13.
So the kind of information and awareness that we're trying
to raise here in this hearing, I think, is very important for
you and other leaders in the industry to raise in the course of
public discussion and dialog. And the same goes for other
members of the panel and others in the industry. So I would
just make that observation, and I take it you don't necessarily
disagree.
Mr. Permut. No. I agree with you completely, and we will
continue to inform the discussion, as you point out, the
absolute critical need for investment in infrastructure on the
New Haven Line. It's absolutely critical to the economic
development, the future safe operation and the economic
development.
Senator Blumenthal. So let me just go back from that global
line of questioning to more of the detailed questioning,
because I want to go back to the backup or redundancy on the
Metro-North line going through Connecticut. My understanding
is--and I'm holding up a diagram here of the various
substations. I know it's difficult to see, but there's Cos Cob,
Sasco Creek, Devon, Union Avenue, and New Haven.
Without going into the specifics of each of those
substations and what their current status is, is the plan for
there to be backup from one of these stations to the other, for
example, Sasco Creek to Cos Cob, if one of them goes offline?
In other words, if Cos Cob goes offline, would the backup be
sufficient from one of the others--presumably Sasco Creek,
because it's the nearest--to provide the kind of power that is
necessary to avoid the fiasco or the debacle that occurred in
New York?
Mr. Permut. I understand. Once these two projects are
completed, which will be by, again, the first quarter of 2014,
the answer is yes.
Senator Blumenthal. There would be sufficient power supply
from these other substations to compensate for the alternative
neighboring substation if it went offline?
Mr. Permut. Yes.
Senator Blumenthal. And, finally, Mr. Ivey, can you commit
that you will provide the forensic analysis as soon as it's
done to this committee?
Mr. Ivey. We will, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. And can you commit, also, that you'll
provide the preliminary review? I know we've asked for it.
Mr. Ivey. The review I think you're referencing was a New
York Times article where they were just reporting our
preliminary findings. There wasn't really a preliminary report.
That was our preliminary findings at that time.
Senator Blumenthal. So there's nothing in writing, no
report?
Mr. Ivey. It wasn't a report. It was preliminary findings
at that time. I think the week--the Monday or Sunday right
after the event occurred on September 25.
Senator Blumenthal. I'm going to ask that we continue this
discussion about the refund or reimbursement issue, because I
don't think, again, with all due respect, I'm satisfied that
Con Ed is doing as much as it should to provide for the
monetary compensation to Metro-North or to others who may have
been harmed. But we can continue that discussion after this
proceeding.
Thank you.
Mr. Ivey. Thank you.
Senator Blumenthal. I thank you all, and we'll move to the
next panel.
Our next panel will consist of John Hartwell, who is a
member of the Connecticut Commuter Rail Council, a long-time
advocate for Connecticut riders and consumers; Joseph Boardman,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Amtrak, and a veteran
as well as a chief executive of that company; and Mr. Joseph
McGee, Vice President of Public Policy and Programs for The
Business Council of Fairfield County, a long-time public
servant and formerly an official of our state government.
Welcome to you all and thank you very much for being here.
We'll begin with you, Mr. Hartwell.
STATEMENT OF JOHN HARTWELL, MEMBER,
CONNECTICUT COMMUTER RAIL COUNCIL
Mr. Hartwell. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal and Senator
Murphy. My name is John Hartwell, and I'm a member of the
Connecticut Commuter Rail Council. Created by the state
legislature, our mandate is to advocate for customers of all
commuter lines in the state and make recommendations for
improvements, a task that this Council and its immediate
predecessor have undertaken for more than a quarter century.
Our members come from commuter rail lines both currently
operating and planned: the New Haven line, including its three
branches; Shore Line East; and the future New Haven-Springfield
line. And we serve without pay, budget, or staff.
In the week following the resumption of full New Haven Line
service after the Con Ed incident, I went to the Greens Farms
station near where I live with three members of the Connecticut
state legislature to talk with commuters about their experience
during the service interruption. I used my background in market
research to create and administer a survey, asking commuters
what they did to cope with the disruption, how they felt about
Metro-North's response, what they knew about the possibility of
refunds, and how they rated their overall rail commuting
experience.
Two days later, I repeated this survey at the Westport
station, gathering 67 responses overall, not enough for real
statistical analysis, but certainly enough to get a sense of
customer frustration. Commuters used a variety of strategies to
cope with the reduced service. A few drove into the city or to
an alternative station, had satellite offices they could go to,
or worked from home. Most, however, made the best of whatever
trains were available, often standing for more than an hour in
packed cars to get to their destination.
To put this in perspective, I-95 is already jammed during
morning and evening rush hours. Metro-North customers have the
highest fares and the lowest mass transit subsidy in the
nation, and parking at the stations is limited and expensive.
If you've paid for a monthly ticket and are lucky enough to
have a train station parking pass, you want to make use of
them.
When asked about how Metro-North responded to the crisis,
the most common rating was a three on a five-point scale, with
the positives and negatives above and below evenly divided.
Most who volunteered comments felt that Con Ed was to blame for
the problem itself, but many said that communication from
Metro-North about alternatives was poor. They understood that
they needed to make allowances for a difficult situation, but
they also wanted much more timely, accurate information so they
could make rational choices.
When asked what they knew about the possibility of refunds,
most had heard the MTA was going to do something, but almost no
one at that point had a clear idea of how it was going to work
or what it was going to mean to them. And in terms of their
overall satisfaction with Metro-North, they were somewhat more
positive, a 3.3 on that same five-point scale, but far from
satisfied.
New Haven Line customers have experienced repeated service
failures in the past few years, including Hurricane Sandy,
Hurricane Irene, heavy snowfall in October, and ice storms in
mid-winter. These were weather-related, but the derailment at
Bridgeport last May clearly was caused by a deteriorating
infrastructure that has left people worried and angry. And
branch line customers are short-changed when their diesel
engines are redeployed, leaving them with unreliable bus
service operated by drivers who have no idea where they're
going, or with no service at all.
Under Governors Rell and Malloy, the state has spent huge
amounts on new cars, which is terrific, and the Connecticut
Department of Transportation has major renovation projects
underway. But the fact remains that we are paying the price for
years of deferred maintenance. Billions more are needed to
upgrade or replace track, bridges and catenary, install better
signal systems and positive train control, and give us real-
time communication.
Commuter rail is the lifeblood of Fairfield County, and
it's not just the traditional businessmen to Grand Central who
are affected when the trains don't run. We have many customers
who never leave the state, traveling every day to work from
Danbury to Stamford, or Waterbury to Bridgeport, or Guilford to
New Haven. And there are thousands more who reverse commute,
including some who come up from New York City to work here.
The railroad is fundamental to Connecticut's economy and to
the quality of life that attracts so many who choose to live
and raise families here. You've already been told about how old
the infrastructure is, and you're going to hear about the
economic impact of these disruptions, both in Connecticut and
along the whole eastern seaboard corridor. One hundred years
ago, this service was state-of-the-art. It should be again.
I'd like to make one more point before I close about
fairness. Two years ago, after another major service failure,
the Council proposed a Passenger Bill of Rights, which I've
attached to my testimony. It called, in part, for monthly and
weekly ticket holders to receive a credit whenever Metro-North
couldn't provide either scheduled train service or a bus
substitute. To us, at that time, the problem was
straightforward. If you don't get what you paid for, you should
get your money back.
I'd like to applaud Governor Malloy's leadership during
this current crisis in prompting the MTA to offer a credit to
monthly and weekly ticket holders, and I hope that our
representatives in Hartford can work together to make this a
permanent policy. More than 50,000 taxpayers who ride the
trains every day deserve no less.
Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hartwell
follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Hartwell, Member,
Connecticut Commuter Rail Council
Good morning. My name is John Hartwell, and I'm a member of the
Connecticut Commuter Rail Council. Created by the state legislature,
our mandate is to ``advocate for customers of all commuter lines in the
state and make recommendations for improvements,'' a task that this
Council and its immediate predecessor have undertaken for more than a
quarter century. Our members come commuter rail lines both currently
operating and planned--the New Haven line, including its three
branches, Shore Line East, and the future New Haven--Springfield line,
and we serve without pay, budget, or staff.
In the week following the resumption of full New Haven line service
after the Con Ed problem, I went to the Greens Farms station near where
I live with three members of the Connecticut state legislature to talk
with commuters about their experience during the service interruption.
I used my background in market research to create and administer a
survey, asking commuters what they did to cope with the disruption, how
they felt about Metro-North's response, what they knew about the
possibility of refunds, and how they rated their overall rail commuting
experience. Two days later I repeated this survey at the Westport
station, gathering sixty-seven responses overall. Not enough for real
statistical analysis, but certainly enough to get a sense of customer
frustration.
Commuters used a variety of strategies to cope with the disruption.
A few drove into the City or to an alternative station, had satellite
offices they could go to, or worked from home. Most, however, made the
best of whatever trains were available, often standing for more than an
hour in packed cars to get to their destination.
To put this in perspective, I-95 is already jammed during morning
and evening rush hours, Metro-North customers have the highest fares
and lowest mass transit subsidy in the nation, and parking at the
stations is limited and expensive. If you've paid for a monthly ticket
and are lucky enough to have a train station parking pass, you want to
make use of them.
When asked about how Metro-North responded to the crisis, the most
common rating was a ``3'' on a five point scale, with the positives and
negatives above and below evenly divided. Most who volunteered comments
felt that Con Ed was to blame for the problem itself, but many said
that communication from Metro-North about alternatives was poor. They
understood that they needed to make allowances for a difficult
situation, but they also wanted much more timely, accurate information
so they could make rational choices.
When asked what they knew about the possibility of refunds, most
had heard the MTA was going to do something, but almost no one at that
point had a clear idea how it was going to work or what it meant to
them. And in terms of their overall satisfaction with Metro-North, they
were somewhat more positive (3.3 on that five point scale) but far from
satisfied.
New Haven line customers have experienced repeated service failures
in the past few years, including Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Irene,
heavy snowfall in October, and ice storms in mid-winter. These were
weather-related, but the derailment at Bridgeport last May clearly was
caused by a deteriorating infrastructure that has left people worried
and angry. And branch line customers are sometimes short-changed as
their diesel engines are redeployed and they're left with unreliable
bus service with drivers who have no idea where they're going, or with
no service at all.
Under Governors Rell and Malloy the state has spent huge amounts on
new cars, which is terrific, and ConnDOT has major renovation projects
underway, but the fact remains that we are paying the price for years
of deferred maintenance. Billions more are needed to upgrade or replace
track, bridges, and catenary, install better signal systems and
positive train control, and give us real-time communications.
Commuter rail is the lifeblood of Fairfield County, and it's not
just the traditional commuters to Grand Central who are affected when
the trains don't run. We have many commuters who never leave the state,
traveling every day to work from Danbury to Stamford, or Waterbury to
Bridgeport, or Guilford to New Haven. And there are thousands more who
reverse commute, including some who come up from New York to work here.
The railroad is fundamental to Connecticut's economy and to the
quality of life that attracts so many who choose to live and raise
families here. You've already been told about how old the
infrastructure is, and you're going to hear about the economic impact
of these disruptions, both in Connecticut and along the whole eastern
seaboard corridor. One hundred years ago this service was state-of-the-
art. It should be again.
I'd like to make one more point before I close, about fairness. Two
years ago, after another major service failure, the Council proposed a
``Passenger Bill of Rights'', which I've attached. It called in part
for monthly and weekly ticket holders to receive a credit whenever
Metro-North couldn't provide either scheduled train service or a bus
substitute. To us at that time the problem was straightforward--if you
don't get what you paid for you should get your money back.
I'd like to applaud Governor Malloy's leadership during the current
crisis in prompting the MTA to offer a credit to monthly and weekly
ticket holders, and I hope that our representatives in Hartford can
work together to make this a permanent policy. More than fifty thousand
taxpayers who ride the trains every day deserve no less.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Hartwell.
Mr. Boardman?
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, AMTRAK
Mr. Boardman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal and Senator
Murphy.
Senator Blumenthal, your focus on this disruption in and of
itself should serve as a wake-up call to what would happen if
we had an issue at one of the Northeast Corridor's many single
points of failure. Thank you for your leadership on the issue.
I believe your investigation and your leadership will help to
demonstrate the absolute need for all of us to stop taking this
vital infrastructure for granted and start investing in the
future of the region and the nation.
Amtrak operates and maintains 401 miles of the 457-mile
Northeast Corridor, and we work closely with Metro-North, which
operates and maintains the other 56 miles. The Northeast
Corridor serves a region that houses more than a sixth of the
Nation's population and generates $1 out of every $5 of our
gross domestic product on less than 2 percent of the country's
land area.
The Northeast Corridor is a transportation asset of
national importance. Its bridges, tunnels, electrical supply,
signal systems, rails, and roadbeds are all aging and failure
prone and lacks redundant systems to keep it operating in the
event of failure. We've heard about that all morning.
The incident we are here to discuss demonstrates the
consequences of such a failure. But we have many points of
failure that would demonstrate similar consequences or even
greater, longer-lasting consequences, particularly if they came
at one of the many critical points, or single points of
failure, in the states of Connecticut, New York, or New Jersey.
I'm talking about a single point of failure where it's a
part of the system that, if it fails, will stop the entire
system from working, like the string being cut, Senator Murphy.
In its current state, our system faces the threat of a major
failure--with comparable impacts to this incident in terms of
disruption--on a daily basis, for much of our infrastructure is
aging and heavily trafficked, while capital investment has
lagged.
Between Superstorm Sandy, infrastructure failures, snow
storms, and other service disruptions, Amtrak's services that
use the Northeast Corridor lost a total of about 360,000 riders
and $37 million in Fiscal Year 2012. The lost riders and
revenues are the clearest record of the problem of aging and
decaying infrastructure.
The ugly truth is that our national failure to invest in
the common good of our national infrastructure is eroding the
serviceability of this railroad, our highway system, our
aviation industry, our transit systems, our ports, and our
utilities. And as a result, it's eroding the confidence of our
future sense of national well-being.
The NEC has suffered from decades of unmitigated deferrals
of investment needs and reductions in our planned capital
investment programs. The result is a complicated process of
compounding deterioration. Consequently, today, we have an
infrastructure that while safe--and it is safe--is vulnerable
to service disruptions at virtually any time and place. And the
vulnerability is highest, as Superstorm Sandy demonstrated, at
the points where congestion is greatest and redundancy is
nonexistent.
Amtrak and Metro-North both suffer from the same basic
challenge. Since we took over this line in the 1970s, business
and traffic have grown, but investment has not kept pace.
Amtrak knows what it needs for the Amtrak-owned segments of the
Northeast Corridor. Amtrak needs $782 million per year in
today's dollars to bring the infrastructure into a state of
good repair every year for the next 15 years. And we must be on
an equal footing with the capital planning formulas for the
highway and transit systems.
The planning for intercity rail is poorly executed because
the investments are considered by congressional appropriators
on a year-to-year budget basis, rather than funding the program
as the highway and transit programs are. In Fiscal Year 2012
and Fiscal Year 2013, the total funding level was about half of
that needed, and Amtrak is always subject to deficient levels
of planning because of the lack of predictable funding on a
multiyear basis.
This level and method of investment isn't enough to sustain
an aging system that's coping with record levels of traffic.
There are several processes that are now in place that we hope
will allow us to harness the support of the states with the
Federal investment in the Northeast Corridor.
The process of asset aging is irreversible. At some point,
everything needs replacement, and replacement is feasible only
if adequate funding is available. And for Amtrak, as for Metro-
North, funding on the required scale will have to come from a
strong coalition that involves the Federal government, the
states, the users of the Northeast Corridor, local government,
and the private sector where it makes sense.
We must not take this vital infrastructure for granted.
Instead, we must start investing in the future of the region
and the Nation with multiyear investments that will demonstrate
our own faith in the future of our nation.
Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Boardman
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph H. Boardman, President
and Chief Executive Officer, Amtrak
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today.
Amtrak operates and maintains 401 miles \1\ of the 457 mile
Northeast Corridor (NEC), and we work closely with Metro-North, which
operates and maintains the other 56 miles. The NEC serves a region that
houses more than a sixth of the Nation's population, and generates $1
out of every $5 of our gross domestic product on less than 2 percent of
our country's land area. While our line is a transportation asset of
national importance, it is aging and failure prone, and lacks redundant
systems to keep it operating in the event of failure. While the
incident we are here to discuss was not necessarily an infrastructure
failure, the consequences of such a failure would be similar,
particularly if they came at one of the many critical points, or
``single points of failure,'' in the states of Connecticut, New York,
or New Jersey. A single point of failure is a part of a system that, if
it fails, will stop an entire system from working. In its current
state, our system faces the threat of a major failure--with comparable
impacts to this incident in terms of disruption--on a daily basis, for
much of our infrastructure is aging and heavily trafficked, while
capital investment has lagged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes 37 miles in Massachusetts that are owned by
Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority but maintained and dispatched by
Amtrak.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak owns 122.5 miles of rail line in Connecticut and we have
invested heavily in the state over the last two decades. In 2000, we
finish the electrification of the 156 mile segment between New Haven
and Boston with $2.6 billion in Federal funds, and we also have
invested nearly $300 million to replace several bridges in recent
years, such as the replacement of the movable portion of the Thames
River Bridge in New London. Some of these projects were completed as
part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which provided us
with a substantial infusion of funding in 2009, and we invested more
than $167 million in the state of Connecticut to improve every aspect
of our railroad.
As you probably know, Amtrak also does a lot of business in the
state of Connecticut, which is served by our Northeast Corridor and
Springfield Line trains. We operate 46 daily trains, including Acela,
Northeast Regional, Vermonter, and Springfield Shuttle services. Last
year, we carried more than 1.7 million people to or from stations in
Connecticut, and we employ 680 residents with a total payroll of more
than $51 million. We spent another $51 million on goods and services in
the state in 2012, $11 million of that right here in Bridgeport.
As you would expect, we work closely with the Connecticut
Department of Transportation, who we are pleased to add as a new state
partner under a Federal-state cost sharing methodology that went in
effect in October for service on the line to Springfield, MA. We also
work very closely with Metro-North Railroad, which is, on the basis of
train mileage, our sixth largest host railroad--which might not seem
impressive, until you stop to consider that Metro-North hosts Amtrak
trains for only fifty-six miles, while some of our services run on host
railroad tracks for trips of up to 2,400 miles. It's a busy line,
carrying 48 of our trains and about 300 Metro-North trains on a typical
weekday. We are vividly aware of the challenges Metro-North faces in
maintaining an aging and heavily used railroad, because these are our
challenges, too. For Metro-North, as for Amtrak, the reality is that we
are stewards of an aging infrastructure system that requires increasing
levels of investment just to maintain the existing level of service;
faster or more frequent service requires even more. Consequently, when
we get a service disruption caused by a point of failure on this
infrastructure, it can be costly and prolonged. The recent Metro-North
shutdown is a case in point. Because of it, we were unable to offer
Acela service between Boston and New York City. The Acela trains are
what we call ``integral train sets,'' with the electric locomotives
permanently joined to the coaches, so we can't swap out a diesel engine
if the power system fails. That meant cancelling those trains, and
since approximately 72 percent of all Acela riders on the North End of
the NEC are travelling between the three Boston area stations and New
York Penn, we lost about 18,300 Acela riders. Fortunately, we were able
to run the Regional trains behind diesel power over Metro-North, so we
actually picked up some 6,300 riders on the Regionals (a likely
spillover effect from cancelled Acelas), which reduced our net
ridership impact to 12,000.This ridership ``bump'' produced an
offsetting gain of about a half a million dollars in Regional revenue,
leaving us with a net financial impact of $2 million. Acela service was
completely halted for six days, and we were not able to resume a full
slate of scheduled services for another six days. This disruption was
of slightly longer duration than usual--but it is by no means unique.
The blocking of all service on the line in the wake of the derailment
and collision on Metro-North in May cost us about $4 million in revenue
losses, and a freight derailment in New Haven, on Amtrak's
infrastructure, cost about $700,000 in lost revenue in March.
The lost riders and revenues are the clearest manifestation of the
problem of aging and decaying infrastructure. This process, which is
continual, is gradually eroding the serviceability of the railroad as
underfunding takes its toll. To get some idea of what the consequences
of underfunding are, I asked our Chief Engineer to study the problem of
decapitalization earlier this year, because the NEC has suffered from
decades of unmitigated deferrals of investment needs and reductions in
our planned capital investment programs. The result is a complicated
process of compounding deterioration. When we defer maintenance on one
part of the infrastructure, we see that other effects that show up in
areas of the infrastructure where we might not otherwise have had a
problem. For example, where tunnel deterioration is an issue, we find
that one of the effects can be greater corrosion of the rails, which
correlates strongly to tunnel condition. When we find problems, we can
either address them in large, comprehensive programs, or we can do spot
repairs. Large programs cost more, of course, but the unit cost is
significantly lower than the unit cost for spot repairs. Unfortunately,
when we don't have enough money for the larger programs we need, we
have no choice but to go with spot repairs. But spot repairs don't
renew the infrastructure or prevent further decay--they simply fix the
problems that affect day-to-day operations and safety. But as the
infrastructure continues to deteriorate, you have to do more spot
repairs, which in turn consume more resources. And we have an
infrastructure that, while safe, is vulnerable to service disruptions
at virtually any time and place--and the vulnerability is highest, as
Super Storm Sandy demonstrated, at the points where congestion is
greatest and redundancy is nonexistent. While I have spoken principally
about the Amtrak-managed segments of the railroad, these cannot be
disaggregated from the larger problem of disinvestment. Amtrak and
Metro-North both suffer from the same basic challenge: since we took
over this line in the 1970s, business and traffic have both grown, but
investment has not kept pace. Consequently, we are running more and
more service on a line that is now several decades older--but major
components of that line should have been replaced years ago.
To address this need, Amtrak studied state of good repair
investment needs for the Amtrak-owned segments of the NEC in 2011. At
the time, our proposal envisioned the spending of about $782 million
per year in today's dollars, to bring the infrastructure into a state
of good repair by 2026. Unfortunately, funding has not been available,
and in FY 2012 and 2013, the total funding level was about half of that
need. It simply isn't enough to sustain an aging system that's coping
with record levels of traffic.
There are several processes that are now in place that we hope will
allow us to harness the support of the states with the Federal
investment in the NEC. I am hopeful that the ongoing Section 212
process, mandated by the 2008 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement
Act, will allow us to continue the process of building a collaborative
relationship with the states to better manage and fund the NEC. The
Northeast Corridor Commission's excellent report on ``Critical
Infrastructure Needs on the Northeast Corridor,'' published earlier
this year, outlines the need: the challenge ahead of us is balancing a
growing demand for the services of all of the NEC's users with the
needs of the infrastructure. It is old and aging, and the process of
asset aging is irreversible: at some point, everything needs
replacement, and replacement is feasible only if adequate funding is
available--and for Amtrak, as for Metro-North, funding on the required
scale will have to come from a strong coalition that involves the
Federal government, States, users of the NEC, local government and the
private sector where it makes sense. This disruption should serve as a
wakeup call to what would happen if we had an issue at one of the NEC's
many single points of failure. We must stop taking this vital
infrastructure for granted and start investing in the future of the
region and the Nation. And we must not only address the current
vulnerabilities, but also provide the capacity that is urgently
needed--not just for the decades of growth we expect to see, but the
ongoing growth that is stretching a fragile and vulnerable but
nevertheless vital transportation system.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Boardman.
Mr. McGee?
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH McGEE, VICE PRESIDENT,
THE BUSINESS COUNCIL OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY
Mr. McGee. Good morning, Senator Blumenthal and Senator
Murphy. My name is Joseph McGee, and I represent the Business
Council of Fairfield County. Our members include businesses
both in Stamford as well as in Fairfield County. We estimate
that over 5,000 of our employees of member companies come to
work by train.
I want to summarize my testimony and shift a bit after
listening to this presentation this morning. While the economic
impact of the Con Ed outage is significant, the 11-day
disruption, in reality, focuses on our need to understand the
potential vulnerabilities of the New Haven Line and their
impact on the economy of Connecticut and the U.S.
I want to just parenthetically say what's interesting to me
this morning is I had chaired the Two Storm Panel for Governor
Malloy. We had 9 days of hearings and 100 witnesses on the risk
to Connecticut for extreme weather. At the time, we looked at
the railroad, and it was very clear that this was an area of
huge vulnerability, because it runs along the coast.
But what was very interesting in that testimony--you know,
it was a year and a half ago now--was that the New Haven Line
is either the single largest energy user or the second largest
energy user in the state of Connecticut. And at that time, when
we asked the utilities what was the nature of their interaction
with the rail system in terms of energy efficiency, it was
surprising. The railroad had not used any of the state
incentives for energy efficiency at that time, and a red flag
went off.
When I began looking at this whole issue of risk on the
rail line, which came up this morning, this issue of redundancy
needs to be clearly understood. The view that was presented
here is that we have like a Christmas tree line, right, and if
one bulb goes out, the line goes out. But maybe if we have a
redundant system, if a bulb goes out, the line stays on.
The reality is that if you look at the standard for
financial services which you require, we have tertiary backup.
So we protect our financial data and the movement of it with
three systems, primary, secondary, and tertiary. In the
movement of people to work, we have a system that is
essentially a primary system with a questionable level of
redundancy. And that raises a very serious question on this
whole issue of energy policy, vis-a-vis, the railroad.
If you look at the state of Connecticut right now, we're
looking at micro grids for areas of communities so that in a
storm, critical resources can come back to power quickly. We
learned in the storm that our telecommunication system had
battery backup that lasted 2 days. In a 10-day outage, how does
that work?
So when you're looking at this issue--and I would really
encourage the Senate committee to look very carefully at this
issue of electric power and redundancy, vis-a-vis, the rail
system, and the whole issue of a large system funded through
large-scale power versus micro grids and the advantage of power
delivered in a different way.
This is a really big deal, and it gets very short shrift.
But it goes to the heart of can this system survive a risk of
severe weather or just human screw-up? It's a big deal. I don't
think it was adequately addressed this morning.
On this issue of infrastructure--and I know it's a money
issue, but it's kind of like, ``Well, we need so much money, we
need so much money. I didn't really want to put the secondary
system in place because it would have cost money.'' I'd like to
know what Howard's answer would be after what he went through
on his risk analysis of making that decision.
There's a lot of finger pointing of who was responsible.
Con Ed says to you today, ``Well, yes, it was our equipment,
but it was the customer who made us do it. Therefore, I don't
think I should be responsible for paying customers for their
lost time at work.'' There's the beginning of a finger pointing
here over a much bigger question: How is this going to work?
Who is responsible?
I'll conclude on this note. In looking at the state of good
repair, we know that the New Haven Line needs about $3 billion
to bring it up to a state of good repair--the 100-year-old
bridges, the catenary system, the control system. We haven't
heard what it's going to take to bring the New York side up to
a state of good repair. That number could be $3 billion, $4
billion, $5 billion.
One of the issues here is while there is a capital plan for
the New Haven Line, we in Connecticut always hear about the
Connecticut side of this. But in the business community, we're
interested in how the whole line works. What's the investment
required for the whole system?
Let me put this in context. Right now, today, the New Haven
Line, the single busiest rail line in America, is at 70 percent
capacity. It's estimated that within 20 or 25 years, it'll be
at 100 percent capacity. That means we'll be congested on the
rail line. We have congested highways. We will, in a very short
period of time, have congested railways.
The rail system is the single economic driver for Fairfield
County. If you look at what has happened in downtown Stamford,
it is the rail system. The most expensive property in
Connecticut, in Stamford, is now around the train station.
Twenty years ago, it was up by the Merritt Parkway.
The growth of our downtown housing market and the
employment labor force has seen 10,000 new residents in
downtown Stamford. That group of urban professionals is tied to
the rail system. So this rail system is the economic driver of
Fairfield County, of Stamford, and the state of Connecticut.
When you tell us that we have a $3 billion backlog on state
of good repair, and then you don't lay out to us--well, what
does the future look like? As we grow the economy in
Connecticut, we have to expand the capacity of this rail line.
Where is the plan for that? All we talk about is a state of
good repair. This system needs to be running much more
frequently.
Parenthetically, if New Haven was only an hour from New
York by train, it revitalizes New Haven. If Bridgeport was 45
minutes from New York, it revitalizes Bridgeport. If Stamford
was 30 minutes instead of 46, it's an economic boom. If we want
an economic driver for the state of Connecticut, it's improved
and more frequent and faster rail service.
So this hearing this morning, while I applaud you for
having it, really raises some fundamental issues about our
commitment to economic growth in the state of Connecticut tied
to a rail system which all operators admit is behind the times,
is archaic, and out of date. I think there's an urgency here
that needs to be felt. If we're going to grow the economy here,
this has got to be fixed.
The bottom line is $3 billion right now on the Connecticut
side is a hefty investment in a state with the highest per
capita debt in the Nation. So there has to be a role for
Boardman and Amtrak in paying their fair share for the
Connecticut experience. I'm using the rail in Connecticut.
And I'll end on that note. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McGee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph McGee, Vice President, The Business
Council of Fairfield County
Good morning, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Murphy and members of the
Committee, I am Joseph McGee, Vice President of The Business Council of
Fairfield County. The Business Council's members include businesses in
Stamford and throughout Fairfield County.
While the economic impact of the Con Edison outage is significant,
the 11 day disruption in reality focuses our need to understand the
potential vulnerabilities of the New Haven Line and their impact on the
economy of Connecticut and the U.S.
Commissioner Redecker in testimony before this Committee last April
stated that the Northeast Corridor (NEC) generates $1 out of every $5
in U.S. gross domestic product and that one out of three Fortune 100
companies are headquartered within close proximity to the NEC rail
system. The Northeast Corridor (NEC) in which the New Haven Line is a
46 mile segment is a major national economic driver.
On a regional level, ridership on the New Haven Line has surpassed
a record 38.8 million total rides in 2012. Of equal importance, while
ridership from Stamford to Grand Central on a daily basis has increased
to 9,243 passengers, daily commuters to Stamford now exceed those
commuting to NYC. That shift in daily commuter destinations reflects
the emergence of Fairfield County as a regional economic center in its
own right not just a group of bedroom communities for Manhattan
executives.
On a local level, property in proximity to the Stamford railroad
station is the highest assessed property in the city. Twenty five years
ago corporate campuses in North Stamford near the Merritt Parkway were
the most valuable. However, today the New Haven Rail Line is the key
transportation investment that powers the Fairfield County economy and
the emergence of a dynamic and growing corporate and residential
housing market in downtown Stamford.
In a 2013 demographic analysis of the Downtown Stamford residential
market, the Stamford Downtown Special Services District reported that
80 percent of its residents had a 4 year college degree and 40 percent
of that group had an advanced degree. For comparison, Connecticut's
workforce, the most educated in the U.S. has a 36 percent college
degree achievement level. This highly educated labor force which
numbers close to 10,000 and will double over the next 6 years is
choosing Stamford because it fun, convenient and close to rail. In fact
of the 6000 housing units in Downtown, 60 percent studio or one bedroom
and 40 percent 2 bedrooms the actual car per unit is just under one per
unit, far different than a suburban standard of more than 1.5 cars per
residence. This young professional population is the labor force that
corporations covet and provides Stamford and Connecticut with an
economic competitive advantage but it must be understood that it is
highly mobile and thrives in a high quality urban environment. Reliable
rail service with frequent service to NYC is the critical element in
the downtown Stamford construction boom.
Consequently, estimates of the economic damage to Connecticut as a
result of the recent Con Edison outage while dramatic are not
surprising. The Connecticut Department of Economic and Community
Development (CT DECD) estimates \1\ a $62 million loss in state GDP
from the outage, which includes approximately $5.3 million in lost
industry sales, $3 million in addition production costs (incurred by
the need to run diesel trains and busses), and $2.25 million in
aggregated reallocation of spending by consumers. Finally an estimated
$14.94 million amenity and time value loss (included in the DECD's
overall $62 million figure) represents a cost in travel time,
alternative transport methods, fuel and wage hours incurred not only by
regular rail commuters, but also by highway users. Failure of the New
Haven Line affected all travelers and industries in the region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development.
``An Evaluation of the Con Edison Power Outage on the Metro-North
Railroad New Haven Line: A Department of Economic and Community
Development Economic Impact Analysis (EIA).'' Available at:
www.courantblogs.com; Accessed: 10/23/13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When surveyed last week about the impact of the outage on their
companies, the common theme that emerged was best summed up by Purdue
Pharma, ``We moved to Stamford. The rail road was a big part of the
decision and we have invested considerable resources to encourage our
employees to use it.''
Overall our members initiated resiliency measures that allowed them
to function during the outage. However, members of our Transportation
Roundtable have grown increasingly concerned about the need to insure
that the New Haven line operates at a state of good repair.
While we recognized that the State of Connecticut and the Federal
Government have invested significant dollars in the New Haven line over
the last 5 years, estimates that the Connecticut portion of the rail
line needs over $3 billion to simply bring it up to a state of good
repair are chilling. Four bridges in Fairfield County that are over 100
years old on the busiest single rail line in America raise serious
questions of the risk of a catastrophic failure. The question of course
is how to pay for the investment in the New Haven Rail Line?
Connecticut's current capacity to fund $3 billion in rail improvements
is highly problematic. This situation demands a national response.
Amtrak's role and the appropriate level of their support for rail
improvements on the New Haven line needs a full airing.
Investment in Connecticut's rail infrastructure would provide the
single largest boost to our state's economic growth.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thank you to each of you for
your very helpful and illuminating testimony.
Mr. McGee, you may not know, but I actually have supported
the idea of improving our rail system so as to enable an hour
trip from New Haven to New York and 45 minutes from Bridgeport
to New York. I agree, as well, that that would really empower
and enable tremendous economic growth throughout Fairfield
County and Connecticut as well.
Mr. McGee. Senator, if you could do an economic analysis of
that investment--you know, it's curious. We do an economic
analysis when the system fails. It costs us $62 million or it
costs us $8 million when it fails. We'd love to see an economic
analysis done of the impact of investment in the New Haven Line
and what it would mean to the Connecticut economy. That could
be a very powerful driver of public opinion on this issue.
Senator Blumenthal. Now, you may know that Metro-North has
taken the position that it is impossible. I'm not sure whether
I'm quoting exactly the Metro-North spokesperson. But my belief
is that not only is it possible, but it will come someday that
we will see that kind of rapid rail service on this line with
sufficient investment. That's the condition, that there be
sufficient investment. And I'd be very interested in your
economic analysis.
Mr. McGee. Senator, you know, it's really interesting that
New York City is building a whole new station under Grand
Central. I think it's going to cost $12 billion. So we're
bringing riders in from Long Island now. They used to go to
Penn Station--half of them now coming to Grand Central. It's
cutting 20 minutes off their trip into Manhattan--$12 billion.
D'Amato got that rolling as a challenge--Senator Pothole--did
great work in getting the Federal funding for that station.
That begins to put us at a disadvantage competitively. We
have not increased our speeds to Manhattan in 50 years. And to
say simply that we can spend $12 billion in New York to create
the eastside access, but we can't fix the tunnels for the New
Haven Line--this is not acceptable.
Does that mean we're at the end of the economic line here?
Long Island and New Jersey can make these investments, but we
can't make these investments in New York to benefit the
Connecticut line? That's a serious question.
Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Hartwell, let me ask you for,
number one, perhaps your description of the impacts of this
disruption in service on the lives of commuters, but also the
very positive impacts that this kind of expanded or enhanced
service would provide to them.
Mr. Hartwell. Thank you, Senator. It's clear that at the
individual level, there were tremendous impacts on people's
lives. But most of them simply soldiered through it. I talked
to people who had been commuting 10, 15, 20--actually one man
for 40 years on the railroad. All of them said that the service
is better today than it used to be. They understood that this
was a big problem, and many of them simply, as I said,
soldiered through it, because they had to get to work. So they
did what they had to do to get to work.
Would they like more service? Absolutely. We have the new
cars, for example, which are really very nice cars. But, by the
way, each one of them carries fewer passengers than the old
cars. So scheduling is now a problem. There are trains now that
used to run with seats available that no longer have seats
available because they're running the same number of cars with
fewer seats.
These sorts of things have to get worked out. As Joe said,
the railroad is the lifeblood of Fairfield County. And if we
were looking for more service, for example, we should have what
some people call subway service, meaning a train that comes so
often on a local basis that you wouldn't need a schedule. You
would simply go to the train station and know that if you
wanted to get from Greens Farms to East Norwalk, you could do
so with a reasonable expectation of spending only 10 or 15
minutes at the station, and you wouldn't need to be carrying a
schedule with you.
Those sorts of things, nobody is talking about, because
we're only talking about trying to fix the problems. But there
is a tremendous amount of up-scale capacity here if we could
bring it online.
Senator Blumenthal. And I think people often fail to
realize that the connectivity, the interdependence of the
line--it's a lifeblood, but in a way it's more like an artery.
If an artery is blocked at some point, the whole body fails.
Mr. Hartwell. Let me give you just one quick example if I
might. The three branch lines--if you are on the Danbury line,
all the trains in the morning run north to south, because right
now, we can only put one train on a line at the time because
there isn't positive train control. Now, that's supposed to be
coming. But there also aren't enough places for trains to pass
each other.
So what's the import of that? If you live in Bridgeport or
in Norwalk, you can't take the train in the morning to Danbury.
You would have to wait until all of the morning passengers who
are coming down--there are three trains coming down. Same thing
on the Waterbury line.
So there isn't this kind of connectivity that you would
expect to have with this basic piece of infrastructure here.
It's still too limited. So those are things, again, that no one
is talking about, but that could provide a lot of internal
economic development in the state.
Senator Blumenthal. I want to join, by the way, in your
expressing appreciation to Governor Malloy and to Commissioner
Redeker for their commitment to improving infrastructure as
they did by investing in the new cars that, very likely, helped
to save lives as a result of the derailment and collision that
occurred back in May.
Mr. Boardman, talking about interdependence or
connectivity, obviously, Amtrak uses these rails. I cited
earlier--I think you were here--the figure of $64 million
invested in the past 10 years out of the $3.2 billion that has
been invested in the stretch of track. Wouldn't it be fair to
expect Amtrak to invest more?
Mr. Boardman. Yes.
Senator Blumenthal. Can you commit that you will work
toward providing a larger share?
Mr. Boardman. If you commit, Senator, we'll commit, because
the bottom line is we receive our funding from the Federal
government. And as Senator Murphy talked about a few minutes
ago, we're spending off operating money off the Northeast
Corridor in the neighborhood of $200 million to $300 million.
I'll use your numbers. That goes to support long distance
trains. It doesn't go to reinvest in the Northeast Corridor. It
doesn't go for capital. It goes to show a lower subsidy for
Amtrak, which shouldn't even be considered subsidy.
It's an availability for transportation the same way that
you maintain interstate highways or that you maintain an air
traffic control system or a port. And yet go back to 1971 when
this was created, when Amtrak was created, and it was created
with the idea of a subsidy because this was supposed to be a
profit-making railroad, even though no railroads had made money
with passenger transportation. So we believe more needs to go
into Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New
Jersey, and even those states south of New York and south of
this area.
Senator Blumenthal. Wherever it comes from, in other words,
Connecticut and the Northeast deserve a fair share.
Mr. Boardman. Absolutely.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Senator Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again for allowing
me to ask a few questions.
Mr. Boardman, can you talk a little bit about what the
standard for redundancy along the portion of the Northeast line
that Amtrak owns is? Of course, we have an anomaly in
Connecticut in which you operate a lot of trains that do very
well, but you don't own the line. So can you talk a little bit
about how you think about redundancy, especially with respect
to electrical service on the lines that you do operate?
Mr. Boardman. Well, we have an idea of a gateway program
from the south into New York. The biggest bottleneck is Penn
Station in New York. The biggest bottlenecks are Connecticut,
New York, and New Jersey. So redundancy for us there is two new
tunnels.
Also--and you can go back to Superstorm Sandy just a year
ago--Substation 41 failed. So we had a problem with electricity
south of New York, not just north of New York. And, today--and
I thought Joe really did a good job of this--talked about these
micro grids, and that's being discussed in New Jersey right now
for the improvements that are necessary for that kind of
redundancy.
There has to be some redundancy. But, as others have said,
it can be expensive. There are techniques that maybe we can
follow to keep the cost down. But one of the best things is to
have a reliable system, a system that's kept up to a good
standard.
Senator Murphy. You talked a little bit about the
importance of ultimately having multiyear funding. There's two
problems. You're underfunded and you get money one year at a
time. I think probably the highway folks would say that they
still enjoy one of those problems, that they're underfunded
even if they get the money at 2 years to 5 years at a clip.
But can you just talk, with specificity, if you have it, as
to what kind of decisions you could make if you had multiyear
funding? What are you doing now that you shouldn't be doing
simply because you've got to make decisions 12 months at a
time?
Mr. Boardman. I think that's a great question. And I
brought this book for that purpose, and I'm sure Jim Redeker
has got it with him as well. Every one of the projects and
bridges and difficulties that we've identified is in here, and
most of them are identified, Senator, as feasibility and
conceptual engineering, and then preliminary engineering. And
most of them aren't beyond that.
They need to be in final design and construction. And with
a plan for the future--I was a New York State Commissioner of
Transportation for a few years, and what we found in New York
with the highway program--and I learned this--is that when you
have a program management, once you've started studying a
project, you get it done. It may not be the exact year you want
it done. It might be a couple of years later, because you've
got environmental processes and so forth.
But because you had the contract authority from Congress to
get that money out of the trust fund, as you've talked about,
Senator Blumenthal, we built it. That's what needs to happen
for the railroad in the Northeast Corridor. We need to have
contract authority and move these projects and stop dealing
with it one year at a time.
Senator Murphy. You talked about how the operating profit
made on the Northeast line primarily through the Acela service
offsets operating losses in other places. Can you just explain
to me what prevents you from making a commitment that that
money is spent back in Connecticut by essentially making a
commitment through your capital dollars to increase commitments
to the Northeast to effectively offset the fact that our
operating money is offsetting losses in other places?
Mr. Boardman. There are a couple of things. If we're going
to use those dollars, we have to get approval to indebt
ourselves. We just can't take the $380 million and put it into
the infrastructure. It wouldn't be the right way to do it. We
need to finance it over the life of the actual investment
itself.
That means we go to, usually, the RRIF program, for
example, if we're going to buy new locomotives, which we've
done--70 new electric locomotives for the Northeast Corridor.
And we're looking right now at having an RFP out at the end of
November for new high-speed trains with more seats than we
currently have in order to increase the capacity. So those
dollars have to be approved through the RRIF program through
the USDOT.
What we can do is really held in the hands of Congress. If
Congress says, ``We don't want you to use those dollars for
those purposes; instead, we need those revenues,'' and so they
sweep out the revenue and they send it to a lower overall
subsidy for us, we don't have control over that. The
appropriators do.
Senator Murphy. But you've got a capital account that comes
on an annual basis that you have authority with which to
allocate, correct?
Mr. Boardman. Yes, and it only covers about half of our
capital costs.
Senator Murphy. Right. But I guess my question is why
couldn't you just make a different allocation decision within
that budget to make sure that the Northeast is offset for the
operating revenue that comes off of this line?
Mr. Boardman. Well, we think we ought to have more
flexibility in that area, and we'd like to discuss that with
you.
Senator Murphy. And then, last, Mr. Boardman, we're
discussing a new cost-sharing plan along the line in terms of
who pitches in and how much money for the maintenance of the
line. And some initial reports suggest that Connecticut is due
some increased money from Amtrak in order to help us maintain
our line. What is Amtrak's position on the NEC process right
now that's taking a look at this issue?
Mr. Boardman. I say this with a smile, Senator. We also
look forward to the Shoreline East paying us more for its use
of Amtrak's corridor. We agree this needs to get fixed. We are
in total agreement with that. We've got it with New Jersey
Transit. We've got it with Long Island Railroad. Everybody
needs to be there.
But if it just becomes robbing Peter to pay Paul, and we
don't make the investments necessary that Joe talked about,
we're not getting the growth that we really need to protect the
economy of this nation.
Senator Murphy. I got you. We sort of think that there's
already a lot of robbing Peter to pay Paul, and we feel like
we're more often than not Peter.
Joe, you did a great job, so I don't have any questions for
you.
But I have one for John, my final one, which is this. You
know, there might be an impression out there--I'm not
suggesting on behalf of MTA or Con Ed, but maybe, amongst
others as well--that rebates for lost days just doesn't need to
be a priority because the people that use this line to get to
and from New York can afford the loss, that this is just a
bunch of people who are making a lot of money in New York who
go back and forth, and so if they don't get rebates, who cares?
Their money will come from someplace else.
Can you tell us a little bit about who the people are that
use this line? And I know that you will attempt to dispel the
notion that this is just a bunch of people who are making a
couple of hundred thousand dollars a year going back and forth
to New York every day.
Mr. Hartwell. There are a lot of people that think of
Fairfield County as the ATM of the state, and I definitely
object to that. If you stood on the platforms, as I've done,
and talked to commuters, you'll see that, yes, there are some
people who are making $200,000 or more riding the trains every
day and paying very high taxes because of that.
But you'll also find that there are single mothers, there
are people who are unemployed and trying to find a job, there
are students, there are--everybody is on the trains. And the
people in Fairfield County--there are pockets of enormous
wealth. That is obvious. There are also pockets of extreme
poverty, and those people are on the trains, too.
If you are on the train going to work, you're probably a
taxpaying citizen, and you should get a fair deal. And a fair
deal says if you don't get the service, you should get your
money back. That seems, to me, so completely obvious. If you
buy a plane ticket, and the plane doesn't fly because there's
bad weather, you get your money back. So why not on the trains?
It makes no sense to me.
Some people have said, ``Look, you're getting a monthly
deal here, so why should we give you any money back?'' But
let's think about that for a second. If everybody bought a
daily ticket, how much more transaction costs would there be
for the railroad to actually sell those tickets? You couldn't
possibly do it.
So the fact that people are buying monthly tickets actually
saves the railroad money, and that money, in some respects, is
passed on to the customer. These are basic economic positions,
and I do not understand how anyone could take the opposite side
of that argument, except that, of course, it's going to cost
somebody some money. But it shouldn't come out of the pockets
of the people who have paid for a service and don't get it.
Senator Murphy. Well said.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Senator Murphy.
And I might just expand on your answer to say that the
ridership is not only going into New York. It's also, within
Connecticut, going both ways, from Stamford up to Bridgeport to
New Haven.
I was at two of the Fairfield stations this morning and saw
ridership on both sides of the tracks, students going from
Fairfield north or east, as well as commuters going into New
York. So we're really talking about commuting both ways, and I
think Mr. McGee would agree that the companies and employers
that come to Connecticut in Fairfield County depend
increasingly on commuters coming to them by rail both ways,
from both parts of the state and even from New York.
Now, increasingly, our economic vibrancy depends on people
being able to access Fairfield County from New York by rail. Is
that correct?
Mr. McGee. Yes, Senator. It's changed, you know. The view
that everyone on the train goes to Manhattan is not true
anymore. More people come into Stamford on a daily basis than
go to New York, and that shifted about probably 6 or 7 years
ago. But I don't think people have caught up to the fact that
that's really occurred. People use the train in Connecticut
now.
Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Boardman, let me just ask you and
others a question. We've talked about redundancy in terms of
micro grids. But what about fuel cells? Are they a promising
source of potential power?
Mr. Boardman. I don't believe--from what I've known about
them in the past, unless there's something that's really
upgraded, they're not going to be something we can use soon.
Mr. McGee. Senator, if I could add, in a 2007 case, the
Connecticut Academy of Science has looked at that issue about
fuel cells on the rail line and concluded that, at that point,
the technology wasn't there for it to be practical. Now, there
has been a lot of improvement in fuel cells since that period,
so it's probably worth looking at again. But when it was looked
at in 2007, it was concluded it wasn't appropriate.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
I want to thank each of you for your testimony. It has been
very, very helpful and important to the work of this committee.
And I want to thank our previous panel as well, and most
especially Chairman Rockefeller for his permitting us to have
this field hearing and for me to chair it, and for the
excellent work of our Committee staff, again, and my staff.
For anyone who has additional thoughts or submissions for
the record, we're going to hold it open for 10 days. And with
that, I'm going to adjourn the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Borough of Naugatuck, Office of Mayor Robert A. Mezzo
Naugatuck, CT, October 25, 2013
Senator Jay Rockefeller, Chairman,
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Surface Transportation Committee,
Washington, DC.
RE: United States Senate Transportation Committee Hearings
Support for Waterbury--Bridgeport Metro-North Branch Line
Dear Senator Rockerfeller:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony in
support of improvements to the Waterbury--Bridgeport Metro-North Branch
Rail Line (``Waterbury Line''). This section of transportation
infrastructure is critical for expanded economic development in all the
communities through which it passes.
The Borough of Naugatuck, a community of approximately thirty two
thousand (32,000) citizens located in southwest Connecticut, is
currently entertaining development proposals for multiple, town-owned
properties in its urban core. The Waterbury Line is a pivotal component
of what we collectively envision as a smart-growth, transit oriented
revitalization of downtown Naugatuck. Many of our citizens work in
densely populated communities to our south, and rely on southbound
transportation networks for travel to and from work.
Currently the primary means of travel from the Naugatuck River
Valley to Fairfield County and New York is Connecticut Route 8.
Unfortunately congestion on this limited access highway is significant
during morning and evening drive times as motorists attempt to link
with the Merritt Parkway and Interstate 95. While each community from
Waterbury south to Derby has a station along the Waterbury line,
commuters are reluctant to use public transportation because of the
limited and often poor rail service currently in place.
The recent power outage along the main line, which is the subject
of Monday's (10/28/2013) Transportation Committee hearings, undoubtedly
created inconvenience and frustration on behalf of Metro-North
commuters. Unfortunately this is something that is a continuous feeling
shared by many regular Waterbury Line passengers. When there have been
problems with rail cars on the main line, it has become common practice
to move Waterbury Line diesel trains to the main line. This generally
results in extended periods during which buses are substituted for
trains along the Waterbury Line.
Another major concern for Waterbury Line commuters is the frequency
by which trains depart and return to stations along the Naugatuck River
Valley corridor. A major obstacle to increasing trains on the Waterbury
Line is that it is a single track which prevents multiple trains from
traveling at different times. A recent Connecticut Department of
Transportation study of the Waterbury Line suggested the installation
of multiple side tracks at strategic locations along the rail line
which would allow for trains to pass one another. Unfortunately limited
resources combined with the Federal mandate to provide positive train
control along the entire Waterbury Line have prevented any action on
this recommendation.
The limitations to service and frequency of disruption provide a
serious inconvenience to those who rely on the Waterbury Line as their
primary means of transportation. Equally concerning are all the
countless other commuters who refuse to consider public transportation
because of the inherent inconveniences imposed by current Waterbury
Line service. Many of these Naugatuck River Valley commuters believe
they have no other choice than to drive to and from their destinations
south on the already congested network of state and interstate roads.
Building a first class, convenient public transportation system for
these United States is a big idea that requires commitment and vision
from the Federal government. For generations the communities throughout
the Naugatuck River Valley have been leaders and innovators during our
Industrial Age. As we seek to revitalize the historic downtowns in each
of our communities, we require a reliable and sustainable
transportation system that will meet the needs of the modern economy.
We strongly urge you and the honorable members of United States Senate
Transportation Committee to support and fund improvements to the
Waterbury Line. I would be pleased to further discuss this matter with
you at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Mezzo,
Mayor.
______
The City of Waterbury
Waterbury, CT, October 25, 2013
Senator Jay Rockefeller, Chairman,
U.S. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Surface Transportation Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Rockefeller:
Please accept this written correspondence as testimony for the
Committee hearing being conducted in Bridgeport, Connecticut on October
28, 2013.
As Mayor of the City of Waterbury, I have been a staunch advocate
for improvements to and investments in the State of Connecticut's rail
system, including the Waterbury Branch of the New Haven Line. We all
know that Connecticut's passenger rail system is a strategic link
between the major northeast urban centers of New York City and Boston
as well as a major component of the entire eastern rail corridor. In
addition to the benefits of being in a strategic location, Connecticut
is rich in natural and human resources that place us in the forefront
of the national economy in terms of science and technology, aviation,
manufacturing, education, and a variety of financial services.
Capitalizing on these resources requires the development and upkeep of
a rail system that allows us to offer an attractive business
environment; high quality, efficient mobility options; and, a high
quality of life. Improving the productivity of our rail transportation
system is essential to the competitive advantage of Connecticut, its
regions and urban centers, and in turn, the national economy.
Waterbury is situated at the terminus of the Waterbury branch of
the New Haven Line. Operations on the branch line are dependent upon
and affected by the reliability of the main New Haven line. Any
disruptions to electrical service on the New Haven line ultimately
impact the cities and towns up and down the Naugatuck River Valley.
Such disruptions include power outages, whether manmade or natural,
accidents or delays. With the New Haven line being over 100 years in
age, such disruptions are certainly not rare. When the New Haven line
``goes down,'' diesel locomotives are pulled off the Waterbury Branch
line, causing disruptions for passengers on the Branch line, whether or
not they plan to connect to the New Haven Line.
When our diesel trains are redeployed, the result is stranded
commuters who have to wait for CTDOT to implement a bus system in place
of the suspended rail. The bus system is then fraught with its own
delays and inefficiencies as drivers try to familiarize themselves with
the route and connections are missed.
It is crucial that the Federal Government take a hard look at rail
conditions in the State of Connecticut and support the upgrades and
major investments that will result in a more resilient public rail
system that can meet the challenges of the 21st century. Such
investments should include improvements to the New Haven main line, as
well as significant upgrades to the Waterbury Branch.
The Waterbury Branch line is in need of passing sidings, full
signalization and a transfer station at Devon Wye so that more than one
train can operate on the line. Without these improvements, our Valley
economy is severely hamstrung and mobility options for our residents
are limited. The City of Waterbury and the State of Connecticut are
investing in improvements to Waterbury's Train Station, with the goal
of encouraging transit-oriented development. We are redeveloping
brownfields, planning and designing sustainable riverfront development
and reusing our historic downtown buildings as we build a new City
economy. Efficient and reliable rail passenger service on the New Haven
Line, and specifically, the Waterbury Branch line, is at the heart of
our economic development strategies.
As Mayor of the City of Waterbury, I ask the Committee to make the
needed investments in the New Haven line and the Waterbury Branch that
will ensure their reliability and efficiency so that Connecticut can
offer viable transportation options to its businesses and residents
that will drive the growth of our local, state and national economies.
Yours truly,
Neil M. O'Leary,
Mayor.
______
Council of Governments, Central Naugatuck Valley
Waterbury, CT, October 25, 2013
Senator Jay Rockefeller, Chairman,
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Surface Transportation Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Rockefeller:
The power outage along the New Haven Line, which stranded over a
hundred thousand commuters and tens of thousands of Amtrak passengers,
highlights the fragile nature of our aging passenger rail network in
Connecticut. Along with the recent storms and accidents of the last two
years, it is clear that more needs to be done to ensure the resiliency
of the passenger rail network upon which so many people and communities
depend. We appreciate your committee's interest in learning about this
issue and ask for your support of this essential transportation
facility.
The future economic development and vitality of our communities is
directly linked to dependable, convenient, and regular rail service.
Greater investment in the rail line is essential to keep the line in a
good state of repair, grow ridership, and minimize the potential for
accidents, mistakes, and storm damage. Investments in the New Haven
Line, and its branches, immediately benefit millions of people,
reducing commute times and traffic congestion, increasing opportunities
for economic development and activity, and support the redevelopment of
the historic, walkable centers of our communities.
Disruptions on the New Haven Line ripple throughout the entire
Metro-North system. When the power is cut on the main line, the diesel
train sets that serve the Naugatuck Valley's Waterbury Branch are
redeployed to the main New Haven Line, leaving our passengers stranded
until busing can be started. Replacement buses are less dependable and
deter reliance on the Waterbury Branch. Such disruptions in service
hinder our communities' revitalization efforts, which are based around
the branch line.
Our municipalities are making significant efforts to revitalize
their downtowns and economies by investments in their train stations
and support for transit-oriented development. Federal support, along
with local, state, and private investment, is essential to making these
projects work. We are hopeful that you will recognize the opportunities
along the Waterbury Branch and support our efforts to improve it.
Thank you for your interest and giving us this opportunity.
Sincerely,
Samuel S. Gold, AICP,
Acting Executive Director.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to
Howard Permut
Question 1. What levels of redundancy do you have for electricity
along the New Haven line in CT? How is that different from what
currently exists in NY where Con Ed operates?
Answer. The general function of a substation is to take power from
the utility and make it useable for railroad operations. Every
substation in New York and Connecticut has full redundancy for normal
service operations. This means that substations are designed so that
the loss of a major electrical component (e.g., feeder, transformer) at
the substation will not affect electric train service and full
operations can continue. This function is called ``second order
contingency'' or ``N+1'' design.
If a major component is taken offline for either short or long term
maintenance, this redundancy can become compromised, as was seen last
fall in Mt. Vernon.
Currently, the catenary system on the New Haven Line, east of the
state border, has three supplying substations, Cos Cob, Sasco Creek,
and Devon. If the Sasco Creek substation is offline completely, the
adjacent substations are able to bridge the gap so that train service
is not affected. Metro-North and Connecticut Department of
Transportation (ConnDOT) are working to bring this type of additional
power capability to the Cos Cob and Devon substations. Construction of
a new substation in the New Haven Yard at the far east end of Metro-
North territory will allow service to continue to operate if the Devon
substation is offline, and the fortification of the electric tie system
in New York described below will provide this capability if the Cos Cob
substation is offline.
The New Haven Yard substation and the fortification of the electric
tie system are scheduled to be completed the first quarter of 2014.
Regarding operations in New York State, Con Ed is not the only
power supplier. NYS Electric and Gas also provides power in portions of
the State.
All New York substations--no matter which utility supplies the
power--are designed and built to the same type of second order
contingency or N+1 design described above, so train service is not
impacted due to loss of a major electrical component in the substation.
All 54 DC substations on Metro-North's Harlem and Hudson Lines, as well
as the Mt. Vernon substation on the New Haven Line are designed and
built to this standard. As noted above, second order contingency allows
substations to continue to operate if a major component within the
substation is offline.
Question 2. How will your contingency plans change in the future as
a result of this incident?
Answer. Metro-North is making a number of changes to its project
planning and contingency planning processes as a result of the Mt.
Vernon incident. New processes and procedures have been used to plan
the substation improvements currently underway at Cos Cob. Prior to
beginning this project, Metro-North, ConnDOT and Connecticut Light &
Power (CL&P) met, developed and jointly agreed to: project management
plans for the actual transformer replacement; a power contingency plan
that provides a primary and back up source; contingency plans for rail
and rail/bus service in the event of a disruption; a plan for,
communications with customers and other stakeholders. This same process
will be used before any future major substation maintenance projects.
In addition, Metro-North is working to build redundancy at all
substation locations to cover periods when maintenance is underway.
As noted above, in the remaining CT territory east of Devon,
construction of a new supply substation in New Haven Yard will provide
redundancy to the existing Devon supply substation.
In New York, Metro-North will fortify an existing emergency
electrical tie system, to allow for a contingency power supply in case
the utility serving the area is interrupted. While Con Edison and CL&P
systems cannot be tied together, this system will provide redundancy
for our Cos Cob substation, where power is provided by CT Light and
Power, and our Mt Vernon substation, where Con Ed provides power. Once
complete, this tie will allow the railroad to continue to operate train
service should the Cos Cob or Mt. Vernon substation fail, although
trains would operate more slowly and with delays.
Although Metro-North remains in discussion with Con Ed to build an
additional supply substation, identifying a location is challenging
given the availability of utility transmission voltage sources near the
right of way.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Christopher Murphy to
Howard Permut
Question. While the effort to install full electrical redundancy
along the Connecticut portion of line is already underway, any
additional light that can be shed on the parallel plan for the New York
track segments would be much appreciated. What is the menu of options
being considered? What are the accompanying installation timelines for
each potential option? When will a formal decision be made on the final
redundancy plan?
Answer. Please see the answer provided in question 2 above for
discussion of measures in New York.
The fortified emergency tie between the New York and Connecticut
sections is anticipated to be complete in March 2014. The Mt. Vernon
substation is scheduled for completion summer 2015.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to
Craig Ivey
Question 1. Are you aware of CL&P's plan to get electricity from
nearby substations to power CT track in times of need? Do you plan to
build similar redundancy?
Answer. James Redeker, Commissioner of the Connecticut Department
of Transportation, described redundancy in the power supply to the New
Haven line along the Connecticut portion of the route in the opening
statement of his testimony at the October 28, 2013 hearing in
Bridgeport. He noted two ongoing projects intended to enhance the
redundancy by the first quarter of next year. Mr. Redeker's testimony
was corroborated by Howard Permut, President of the Metro-North
Railroad, in his response to a question asked during the hearing. This
redundancy is achieved through Metro-North's design and investment
along the Connecticut portion of the route, in collaboration with the
Connecticut Department of Transportation. It's our understanding
through conversations in industry forums that CL&P supports the ongoing
projects as a contractor to Metro-North, but has not made any changes
in their own electric system to provide redundancy to the New Haven
line.
In the aftermath of the September 25 event, Metro-North has been
actively seeking to establish an additional and redundant supply for
the portion of track in New York State from Harrison to Pelham,
initially on a temporary or interim basis to allow the upgrade project
at their Mount Vernon substation to move forward without delay, and
then on a permanent basis. Con Edison has assembled a team of
engineers, operators, planners, and managers to fully support Metro-
North's efforts along these lines. The New York Power Authority (NYPA)
is also supporting this effort. All three entities--Metro-North, Con
Edison, and NYPA--have met on multiple occasions, and will continue to
meet, to achieve the goal of establishing an additional and redundant
supply as quickly and effectively as possible.
Question 2. Can you provide my office with more information on the
amount of money that ConEd spends on repair, maintenance and upgrades
for the lines that supply Metro-North? Does ConEd have a capital
improvement plan for such supply lines? Can you please provide it to my
office?
Answer. The two 138kV feeders that supply electric service to the
Metro-North Mt. Vernon substation are 38W09 and 38W10. Each underground
feeder is 3.65 miles long and has 14 manholes which contain splices.
Each feeder consists of three cables housed in a steel carrier pipe
filled with a dielectric fluid which cools and electrically insulates
the cables. The steel carrier pipe is protected from corrosion with a
cathodic protection system. The feeders have circuit breakers, switches
and associated protective relay equipment at the substations where they
originate and terminate. Except for the current failure, these two
supply feeders have never experienced any cable faults since they were
energized.
Con Edison regularly inspects, tests, and maintains feeders 38W09
and 38W10 and their associated equipment. From 2009 through 2013 (year
to date) Con Edison spent $271,782 to maintain the feeders and their
associated equipment.
In 2013, Con Edison invested $2.4M in capital improvements to
upgrade a circuit breaker, switches, and protective relays associated
with feeder 38W10. The Company has plans to invest an additional $2.4M
in capital improvements to upgrade substation equipment associated with
feeders 38W09 and 38W10.