[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A SAFE TRACK?: OVERSIGHT OF WMATA'S SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC ASSETS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 2, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-173
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-176 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JIM JORDAN, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM WALBERG, Michigan Columbia
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina TED LIEU, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
MICK, MULVANEY, South Carolina STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
KEN BUCK, Colorado MARK DeSAULNIER, California
MARK WALKER, North Carolina BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
ROD BLUM, Massachusetts PETER WELCH, Vermont
JODY B. HICE, Georgia MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
WILL HURD, Texas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Jennifer Hemingway, Staff Director
Andrew Dockham, General Counsel
Patrick Hartobey, Counsel
Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Government Operations
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina, Chairman
JIM JORDAN, Ohio GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia,
TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Vice Chair Ranking Minority Member
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina Columbia
KEN BUCK, Colorado WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
Subcommittee on Transportation & Public Assets
JOHN L. MICA Florida, Chairman
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois, Ranking
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR. Tennessee Member
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK DESAULNIER, California
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin, Vice BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
Chair
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 2, 2016................................. 1
WITNESSES
Mr. Christopher A. Hart, Chairman, National Transportation Safety
Board
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 13
Mr. Matthew Welbes, Executive Director, Federal Transit
Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 26
Mr. Paul Wiedefeld, General Manager, Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority
Mr. Jack Evans, Chairman of the Board, Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority
Oral Statement............................................... 33
Written Statement............................................ 36
Mr. Raymond Jackson, Second Vice President, Amalgamated Transit
Union, Local 689
Oral Statement............................................... 39
Written Statement............................................ 41
APPENDIX
Congressman Steny H. Hoyer Statement............................. 74
Senator Chris Van Hollen Statement............................... 75
Response from Mr. Wiedefeld-WMATA to Questions for the Record.... 77
Response from Mr. Jeter-Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689 to
Questions for the Record....................................... 95
A SAFE TRACK?: OVERSIGHT OF WMATA'S SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE
----------
Friday, December 2, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Operations, Joint with
Subcommittee on Transportation and Public Assets,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica
[chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Public
Assets] presiding.
Present: Representatives Mica, Meadows, Grothman, Jordan,
Buck, Carter, Chaffetz, Connolly, Watson Coleman, Maloney, and
DeSaulnier.
Also present: Representatives Comstock, Delaney, and Beyer.
Mr. Mica. Good morning. I'd like to call this joint hearing
of the Subcommittees on Transportation and Public Assets and
Government Operations to order. Two of our subcommittees of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform are holding a
joint hearing today. And the title of this hearing is ``A
SafeTrack''--that deals, of course, with Washington Metro--an
``Oversight of WMATA Safety and Maintenance Issues.''
I'm pleased to convene the hearing this morning. And the
order of business is we'll start with opening statements from
members, and then we'll go to our panel of witnesses. And after
we've heard from all of them, we'll go into questioning.
With that, we'll begin the hearing. And let me recognize
first Chairman Chaffetz, the chairman of the full committee.
Mr. Chaffetz, you're recognized.
Mr. Chaffetz. I thank you, Chairman. And I want to just
take a point of personal privilege here. This is the last
hearing that Mr. Mica will chair in the United States Congress.
Mr. Mica has served with great distinction for 24 years in this
body. He has served as the chairman of the Transportation
Infrastructure Committee. He's poured his heart and soul into
this Nation and to this body over more than two decades. And so
we want to say thank you, we want to say thank you, and we want
to say thank you for the tremendous service that you have
dedicated over the years. And you've been a great inspiration
to a lot of us. And it's an honor and a privilege to serve with
you. We wish you and your wife nothing but the best. But it is
an honor to be with you this last hearing that you're going to
chair. And we wish you nothing but the best. But God bless you.
Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you very much. Yield back.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Speaking for the Democratic side of the
aisle, I also want to wish you Godspeed and thank you for your
service. We have a reputation for not always being able to
collaborate on a bipartisan basis up here, but when you and I
served together, you as chairman of the subcommittee and me as
the ranking member, actually we made a lot of common music. And
I think you did an awful lot of good both here and, of course,
on the Transportation Committee as well. I'm going to miss you
personally, John. And on behalf of the Democratic side of the
aisle, thank you for your service to your country.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you, Gerry. And thank you, Chairman
Chaffetz. All the members of the committee, it's been a
pleasure, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Jordan, and others that I've had the
opportunity to serve with. A few minutes ago, we got to thank
some of the staff for their work this year. And you can't
operate an important committee like this without having a
tremendous staff, which on both sides of the aisle we've been
blessed.
So while there may be some cheering from the bureaucrats
that Mica's finally gone, I can assure you I still will be very
actively engaged and involved. But there's no better committee
to serve on. Now, I have chaired Transportation, but this
committee, dating back to 1808, performs such an important
service for the American people. It really does. It's not an
authorizer, it's not an appropriator, but it tries to make
things right, get things right, and hold people accountable.
And that's so important in our structure of government.
So it's been my pleasure to serve. And I'm not finished
yet, either with this hearing or in service to the people of
this great country. So I thank you for those accolades. I wish
I'd had more of them during my service. But--and my weird sense
of humor or sick sense of humor, the humor my wife says most
people don't understand that I have, is an inherited thing. So
I try to--you try to keep a light side of it along the way, but
we do have an important mission.
With that being said, we need to get to our work here. And
this is important work. And without objection, the chair is
authorized to declare a recess at any time. Kind of fitting in
the last hearing here, it's on transportation. And I was
honored to have this subcommittee which is responsible for
transportation oversight for the House of Representatives under
my watch for the past term.
And, unfortunately, today we're back to where we've been
before, and we have been some four times. This is our fourth
hearing on oversight of, unfortunately, some of the problems
with the D.C. Metro in this Congress. And those hearings go
back to February of 2015. And then we did another one in July
of 2015, and April of 2016. And, again, this is our fourth.
If you woke up this morning in metropolitan area of the
District of Columbia, Northern Virginia, and Maryland, first
thing I was greeted with is my colleague Gerry Connolly on the
radio blasting what we all found out on the report that was
released yesterday, some of the highlights of the NTSB report--
we'll hear more about that--on the Falls Church derailment. And
what is particularly troubling in that report is that,
unfortunately, some of the information about the deterioration
of the rail ties and lines in the area was reported and known
for more than a year. And there are questions about possible
falsification of reports, intimidation of employees. Some folks
were trying to do the right thing and were--the safety issues
were ignored. And that's a very, very serious matter. So we'll
talk more about that.
Again, it's the latest in a whole series of safety issues
that we have addressed in these past hearings. And, again, the
latest report, not from us but from NTSB highlights that almost
17,000 open track defects are still waiting to be repaired. And
some of these dating back to 2008.
In a briefing in its--on its investigation, the NTSB
informed our committee that the state of Metro's rails is
deplorable. Metro's current state of disrepair is--and that's
their term, not ours, but we can join them in that evaluation.
Metro's current state of disrepair is the result of years and
years of deferring maintenance needs, negligence in some cases.
Unfortunately, we've seen cases of gross mismanagement. And
then also most troubling for the taxpayers, is runaway costs.
Mr. Wiedefeld's first--safety first message has been
encouraging. And we know he's been on the job a short period of
time, but Metro has to continue to improve its performance.
We are now halfway through the SafeTrack rebuilding
schedule, but the system continues to be plagued by safety
incidents on almost a weekly basis. On July 5, we had a second
signal violation and a wreck. On July 29, a train with 63
passengers on board derailed. On September 13, a crowded train
stalled at Farragut North for nearly 40 minutes with almost no
announcements from the operators to the riders. On October 20,
two FTA safety inspectors were almost struck by a train that
violated speed restrictions. And we continue to see arcing
incidents--and I want to hear more about the status of where we
are there--that have caused smoke, fire, and, unfortunately, at
one of the first junctures we had a loss of life.
It's been, unfortunately, now commonplace that things are
so bad they've even created a Web site--and that Web site is
metroonfire.com--to find out if Metro is, in fact, suffering
from smoke or fire incidents at any particular time.
These incidents and service disruptions continue to keep
riders and the entire system in constant turmoil. Early in
January 2015, the previous chairman of the Metro's board
praised the outgoing manager for rebuilding the safety culture
from top to bottom after years of rebuilding under the $5
billion Metro Forward capital plan, that was his pronouncement.
Four days later, unfortunately, the L'Enfant Plaza incident
happened, which we had a loss of life and injured 91 people.
We need to know both today here from these witnesses and
also in the future, we've got to be certain that things are
heading in a different direction with this important system.
When you see headlines that show the staggering safety
lapses on a regular basis--and I said to the staff: Just pull
me some of the clips about some of these issues, the most
recent. And then I said: Are there a lot of them? And I said:
Well, tag them. You can see just page after page. Now, these
are just Washington Post articles. I don't know why you guys
didn't get the Times too, but this is just the Washington Post.
Do you get the Times, Gerry?
Mr. Connolly. I don't.
Mr. Mica. Okay. I didn't think so.
But this is, again, an incredible array of headlines and
articles that cite that the system is broken. We've had reports
even that new, brand-new, rail cars are breaking down. And I
heard one report that says this is 5 to 10,000 miles is a
breakdown record of the new cars, an average of about 7,000
miles on a car, as opposed to 20,000 for the normal period in
which a vehicle should not experience those problems. So we do
have multiple problems.
I was stopped by an individual when I was getting a subway
the other day, and he had some photos. And, actually, there's a
photo and a video. But maybe they could put up the photo that
he took of the workers.
Can we get that put up?
Okay. Well, you can count about 15 workers and about--well,
15 individuals employed by WMATA and about three people working
in this scene. Actually, he also supplied me, we don't have it
up there, a video showing a sort of time lapse that people are
there but not working. And that raises a great question when
the public is seeing this kind of operation with lots of people
standing around and we've got some serious issues with even the
folks that are there.
And I thank the current director for going in, and he has
made good in some of his challenges. In fact, I think he's
eliminated 20 senior manager positions and reduced some of the
headcount by 1,000. But you could see there's still a long way
to go with some of the people who are not performing. And I'm
going to ask some questions too about contracting some of this
work based on performance and payment. I understand the--also
that the union contract is not up for some of these workers
still in limbo. We'll hear on that. But there's got to be a
better way to get better results and performance from those on
the job.
I do want to thank, again, the new director for the reforms
that he's initiated. Maybe we could re-term this hearing, Let's
make Washington Metro great again. And that's something that we
have a challenge and opportunity to do. We put an incredible
amount of money into the system.
I googled last night the history of the system. And it's
been around for 40 years. Started with 4.7 miles. And it really
is one of the--it was created as one of the finest rapid
transit systems in the world. And we should be very proud of
this system. It serves the Nation's capital and this region.
And it's a shame that we find ourself in this particular
situation.
So I continue to work in an unofficial capacity to make
certain that happens. And hopefully this hearing will help us
rebuild Metro and restore public confidence in an important
transportation system, the second largest carrier of commuters
in the Nation, and important in the everyday life of people in
this region and to the United States of America.
So I look forward to working with you all. And I can turn
to Mr. Connolly. And I'm sure Mr. Connolly will be very warm
and fuzzy this morning.
You're recognized.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, I'd
ask unanimous consent that my colleagues, Mr. Beyer, Mr.
Delaney, and Mrs. Comstock, be allowed to participate in this
hearing.
Mr. Mica. Reserving the right to object.
Just kidding, Gerry. Just kidding.
Without objection.
Mr. Connolly. And if the clock can go back to 5, please,
for me.
That was a UC request. Thank you.
I appreciate this opportunity once again to discuss safety,
service, and budget challenges faced by the Nation's transit
system, WMATA. Each time this committee revisits this topic and
exercises its Federal oversight prerogative with regard to
Metro, we're reminded of the close relationship between the
functionality of the Federal Government itself and the health
of the Nation's capital transit system. It should come as no
surprise that a congressional committee tasked with ensuring
the efficiency of the Federal Government and the safety of its
workforce has a vested interest in the success of that transit
system that delivers more than one-third of the area's Federal
workforce every day.
In March, when Metro announced that it would shut down for
24 hours to conduct emergency inspections, the first question
on everyone's mind was how would the Federal Government's
Office of Personnel Management accommodate that closure. Unlike
any other transit system in the United States, this one is so
dependent on the Federal workforce for its customer base. The
Federal Government is the primary stakeholder in this transit
system. And I look forward to working with my colleagues to
ensure that Federal support for Metro is commensurate to its
fundamental reliance on the system. As Federal stakeholders, I
think our organizing principle should be the failure of Metro
cannot be an option.
When this committee held a hearing on Metro in April, the
system was in crisis. All lights were blinking red. The hearing
and witness testimony enumerated the system's mounting crises
in leadership, safety, customer confidence, and finance. It was
clear that the situation required bold and immediate action and
that the status quo for Metro was derailed to perdition.
The purpose of the hearing today is to examine whether
Metro has stepped back from the precipice and whether and how
the system can set a trajectory for safe, reliable, and
sustainable operations.
Unfortunately, the leadership crisis at Metro has evolved
rather than diminished. After going 10 months without a general
manager, the Metro finally has somebody at the helm, and
general manager Paul Wiedefeld has demonstrated that he
understands that the problems plaguing Metro are systemic. One
does not have to agree with every major decision he's made to
appreciate the fact that thank God he's willing to make them.
He came to the position with desperately needed relevant
experience, even though the board fought about what really was
required and preferred a green eyeshade accountant to somebody
with experience in operations. We were fortunate we didn't go
down that road.
The enduring leadership crisis at Metro resides in the
WMATA board of directors. Some board members seem bent on
proving that the governing body is wholly incapable of
resuscitating, much less managing, Metro. Threats to scrap a
major expansion of Metro to Dulles International Airport pit
jurisdiction against jurisdiction and fractured the true
regionalism necessary for Metro's success.
And I assure you, Mr. Evans, it will have repercussions up
here among your allies and your partners. It's destructive and
not welcome.
I've spent the last 21 years of my life working on Metro-
related issues, first as a member of the Fairfax County Board
of Supervisors and then as chairman of Fairfax County for 5
years. I made appointments to the Metro board. I rezoned
property around Metro stations to maximize their potential. I
approved the local operating subsidy every year without
question and helped create the local tax districts to fund
construction of the new Silver Line with the full approval of
Metro and Metro's board.
In Congress, I've worked diligently with my colleagues to
save the $150 million annual Federal commitment for safety
improvements, which is matched by the Virginia localities and
Maryland and D.C., and helped secure financing for the Silver
Line working with then-Secretary Ray LaHood to both reduce
costs and to secure funding for that Silver Line. So it's
personally painful to witness members of the WMATA board so
mismanage an institution this region has invested in and fall
back on the very parochialism some condemned.
From a congressional perspective, threats to cancel major
Federal investments, Federal investments, rampant parochialism,
and political theater on that board destabilize efforts to
secure and increase an appropriate level of Federal support up
here. It's not like we have that many friends. And to fracture
the support we've got jeopardizes everything you need in
Capitol Hill.
General manager Wiedefeld deserves credit for taking the
initiative within 6 months of becoming general manager to begin
a sweeping program that will seek to carry out 3 years' worth
of maintenance in 1 year. Leading up to the announcement of
SafeTrack in May, fires, major track defects, and arcing
incidents, including one that claimed the life of Carol Glover,
had exposed dire maintenance situation in Metro.
While SafeTrack gives us something tangible to point to
when assessing efforts to improve Metro safety, the safety
problems at Metro go far beyond the replacement of high voltage
cables and defective third rail insulators. I welcome the
SafeTrack metrics from Metro that include the replacement of
26,000 cross ties and 10,000 fasteners since the beginning of
the maintenance blitz.
However, this week, the National Transportation Safety
Board released a report on the East Falls Church derailment in
July. And it found, once again, that Metro track inspectors
were not conducting inspections in accordance with written
policy and responding to defects in realtime. Indeed, the NTSB
found clear evidence that Metro safety inspectors deliberately
falsified reports, endangering public safety once again.
In the report, NTSB reiterated its recommendation to the
Department of Transportation, the Federal Department of
Transportation, that FRA, not FTA, ought to have safety
responsibility and oversight for Metro. The report stated, and
I quote, ``The FTA oversight model lacks minimum safety
standards, expertise, and the resources to provide assurance
that corrective action plans are completed,'' unquote. I've
repeatedly shared my concern that the FTA does not have the
tools necessary to provide robust oversight of Metro. And I
think the derailment in East Falls Church is a case in point.
The customer confidence picture continues to worsen.
Ridership is already down 13 percent in this fiscal year.
SafeTrack has been disruptive to commuters, and pending
proposals for increased fares and diminished service could only
hasten the vicious downward spiral. I might add, loose talk
about closing large sections of the system continue to
contribute to the loss of consumer confidence and ridership
confidence. Will it be there in the future? Apparently not.
As the general manager noted in his fiscal year 2018
proposed operating budget, the primary cause of Metro's current
budget challenge, a $290 million budget gap, is declining rail
ridership, which has been on this downward trajectory since
2009. Fortunately, there's an effort from management to assert
the primacy of safety in Metro culture and improve reliability
that could go a long way to restoring faith in the system.
Going forward, staff reduction, service cuts, and fare
increases are not going to bring about long-term stability.
Metro is the only major transit system without a dedicated
source of funding, and the system relies upon a patchwork of
subsidies from local jurisdictions. Metro receives 47 percent
of it's operating budget from local and State subsidies, but
not a Federal subsidy, and zero percent from a dedicated source
of revenue. Zero percent.
In my hometown of Boston, our transit system sees those
figures in reverse, with zero percent coming from local
subsidies and 64 percent coming from a dedicated source of
revenue. In my role as chairman of Fairfax in 2004, I helped
launch the Blue Ribbon Panel on Metro that ultimately
recommended a regional sales tax and called on the Federal
Government to participate significantly in addressing the
projected shortfall for capital maintenance and system
enhancement.
There's clearly an appetite for Metro to meet certain
safety and reliability metrics before new funding commitments
are made. However, lamentations about performance will not
solve Metro's problems if we continue to ignore the
dysfunctionality of the Metro board, the culture of
indifference that pervades the workforce, and the absence of
stable revenue any transit system needs to operate.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today. And
thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Chairman Mica. And before I begin,
Mr. Mica, I want to just recognize not only the outstanding
service that you have provided the great folks of Florida and
the United States as a whole, but a personal friendship to me.
As a new guy coming in that had no idea what went on behind the
scenes or what went on out there, you took a young guy from
North Carolina and actually invested in me in a way that, quite
frankly, I'll never forget. You and Pat are dear friends.
It's been a difficult year. I want to let you know that I
sincerely appreciate your friendship, your leadership, your
investment, your love, and your compassion for the people that
you serve. If they knew what I knew, that every day that you
were worried about serving them more than serving yourself, I
think that they would rise up with a statue. And I just want to
say that I have a personal statue in my heart of a man that I
appreciate so much. And you know in my district we're the only
district in the United States with a place called Micaville.
And so every time I go by, I will remember it. So let me----
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Meadows. Let me go and turn to the business of today.
And let's get serious. I could tell you when I have my good
friend Gerry Connolly as upset as he is today, I take notice.
We talked about this yesterday. We've talked about it multiple
times. But what we have here is a systemic failure to address
real problems that actually not only affect ridership and the
financial stability, but the safety aspect of our inaction is
causing great peril, loss of life. And, quite frankly, it can't
be tolerated anymore. This is our fourth hearing. I'm tired of
hearings. I'm tired of excuses. I'm tired of us going back and
forth to look at these issues and say: Well, if you just give
us a little bit more time, we'll get it fixed. WMATA is not a
fine wine. It does not improve with time. What we must do is we
must act today.
The gentlewoman from Virginia, Mrs. Comstock, she has
called me a number of times saying that we have got to address
this particular issue over and over and over again. And yet
here we are with SafeTrack and learning that indeed as we start
to embark on it----
And, Mr. Wiedefeld, I want to say thank you. You're making
tough choices. You know, I can tell you it is not good for your
career. Because every time that you make a tough choice, you
have a critic that is out there that is wanting to suggest that
you shouldn't be making that choice. But, quite frankly, we
needed your kind of leadership years ago. This is a systemic
problem that has to be addressed and it has to be addressed
now.
Now, it will require difficult decisions. And as my good
friend Mr. Connolly just pointed out, some of the decisions
that are being contemplated by the board, Mr. Evans, are
troubling. You and I know that we've had some personal
meetings. And I'm willing to invest the political capital in a
way that does not play well back in North Carolina. But I'm
willing to do that to fix this system once and for all. But
what I'm not willing to do is to ignore what has become a
reoccurring theme.
Every time we get a new report, every time that we start to
see something, we start to find out things that we should have
known months and years ago. You know, to hear the report of
falsified records is just mind blowing. It's just--you know,
when you know that we're going to have this kind of detail to
look at it, it's mind blowing. And the death and injury of
individuals fall at the responsibility of some of those very
people who look the other way when we have issues that we have
to address. And so we're going to fix this. We're going to fix
this right away. And what we are going to make sure of, as we
look at the track record, is that we make hard decisions.
And so, Mr. Jackson, I'm looking forward to hearing from
you today. What are the hard decisions that you're willing to
make as well? Because what we have here is is we've got
everybody pointing fingers at everybody else. They're saying:
Well, it was not my job. Well, it's not my responsibility. Or
if we just had a little bit more money, we could fix it. Let me
just tell you. We do have a money problem, but this is not--the
genesis of this problem is not money. The genesis of this
problem is a culture that we have allowed to pervade and exist
for a long time.
WMATA has become the butt of jokes. But let me tell you,
it's not a joking matter. When you have people stuck on a track
and they can't get ahold of an operator for 30 minutes, and
then you start to unload them on to and get off on a track
where you have an active possibility for electrocution, I mean,
that's a real problem.
And, Mr. Wiedefeld, you and I have talked on a couple of
occasions, and some of the other safety concerns that are out
there, we need a little bit more transparency so I don't get
surprised by reading about something in the Washington Post.
And by doing that I understand that you're trying to evaluate.
But the other part of that is from an oversight standpoint, if
we're going to make investments for Federal dollars, we have
got to make sure that there is a good plan in place to address
these.
And so today, I'm looking forward to hearing from each one
of you on how we can address that. Chairman Hart, you're here
back to hopefully give us some marching orders. But it's not
good enough if it's in a report and it doesn't get acted upon.
It's not good enough that we fail to go and do what is
necessary to do this.
So as we start to look at this, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
your leadership on this area. What you are going to find are
two bulldogs in a bipartisan way with Mr. Connolly and I. We're
not going to let this go. And it's not because I ride it. It's
just the safety and health and welfare of the people of this
greater Washington, D.C. metro area that is at stake. We've got
to fix it.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you.
And I'll hold the record open for 5 legislative days for
any member who'd like to submit a written statement. And
recognize Mr. Connolly for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous
consent that the written statements from Democratic Whip Steny
Hoyer and Senator-elect Chris Van Hollen be entered into the
record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Mica. We'll now recognize our panel of witnesses. And
I'm pleased to welcome to--this morning the Honorable Chris--
Christopher Hart, chairman of the NTSB; Mr. Matthew Welbes,
executive director of the Federal Transit Administration; Mr.
Paul Wiedefeld, who is the general manager of the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; Mr. Jack Evans, chairman
of the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority; and Mr.
Raymond Jackson, second vice president of the Amalgamated
Transit Union, Local 689. I'd like to welcome all of our
witnesses.
This is an investigation and oversight committee hearing,
and we do swear in all of our witnesses. So if you'll please
rise. Raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're
about to give before this committee of Congress is the whole
truth and nothing but the truth?
And the record will reflect that all witnesses have
answered in the affirmative.
I think--well, maybe not everybody's been here, but we try
to limit our testimony to 5 minutes. And if you have a request
for additional information, data, or testimony to be added to
the record, just request that through the chair. And your
entire statement will be made part of the record.
So we'll start out this morning and recognize first Mr.
Hart, chairman of the NTSB. Welcome back, sir. And you are
recognized.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER A. HART
Mr. Hart. Thank you. And good morning, Chairman Mica,
Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and members of the
two subcommittees. Thank you for inviting me to testify today
on behalf of the NTSB.
Chairman Mica, thank you for your years of service in
Congress and all that you have done to advance transportation
safety. I'd like to join all the accolades that you have
already received this morning. I also appreciate Congress'
continued attention to oversight of rail transit safety on
WMATA's Metrorail system.
About 3 weeks ago, the NTSB announced its most wanted list
of transportation safety improvements for 2017 and 2018, which
again included improving rail transit safety oversight. The
NTSB investigations of rail transit accidents involving WMATA
continue to show that safety oversight of WMATA is unreliable,
which increases the risk of further accidents, injuries, and
loss of life. An effective independent oversight system must be
created to ensure that the highest possible level of safety is
afforded to WMATA's riders and employees.
Inadequate oversight of WMATA's Metrorail system is a
persistent problem. In general, the NTSB investigations of
WMATA have found that although safety program plans were in
place, they were not effectively implemented or overseen.
Oversight challenges regarding WMATA are particularly acute
because of WMATA's unique oversight structure. Most transit
properties involve one jurisdiction, and a few involve two, one
of which typically takes oversight responsibility. WMATA is the
only transit property in the United States that involves three
jurisdictions: Maryland, Virginia, and the District of
Columbia. Moreover, these three jurisdictions collectively
share oversight responsibility. This constitutes a challenge
seen by no other rail transit system in this country.
My written statement further details the history of rail
transit safety oversight in general and of WMATA's 45 years of
inadequate safety oversight. Despite efforts over the years to
improve the FTA's rail transit safety oversight capabilities,
the NTSB's investigation of the fatal electric arcing and smoke
accident at L'Enfant Plaza on January 12, 2015 revealed a
transit system with no effective safety oversight.
As a result of this investigation, the NTSB issued urgent
safety recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation on
September 30, 2015, to seek authority for the Federal Railroad
Administration to exercise safety oversight over WMATA. Unlike
the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Railroad
Administration has robust regulatory inspection and enforcement
powers, allowing it to more quickly and more effectively
address hazards and improve the overall safety of WMATA's rail
operations.
The Secretary of Transportation instead tasked the Federal
Transit Administration with direct safety oversight of
Metrorail; the first such direct oversight that the FTA has
ever exercised. The FTA has limited staff to carry out the
function, has no regulations against which to measure
compliance, and does not have the authority to levy civil or
individual penalties in response to safety deficiencies.
The Department of Transportation furthermore envisioned a
short-term FTA oversight rule--role, imposing a deadline of
February 9, 2017 for WMATA's three jurisdictions to create an
effective State oversight agency. Yet in the face of that,
we've just learned that Maryland and Virginia have recently
notified DOT that they will not meet this deadline. The NTSB
remains concerned that Maryland, Virginia, and the District of
Columbia will continue to encounter impediments. I want to
stress again the difficulty in forming an oversight body that
reports to three jurisdictions. There is still no known date by
which such a body will be established.
In the meantime, we continue to investigate accidents that
illustrate the need for immediate action. Yesterday, the NTSB
issued an accident brief on the East Falls Church derailment
that occurred on July 29, 2016, already referred to in this
hearing. The probable cause of the accident was a wide track
gauge condition resulting from the sustained use of
deteriorating wooden cross ties due do WMATA's ineffective
inspection and maintenance practices and inadequate safety
oversight.
Of particular concern is that NTSB investigators learned
that the defective track conditions that lead to the East Falls
Church derailment had been previously identified by WMATA
inspectors, yet were not properly remediated. NTSB
investigators were also provided additional documentation from
WMATA showing almost 17,000 open defects reported by WMATA
track workers, some going back as far as October 2008, as
already mentioned this morning, and these were still--are still
waiting to be repaired.
This accident further illustrates why immediate action is
required to address safety issues at WMATA. The NTSB remains
convinced that with the history of accidents at WMATA, the FRA,
Federal Railroad Administration, their more established
oversight program is vital to increasing passenger safety.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look
forward to responding to your questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Hart follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mica. I recognize now the FTA administrator. Welcome,
sir, and you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW WELBES
Mr. Welbes. Chairmen Mica and Meadows, Ranking Member
Connolly, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting
me to provide an update on FTA's oversight of the Washington
Metropolitan Transit Authority.
And, Chairman Mica, thank you for your support building
public transportation and our work together on SunRail over the
years.
Safety remains the top priority for FTA and the United
States Department of Transportation. And with that in mind, FTA
has used the authority granted to us by Congress to ensure
safety improvements among FTA grantees, including Metrorail. At
this time, significant work remains to bring Metrorail into a
state of good repair, to build a strong safety culture, and to
improve the agency's financial outlook. Years of
underinvestment and deferred maintenance have contributed to
Metrorail's deterioration. And it's because of this
deterioration that Metrorail's daily passengers have not
received the safe reliable service they should expect.
Recently, FTA has observed important steps by WMATA
leadership prioritizing safety over revenue service. But
establishing and ensuring an enduring safety culture remains a
critical task.
WMATA received over $450 million from FTA in fiscal year
2016. And FTA's ensured that these capital dollars are
prioritized for improving safety, infrastructure, and
reliability. In some instances, FTA has used this authority to
redirect Federal funding to states in a state of good repair
priorities.
During 2016, FTA conducted investigations into Metrorail
track integrity, stop signal overruns, and vehicle securement
that led to specific corrective actions that WMATA must
complete. There are results from FTA's work. For the first time
since 2012, all rail traffic controllers in WMATA's rail
operations control center have completed required annual
certifications, and approximately 2,000 employees who had
expired roadway worker protection program certifications are
now retrained and certified.
In addition, while FTA is not in charge of the day-to-day
work of SafeTrack, FTA directives guided WMATA's prioritization
of SafeTrack work to locations where the most urgent repairs
were required to reduce the risk of smoke and fire events. As a
result, WMATA corrected numerous instances of degraded fire and
life safety equipment in tunnels that affect emergency
passenger evacuations.
In addition to investigations, FTA has conducted both
announced and unannounced inspections and leads accident
investigations as warranted. FTA conducted more than 300
inspections during the past year. We've identified more than
900 remedial actions. And to date, WMATA has addressed two-
thirds of those. During our inspections, FTA has identified
operating practices and track conditions that led to immediate
orders for slow zones or track segment closures protecting
passengers and workers from unsafe conditions, and much more
progress is required.
It is important to note Secretary Foxx has made clear that
FTA's role is temporary based on the Federal statutory
framework. Our work will continue until Virginia, Maryland, and
the District of Columbia establish a new State safety oversight
agency as required under Federal law. The three jurisdictions
are required to receive certification of a new State safety
oversight program no later than February 9, 2017, and failure
to meet this deadline could result in the withholding of up to
$15 million in Federal transit funding from 22 communities in
Maryland and Virginia outside of the Washington, D.C. region.
In conclusion, FTA provides robust direct safety oversight
of Metrorail that is making a difference. Based on our unique
knowledge of transit agencies throughout the U.S., we are
supporting and guiding the critical steps needed to improve
WMATA infrastructure, safety culture, and operations, while
ensuring that the jurisdictions step forward and take
responsibility for their statutory role.
The WMATA bus and rail system is vital to our Nation's
capital region, the economy, and the millions of people who
rely on it, including me. There is more work ahead that must
occur at WMATA to make it safer and more reliable.
I thank you for this opportunity to discuss FTA's direct
safety oversight of Metrorail, and I look forward to answering
questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Welbes follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mica. We'll now hear from the WMATA administrator, and
welcome you back.
Mr. Wiedefeld. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Mica,
Chairman Meadows, and Ranking Member Connolly, and members of
the committee. I'm Paul Wiedefeld, the general manager and
chief executive officer of the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority known as Metro. I want to especially thank
and recognize Chairman Mica who has a long and distinguished
career, obviously, in helping infrastructure around the
country. Thank you for your service, sir.
Immediately upon joining Metro last year, we went to work
to restore public confidence by improving safety and security,
and making service more reliable and getting Metro's financial
house in order. As we work to improve Metro, I have sought to
and will continue to make clear to our customers, employees,
and the entire region that safety comes before service. The
year-long SafeTrack program reflected that commitment to safety
over service.
SafeTrack accelerates 3 years' worth of work into
approximately 1 year. The plan significantly expands
maintenance time on weeknights, weekends, and midday hours, and
includes 15 safety surges for major projects. And as I detailed
in my written testimony, we have implemented a number of other
programs to continue and improve customer and employee safety,
as well as the customer experience.
To sustain this progress going forward, we have proposed a
preventive maintenance program to the WMATA board. We are
requesting an additional 8 hours a week to do preventive
maintenance inspections on the system. The goal of the
preventive maintenance program is to reduce service disruptions
due to track failures and create opportunities to identify and
repair track problems before they disrupt daytime rail service.
On the financial side of the house, Metro ended fiscal year
2016 on budget and received an on-time clean audit with no
findings in the first time in 3 years. Also, for the first year
in recent history, Metro's capital program invested $1 billion
in the system, spending 85 percent of projected capital budget
in fiscal year 2016, compared to spending approximately 65
percent in previous years. And in the current fiscal year, we
are on a path to spend nearly $1.2 billion, meeting our budget
forecast.
Looking ahead, WMATA must bridge a significant projected
resource gap in order to achieve a balanced operating budget in
fiscal year 2018. Daily ridership on bus and rail has declined
significantly in response to poor service, quality, and
reliability, as well as external factors, while at the same
time costs have continued to increase. To address this funding
gap, the proposed operating budget recommends a number of
actions, including the elimination of an additional 500
positions for a total of 1,000 positions in fiscal year 2018,
outsourcing certain functions, a reduction in rail service,
increased fares, and elimination of certain bus routes, and
increased subsidies at the local jurisdiction level.
While we will continue to improve the overall safety and
financial management of the system, we will be putting much
greater emphasis on customer experience, particularly with
regards to reducing unscheduled delays due to poor track
conditions, improving the reliability of our train fleet, and
enhancing the station environments in 2017. Our goal for 2017
is to reduce delays caused by train cars--train car use--train
cars by 25 percent and unplanned delays caused by track issues
by 50 percent.
Finally, we will be establishing a customer-driven metrics
which will measure our performance to inform our decisionmaking
from a customer point of view and will be used as a management
tool for employee accountability.
I will close by thanking Congress for your continued
support of Metro through the Federal funding, particularly the
PRIIA funding, which are invested in long-term improvements to
the system. You have my full commitment that I will continue to
work to get Metro back to good. Thank you for your time and
attention.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
We'll now hear from Chairman Evans. You're recognized.
STATEMENT OF JACK EVANS
Mr. Evans. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And good morning, Chairman Mica, Chairman Meadows, Ranking
Member Duckworth, Ranking Member Connolly, members of the
subcommittee. And I too want to lend my voice to Mr. Chairman
Mica for your great service here to the city and to the
country. Thank you for that.
I serve as the principle director from Washington, D.C. on
the WMATA board, and for the last 10 months have been the
chairman of the board of WMATA. In addition to that, I am the
Ward 2 council member on the Council of the District of
Columbia, which represents the central business district, 11
surrounding neighborhoods, 12 Metro stops. Since 1999, I've
chaired the council's committee on finance and revenue. And I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before the committee
today and provide updates from my prior testimony in April 13
of 2016. And since then, WMATA has taken significant steps to
improve safety, reliability, and fiscal management of the
system.
I do want to personally take this opportunity to thank
Congressman Hoyer, Congressman Norton, Congressman Connolly,
Congressman Meadows, and Congressman Comstock, who I had an
opportunity to meet with personally on these matters. And I
want to really take this time to thank you for taking the time
to sit down personally and meet with me.
At the top of the organization, a majority of the board of
directors has turned over in the past few years. We now have 12
out of 16 new board members, including three new Federal
representatives who joined the board last spring. In my
estimation, and I served on the board back in the 1990s for 10
years, this is the best qualified, most involved, and most
transparent board that we have ever had at Metro.
Our general manager, Paul Wiedefeld, has now been at the
helm for a year. And in that time, he's been able to put
together a new senior leadership team and implement major
initiatives to fix the rail system, restructure, and right size
the agency, and better maintain the rail car fleet. Mr.
Wiedefeld will provide--has provided a detailed information
about these, but to summarize again, WMATA has made personnel
changes, operational changes.
So far this year, he has hired a new chief operating
officer, a new chief safety officer, both of whom have decades
of experience in New York City, a new general counsel, and a
new chief of internal business operations to improve our
procurement and administrative functions. He's also
restructured the management team in March to break down some of
the longstanding divisions within the agency. As pointed out,
he fired 20 senior managers, and has already eliminated over
500 positions in the agency.
The agency has been undergoing the aggressive SafeTrack
project, which we have discussed here. However, it is important
to keep in mind that SafeTrack will not solve all the agency's
problems. And it will make it safer, it will make it more
reliable, but in the words of--and, Mr. Connolly, you may
appreciate this--Winston Churchill--I know you're a big fan as
well as I am--it's not the end, it's not the beginning of the
end, it's probably just the end of the beginning. And that is a
true statement about where we are in Metro's maintenance.
WMATA's financial condition can be summed up in three
numbers. If you remember last time I was here, I told you the
numbers: 300, 18, and 2.5. The numbers have changed a little
but not much. First, the 300 is 290. 290 is a projected $290
million operating shortfall in the fiscal year 2018 budget,
which we are dealing with now. Runs from July 1 to June 30 of
2018. The gap includes $103 million from ridership and revenue
loss, $87 million from expense growth related to SafeTrack, and
$100 million that the agency transferred from capital dollars
to operating dollars to balance the budget last year.
Next, 18. Eighteen is still 18. It's the $18 billion in
capital needs that the agency faces over the next 10 years.
WMATA has produced now a detailed capital needs inventory and
reported back to the board this week that the cost of simply
deferred maintenance and the state of good repair needs over
the next 10 years is $17.4 billion. This is essentially a
barebones capital investment needed to get the system back to a
baseline of operations.
Additionally, WMATA should execute approximately $800
million of preventive maintenance measures over the next 10
years in order to improve its reliability. These capital needs
do not include an estimated $7 billion in new needs related to
compliance with NTSB and FTA directives and other issues,
particularly likes the Rosslyn bottleneck. Briefly, that is the
Rosslyn bottleneck need for a new tunnel because of the
construction in Virginia to carry the trains into the District.
It is a $3.5 billion item that is not included in any of our
numbers. And, frankly, hasn't even be started the studying of
how we're going to build this tunnel.
Finally, $2.8. Two point five was the number I gave you
before. In the months I've been here since April, it is now
$2.8. It is WMATA's unfunded pension and other post-employment
benefits liability deficit. The WMATA board has created a
special pension committee to review our pension plans and try
to figure out how to deal with this unfunded liability. $2.8
billion is a staggering amount for an organization of our size
that is an unfunded liability. If we fail to address these
pension obligations, WMATA will find itself in exactly the same
place District of Columbia was in in 1995. We had a $10 billion
unfunded liability, and it almost brought the city down.
The financial situation of WMATA is dire. To fill the
short-term operating budget gap, the jurisdictions, Maryland,
D.C., and Virginia, need to increase their subsidy
contributions collectively next year by $250 million. The
alternatives, raising fares by 35 percent, closing low
ridership stations during off-peak hours, continuing to use
capital funds for our operating budget, puts WMATA at serious
risk. And again on the capital side, without an increase from
our current $1.1 billion annual capital funding resources to
approximately $1.8 billion, we will continue to have the system
we have today, only further stressed by the hundreds of
thousands of new riders that we anticipate in the next decades.
It is important to note here, as Mr. Wiedefeld mentioned,
that in addition to more capital funding, WMATA has improved
its capability to utilize those funds. And in the past, we were
only spending about 65 percent of them. Mr. Wiedefeld has now
got us up to the point where we spent almost 100 percent of the
money on capital that we have allocated for the year. We spent
over $1 billion, which was the highest ever.
So finally in conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to
discuss with you today the continued financial problems at
WMATA and the steps we have taken to put the agency on a better
footing moving forward. It's easy to think of WMATA as an
autonomous entity separate from the rest of the region. But
it's important to remember this: WMATA is a $40 billion asset,
a $40 billion asset, in which all of us, Federal Government,
D.C., Maryland, Virginia, each have a 25 percent interest. So
with this $40 billion asset, what are we collectively going to
do to take this asset and maintain it and make it better?
So I believe with an increased funding, with the steps our
general manager is taking, and with the collective will of all
of us in the region, we can fix WMATA. And as has been said
before, failure is not an option. So thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today, and I look forward to
any questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Evans follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
And we'll hear from Mr. Raymond Jackson who's with the
Amalgamated Transit Union Local. Welcome, sir. You're
recognized.
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND JACKSON
Mr. Jackson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, ranking committee
members. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank you for your years
of dedicated service.
My name is Raymond Jackson and I am the second vice
president of ATU Local 689. Today I am here to give insight
into the SafeTrack program and the challenges that are facing
the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in the near
and distant future.
When SafeTrack was first introduced, Local 689 was hopeful
that it would mark a departure from the culture and old
practices at WMATA. As things have progressed, we are now
concerned that WMATA's failure to consult with our union and
with the experienced employees on the ground will be its fatal
flaw.
Had our input been solicited, we would have worked to find
a better way of getting the work done without disrupting the
lives of so many riders in this region. We all have family
members who ride the system daily, and most of us ride the
system as well. So we know the frustrations with SafeTrack
firsthand. Unfortunately, the reality of SafeTrack, that it is
a necessity at this point. If work had been done over the past
20 years, WMATA would not be disrupting the lives of the people
in this region in the way that they have the past 6 months. At
this point, SafeTrack is what riders of the region are left
with after decades of mismanagement and neglect.
We are also concerned that WMATA continues reliance on
outside contractors to do the work that can be done by Local
689 members has become a way for private companies with no
investment in this system to make boatloads of money at the
expense of the public and our riders. Many times our members
end up having to redo work done by these outside companies. It
is frustrating for frontline employees and shows a lack of
respect for the expertise that our members have.
Our local deals with constant complaints about the lack of
employee morale. In other transit systems in this country and
around the world, there's a culture of labor-management
cooperation where employees are treated with dignity on the
job. Their opinions are valued and they have a sense of
ownership in the work that they do. That is not the WMATA way.
By and large, the invaluable source of knowledge that has
represented our long-term employees is overlooked and sometimes
even ignored by management, which leads me to WMATA's budget
proposal going into fiscal year 2018.
Local 689 is concerned that the drastic service cuts and
fare increases proposed by the agency in response to the impact
of SafeTrack are sure to be the death of this system. The fact
is people need safe, affordable, and reliable transit service.
The only way to bring back riders is to restore public
confidence in Metro. This will no doubt be a slow process. We
have to prove ourself all over again to a public that has
understandably had enough of Metro's enormous problems.
Asking our riders to deal with even longer waits through
longer headways and stranding bus riders by eliminating 14 bus
lines is not going to restore customer satisfaction. Neither
will increasing rail and Metro bus fares. The proposed increase
will put a hurt on some of our most transit-dependent riders
who have no other way to get around. Like most transit systems
that cut routes, WMATA is looking toward those with low
ridership, early morning, late night, and weekend service.
People who work nontraditional hours will be disproportionately
affected.
Laying off 1,000 employees, once again shedding sorely
needed knowledge and putting a huge burden on a shell of a
workforce, is not only ill-advised but also dangerous. Yet,
this is WMATA's plan to dig out of this hole.
Through its slash-and-burn budget proposal, Metro is using
the self-inflicted SafeTrack crisis to justify mass cuts in
service that would never be accepted in this region under
normal circumstances. Metro riders need to call them out,
letting them know that we need more, not less service. If we go
along with this plan, people will forever abandon the system
and it will crumble, causing an embarrassing mobility crisis in
our Nation's Capital.
The answer to Metro's current budget hole is a short-term
cash infusion, to get the system back on its feet. If Congress
had not come into the aid of the American auto industry during
the financial crisis 7 years ago with the $80 billion bailout,
these companies would have evaporated. Now America's transit
system needs a smaller boost. We call on Congress, Maryland,
D.C., and Virginia to come through with the revenues necessary
to see Metro through this crisis and urge the agency to work
hand-in-hand with us in an effort to prolong and develop a
long-term dedicated funding stream from the Federal Government
and the jurisdictions that will help improve the system and
ensure that we never face these dire circumstances ever again.
Transit riders and our members deserve nothing less. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Jackson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mica. I thank all of the witnesses and we'll turn now
to questions. I guess I started out commenting on the East
Falls Church derailment NTSB report. And it quite specifically
says that interviewers suggested inspectors fabricated track
measurement and inspection reports. I've got some of the
inspection reports that were ignored.
Mr. Wiedefeld, I know we just got the report yesterday. And
almost every time you come before me, I say, well, steps need
to be taken to hold people accountable. And you've done that.
You got rid of some of the management people who were not
effective and others.
Now, it seems like it's fairly simple to trace this back to
people from the report and who they interviewed. And then the
reports that were submitted, someone was responsible for
ignoring those reports. Can these people be held accountable?
Now, you know me. My recommendation is fire those that did
not perform. Can we have some results and action, based on what
we've seen from this report?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I could just give you
a bit of background. What the NTSB action report is the
information that we gave them. That was part of an independent
investigation that I had started immediately where I had
outside people come in.
Mr. Mica. So have those people been--I mean, you had the
information and gave it to them. Have you taken action already?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yes. What I did immediately is once I
basically got informed about what we were hearing and what we
were seeing, I started a criminal investigation. I've hired two
independent prosecutors. That investigation is still open.
Mr. Mica. Okay.
Mr. Wiedefeld. So I do not want to comment any further on
that.
Mr. Mica. Okay.
Mr. Wiedefeld. But that is exactly what we are doing.
Mr. Mica. Again, holding people accountable, and there are
consequences for inappropriate or negligent action, and if it's
worse than that they need to be--I'm told that the--I asked
about an inspector general for the operation or someone
overseeing. I'm told that that's a weak position, either
through the performance of the current individual or the
position not having the authority to go in and take some
action. What's your assessment?
Mr. Wiedefeld. The OIG answers to the board; they do not
answer to me. That office is under----
Mr. Mica. Mr. Evans, do you want to comment on it? Again,
unless you have somebody with some teeth to go after people--
the information that I'm getting is the IG is either weak in
performance or the position is weak. What do you say?
Mr. Evans. What I have tried to do as the chairman, Mr.
Chairman, is to empower the IG to be more aggressive than it
has been in the past.
Mr. Mica. Do you set that authority up or is that set by
statute, Federal statute?
Mr. Evans. Federal statute. That is in the compact.
Mr. Mica. It is, Federal statute?
Mr. Evans. Yes.
Mr. Mica. I'm not going to be here, but that might be
something you all could look at is strengthening the IG
position so it's got some teeth. Somebody's got to do
something. I mean, they see something wrong and there has to be
action taken. That's why we have the IG system, and if it's
weak.
So that would be something I would recommend, either--if
you don't have that authority, you need to get the information
to the folks that can modify that and do it quickly.
Mr. Hart, what's the status of our arcing connections?
Mr. Hart. Thank you for the question. We just issued our
final report on that recently, so the recommendations are
relatively recent. The recommendations that are a little older
were our urgent recommendations about the connection of the
power cables, that they needed--that we saw many of them were
missing some of the sleeves to keep----
Mr. Mica. Right.
Mr. Hart. --the stuff out.
Mr. Mica. I went down, looked at that.
Mr. Hart. Correct.
Mr. Mica. And saw the arc.
Mr. Hart. And we're seeing good progress on the action.
WMATA has been quite cooperative.
Mr. Mica. But where are we? Do you know? Maybe Mr.
Wiedefeld can tell me.
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yes. We've eliminated--it's the Orange
boots. We have basically replaced all those in the underground
system, which is where the key issue is, and we have--
basically, we have about 5 percent left on the aboveground, and
that's to be done with the remaining surges. When we get into
those surge areas, we'll replace those.
Mr. Mica. Okay. So you're about 5 percent. So the smoke--
maybe this site that I cited that you can go on and see if
Metro's on fire can be taken down pretty soon.
Okay. Arcing and the connections. Communications, worked on
that for God knows how long. Where are we? I understand the
agreement has been executed with the cell companies. The
installation has begun. I understand there's only three areas
between stations that are now operating, up and operating.
Mr. Wiedefeld. Right. And we will continue to do that.
Basically, we're doing that as part of the shutdown that we're
doing.
Mr. Mica. I know, but that's not good. What is the
schedule?
Mr. Wiedefeld. The Red Line, east side of Red Line will be
done in 2017.
Mr. Mica. How many total, 70 is it, areas that aren't
covered? And we have three underway, and then I'm told there
are some that are in the process of being--having the equipment
installed. Is that correct?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. But what's the balance for the balance?
Mr. Wiedefeld. We will have the Red Line done in 2017. We
will have the Blue and the Orange Line done east of Metro
Center.
Mr. Mica. Give me the numbers. So we're at three. In
another year, will we have 50?
Mr. Wiedefeld. I can give you the entire schedule.
Mr. Mica. Okay. I'd like that in the record.
Mr. Wiedefeld. I will.
Mr. Mica. And you can follow up.
Mr. Mica. Again, if you don't have communication, I mean,
when they couldn't communicate--and we held funds up a couple
of times. I think I participated in that to get your attention.
But we've got to have the communications between the stations,
both for the safety of the passenger but also for the crew and
everybody else to communicate. So that's one that is still
undone.
Okay, back to Hart. You had 16,800 recommendations--or
defects, rather. Tell me the status of any of your
recommendations that are undone or some of these defects that
you cited.
Mr. Hart. Thank you for the question. This goes to the
fundamental premise that we said the Federal Railroad
Administration needs to be in charge, because when there are
defects that aren't fixed then the FRA would go after that.
There is no----
Mr. Mica. I'll go to FTA in a second. But, to your
knowledge, there's still a huge number of defects that have not
been addressed, one; and then, two, the recommendations that
you had, I forget how many you had of that, but very few of
those have been met.
Mr. Hart. Let me clarify. It's not only defects that have
not been fixed; it's also maintenance schedules that aren't
being done.
Mr. Mica. Right. Right.
Mr. Hart. They were supposed to inspect that every--twice a
week, and we found they were inspecting it monthly in the
crossover. So that's an example of where their own internal
requirements for--WMATA's own internal requirements for
maintenance schedules weren't being met.
Mr. Mica. But, again, you had the list of recommendations
for improvements, and then we have a larger list of defects
that were identified. Mr. Wiedefeld, do you want to respond?
Where are we?
Mr. Wiedefeld. We do have a very large backlog. Basically,
we're prioritizing those that are the most severe. And that is
one of the reasons why we're asking for additional time to do
preventive maintenance on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Mica. What percentage of your maintenance is
contracted-out work, and some of these repairs?
Mr. Wiedefeld. I don't know the exact percentage, but we
have----
Mr. Mica. Twenty percent, 10 percent?
Mr. Wiedefeld. In that range. In that range.
Mr. Mica. Okay. Well, based on the images that were given
to me, you got a lot of people out there but not a lot of them
working, and something has to be done there. I mean, Mr.
Jackson ain't going to like this, but--and I think you still
have some negotiations to go or something, but whatever you
have to--whatever steps to get somebody in there that can
perform. If they can't do it, they need to go. If you are
hiring contract people, they need to perform and have them take
over some of that responsibility.
Okay. Let me go finally to FTA. Since September, I think
Mr. Connolly and I both agree FTA has limited capability--it's
been mostly a grant agency, I guess--to conduct the safety
oversight. The recommendation from Hart and NTSB was FRA. Do
you want to speak to the deficits in capability that you have?
And I understand some of that's been made up by partnering or
cooperating with FRA. Mr. Welbes.
Mr. Welbes. So a year ago, when FTA determined that D.C.,
Maryland, and Virginia were not capably carrying out their
State safety oversight responsibilities, which is part of the
Federal statutory structure, FTA used authority that Congress
had given us and we stepped in. And we have the authority to
conduct investigations, and we've conducted four investigations
during the past year. We've looked at stop signal overruns,
track integrity, vehicle securement, traction power. We've
issued report-outs on three of those. We've issued requirements
to WMATA for specific actions associated with those
investigations. We've conducted over 300 inspections. We're on
site at WMATA about six days out of seven during the past year.
And as a result of our inspection work, we've issued 900--
identified 900 defects for WMATA to correct. They've corrected
about two-thirds of them to date. In a number of instances, our
inspections of track have resulted in taking track out of
service or slow orders. And the oversight of Metrorail
exercised by FTA is probably the most scrutiny U.S. DOT has
ever applied to about 220 miles of track.
We also have the authority to direct spending, and in two
instances, at least, we've directed WMATA to move spending from
one purpose to another. We directed spending in one case to,
$20 million toward the 7000-series cars to replace the 1000-
series cars, which are subject to an NTSB recommendation to
remove them from service. We also redirected WMATA funds toward
corrective actions that FTA identified a year ago, one of which
includes replacing and updating a track management inventory
system, to get a handle on the defects that have been
identified.
We also have requested from Congress in the past the
authority to issue civil penalties, and we've also requested
the authority three times from Congress for the ability for
criminal penalties since 2008. We've asked for that from
Congress.
Mr. Mica. And that has not been granted. Let me turn to Mr.
Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Welbes,
listening to you, apparently you're just providing robust
safety oversight. You're sitting next to the man charged with
transportation safety who says otherwise. He says you don't
have the capability.
I met with Virginia authorities yesterday who are writing
their part of the tri-State safety oversight legislation,
which, by the way, Mr. Hart, is subject to legislative cycles.
It doesn't happen like that. Our legislature meets in January,
and only the last 2 months we're a part-time legislature. And
they tell me that you don't cooperate with them, that, in fact,
when they seek information from FTA on Metro, they're told that
it's proprietary. They've been denied documents and access to
information they think is material.
And I'd like you to address Mr. Hart, who says you don't
have the capability. Far from your testimony of robust
oversight, you don't have the capability for much by way of
safety oversight, frankly, and you've had to borrow from
resources from the FRA.
Mr. Welbes. So, Mr. Connolly, the recommendation from the
NTSB we take very seriously. A year ago, when we recognized
that the States were not performing their duty, we used the
authority that we have at U.S. DOT. So we've requested
authority from Congress.
And the recommendation that Mr. Hart has put forward would
require a Member of Congress to introduce a bill that would
allow the U.S. DOT Secretary to assign WMATA safety oversight
to the FRA. And then FRA would have to substitute its rules for
WMATA's rule book. So the Secretary cannot do that without
Congress taking action.
Mr. Connolly. Well, I will simply point out that the man
sitting next to you, his agency authored a report issued
yesterday that reiterated that it's the FRA that ought to have
jurisdiction here, not the FTA, because of capability issues.
Mr. Welbes. All right. So we have also requested from
Congress additional resources and authority to put into effect
the new safety responsibilities that Congress gave to us in
2012. So we requested back in 2009, after the Fort Totten
incident, additional Federal Authority----
Mr. Connolly. Why not just give it to the FRA, as the NTSB
recommended initially?
Mr. Welbes. So Congress, in two successive authorizations,
both in MAP-21 and the FAST Act, assigned that responsibility
to the Federal Transit Administration, and we are assertively
exercising it right now.
Mr. Connolly. Does the Secretary of Transportation have the
statutory authority nonetheless to act on the NTSB
recommendation and give it to FRA?
Mr. Welbes. The Secretary of Transportation could act on
the FRA recommendation, which is to ask Congress for authority
to reassign the role for----
Mr. Connolly. He chose not do that.
Mr. Welbes. A member of Congress can introduce a bill in
the chain.
Mr. Connolly. No, wait a minute, don't beg the question.
The Secretary of Transportation received a report from the NTSB
that involved fatalities, and their recommendation--very
serious--said FRA needs to have this, not FTA, for lots of
reasons, not because you aren't willing but because you're not
capable, and safety comes first.
And the Secretary chose to do nothing about that other than
give it to you. His hands aren't tied. I don't remember
receiving any legislative request from the Secretary of
Transportation to give him the authority to make sure he can
implement the NTSB recommendation. This is not a trivial issue.
Mr. Welbes. We have pulled together substantial resources.
We've created a WMATA oversight office. We've pulled together a
team from DOT, including FTA officials and other capable people
in the Department, to do direct oversight of WMATA.
Mr. Connolly. So do you dispute the latest report from NTSB
that says, despite your pulling together substantial resources,
you weren't on the job at the East Falls Church derailment?
Mr. Welbes. We have identified--we have walked miles of
track. We've applied more scrutiny to the 220 miles of
Metrorail than the Federal Government has ever applied to any
rail system. While we've identified many instances where track
has been taken out of service, we did not find the Falls Church
incident--we are doing oversight of Metrorail. Metrorail is
responsible for the day-to-day oversight. They actually have
standards that the NTSB's report identifies, which call for two
times--biweekly reviews of all tracks safety----
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Hart, I'm going to give you--sorry, I'm
running out of time.
Mr. Hart, I want to give you an opportunity to respond to
that. Is that how you see things?
Mr. Hart. Fundamentally, the starting point of effective
oversight is regulation so that everybody knows what can be
done and what can't be done. Those aren't there. They won't be
there any time soon. We were looking at not only the structure.
This is not a criticism of the FTA. We're looking at the
structure that presently exists. That structure is not there
with FTA.
Mr. Connolly. Right.
Mr. Hart. In order for them to have that, that's going to
take quite a bit of time. The FRA already has it. We were
looking to do an immediate remedy instead of waiting for all
that----
Mr. Connolly. And does the Secretary of Transportation have
the authority to implement that immediate recommendation of
yours?
Mr. Hart. Our recommendation was to ask Congress to include
the--within a list that's a legislative list this property,
WMATA, so that it would be overseen by the Federal Railroad----
Mr. Connolly. And did the Secretary act on that
recommendation?
Mr. Hart. No. The Secretary said that he would prefer to
leave the oversight with Federal Transit Administration.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Mr. Evans, you're a politician, you run for office, right?
Mr. Evans. Indeed, I just got reelected.
Mr. Connolly. Congratulations.
Mr. Evans. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. So one of the things we have to do in
politics is build public support, especially for things that
involve costs. Is that right?
Mr. Evans. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. So do you think your comments and those of
Mr. Price, your D.C. colleague on the Metro board, are helpful
to those of us in Virginia and Maryland, in trying to build any
kind of public consensus about a dedicated source of revenue,
when you threaten on that board to close down the largest
single connection to Metro in northern Virginia?
Your remarks were calculated to be helpful to us. Is that
right? Or were you just playing games to appeal to somebody in
maybe your jurisdiction, without regard to the implications in
our jurisdictions, where we're trying to actually be
supportive?
Mr. Evans. The background on Mr. Price's comments is the
following.
Ms. Comstock. We can't hear.
Mr. Evans. Sure. The background on Mr. Price's comments is
the following: We have a $290 million shortfall this year that
will only get greater in the future.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Evans, I don't need a lecture about the
current condition of Metro. I know it intimately. I'm asking
you a question about what you and Mr. Price were getting at in
threatening Virginia's largest investment in Metro, which, by
the way, involves Federal funding. The largest single TIFIA
grant in the history of the Department of Transportation went
to the Silver Line. So it involves Federal participation, and
that has implications for whether we renew the 150 million CIP,
let alone talk about a Federal operating subsidy, which you and
I share.
And I'm here to suggest to you that your comments and those
of Mr. Price were cheap and reckless and have huge implications
on my side of the river. You don't want, at least you say you
don't want--you campaigned against the parochialism of your
colleagues on the board, and yet you and Mr. Price are now the
exemplars of the very parochialism you decried. And you've done
real damage on our side of the river. Do you want to respond to
that?
Mr. Evans. If you'd give me a moment, I'd like to.
Mr. Connolly. Of course.
Mr. Evans. So, again, everything is on the table in trying
to deal with these huge deficits we have, going forward. It's
clear to me now that neither Virginia nor Maryland will do a
dedicated funding source any time in the future, and it's
unlikely we will get any Federal help. So I have--the cards I
have are the deck I have to play with.
Mr. Price was only responding to a question in suggesting
how we can save money. The Silver Line, as you know, is not
being built by Metro. It's being funded by, as you say, Federal
dollars and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Although, when the
Silver Line is built----
Mr. Connolly. And by a special tax district entirely funded
by Virginia businesses.
Mr. Evans. I understand. But when the Silver Line is built,
you turn it over to us to operate. The ridership on the Silver
Line as of yesterday in our briefing is one-third of what was
predicted. The Silver Line was hoped that the ridership would
be so great it would cover its operating costs. It's not even
close. So we are today losing tens of millions of dollars on
operating the Silver Line.
When the Silver Line is complete, given the projections,
Metro will then be losing hundreds of millions of dollars a
year to operate the Silver Line. So Mr. Price, who is one of
the most successful African American businessmen in the country
and is a turnaround specialist, looking at this as a business,
was saying, how are we going to afford to operate the Silver
Line to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year when
we are losing $3- to $400 million a year already.
So I think the answer, Congressman Connolly--and you and I
are on the same page on this.
Mr. Connolly. I don't think we are.
Mr. Evans. No, we need more funding from the jurisdictions
in terms of the dedicated funding sources.
Mr. Connolly. First of all, I don't know whether Mr. Price
is aware of the development plans along the Dulles Corridor,
because we are building lots of residential development that's
going to change those ridership numbers very fast, but it's
dependent on the Silver Line being there. In Tysons alone,
there are five high-rises that have gone up since we opened the
Silver Line, with thousands of new residents. The goal is to go
from 17,000 people who live in Tysons to 100,000, and it's the
Silver Line that's critical for that.
But let me just say philosophically, you know, it's very
hard to listen to that when you've threatened a regional veto
for any service cuts that affect your District. But you have no
compunction to say to an entire State that the major investment
in Metro ought to be closed. And you go down that road and you
fracture the regional coalition, you fracture support up here,
and you actually do real harm to long-term prospects for Metro.
And that's my message to you. I've run out of time.
Mr. Evans. I am a big advocate of expanding Metro. I think
the Silver Line will be a tremendous addition to Metro.
Mr. Meadows. [Presiding.] Mr. Chairman, Mr. Evans, let me
come back to you then, because the gentleman makes a valid
point. Are you suggesting that you looked only at Virginia to
close down something that had an operational deficit and didn't
look at other areas that have operational deficits for closing
it down? Because I haven't seen any suggestions other than what
the gentleman from Virginia is talking about and what Ms.
Comstock has mentioned to me. And so you're saying that you
wanted to protect D.C. and take it from operational deficits
that are in Virginia and Maryland?
Mr. Evans. No. Actually, Mr. Chairman, there's a long list
of cutbacks in service, many in the District, many in Maryland,
many in Virginia.
Mr. Meadows. Well, but what I've read in the Washington
Post and other places is basically anything that touches
anything, that has anything to do with Washington, D.C., there
is this unbelievable outcry that we can't touch anything. Is
that not your position?
Mr. Evans. Well, no, Mr. Chairman. Actually, as of
yesterday, the District made a huge concession to allow the
late night hours to be curtailed yet again for another year and
possibly 2 years, which is very much against our interests. But
I was able to convince the mayor and the council to go along
with that because----
Mr. Meadows. But not do away with them entirely forever.
Mr. Evans. Well, we'll see. Again, you evaluate everything
every year or 2 years to make sure.
Mr. Meadows. But you get----
Mr. Evans. No, I get your drift.
Mr. Meadows. --my friend's point is that you're making a
drastic comment that affects Virginia; and then just the little
teeny aspects of inconvenience in Washington, D.C., you debate
for hours. You follow me?
Mr. Evans. I do.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So let me go on a little bit back
to you, Mr. Wiedefeld. Do you believe that the SafeTrack
program is placing the system in a state of good repair that
will allow riders to feel secure and safe on the system?
Mr. Wiedefeld. I do for the above-ground portion of the
system, because that's where our focus has been on,
particularly on the rail tie portion of it and the fasteners
there.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Mr. Evans, do you believe the same
thing?
Mr. Evans. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meadows. Let me come to the FTA. Do you believe that as
well?
Mr. Welbes. The SafeTrack work is an important step as part
of an overall----
Mr. Meadows. That's not the question. That's a great answer
to a question I--they just answered it. So just answer the
question. Yes or no?
Mr. Welbes. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Mr. Hart, let me come back to you. I
want to come back to the East Falls Church derailment and what
the NTSB determined to be the probable cause of this. Could you
help illuminate us for what the cause of that derailment was?
Mr. Hart. Yes. This is an area, it's a crossover area
crossing over between parallel tracks, and it's an area that
has wooden ties and the wooden ties were left to deteriorate
for quite a long period of time. This is a----
Mr. Meadows. So what you're saying is it couldn't have
happened in a short period of time?
Mr. Hart. Correct.
Mr. Meadows. So this happened over a very long period of
time?
Mr. Hart. Correct. Some of the ties may even go back to
original construction. We don't know, but they've been there a
while and they've been deteriorating for a while.
Mr. Meadows. So you're saying the original construction of
that particular area is left without any maintenance that
caused a derailment?
Mr. Hart. Inadequate maintenance in this particular segment
where we investigated for that accident, correct. We had the--
that's why we looked at how frequently were they----
Mr. Meadows. Can we put the picture up on the screen? If
you all would all turn your attention to this. Now, if you'll
notice that wheel there, actually the rail I guess is supposed
to be between----
Mr. Hart. The wheel should stick outside of it, should be
outside of the rail.
Mr. Meadows. And so it's actually just on the top of the
rail there. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Hart. Correct. Correct. Close to derailing, because
it's close to----
Mr. Meadows. Close----
Mr. Hart. On the inside side of the rail.
Mr. Meadows. And so, in your opinion, this would be
something that is not only a hazard, but something that is a
derailment waiting to happen?
Mr. Hart. This under FRA rules would have been required to
be out of service, because of the failure to meet the gauge
requirements.
Mr. Meadows. What kind of rules did you talk about?
Mr. Hart. Federal Railroad Administration rules would
require this track to be out of service.
Mr. Meadows. So I guess that's why we haven't called them
in is because they would have seen this?
Mr. Hart. Well, their requirements would say, if you see a
defect, you have to act on the defect within 30 days. And this
defect has been around for a lot longer than 30 days. This
would have been acted upon or put out of service, one or the
other, a long time ago.
Mr. Meadows. So who's not doing their job?
Mr. Hart. Well, this is why we're asking for FRA to be
overseeing this, because there are no similar--there are no
analogous requirements by the Federal Transit Administration.
Mr. Meadows. So let me come back to you at the FTA, because
you keep coming back and saying, well, Congress can do this and
Congress can do that. And I appreciate that. I know Secretary
Foxx well, talked to him just the other day.
So have you made a request for Congress to actually give
you the statutory authority that you seek?
Mr. Welbes. Yes. So we are following up on----
Mr. Meadows. Have you made the request, yes or no?
Mr. Welbes. Yes, we have.
Mr. Meadows. All right. To whom?
Mr. Welbes. Pardon me?
Mr. Meadows. To whom?
Mr. Welbes. We actually have the authority to issue
regulations in the area that Mr. Hart is describing.
Mr. Meadows. Well, then why haven't you done it?
Mr. Welbes. We received authority from Congress to do that
in recent years. We actually have an assignment in the FAST Act
from one year ago.
Mr. Meadows. But let me just tell you, it is not good
enough for you to continue--we have derailments and injuries
that are happening on a regular basis while you already, as you
just testified, have the authority to fix it and you're not
fixing it. How many more people have to die before we get you
to act in the appropriate manner?
Mr. Welbes. Chairman Meadows, the broad framework that
Congress set forth and our regulatory structure right now has
FTA holding transit agencies accountable for the standards they
have in place. So, for example, WMATA's track maintenance and
inspection standards are actually more strict for rail track
lateral movement than the FRA standard. The problem here is
that the culture overcomes the rule book in this instance.
Mr. Meadows. So you're going to blame it on Mr. Jackson and
all his union employees, is that what you're saying? I'm going
to get to the bottom of it here. It's going to end today. I'm
tired of the double-speak.
Mr. Welbes. WMATA does----
Mr. Meadows. So is it his fault?
Mr. Welbes. If WMATA was following its standards, the
incident should not have occurred.
Mr. Meadows. Whose fault is it?
Mr. Welbes. It's a systematic fault of all the people
involved in that process.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So you're involved, so it's partly
your fault?
Mr. Welbes. We are overseeing WMATA----
Mr. Meadows. So it's partly your fault.
Mr. Welbes. --to run its operation. Mr. Wiedefeld has been
taking steps to make----
Mr. Meadows. Okay, yes or no, do you have any role in the
fault of injury here, yes or no?
Mr. Welbes. We take seriously our responsibility----
Mr. Meadows. That's not the question. Great answer to
another question I didn't ask. Are you partially at fault?
Mr. Welbes. FTA's lack of authority has been a contributor,
yes.
Mr. Meadows. You just told me you had the authority. Now,
you can't have it both ways. Are you partially at fault?
Mr. Welbes. Sure, sir.
Mr. Meadows. So when are we going to get it corrected?
Because let me just tell you, I'm tired of people blaming
different people for the problem and having hearing after
hearing. Mr. Hart has done his work. Mr. Wiedefeld is doing his
work. We have a union that says that they're willing to give
you and participate and I would assume even fire some of their
own union members. I don't want him to go on record, he may not
get reelected if he does, but I assume that they're willing to
do it.
And yet it keeps coming back to you and your unwillingness
to get the appropriate people involved in the oversight and
management along with the other team. So I want you to report
back to this committee within 30 days the action plan that
you're going to have to address that, to be able to work with
the recommendations that we just heard, to be able to work with
the recommendations of Mr. Wiedefeld, Mr. Jackson with the
union. Thirty days. Is that reasonable?
Mr. Welbes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Now, let me finish with one other
aspect. We are here today to get to the bottom of the problem.
Mr. Jackson, I heard you say that you could come up with a plan
to fix this, that if they just listened to your union employees
that you could do that. Now, I'm going to hold you to your
word, because here's what I want you to do, is I need you to
come back to this body within 30 days. I'm going to give you
the same time. Is that fair, Mr. Jackson?
Mr. Jackson. That's fair.
Mr. Meadows. And I want you to come back with four
recommendations on what we could be doing differently. And one
of those recommendations needs to be what the union could be
doing differently to actually fix this problem. Are you willing
to do that, Mr. Jackson?
Mr. Jackson. I am most definitely willing to do that.
Mr. Meadows. All right. And my door is open to you, where
you can come meet with me at any particular time if you believe
that your union workers are not being heard. I'm willing to
listen, because we're going to fix this problem.
Mr. Wiedefeld, I want to say this: You're making a lot of
difficult decisions that will make a lot of people angry, and I
told you earlier before this that this is not a good career
move for you, because anything that you do to fix a problem is
going to be criticized by somebody. But here's what you do
have: You do have a bipartisan support with Mr. Connolly and I
and others on this committee that what we're willing to do is
if you'll make the tough decisions, we'll ask the tough
questions and hold people accountable and make sure that we do
that. So I want to thank you for your work.
And I am over time, and so I'll go to the gentleman and
recognize him for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Briefly, just a comment. I'd like to yield the balance of
my time to Mr. Connolly. Fifteen, 20 years ago, I was a local
elected official in the San Francisco Bay area. I came back
here with a then Surface Transportation Policy Project with
some members from California to look at WMATA and the land use
decisions you were making here as a model for California, where
we know in a car culture we have to get transit ridership up,
and in the Bay area specifically, where BART, the Bay Area
Rapid Transit system, doesn't carry nearly the number that you
do. It's still 5 percent of our total trips. And when they went
out on strike, we saw the implications for the region. I think
it was $75 million a day that we lost in production.
So, Mr. Wiedefeld, the challenges you have, as somebody
who's believed for over 20 years that as we've become more
urbanized we have to change our land use patterns. You have
great examples of transit-oriented development that we've tried
to replicate around the country. You are in this conundrum as a
retailer where your ridership's going down because of the lack
of confidence. You have to lay point-of-sale people off and
support system.
How do you get that back? Understanding that safety is
first, but the retail aspect of you've got to get ridership up.
And I'll put this in the context of how once you were--how you
were perceived once around the country and how experience,
anecdotal experience. The last 2 years, as a Member of
Congress, I've been looking to purchase a piece of real estate
here in the metropolitan area. And I looked across the river; I
looked on Capitol Hill. And my realtor said, you want to be on
Capitol Hill, because you can't trust WMATA. If you go across
the river, you won't be able to trust it. Well, that
contradicts all the planning that you have done, Mr. Connolly,
local elected officials, that we have replicated in other parts
of the country, where we want people to be able to live in
different areas and help with the cost of housing.
So long-term, you get the safety problem fixed and the
urgency of now, but how do you get that confidence back and how
quickly can you do it so we get transit ridership back up?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Well, we have to focus on, once again, the
trains running on time. That's the bottom line, and there's two
elements to do that. One is the track. We can't have issues on
the track when we have open for revenue service where we have
to pull trains down because of some issue. And that's what
we're focussing on for 2017, now and into 2017.
And the other is the cars. Basically, we have a very old
fleet, and we're changing out that fleet. The sooner we get
that done, the quicker we can get into more reliable service.
So that's the other focus for us, because that's where I have
to focus on. The safety has to be--obviously goes forward all
the time, but we've got to get the service reliability up, and
it's around tracks and it's around cars, and that is our
primary focus for 2017.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Just a comment about FTA and NTSB. And Mr.
Welbes, I appreciate you at least admitting responsibility, and
I share the chairman and Mr. Connolly's frustration. Again, in
the Bay area, it's been very hard and frustrating, because I
think--this is a national problem. We can't consistently have
5, 10 percent transit ridership as the total trips in regions,
in metropolitan areas in the United States. It won't work. It
doesn't work. It's inhibiting our economic growth. Los Angeles
is making great strides, but they're still 4, 5 percent.
So whether it's Congress, whether it's partnership with
you, we have to change your role. I have asked the former
acting administrator who used to work with me at the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, for whom I have much
respect, Therese McMillan, can you at least give us guidelines
about best practices on our budgets, what's the appropriate--
with a range of what we should have in operating reserves,
capital reserves. How can we help with our negotiations to make
sure that our employees who live in high cost of living areas,
like the Bay area, most urban areas, get a fair and equitable
wage but still maintain the retail and the safety excellence,
so you get that ridership back up.
So as an observation, this is a national problem and I
really wish that FTA and the administration and the future
administration would act with Congress in a bipartisan fashion
to figure out what's your best possible role, not just when it
comes to safety, but best practices around finances.
And, with that, I would like to yield the remaining of my
time, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend.
Mr. Jackson, over to you, I heard your testimony and it
sounded good about, you know, commitment to customers and so
forth. What about ATU and what about the union's
responsibilities, though, in terms of accountability? We have a
situation--I'm not asking you to prejudge it, but, in theory,
do you agree that if somebody falsifies records and endangers
public safety, their job ought to be on the line? I mean, we
had the union try to overturn the decision made by the general
manager when we had an operator who blew through a red light,
endangering lives. Now, maybe there was a good case. I'm all
for due process. I'm a Democratic, I support unions. But I also
insist there has to be some accountability in the workforce and
that it's your job to join with management in making sure that
the tradeoff is good wages and performance.
And I want to hear more about that, because I didn't hear a
lot of that in your testimony, especially after yesterday's
release of the NTSB report on a derailment that involved
workers who falsified records.
Mr. Jackson. Well, Mr. Connolly, I would be more than happy
to touch on that.
Mr. Connolly. I can't hear you.
Mr. Jackson. I would be more than happy to touch on that a
little bit for you. As far as workers and the falsification of
documents, one, you will have to really understand the culture
at WMATA.
If you go to these workers and you are asking these workers
about these documents, these are the documents. And part of it
is training and the harassment that the workers receive from
the managers. Why would a manager give a worker a task that he
knows is impossible to complete?
Mr. Meadows. Hold on. You're saying that they falsified the
records because they were harassed to be able--Mr. Jackson,
that's a big leap, because if--I mean, if that's happening--so
you're saying they falsified the records because someone forced
them to falsify them?
Mr. Jackson. No. In their mind, they did the work. Let me
explain it to you. If you give me a task that takes 45 minutes
to complete and I go out there and in my mind I complete that
task in 5 minutes, I went out there and I inspected what you
asked me to look at, then what you are doing is you are setting
me up to fail. So now if I go back and I do not finish those 30
inspections that you know I have no way of completing, I'm
disciplined for not finishing my inspections. So what these
guys are doing is they're doing their inspections to a
standard----
Mr. Meadows. And falsifying the records. Mr. Jackson, let
me just tell you, you'll find I'll be your biggest ally, but if
they're falsifying the records, they need to be fired, pure and
simple. I mean, is there anybody that falsified records that
should have been fired?
Mr. Jackson. Is there anyone that falsified records that
should have been fired? Yes, there has been.
Mr. Meadows. So you're going to recommend that to Mr.
Wiedefeld.
Mr. Jackson. I'm never going to recommend it. I'm going
to----
Mr. Meadows. But you'll go along with his recommendation on
firing them.
Mr. Jackson. I'm going to recommend that we look into the
situation.
Mr. Meadows. That's not what I asked, Mr. Jackson. You're
starting to get contagious. It's starting to come over here.
You're answering a question I didn't ask.
Mr. Jackson. Okay. Well, I'm never going to recommend
firing our employees.
Mr. Meadows. Will you support the termination of someone
who's falsified records that may have caused the injury of
someone else?
Mr. Jackson. If it was their intent to falsify the
document, yes, I will.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Thank you, Mr. Jackson. I'm going
to recognize the gentlewoman from Virginia, Mrs. Comstock.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to reiterate some of the points that my colleague
from Virginia made about the board statements this week really
not only being troubling but irresponsible. And they were
called political theatre by our Governor in Virginia, and I
would agree with that also.
But I think this week demonstrates really why we need to
have major changes at Metro, much like what the Federal City
Council is recommending. We need to blow up the compact and
change it quite considerably, make big changes here. We need to
get rid of the binding arbitration, which is not allowing Mr.
Wiedefeld currently to be able to make the changes he needs and
put the people on task in the way to get the job done, and then
we need to change the board.
Mr. Delaney and I have a bill that we have on changing the
board, but we need to make these decisions so we don't have
this type of political theatre. So I hope in the new year with
our new Transportation Secretary, who not only has a lot of
experience in transportation but in the Labor Department, that
we look at all these issues and right-side Metro so we can have
this partnership that we agree on and support. So I think those
were very destructive things that were done, and I was not only
very disappointed but it only reiterated the need to make some
major changes here.
And on the same front with the union, I'd like to ask Mr.
Jackson, is there a Mr. David Stephen that you're aware of? Is
he here today with you?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, he is.
Mrs. Comstock. Okay, is he here? Could you point him out to
us?
Mr. Jackson. Mr. Stephen?
Mrs. Comstock. Yes.
Mr. Jackson. Mr. Stephen?
Mrs. Comstock. Okay. Well, Mr. Stephen is somebody in the
same line of Mr. Connolly being concerned about the attack on
Virginia. He tweeted out recently--and I think he's been
tweeting today's hearing and making some slights against
Chairman Mica--Barbara Comstock is our enemy.
Do you believe that, Mr. Jackson?
Mr. Jackson. Ms. Comstock, I believe that we just have a
difference of opinion on how this transit system and our
binding arbitration should be handled.
Mrs. Comstock. Well, let me tell you we have worked, last
year we've worked together on Metro. We got the money restored
that some on my own side tried to take out. I worked to do
that. I have been working with my colleagues in the region. I
serve on the Transportation Committee. When you have that type
of mentality--we've been working with Mr. Wiedefeld. Their
staff has been very cooperative.
And it would be helpful--Mr. Meadows just pointed out on
reasons to fire people, and I think Mr. Connolly pointed out
too. Here's a headline: ``Metro union sues to get fired worker
back on the job after the deadly smoke incident.'' This was
another incident where falsified reports happened.
So you're still pursuing keeping that employee who
falsified records, you want to keep him employed.
Mr. Jackson. So, Mrs. Comstock, what you have to understand
is that we have what's known as binding arbitration. And the
arbitrator decided that this employee should keep his position
at the authority. And I believe that even in his findings there
was some--there may have been some statements along the lines
of it's the culture, the culture at this company.
Mrs. Comstock. Okay. And on the culture--and I actually
think this would be something helpful for all us to do on a
bipartisan basis--I would like to go out with your track
workers, come out with you and see what the process is, because
I don't understand. It seems like nobody has any records of
this. People say there aren't records. You're making
accusations that people are asking you to falsify it.
Is anyone familiar with iPads and phones? Do you have these
things. Do you have one?
Mr. Jackson. We also have a cell phone policy.
Mrs. Comstock. Do you all have them? I understand that
there's very easy technology where people can come out and
record this and record what's going on there. And if you record
that, there's timestamps on it. There's technology that other
transit services use. They've come in and showed us this.
I think that would protect you and your workers, because it
would show that you are on site on a particular time doing
something, and if somebody said you didn't you'd have that
proof in your hands in that report that could never go away.
And if we could have the track system recorded--and I don't
know what FTA is doing. Are you using any type of physical
report instead of paper reports?
Mr. Welbes. Yes. We have been recording all of our
investigations and inspections.
Mrs. Comstock. We need to have that, so when Mr. Jackson
makes reports saying they went out to do something and they
were told to falsify it, this shouldn't be a back-and-forth of
finger-pointing. We should have evidence that shows what
happened when you went out. We have the technology. This is
2016. This isn't hard. I mean, can somebody--I mean, do you use
that at all, Mr. Jackson?
Mr. Jackson. We're not allowed to do that.
Mrs. Comstock. You're not allowed. Why not?
Mr. Jackson. Well, because the Authority has a cell phone
policy, an electronic device policy in which----
Mrs. Comstock. No, I'm talking about having some type of
technological thing that records what you're doing, not your
particular phone but technology that would allow you to record
that.
Mr. Jackson. We are not allowed to have any type of
electronic device in our work zones.
Mrs. Comstock. Well, I understand we don't want you on the
phone. I agree with that.
Mr. Jackson. Well, any kind of electronic device, meaning
any type of electronics would be needed to record something.
And through binding arbitration----
Mrs. Comstock. Because I'm talking about recording your
work, recording the work.
Mr. Jackson. Recording the work. Again, the workers are not
allowed to have any type of electronic device which would even
record our work.
Mrs. Comstock. Okay. Well, Mr. Wiedefeld, I think we talked
about this at the last hearing, because we had people come in
with that technology to do that. Is that being looked at?
Mr. Wiedefeld. It is, not only for individuals out there
but just doing it through--by driving over the system and
basically recording electronically----
Mrs. Comstock. Exactly.
Mr. Wiedefeld. --the conditions of the system. So we're
pursuing that right now.
Mrs. Comstock. Okay. Because we should be--now, if he's
made accusations about this, we should be able to factually
pull that up and check. I mean, we're long past having to have
this type of finger-pointing when we have the technology.
I'd also like to take----
Mr. Meadows. Ms. Comstock, your time has expired. We'll
keep it for a second round. We've got a few other folks that
we've got to go to, but if you'll stay here we'll come for a
second round. All right?
The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Delaney, is recognized.
Mr. Delaney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, they say companies go bankrupt two ways: Slowly
and then all at once. And it seems like the same thing has
happened to Metro. Across time through your really decades of
bad decisions, we've gotten to the point that everything has
collapsed upon itself. The difference is, with a company, if it
has a reason to exist, it goes through a restructuring. It
brings in new governance, new management, and it gets new
capital, right, and it begins the path of a turnaround.
The problem we have here with Metro is there's no obvious
forcing function to allow that to occur, because it's not a
company, it's a multi-jurisdictional enterprise. The
jurisdictions will continue to fund it at low levels. It will
limp along. It won't be able to do the restructurings it needs
to do, and it can't change the governance structure.
But ultimately, right, cutting through all the stuff we've
discussed here today, that's where this has to go. We have to
get to a point where there's--actually not a change in
management. I think the general manager is actually doing a
good job. That part of the turnaround is occurring.
But where governance has to change--no disrespect to the
current chairman, but the Metro board governance model has
failed. Where we need new governance, the gentlelady from
Virginia and I have a proposal to do that, as she mentioned. We
need to restructure contracts that don't work. We need a new
strategic plan, and we need new money from all the
stakeholders, and that has to occur in some kind of forcing
function where it all kind of is brought to the table, and then
Metro can--because it clearly has a reason to exist. If any
enterprise has a reason to exist, it's the Washington Metro.
And then the turnaround can continue.
So my question to the chairman and to the general manager
is, what can we do to accelerate the occurrence of that day?
Because that day, which I define as the day when the governance
model changes, we're in a position to restructure, and only
with those things occur will the stakeholders put more money
in, and they have to put more money in. What can get us to that
day as soon as possible? Because that's what's in the best
interest of Metro and all the various stakeholders, including
the constituencies.
Mr. Evans. Thank you, Congressman Delaney and Congresswoman
Comstock. I happen to agree with both of you. And if you
remember, the original suggestion of getting rid of this board
and having a five-member board was mine. It drew a lot of
fanfare back in the day, but now the Federal City Council has
adopted that model. What their suggestion is is that the
Federal Government, Congress withdraw its support of the Metro
compact. If they were to do that, the compact then collapses
and all the jurisdictions are out and you have to start over
again.
My suggestion is, a 16-member board from all the
jurisdictions is not workable. I'm doing the best I can with
what I have. We've heard the comments here today. All of us,
including myself, end up being parochial, because we do. A
five-person board like the D.C. Control Board of local people,
but here's the catch: It's not the number, although five
persons is the best number, with extraordinary powers like
you're talking about. The D.C. Control Board had the power to
access money from the Treasury.
Mr. Delaney. Mr. Chairman, I've seen those proposals, and
whether it's that or similar flavors.
Mr. Evans. Yes, yes, yes.
Mr. Delaney. They all involve change of governance,
restructuring, and more resources. What can get us to--because
now we have those proposals floating around out there.
Mr. Evans. Yes.
Mr. Delaney. And it's one of these situations, to my mind,
any of them are better than what we have now. What can get us
to that day? Because, again, it's not an enterprise that one
day it runs out of money and files for bankruptcy. That may be
the biggest problem with Metro is that it doesn't have that
forcing----
Mr. Evans. Right, right.
Mr. Delaney. What can get us to that day?
Mr. Evans. Again, the Federal City Council has that legal
outline if Congress withdraws its support from the compact.
That will be the triggering mechanism that the compact then
collapses, and everyone is forced at that point to get back
together again and restructure the system. And the structure
from 40 years ago just doesn't work. Just like the dedicated
funding source, that has to be a part of it.
The other five major systems all have a 1 percent sales
tax. We don't have it. So all of that has to be, a new board, a
new tax, all of that, and you can make the system work.
Mr. Delaney. Does the general manager have an opinion on is
this?
Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Wiedefeld. It is around the compact. I mean, that is I
think the mechanism to attack this.
Mr. Delaney. Okay. I yield back.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman? The chair----
Mr. Connolly. Would my friends just yield for one
observation?
Mr. Delaney. Of course.
Mr. Connolly. While he still has time.
It's complicated. It's also complicated by the--I find it
ironic that the District of Columbia that talks about taxation
without representation, which I support, would nonetheless
favor a system at Metro that would take away representation
from the people who pay the taxes. In Virginia, it's
localities, not the State, that pays the operating subsidy. And
you are going to find fierce resistance to those taxpayers to
lose their representation.
Mr. Delaney. I'm reclaiming my time briefly.
Mr. Connolly. You don't have any more time, I took it. I'm
just teasing.
Mr. Delaney. I'm not proposing any specific governance
model, new governance model. Restructuring, more resources, 50
different ways of doing that. That's where we have to get to.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Grothman.
Mr. Grothman. We'll go a little different place than we've
been so far. Just a couple months ago, on September 13, there
was a train that apparently came to a stop outside the Farragut
North station. Apparently, for a while there was no
communication between the operator of that train and the ROCC.
Mr. Wiedefeld, could you comment on that? Apparently even
prior to that time there was concern they couldn't contact the
operators. So not only did the train stop, but there was no
contact between the operator of that train and the central
location. Could you tell us a little bit what happened there
and whether you think it's appropriate that it happened?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Sure. One of the issueS we have is, once an
operator leaves the cab, in effect, there is no communication
with the remaining six or eight cars and that walkie-talkie. So
there were some issues around that. And so that is, again, a
personnel issue that we're dealing with; did they follow all
the rules they were supposed to follow at that time.
But the reality is, when an incident occurs in a tunnel and
if there's only one WMATA employee on it, once they leave that
cab, in effect, you've lost the ability to communicate. You're
walking through a very crowded train, depending what the
conditions are, and you are either talking--we do have
megaphones, for instance, in the cab that they're to take to
try to help with that communication. But what we have to do is
figure out a way to get the ROCC to be able to talk to the
train where the operator is no longer in the cab.
Mr. Grothman. As I understand it, there was no
communication between control center and the operator of that
train. Is that accurate?
Mr. Wiedefeld. There was some, but it was not done
according to the policy that they should have been following.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. There were concerns even before that
that central felt they weren't getting a hold of the operator.
Is that right?
Mr. Wiedefeld. That's right.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. But unless we charge ahead--now, you're
telling me what happened, the reason there was no communication
between the operator of the train and the passengers is the
operator got up and began walking through the train? Is that--
--
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yes. That's exactly what they had to do. And
that's what they should have been doing. That's exactly what
they should have been doing.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. In other words, were they unable to
communicate with the passengers otherwise?
Mr. Wiedefeld. You can communicate with the passengers when
you're in a cab, but as you do know, we have problems on that
issue as well, because if we use different series of cars, when
we put them together, the communications don't work. So that's
a technical issue that we're addressing with the 7000 series.
But once they leave the cab, in effect, all they have now is
their walkie-talkie and a megaphone.
Mr. Grothman. And apparently, because of the lack of
communication, some passengers got tired of waiting and began
walking down the track?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yes. There was definitely frustration, you
know, and I think just given the current--some of the current
conditions, I think that's what occurred. We obviously do never
recommend anyone leaving the car. That would be like, you know,
if you're frustrated sitting on the tarmac on a plane, you
know, sliding down the--taking the slide down, that's just not
acceptable.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Kind of a scary thing. Were you aware
that--was any employee of Metro aware that these passengers
were walking alone down the tracks?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yes. And that's exactly--they were just
outside the station. Other employees were there and were
walking to the car, and that's when they saw these individuals
leaving the car.
Mr. Grothman. Was the third rail still on at the time?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yes, it was.
Mr. Grothman. Shouldn't somebody have been hitting the
panic button, say we better turn this thing off?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Basically, that's what--they grabbed these
people immediately and put them up on the walkway to get them
away from that. And that's what caused a lot of the delay,
because then we had to go, in effect, and inspect around the
cars, make sure no one else was out there.
Mr. Grothman. Unbelievable, but just like everything else
here in Washington, why would it work.
But I'll give you another question. You guys always say the
problem is lack of money, and I know that in any big
organization today one of the problems we have is health
insurance costs. What type of health insurance plan do we have
for the employees of the Metro and what's the cost per employee
per year?
Mr. Wiedefeld. I can get you the details, but the--there's
two levels of health care. One is for the nonrepresented
employees, which is about 2,000 people. And the other is tied
to the represented employees, which is about 11,000 people.
Eleven thousand people is through negotiated settlement in--
again, through the whole binding arbitration process. The
other, we have more control over it. Just recently, we've
reduced the cost of that system by basically charging our
employees more for the nonreps. But I'll have to give you
details----
Mr. Grothman. Okay. How many nonrepresented employees do
you have----
Mr. Wiedefeld. Two thousand.
Mr. Grothman. Two thousand. So you've got a total of 13,000
people. What is your cost per employee?
Mr. Wiedefeld. I just don't have that number. I can get it
to the committee.
Mr. Grothman. Do you know about? Eighteen thousand a year?
Seventeen? Twenty-five?
Mr. Wiedefeld. I don't know. I just don't know.
Mr. Grothman. Would anybody here know?
Mrs. Comstock. Yeah. If the gentleman would yield, I
actually have some of those numbers. If you'd like, I could ask
about them, because I have some.
Mr. Grothman. Sure.
Mrs. Comstock. And I know 75 percent of the cost--70, 75
percent of the cost of Metro is wages and benefits, is my
understanding. The information you had given us was that the
average salary, for example, for controllers, was, over the
past few years, between $77,000 to $87,000. And I believe the
starting base salary was 71. Because it would--overtime, and as
much overtime--like there was one controller who made $216,000
because of overtime. In one year, $216,000. This is the
information that Metro gave us.
So there's a policy where the people, and my understanding
is, when there's overtime, the people who have the most
seniority--and this, again, is in the contract. So the highest
salaried employees who maybe are about to retire get the first
dibs on the overtime. So they're able, in your last 3 to 5
years, run up your salary so you get a $216,000 salary, and
then that overtime is tied to your pension. Is that correct?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. [Presiding.] The gentleman's time has expired.
You can maybe reclaim for one quick question.
Mr. Grothman. Right, right, right. The question I had, and
I don't know whether any of you people know it, it's not a
matter of giving the employees more of the cost of their health
insurance, although that's sometimes necessary. The cost is
what type of plan do you have? Is it market based or that sort
of thing? I would hope that one of you up there, one of the
four of you, would be able to just tell us what is the overall
cost per employee, both the employee share and the employer's
share of insurance? I mean, if you don't remember last year's,
maybe you remember a year before that. Is it 18? Is it 25? Is
it 22? What is it? What do you guys--any one of the five of you
can tell me.
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Wiedefeld, can you get----
Mr. Wiedefeld. I can get that to the committee. Yes, I can.
Mr. Grothman. It's just amazingly incompetent for none of
you to have any clue what that is. But it just shows--whatever.
I'm done with my time.
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Wiedefeld, I thank you for being willing
to get that back to the committee. If you'll get that response.
The chair recognizes Mrs. Watson Coleman for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you very much.
That was a little concerning to me, that a person with a
base salary of 77 to $80,000 a year could have overtime as an
operator to the tune of----
Mrs. Comstock. A controller.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. --some $200,000 a year. I mean, when
does that person sleep? That's a little scary to me.
Mr. Wiedefeld, I'm just going to ask you a couple of
questions because I'd really like to know what you think you
need. Do you know what you need in order to make this system
operate efficiently and effectively and encourage people to use
it, because I think public transportation is vitally important
to our environment as well as just to our lifestyles. So do you
have a comprehensive plan that lays out all of the things that
you need to do with your cars, your tracks, your electrical,
your whatever?
Mr. Wiedefeld. We do, in fact, on all those levels. Both on
the track and on the cars is our biggest focus for this one
year, but we have it for our busses. We have it for our
paratransit service. A big part of it is working closer, I
believe, with the union employees and getting to some of those
core issues. I agree with that as well.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So there is a plan that goes for,
what, five years, ten years?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yeah, we have an overall plan. But I'm
focusing particularly on the '17--you know, remainder of this
year and '17 to get at some of the core issues that we have to
address immediately.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Okay. But to get the system in good
repair, you have a longer term plan. Right?
Mr. Wiedefeld. We do. Yes, we do.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So do you anticipate a certain amount
of money that you need in order to accomplish this, both long
term and then incrementally to get to that long term?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yes. We have a program for the next 6 years
for both operating and capital of what we would recommend.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. And do you have what you need? Or is
there a running deficit----
Mr. Wiedefeld. No. We have a deficit on the operating
budget in the upcoming year of $290 million. Obviously, we have
to have a balanced budget, so I proposed a certain way to get
there that the board is considering right now. On the capital
side, like any other major infrastructure, the capital needs
are always much larger than what we have available. We've
identified a total need of $25 billion. But that is--you know,
we have a capital program that we're proposing of $7.2 billion
over the next 6 years to chip away at those issues.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So that if you have a--7 times 6 is
what? 56? You have a $7 billion plan per year----
Mr. Wiedefeld. Every 6 years.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. --for 6 years?
Mr. Wiedefeld. For 6 years. Over 6 years. It's roughly
about 1.2, 1.3 annually.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Okay. So what do you--what's going to
be your deficit there?
Mr. Wiedefeld. We're going to have a deficit on the
operating side of the equation.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Not on the----
Mr. Wiedefeld. Well, the capital side is--again, you always
have more capital needs than you can afford.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Yeah. But we're really focusing on the
fact that your infrastructure hasn't held up the way it should
and there, therefore, have been serious injuries and loss of
life and things of that nature. So that's where I'm trying to
focus right now on----
Mr. Wiedefeld. Right. Right. And we believe, for the
upcoming year, that we have enough dollars to, again, move in
that direction to bring the entire system to what we call a
state of good repair, to get it to a base level. Not expansion,
but basically gives you that base level.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Okay. All right. I don't think I
really know the answer to my question. But I'm going to yield
my time to my very eager colleague here.
Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend.
Mr. Wiedefeld, Mr. Evans talked about utilization and cost
and loss on a certain line in the system. Do you maintain an
actual cost, loss, or revenue gain for each station or each
line of the system?
Mr. Wiedefeld. No. What we do is, you know, we manage this
as a regional system. And that's the way we look at it.
Mr. Connolly. Well, how is he able to desegregate the
Silver Line from everything else and declare that it's going to
cost something projected into the future?
Mr. Wiedefeld. I don't know what numbers that were thrown
around.
Mr. Connolly. Well, let me just ask this: If we're going to
go down that road, this committee, with the permission of the
subcommittee chairman, wants to see data on every line and
every station. And if we're going to start talking about
closing things based on gain or loss, we're all ears. We're all
eyes. And we'll be participants in that, I assure you. So we
want to see that data. Since it got brought up, why pick on
only just one part of the system.
Secondly, Mr. Evans, you were talking interestingly on the
board about the affluence of certain members of the compact,
certain parts of the compact. In fact, you made reference to
jurisdictions I represent in terms of their median household
income. Was that a predicate to maybe changing how we finance
the operating subsidy based on median household income and an
ability to pay rather than utilization or physical presence of
Metro in a jurisdiction?
Mr. Evans. Mr. Connolly, all of my comments are directed at
getting the attention of Maryland and Virginia that we need a
dedicated funding source.
Mr. Connolly. But why would you pick on the measure on
median household income and affluence? What was the relevance
of that?
Mr. Evans. What I was saying is Fairfax County is the
second richest county in America and Arlington's the sixth
richest county in America, and yet we cannot get a dedicated
funding source for Metro.
Mr. Connolly. Yeah. And this goes back to why I think your
comments about the Silver Line are reckless. So let's take
Fairfax County, which I've represented for a long time. It's
400 square miles. How big is your jurisdiction?
Mr. Evans. 62.
Mr. Connolly. How many stations you got?
Mr. Evans. How many?
Mr. Connolly. Stations. Metro stations.
Mr. Evans. 40.
Mr. Connolly. Forty in 62 square miles. If you take out the
Silver Line, Fairfax has four, and if you're generous with
Falls Church, five in 400 square miles, Mr. Evans. It's a very
difficult task persuading our taxpayers to increase their
subsidy, let alone vote for a dedicated source of revenue, if
they're not served by Metro. And that was the genius of the
Silver Line, to finally get service to the Nation's premier
international airport, which is a Federal responsibility we're
bearing. And, secondly, to anchor the largest jurisdiction and
the wealthiest jurisdiction as a stakeholder in Metro. I urge
you to contemplate that next time you decide to opine about the
relevance of Metro in my jurisdiction. Thank you.
Mr. Meadows. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Beyer, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wiedefeld, first of all, I want to thank you again
for--as we--many have done today, for making the hard
decisions. You know, John Kennedy said that to govern is to
choose. And you clearly have made these choices.
You weren't able to address in your spoken testimony, but
in your extended written testimony you talked about the speed
restrictions outside National Airport. And many of my
constituents who regularly use the Yellow and the Blue Lines
question why the speed restrictions are in place so soon after
the SafeTrack work has been completed. Can you explain when
those will go away or why they're still there?
Mr. Wiedefeld. Sure. Sure. The speed restriction had
nothing to do with the condition of the track. It had to do
with a near miss out there. We have certain parts of the system
where we have very tight curves. And that one happens--actually
is an ess curve. And that--so we wanted to reduce the speed.
There was actually a line of sight issue. We worked with the
National Park Service to remove a tree to do that so we could
start to bring that speed back up.
And then what we're doing is we're instituting a electronic
technology so that when workers are out in one of those blind
curves, in effect, they are alerted that a train is coming. And
more importantly, that the operator knows that someone's in
front of them. And then once we have that in place, then we can
bring speeds back up. But when someone's out there, we just
want to make sure that they're not in danger.
Mr. Beyer. Okay. Thank you. You know, much has been made
about the culture, state of the culture at WMATA. And this is
the hardest thing to change and the most important thing. How
long do you think it's going to take? What are your steps to
change the culture? And I can ask Mr. Jackson this too. Do you
see the union as a willing partner in this culture evolution?
Mr. Jackson. I do see the union as a willing partner with
this culture evolution. I would just ask to go look at the
union's statements over the last few years. We've been asking
for this, I believe, since 2009, or maybe even before then. I
do know that during the--I can't remember the year and the
guy's name right now. But he came with Kubicek and the rest of
them. We have been saying this for a while that the Authority
have a serious culture problem. We have a very serious culture
problem and something needs to be done. It can't get done by
management disciplining their way out of this safety culture
problem that we have. You can't discipline your way to safety.
But if we sit down, the union and management come together, I
believe that we can fix this problem. I mean, and in my
professional opinion, I don't even believe we need the FTA to
do it. All we need is the training.
Mr. Beyer. Let me ask the general manager the same question
about culture, difficulty, time, and willing partners.
Mr. Wiedefeld. Yeah. I know we have willing partners. I've
met with hundreds if not thousands of our employees. And
basically, they've very proud and they--a lot of the things
that you're starting to see now is the result of the safety
culture taking root. So, for instance, about 3 weeks ago or so
we had an issue with the 4000 series. That was raised by a
middle manager person that basically said: Wait a minute.
There's an issue here. And we pulled those cars out of the lead
on the trains.
A lot of the other speed restrictions, you mention one, but
there's a number of speed restrictions that have been occurring
over the last few months. That's coming from line employees.
And that's exactly where it should come and that's what we want
to promote.
But I do believe with Mr. Jackson, there has been a culture
here over decades that has evolved. And I'm not going to turn
it around in months. But I think it's going to--a concerted
effort by management and labor to do that.
Mr. Beyer. Great. Thank you.
Chairman Evans----
Mr. Evans. Yes.
Mr. Beyer. --we've given you a hard time today because of
your comments about warning the Blue Line to be closed for 6
months or that you cut suburban Metrorail service so Virginia,
Maryland can contribute more money. In November, you floated
the idea of a Federal takeover of WMATA. And just last week,
this notion of not continuing Silver Line phase two, even
though Virginia's paying to construct it.
I know you're working very hard and very passionately about
dedicated sources of revenue and all that. But how do you
respond to all these statements which seem to deepen the
parochial divides and perhaps further undermining rider
confidence in our system?
Mr. Evans. Thank you, Congressman. Actually, I think--and
you take those statements one by one. What I found when I came
to Metro and became chairman is a lack of awareness--because of
Metro's fault. Nobody's else's fault--in this whole region of
how bad this situation was. On the operation side, as was
pointed out by I believe Chairman Mica, we had just celebrated
Richard Sarles' leaving as one of the great times in Metro. And
the whole thing was a wreck and nobody knew it. The finances,
when I walked in there, I couldn't believe what I found. We
hadn't had a clean audit in 3 years. Everything was in chaos.
What I've tried to do in the last year is to raise the
awareness of the region starting out with close the Blue Line
for 6 months. We needed to do something to fix these lines.
Paul's SafeTrack program is a followup on just that statement.
The idea of a control board for Metro. It's been adopted by the
Federal City Council. So all of these statements which were
inflammatory at the time actually turned--proved out to be what
Metro needs. And I have to say, Mr. Congressman, we're not even
close to fixing this thing. There is a lot that needs to be
done. But I will say this: We are light years ahead of where we
were a year ago at this time. Enormous progress has been made.
Mr. Beyer. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York, Mrs.
Maloney, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, it's good to hear that some progress
has been made. But I want to look more closely at the
capabilities of the Federal Transit Administration and what it
brings to its role as the entity with responsibility for
oversight and safety at Metro.
So I'd like to begin with Mr. Welbes. How many safety
inspectors does FTA currently have?
Mr. Welbes. So we have a team of 10 people working on our
safety inspection. We have 24 people total who are involved in
WMATA inspections and oversight right now.
Mrs. Maloney. So 10 people. And 24, what are the 24? Are
they on detail from other agencies?
Mr. Welbes. There's a combination of 13 FTA employees. We
also have some contractor employees. We also have some
detailees from the Federal Railroad Administration and the
Federal Motor Carrier Administration.
Mrs. Maloney. How many detailees do you have?
Mr. Welbes. I can report that back to you.
Mrs. Maloney. And do you have any contractors who help
perform FTA safety inspection responsibilities? And if so, how
many?
Mr. Welbes. I will provide that to you for the record.
Mrs. Maloney. Okay.
And Chairman Hart, for the purposes of comparison, how many
rail inspectors does the Federal Railroad Administration have?
Mr. Hart. I'm sorry, I do not have that number. I have to
get back to you with that.
Mrs. Maloney. Okay. Great.
And, Mr. Welbes, when FTA conducts its oversight duties,
does it have Federal regulations to refer to or does it
regulate Metro based on the standards that Metro has
established for itself?
Mr. Welbes. So at this time, we enforce Metro standards. We
hold Metro accountable to carry out its standards.
Mrs. Maloney. Its standards. Okay. And is FTA working on a
rulemaking regarding Federal standards for transit operation?
Mr. Welbes. Yes, we are.
Mrs. Maloney. That's good to hear. And what is the status
of that rulemaking?
Mr. Welbes. So in this past year, we've issued four safety
regulations: One related to State safety oversight; one related
to bus testing; another one that is our national safety
program, which is the overall framework for FTA carrying out
the new authority that Congress gave it recently. And then in
the coming months on--we have two more regulations we are
issuing. One is the Public Transportation Agency safety
regulation and a safety certification training regulation
that's also ready for issuance.
Mrs. Maloney. And, Chairman Hart, for the purposes of
comparison about FRA, does it hold the railroads it regulates
to established Federal rules or to the standards that the
railroads establish for themselves?
Mr. Hart. Well, let me--there's a clarification I think
that's warranted here. Our understanding is that what the
Federal Transit Administration is putting out is not
regulations but voluntary safety standards. The FRA puts out
regulations, which means you must do this or you cannot do
that. So I think there is a large distinction there between the
two activities. And I'm not sure that under the circumstances
where FTA is intending to be a temporary body, I'm not sure
under those circumstances they would be eager to create an
entire infrastructure with regulations and inspections--
inspectors to find out if the regulations are being followed.
They're trying to see the States take this function over sooner
rather than later. So I'm not confident that they would ever
want to create that infrastructure that we think is necessary
that the FRA already has.
Mrs. Maloney. Do you agree with that analysis, Mr. Welbes?
Just voluntary, not a real regulation?
Mr. Welbes. In the future, our intent is that there will be
certain mandatory standards. There will be also voluntary
industry standards that agencies will follow. It'll be a
combination.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, certainly with Homeland Security, do
you have standards in Homeland Security that are Federal?
Mr. Welbes. Yes.
Mrs. Maloney. You do.
I want to look at FTA's day-to-day oversight of Metro. Mr.
Welbes, how many FTA inspectors are assigned to oversee safety
at Metro?
Mr. Welbes. So we have, as I noted, a team of 24 people
total in our Washington Metro safety office which we
established a year ago.
Mrs. Maloney. Okay. And do FTA inspectors produce regular
reports on their findings at Metro for review by senior
officials? And how often are these reports produced? Who
reviews them? And has FTA ordered any specific changes in
Metro's operations to respond to findings that have been
identified by these inspectors?
Mr. Welbes. We have. We've done two things. We've done
targeted investigations of key problem areas. For example, red
signal overruns, track maintenance. And then we also have
conducted day-to-day inspections. So we've conducted over 300
daily inspections. And they've resulted, as Mr. Wiedefeld will
know, in--I believe on the investigation side, 251 specific
corrective actions that WMATA's supposed to carry out. And of
those, some of them are ones we brought forward that had been
assigned by the State safety oversight agency. About half of
them are ones we've identified during the past year.
Mrs. Maloney. My time has expired.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentlewoman.
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia for a
very quick 1-1/2 minutes since they've called votes.
Mrs. Comstock. Okay. How many people--actually, I wanted--
the information you provided with us earlier is that there are
5--about 5,000 employees in the transit infrastructure and
engineering services that ties department of Metro. And my
understanding is that--that comparable transit networks have
about 19 of those employees per track mile and Metro has 42,
according to those statistics. Would that be correct?
Mr. Wiedefeld. I don't know. I would have to look at that.
I just don't know.
Mrs. Comstock. Okay. Could we get that information? Because
I think what we really need to have and what we haven't been
able to get is how do we--I know you've said we're doing--it's
costing more and we're doing less. And we need to get
comparable data. And I know Mr. Evans has said to me in private
meetings that the contract is unsustainable, and having
$100,000 bus drivers or $216,000 controllers are a very
difficult thing. I'm sure your teachers in D.C. don't make
$216,000. My husband is a teacher--was a teacher in Fairfax
County. I can assure you, did not make that. Does not make
$100,000, our teachers don't in Fairfax. So this wealthy county
that has been referenced, their teachers, their firefighters,
their police are not making $216,000 or $100,000. And these are
people who often have graduate degrees and others. So I'd like
to get that comparable data, and we need to have that.
But I'd also like to--given Mr. Jackson's comments today
saying that people are forcing them to falsify things, those
are very serious charges. And I think we need names and
information on that. And you very factually stated that. So I
would hope you would present us with facts that back that up.
You are here under oath today. And I think it's incumbent if
you have employees--because, you know, if your employees are
being exploited like this, we need to have that information. So
I would ask you to provide us names and places and incidents,
and go back to your employees and give us that information.
And then I'd like to make my request again, and I hope you
would be able to take us sort of on a tour, so we understand
when your employees are called to do these--whether it's 42 per
mile and what--and I should also point out that these are
people who--from the APTA data that we have, compared to what
Metro is paid, your workers are paid considerably higher--you
are aware of that, Mr. Jackson, right--than the average?
Mr. Jackson. I know that what our workers make were--their
salaries were negotiated with WMATA.
Mrs. Comstock. I understand they were negotiated. But, for
example, the track workers who with their benefits make $55 an
hour is comparable to the average of $30 an hour. The wage an
hour rate is $36, then benefits are $17. The Davis-Bacon track
laborer makes $23 and then $7 with fringe benefits for $30. So
your employees are paid more--considerably higher than Davis-
Bacon and higher than the national average. Would you agree?
Mr. Jackson. Well, I will agree that our employees also
have to go behind those same contractors and redo the work that
they have done.
Mrs. Comstock. Well, so you're saying even though you have
42 miles--workers per track and as opposed to 19, you still
aren't able to--and you're paid more. So my--I mean, from--I'm
looking at the data that Metro gave me. These employees are
paid more and there's more of them than the average. And yet
you're not acknowledging that?
Mr. Jackson. Well, are you asking for the quality of the
work?
Mrs. Comstock. No. I'm asking for the salaries. So maybe if
you could provide me, your union, with that--I mean, I know
your union's under investigation right now by the Labor
Department. Is that correct?
Mr. Jackson. We are not under investigation by the Labor
Department.
Mrs. Comstock. Well, they've sued about the--the election
wasn't properly held. Is that correct?
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Mrs. Comstock. But do you have somebody who could provide
us with the information on the salaries and all that that--
because you've made claims that you're paid, I think publicly
outside of this hearing, that you aren't paid more than the
average and that there's some--and you're asking for
considerable salary increases, is that correct, in your current
negotiations?
Mr. Jackson. We're in contract negotiations now. And that's
what they are. They are negotiations.
Mrs. Comstock. Okay. So for this 55--$53 an hour, you're
asking for more.
Mr. Jackson. We're asking for more. The Authority is also
asking for more. So that's why it's called negotiations. We
will negotiate with the Authority, and we will come up with
something that I believe will be fair for everybody.
Mrs. Comstock. Okay. Well, I think again I would reiterate,
that's why the Federal City Council has pointed out this is
unsustainable given the costs that are not comparable to the
national rates and why we need to get rid of this existing
compact and the binding arbitration that makes it impossible
for the leadership here to really implement what you're asking
them to implement.
I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Mica. [Presiding.] I thank the gentlelady. I thank our
witnesses. We do have an opportunity to make Metro great again.
I think this panel is in very good hands. Some of you may wish
one of these days that Congressman Mica was back chairing these
hearings.
There being no further business before the committee and
the dual subcommittees, Government Operations and
Transportation Oversight, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]