    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    THE STATE OF POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION IN THE UNITED STATES

    =======================================================================

                                    (114-23)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                           RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND
                              HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 24, 2015

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
            committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation

                                   ___________

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     95-230 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2015
    _________________________________________________________________________________
    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 20402-001

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                      BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman

    DON YOUNG, Alaska                    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee,      ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
      Vice Chair                         Columbia
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                JERROLD NADLER, New York
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            RICK LARSEN, Washington
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania           GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    RICHARD L. HANNA, New York           ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    JEFF DENHAM, California              JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin            ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              JANICE HAHN, California
    TOM RICE, South Carolina             RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            DINA TITUS, Nevada
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
    MARK SANFORD, South Carolina         ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    ROB WOODALL, Georgia                 LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    TODD ROKITA, Indiana                 CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
    JOHN KATKO, New York                 JARED HUFFMAN, California
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   JULIA BROWNLEY, California
    CRESENT HARDY, Nevada
    RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
    GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
    MIMI WALTERS, California
    BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
    CARLOS CURBELO, Florida
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
    LEE M. ZELDIN, New York

                                      (ii)

         Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials

                       JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman

    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          JERROLD NADLER, New York
    LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania           ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              RICK LARSEN, Washington
    RICHARD L. HANNA, New York           STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    TOM RICE, South Carolina             RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    TODD ROKITA, Indiana                 GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    JOHN KATKO, New York                 JANICE HAHN, California
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
    CRESENT HARDY, Nevada                Officio)
    MIMI WALTERS, California
    LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
    Officio)

                                     (iii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................    vi

                                   WITNESSES

    Sarah Feinberg, Acting Administrator, Federal Railroad
      Administration:

        Testimony....................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................    45
    Charles Mathias, Associate Chief, Wireless Telecommunications
      Bureau, U.S. Federal Communications Commission:

        Testimony....................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................    51
    Frank Lonegro, Vice President of Service Design, CSX
      Transportation, Inc.:

        Testimony....................................................     5
        Prepared statement, including white paper from Association of
          American Railroads entitled ``Positive Train Control
          Implementation Challenges,'' June 22, 2015.................    56
    Donald Orseno, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer,
      Metra Commuter Railroad:

        Testimony....................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................    95
    Russell Kerwin, Deputy Project Manager of Positive Train Control,
      Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink):

        Testimony....................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................   100

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Report, ``San Francisco/Silicon Valley Corridor Investment
      Strategy for High-Speed Rail,'' June 2009, by San Francisco
      County Transportation Authority, et al., submitted by Hon. Jeff
      Denham, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      California.....................................................   108

                            ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD

    Letter of June 23, 2015, from Eric Garcetti, mayor of the city of
      Los Angeles, to Chairman Jeff Denham and Ranking Member Michael
      E. Capuano, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
      Materials......................................................   136

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    THE STATE OF POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION IN THE UNITED STATES

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2015

                      House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
                                             Materials,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room
    2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Denham (Chairman
    of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Denham. The subcommittee will come to order.
        Good morning. Welcome to the Subcommittee on Railroads,
    Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials. Our hearing today will
    focus on the implementation of PTC, Positive Train Control, in
    the United States, one of the most complex and costly safety
    mandates ever taken by the railroad industry.
        Positive train control is a radio or GPS-based [Global
    Positioning System-based] system designed to automatically
    control trains to follow speed limits and avoid train-to-train
    collisions. Following the deadly commuter train crash in
    southern California, Congress mandated the installation of PTC
    on lines where certain hazardous materials are carried and any
    line on which passenger or commuter rail services operate.
        The recent tragic Amtrak crash in Philadelphia has reminded
    us that, while these accidents are rare, they can happen, and
    PTC will make our rail network safer. This mandate was included
    in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, and Congress set an
    implementation deadline of December 31 of this year.
        From the beginning, the PTC mandate was going to be a
    daunting undertaking to consider. What completely implemented
    PTC will require is 38,000 wayside interfaces, 18,000
    locomotives to be upgraded, and 12,000 signals will need to be
    replaced.
        While similar systems exist in Europe and on some portions
    of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, PTC has never been implemented
    on such a scale and has never required such a high level of
    interoperability. Since the 2008 mandate was enacted, freight,
    passenger, and commuter railroads have spent the last 7 years
    working to implement PTC. According to the Association of
    American Railroads, freight rail has spent $5.7 billion to date
    on PTC and is expected to spend a total of $9 billion to fully
    implement it.
        The American Public Transportation Association has
    estimated that commuter and passenger railroads will have to
    spend nearly $3.5 billion on PTC. In addition to the sheer cost
    and complexities of the system, there have been many unexpected
    delays. The process of approving PTC poles along railroad
    right-of-way was delayed significantly when the Federal
    Communications Commission mandated that each pole go through an
    extensive review process.
        The FCC eventually created a more streamlined process for
    those approvals, and we will hear from them today about how it
    is working. Commuter and passenger railroads have also
    struggled to buy the necessary radio spectrum for PTC,
    especially in our dense metropolitan areas.
        Today we will discuss how long it will take to get PTC
    implemented across the country and what it will take to meet
    this current deadline. In closing, I look forward to hearing
    from our witnesses regarding these issues.
        I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Michael
    Capuano from Massachusetts for any opening statement he may
    have.
        Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to welcome the panel. I am looking forward to your
    testimony and the discussion we have. I think the chairman has
    said pretty much everything there is to say about PTC from our
    end of it.
        Honestly, this is long overdue, in my estimation. And,
    honestly, I would like to find out--we all know where we are
    today. Tell me how we get to where we want to implement as
    quickly as we can because that is what America wants, that is
    what I want. And if you think you need Federal assistance,
    please say so. Be clear.
        I say that because we have our own differences of opinion
    in the House and the Senate as to whether we should be putting
    funds up or not. And if you think we should, you should say so.
    I would like to hear that.
        With that, I yield back. And I look forward to the
    testimony.
        Mr. Denham. I now call on the full committee chairman, Mr.
    Shuster.
        Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Chairman Denham, for holding this
    hearing today. I think it is important to start off by saying
    that the number-one top priority of this committee and the
    Department of Transportation is safety.
        In general, rail safety trends have gone in the right
    direction over the past years. However, the terrible Amtrak
    incident in Philadelphia last month showed us that we should
    always remain focused on our efforts to improve rail safety.
        As Chairman Denham said--and I believe it is worth
    repeating--Positive Train Control is one of the most ambitious,
    complex, and costly safety enhancements the railroad industry
    has ever undertaken.
        I was the ranking member of the subcommittee in 2008 when
    Congress enacted the PTC mandate. We knew the mandate would be
    challenging, but we hoped that railroads would be able to meet
    that deadline 7 years into the future. Unfortunately, we know
    today that that will not be the case.
        With a few exceptions, most railroads, including the
    largest Class I freight railroads, will not meet December's
    deadline. This has happened for a few reasons.
        Technology has been more complicated especially to ensure
    interoperability between the railroads. Spectrum has been
    harder to acquire particularly for commuter railroads that
    serve in densely populated metro areas. And, finally, the
    Federal Communications Commission's approval process for new
    telecommunication poles was not set up to handle the tens of
    thousands of poles needed to deploy PTC.
        So I am looking forward to hearing from you today, the
    witnesses, where the PTC implementation stands, and your
    testimony will help us to consider how we move forward to deal
    with the mandate in an appropriate fashion.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Denham. And I will call on Mr. DeFazio for any opening
    statement he may have.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Are you sure your microphone is working? I couldn't hear
    you. Jeff doesn't need a microphone, the chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding the hearing.
        We are going to focus on the extension of the deadline
    today. It is clear that the Class I's aren't going to be able
    to meet the deadline. Some passenger rail is not going to be
    able to meet the deadline.
        But this was not a knee-jerk reaction to Chatsworth, and
    this has been something that has been a very, very long time in
    the making.
        It was 45 years since NTSB [National Transportation Safety
    Board] first recommended the idea of Positive Train Control.
    And they have had it on their most wanted list for many years.
    It was temporarily removed after the passage of the legislation
    in 2008, but it was put back on when it was clear that the
    deadlines weren't going to be met.
        Just to revisit why we did this, Chatsworth actually took
    place right before the House and Senate had acted. And it was a
    compilation of accidents over the years, including, in
    particular, one in 2005 that was a release of chlorine gas.
    Five thousand people were evacuated. Eight people died. Five
    hundred fifty-four were injured.
        And the NTSB at the time said they had never seen anything
    like it, this was caused by human error--improper alignment of
    a switch--and, had PTC been installed, it wouldn't have
    happened. And then they went back over a litany; this again is,
    at the time of passage: 145 accidents, 296 fatalities, and
    6,700 injuries over the past 45 years since their first
    recommendation would have been prevented with PTC. So we passed
    it.
        Chatsworth took place, actually, right before House
    passage, which led the Senate to change its position. They
    started out, I believe, with 2018 as the deadline, and they
    were pushing, at the behest of the two California senators,
    2014. We compromised on 2015 as something that could be
    achievable. Unfortunately, we aren't going to meet that
    deadline in many cases.
        Congress was helping some of the passenger rail folks with
    grants. The President has asked for $1 billion. We got one $50
    million grant. But, since 2010, nothing has been allocated by
    Congress.
        Now, for freight, it is a heavy expense, but at least it is
    a business expense. For nonprofit passenger rail, you know, it
    is an expense which is hard to pass on to the customers, but
    that is pretty much what they have to do, or the local
    operating jurisdiction. So grants could be helpful, I believe,
    and we hopefully will hear more about that today.
        And yet, our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee--it
    doesn't quite take the same view of these issues as we do--we
    are a little more enlightened on this committee--actually cut
    Amtrak's capital grants by $290 million the day after the
    accident.
        And among other things that those grants fund is Positive
    Train Control in addition to other critical infrastructure,
    which is likely to cause other accidents, derailments, bridge
    collapse, tunnel collapse. The system is decrepit, needs an
    incredible amount of investment. Very, very shortsighted.
        So I have observed that we got a man to the moon after
    President Kennedy issued the challenge. It only took 8 years,
    and that was 1 year after the NTSB first asked for Positive
    Train Control.
        I know we can do it. We just need to hear today what
    impediments remain and what can we do to expedite the
    installation across all of the system in the critical
    categories.
        We defined toxic-by-inhalation routes included in addition
    to the passenger and the other very heavily used routes.
        So I look forward to the testimony. And, if necessary, I
    would urge the committee to take further action if we hear
    testimony today that says we need to take steps to get this
    done.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio.
        I would now like to welcome our panel of witnesses. First,
    Ms. Sarah Feinberg, Acting Administrator of the Federal
    Railroad Administration, FRA.
        And I want to pay a special thanks. You have continued to
    come before this committee. There have obviously been a number
    of big issues that this committee is addressing, and you have
    not wavered as far as coming before us and answering some very
    difficult questions. So we thank you for being here again with
    us this morning.
        Also, Mr. Charles Mathias, Associate Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
    FCC; Mr. Frank Lonegro, vice president of service design, CSX
    Transportation; Mr. Donald Orseno, executive director and chief
    executive officer of Metra Commuter Railroad; and Russell
    Kerwin, deputy project manager of Positive Train Control,
    Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink).
        I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements
    be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
        Since your written testimony has been made part of the
    record, the subcommittee would request that you keep your
    statements limited to 5 minutes.
        With that, Ms. Feinberg, you are recognized.

      TESTIMONY OF SARAH FEINBERG, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
      RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION; CHARLES MATHIAS, ASSOCIATE CHIEF,
    WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU, U.S. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
     COMMISSION; FRANK LONEGRO, VICE PRESIDENT OF SERVICE DESIGN,
    CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.; DONALD ORSENO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND
     CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, METRA COMMUTER RAILROAD; AND RUSSELL
       KERWIN, DEPUTY PROJECT MANAGER OF POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL,
        SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY (METROLINK)

        Ms. Feinberg. Thank you.
        Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Capuano, Chairman Shuster,
    Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the subcommittee, thank
    you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the
    implementation of Positive Train Control in the United States.
        PTC technology is arguably the single most important
    railroad safety development in more than a century. The
    technology is not new, though. Elements of PTC have existed
    since the early 20th century. In fact, regulators and safety
    advocates have been calling on the rail industry to implement
    some form of PTC for many decades, the NTSB, since 1969.
        The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 required the
    current functionality of Positive Train Control to be fully
    implemented by December 31, 2015. PTC is required on Class I
    railroad main lines where any poisonous or toxic-by-inhalation
    hazardous materials are transported. It is also required on any
    railroad's main line where regularly scheduled intercity or
    commuter rail passenger service is conducted.
        Following passage of the PTC mandate in 2008, railroads
    submitted their PTC implementation plans in 2010. These plans
    laid out a path forward that would allow each railroad to meet
    the deadline.
        As I have stated to this committee before, safety is the
    Federal Railroad Administration's top priority. The rail system
    is not as safe as it could be without the full implementation
    of PTC.
        A safe rail system requires the full implementation of
    Positive Train Control, and that is why FRA will enforce the
    December 31, 2015, deadline for implementation just as Congress
    has mandated.
        For several years, FRA has been sounding the alarm that
    most railroads have not made sufficient progress in
    implementing PTC. In the 7 years since passage of the PTC
    mandate, FRA has dedicated significant resources and worked
    closely with the railroad industry in order to assist and guide
    implementation.
        We have hired staff to assist and oversee implementation.
    We have worked directly with the FCC to resolve spectrum issues
    and improve the approval process related to PTC communication
    towers. We have built a PTC system test bed at Transportation
    Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado.
        We have provided approximately $650 million in grant funds
    to support PTC implementation. This includes American Recovery
    and Reinvestment Act grants as well as Amtrak grants and other
    annual appropriations.
        We have requested $825 million to assist commuter
    railroads, and we have issued a $967 million loan through the
    RRIF [Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing]
    program to New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the
    Nation's largest commuter railroad.
        I have also established a new PTC task force team within
    the FRA. That team is aggressively managing and monitoring each
    individual railroad's progress, tracking data, ensuring we have
    the most accurate and up-to-date information, and reporting in
    to me multiple times per week. This team is working in close
    collaboration with the many individuals at FRA based here in
    Washington and in offices around the country already working on
    this challenge.
        But, unfortunately, despite FRA's financial support,
    technical assistance, and warnings, many railroads have stated
    publicly that they will still not meet the December 31
    deadline. Recently, FRA received updated information about PTC
    implementation from 32 of the 38 railroads that we are
    currently tracking for enforcement purposes.
        Initial analysis indicates that Class I railroads have
    completed or partially completed installations of approximately
    half of the locomotives that require PTC equipment, deployed
    approximately half of the wayside units, replaced approximately
    half of signals that need replacement, and completed most of
    the required mapping for PTC tracks.
        By the end of the year, AAR [Association of American
    Railroads] projects that 39 percent of locomotives will be
    equipped, 76 percent of wayside interface units will be
    installed, 67 percent of base station radios will be installed,
    and 34 percent of required employees will be trained.
        According to APTA [American Public Transportation
    Association], 29 percent of commuter railroads are targeting to
    complete installation of PTC equipment by the end of 2015. Full
    implementation of PTC for commuter lines is projected by 2020.
        FRA continues our work to finalize an enforcement strategy
    for those railroads that will miss the deadline. As with any
    regulatory enforcement posture, our ultimate goal is to bring
    all railroads into compliance as quickly and as safely as
    possible.
        Starting on January 1, FRA will impose penalties on
    railroads that have not fully implemented PTC. Fines will be
    based on FRA's PTC penalty guidelines, which establish
    different penalties depending on the violation. The penalties
    may be assessed per violation per day.
        The total amount of penalty each railroad faces depends
    upon the amount of implementation progress the railroad has
    made. FRA is also planning for what will come after the January
    1 deadline.
        In both 2014 and 2015, the department and FRA asked
    Congress to provide FRA with additional authorities that would
    address the safety gap that will exist on many railroads
    between January 1, 2016, and each railroad's full PTC
    implementation.
        These additional authorities would provide FRA with the
    ability to review, approve, and require interim safety measures
    for individual railroads that may fail to meet the PTC
    deadline. These interim safety requirements would be to ensure
    railroads are forced to raise the bar on safety if they miss
    the deadline, but will not and cannot be used to replace or
    extend the deadline.
        In conclusion, I want to extend my thanks and appreciation
    to this committee for its attention and focus on achieving
    implementation as efficiently and quickly as possible. We look
    forward to working with you. And I am happy to respond to your
    questions. Thank you.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Ms. Feinberg.
        Mr. Mathias, you may proceed.
        Mr. Mathias. Thank you.
        Thank you, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Capuano,
    Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and distinguished
    members of this subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to
    testify here today.
        Mr. Denham. Can I ask you to pull your microphone a little
    closer.
        Mr. Mathias. Promoting the safety of life and property
    through the use of wire and radio communication is a top FCC
    priority. As the Nation's communications agency, the FCC helps
    coordinate spectrum acquisition by freight and passenger
    railroads. We also manage the statutorily required historic
    preservation and environmental reviews of the poles, antennas,
    and associated infrastructure used to support Positive Train
    Control, or PTC, systems.
        Because the FCC was given no mandate to set aside spectrum
    for PTC purposes, the FCC has been working closely with the
    railroads since 2008 to identify available spectrum on the
    secondary market.
        The FCC has acted swiftly upon request to approve multiple
    spectrum transactions, including the freight railroads'
    acquisition of spectrum nationwide, Amtrak's acquisition of
    spectrum in the Northeast Corridor, as well as requested
    waivers to better enable and test PTC deployment. To be clear,
    the Commission plays no role in designing or assessing the
    railroad's choice of PTC technology. The railroads are
    responsible for PTC design and deployment.
        The country's major freights have led the way in securing
    spectrum for PTC. Through private transactions, they acquired
    nationwide spectrum in the commercial 220- to 222-megahertz
    spectrum band just months before the act became law. These
    railroads quickly focused on utilizing this spectrum when the
    PTC mandate was established.
        When they did, the freight railroads effectively drove
    other railroads, including Amtrak and commuter rails, to
    spectrum in and around the 220-megahertz band for their PTC
    operations as well. For most of the country, this strategy
    appears to have been successful.
        The FCC has proactively facilitated and continues to
    facilitate freight and passenger railroads' successful
    acquisition and lease of spectrum on secondary markets. We have
    also granted the railroads extensive technical waivers, more
    transmitter power, for example, to facilitate the use of this
    spectrum for PTC purposes.
        Spectrum acquisition in the Northeast Corridor differs from
    the rest of the country because Amtrak and the freights are
    deploying two different PTC systems that were not from the
    outset engineered to be compatible in the same spectrum band.
        So unlike in a market such as Chicago, where the freight
    railroads tell us that 11 different railroads can share the
    same block of spectrum using a single PTC system, in the
    Northeast Corridor, the choice to deploy 2 systems requires 2
    blocks of spectrum far enough apart to avoid interference.
        FCC staff will continue to work with Amtrak, the commuter
    rails that use the Amtrak system in the Northeast Corridor, and
    the freights to help identify solutions to these problems.
        PTC infrastructure deployments are also a priority. Federal
    environmental and historic preservation law requires the FCC to
    assess the potential impacts of agency ``undertakings,''
    including potential impact on properties significant to tribal
    nations.
        To facilitate this process, in May 2014, the Advisory
    Council on Historic Preservation issued streamlined rules for
    future PTC pole deployments. Under this streamlined approach,
    the majority of proposed rules are exempt from historic
    preservation review.
        The Commission has the capacity to receive 1,400 exempt and
    nonexempt pole applications from the major freight railroads
    every 2 weeks. By the middle of June, the freight railroads
    could have submitted as many as 40,000 poles for review. In
    fact, the railroads have only submitted around 8,300 poles, or
    about 21 percent of our total capacity.
        Going forward, issues in the Northeast Corridor remain
    complex and pose significant challenges. We stand ready to work
    with Amtrak, the commuter rails, and the freight rails there
    and across the country to help them meet their evolving
    deployment needs.
        We appreciate this subcommittee's commitment and leadership
    on this issue and its efforts to ensure the successful
    deployment of PTC systems.
        The FCC is committed to working collaboratively with
    Congress, our Federal partners, and the railroads to get the
    job done. I look forward to answering any questions you may
    have. Thank you.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Mathias.
        I would now like to call on the representative from
    Florida, Ms. Brown, to introduce our next witness, Mr. Lonegro.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am pleased to introduce Mr. Frank Lonegro--and you can
    correct that name, Frank, when it is your time--who will be
    testifying today for CSX railroad located in my hometown of
    Jacksonville, Florida. Frank has worked for CSX since 2000,
    focused on technology issues, and has taken the lead for the
    Class I Positive Train Control initiative.
        CSX is an employer that plays a major strong role in the
    Jacksonville community. The company and its CEO, Michael Ward,
    have been a long advocate for veterans in Florida and
    throughout the United States.
        Let me just say that I am very proud of the Wounded Warrior
    program. They gave the first million dollars, and they have
    received 2 years in a row the top award from the President for
    over 33 percent of their employees are veterans.
        So, with that, I want to welcome Frank and the other
    panelists. And thank you for joining us today.
        Mr. Lonegro. Thank you, Member Brown.
        And, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, members of the
    committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here. I am Frank
    Lonegro, vice president of service design at CSX. And since the
    passage of the PTC mandate, I have been the project owner for
    PTC at CSX. I also chair the industry committee that is tasked
    with achieving PTC interoperability across 60,000 miles of
    railroad.
        Given the recent Amtrak tragedy and remembering all of
    those who have been impacted by PTC preventable accidents, I
    believe four issues are presented for resolution by this
    committee:
        Number 1, why are most railroads unable to meet PTC by
    2015?
        Number 2, why are a few railroads able to make 2015 while
    the remainder cannot?
        Number 3, what happens if a PTC extension is not passed?
        Number 4, what is the path forward?
        Since PTC was mandated, accidents have happened that were
    PTC-preventable. A turnkey system did not exist in 2008 and had
    to be created by the rail industry. That task continues.
        As one of the many railroaders working on PTC every day,
    let me reflect briefly on accountability. I am ultimately
    responsible for PTC at CSX. And, unfortunately, it will not be
    completed by the deadline. This is not the result of lack of
    will or lack of commitment.
        To the contrary, CSX has provided people, allocated ample
    funding, and ensured executive support. We are hundreds of
    millions of dollars over budget, yet CSX has never hesitated to
    provide the required capital. With these ingredients of
    success, companies do not fail at delivering projects that are
    achievable from the outset.
        Congress shares in this responsibility. The 2015 PTC
    deadline was not grounded in fact. It was a political
    compromise reached after Chatsworth. Various constituencies in
    the House and Senate advocated for 2012, 2014, and 2018. The
    compromise halfway between those extremes gave us 2015, a
    political date, not necessarily an achievable date.
        Other responsible stakeholders are FRA, FCC, and the
    supplier community. The industry has thousands working on PTC.
    The FRA has about a dozen. The PTC final rule was published in
    August of 2014, hundreds of pages of regulations, 6 years after
    the mandate.
        FRA is requiring significant documentation, validation,
    safety assessments, and fault analyses. All are geared toward
    deploying a safe and reliable system, but also require a
    tremendous amount of time and effort on both sides.
        No one anticipated the regulatory requirements relating to
    PTC towers. When FCC realized they would have to clear 20,000
    towers, they imposed a moratorium to develop a better process.
    That moratorium impacted the PTC timeline by over a year. The
    resulting review process appears to be working.
        FCC has also recently approved the antenna height waiver, J
    Block swap, and Canadian border agreement. While each of these
    is complicated, we do need a greater emphasis on speed, given
    that much work remains, especially solving the PTC radio
    interference in the Northeast.
        Lastly, given the complexity of the technical task, our
    supplier partners have yet to hit a major deadline or deliver
    software that is free from defects. In the beginning, I think
    we all believed PTC was further along.
        A few railroads have indicated that they will make 2015,
    most notably, Metrolink in the L.A. Basin and Amtrak in the
    Northeast Corridor. Importantly, both railroads have previously
    promised completion in 2012.
        I remind us of that not to denigrate their great work, but
    to illustrate the challenges of PTC even for small deployments.
    Successful completion in 2015 will be a testament to 7 years of
    hard work by those railroads and great leadership by PTC
    veterans like Darrell Maxey and Keith Holt.
        There are two main reasons why some railroads will make
    2015 while others will not. The first is scale. The Amtrak and
    Metrolink deployments are very similar in size, 100 to 150
    engines and 300 to 500 miles of railroad. In contrast,
    deployment at CSX involves 3,900 engines and 11,000 miles of
    railroad, about 25 times larger. More engines and more miles
    means more time.
        The second is the state of the legacy infrastructure. PTC
    is brandnew technology that does not interface with legacy
    signaling and dispatching systems. At CSX, PTC is requiring us
    to completely replace 7,500 miles of wayside signals,
    geospatially map 21,000 rail miles, and enhance our dispatching
    system to a precision of one ten-thousandth of a mile, all
    while delivering the Nation's freight and passengers. Once we
    are finished, it will no longer be our fathers' railroad.
        If no extension is passed, the railroads have a serious
    legal dilemma. Does the PTC mandate make it illegal to
    transport TIH/PIH [toxic by inhalation/poisonous by inhalation]
    commodities irrespective of our common carrier obligation?
        Similarly, we are also required to allow commuter and
    interstate passenger agencies to run on our lines. Which law
    should we violate? The passenger requirement or the PTC
    mandate?
        If we cannot transport TIH/PIH commodities or passengers by
    rail, the outcome is not good for the American people or the
    American economy. If we continue to haul the commodities and
    the passengers which trigger the PTC mandate, we will be in
    violation of the law and run the risk of regulatory
    enforcement, potential uncapped liability, and questionable
    insurance coverage, an untenable situation for CSX and its
    employees and shareholders.
        The need for an extension is clear. The question is how to
    fashion the extension that recognizes the enormity of PTC,
    rewards railroads that will make 2015, hold the remaining
    railroads accountable to complete the project expeditiously,
    and provide legal certainty for shippers, passengers, and
    railroads alike.
        We look forward to working with you to forge that path
    ahead. Thank you.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Lonegro.
        Mr. Orseno, we have met several times already. But if I
    have butchered your last name as I have twice already and been
    corrected by colleagues, please let us know.
        Mr. Orseno. OK. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Denham, and members of this subcommittee.
        I would also like to thank Congressman Lipinski. You are
    our representative on this subcommittee, and we appreciate your
    championship for transportation.
        I am Don Orseno, executive director/CEO of Metra as well as
    the chair of the APTA Commuter Rail Committee. I was lucky
    enough early in my career to be a card-carrying engineer that I
    was very proud of. I operate trains every single day. It is an
    enormous responsibility that I didn't take lightly, as no
    engineer does.
        A few years ago I was appointed executive director/CEO of
    Metra, and I took those experiences with me early in my career
    to my position now. Let me be clear. Safety is paramount at
    Metra and, to that end, we are committed to implementing PTC.
    But let me also be clear on another item. It is not without
    challenges.
        Metra is one of the largest commuter rail systems in the
    country. Last year we provided over 83.4 million passenger
    trips. We primarily serve customers commuting from the suburbs
    to work in Chicago. We operate 11 lines with 241 stations. Four
    of those lines are owned and operated by the UP [Union Pacific
    Railroad] and the BNSF [Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway].
    Chicago is the Nation's busiest rail hub and the most complex,
    with six of the seven Class I railroads operating throughout
    the network.
        Coordination of PTC implementation must include all of
    these railroads. The BN and UP were further along with PTC
    installation than us. So we directed all of our resources to
    put equipment on the trains that will be operating on the BN
    and the UP so we could be compliant when they were.
        Those lines, once they are operational, will be--40 percent
    of Metra's fleet will be PTC-compliant, covering 50 percent of
    our passengers. The BN equipment installation will be complete
    September of 2015, with the UP following closely behind it, the
    second quarter of 2016.
        We have also made significant progress on Metra-owned
    lines. To date, we hired a system integration team, Parsons
    Transportation Group, awarded contracts to engineering firms to
    design signal system upgrades, and continue to hire the
    necessary staff, including leadership positions in the field
    installation crews.
        Even though we have made substantial progress, challenges
    still remain: the limited number of signal design systems,
    spectrum availability. In Chicago, it is undetermined if we
    have enough spectrum for PTC needs in the region. We won't know
    that answer until the spectrum study is completed.
        Continuous verification and validation is part of the
    testing process to test the reliability and accuracy of PTC. So
    far, only testing of individual segments has taken place. The
    FRA must also review and certify the railroad's plans.
    Interoperability is a huge challenge for Chicago, given the
    complexity and the integration of the system.
        Metra's costs are approximately $350 million. APTA
    estimates approximately $3.5 billion for all commuter
    railroads. We receive $150 million per year in Federal formula
    funds. These are the same sources of funds that are used for
    other safety-related critical infrastructure projects, such as
    bridges, tracks, and rolling stock.
        Metra has allocated $133 million over the last 2 years for
    PTC between our State and Federal partners. The Metra board
    approved a $2.4 billion modernization plan last year, which
    included $275 million to complete PTC, which is a combination
    of borrowing and fare increases. The balance would need to come
    from our State and Federal partners, which is uncertain at this
    time. There is also a significant operational and maintenance
    cost. These are estimated to be $15 million annually for Metra.
        Given these substantial challenges, it is no surprise that
    no commuter rail system has fully implemented PTC today. Metra
    is estimating 2019 for full implementation. Metra, along with
    APTA, is asking Congress to provide FRA the authority to grant
    individual waivers for the deadline as long as the agencies
    show a good-faith effort as determined by the FRA.
        Metra is also asking for funding from Congress. On that
    note, I would like to thank Representatives Lipinski and
    Quigley for introducing H.R. 1405, which reauthorizes the
    safety technology program for PTC, which is $200 million
    annually for the next 5 years.
        Even though PTC will not be fully implemented by the
    deadline, Metra, however, has taken significant steps to
    provide safeguards for our passengers. For example, we have
    reviewed the FRA 2015-03 safety advisory and are in the process
    of implementing automatic notifications through our GPS system.
        This system will notify the conductor in advance where the
    speed is reduced by greater than 20 miles per hour for a bridge
    or curve. The conductor will then communicate and remind the
    engineer of the restriction.
        We have also instituted the C3RS program, which is the
    Confidential Close Call Reporting System, in conjunction with
    our labor unions at FRA.
        Before closing, I wanted to bring to the committee's
    attention that, recently, a question was raised at the APTA
    Rail Conference with regards to the commuter rail industry's
    ability to continue to operate past the PTC deadline as it
    relates to insurance liability. The commuter railroads are
    currently investigating this matter.
        It is Metra's commitment, along with the rest of the
    commuter rail industry, to implement PTC as expeditiously as
    possible. With that said, we ask Congress to grant the FRA
    authority to provide waivers based on good-faith efforts and
    the funding to support the implementation of PTC.
        I want to thank the committee for inviting me here today,
    and I will be happy to answer any questions.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Orseno.
        Mr. Kerwin, you may proceed.
        Mr. Kerwin. Thank you.
        Good morning, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Capuano, and
    members of the committee. My name is Russell Kerwin, deputy
    project manager of Positive Train Control for the Southern
    California Regional Rail Authority, a.k.a. Metrolink.
        I appreciate the invitation to testify today to update the
    subcommittee on the most significant investments Metrolink is
    making to increase the safety of our passengers--PTC. I am
    proud to report that, as of June 14, Metrolink has fully
    implemented PTC in revenue service demonstration, RSD, across
    the entire 341-mile network of Metrolink-owned lines.
        In addition to this major accomplishment, we will submit
    our PTC safety plan to the FRA next week, on June 30, seeking
    FRA certification by the end of the year in accordance with the
    Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
        Metrolink operates on 7 routes through 6 counties in
    southern California, carrying over 43,000 weekday riders. We
    are also a dispatching hub for about 350 trains that traverse
    Metrolink property on a daily basis, including trains from
    BNSF, UP--Union Pacific, that is--and Amtrak.
        Metrolink's PTC program is a locomotive-centric overlay
    system based upon the interoperable electronic train management
    system, a.k.a. I-ETMS software. The full build-out and testing
    of Metrolink's PTC infrastructure was completed over the past 6
    years, which includes PTC onboard equipment installed and
    tested on all 109 locomotives and cab cars, all antennas,
    wayside devices, and PTC radios installed and operational, a
    robust communication network built out and tested, and a new
    hardened dispatch and operations facility for PTC constructed
    and put into service under the project.
        In addition to our network of owned lines, we are also
    working closely with our railroad partners--BNSF, Union
    Pacific, Amtrak, and the North County Transit District--to
    ensure PTC implementation is achieved throughout the region.
        We have been very fortunate to have tremendous support from
    our local freight partners, and we appreciate the many
    challenges to implementing PTC, most of which have also
    impacted our program.
        They include the prolonged nationwide development of this
    interoperable technology and the need for ongoing software
    upgrades, development of our back-office server and dispatching
    systems, relentless testing, impacts to operations, challenges
    in acquiring spectrum, and funding constraints.
        In regards to spectrum, Metrolink has been working with the
    FCC through many challenges to secure approval of the spectrum
    that we entered into purchase agreement for in 2010. Currently,
    Metrolink is trying to follow the same procedures under which
    the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau recently granted
    Amtrak's application.
        Through our partnership with the freight railroads,
    Metrolink has been fortunate to execute a 5-year lease for
    spectrum from PTC-220, LLC. This lease enables us to meet our
    near-term needs. However, for long-term needs, we are
    attempting to acquire our own spectrum.
        Our current PTC program costs the agency $216.4 million. To
    put that in context, it is roughly equivalent to Metrolink's
    entire annual operating budget of $221 million. The majority of
    our PTC funding, about 85 percent of it, came from State and
    local sources.
        The investment in our PTC program has been very significant
    for the agency. However, it was the priority of the Metrolink
    board and our funding partners to implement this lifesaving
    technology.
        Moving forward, the agency will be required to continue to
    prioritize funding as we transition into operations. The
    ongoing costs for project staff, contractors, consultants, and
    vendors to operate and maintain PTC will increase our budget
    costs. Metrolink is proud to be leading the industry on PTC
    implementation. Despite the many challenges, we have maintained
    our unwavering focus on advancing our PTC program.
        I would like to thank Chairman Denham and Ranking Member
    Capuano for the opportunity to testify and share our
    experience. I will close my remarks by stating that, at
    Metrolink, we continue to believe that safety is foundational
    and our investments in PTC as well as a number of other safety
    technologies are evidence of this unyielding commitment to the
    safety of our passengers. Thank you.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Kerwin.
        Our first round of questioning will be 5 minutes. I would
    ask members to keep their questions to 5 minutes.
        I will start things out this morning, first of all, with
    Ms. Feinberg. Again, let me thank you for your response. The
    last committee meeting, we did something somewhat out of the
    ordinary and asked you for a quick response with some of the
    questions that this committee had on the Amtrak crash.
        I think that those issues are important to resolve and
    understand quickly. And this committee thanks you for your
    rapid response. We are getting those answers to those questions
    back out to committee members this morning.
        But I did want to continue on an exchange that you and I
    have had several times now. I pressed FRA on: If Positive Train
    Control is such a big priority, why are you not using
    California high-speed rail dollars to upgrade not only the
    corridor, but those connecting routes in California?
        In California, obviously, where PTC was started, it is a
    big concern for those that ride the rail in California. It is a
    big concern for those that live by rail in California. You
    know, this is a national issue. But in our home State, we are
    looking to provide leadership to resolve the safety concerns
    that people have quickly.
        And the California High-Speed Rail Authority continues to
    have its challenges. And certainly, by their current burn rate
    of dollars, they do not appear to be able to spend the money
    that has been allocated to them by the deadline.
        And so, in our ongoing exchanges, what else could you use
    that money for? Could it be used for safety in California?
        And I got your written response that it wasn't possible,
    but I wanted to bring one issue to your attention.
        Under California High-Speed Rail Authority's investment
    strategy for phase 1, they specifically state, ``Electrifying
    the entire Caltrain corridor so as to replace outdated diesel
    technology with electric locomotives or electric multiple-unit
    train sets and introducing Positive Train Control will not only
    speed up Caltrain's service, but pave the way for high-speed
    rail. Positive train control is a Federal mandate that will
    reduce the potential for train-to-train collisions and improve
    signaling at crossings so as to allow increased train
    frequencies while enhancing safety.''
        This money was taken from California high-speed rail. They
    approved the grant agreement to put it in a different corridor
    to upgrade Caltrain and put PTCs. Obviously, by their own
    words, this is a priority for them.
        Also, previously FRA has diverted funding from the Central
    Valley with $400 million that went to the Transbay Joint Powers
    Authority to construct the foundation for high-speed rail
    service at the Transbay terminal.
        Again, you are moving money out of California's Central
    Valley hours away to where it may connect some day, if it ever
    gets built, to San Francisco and to L.A. through Caltrain.
        And under the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program,
    the following activities are expressly eligible for grants, as
    noted in the Federal Register: acquiring, constructing,
    improving or inspecting equipment, track and track structures,
    highway rail grade crossings, improvements related to intercity
    passenger rail service, including communication and
    signalization improvements.
        That sounds a whole lot like PTC to me. Positive train
    control affects each one of those areas. So I understand by
    this they would be able to use these same dollars.
        So I know from your response you say the grantee would have
    to approve this process. The grantee in this case would be the
    California High-Speed Rail Authority.
        But, again, if they are not spending the money and they
    already have the precedent of transferring money and safety is
    all of our number-one concern, why would we not take money that
    is available to be spent in a corridor that is available to be
    spent under Prop 1A and address safety for our State?
        Ms. Feinberg. Mr. Chairman, we have gone back and forth
    about this a lot, and I am happy to continue to go back and
    forth with you, and I know our staffs have had many
    conversations about it as well.
        As I said in my letter to you earlier this week, we do not
    believe that we can take California high-speed rail money and
    put it in other priorities. I explained----
        Mr. Denham. But you have done that a couple of times
    already. They requested that you change the grant approval, and
    you have granted that request. And they have done it several
    times for PTC, for Caltrain, and for the Transbay Joint Powers
    Authority, $400 million, $171 million, and another grant for
    PTC. It has been done several times already.
        Ms. Feinberg. I join you in a concern that the California
    High-Speed Rail Authority is not burning through ARRA [American
    Recovery and Reinvestment Act] money in a sufficiently fast
    manner, and we are working with them very closely to make sure
    that they meet all of their obligations to do so.
        Our legal analysis of where we are at this moment is that
    we cannot shift money that has already been obligated to
    California high-speed rail and move it to another priority.
    Even if we were willing to take money away from California
    High-Speed Rail Authority, it would go back to the U.S.
    Treasury. But we will continue to engage with you on this and
    talk through it with you.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        That appears to be a change in policy, since it has already
    happened several times. I would understand if you need them as
    the grantee to make the request to FRA, then my question would
    be to the California High-Speed Rail Authority: If they have
    already spent money on PTC, why, if this is a priority for FRA,
    the administration, and the California High-Speed Rail
    Authority, are they not improving safety in California?
        Ms. Feinberg. I do not believe it is a change in policy,
    but we can continue the conversation.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        My time is expired. We will have a second round because I
    have got many other questions from a more national perspective.
    But, as you know, California is a big concern of mine and so is
    California high-speed rail.
        I now go to Mr. DeFazio for 5 minutes. And I would
    recognize the fact that Mr. Capuano once again has been very
    gracious to our colleagues on the other side to skip his time
    so that others may go first.
        Mr. DeFazio. I don't think ``Capuano'' and ``gracious'' go
    together in the same sentence, but certainly I would defer to
    your judgment, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Feinberg, you heard what CSX raised about the potential
    conflict with the hard deadline and whether or not their
    continued carriage of inhalable and other hazardous and
    passenger--can you resolve that or do we have to statutorily
    resolve that?
        Ms. Feinberg. The Congress is going to have to act. I
    cannot make a legal decision for CSX based on their liability.
        Mr. DeFazio. And you can't give relief because of the hard
    deadline that was set.
        Ms. Feinberg. I cannot extend the deadline.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. Now, you talked about enforcement and you
    talked about penalties, and I would just like to get a little
    insight into that.
        We are looking forward now, and there is a lot of history
    here, a lot of questions about how we got to this point and how
    some people are much closer to meeting the deadline than
    others, et cetera.
        So are you looking at penalties that exact funds from the
    railroads? You know, wouldn't it be better if you mandate
    everybody puts together a schedule that you would approve or
    not approve in terms of how quickly they can implement, put in
    benchmarks, and then look at assessing penalties going forward?
        Ms. Feinberg. Well, that would really be extending the
    deadline. That would be our view. I mean, the deadline is the
    deadline. And if we then communicate to railroads, ``If you
    don't like the deadline that we have, why don't you come up
    with a plan that involves a new deadline for yourself,'' that
    would actually, in my opinion, be extending the deadline.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK.
        Ms. Feinberg. So we would not want to go about that.
        But in terms of the penalties, there is, you know, three or
    four pages of specific fines and penalties that were finalized
    back in 2010 that, you know, go from everything from not
    equipping a locomotive to failure to have PTC in a certain
    segment, so quite detailed in the public realm.
        Mr. DeFazio. Yeah. But what I am trying to get at here is
    everybody here wants to get this done as quickly as possible.
    There is a lot of history.
        And in order to go forward, I am wondering if we give you
    flexibility from the deadline, but we give you a mandate that
    it will be implemented as soon as technologically and
    physically practicable, you know, by each of those who do not
    meet the deadline and then you set benchmarks and then they
    violate the benchmarks, that is when I think fines might be
    appropriate.
        Would that be a way to go forward?
        Ms. Feinberg. Well, you know, I take my cues from the
    Congress, and I enforce what the Congress mandates. So if the
    Congress instructs us to enter negotiations like that, we would
    do that.
        But, again, my concern would be entering into brandnew
    negotiations with each individual railroad based on what they
    would like their new deadline to be.
        Mr. DeFazio. Well, I am not thinking so much what they
    would like. I am saying that is why as soon as practicable
    physically and, you know, I mean, not something that meets
    their convenience or their capital outlays or whatever. It is
    just like--anyway, this is a difficult issue.
        Quickly to the FCC, you now have the capacity to deal with
    these pole applications and approvals in a streamlined way.
    And, as I understand it, there are quite a few that have not
    been applied for and you aren't pushing your capacity here. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Mathias. That is correct, sir. Thank you. Since our
    streamline process was put into place, we have had the capacity
    to review about 40,000 poles. To date, we have only received
    applications to review about 8,300. So we are ready for more
    work.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. That is something to take into account as
    we are moving forward.
        This is off the subject, but I have got to ask you very
    quickly. Mr. Mathias, 5.9 gigahertz--part of the problem here
    was you have to go out and buy spectrum and negotiate and
    Amtrak had to negotiate and I am really concerned about what
    you might do with the 5.9 gigahertz for smart cars and
    communication between vehicles of the future.
        There are some proposals to maybe parcel that up a little
    bit, which might lead to interference, which might lead us to a
    point where smart car manufacturers of the future are going to
    have to go out and buy spectrum as opposed to having something
    reserved. And I just hope you would take that under advisement.
        Mr. Mathias. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. DeFazio. Yeah. OK.
        And then to CSX, how soon can you get it done?
        Mr. Lonegro. At CSX, our plans call for us to be hardware-
    installed, meaning all of the wayside interface units, all the,
    you know, obsolete signal replacement work that we are doing,
    all the locomotives equipped, all the technology hardware
    installed by the end of 2018 with full deployment by 2020.
        And, as I say that, though, I think it is important to know
    that, by the end of 2018, we will have a significant portion of
    the system operable. So it is not as if we get to 2020 and then
    we turn on the 11,000 miles that we have under our PTC
    footprint.
        It is a very methodical, you know, almost linear
    implementation pretty much from here on out. We will have about
    500 miles in place by the end of the year, which is about the
    size of the corridor and about the size of the Metrolink
    deployment. And then we get into the thousands of miles per
    year that ramps us up through 2020.
        Mr. DeFazio. Well, again, that seems like a long time. And
    that is why I was proposing the idea that the Administrator--I
    don't think we should be giving people a blanket exemption till
    2020 because some people are going to take till 2020 who don't
    need to. Maybe you do.
        But I think there needs to be some level of review of that,
    and I think that is something the committee will be looking at.
    Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shuster [presiding]. I thank the gentleman.
        Ms. Feinberg, you have testified and others at FRA have
    testified before Congress that, if the December 31 deadline is
    not extended, that you will use all the enforcement powers,
    including warnings, emergency orders, enforcement fines, to
    encourage PTC to be adopted.
        But will you share with Congress a transparent policy with
    regard to how you will determine who the good actors are, the
    bad actors are? I think you have categorized them that way. And
    what I am looking for is metrics. Are there ways to measure it
    so that it is not arbitrary, so everybody knows going into
    this?
        And I see you have some bullet points I have here on things
    you intend to do, but I am really looking for how we measure
    CSX versus BNSF versus UP versus Metrolink to be able to
    determine that.
        Ms. Feinberg. Absolutely. And we would not want to be
    arbitrary or subjective. We would want this to be quite black
    and white so that railroads would know what to expect and that
    the Congress would know what to expect.
        What was summarized in my oral testimony was an attempt to
    be quick and to move through the 5 minutes quickly. But our
    plan is to take the penalty and fine schedule that is already
    laid out and to be very transparent about what our approach
    will be and to communicate it both to the Congress and to
    railroads so that everyone knows what to expect.
        Mr. Shuster. Will that be seen? Will we be able to see that
    shortly? When do you expect to have that done? Because the
    deadline is getting awfully close and we want to make sure that
    there is a transparent--because, again, I have seen agencies in
    the past be very arbitrary, don't like one person over another.
        Ms. Feinberg. No. No. That would not be our approach, and
    that would not be the way we would go about it. We will be very
    transparent about it.
        We owe the Congress an update on PTC implementation on how
    railroads are doing in implementing PTC. Due to recent feedback
    we have gotten back from the Congress, it is clear that the
    Congress would like that report to also include very specific
    information about how each railroad is doing individually, but
    also what our enforcement strategy will be. So we are now
    including that in the report and plan to get it to you as
    quickly as possible.
        Mr. Shuster. And if you could go to levying fines against
    people, will that be on a daily basis? Monthly? Weekly? How
    would you levy those?
        Ms. Feinberg. The statute lays out that it can be per
    violation per day, but there is some amount of discretion
    there.
        Mr. Shuster. And would you consider shutting down a
    railroad?
        Ms. Feinberg. I think that would be actually up to--the
    railroad's own lawyers would probably make the determination.
        We have certainly heard from railroads that their lawyers
    are making that determination based on both their liability and
    the likelihood of the magnitude of fines and penalties.
        Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much.
        And in terms of transit systems and commuter rails, my
    understanding is you folks are having a very difficult time. I
    know that SEPTA [Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
    Authority] down in the Southeast has to make some real tough
    decisions on whether they are going to repair, replace cars,
    track, because there is just only so much money in the budget.
    Can you tell us a little bit about Chicago?
        Mr. Orseno. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Shuster.
        That is definitely a major challenge for us. As I stated
    earlier, we get about $150 million through our Federal formula
    funds. PTC alone is $350 million to $400 million.
        You know, we have to balance using that money for other
    safety-sensitive concerns like bridges. I mean, bridges are
    very important. We have got many bridges that were built in the
    1800s, and we are in the process of doing those projects.
        It is very important for us to find the funding and make
    sure we can get this implemented. It is a very significant
    safety enhancement. There is no question about it. But it also
    competes with every other safety issue that we have.
        Mr. Shuster. And you have got to be the most challenged of
    all the systems because you have all Class I's coming in around
    Chicago. So that interoperability--is that a significant
    challenge or is that something you are moving towards working
    out?
        Mr. Orseno. That is a huge significant challenge for us
    because you have got six of the seven Class I railroads coming
    in and out of Chicago that have to communicate between each
    train, all the signal locations, and the back office. That has
    been probably one of the most significant challenges for the
    industry, is the interoperability.
        Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much.
        Now go to Ms. Brown.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Feinberg, first of all, let me just say that every last
    one of us supports safety in the industry, but I think you are
    leaving me when you talk about daily fines.
        The industry itself has spent over $5 billion on Positive
    Train Control, and I don't feel that the Federal Railroad
    Administration or the U.S. Federal Communications Commission--
    we have had daily--not daily--but we have had meetings where we
    have discussed spectrum, and we don't think--I don't think that
    the administration has done all they need to do to move us
    forward.
        And to sit here and say that we are going to have daily
    fines and we may have to shut down the industry is not going to
    fly. And so I would like for you to respond to that
        Ms. Feinberg. Ma'am, I was responding to the question about
    what our authority is in terms of fining. We are now working on
    our enforcement strategy and will communicate it to you.
        Ms. Brown. No. No. I am not talking about enforcement. I am
    talking about support, what we have done to help the industry,
    for example, with the spectrum.
        Amtrak had to purchase it. How come we did not provide it
    for the industry? But I--and they had a hard time getting it,
    and that delayed the projects.
        Ms. Feinberg. I will let the FCC answer the spectrum
    question, but I can tell you from the FRA's perspective, we
    have hired a significant staff. One of the witnesses previously
    said there is only a dozen staff at FRA working on PTC. That is
    absolutely incorrect. We have staff in Washington and across
    the country. We have offered loans. We have asked for grants.
    We have offered financial assistance. We have offered
    assistance across the board. We are still waiting for safety
    plans to come in from railroads based on implementation----
        Ms. Brown. I hear what you are saying. But as far as I am
    concerned, you all have been the caboose as far as helping and
    assisting us moving forward. And I don't mean it in a negative
    sense, but we have had--you haven't been here the entire time--
    we have been going over this for years. And we just have not
    gotten the administration where it needs to be as far as
    assistance moving forward.
        I mean, when we say Positive Train Control, it is a
    combination. What happened at Amtrak, it wasn't just: didn't
    have Positive Train Control, didn't have the proper equipment
    as far as the cars are concerned, had to purchase the spectrum.
    It is just a whole list of things that I feel that the
    administration should have worked--and I don't mean this
    administration, I am saying it has been a multiplicity of
    administrations that haven't done everything that they need to
    do to get us where we need to be.
        Now, even if they come up with, well, here we are, even if
    they come up with it in 2018, then it still would take 2 or 3
    years to determine whether or not the system is working
    together.
        Ms. Feinberg. Ma'am, I can only speak for this
    administration. I can't speak for previous administrations. But
    this administration has done a great deal to try to bring
    railroads along and into compliance with a mandate that was
    passed by this Congress in 2008. And we have been sounding the
    alarm for years about our concern that railroads were not going
    to meet the deadline. And so I believe this administration has
    done a great deal of work to bring railroads along, but we have
    not seen the progress that we need to.
        Ms. Brown. All right. I am just letting you know you are
    leaving me. But go ahead to the next person.
        Mr. Mathias. You are asking about the question of the
    Amtrak spectrum?
        Ms. Brown. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Mathias. Thank you.
        The way the railroads approached this process initially,
    they selected a spectrum band in the 220 to 222 megahertz, I am
    sorry to get technical on you. But it is a part of the spectrum
    that was already owned by other people. It has licensees.
        Unfortunately, in that case what we would have had to do to
    give that spectrum to anyone else is we would have had to have
    taken it away from the existing owners through a process that
    would have required compensation, finding them additional
    spectrum, and also potentially would have led to litigation. So
    what we thought would be a more productive approach would be to
    actively work with Amtrak to find spectrum on the secondary
    market that they could use for PTC in the same spectrum block.
        Ms. Brown. Well, as we move forward, that is an issue that
    the Congress needs to address.
        My next round I will go to you, Frank.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Denham [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Brown.
        Mr. Rice, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Feinberg, and you may not have been around when all
    this started, but why is there the need to create this new
    system? I mean, it seems to me that there are so many systems
    that are similar to this that would be incredibly cheaper and
    quicker to institute. Why did we settle on creating this entire
    new system?
        Ms. Feinberg. Well, I think PTC is actually an overlay of
    some other systems. But if you are referring to ATC [Automatic
    Train Control] and some of the technologies we have talked
    about in this committee previously, it is basically a step
    beyond that. But it would assist in taking human factors off
    the table. It is one of the most important technologies that we
    believe can be implemented for rail safety.
        Mr. Rice. Mr. Kerwin, I am going to switch over to you
    because maybe you know more about the technical aspects. You
    are a project manager, right, you are putting this stuff in.
        Mr. Kerwin. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rice. I know that there are GPS systems out there that
    you can buy for a thousand dollars that will control the motion
    of a vehicle, right, stop it, start it, and all that kind of
    thing.
        Mr. Kerwin. It tells you where you are at, but as far as
    controlling the vehicle----
        Mr. Rice. I have had one on my boat that cost $900 that
    would steer my boat to a point. Why is this so much more
    difficult than that?
        Mr. Kerwin. The key to PTC is it is not a specific
    technology as much as a specification that it prevents train-
    to-train collisions----
        Mr. Rice. Well, I mean, as long as the GPSs were connected,
    it seems to me that it could do that very, very easily. I mean,
    this seems to me that this is light years easier than a Google
    car, or whatever you call the thing, because a Google car has
    got to sense people walking in front of it and obstructions
    appearing, and this doesn't have to do any of that. This just
    has to control motion. I mean, all it can do, it can't steer,
    it has got to go how fast, how slow, or stop, right?
        Mr. Kerwin. Yeah.
        Mr. Rice. It is not that complicated.
        Mr. Kerwin. I understand and appreciate your point. It is
    much more complicated than it would seem. One of the key
    factors is interoperability. The PTC mandate requires seamless
    transition from one railroad to another railroad's property and
    the communication between different railroads.
        Mr. Rice. No, I understand that. But, I mean, this GPS
    technology exists today.
        Mr. Lonegro, I am going to switch over to you. Do you have
    technology today before this technology we are talking about
    here that you know where all your locomotives are? I mean, can
    you tell where they are at any time when they are running?
        Mr. Lonegro. We have had GPS on our locomotives for, I
    would say, the last half a dozen years or so. But I think it is
    important to understand GPS is one of, I will say, 100, just
    for raw numbers, inputs into PTC. It simply provides one input,
    and that is where the train itself is. It is not an indicator
    of speed, it is not an indicator of grade, it is not an
    indicator of where the red signal is, it is not the indicator
    of where the work zone is. And I could go on and on, but I know
    you don't want me to. But that is just one input into it.
        The technology you referred to earlier about ACSES
    [Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System] is based on a cab
    signal method of operation. At CSX we only have about 400 of
    the 11,000 miles uses cab signal as a method of operation. And
    then ATC is built on top of that, and the ACSES system that
    Amtrak is using is built on top of that, and it is not a system
    that we utilize to run our trains.
        Mr. Rice. All these other guys up here are dealing with
    taxpayers' money and you are not. Did you all do an analysis of
    whether it would be cheaper to use some of these legacy systems
    that could control the train or to create this entire new
    system? I think this says they are doing 23,000 locomotives
    that cost $9 billion. That is about $400,000 a locomotive. Did
    CSX do an analysis to determine whether it would be cheaper to
    modify the existing legacy systems or to create this entire new
    system?
        Mr. Lonegro. So there are a couple answers to your
    question. In the beginning, yes, we did an analysis about
    whether we should go the Amtrak route and the ACSES system or
    whether we should go with the system that the freight railroads
    had been working on since the mid-1990s which the precursor was
    known as CBTM, which was Communications-Based Train Management.
        The thing that is important to know is that there are
    generally three or four methods of operations that freight
    railroads use to navigate their trains. A very small proportion
    of that is cab signal, as I mentioned, signal territory, and
    then nonsignal territory, and there are permutations of all of
    that. The only thing that ACSES works on is that first method
    of operation, which is cab signal territory.
        So we would have had to change the entire method of
    operation of the entire railroad to cab signal which would have
    required both wayside changes, technology changes, as well as
    locomotive changes. And, yes, we did look at the two and
    believe that I-ETMS or the freight version of PTC was the right
    way to go, and still believe that today, sir.
        Mr. Rice. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Kerwin, you said you spent $216 million on PTC. You
    have got it fully installed now?
        Mr. Kerwin. We have it fully deployed on our network of
    owned lines. We are working with our freight partners and
    Amtrak to get those systems in service.
        Mr. Rice. How many locomotives do you have?
        Mr. Kerwin. 109 locomotive and cab cars that need to be
    equipped.
        Mr. Rice. OK. So you spent about $2 million per locomotive
    then?
        Mr. Kerwin. Our total cost is--our budget is $216 million
    and we have spent about $200 million of that. That is not just
    installations on locomotives. There is a tremendous amount of
    back-office components and wayside components as well.
        Mr. Rice. Sounds ridiculously expensive to me. He is
    messing with his dollars, I believe, if he says he did the
    analysis that came in cheaper that way, I understand.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Denham. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The gentleman, Mr. Lipinski, is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    holding this hearing. Obviously, we all want to make sure that
    we do everything we can for safety. It has been a very
    difficult issue. I want to thank Ms. Feinberg for her work on
    this and other things. A very difficult time coming into the
    position as Administrator here.
        I just want to first make sure that we are all clear. You
    are saying that FRA doesn't have the authority to shut down
    railroads. It is the fines that are what the FRA is able to
    level if the mandate is not extended.
        Ms. Feinberg. Ultimately, if we needed to take the action
    to shut down a railroad, I think we could do that. But my point
    was that I think what we are hearing from railroads is that is
    a decision that they are making in consultation with their
    lawyers on how they would operate on January 1 if they are not
    fully implemented.
        Mr. Lipinski. That makes sense to me. Mr. Lonegro, Mr.
    Orseno, I don't know if you want to add anything to that in
    regard to the fines and the impact that they could have on you.
        Mr. Orseno. Yes, thank you, Congressman Lipinski. Being in
    the commuter side of the industry, we depend very heavily on
    tax dollars. What the commuter rail industry has advocated for
    was an extension, not a categorical extension, but an extension
    based on good faith efforts based on the railroad's ability to
    complete PTC.
        I don't think, personally, it would be in the public's best
    interest to fine railroads that typically don't have the
    funding to implement PTC. I think we need to find a solution
    where we can implement PTC as expeditiously as possible and not
    fine the railroads, because it is just coming right out of our
    pot that we use for bridges and cars and everything else it
    takes to operate the railroad.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
        Mr. Lonegro, do you have anything you----
        Mr. Lonegro. Yes, sir, if I may. It doesn't matter how big
    the bear chasing you is or how big the cattle prod is, if you
    are running as fast as you can, you can't run any faster. And
    so the fines--I mean, we have spent $1.2 billion. We have got
    1,000 people working on the project. It is hard to say that we
    haven't put the best foot forward that we possibly could.
        And so we have supplied the FRA with both an aggregate
    level of information in terms of where we have been. We have
    done that on an annual basis since the end of 2012. The NTSB
    has asked for it in the interim 6 months. We have provided that
    information. We have given a prognosis on a railroad-by-
    railroad basis about when we will be done.
        Mr. Lipinski. I don't have much time, and I don't want to--
    --
        Mr. Lonegro. So I don't believe the fines would be helpful.
        Mr. Lipinski. All right. First of all, we all want to sit
    up here and find villains. And in this situation I think it is
    very complex, and there are not easy answers to this. We just
    want to move forward as quickly as possible. I have been in
    favor, I have tried, I have worked on getting more Federal
    funding, especially for commuter rail.
        Mr. Orseno, so you are saying about $350 million to finish
    by 2019. Is that the----
        Mr. Orseno. That is correct. That is a conservative number,
    as we get moving into the process further along, as all these
    things have a tendency to change. But that is a conservative
    number.
        Mr. Lipinski. And did you receive any funding from the
    Railroad Safety Technology Grant Program or any other FRA grant
    programs?
        Mr. Orseno. No, we have not.
        Mr. Lipinski. And would additional Federal funding help
    expedite the safety efforts and help Metra invest in its
    infrastructure?
        Mr. Orseno. There is a very strong possibility that
    additional funding would help us move the project along faster.
    But I also want to be very clear that there is only a limited
    number of resources that are available for installation and
    purchasing things and the supply and demand chain.
        We definitely can look at moving it quicker, and if we had
    Federal funding we could take the funding that we are using for
    that right now for other things. Like I explained before, we
    have got cars that are 60 years old. We have got bridges that
    were built in the 1800s. We could address some of those issues.
        Mr. Lipinski. I just want to also make the point that Metra
    has significantly increased--has needed to increase fares as a
    long-term plan of increasing fares. So you are doing your part
    in regard to that.
        Very quickly, before I conclude, I want to touch on one
    other safety-related issue with Administrator Feinberg.
    Regardless of whatever plan FRA chooses or is mandated to use
    moving forward, I hope your agency keeps careful tabs as I do
    on CN's [Canadian National Railway's] PTC efforts and the
    reports they submit. We already know from CN's reports that
    they have the least ambitious and aggressive timeline for
    finishing their PTC installations and some other issues we have
    had with them, which we have discussed, and I think we need to
    make sure we follow up and keep the rails as safe as possible.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Ms. Feinberg. Certainly. And if I could just make one point
    in response to the back and forth, we have asked for a sum
    total of $2 billion to go towards PTC implementation and
    technologies, $825 million in GROW AMERICA, but altogether $2
    billion. So we are absolutely in favor of additional Federal
    funding going to PTC implementation.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
        Mr. Perry, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning, Ms. Feinberg. I have got a question here for
    you. Start out with a little bit of a statement. Just to make
    sure I am clear, it is my understanding the FRA--and this comes
    from testimony--FRA will use all its enforcement powers,
    including warnings, emergency orders, and enforcement fines to
    encourage PTC adoption. Do we know how the FRA would assess the
    fines? Would they be assessed daily? Is there a policy that has
    been defined yet regarding that?
        Ms. Feinberg. So the goal of our enforcement actions, and I
    think probably any safety regulator's enforcement actions, is
    to bring about compliance and implementation as safely and
    efficiently as possible.
        Mr. Perry. I understand the goal. Do you have a policy? Do
    we know what is coming?
        Ms. Feinberg. As we discussed a little bit earlier, we are
    finalizing that now. Most of the enforcement policy is public
    and has been public since 2010. There are various fines and
    penalties based on whether it is locomotives or segments of
    track. But most of it has been public since 2010. And we are,
    in response to the Congress' request, finalizing our strategy
    now so that we can be completely transparent about what
    railroads and the Congress can expect.
        Mr. Perry. So it might be daily, it might be otherwise?
        Ms. Feinberg. That is correct.
        Mr. Perry. OK. So a few weeks ago when you were here
    shortly after the horrible mishap in Philadelphia, I asked you
    how much of the $1.3 billion in stimulus money that was
    received some time ago--because it was such an issue, right,
    and there were questions about Congress and one particular
    party not being responsive and cutting money for PTC--so how
    much of the stimulus money, when everything was in one hand in
    this town, was spent on PTC for Amtrak, in particular in the
    Northeast Corridor, right? Do you remember that question?
        Ms. Feinberg. I do remember that question, and it is $400
    million of ARRA went towards PTC. That is not Amtrak specific.
    And, I am sorry, I didn't realize you wanted just Amtrak
    specific. But it is $400 million total.
        Mr. Perry. $400 million. All right.
        Ms. Feinberg. I believe it is $36 million for Amtrak.
        Mr. Perry. OK. All right. So right now, and that is Federal
    funding, we are looking at $9 billion is what the estimated
    cost of freight railroads. Right? We spent----
        Ms. Feinberg. Total.
        Mr. Perry. Yeah. Total. Right? With this deadline. But you
    can see the dichotomy, you can see the difference, right? We
    don't have PTC where we have money, and we are asking for
    exponentially more. We're not asking----
        Ms. Feinberg. We are asking.
        Mr. Perry [continuing]. But it is the requirement for,
    right, investor owned? This is private money, $9 billion. Let
    me ask you about the arbitrary--the deadline. I am calling it
    arbitrary. What is your opinion about the deadline? Does it
    take into account the technical aspects? Does it take into
    account the frequency spectrum aspects? Does it take into
    account the timeline where the FRA took nearly a year to
    approve one of the single plans, one of the plans that is
    required by each railroad? Does it take into account those
    things, the deadline?
        Ms. Feinberg. It is your deadline. It is the Congress'
    deadline.
        Mr. Perry. I am asking your opinion.
        Ms. Feinberg. I believe it is a good deadline. And, in
    fact, it was the deadline that was reached during negotiations.
    It was preferred by the railroads.
        Mr. Perry. I understand. So you say it is good, but does it
    take into account those things?
        Ms. Feinberg. I believe that in 2008, when you passed this
    deadline, you took those things into account.
        Mr. Perry. You think we did. OK. And we foresaw all the
    things that might occur or not occur regarding frequency
    spectrum, regarding approvals, regarding finances. That was all
    known. There was no political solution to the two sides, one
    wanting earlier, one wanting later.
        Ms. Feinberg. I think there was an understanding in 2008
    that while this would be complicated, it had been called for
    since 1969 and would not be so complicated it would be missed.
        Mr. Perry. OK. Well, I asked for your opinion. I appreciate
    it. So under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2015, FRA
    was directed to provide a report to Congress on implementation
    within 180 days. Do you know what the status of that is?
        Ms. Feinberg. Yes. Previously we had a quick discussion
    about it. It was due to the committee, I believe, a week ago.
    In recent weeks we have gotten additional requests from the
    Congress about additional information they want in that report.
    We are updating it now and should have it to you in days.
        Mr. Perry. But was it on time or wasn't it?
        Ms. Feinberg. No, sir, it was due last week, 1 week ago.
        Mr. Perry. So it is not in yet?
        Ms. Feinberg. That is correct. It is supposed to be an
    update on where the railroads are in implementation.
        Mr. Perry. I understand. But Congress also approved that,
    gave 180 days. Everybody agreed. There was a negotiation.
        Ms. Feinberg. But Congress has asked for it to now include
    our enforcement strategy and railroad-by-railroad information.
        Mr. Perry. Things changes, right? Things change. So who
    should we fine at the FRA when they are not timely?
        Ms. Feinberg. You can feel free to hold me accountable for
    the fact that the report is a week late.
        Mr. Perry. What should the fine be?
        Ms. Feinberg. I will leave that to you.
        Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Perry.
        Mr. Sires.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You know, I travel on the Northeast Corridor constantly
    back and forth, and I am still trying to get this idea with the
    spectrum, how we end up with two. And places like Chicago, they
    only have 1 and more than 11 companies use it. I just don't
    understand why we just can't come up with one system.
        Now we have to worry where one is going to interfere with
    the other? To me, it just doesn't make sense when other parts
    of the country use one system. Could somebody address that? How
    did we get to this? How did we get to this point?
        Mr. Lonegro. I think it goes back to the conversation we
    had a few minutes ago where the ACSES system for Amtrak was
    really developed for passenger rail, and specifically for high-
    speed passenger rail. There is a certain way that passenger
    railroads run their operation, and they utilize certain
    technologies to run their trains, dispatch their trains, and
    the freight railroads have, literally, a different way of
    running the railroad. And so those two systems----
        Mr. Sires. But is this a company not making a concession to
    the other or Amtrak not making a concession to you? I mean, I
    don't understand it.
        Mr. Lonegro. Well, we are all making concessions, candidly.
        Mr. Sires. Well, how did we end up with two if we are all
    making concessions?
        Mr. Lonegro. The systems are separate. They rely on
    communications as a fundamental aspect. And so what we are
    really doing is the data transmission is using two radios,
    which are going to use two separate but close pieces of
    spectrum, and the closer those pieces of spectrum are the more
    interference there can be. But I would say that we are actively
    working between Amtrak, the Northeast commuters, as well as the
    FCC to solve that problem, and we believe we have line of sight
    to that. I don't know if Mr. Mathias would like to comment on
    that.
        Mr. Sires. The FRA states that 40 percent of all accidents
    are a result of human performance failures. The railroads,
    however, claim that PTC would only prevent 4 percent of all
    accidents, inferring that the cost outweighs the benefits. How
    did we come up with 4 percent?
        Mr. Lonegro. We looked at all of the accidents over, I
    believe it was either a 10- or a 12-year period, all accidents.
    Right? And I am not sure that the FRA looked at all accidents.
    They may have looked at a subset of all accidents.
        Accidents are generally caused by a couple of things,
    either the conditions or the behaviors. Right? The conditions
    could be track related, signal related, how the car operates or
    some of the components on that, and the same on the locomotive
    side, and then you have behavioral based. So is there something
    that happened in the cab of the locomotive, the human factor
    side of things.
        We looked at the entire portfolio of accidents and did the
    math on things that we thought were PTC preventable and were
    not, and came up with that 4 percent. At CSX it is actually
    only 2 percent.
        Mr. Sires. Two percent?
        Mr. Lonegro. Yes, sir, 2 percent of all accidents PTC
    preventable.
        Mr. Sires. So, in other words, in your eyes you don't think
    it is worth it to make this investment?
        Mr. Lonegro. You know, I think we are well past that
    conversation, to be honest with you, Member. We have already
    spent $1.2 billion on it. We have good line of sight to
    completion of the hardware by 2018 and full deployment by 2020.
    I think we are well past that conversation.
        Mr. Sires. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Denham. Mr. Hardy, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Hardy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Feinberg, I read your testimony clear through, and it
    states in your testimony it seems that FRA is ready to act,
    directing penalties on PTC if not implemented. Also you state
    that FRA is ready to act in the interim to bring railroads into
    safety compliance. You suggest that Congress should authorize
    FRA to require railroads to use alternative safety technology
    on specified lines. You also say, and I quote: ``These
    requirements will likely be costly to railroads.'' Can you
    share with me your ideas on this alternative technology?
        Ms. Feinberg. Sir, what I was referring to was what I would
    refer to as the safety gap that will exist between January 1,
    2016, so the day after the deadline, and when PTC is actually
    implemented by each railroad, and what, if anything, should be
    done to raise the bar on safety during that gap.
        So whether it is additional communication between
    crewmembers, an additional person in the cab, we have not made
    final determinations. I think they would be railroad-by-
    railroad specific. But it would be how do you increase safety
    between the date of the deadline that is missed and when PTC is
    actually implemented.
        Mr. Hardy. In your testimony you stated that these will be
    costly to railroads. So you have clearly run the numbers on how
    much it will cost. Can you share with me those calculations or
    how you come to that point with that statement?
        Ms. Feinberg. We just frequently hear from railroads that
    items like additional crewmembers are quite costly. That is
    based on that assertion.
        Mr. Hardy. OK.
        Mr. Orseno, with safety being paramount, I would like you
    to delve into the costs a little more. In your testimony that
    the commuter and the freight rail industries will have spent
    over billions of dollars on PTC implementation, although
    progress has been substantial, but it remains to be done before
    PTC can be safely implemented nationwide, companies, on how
    much money have they spent out of pocket, do you believe these
    costs will be passed down to consumers, which is naturally what
    happens, but I just want to hear from you.
        Mr. Orseno. In my opinion, yes, they would be passed down
    to consumers. When we raise our fares in order to cover PTC
    costs and other items, we have to pass those costs on, and we
    only have X amount of State and Federal funding.
        The challenge that we have on the commuter rail side is the
    higher you raise the fares, the less likely you are going to
    retain all of your ridership. At a time when we want to get
    more people on our trains and off the roads, that is a big
    challenge for us. So it is a very difficult balancing act to
    still be able to provide safe, valuable service for our
    customers.
        Mr. Hardy. Do you believe that we have done all that we can
    as a committee, as Congress, to help move this process forward?
    Do you feel like you are being penalized for our lack of action
    or inaction or FRA's actions or inactions? I would like to hear
    your opinion on that also.
        Mr. Orseno. That is a challenging question.
        Mr. Hardy. Yes, it is.
        Mr. Orseno. The answer is this is a very expensive
    proposition for all railroads, especially commuter railroads
    where we don't have the type of funding that we need. I believe
    that Congress needs to fund the PTC project. It is important.
    It is important for the safety of our customers, our employees,
    and the communities we operate through. So it is very important
    to me that the Federal Government supply some funding for it.
        Mr. Hardy. Thank you.
        Mr. Lonegro, you made the statement that the immediate
    impact of the deadline will be that RSIA [Rail Safety
    Improvement Act] has the potential of making certain rail
    operations illegal. Can you discuss these ramifications a
    little bit more, if you would, please?
        Mr. Lonegro. Yes, sir. We are in a legal dilemma, as I
    mentioned in the opening testimony. We have a law that requires
    PTC to be implemented on lines that carry passengers and lines
    that carry certain commodities, TIH and PIH commodities. And so
    the transport of those after January the 1st of 2016 would run
    in contravention to the Rail Safety Improvement Act. Yet we
    also have a common carrier obligation that requires us to haul
    freight that is tendered on reasonable requests and at
    reasonable terms and conditions.
        And so we are in a situation of which law do we violate.
    And we have that same conundrum on the passenger side. I mean,
    Amtrak runs over us, a law that is 40, 45 years old, and so we
    are required to allow Amtrak to run as well as a number of
    other commuters, including Mr. Orseno.
        And we also have this obligation under the Rail Safety
    Improvement Act which requires us to complete PTC on those same
    lines. And so if we are not able to meet it on those lines, do
    we need to tell Mr. Orseno that he can't run?
        I mean, these are the challenges that many, many lawyers
    right now are trying to resolve, and we don't have the answer
    to that quite yet.
        Mr. Hardy. Thank you. My time has expired.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Hardy.
        Ms. Esty, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you, Chairman Denham, and thank you for,
    remarkably gracious Ranking Member Capuano, for waiting so
    long. I want to thank both of you for holding today's hearing.
    This subcommittee's work is extremely important to the
    thousands of folks in my district in Connecticut who ride these
    rails every day and to the businesses who rely on the freight
    service, as well, in northwest and central Connecticut. And I
    hear from a lot of those commuters that they are very concerned
    about rail safety, as you can imagine, with the last 2 years.
        And we have been talking about, ever since the fatal
    collision in 1969, we have been talking about Positive Train
    Control. And as you can sense from today's hearing, there is
    increasing impatience and concern about how long that is
    taking.
        Now, I think we really need to get down to brass tacks of
    what are the carrots and sticks? What are the incentives at
    this time, recognizing the difficulty with spectrum, the
    difficulty with interoperability, and with the budget
    challenges, what do we do now to move this forward as
    expeditiously and safely as possible? And that is where I would
    like to start from. The past is the past. We are here now. We
    are in June of 2015. How do we get this moving forward to keep
    people safe?
        So first, Acting Administrator Feinberg, again, thank you
    for your patience and your transparency and your exceptional
    availability to us on the committee. We value that quite a lot.
    In your testimony, you noted that you think FRA needs the
    authority, given the situation right now, over PTC control
    systems, to test them, as well as to provide for interim safety
    measures when they do not meet that deadline, which it is all
    very clear most of them will not be meeting that deadline.
    Could you expand and say what should we be doing in this
    committee, what should this committee of jurisdiction be doing
    to give FRA authority, and why?
        Ms. Feinberg. Thank you for the question.
        I think the most important thing that we can do starting
    now and going forward is to provide railroads with the
    resources that they need to implement PTC. So this
    administration has asked, the FRA has asked for significant
    resources for the commuter railroads so that they can implement
    PTC. I think that is the most important thing that can happen.
        But additionally, in terms of our authority, the statute is
    quite narrow. And so, as others have discussed, we really do
    run into a problem on January 1 where the law is the law, and
    despite the preferences of railroads, I can't give waivers, I
    can't base waivers on good faith, I can't extend the deadline,
    and I won't extend the deadline. And so we have to figure out
    how to move forward past January 1 to make sure that
    passengers, folks who live near and along rail are safe.
        And so I am happy to continue to work with the Congress on
    that, but the most important thing is to make sure that we are
    providing resources so that we can actually bring this
    technology online quickly.
        Ms. Esty. A quick followup question. Do you believe that
    the railroads that fail to meet that deadline, and I am asking
    now under current law, will be subjected to increased tort
    liability? Because the insurance issues were already raised
    here today. That is obviously a very, very big stick that,
    again, I think this committee needs to understand what is the
    legal opinion of FRA about that as well as the railroads.
        Ms. Feinberg. The opinion of the FRA--look, I don't want to
    give the railroads legal advice, and I am probably the only
    person in this room who is not a lawyer, but we are certainly
    hearing from the railroads that they absolutely believe that
    they are increased liability as of January 1, and we would--we
    agree with them.
        Ms. Esty. Well, I think we need to get to work on that
    because that is not in anybody's interest as we move forward.
        Mr. Mathias, good to see you. We went to college together.
    So thank you for being here. I am hearing from the railroads,
    and particularly in the Northeast Corridor, we hear other
    Members reference this, the difficulty about spectrum. What is
    it from your perspective, from the FCC's perspective, that we
    can do, particularly in a very congested space--and that is
    spectrum space, as well as physical space--that we should be
    doing to expedite the safety in the Northeast Corridor, the
    most heavily trafficked area in the country?
        Mr. Mathias. Thank you. And it is good to see you too.
    Thank you for your question.
        We have an increasingly good news story in the Northeast
    Corridor with regard to spectrum. It is my understanding that
    currently Amtrak has the spectrum it needs to deploy, which
    would be relevant for Connecticut. In addition, we currently
    have in front of us a proposed transaction that would provide
    the MTA additional spectrum to provide coverage between New
    York and New Haven, which would fill a gap in their spectrum
    coverage, and we also understand that the MBTA has the spectrum
    that we need.
        So what our job will be is to ensure that we are working as
    quickly as we can and are fully engaged to make sure that those
    transactions are completed as quickly as possible as soon as we
    have the information and to be ready in case something changes.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        Mr. Mica.
        Mr. Mica. OK. Let's go right to Mr. Mathias. You were
    talking about the Connecticut connection, putting PTC in from
    Boston to New Haven. Isn't that most of what Amtrak doesn't
    own?
        Mr. Mathias. No, sir. The Amtrak has spectrum----
        Mr. Mica. But that is where it was installed. It is
    installed there, isn't it? Last hearing you gave us a map, and
    that one was--that was pretty much complete.
        Mr. Mathias. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Mica. Right. But that is really mostly under a private
    operation. Amtrak runs trains over it. They don't own that part
    of the line. I am telling you that they don't own it. I know.
    OK? All right. Just interesting that they could get it done.
    OK.
        Let's go to the Acting Administrator. Here she is back
    asking for money again. And last question I asked, how many
    RRIF loans had been given since 2012, and first I got an answer
    of until last year two, and then add one, we got to three. Is
    it still three RRIF loans since 2012?
        Ms. Feinberg. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Mica. OK. How many of those were for PTC?
        Ms. Feinberg. One.
        Mr. Mica. One. OK. You could say 33 percent of them. It
    sounds more impressive.
        Ms. Feinberg. Good idea.
        Mr. Mica. Let's go back to our communications guy. There
    was an 11,000 backlog you took care of. At one time I thought
    there were as many as 20,000 applications.
        Mr. Mathias. We understand from the railroads that their
    total deployment would be approximately 30,000----
        Mr. Mica. What is your number of applications approved and
    what is your backlog at this point?
        Mr. Mathias. We have had before us for review 8,300. We
    have no backlog today.
        Mr. Mica. No backlog. They are all approved. And you are
    expecting more. In the past, and I gave you credit, before your
    average processing was about 2,000 a year. Is that correct or
    did I lie?
        Mr. Mathias. I think we are able to do more.
        Mr. Mica. OK. Where is my guy from--OK, Metrolink. When was
    the accident at Metrolink?
        Mr. Kerwin. 2008 was the Chatsworth.
        Mr. Mica. 2007?
        Mr. Kerwin. 2008.
        Mr. Mica. 2008. Mr. Oberstar, we did the bill. You still
    don't have Positive Train Control in all of Metrolink service,
    or do you?
        Mr. Kerwin. We have our entire system of Metrolink-owned
    lines in service.
        Mr. Mica. By what?
        Mr. Kerwin. Metrolink-owned lines are all in service.
        Mr. Mica. With Positive Train Control.
        Mr. Kerwin. With Positive Train Control.
        Mr. Mica. OK. What is missing then?
        Mr. Kerwin. The lines that we run on with our freight
    partners are not currently PTC operational with our trains.
        Mr. Mica. But Ms. Feinberg, we will go back to here, she
    just testified she is going to hammer those freight people and
    the hammer is coming down the end of the year. Right? Is that
    what you said? I heard you in the beginning.
        Ms. Feinberg. I said we would enforce the deadline.
        Mr. Mica. You are going to enforce it, right. Well, that is
    kind of interesting because then I see you submit a budget that
    proposes a 6-year schedule, 2016, of funding commuter railroads
    to implement PTC. So is it going to take another 6 years?
        Last I checked, there are not a lot of passengers on
    freight trains. Isn't that right? I mean, most of them I know
    they are carrying freight not people. But I would think people
    would be pretty important. Most of those people that were
    killed out there in that incident were people. It might have
    disrupted some freight traffic, but it was people. So is this
    the new policy: On people and commuters we are going to take 6
    years, but we are going to hammer those freight people, aren't
    we?
        Ms. Feinberg. Well, no. So, first of all, we will enforce
    the deadline against all the railroads, not just the freights.
        Mr. Mica. OK. But then we have a plan to go forward with--
    --
        Ms. Feinberg. If they can implement it sooner, that would
    be great. Happy to use those resources for other items.
        Mr. Mica. Cameras. Metrolink, you got them? Are there
    cameras in the cabs?
        Mr. Kerwin. Yes.
        Mr. Mica. All of them?
        Mr. Kerwin. We have all inward facing cameras in all of our
    cabs.
        Mr. Mica. OK. Because that has been a recommendation of
    NTSB for some time since that accident, and I cited all the
    other times back to 1973, and they weren't implemented in most
    instances.
        Mr. Kerwin. Ours have been implemented since 2009.
        Mr. Mica. OK. Last thing. Is TIFIA [Transportation
    Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act] eligible for use of
    installation of Positive Train Control? Does anybody know?
        Ms. Feinberg. TIFIA, not RRIF?
        Mr. Mica. Yes.
        Do we know? Does anybody know? Staff know or anybody? Come
    on. Some of you guys are brilliant on the other side. You don't
    know? It is? OK.
        They think it is. So that is a mechanism for funding. But
    let me tell you the last thing before I conclude. I have 7
    seconds.
        I was flying up here and I met a guy on a plane. I didn't
    know him from Adam's house cat.
        ``What are you doing on the plane, Mr. Mica?''
        ``Well, I am coming back to DC.''
        I said, ``Why are you coming back to DC?''
        He says, ``Well, I am with some kind of a project, and we
    finance projects.'' And he says, ``It took us between 60 and 90
    days to get approval for financing under TIFIA, the private
    sector.''
        I said, ``Well, what are you doing here?''
        He says, ``It has taken us a year.'' He says, ``These guys
    are screwing around with the paperwork for a year.''
        So you can go out and get private sector financing while
    they screw around in DOT, and here is a mechanism that may be
    available and is available, and you have huge capacity at RRIF,
    and both of them don't work.
        Did you want to respond on your own time, because I am
    over?
        Ms. Feinberg. Sure. I believe that under Secretary Foxx
    both of those programs have moved along much faster than they
    have previously. There is always room for improvement.
        Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman, I have got to go to the medical
    center.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Mica.
        And the previous chairman did say that the witness' time
    was also the Member's time today.
        Ms. Hahn, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Hahn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing.
        Thank you to my colleague Mr. Capuano for yielding to the
    rest of the committee.
        First of all, I want to commend Metrolink, the second-
    largest rail system by size in the country, for the outstanding
    work that they have done in meeting our PTC deadline. I like it
    that you worked closely with your railroad partners, BNSF,
    Union Pacific, Amtrak, to make sure that their technologies
    were interoperable and worked hard to acquire the funds needed
    to fund the implementation of your system. I want to point out
    that 85 percent of the funds that Metrolink used to fund the
    rollout were from the State of California and local sources,
    only 15 percent were Federal.
        PTC is clearly a top priority for me, and it really is for
    the American people. I think when the American people hear that
    we can prevent train accidents and deaths of people by the
    implementation of PTC, they are also very frustrated that many
    railroads are not going to be meeting our deadline. But I will
    say, I would like to go on record and agree to disagree with
    Chairman Denham, that I don't think we should take money from
    the California High-Speed Rail Authority to pay for PTC. The
    California High-Speed Rail Authority has it within their budget
    to make sure that there is PTC on the California high-speed
    rail project. We need to find money for both.
        I am going to ask Mr. Mathias my first question, and we
    have heard from testimony a major part of the process to
    implement PTC is acquiring the spectrum. According to
    Metrolink, the process of acquiring spectrum has been trying
    and prolonged. It purchased the license for spectrum 5 years
    ago, and before they can use it, they need FCC's approval. In
    order to meet the deadline, Metrolink is currently leasing
    spectrum at the rate of $50,000 per year from freight railroads
    while awaiting the approval.
        I think everyone is going to want to know, why has it taken
    5 years to approve the use of spectrum? Is this normal? And
    shouldn't we have, in light of the recent accidents and in
    light of this urgency to prevent future accidents, shouldn't
    there be an expedited process for approval for projects that
    deal with our public safety?
        Mr. Mathias. Thank you for that good question, and I can
    appreciate your concern. We are very glad that Metrolink
    actually has been able to negotiate a lease and that they will
    be able to have spectrum necessary to provide the PTC service.
        We understand their concern and frustration that the
    spectrum that they had intended to purchase has taken so long
    to acquire. Unfortunately, it has been mired in Federal
    litigation, as well as in a closed proceeding at the Federal
    Communications Commission, so unfortunately I can't provide
    details.
        But what we are trying to do is as much as we can to keep
    that process moving. We have taken the extraordinary step of
    taking the spectrum that they wish to acquire out of our closed
    proceeding so that we can move forward. They have several
    waiver requests that they need that would facilitate their use
    of the spectrum that are pending before us. We understand they
    need to update those. We look forward to receiving that
    information.
        Ms. Hahn. Thank you. But, again, I think the American
    people are not going to be very sympathetic with excuses for
    the FCC not approving spectrum applications as quickly as
    possible. And I sort of agree with my colleague Ms. Brown on it
    is sort of difficult to be fining and enforcing the deadline
    when some of our own agencies are not moving as quickly as most
    of us would like. So I am just going to say that.
        OK. Mr. Kerwin, you are a model, as I said. I am very proud
    of Metrolink in California. Maybe since you have been able to
    meet the deadline and you have been able to jump over obstacles
    and through the hoops to actually make this happen, what advice
    would you give other commuter rail lines in this country who
    are trying to meet the deadline by the end of the year?
        Mr. Kerwin. Sure. Thank you for that question.
        I would like to actually thank Mr. Lonegro for his shout-
    out to our project director, Darrell Maxey, who has been just
    diligent in pushing this project forward. That sentiment has
    come all the way from the top ranks of Metrolink. The board,
    our grantors have made a very, very strong commitment to this
    project. So the funding that they provided has been really the
    crucial element in getting this project going, along with that
    adamant support from our board to really get this project
    started.
        So we started early and made a very concerted effort,
    around the clock been working very hard at it for many years.
    So it is hard to give--I wouldn't say there is a silver bullet
    for other commuter railroads to accomplish it. It has been a
    very challenging process. So we do sympathize with the many
    challenges which we have also encountered.
        So I would say that the funding is a key element and having
    a close working relationship with your freight partners that
    you operate with, because really that was the other key element
    for us, was the strong support that we had from our freight
    partners.
        Ms. Hahn. Thank you. And, again, you have been a model for
    the country, and we applaud you.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        Mr. Duncan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I
    had to be at another hearing until just a few minutes ago.
        But, Ms. Feinberg, maybe you have covered this, but let me
    ask you this. It has taken these railroads several years to get
    to the point where they are now, and apparently there is still
    a pretty good ways to go. And I am wondering, do you have any
    estimate of how long it is going to take your agency to certify
    a railroad after this process?
        Ms. Feinberg. So the step is first a safety plan is
    submitted to us. So it is basically the railroad's plan for how
    they will implement PTC and how they will ensure that the
    system is working. We have received one of those and have
    turned it back around to the railroad.
        They take a while to go through because you are not only
    reading the plan, but you are in close consultation with the
    railroad talking through it, offering edits and changes to make
    sure that the system is going to work. So it takes a while.
        But we feel pretty confident that as they roll in, we will
    be able to staff up and turn them around in the kinds of time
    periods that we have laid out for the railroads. But as of now,
    we have just received one.
        Mr. Duncan. Are you satisfied with the progress that the
    railroads have made thus far?
        Ms. Feinberg. I am not satisfied. I would not be satisfied
    unless the deadline were going to be met.
        Mr. Duncan. My dad told me years ago, and I don't remember
    what he was talking about at the time, but he said everything
    looks easy from a distance.
        And I was reading over Mr. Lonegro's testimony. Just for
    CSX it says the tasks are still monumental. And it said CSX has
    to do ``a complete airborne-laser imaging survey of our entire
    21,000-mile network'' to have ``all assets mapped to within 7
    feet of their precise location, installation of 5,202 wayside
    units, replacing signals along 7,500 miles of track, installing
    1,285 base stations, equipping 3,900 locomotives, training
    16,000 employees.'' I mean, these tasks, monumental is being
    conservative when you say that.
        And, Mr. Lonegro, tell me about the safety record of CSX so
    far.
        Mr. Lonegro. We have been an industry leader for the last 2
    or 3 years in safety, sir, and the whole industry, if you go
    back and look at especially the train accident statistics, has
    seen significant, 40 to 50 percent reductions in train
    accidents since the 2000 time period.
        Safety is a core value of CSX. Safety is a way of life. It
    is the first core value that we have, and it is very similar at
    every other railroad. So, I mean, every day we live and breathe
    safety, whether it is to improve conditions along the railroad,
    the track infrastructure, the signaling infrastructure, the
    equipment side of the house, cars, locomotives, and the human
    factor side of the house, the training efforts that we do.
        We have a technology called ERAD [Event Recorder Automated
    Download], which is a virtual road foreman that looks exactly
    how that train was handled to figure out whether there are any
    anomalies in that train handling and then have a coaching
    session with that employee. If they were over speed, right, we
    have a conversation with them. If they happen to breach a red
    signal, they are taken out of service and decertified.
        We have lots of things that we are doing. We are starting
    down the inward facing camera path a la Metrolink to understand
    the exact behaviors in the cab that contribute to accidents.
        So I would say we are doing an awful lot on safety, sir.
        Mr. Duncan. Well, the committee staff gave me a statistic a
    few minutes ago, and they said that the freight rail system is
    99.995 percent safe based on the number of trips that are
    taken. I don't know, that seems to me to be a phenomenal safety
    record. My staffer Don Walker told me a short time ago that the
    Wall Street Journal said that 2014 was the safest year ever for
    the rail industry.
        Now, I mean, everybody has tremendous sympathy for these
    families that lost loved ones in the Amtrak accident, but, my
    goodness, now we are going to be spending billions, already
    have spent billions and going to be spending billions more to
    try to make something that is already one of the safest things
    in the entire world. And I am thinking that we would be far
    better off to spend those billions in many, many other ways,
    cancer research and everything else.
        My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
        Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you for being so gracious with your time.
        Mr. Capuano. Gracious. Get that Pete? Gracious.
        Mr. DeFazio. Yeah. Twice.
        Mr. Capuano. I want to thank the panel too.
        Ms. Feinberg, we are all here today because we think PTC
    can save lives. I think everybody agrees with that. If you are
    a week or two or a month late with a report, does anybody die?
        Ms. Feinberg. No, sir.
        Mr. Capuano. Are there any major property losses?
        Ms. Feinberg. No, sir.
        Mr. Capuano. OK. If one of the major railroads came to you
    and said, ``We are not going to make December 31, but we are
    going to make January 15, we are going to make February 1,''
    are you likely to be imposing big fines on somebody who is
    going to be a few weeks or a month late?
        Ms. Feinberg. Highly unlikely.
        Mr. Capuano. I didn't think so.
        Mr. Kerwin, it cost roughly $200 million, a little over
    $200 million to institute the PTC on your system. Is that
    right?
        Mr. Kerwin. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Capuano. How much did the Chatsworth accident cost?
        Mr. Kerwin. In excess of that amount, I would say.
        Mr. Capuano. So in hindsight, knowing what that accident
    cost versus what the system cost, the system has already paid
    for itself.
        Mr. Kerwin. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Capuano. If it has paid for itself on your line, do you
    think it is a reasonable thing to say that it would pay for
    itself on any other line in avoided accidents?
        Mr. Kerwin. Yes, I would agree with that.
        Mr. Capuano. I think so too.
        I guess nobody here believes--nobody wants any fines. There
    is no reason to have fines. We all understand that, Mr. Orseno.
    We have a commuter rail system too. We get that. But at the
    same time, we are sitting here 7 years later with some of the
    major railroads having done virtually nothing. How would you
    suggest, let's assume that we could come together as a
    Congress--by the way, Ms. Feinberg, who set this December 31
    deadline?
        Ms. Feinberg. The Congress.
        Mr. Capuano. And are you empowered to ignore that?
        Ms. Feinberg. No.
        Mr. Capuano. Are you empowered to change that deadline?
        Ms. Feinberg. No.
        Mr. Capuano. So it is only us?
        Ms. Feinberg. Correct.
        Mr. Capuano. OK. I think that any reasonable person here
    understands the deadline is not going to be met. Any reasonable
    person understands the deadline has to be extended. We are not
    looking to do fines.
        Now, if we don't, I would not ask Ms. Feinberg or anyone
    else to ignore the law. I would hope that Congress can come
    together and do this. At the same time, once we do it, how do
    we avoid a bad actor from simply ignoring it again for any
    reasonable period of time, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years,
    without a stick?
        Mr. Orseno.
        And I don't want the fines, but how do I do it any other
    way?
        Mr. Orseno. Well, I think, as was brought up here today on
    many occasions, I believe that at the onset from the 2008 Rail
    Safety Improvement Act, that was a date that was agreed upon. I
    think once we got into the significant challenges that it----
        Mr. Capuano. I understand how we are today. Let's assume
    today, right now, if I said to you write a law that says in
    some period of time, some reasonable period of time, 2, 3, 5
    years, pick a timeframe, we are going to have this done, how do
    I then enforce it if I don't have fines?
        Mr. Orseno. Well, I think we would need to look at it at
    that time. But I think the key issue is right now we aren't
    going to meet the deadline. And it is not from lack of effort.
    If it was from lack of effort----
        Mr. Capuano. I respect that. But the bottom line is I don't
    know any other way to enforce it amongst bad actors. Good
    actors don't need an enforcement, bad actors do, which is why
    fines are in place. My presumption is you have contracts with
    suppliers that give them fines if they don't meet their
    requirements. We have to have the same thing if we really think
    that PTC is important.
        By the way, I also fully agree that we should--the Federal
    Government should be participating in paying for this. But we
    are having that argument. You know the arguments we are having
    here. I am with you, but I need 217 other Members to agree with
    that. In the meantime, we can't do anything.
        So I think that it is pretty clear to me that we have to do
    something, but to pretend that we do nothing or to pretend that
    somehow goodness will simply overcome the lack of goodness is
    ridiculous and unenforceable. We need to come up with a
    reasonable timeframe. We need to allow Ms. Feinberg to enforce
    the law, whatever it might be. I don't expect you to break the
    law. I also don't want to fine anybody. So we have to act.
        And we can do it all day long, we can play games, we can
    dance around, we can point fingers, we can show what happened 5
    years ago, 7 years ago, 10 years ago. But since 1969, according
    to the NTSB, according to their own figures, preventable
    accidents have killed 296 people and it injured 6,732. And I
    don't know how much money has been lost because no one has put
    that number together.
        If the cap, the $200 million cap, which, by the way, would
    have cost Metrolink more if it wasn't for the cap, it is hard
    to tell, but it seems to me just rough numbers, it looks like
    the cap probably would have cost--even with the cap, it would
    have been about $20 billion that these accidents would have
    cost.
        This is a doable action, and it is an action that pays for
    itself as proof positive by Metrolink. Help us work with you to
    get it done.
        And by the way, Mr. Mathias, earlier you said you had 8,500
    poles agreed to, but that doesn't count the 11,000 that you did
    previously. It is my understanding you are closer to 20,000
    poles across the country that have been approved. Now, that
    20,000 is about out of 30,000, 35,000 that they will need. So
    we have already got two-thirds of the locations approved and
    ready to go. Is that right?
        Mr. Mathias. Correct.
        Mr. Capuano. Thank you.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Barletta.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Safety is my first priority, there is no question, and
    Positive Train Control is a necessary tool to improve safety.
    But the fact of the matter is that most railroads will not have
    the technology installed by the December 31, 2015, deadline.
    Today I am wondering what happens on January 1, 2016, if the
    deadline remains.
        Mr. Lonegro, today Ms. Feinberg again committed to hold the
    railroads accountable for not meeting the PTC deadline,
    including potential fines and restrictions of service. If the
    deadline is not extended, what actions will the railroads
    likely take? I want to know what is going to happen on January
    1.
        Mr. Lonegro. Well, sir, there is one way to be compliant
    with the deadline, and that is not to move TIH/PIH commodities
    or passengers, which is an untenable situation if you are a
    passenger agency or a TIH/PIH shipper. So the railroads right
    now are in a very difficult place with a deadline that can only
    be congressionally moved.
        So we again have a lot of folks that are evaluating how we
    look at the common carrier obligation, how we look at the PTC
    mandate to, in essence, figure out is there a way to navigate
    through breaking the law on one hand or breaking the law on the
    other hand.
        And we have a very similar situation with Amtrak and the
    commuter agencies where we are required to move the passengers
    or allow them to move their passengers over our lines. And
    again, we have a PTC mandate and we have a passenger
    requirement, and I hate to say which--we are being backed into
    a corner in terms of which law should we violate. And it may be
    that the path forward really does involve cessation of service.
        But we are all looking at that. We are all evaluating. You
    heard a Member earlier talk about increased tort liability. We
    certainly worry about that as well.
        So it is an untenable situation, as I mentioned in my
    opening statement.
        Mr. Barletta. Mr. Orseno, in your testimony you mention
    concerns within the APTA Rail Conference about the ability of
    commuter rail to operate past the PTC deadline as it relates to
    liability and coverage. Can you further describe what liability
    and coverage issues would prevent commuter rail that doesn't
    meet the PTC deadline from operating?
        Mr. Orseno. Well, when we were at the conference a question
    was raised on whether we can operate or individual agencies can
    operate past the deadline because you would be operating
    outside the confines of the law and there may be restrictions
    in some of the liability coverages. And all the commuter
    railroads are now going back with their risk and legal teams to
    take a look and see if that is the case.
        Mr. Barletta. You have already said that Metra won't make
    the December 31, 2015, deadline, and in Pennsylvania, SEPTA
    will not make the deadline either. If the worst-case scenario
    occurs and commuter rail does not receive any flexibility on
    the PTC deadline, how would commuters who rely on Metra or
    other commuter rail like SEPTA be impacted by operation
    changes?
        Mr. Orseno. That would depend on to the degree of what
    actually happens. If railroads were forced to close down
    because of liability reasons and insurance reasons, for us
    alone that would put 300,000 passengers on the roads already
    that are congested, and that wouldn't be a good solution.
        Mr. Barletta. In Pennsylvania, SEPTA is furthest behind in
    the on board vehicle/locomotive system installations. You also
    cited in your testimony that one of the biggest PTC challenges
    is onboard software, and that final production release date is
    not yet known. Can you tell us why this has been such a
    challenge?
        Mr. Orseno. I don't have that technical knowledge, but I
    believe Mr. Lonegro does.
        Mr. Lonegro. PTC, in the very beginning, was somewhat
    theoretical in the way that the regulation was published in
    terms of what it had to accomplish and how it had to accomplish
    that. And so we took a system that was much smaller, much less
    complicated, and much less mature, and through the period of
    the last 7 years are really working to the point where it can
    comply with all of the regulations and the functionality that
    has been required.
        I would tell you that from a software perspective, we are
    getting closer, meaning, arguably, the end of the year we could
    have a piece of software that is very, very close. At the same
    time, we have committed to not implement software that has any
    critical defects or severe defects, but yet we are willing to
    deploy software with medium or minor defects, right.
        So we are not really trying to get to perfect necessarily,
    but we are making sure that it can provide all the
    functionality and doesn't create a situation where a safety
    problem is introduced.
        Just in the last month or so, we have found a safety-
    critical defect in the onboard software which has to be
    corrected, has to be retested, has to be taken back to the
    field, and the same holds true for the back-office software. So
    these are people in the supplier community, this is their
    business, right, this is what they do for a living, and if they
    are unable to tackle the technical challenge that has been put
    in front of all of us, that gives you some understanding of the
    complexity of the challenge that we have because that is just
    one piece of the puzzle.
        Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you. And I would like to recognize Ms.
    Brown. If you will indulge me just for a second, though, I am
    going to turn it over to Mr. Rokita, but I did want to enter
    one piece of information for the record, without objection.
    This was prepared in association with the California High-Speed
    Rail Association. This is their June 2009 request for funding.
        [The ``San Francisco/Silicon Valley Corridor Investment
    Strategy for High-Speed Rail'' can be found on page 108.]
        Mr. Denham. On their request, they request $230 million
    from the ARRA Investment Strategy from those funds that have
    been allocated to California, $230 million. Here is a map here
    where it shows exactly where those improvements would be.
        Can you zoom that in? Move it up.
        This corridor here, Positive Train Control, $230 million.
    The California High-Speed Rail Authority thinks that it can do
    it. They have requested it. This is in California. We want to
    have the safety improvements there. Here is a good funding
    source to do that.
        Ms. Feinberg. Mr. Chairman, understood. My staff passed me
    a note during the hearing that states that ARRA high-speed rail
    funding has been at $328 million. So we will follow up with you
    and look at those two numbers together and respond.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you. And I will have a staff member bring
    that down just for your record as we continue this ongoing
    exchange.
        And with that, I would like to recognize Ms. Brown for our
    second round of questioning.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but would you indulge
    me for a minute, because when I was out of the room, Mr. Mica
    said that Amtrak had not implemented Positive Train Control
    from New Haven to Boston. Not only did they implement it, it
    was the first in the country, and I want to submit that for the
    record.
        Mr. Denham. Without objection.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you.
        Now, Metrolink, who I visited with several times in
    California, and I just want to mention that you had the support
    of the State, the local recovery money. And funding is the
    issue for all of the commuter lines, and let's don't sit here
    and act like it is not, and a lot of the local resources are
    not available for the other lines.
        With that, I want to go on to Frank, because you and I want
    to say all those great things about CSX, but you are the one
    that is here representing the Class I railroad, and they said
    that there are some positive players and there are some who are
    not. Would you give us an update, because we need an extension.
    The idea that we are going to start fining people, and then
    where is that money going? Against this reduction? I want the
    money to go into the system. So would you tell us who are these
    negative players that they are talking about?
        Mr. Lonegro. Thank you, Member Brown.
        There are no bad actors here. This technology is very
    difficult to implement. The scale proposition that we each have
    is very challenging, as one of the Members mentioned earlier in
    terms of the scale of the CSX deployment. For at least the
    major U.S. Class I's, the scale is about the same, right, we
    all have that major challenge.
        The Canadian railroads have a slightly smaller footprint
    because they don't run as much in the United States and there
    is no PTC mandate in Canada, so their footprint is slightly
    smaller. So at least in the Class I world, there are no bad
    actors. We are all going about this with all----
        Ms. Brown. That is not what I heard, though. And are you
    all working with the commuter lines also?
        Mr. Lonegro. We are. Each of us has a different set of
    commuters that we work with. So on the CSX footprint, we have
    commuters in and around DC, we certainly have commuters in
    Chicago, and then we have a full spectrum of commuters on
    Amtrak that run, in essence, from Baltimore up to Boston.
        So we are in active discussions with them literally all of
    the time. We hosted a summit in Chicago at Mr. Orseno's
    facility where we brought in the Class I's in the committee
    that I chair at the industry level, we brought in all the
    commuters and all the short lines, and did our best to try to
    help educate folks on the state of the technology, some of the
    challenges that we face, so they wouldn't have to face the same
    challenges as they deployed on their railroads.
        We had, I think, a good dialogue, and Mr. Orseno can
    certainly chime in. I think we had a good dialogue. We have
    kept that dialogue up. We have another meeting planned for
    later in this year where we can reengage and reassess where we
    are both individually and collectively.
        Ms. Brown. What is the drop-dead amount of time that you
    need, Frank?
        Mr. Lonegro. As an industry, one of the things that we come
    forward with is the ability to be hardware complete by 2018 and
    completely rolled out by 2020. And again, I want to make sure
    that everybody understands, by the end of 2018, OK, we will
    have as an industry 87 percent of the PTC footprint installed
    and implemented, meaning we are operational with PTC, and that
    is based on current plans, plans that were in place certainly
    before the Amtrak tragedy, and then the remaining 13 percent is
    really what comes in those last 2 years.
        So literally, we are starting to deploy PTC in operational
    mode right now, right, and then it ramps up from here fairly
    linearly, but ramps up from here through the end of 2020.
        Ms. Brown. Ms. Feinberg, how long will it take you all to
    inspect? If they complete it in 2018, you have some work to do.
    How long will it take you to verify the system?
        Ms. Feinberg. Well, they would submit to us a plan, which
    we would then turn around to them. Then they would complete
    implementation, and I think things would move quite quickly.
    The issue there would be that you would be 3 years past the
    deadline at that point.
        Ms. Brown. Yes, we understand. Everybody understands that.
    And we understand that the deadline is not realistic and nobody
    is going to meet it, and we have some concerns about the fines.
        Mr. Mathias, I have a real concern about your spectrum, and
    we have talked a lot about it, even when it is implemented.
    What about the local responders? We need to be able to talk to
    each other; 9/11, we discovered that we couldn't talk to each
    other. And then Katrina, we are still not talking to each
    other, and even though they are implementing something and
    Amtrak is implementing something. And then you have those local
    responders. How come we don't have a dedicated system for
    emergencies for this country?
        Mr. Mathias. Thank you for that question. I think that
    Congress has worked very hard and diligently to create an
    infrastructure for a national interoperable public safety
    communication system, and I think that is being addressed in
    that way, and it is in a separate spectrum band and being
    handled in a separate process. But that is on the way.
        Ms. Brown. Mr. Mathias, failure is not an option. We really
    need to get it done. Thank you.
        Mr. Rokita [presiding]. I thank the gentlelady. The
    gentlelady's time has expired. I will recognize myself for 5
    minutes.
        I appreciate everyone's testimony. Mr. Lonegro, I had a
    couple of questions for you about the two people in a cab
    situation. In our last hearing, NTSB Chairman Hart testified
    that having two-person cabs didn't necessarily improve safety,
    and he was on a panel with several union members and others. I
    wonder what your thoughts are on that kind of statement.
        Mr. Lonegro. We have two people in the cab of our
    locomotives on all our main line trains. We certainly over, I
    would say, the period of years, if not decades in the future,
    we will look for the opportunity to reduce the crew size from
    two to one if the technology supports that and we are able to
    negotiate an appropriate agreement with our labor unions. I
    mean, there is a path forward for that, again, when the
    technology gets to the point where having two people in the cab
    really is no longer necessary.
        Mr. Rokita. Roger.
        Last hearing Ms. Feinberg stated that the FRA is looking at
    having a two-person crew situation as an interim solution along
    with probably some additional backstops as well until PTC is
    implemented, before deadline, after deadline, whenever that is.
    Would you be supportive of that?
        Mr. Lonegro. Well, on the freight side I think it is not
    necessary. We already have it. I think maybe she was referring
    to the commuter side of the house and the Amtrak side of the
    house which generally operates with one person in the cab,
    although they certainly have crewmembers in the train itself.
    But we already have two.
        Mr. Rokita. Same question, this is the last question to
    you, Mr. Orseno.
        Mr. Orseno. We operate our trains with one person in the
    cab and two people in the body of the train that are both rules
    qualified. Two members up in the cab doesn't necessarily mean
    it is a safer situation. There have been many instances where
    there have been accidents when two people have been up in the
    cab. We don't support that initiative.
        Mr. Rokita. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Kerwin, same question to you.
        Mr. Kerwin. Yeah, we have also evaluated this in the past,
    and we will continue to monitor the recommendations from the
    FRA and NTSB on this issue.
        Mr. Rokita. OK. Thank you.
        And back to you, Mr. Lonegro. You said you currently have
    two people in a cab on all routes that will require PTC by 2016
    or----
        Mr. Lonegro. Correct, all main line routes, yes, sir.
        Mr. Rokita. OK. So CSX having a two-person crew as an
    interim solution until PTC is fully implemented on PTC-required
    routes is logistically doable.
        Mr. Lonegro. It is already being done.
        Mr. Rokita. OK. So then would industry be supportive of
    having two-person crews as an interim solution until PTC is
    fully implemented, thus, theoretically you would be complying
    with the requirements of PTC if you had two people in a cab?
        Mr. Lonegro. Well, there is no requirement for two people
    in the cab today in the way----
        Mr. Rokita. But as an interim solution.
        Mr. Lonegro. Well, we already have it, and any time we
    would want to go from two to one, we would certainly have to
    work with FRA to get approval to do that. So it is just not
    necessary, at least with respect to the freight railroads,
    given where we are and the steps that we would have to go
    through to remove one member of the crew.
        Mr. Rokita. OK. Thank you.
        And the only thing I would add for the record is that in
    addition to any of the other things Ms. Feinberg may or may not
    have been blamed for today, she now has apparently sent Mr.
    Mica to the hospital, which obligates me to have to go visit
    him. Add that to your stack.
        And with that, my questions are done, and I don't see any
    more questions from Members. So on behalf of Chairman Denham,
    let me thank you each for coming again today. We thank all the
    members of the audience for their attention today. We move
    forward. And with that, hearing no other business before the
    committee, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]