[Senate Hearing 115-899]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-899
IMPLEMENTATION OF POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 3, 2018
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
59-904 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEAN HELLER, Nevada TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma GARY PETERS, Michigan
MIKE LEE, Utah TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
CORY GARDNER, Colorado CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
TODD YOUNG, Indiana JON TESTER, Montana
Nick Rossi, Staff Director
Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Renae Black, Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 3, 2018.................................. 1
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 3
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 36
Statement of Senator Fischer..................................... 38
Statement of Senator Udall....................................... 39
Statement of Senator Moran....................................... 41
Statement of Senator Blunt....................................... 43
Statement of Senator Hassan...................................... 44
Statement of Senator Gardner..................................... 46
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 48
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 50
Statement of Senator Cortez Masto................................ 52
Statement of Senator Duckworth................................... 54
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 56
Witnesses
Ronald L. Batory, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation.............................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Susan Fleming, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, United
States Government Accountability Office........................ 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Kevin Corbett, Executive Director, NJ Transit.................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Scot Naparstek, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating
Officer, Amtrak................................................ 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Ronald L. Batory by:
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 59
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 61
Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto.................................. 62
Response to written questions submitted to Susan Fleming by:
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 65
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 66
Response to written questions submitted to Kevin Corbett by:
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 67
Response to written questions submitted to Scot Naparstek by:
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 67
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 68
Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto.................................. 69
IMPLEMENTATION OF
POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Blunt, Fischer, Moran,
Inhofe, Sullivan, Capito, Gardner, Young, Nelson, Cantwell,
Klobuchar, Blumenthal, Markey, Udall, Duckworth, Hassan,
Tester, and Cortez Masto.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
The Chairman. Good morning. We convene today's hearing at a
critical time for Positive Train Control, or PTC
implementation. We're approximately three months away from the
December 31, 2018, statutory deadline for implementation. The
recent report suggests some railroads may not meet their legal
obligations by the end of the year. Specifically, according to
the Federal Railroad Administration's most recent quarterly
progress report, nine commuter railroads were at risk of not
meeting the minimum statutory criteria required to qualify for
an extension by the end of the year.
The Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation
Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama
in October 2015, extended the original deadline of December 31,
2015, amid reports that no railroad could meet the deadline and
many railroads were contemplating halting passenger rail
service or shipments of essential supplies for agricultural
production and water purification. This committee, on a
bipartisan basis, took action to avert a rail shutdown and set
a realistic framework for implementation.
The law now requires railroads to implement PTC by December
31, 2018, but it allows a railroad to apply for an extension of
up to 24 months to ensure PTC works as intended if, and only
if, that railroad meets important milestones, like full PTC
hardware installation, spectrum acquisition, and employee
training, and meets other milestones, such as implementing PTC
on a specific territory or initiating revenue service
demonstration. For Class 1 freight railroads and Amtrak, the
bar is higher. PTC must be implemented or in revenue service
demonstration on a majority of the required territories or
route miles.
Since March 2018, under Administrator Batory's leadership,
railroads have made significant progress in PTC implementation,
which is an enormously complex undertaking. As of June 30, the
end date for the most recent progress report, freight railroads
had 93 percent of locomotives equipped and PTC-operable, and
passenger railroads had completed 73 percent of their
locomotive installation.
With respect to radio towers, freight railroads have
installed 99 percent of necessary radio towers, and passenger
railroads have installed 91 percent, an increase of nearly 20
percent for passenger railroads in just the last quarter.
Overall, 66 percent of freight route miles were in PTC
operation as of June 30, and 24 percent of passenger route
miles were in PTC operation.
There's clearly more work to do, but Administrator Batory
has been instrumental in stepping up FRA's oversight of PTC
implementation. Since the beginning of the year, FRA has met
individually with executives from each of the 41 railroads
required to implement PTC, applying direct oversight, railroad
by railroad. FRA also has met individually with the major PTC
system component suppliers, has held three symposia to share
best practices and expectations with regulated entities, and
awarded over $200 million in grant funding for PTC
implementation, pushing the total Federal support to well over
$3 billion.
As I stated in February, FRA should have had a confirmed
Administrator, especially one as qualified as Mr. Batory, much
sooner. We owed it to the traveling public to do everything we
could to help eliminate future collisions. However, I am
pleased to say that Administrator Batory was confirmed, despite
over 6 months of obstruction, and his leadership has made a
difference for successful implementation.
With that said, there continue to be railroads at risk of
not qualifying for an extension at the end of the year, and
that is a major focus of today's hearing. If commuter railroads
do not meet the requirements of the law by the end of the year,
we must understand any effects this may have on the many riders
who rely on rail service to commute to work, see family
members, or visit a doctor. We also need to have a clear
picture of FRA's enforcement strategy for entities that may not
comply with the law.
Finally, this hearing will provide an opportunity to
examine the path to full implementation, whether it is working
through complex interoperability challenges between railroads
or FRA's reviewing final safety plans.
This morning, we will be hearing from a panel of witnesses
that have great expertise in Positive Train Control and who can
provide useful insight into the end-of-year deadline as well as
full implementation. So, I want to welcome you, look forward to
all of your testimonies.
And we'll now turn to Ranking Member Nelson for any opening
remarks that he'd like to make.
Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'd like to
congratulate you on a significant achievement. Today, we will
pass the FAA bill. I will have the privilege of speaking just
before the vote. Congratulations to your leadership. This is
the first 5-year FAA bill since the 1980s, and it will give the
certainty to the aviation industry of the policy as set forth
specifically by this committee. So, I congratulate you, as well
as the Committee, and thank you for having this hearing on
Positive Train Control.
Railroads simply must complete the installation of Positive
Train Control. Without these safety systems in place, we will
continue to see the tragic accidents that could have been
avoided. And one such crash occurred in my state. An Amtrak,
just this year, traveling to Florida was in a head-on collision
with a CSX freight train. That resulted in the death of an
engineer and a train conductor from Florida, and more than 100
injured.
Implementing PTC can be expensive and complicated, and
there are serious technical challenges involved. But, I also
know that many railroads have overcome these challenges. Other
railroads continue to struggle, including some in Florida. We,
to that end, provided nearly a quarter of a billion dollars in
grant funding, in addition to the more than $2 billion in
Federal support that had previously been provided. And that
effort was supposed to ensure that PTC would be quickly
implemented. But, it's still not the case. Many of us remain
concerned that some railroads haven't lived up to their end of
the bargain to meet the 2018 deadline. And the Department of
Transportation must also be a strong partner in the process.
Unnecessary delays of grant funding or agency approval should
not be a hurdle to those getting the technology in place. We
have a responsibility to learn from the tragedies of past rail
accidents and to improve the safety of our rail lines.
I look forward to the hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson. And
congratulations, to you and your staff and members on both
sides, for getting this FAA bill across the finish line today.
That was terrific bipartisan cooperation. And so, thank you, to
you and your team and our teams, for getting that done. It's
got a lot of very important policy in it, and something that
many of us believe is long overdue.
So, we're going to talk about railroads today. So, I want
to start by welcoming our panel. And, of course, The Honorable
Ronald Batory, who's the Administrator of the Federal Railroad
Administration, will lead off, followed by Ms. Susan Fleming,
Director of Physical Infrastructure at the Government
Accountability Office; Mr. Kevin Corbett, who's Executive
Director of NJ Transit; and Mr. Scot Naparstek, Executive Vice
President and Chief Operating Officer of Amtrak.
So, we appreciate you being here. We look forward to
hearing what you have to say and to interacting with you during
question-answers, and would ask you, if you can, to confine
your oral statements to as close to 5 minutes as possible, and
we'll make sure that any--your entire statements are included
in the permanent hearing record.
So, Mr. Batory, welcome. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF RONALD L. BATORY, ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Batory. Good morning, everyone. Chairman Thune, Ranking
Member Nelson, members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today to discuss Positive Train Control,
PTC systems.
Secretary Chao and myself have made railroads
implementation FRA's top priority. While railroads are making
progress, FRA expects that most railroads will need to request
an alternative schedule to complete testing, obtain system
certification, activate PTC on all required route miles, and
meet interoperability requirements.
Since April 2016, FRA has tracked individual railroad self-
report implementation on a quarterly basis. Based on railroads'
most recent reports as of June 30, PTC systems are in operation
on 66 percent of the freight railroads required route miles.
Passenger railroads have made less progress, with PTC systems
in operation on 24 percent of what is required. Also, as of
June 30, PTC systems are in revenue service demonstration on
1,103 freight railroad route miles and 140 commuter railroad
route miles.
The most recent data also showed a reduction in the number
of railroads FRA considers to be at risk of not qualifying for
an alternative schedule from 12 railroads in April 2018 to nine
railroads in August of this year. FRA currently considers any
railroad that has installed less than 90 percent of its system
hardware as of June 30 to be at most risk of failing to qualify
for an alternative schedule.
It is important to note that installation of all PTC system
hardware is only one of the six criteria required to qualify
for an alternative schedule to complete full PTC system
implementation after December 31, 2018. FRA is in frequent
communication and providing additional onsite technical
assistance to further assist these railroads. This summer, and
for the first time in agency history, FRA hosted three symposia
for the to-be-compliant railroads. Each of the daylong sessions
brought together railroad safety officials and FRA's PTC
experts to ensure that each railroad subject to the mandate is
aware of its obligations and is equipped to meet the deadlines.
These meetings discussed industry questions and lessons
learned, requirements for the December 31, 2018 deadline, best
practices for testing and safety plans.
PTC is designed to provide important risk-reduction
protocols to enhance existing safety, but these systems come
with significant costs. Since 2008, FRA has awarded
approximately $961 million in grant funds to support railroads
implementation. More recently, on August 24, FRA selected 28
PTC projects, including 13 commuter railroads, to receive over
$203 million of the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety
Improvements, CRISI, grant program. Of the $203.7 million
announced, $80 million in grants, or 39 percent, was announced
for at-risk railroads. Since 2008, a total of $2.5 billion in
grants and loans has been allocated to the railroads to assist
with PTC implementation.
In an effort to show FRA's continued commitment to PTC
implementation, we reissued a Notice of Funding Opportunity for
the remaining $46 million in grants on September 12. Similar to
previously issued NOFO, this is an expedited solicitation, with
only a 30-day application period. Applications are due October
12.
Looking forward to the rest of the year and into 2019, FRA
will continue to support and facilitate railroads'
implementation of PTC, utilizing the tools afforded by Congress
and providing extensive technical assistance.
I appreciate the Committee's support for our programs and
look forward to your safety-oriented questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Batory follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ronald L. Batory, Administrator, Federal Railroad
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the
Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and provide the
Committee with an update on railroads' implementation of positive train
control (PTC) systems.
As we approach critical deadlines for railroads' implementation of
PTC systems, myself, and the men and women that serve at FRA remain
committed to working with the railroads and its supply industry to
ensure the full implementation of this important rail-safety technology
in a timely manner.
I. PTC Mandate
Railroads' implementation of PTC systems has been, and remains, at
the top of our agenda. PTC systems represent the most fundamental
change in rail safety technology since the introduction of Automatic
Train Control in the 1920s. As mandated by the Rail Safety Improvement
Act of 2008 (RSIA), each Class I railroad and entity providing
regularly scheduled intercity or commuter rail passenger service must
implement an FRA-certified PTC system on (1) its main lines over which
5 million or more gross tons of annual traffic are transported if the
main line carries poison- or toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials,
and (2) its main lines over which intercity or commuter rail passenger
transportation is regularly provided. Under RSIA, railroads were
originally required to complete implementation by December 31, 2015.
Approximately two months before that deadline, the House and Senate
overwhelmingly passed, and the President signed, the Positive Train
Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015 (PTCEI Act),
extending the deadline for full PTC system implementation to December
31, 2018.
In addition, under the PTCEI Act, Congress permits a railroad to
request FRA's approval of an ``alternative schedule'' with a deadline
extending beyond December 31, 2018, but no later than December 31,
2020, for full PTC system implementation. The law requires FRA to
approve a railroad's alternative schedule with a deadline that is as
soon as practicable, but not later than December 31, 2020, if a
railroad submits a written request to FRA that demonstrates it has met
the statutory criteria to qualify for such an alternative schedule.
Currently, 41 railroads are required by statute to implement PTC
systems: all 7 Class I freight railroads; 30 commuter and intercity
passenger railroads, including the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation (Amtrak); and 4 short line and terminal railroads. The
technology is required to be implemented on approximately 58,000 route
miles of the 140,000-mile railroad network.
While railroads are making progress, FRA expects that most
railroads will need to request an alternative schedule to complete
testing, obtain PTC System Certification, meet the statutory
interoperability requirements, and fully implement PTC systems on all
main lines required to be governed by PTC systems. FRA continues to
take a proactive approach to help railroads acquire, install, test, and
fully implement certified PTC systems as soon as possible.
At the direction of Secretary Elaine L. Chao, FRA senior leadership
met individually with executives from each of the 41 railroads in
January and February of this year. In May and June, we also held
follow-up meetings with the twelve railroads identified as at risk, as
of Quarter 1 of 2018, of not meeting the statutory criteria necessary
to qualify for FRA's approval of an alternative schedule. Railroads
have generally been candid in detailing the challenges and obstacles
confronting their properties. During the meetings, we sought to
objectively evaluate each railroad's PTC deployment status, and learn
what remaining steps each railroad needs to take to meet the deadline
or satisfy the statutory criteria necessary to qualify for an
alternative schedule.
During these meetings and throughout our conversations with the
railroads, they commonly conveyed the following ongoing challenges:
There is a competitive yet limited number of PTC system
vendors and suppliers. Unusually weighted demand and supply has
constrained the timely serving of all 41 railroads and their
tenant railroads;
As reliability and stability of PTC systems is still
immature, railroads are experiencing significant technical
issues with both PTC system hardware and PTC system software
that often take considerable time to diagnose and resolve,
impacting current operations;
Host railroads (totaling 36) noted that many tenant
railroads (estimated at 250+) that operate on main lines
requiring PTC system implementation have made variable, and
often unknown, progress equipping locomotives with operational
PTC technology, while some tenant railroads report that their
host railroads are not providing opportunity for testing. FRA
is initiating efforts to synchronize the coordination among the
host and tenant railroads;
Railroads have only recently begun testing PTC systems for
interoperability;
Many commuter railroads stated that negotiating legal
agreements with certain vendors and suppliers often took time
to complete, given various insurance, liability, and State law
issues;
Absence of consistent leadership at several railroads,
regardless of leadership quality, weakened the ``sense of
urgency'' and the focus on PTC system implementation at some
entities subject to the statutory mandate; and
Railroads noted concern about FRA's review and approval
cycle, given the surge in submissions requiring FRA approval in
2018-2020.
By law, it is the railroads' responsibility to implement PTC
systems, but FRA is facilitating railroad and supplier collaboration to
hasten, and urge, implementation. We have also met individually with
PTC system component suppliers to learn more about their capacity to
meet the high demand of railroads to achieve timely implementation.
This summer FRA hosted three PTC symposia for the 41 railroads
mandated to implement PTC systems. Each of the day-long sessions
brought together railroad safety officials and FRA's PTC experts to
ensure that each and every railroad subject to the mandate is aware of
its obligations and is equipped to meet the Congressionally mandated
deadline. The first symposium discussed industry questions and focused
on requirements for the December 31, 2018 statutory deadline. The
second focused on best practices for testing PTC systems on the general
rail system, including field testing, revenue service demonstration
(RSD), and interoperability testing. The third focused on lessons
learned and best practices for PTC Safety Plans, which are required for
host railroads to obtain PTC System Certification and achieve full
system implementation. As FRA tracks railroads' progress, additional
symposia on PTC may be offered, as new challenges arise.
II. PTC Status Update
Since April 1, 2016, FRA has been closely tracking and displaying
on its website individual railroads' self-reported PTC system
implementation status. FRA's PTC Dashboard tracks railroads' progress
toward full implementation on a quarterly basis, including the number
and percentage of locomotives equipped and PTC operable, track segments
completed, radio towers installed, training completed, spectrum
acquisition, route miles in RSD, whether the railroad has obtained PTC
System Certification, route miles in PTC operation, and more recently,
interoperability between host railroads and tenant railroads. In
addition, FRA tracks, on a quarterly basis, the progress each railroad
has made toward meeting the statutory criteria necessary to qualify for
FRA's approval of an alternative schedule.
Based on railroads' most recent Quarter 2 reports (with data
current as of June 30, 2018), PTC systems are in operation on 35,487
route miles, which is approximately 66 percent of the freight
railroads' route miles that are required to be governed by a PTC
system. Passenger railroads have made less progress, with PTC systems
in operation on 975 route miles, which is approximately 24 percent of
the required route miles. Notably, PTC systems are being operated in
RSD on an additional 1,103 freight railroad route miles and an
additional 140 commuter railroad route miles, as of Quarter 2. Fifteen
railroads report they have completed installation of all hardware
necessary for PTC system implementation, and twelve other railroads
have installed between 95 and 99 percent of the PTC system hardware
identified in their PTC Implementation Plans, as of June 30, 2018. All
but one railroad, whose PTC systems use spectrum, reported they have
acquired sufficient spectrum. In addition, 14 railroads have initiated
sufficient RSD or met substitute criteria, which is also one of the six
statutory criteria needed to qualify for an alternative schedule.
The most recent data also shows a reduction in the number of
railroads at risk of not qualifying for an alternative schedule, from
twelve railroads as of Quarter 1 of 2018, to nine railroads as of
Quarter 2. FRA generally considers any railroad that had installed less
than 90 percent of its PTC system hardware as of June 30, 2018, to be
most at risk of failing to qualify for an alternative schedule.
Installation of all PTC system hardware is only an initial phase of
implementing a PTC system and only one of the six statutory criteria
required to qualify for an alternative schedule to complete full PTC
system implementation after December 31, 2018.
In addition to the letters of concern from April and June 2018, on
approximately August 24th, I sent letters to the following nine
railroads that were at risk, as of Quarter 2 of 2018, of both missing
the statutory implementation deadline, and failing to qualify for an
alternative schedule: Altamont Corridor Express, Capital Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, Central Florida Rail Corridor (SunRail),
Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC), New Jersey Transit, New Mexico
Rail Runner Express, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain),
South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (Tri-Rail), and Trinity
Railway Express. This assessment was based on railroads' self-reported
progress as of June 30, 2018 (Quarterly PTC Progress Reports for
Quarter 2 of 2018). In September, I also sent similar letters
expressing concern to the relevant state departments of transportation
and governors.
FRA is working closely with all 41 railroads subject to the PTC
mandate, and FRA is actively engaging in frequent communication and
providing additional on-site technical assistance to the at-risk
railroads. Of course, all railroads subject to the mandate must pay
careful attention to the requirements for an alternative schedule if
they will not achieve full PTC system implementation by December 31,
2018, and must continue vigilantly working toward prompt PTC system
implementation.
As of September 25, 2018, three Class I railroads and one commuter
railroad have submitted formal written notifications requesting FRA's
approval of an alternative schedule, pursuant to the PTCEI Act's
procedural requirements. On September 5, 2018, FRA approved BNSF
Railway's request for an alternative schedule, based on its supporting
documentation related to the six statutory criteria necessary to
qualify for an alternative schedule. FRA is committed to complying with
the PTCEI Act's mandated review and decision period, requiring FRA to
issue a decision not later than 90 days from receipt of a railroad's
written request for FRA's approval of an alternative schedule. In
addition, in the interim, within 45 days of receipt of a railroad's
written request, the PTCEI Act requires FRA to provide the railroad, if
applicable, with: (1) a written notification of any deficiencies that
would prevent approval of the railroad's alternative schedule and (2)
an opportunity to correct the deficiencies before the 90-day period
expires. If a railroad demonstrates it has met all six applicable
statutory criteria, under the PTCEI Act, FRA shall approve the
railroad's alternative schedule for fully implementing a PTC system as
soon as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2020.
FRA has encouraged railroads to submit any formal requests for
FRA's approval of an alternative schedule, with the required supporting
documentation, as soon as they meet the six statutory criteria and are
eligible to submit the formal request required under the PTCEI Act.
III. Grant Funding and Financial Assistance
PTC technology is designed to provide important safety
improvements, but these systems come with significant costs, both in
terms of immediate acquisition and increased operations and maintenance
costs. Industry estimates PTC acquisition will exceed $14 billion, and
maintenance will cost 10 to 20 percent of annual capital costs. Since
2008, FRA has awarded approximately $961 million in grant funding to
support railroads' implementation of PTC systems. FRA also supported
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) with its evaluation and
selection of approximately $197 million in grant funding awarded to 17
commuter and intercity passenger railroads and state and local
governments for installation of PTC systems, which were announced on
May 31, 2017. More recently, on August 24, FRA selected 28 PTC
projects, including 13 commuter rail projects not usually eligible for
FRA funding, to receive $203.7 million under the Fiscal Year 2018
Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) grant
program. Given that applications for this funding were due July 2, I
would note that FRA worked tremendously hard to evaluate the
applications and make selections. Our hard work allowed us to make the
grant announcements two months after receipt of the applications. This
process can typically take up to six months or longer to complete.
Currently, FRA has two open funding opportunities that can further
aid railroads, states, and other stakeholders with implementing PTC as
well as other important safety and infrastructure needs: $318.4 million
under the broader Fiscal Year 2018 CRISI program, and $46.3 million for
the remaining funding under the PTC-specific Fiscal Year 2018 CRISI
program, applications for both funding opportunities are due October
12, 2018. And finally, FRA is evaluating applications submitted under
the $65.2 million Fiscal Year 2017 CRISI and $4.8 million Fiscal Year
2017 Restoration & Enhancements grant programs, and will be making
selection announcements in the near future.
In total, the sources of the approximately $1.16 billion in FRA and
FTA grant funding for PTC are:
$475 million from FRA's High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail
Grant Program;
$197 million in Section 3028 of the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act (FAST Act) funding;
$204 million in CRISI grant funding;
$0.3 million in a Special Transportation Circumstances
Grant;
$142 million in annual capital grant funding to Amtrak;
$86 million from FRA's Railroad Safety Technology Grant
Program;
$52 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant
funding to Amtrak; and
$2 million in Research and Development grants.
Additionally, in May 2015, FRA issued a $967.1 million loan to
Metropolitan Transportation Authority for Long Island Rail Road's and
Metro-North Railroad's implementation of PTC systems. And on December
8, 2017, the Build America Bureau closed on a $162 million
Transportation and Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan and a
$220 million Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing loan to
be issued to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority for PTC
system implementation.
In sum, thanks to the funding provided by Congress, the Department
has made available over $2.5 billion in grants and loans since 2008.
This amounts to nearly 20 percent of industry estimates for PTC
implementation costs.
IV. Enforcement of the PTC Implementation Mandate
FRA is committed to helping ensure that railroads implement PTC
systems as safely and expeditiously as possible, in accordance with the
congressional mandate. FRA is authorized to assess monetary civil
penalties against any railroad that fails to implement a PTC system by
the applicable statutory deadline (either December 31, 2018, or, if a
railroad has an approved alternative schedule, the applicable date not
later than December 31, 2020). FRA's civil penalty schedule recommends,
as guidance, a $16,000 civil penalty for a failure to timely complete
PTC implementation on a track segment where it is required. For any
violation of a Federal rail safety statute, regulation, or order,
however, the current statutory minimum civil penalty FRA may assess is
$853, and the ordinary statutory maximum is $27,904. FRA may assess a
civil penalty for each day the non-compliance continues, but FRA may
elect to take enforcement action on a one-time basis or each month,
quarter, year, or other interval of time during which the noncompliance
continues. FRA is currently considering all options, within the
framework established by law, to determine what type of enforcement
action will be most effective and appropriate under the circumstances.
Our goal is to ensure any enforcement action compels a railroad to
fully implement its PTC system as efficiently and safely as possible.
Also, I would like to note that in June and July 2018, FRA
initiated enforcement action against each of the 13 railroads that
failed to complete one or more of the end-of-2017 hardware installation
milestones and/or spectrum acquisition milestones the railroad
established in its PTC Implementation Plan. Consistent with FRA's
commitment to ensuring railroads comply with the statutory mandate,
including interim requirements, FRA's Notice of Probable Violation to
each of the 13 railroads proposed the maximum civil penalty for this
type of interim violation--i.e., a one-time civil penalty of $27,904.
Since this Administration took office, railroads have made
significant progress toward installing and implementing PTC systems.
From Quarter 1 of 2017 to Quarter 2 of 2018, railroads increased the
total amount of installed PTC system hardware from 77 percent to 97
percent. As of June 30, 2018, PTC systems are either in RSD or in
operation on approximately 37,705 route miles (i.e., 65 percent) of the
nearly 58,000 route miles that are subject to the statutory mandate.
Moving forward, FRA will continue to support and facilitate
railroads' implementation of PTC technology by utilizing the tools
afforded by Congress and providing extensive technical assistance and
guidance to railroads and suppliers. We remain vigilant in harnessing
and leveraging all the personnel, financial, and other resources
available to help expedite railroads' implementation efforts. We
appreciate the Committee's support for our critical programs, and we
welcome your continued partnership to advance rail safety and service.
I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Batory.
Next up is Ms. Fleming.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN FLEMING, DIRECTOR,
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES,
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Fleming. Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
provide an update on passenger railroads' implementation, and
FRA's oversight, of PTC.
As you know, PTC is one of the most promising technological
advances in rail safety in decades, and GAO has been closely
tracking and reporting on railroads and FRA's PTC efforts since
2010. As I testified in March, our work has shown that progress
toward full PTC implementation has been slow. This is
particularly true for most of the passenger railroads required
to implement PTC, which includes 28 commuter railroads and
Amtrak. In light of the many challenges, we have consistently
cautioned that some railroads may not meet required deadlines.
We are now fast approaching the revised deadline of December
2018 for railroads to either fully implement PTC or seek a
maximum extension of up to 2 years. Today, I will focus on
passenger railroads' implementation progress and FRA's efforts
to assist them, and how passenger railroads and FRA plan to
approach PTC implementation to meet the December 2018 and 2020
deadlines.
With respect to railroads' progress, we've found that,
while some passenger railroads continue to meet progress, many
remained in the implementation stages, meaning equipment
installation and initial field testing. As of June, roughly
two-thirds of passenger railroads required having installed
more than 90 percent of equipment on trains or alongside
tracks. FRA uses equipment implementation status to identify
railroads at risk of not meeting the 2018 deadline and not
qualifying for an extension. Nine railroads still remain on the
list.
Regarding testing, since I last testified, Amtrak reported
that it has initiated both field testing and the latter stage
of testing known as revenue service demonstration, or RSD. Some
of the 28 commuter railroads showed progress initiating field
testing, with six joining the 13 that already had done so, but
only two additional commuter railroads reported initiating RSD,
bringing that total to eight.
Initiating RSD is important, for several reasons. First, it
allows railroads to test trains operating PTC as part of their
regular options. Second, unless commuter railroads receive FRA
approval to use substitute criteria, they must initiate RSD by
year-end to qualify for an extension. In this regard, FRA's
recent clarification about substitute criteria may lessen
concerns, at least in the near term, about the 20 passenger
railroads that had yet to initiate RSD. Consistent with our
March recommendation, FRA held three symposia to discuss its
planned approach to extensions. There, FRA officials explained
that initiating field testing could potentially qualify as
substitute criteria. Railroad representatives we interviewed
welcomed this information, as well as FRA's willingness to
share lessons learned and provide informal feedback on draft
documentation. A few, however, wish FRA had shared this
information much sooner.
Turning to this year's deadline, we heard, from most
passenger railroads and FRA officials that the focus will be on
extensions. Eight passenger railroads anticipate reaching full
implementation by December. FRA has already conditionally
certified safety plans for most of these railroads. However,
even these railroads may or may not achieve full implementation
in all route miles by year's end. The remaining 21 railroads
told us that they or their hosts plan to apply for an
extension. As of September, only one had done so. Of the 12
commuter railroads that said they intend to use substitute
criteria, six already had requested and received FRA approval.
For those railroads that fail to meet either year-end
requirement, FRA officials said that the levying of potential
fines is a yet-to-be-made policy decision and will take into
account specific circumstances. Given that applying for an
extension appears to be the general approach rather than the
exception to the upcoming deadline, much work will need to be
accomplished to achieve full PTC implementation in the final
two-year window. Many railroads, for example, will need to
either initiate or complete field testing. To date, moving from
field testing to RSD has taken railroads an average of two
years to complete, and about a quarter told us that they had
encountered software bugs or other challenges related to the
maturity of the system.
Moreover, interoperability remains a great unknown. Almost
all railroads share track and, therefore, must ensure PTC
interoperability with at least one other railroad. Amtrak
shares track with 21. A number of passenger railroads
anticipate interoperability challenges, particularly in dense
urban areas, where railroads are at--or where railroads are at
different stages of implementation.
In turn, the upcoming surge of the submissions will
increase FRA's already substantial workload. In anticipation,
FRA has already allocated some internal-external resources, but
the challenges FRA faces will likely extend throughout the
final implementation period. FRA, itself, estimates that each
safety plan, alone, can take 6 months to 1 year to review. As
such, it will be important for FRA to prioritize resources
based on risk, as we recommended.
In conclusion, a decade after the tragic rail accident in
Chatsworth, California, it remains an open question whether
railroads and FRA are poised to complete the remaining work and
overcome the ongoing challenges facing them to achieve full
implementation by 2020.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I'd be
pleased to answer questions you or others may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fleming follows:]
Prepared Statement of Susan Fleming, Director, Physical Infrastructure,
United States Government Accountability Office
Highlights of GAO
Why GAO Did This Study
Forty railroads are currently required by statute to implement PTC,
a communications-based system designed to slow or stop a train that is
not being operated safely. Of these, 29 passenger railroads
collectively provide over 500 million passenger trips annually.
Although the deadline for PTC implementation is December 31, 2018,
railroads may receive a maximum 2-year extension to December 31, 2020,
if they meet certain statutory criteria.
GAO was asked to review passenger railroads' progress toward PTC
implementation. This statement discusses (1) passenger railroads' PTC
progress and FRA's steps to assist them, and (2) how passenger
railroads and FRA plan to approach the 2018 and 2020 deadlines. GAO
analyzed railroads' most recent quarterly reports covering activities
through June 30, 2018; sent a brief questionnaire to all 40 railroads;
and interviewed officials from FRA and 16 railroads, selected in part
based on those identified as at-risk by FRA.
What GAO Recommends
In March 2018, GAO recommended FRA take steps to systematically
communicate extension information to railroads and to use a risk-based
approach to prioritize agency resources and workload. FRA has taken
some steps to address these recommendations, such as recently
communicating and clarifying extension requirements to all railroads
during three symposiums. GAO will continue to monitor FRA's progress.
View GAO-19-135T. For more information, contact Susan Fleming at (202)
512-2834 or [email protected].
POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL
Most Passenger Railroads Expect to Request an Extension, and
Substantial Work Remains Beyond 2018
What GAO Found
As of June 30, 2018, passenger railroads (28 commuter railroads and
Amtrak) generally remained in the early stages of positive train
control (PTC) implementation--including equipment installation and
early field testing. However, many passenger railroads are nearing
completion of the equipment installation stage. For example, two-thirds
of passenger railroads reported being more than 90 percent complete
with equipment installation. With regard to testing, Amtrak has
reported that it has initiated both field testing and revenue service
demonstration (RSD), an advanced form of field testing that is required
to fully implement PTC. However, most commuter railroads reported
slower progress with testing. Of the 28 commuter railroads required to
implement PTC, 19 reported initiating field testing, but only eight
reported initiating RSD. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
recently clarified the criteria railroads must meet to qualify for a 2-
year extension past the December 31, 2018, PTC implementation deadline.
To receive an extension, railroads must meet six statutory criteria.
For the sixth criterion, commuter railroads are authorized to either
initiate RSD on at least one track segment or use FRA-approved
substitute criteria. FRA clarified these and other requirements at
three PTC symposiums hosted for railroads in summer 2018. For example,
FRA officials said that initiating field testing instead of RSD was one
approach that commuter railroads could potentially take to receive
FRA's approval of substitute criteria. FRA's actions are consistent
with GAO's March 2018 recommendation that the agency communicate to
railroads the requirements and process for an extension.
Challenges related to PTC implementation and FRA's resources raise
questions as to the extent FRA and the passenger railroad industry are
poised for full PTC implementation by December 31, 2020. Most passenger
railroads anticipate needing an extension, leaving substantial work for
both railroads and FRA to complete before the end of 2020. Almost
three-quarters of passenger railroads (21 of 29) reported that they, or
the railroad which owns the track on which they operate, will apply for
an extension. More than half of these railroads reported planning to
apply for an extension using substitute criteria, and of these, eight
intend to apply for substitute criteria based on field testing. Though
use of substitute criteria is authorized in law, this approach defers
time-intensive RSD testing into 2019 and beyond. In addition, passenger
railroads reported that they continue to face many of the same
challenges GAO previously identified, such as software defects and
limited industry-wide availability of vendors. Further, passenger
railroads expressed concern that FRA's workload will markedly increase
as railroads submit requests for extension approvals. FRA has
acknowledged concerns about the pending surge of submissions and agency
officials said they have taken recent steps to help manage the
forthcoming influx of documentation, such as reallocating resources.
However, as of September 21, 2018, only one passenger railroad had
applied for an extension. It remains unclear how many extension
requests FRA will receive or what FRA's enforcement strategy will be
for noncompliance with the statute, such as for railroads that fail to
apply for an extension by the deadline.
______
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the
Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work in reviewing
efforts by passenger railroads and the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) to implement positive train control (PTC). In September 2008--10
years ago last month--a commuter train and freight train collided in
the Chatsworth neighborhood of Los Angeles, California, resulting in 25
deaths and over 100 injuries. In the wake of this accident, legislation
was enacted requiring certain railroads to implement PTC--a
communications-based system designed to slow or stop a train that is
not being operated safely.\1\ Forty railroads are required to implement
PTC.\2\ These railroads include 28 commuter railroads and Amtrak, which
collectively provide over 500-million passenger trips annually.
Railroads that play a key role in our Nation's freight network must
also implement PTC, including the seven largest Class I and four Class
II and III freight railroads.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-432,
div. A, 112 Stat. 4848 (2008).
\2\ Specifically, these 40 railroads are currently subject to the
statutory mandate that requires the implementation of a PTC system on
certain main lines.
\3\ Freight railroads are classified by operating revenues. As of
2017, Class I railroads are those carriers with annual operating
revenues of $447.6 million or more. Class II railroads are carriers
with annual operating revenues of less than $447.6 million but in
excess of $35.8 million, and Class III railroads have annual carrier
operating revenues of $35.8 million or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we have previously reported, PTC implementation is a complex and
lengthy process, which touches almost every part of major rail lines
and almost every aspect of railroads' train operations.\4\ Each
implementing railroad must install more than 20 major components that
will ultimately communicate trains' locations, movements, and speed,
and then slow or stop a train that is not being operated safely. Full
implementation of PTC involves a number of steps, including but not
limited to: planning and system development, equipment installation,
testing, system certification, and achieving interoperability. Since
U.S. railroads often operate some or all of their trains as ``tenants''
on the track of another railroad, known as the ``host,''
interoperability is intended to enable trains that operate on the same
track to be governed by the PTC system and to move seamlessly across
track owned by different railroads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See GAO, Positive Train Control: Additional Authorities Could
Benefit Implementation, GAO-13-720 (Washington, D.C., Aug. 16, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When PTC implementation was mandated in 2008, the statutory
deadline for railroads' implementation was December 31, 2015. We
reported in September 2015 that nearly all railroads did not expect to
meet this deadline.\5\ In October 2015, Congress extended the deadline
to December 31, 2018, and established criteria that would enable FRA,
the agency responsible for overseeing PTC implementation, to grant
railroads meeting certain requirements an alternative schedule up to
year-end 2020.\6\ Throughout this statement we refer to the alternative
schedule as the ``extension.'' My testimony today discusses the efforts
of FRA and passenger railroads--which include commuter railroads and
Amtrak, an intercity passenger railroad--to implement PTC as the
December 31, 2018, deadline approaches and since we testified on PTC in
March 2018.\7\ My statement today will address (1) passenger railroads'
implementation progress and the steps that FRA has taken to assist
these railroads and (2) how passenger railroads and FRA plan to
approach PTC implementation to meet the December 2018 and December 2020
deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See GAO, Positive Train Control: Additional Oversight Needed As
Most Railroads Do Not Expect to Meet 2015 Implementation Deadline, GAO-
15-739 (Washington, D.C., Sept. 4, 2015).
\6\ The Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act
of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-73, Sec. 1302, 129 Stat. 568, 576-582 (2015),
codified at 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20157.
\7\ GAO, Positive Train Control: Many Commuter Railroads Still Have
Significant Additional Implementation Work and Opportunities Exist to
Provide Federal Assistance, GAO-18-367T (Washington, D.C., Mar. 1,
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To describe passenger railroads' progress, we analyzed the most
recent available quarterly PTC implementation reports that railroads
submitted to FRA, reports that reflected the progress as of June 30,
2018. We analyzed the reports to determine the extent that each
railroad has installed PTC hardware and initiated testing. Based on our
review of these data for anomalies, outliers, or missing information
and our previous assessment of such quarterly reports for our March
2018 testimony, we determined that these data were sufficiently
reliable for our purposes of describing railroads' progress in PTC
implementation. To describe passenger railroads' and FRA's progress and
approaches, we interviewed representatives from 16 railroads, including
the 12 railroads (11 commuter railroads and one Class III freight
railroad) that FRA identified in June 2018 as at risk of not having
implemented PTC or qualifying for an extension by December 31, 2018.
The remaining four railroads we interviewed were: Amtrak, which
provides intercity passenger rail service; two Class I freight
railroads, which were selected based on their relationships with tenant
railroads and substantial progress toward PTC implementation; and a
commuter railroad that received approval from FRA in March 2018 for an
exception from PTC system implementation.\8\ To describe how railroads
and FRA plan to approach PTC implementation for the December 2018 and
2020 deadlines, we sent 41 railroads a semi-structured
questionnaire.\9\ The questions we asked were based on the data
collection efforts from our March 2018 testimony. We analyzed
railroads' responses and summarized their plans and challenges into
common categories. To determine the stage of PTC implementation
railroads expected to reach by December 31, 2018, we considered
railroads' responses to our questionnaire, information provided in
interviews, and documents submitted to FRA regarding railroads' planned
implementation approaches, among other information. To describe
railroads' progress and FRA's actions to assist railroads, we
interviewed the industry associations for commuter (American Public
Transportation Association) and freight (Association of American
Railroads) railroads, and two PTC vendors. We also reviewed applicable
laws and FRA regulations, presentations, reports, and guidance and
interviewed FRA officials. While our audit work included Class I, II,
and III freight railroads, commuter railroads, and intercity passenger
rail, this statement is focused on passenger railroads'--commuter and
intercity--progress and approaches to meet the December 2018 and
December 2020 deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In March 2018, we reported that 41 railroads were required to
implement PTC. However, since then one commuter railroad received
approval from FRA for a main line track exception, meaning it is no
longer required to implement PTC. FRA can grant main line track
exceptions under certain conditions, such as through limited
operations. 49 C.F.R. Sec. 236.1019(c). In this case, a commuter
railroad reduced its regularly scheduled service by one train on one
day of the week to 12 regularly scheduled one-way trains per day.
Additionally, in September 2018, FRA approved a temporary main line
track exception for another commuter railroad. However, because this
exception is temporary and the railroad is still required to implement
PTC by December 31, 2020, we consider this railroad as one of the 29
passenger railroads required to install PTC.
\9\ We sent the questionnaire to all 40 railroads that are
currently required to install PTC and one commuter railroad that was
granted a main line track exception in March 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We conducted this performance audit from June 2018 to October 2018
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background
PTC systems are required by law to prevent certain types of
accidents or incidents. In particular, a PTC system must be designed to
prevent train-to-train collisions, derailments due to excessive speed,
incursions into work zone limits, and the movement of a train through a
switch left in the wrong position.\10\ While railroads may implement
any PTC system that meets these requirements, the majority of passenger
railroads are implementing one of four types of systems.\11\ PTC's
intended safety benefits can be fully achieved nationwide when all
required railroads have successfully installed PTC components, tested
that these components work together and the systems function as
designed, and are interoperable with other host and tenant railroads'
PTC systems that share track. Interoperability means the locomotives of
any host railroad and tenant railroad operating over the same track
segment will communicate with and respond to the PTC system, allowing
uninterrupted movements over property boundaries.\12\ Interoperability
is critical to PTC functioning properly given the complexity of the
rail network in the United States. In much of the country, Class I
freight railroads function as hosts for Amtrak and commuter railroads.
For example, one of the seven major Class I freight railroads reports
that 24 tenant railroads operate over its PTC-equipped tracks,
including freight, Amtrak, and commuter railroads. A notable exception
to this is the Northeast Corridor, which runs from Washington, D.C., to
Boston, Massachusetts, which Amtrak predominantly owns and over which
six freight and seven commuter railroads operate as tenants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-432,
div. A, 122 Stat. 4848 (2008).
\11\ The four primary types of PTC systems are the Interoperable
Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS); the Advanced Civil Speed
Enforcement System II; the Enhanced Automated Train Control (E-ATC);
and the Incremental Train Control System (ITCS).
\12\ See 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20157. With certain exceptions, full
implementation requires all controlling locomotives to be equipped with
a fully operative and functioning onboard PTC apparatus, including the
controlling locomotives for each host railroad and each tenant railroad
operating on a PTC-equipped track segment. 49 C.F.R. Sec. 236.1006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTC implementation involves multiple stages to achieve full
implementation, including planning and system development, equipment
installation and testing, system certification, and full deployment,
including interoperability. Each railroad must develop an FRA-approved
PTC implementation plan that includes project schedules and milestones
for certain activities, such as equipment installation.\13\ The
equipment installation stage involves many components, including
communication systems; hardware on locomotives and along the side of
the track (called ``wayside equipment''); and software in centralized
office locations as well as onboard the train and along the track.\14\
Each railroad is required to report quarterly and annually to FRA on
its PTC implementation status relative to its implementation plan.\15\
A railroad can also revise its implementation plan to reflect changes
to the project, which then must be reviewed and approved by FRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 required that
railroads submit an implementation plan by April 16, 2010. When the PTC
implementation deadline was extended to 2018 under the PTC Enforcement
and Implementation Act of 2015, railroads were required to submit a
revised implementation plan by January 27, 2016, to outline how and
when each railroad plans to achieve full PTC implementation.
\14\ See GAO-18-367T and GAO-15-739. In this statement, we use the
term locomotive generally to refer to any of the variety of vehicles,
such as cab cars and electric multiple unit trains, that commuter
railroads may need to equip. Wayside equipment includes items such as
communication towers or poles, switch position monitors, wayside
radios, wayside interface units, and base station radios.
\15\ To effectively monitor each railroad's progress implementing
PTC, FRA requires the submission of quarterly progress reports under
its investigative authorities, See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 20107,
20902, 20157(c)(2); 49 C.F.R. Sec. 236.1009(h). In addition, each
railroad is required to annually report to FRA on PTC implementation
progress in areas such as spectrum acquisition, installation progress,
and the total number of route miles where revenue service demonstration
has been initiated or PTC is in operation. See 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20157(c)
(1); 49 C.F.R. Sec. 236.1009(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, railroads must demonstrate that the PTC systems are
deployed safely and meet functional requirements through multiple
stages of testing. Before initiating testing on the general rail
system, railroads must submit a formal test request for FRA approval
that includes, among other things, the specific test procedures, dates
and locations for testing, and the effect the tests will have on
current operations. The multiple stages of PTC testing include:
Laboratory testing: locomotive and wayside equipment testing
in a lab environment to verify that individual components
function as designed.
Field testing: includes several different tests of
individual components and the overall system, such as testing
of each locomotive type to verify that it meets functional
requirements and field integration testing--a key
implementation milestone to verify that each PTC component is
integrated and functioning safely as designed.
Revenue service demonstration (RSD): an advanced form of
field testing in which the railroad operates PTC-equipped
trains in regular service under specific conditions.\16\ RSD is
intended to validate the performance of the PTC system as a
whole and to test the system under normal, real-world
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Results and data from RSD testing are also used to support the
safety case outlined in each host railroad's safety plan.
Interoperability testing: host and tenant railroads that
operate on the same track must work together to test
interoperability to ensure each railroad can operate seamlessly
across property boundaries. Almost all of the 40 railroads
currently required to implement PTC must demonstrate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
interoperability with at least one other railroad's PTC system.
Using results from field and RSD testing, combined with other
information, host railroads must then submit a safety plan to FRA for
approval.\17\ We have previously reported that these safety plans are
about 5,000 pages in length.\18\ Once FRA approves a safety plan, the
railroad receives PTC system certification, which is required for full
implementation, and is authorized to operate the PTC system in revenue
service. According to FRA officials, the FRA may impose conditions to
the PTC safety plan approval as necessary to ensure safety, resulting
in a conditional certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 49 C.F.R. Sec. 236.1015.
\18\ GAO-18-367T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroads may receive a maximum 2-year extension from FRA past the
December 31, 2018, deadline if they meet six criteria set forth in
statute. Specifically, railroads must demonstrate, to the satisfaction
of FRA, that they have: (1) installed all PTC system hardware
consistent with the total amounts identified in the railroad's
implementation plan; (2) acquired all necessary spectrum consistent
with the implementation plan;\19\ (3) completed required employee
training; (4) included in a revised implementation plan an alternative
schedule and sequence for implementing the PTC system as soon as
practicable but no later than December 31, 2020; (5) certified to FRA
that they will be in full compliance with PTC statutory requirements by
the date provided in the alternative schedule and sequence; and (6) for
Class I railroads and Amtrak, initiated RSD or implemented a PTC system
on more than 50 percent of the track they own or control that is
required to have PTC. For commuter and Class II and III railroads, the
sixth statutory criterion is to have either initiated RSD on at least
one territory required to have operations governed by a PTC system or
``met any other criteria established by the Secretary,'' which FRA
refers to as ``substitute'' criteria.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ PTC uses radio spectrum to communicate a train's location,
speed restrictions, and movements. Radio frequency spectrum is the
medium for wireless communications and supports a vast array of
commercial and governmental services. Commercial entities also use
radio frequency spectrum to provide a variety of wireless services,
including mobile voice and data.
\20\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20157(a)(3)(B). FRA defines a ``territory'' as
an entire installation/ track segment as identified in a railroad's PTC
implementation plan (e.g., a track segment, territory, subdivision,
district, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA is responsible for overseeing railroads' implementation of PTC,
and the agency monitors progress and provides direct assistance to
railroads implementing PTC. For example, FRA officials provide
technical assistance to railroads, address questions, and review
railroad-submitted documentation. FRA has a PTC Staff Director,
designated PTC specialists in the eight FRA regions, and additional
engineers and test monitors responsible for overseeing technical and
engineering aspects of implementation and reviewing railroads'
submissions and requests, as well as programmatic support staff. In
anticipation of the upcoming implementation deadline, in May 2017, FRA
began to send notification letters to railroads it determined were at
risk of both not meeting the December 31, 2018, implementation deadline
and not completing the requirements necessary to qualify for an
extension. FRA identified ``at-risk'' railroads by comparing a
railroad's hardware installation status to the total hardware required
for PTC implementation, according to the railroad's implementation
plan. FRA has increased the ``at-risk'' threshold percentage over time
as the deadline approaches. (See Table 1).
Table 1: Installation Thresholds Used over Time by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to Determine
Railroads At-Risk for Missing Positive Train Control (PTC) Implementation Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of railroad's
progress from quarterly Threshold of percentage of hardware installed Date of FRA at- Number of at-risk
reports used to relative to railroad's implementation plan-- risk letters sent railroads
determine whether at- below which railroads considered ``at-risk'' to railroads identified by FRA
risk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 31, 2016 50 May 2017 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 31, 2017 80 April 2018 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 31, 2018 85 June 2018 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 30, 2018 90 August 2018 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO presentation of Federal Railroad Administration information. / GAO-19-135T.
FRA has additional oversight tools, which include use of its
general civil penalty enforcement authority for failure to meet certain
statutory PTC requirements.\21\ FRA has used this authority in 2017 and
2018 to assess civil penalties, primarily against passenger railroads
that failed to comply with the equipment installation milestones, the
spectrum acquisition milestones, or both, that the railroads had
established in their implementation plans for the end of 2016 and 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20157(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of our body of work on PTC, we found that railroads face
numerous PTC implementation challenges and made recommendations to FRA
to improve its oversight of implementation. Specifically, in 2013 and
2015 we found that many railroads were struggling to make progress due
to a number of complex and interrelated challenges, such as developing
system components and identifying and correcting issues discovered
during testing. For example, we found in March 2018 that FRA had not
systematically communicated information or used a risk-based approach
to help commuter railroads prepare for the 2018 deadline or to qualify
for an extension.\22\ We also found that many railroads were concerned
about FRA's ability to review submitted documentation in a timely
manner, particularly given the length of some required documentation
such as safety plans and FRA's limited resources for document review.
In March 2018, we recommended FRA identify and adopt a method for
systematically communicating information to railroads and use a risk-
based approach to prioritize its resources and workload.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ GAO-18-367T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA agreed with our recommendations. Most recently, in September
2018, we testified on the status of railroads' implementation of
PTC.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See GAO, Positive Train Control: Most Railroads Expect to
Request an Extension, and Substantial Work Remains Beyond 2018, GAO-18-
692T (Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many Passenger Railroads Remain in Early Stages of PTC Implementation
and FRA Has Clarified Extension Requirements
Passenger Railroads Continue to Install and to Test PTC Systems, and
Report
Previously Identified Implementation Challenges
As of June 30, 2018, many passenger railroads reported that they
remain in the equipment installation and field-testing stages, which
are early stages of PTC implementation. However, since we testified in
March 2018, railroads have made progress on equipment installation.
Based on our analysis of the 40 railroads' reported status as of June
30, 2018, about half of the railroads have completed equipment
installation, and many others are nearing completion of this stage.
Specifically, 20 of the 29 passenger railroads reported being more than
90 percent complete with locomotive equipment installation. Nearly two-
thirds of passenger railroads that must install wayside equipment
reported being more than 90 percent complete.\24\ One-third of
passenger railroads are among those designated by FRA as at-risk of
both not meeting the end of 2018 implementation deadline and not
completing the requirements necessary to qualify for an extension.
Specifically, in August 2018, FRA identified nine railroads--all
commuter railroads--as at-risk, fewer than the 12 railroads FRA had
previously designated as at-risk in its June 2018 letters to railroads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ As of June 30, 2018, seven passenger railroads reported that
they were not required to install wayside equipment because either
their hosts were responsible for installation of wayside equipment, or
the PTC system being installed did not require it. We did not include
these railroads when we analyzed railroads' progress in wayside
equipment installation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since we reported in March 2018, Amtrak reported that it has
initiated both field testing and RSD, but most commuter railroads
reported slower progress with testing, especially with RSD. For
example:
Laboratory and initial field testing: 19 of 28 commuter
railroads reported having initiated this testing as of June 30,
2018; this number represents six more commuter railroads than
the 13 we previously reported as having initiated field testing
as of September 30, 2017.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See GAO-18-367T. We determined a railroad to have initiated
testing if it met one of the following criteria: (1) at least one track
segment reported as ``testing;'' (2) at least one track segment
reported as ``operational/complete;'' or (3) at least one route mile
reported as in testing. Accordingly, ``testing'' in this context
includes a range of testing activities from laboratory testing to on-
track field integration testing. Additionally, because field testing is
a prerequisite for RSD, these counts include some railroads that may
have also initiated RSD.
RSD testing: Eight of 28 commuter railroads reported
initiating RSD testing as of June 30, 2018; this number
represents two more commuter railroads than the six we
previously reported as having entered RSD testing as of
September 30, 2017. As noted earlier, unless a commuter
railroad receives approval for using substitute criteria, the
railroad must initiate RSD, a final stage of PTC testing, on at
least one territory by December 31, 2018, to qualify for an
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
extension.
Passenger railroad representatives reported that they continued to
face many of the same challenges we have previously identified,
including limited industry-wide availability of vendors and expertise
and software defects. For example, in response to our questionnaire, 12
of 29 passenger railroads reported challenges with PTC vendors and
contractors. One passenger railroad noted that because its contractor
manages PTC projects across the country with the same deadline and
requirements, it can be difficult for all railroads to get the
resources they need from their contractor. We previously reported that
there are a limited number of vendors available to design PTC systems,
provide software and hardware, and conduct testing. For example, we
reported in 2015 that, according to railroad industry representatives,
there were two vendors for the onboard train management computer and
three vendors for the wayside equipment.\26\ One small passenger
railroad recently testified that, because a single manufacturer was
providing PTC equipment and software to many railroads across the
country, it had to wait over a year for PTC equipment to be delivered
and installed. We also previously reported that railroads face software
challenges, and noted that railroads had concerns with the number of
defects identified during software testing, since these take time to
address. In response to our questionnaire, nine passenger railroads
reported encountering challenges related to maturity of the PTC
software systems, such as working through software bugs or defects
during testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ GAO-15-739.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As passenger railroads work to complete PTC implementation
activities, some have made service or schedule adjustments to
accommodate the need to install equipment or perform testing. Moreover,
several passenger railroads told us that as PTC implementation
schedules become more compressed, avoiding effects on passengers
becomes more difficult. We identified 10 passenger railroads that have
made changes to their operations due, in part, to PTC implementation,
including the six largest commuter railroads in the country, which
collectively reported over 400 million passenger trips in 2017. These
changes had effects such as reduced service or longer travel times.\27\
For example, one of the largest passenger railroads in the country
reduced service on certain routes and eliminated some express trains to
accommodate schedules enabling them to complete PTC equipment
installation prior to the December 2018 deadline. Another large
passenger railroad has shutdown weekend service--providing bus service
to transport passengers between stations--for PTC testing. Several
passenger railroads had to reduce service for equipment or track
installation or testing, resulting in fewer locomotives or less track
available for service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ We identified these service changes based on railroads'
responses to our questionnaire and in interviews and public statements
made by railroad officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA Has Recently Clarified Extension Requirements
In June, July, and August 2018, FRA held three PTC symposiums that
were attended by representatives from all 40 railroads and that focused
on the extension process and substitute criteria, PTC testing, and
safety plans, respectively. FRA's June 2018 symposium covered
information consistent with our March 2018 recommendation that the
agency adopt a method for systematically communicating information
related to the requirements and process for an extension to
railroads.\28\ Specifically, FRA presented information on the
procedures for requesting and obtaining FRA's approval for an extension
to implement PTC beyond the December 2018 deadline including FRA's
review process.\29\ FRA also clarified that for commuter railroads,
initiating field testing was one approach that could potentially
qualify as substitute criteria, rather than initiating RSD.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ GAO-18-367T.
\29\ FRA has 90 days to approve a railroad's alternative schedule
and sequence plan and provide notification to the railroad of its
decision. See 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20157(a)(3)(C); 49 C.F.R.
Sec. 236.1011(a), (c). Within 45 days of receiving notification of a
railroad's alternative schedule and sequence plans, FRA must provide to
the railroad notification of any deficiencies that would prevent FRA
approval and provide an opportunity to correct the deficiencies. 30
\30\ FRA officials note that each application for substitute
criteria is different, with different circumstances, and that
applications are evaluated individually on a case-by-case basis by FRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representatives we interviewed from the passenger railroads that
participated in the symposiums found them to be helpful, and some
passenger railroads reported that the information presented led them to
adjust their approach to meeting the December 2018 deadline. For
example, one passenger railroad representative we spoke to said that
until the symposium, he was unaware that using field testing as
substitute criteria was a potential option. Some passenger railroads we
met with also told us they are re-evaluating what activities and
documentation need to be revised and submitted to FRA before the
December 2018 deadline based on the information presented at the
symposiums. For example, representatives from one passenger railroad we
met with said that FRA officials encouraged them to update their PTC
implementation plan right away with current equipment installation
totals, to ensure consistency across all required documentation by the
end of 2018. A couple of passenger railroads noted that the information
presented at the symposiums clarified many questions and would have
been beneficial to know a year or two earlier in the implementation
process.
In addition, in recent months FRA has continued to provide
assistance to railroads and has taken a series of steps to better
prepare railroads for the 2018 deadline. These steps include meeting
regularly with individual railroads and developing approaches intended
to help many railroads meet the requirements necessary for a deadline
extension. For example, representatives from one commuter railroad said
agency officials have been willing to share lessons learned, clarify
requirements, and review draft documentation to provide informal
feedback.
Passenger Railroads and FRA Are Working toward Extensions, Leaving
Substantial Work to Be Completed Beyond 2018
Most Passenger Railroads Anticipate Needing an Extension, and Many Plan
to Start RSD Testing Beyond 2018
Almost three-quarters of passenger railroads (21 of 29) reported to
us that they plan to apply for an extension.\31\ Five passenger
railroads reported to us that they planned to submit their extension
request by the end of September 2018, but as of September 21, 2018,
only one had submitted the request and required documentation. However,
FRA officials noted that with the exception of possibly one or two
railroads, they anticipate that all passenger and freight railroads
will likely need an extension, and that railroads must submit their
requests by the end of the year to be considered in compliance with PTC
requirements. A railroad must demonstrate that it has met all of the
statutory criteria necessary to qualify before, or when, it formally
requests an extension. And as previously discussed, many railroads
remain in the early stages of PTC implementation. Of the eight
passenger railroads that anticipate reaching full implementation by
December 31, 2018, six are already operating under conditionally
certified safety plans; one has submitted its safety plan for review;
one plans to submit its safety plan to FRA in fall 2018 for
certification.\32\ FRA officials stated that it is unclear whether the
passenger railroads that have obtained conditional PTC System
Certification will have achieved full implementation on all route miles
by December 31, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ According to FRA officials, tenant-only railroads are not
required to apply for an extension but are covered under extensions
applied for and granted to their host railroad(s). Therefore, we
considered tenant railroads that told us that their hosts would be
applying for an extension on their behalf as part of the 21 railroads
cited here. This total includes two total tenant railroads that told us
that they would require an extension because one or more of their hosts
would not reach full implementation.
\32\ This includes some tenant railroads that are included in their
hosts' conditionally-certified safety plans and that have achieved, or
expect to achieve, full interoperability with those host(s).
Note: This graphic is based on railroads' self-reported
expectations and approaches to be in compliance by December 31, 2018.
Railroads may make more or less progress than expected. For tenant-only
railroads--railroads that only run on hosted track--we considered both
the tenant and the host railroads' reported expectations, including for
extensions, which, according to FRA, are generally applied for and
granted to host railroads but which also cover tenants.
a Railroads that were granted a temporary mainline track
exception may remain in the installation stage. FRA can grant main line
exceptions under certain conditions, such as through limited
operations. 49 C.F.R. Sec. 236.1019(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 21 passenger railroads that intend to apply for an
extension, more than half--all commuters--reported that they plan to
use substitute criteria to qualify.\33\ Moreover, two-thirds of the
commuter railroads (8 of 12) that plan to use substitute criteria
intend to apply to use their initiation of field integration or
functional testing as substitute criteria, and many of these will apply
to begin field testing on only a portion of their track.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ As previously mentioned, only commuter and Class II and III
freight railroads may apply for substitute criteria. Class I freight
railroads and Amtrak are not authorized to receive an extension using
substitute criteria. According to publicly available documents and FRA,
as of September 21, 2018, eight commuter railroads had submitted
substitute criteria applications to FRA for approval, and FRA had
approved seven.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1 depicts the stage of PTC implementation that passenger
railroads at least expect to reach by December 31, 2018, in order to be
in compliance with the deadline, based on railroads' responses to our
July/August 2018 questionnaire.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Although FRA has recently made clear that it is authorized to grant
extensions based on initiating field testing or other FRA-approved
substitute criteria, this approach defers time-intensive RSD testing
into 2019 and beyond. For example, one commuter railroad we met with
has applied for, and was granted approval by FRA to use, the initiation
of field testing on a 16.5-mile segment of track as substitute criteria
to qualify for an extension. That railroad must ultimately implement
PTC over 321 miles of track that it owns and operates over, meaning
that it will need to complete field testing, RSD, and interoperability
testing on the remaining 95 percent of its track and achieve system
certification prior to the 2020 deadline. In March 2018, we testified
that FRA officials told us that moving from the start of field testing
to the start of RSD can take between 1 and 3 years, and has averaged
about 2 years for those railroads that have completed that stage. We
also reported that FRA officials believe that most railroads
underestimate the amount of time needed for testing.\34\ FRA officials
told us that they do not consider railroads that are approved for an
extension under substitute criteria to be necessarily at a higher risk
of not completing PTC implementation by 2020. However, in light of
these time estimates and the unknown challenges that railroads may face
during testing, railroads that are in the early field-testing stage
moving into 2019 could face challenges completing PTC implementation by
the extended December 2020 deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ GAO-18-367T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroads further behind in PTC implementation may need to apply
for an extension due to factors such as compressed implementation
schedules, as well as the time needed for FRA approvals. For example,
representatives from one commuter railroad said that they hope to reach
RSD before the December 31, 2018, deadline, but that it would be
difficult to meet the extension requirements, apply for, and receive an
extension given the volume of paperwork FRA will be receiving at the
end of the year. Instead, the railroad plans to submit an extension
request using substitute criteria consisting of field testing in order
to be in compliance at the end of the year. Such an approach involves
first applying for and receiving approval for substitute criteria and
then formally requesting an extension and submitting supporting
documentation to FRA before the end of the year. Entering RSD prior to
the deadline could be difficult given that FRA officials told us they
have advised railroads to allow at least a month for FRA's review of
test requests, which must be approved prior to initiating field testing
and RSD.
Some passenger railroads also reported challenges regarding host
and tenant responsibilities, including coordination and
interoperability--which are likely to continue beyond 2018. Some
passenger railroads told us that coordinating with host or tenant
railroads that are in different implementation stages as the 2018
deadline approaches poses several challenges. For example, a few
passenger railroads told us that they are unable to conduct
interoperability testing because their host or tenant railroad has not
yet reached that stage of implementation. Additionally, officials from
Amtrak--which interoperates with 21 other railroads--noted that the
host-tenant relationship can be complicated and requires a high level
of coordination to resolve issues between railroads. Amtrak officials
also told us they were conducting risk assessments to determine whether
and how to continue service in situations where their host or tenant
railroad has not completed PTC implementation or met the requirements
necessary for an extension. While few passenger railroads have reached
the interoperability stage, one railroad association stated that
interoperability is, and will continue to be, a substantial challenge
for metropolitan areas with dense and complex rail networks with
several host-tenant relationships. For example, according to one
passenger railroad, 14 different freight and passenger railroads will
need to interoperate in the Chicago area.
FRA's Substantial Workload Remains a Concern
FRA's already substantial workload is expected to increase as
railroads continue to submit documentation necessary for extensions and
continue PTC implementation activities. FRA is focused on ensuring
railroads are in compliance by the December 2018 deadline--whether via
an extension or by completing implementation. While FRA officials
report that they anticipate almost all railroads will likely request an
extension, only one passenger railroad had submitted an application for
an extension as of September 21, 2018.\35\ FRA will need to review and
approve all related documentation associated with each extension
request and make a determination within 90 days, meaning if a railroad
were to submit its extension request on December 31, 2018, FRA would
have until the end of March 2019 to approve or deny the railroad's
extension request.\36\ In addition to extension requests and supporting
documentation, many passenger railroads will also be submitting to FRA:
requests for substitute criteria, test requests to initiate field
testing or RSD, revisions to PTC implementation plans, and PTC safety
plans. Some of these documents can be lengthy and require back and
forth between FRA and railroads before approval. For example, we
previously reported that PTC safety plans are about 5,000 pages in
length and take between 6 and 12 months for FRA to review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Three railroads--two Class I freight railroads and one
passenger railroad--had submitted an application for an extension as of
September 21, 2018. FRA has approved only one railroad's revised PTC
implementation plan and alternative schedule and sequence as of
September 21, 2018.
\36\ FRA officials noted that FRA's decision is based on whether
the railroad has met the statutory criteria for an alternative
schedule, and that if the requesting railroad meets all applicable
statutory criteria, FRA must approve the alternative schedule. 49
U.S.C. Sec. 20157(a)(3)(C). According to FRA officials, if FRA's review
and decision regarding a railroad's request for an alternative schedule
is pending on or after January 1, 2019, the statute extends the
December 31, 2018, deadline until the date of FRA's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help manage the forthcoming influx of documentation, FRA
officials have offered to review draft documentation, such as
substitute criteria requests and test requests, and have advised
railroads to take FRA's review times into account prior to submitting
required documentation. FRA officials told us that in trying to manage
their workload, they initially told railroads they did not have time to
review draft submittals. However, they found that taking the time to
conduct draft reviews ultimately led to higher quality formal
submittals and accelerated the overall review process. In addition, FRA
officials said that their goal is to not delay any railroad that is
ready to move into testing, and that they advised railroads to build 30
to 45 days for test request reviews into their project schedules.
Despite these efforts, some passenger railroads remain concerned
about the agency's ability to manage the PTC workload in the coming
months and beyond 2018. For example, seven of 29 passenger railroads
identified FRA's resources and review times as a challenge leading up
to the December 2018 deadline. In addition, three passenger railroads
reported that they would complete all the requirements for full PTC
implementation by the December 31, 2018, deadline, but planned to apply
for an extension due to concerns that FRA would not be able to review
and certify their safety plans to enable them to reach full
implementation prior to the deadline. Based on similar concerns, in
March 2018, we recommended FRA develop an approach to prioritize the
allocation of resources to address areas of greatest risk as railroads
work to complete PTC implementation.\37\ FRA has acknowledged the
railroads' concern given the surge of submissions requiring FRA
approval in 2018 and has reported the agency is reallocating existing
expertise and expanding the PTC workforce through training, expanding
contracts with existing support contractors, and initiating one
additional contract to provide technical support. For example, FRA
officials told us that they reallocated resources to shift PTC
specialists' responsibilities to focus exclusively on testing-related
activities because their involvement is critical for the testing stage.
Taking steps to prioritize limited resources will only increase in
importance as the amount of documentation needing FRA review continues
to grow in 2019 and 2020, as railroads move through testing and submit
complex and lengthy safety plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ GAO-18-367T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although FRA has taken steps to provide key extension information
to railroads and to help ensure railroads' compliance with PTC
deadlines, uncertainty remains, particularly in regard to FRA's
enforcement strategy if railroads are noncompliant with the PTC
implementation requirements, such as if railroads were to fail to apply
for an extension by the deadline. Representatives from all railroads
implementing PTC with whom we met told us that FRA's planned
enforcement approach for any railroad that fails to meet the
requirements for an extension beyond 2018 is unclear. FRA officials
told us they have shared the range of applicable civil penalties with
railroads for years,\38\ but that any policy decision about how
potential fines will be levied for non-compliant railroads has not yet
been made. In addition, it is also unclear how the agency would
approach enforcement for railroads that have a host or tenant operating
on their tracks that has not completed implementation or met the
requirements necessary for an extension. Ten of the 13 passenger
railroads we met with told us they do not currently have or see a need
to develop contingency plans. For example, representatives from one
passenger railroad said they did not have a contingency plan because
FRA has made clear they are committed to helping railroads comply with
the 2018 deadline. FRA officials said that the goal of enforcement is
to help bring all railroads into compliance and that they would look at
the specific circumstances for any host-tenant issues before assessing
a fine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ FRA officials noted that the schedule of civil penalties is
provided for in governing regulations. See 49 C.F.R. pt. 236, App. A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, almost all passenger railroads will likely request
an extension beyond 2018, which will require FRA approval. Many
commuter railroads plan to request substitute criteria which may result
in those railroads remaining in the early stages of PTC implementation
at the start of 2019. However, given that only one passenger railroad
has submitted an extension request, it is unlikely we will know how
many railroads will be granted an extension by the December 31, 2018
deadline. While few passenger railroads had developed contingency plans
when we met with them, as December nears and schedules become further
compressed, additional railroads may have to make service or schedule
adjustments to help them reach compliance with the deadline. Although
FRA has reported taking some actions in response to our March 2018
recommendation that they better prioritize resources, FRA resources and
review times remain a significant concern--both for near-term efforts
such as extension requests and for the safety plans that need to be
reviewed and certified prior to the end of 2020. These issues--combined
with the ongoing implementation, testing, and interoperability
challenges that a number of railroads reported to us--raise questions
as to the extent FRA and the Nation's passenger railroads are poised
for full PTC implementation by December 31, 2020.
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the
Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Fleming.
Mr. Corbett.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN CORBETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NJ TRANSIT
Mr. Corbett. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Thune and
Ranking Member Nelson and members of the Committee. Thank you
for providing this opportunity to speak on the important safety
enhancement of Positive Train Control and NJ TRANSIT's PTC
implementation program.
NJ Transit is the Nation's largest statewide public
transportation system. We provide more than 944,000 weekday
trips on 251 bus routes, three lite rail lines, 12 commuter
rail lines, and through Access Link paratransit service.
The Positive Train Control challenges that NJ TRANSIT faces
today were years in the making. To be blunt, they reflect years
of inattentiveness to implementing PTC. Let me be clear. The
single most critical mission we have at NJ Transit today is to
complete the installation of Positive Train Control and to meet
our Federal requirements by December 31. We are fully and
absolutely committed to doing everything possible in order to
meet that deadline.
What I found when I arrived in February was that seven
years had elapsed since NJ Transit awarded a contract to
install PTC. NJ Transit entered into a contract in 2011 with
our vendor for vehicle equipment installation to be completed
by 2015. Yet, by the end of 2017, the contractor had finished
equipping only 35 locomotives and cab control cars. Up until
2014, NJ TRANSIT had just a single full-time employee assigned
to PTC. From 2014 to 2016, there were only four employees
assigned full-time to the project. This was not nearly enough
to meet a mission-critical Federal deadline. So, when I came to
NJ TRANSIT, the program was just at 12 percent completion.
I am pleased to report that, in the past 7 months, we have
turned that around and achieved very real progress. We're now
over 70 percent complete toward meeting the December 31, 2018,
requirements to qualify for an alternative schedule under the
PTC law. And, for that, I would also want to thank Mr. Batory
and his staff for--at the Federal Railway Administration for
their technical help and guidance.
That said, we are still fighting a legacy of starting out
the year being far behind in the implementation of PTC.
Meanwhile, we also face the challenges of contractor capacity
and availability of materials and supplies, challenges that we
have heard also affect many other railroads across the country.
And we are challenged, simultaneously, by a shortage of
locomotive engineers. This situation was allowed to develop
over the same period at NJ TRANSIT, from 2011 through 2017.
Engineers are critical to making the equipment moves needed to
accomplish the PTC mission while we also run nearly 700 trains
each weekday.
But, I believe times of great challenge are also times of
great opportunity. Although NJ Transit will not receive full PT
certification until the end of 2020, we're working diligently
to qualify for the alternative schedule. We are working to
achieve this by installing all necessary PTC equipment by the
end of this year, training all necessary employees this year,
and continuing substantial field and other testing. These tasks
are laying the groundwork for beginning revenue service
demonstration.
As of Sunday, September 30, we now have 160 locomotives and
cab cars PTC-equipped. We have 82 percent of all required
wayside antennas, radio, and other equipment installed on the
railroad's right-of-ways, and we've trained 99 percent of all
engineers, signal technicians, and others who need to be PTC-
trained.
Achieving this progress has required a number of
significant actions, from increasing the labor force at our
installation facilities to making difficult rail service
adjustments so that locomotives and cab cars are available for
PTC equipment installation. The results have been, we've
accomplished more in the last 7 months than in the previous 7
years. There is much, much more to do. Failure to meet our
required number by December 31 is simply not an option.
Make no mistake, we are all aware of the serious
consequences to NJ Transit if we do not achieve these goals,
including possible FRA fines and restrictions on our ability to
operate on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. We have made, and
continue to make, significant changes to service to allow us to
meet our Federal requirements by the year-end despite the very
real disruption to the lives of our customers and commuters. So
far, we have reduced rail service twice, including the
temporary suspension on--of service on the entire Atlantic City
rail line. And we'll have further service reductions going into
effect on October 14. Making these kinds of service adjustments
is not a decision I take lightly, but they have been amongst
those necessary steps we've had to take to ensure we'd meet our
PTC milestones.
To sum up, we have made significant progress since the
start of the year, and we continue working to meet the
milestones still in front of us in order to reach our December
31 requirements and the 2020 schedule.
Chairman Thune and members of the Committee, thank you for
providing the opportunity to discuss these matters with you
today, and I'll be happy to take your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Corbett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin Corbett, Executive Director, NJ TRANSIT
Good morning, Chairman Thune and members of the Committee. Thank
you for providing this opportunity to speak on the important safety
enhancement of Positive Train Control and NJ TRANSIT's PTC
implementation program.
NJ TRANSIT is the Nation's largest statewide public transportation
system. We provide more than 944,000 weekday trips on 251 bus routes,
three light rail lines, 12 commuter rail lines, and through Access Link
paratransit service.
We are the third largest transit system in the country with 165
rail stations, 62 light rail stations, and more than 18,000 bus stops
linking major points in New Jersey, New York, and Philadelphia.
The Positive Train Control challenges that NJ TRANSIT faces today
were years in the making--to be blunt, they reflect years of
inattentiveness to implementing PTC.
But let me be clear--the single, most critical mission we have at
NJ TRANSIT is to complete the installation of Positive Train Control
and to meet our Federal requirements by December 31. We are fully and
absolutely committed to doing everything possible in order to meet the
deadline.
What I found when I arrived in February was that seven years had
elapsed since NJ TRANSIT awarded a contract to install PTC.
NJ TRANSIT entered into a contract in 2011 with our vendor for
vehicle equipment installation to be complete by 2015.
Yet--by the end of 2017--the contractor had finished equipping only
35 locomotives and cab cars.
Just 35 in all those years.
Up until 2014--NJ TRANSIT had just a single full-time employee
assigned to PTC. From 2014 to 2016, there were only four employees
assigned full time to the project.
This was not nearly enough to meet a mission critical Federal
deadline.
So when I came to NJ TRANSIT the program was at just 12 percent
completion.
I am pleased to report that in the past seven months we have turned
that around and achieved very real progress.
We're now over 70 percent complete toward meeting the December 31,
2018 requirements to qualify for an alternative schedule under the PTC
law.
And for that, I also want to thank Mr. Batory and his staff at the
Federal Railroad Administration for their technical help and guidance.
That said, we are still fighting that legacy of starting out the
year being far behind in the implementation of PTC.
Meanwhile, we also face the challenges of contractor capacity and
availability of materials and supplies, challenges that we have heard
also affect many other railroads across the country.
And we are challenged simultaneously by a shortage of locomotive
engineers. This situation was allowed to develop over that same period
at NJ TRANSIT from 2011 through 2017. Engineers are critical to making
the equipment moves needed to accomplish the PTC mission, while also
running our nearly 700 trains each weekday.
The confluence of these challenges--complex PTC installation,
contractor and supply constraints, and a depleted locomotive
engineering bench--has resulted in a large number of train
cancellations in recent months, and I know these have had a significant
impact on our customers.
But I believe that times of great challenge are also times of great
opportunity.
Although NJ TRANSIT will not receive full PTC certification until
the end of 2020, we are working diligently to qualify for an
alternative schedule.
We are working to achieve this by:
Installing all necessary PTC equipment by the end of this
year;
Training all necessary employees this year; and
Continuing substantial field and other testing.
These tests are laying the groundwork for beginning Revenue
Service Demonstration.
As of Sunday, September 30, we have gotten 160 locomotives and cab
cars PTC-equipped.
We have 82 percent of all required wayside antennas, radios, and
other equipment installed on the railroad rights-of-way.
And we've trained 99 percent of all the engineers, signal
technicians and others who need to be PTC-trained.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
* Although we've exceeded our target of 823 employees trained,
there are still 8 dispatchers that must be trained by year end.
Achieving this progress has required a number of significant
actions, from increasing the labor forces at our installation
facilities to making difficult rail service adjustments so that
locomotives and cab control cars are available for PTC equipment
installation.
The result has been that we've accomplished more in the last seven
months, than in the previous seven years.
There is much, much more to do. Failure to meet our required
numbers by December 31st is NOT an option.
Make no mistake; we are all aware of the serious consequences to NJ
TRANSIT if we do not achieve these goals--including FRA daily fines,
and restrictions on our ability to operate on Amtrak's Northeast
Corridor.
I should note, we are working closely with Amtrak to ensure NEC
operations continue while NJ TRANSIT moves toward full system
certification to be completed by the end of 2020. In fact, in
partnership with Amtrak, we will begin testing our systems on the NEC
this month.
We have made and continue to make significant changes to service to
allow us to meet our Federal requirements by the end of the year--
despite their very real disruption to the lives of our customers.
So far we have reduced rail service twice, including the temporary
suspension of service on the entire Atlantic City Rail Line.
And--we have further service reductions going into effect on
October 14th.
Making these types of service adjustments is not a decision I take
lightly--but they have been among those steps we've had to take to meet
our PTC milestones.
These service changes allow for the cycling of locomotives and cab
control cars throughout the system to our three installation
facilities, then on to testing at other locations, and then back into
service.
This is a complex logistical ballet, and it significantly reduces
the rail vehicles available for daily service. And it means some of the
already-depleted locomotive engineering force must be diverted to
complete PTC car movements.
I want to stress to our customers that when we complete our PTC
installations we will begin to reintroduce these regular rail services.
To sum up, we have made significant progress since the start of the
year, and we continue working to meet the milestones still in front of
us in order to reach our December 31st requirements and the 2020
schedule.
Chairman Thune and members of the Committee, thank you for
providing me the opportunity to discuss these matters with you today.
Now I am happy to take your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Corbett.
Mr. Naparstek.
STATEMENT OF SCOT NAPARSTEK, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
OPERATING OFFICER, AMTRAK
Mr. Naparstek. Good morning. I wish to thank Chairman Thune
and Ranking Member Nelson for hosting this important discussion
on Positive Train Control.
My name is Scot Naparstek, and I am Amtrak's Chief
Operating Officer. I joined Amtrak in 2012 and oversee 17,000
hard-working employees of Amtrak's operating departments. Our
workforce does a great job, and I am proud to represent them at
this hearing.
Today, I will provide an update on PTC, including its
operation on Amtrak-owned infrastructure, on other host
infrastructure, and our tenants' PTC operations on our
infrastructure. Amtrak has long been a leader in the
installation of PTC, having already deployed systems where we
control the tracks. We have been operating PTC on the Northeast
Corridor since December 31, 2015, and added the Harrisburg line
on March 2016. Amtrak is committed to running the safest
intercity passenger rail system we can for our customers and
employees, which requires PTC or PTC equivalency.
First, let me discuss the most straightforward scenario:
Amtrak trains operating over Amtrak infrastructure. In this
case, Amtrak plans to be fully PTC-ready and compliant by the
end of the year. We developed a detailed plan for every portion
of our network, and we are executing an aggressive yet
realistic plan which will enable the remaining third of the
route miles to be complete by December 31, 2018.
Second, I would like to discuss those places where Amtrak
is a tenant on other hosts' infrastructure. Fact, 96 percent of
our route miles are over tracks owned and maintained by other
railroads. For those tracks, we are cooperating with our
partner freight and commuter host railroads as they work to
complete PTC installations. We are currently interoperable with
five hosts. We anticipate several more before the deadline,
although this is dependent on host readiness. We expect there
will be 42 segments across our network where the host PTC
system is not ready for service by year's end. And if they meet
specific criteria, they will be able to apply for an
alternative schedule. This includes all the portions where PTC
is mandated by law but not ready by the deadline.
Additionally, the FRA permits railroads to seek mainline
track exclusion addendums if the operation meets certain
criteria. Consistent with our safety management system
methodology, we are conducting detailed risk assessments,
developed risk-mitigation measures addressing those areas
without a functional PTC system.
While this risk assessment mitigation plan development is
still underway, let me be clear that Amtrak's goal is to
continue to operate all of our services over all of our current
routes on January 1, 2019. How we accomplish this will vary
across their network, based on specifics of each route. At this
time, we believe we will have strategies in place that will
permit continued operations until PTC or PTC equivalency is
achieved everywhere.
Third, there are several freight and commuter railroads
that operate over Amtrak's infrastructure. For those railroads
that require an alternative schedule, Amtrak will work with FRA
and each railroad on a case-by-case basis, ensuring their
continued safe operations. Amtrak's goal is for all our tenants
to have operational PTC as soon as possible. However, we are
aware that disruption of commuter service when tenants are not
PTC-ready also has potential safety consequences. Amtrak is
working closely with these tenants to explore risk-mitigation
strategies that could be applied until they are fully operable.
Amtrak has worked for years to be ready for the upcoming
PTC deadline. When 2019 arrives, we will have our track,
computer, training, and locomotive work complete and operating
PTC across all the tracks we control. On January 1, 2019, we
anticipate that 90 percent of our trains across the entire
network will operate with PTC protection along some or all of
their routes. We expect the FRA to grant the remaining portions
an alternative schedule or an MTEA.
FRA informed Amtrak that we are required to apply for an
alternative schedule, since some of our tenants will not be
operational. Full implementation status cannot be achieved
until all tenants operating on Amtrak's PTC-equipped lines are
also PTC-compliant. This alternative schedule will enable us to
continue operating with compliant tenants while the finalized
testing of our systems with the systems of our hosts and
tenants.
PTC is not a silver bullet, and railroads alone cannot
solve all the safety issues, such as grade crossing and
trespasser accidents, which require efforts from local, State,
and Federal stakeholders. Still, we are confident that
achieving PTC or PTC-equivalent levels of safety across our
network will be a major safety achievement. It is our goal to
be the safest passenger railroad in North America.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today,
and I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Naparstek follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scot Naparstek, Chief Operating Officer,
National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Introduction
Good morning. I wish to thank Chairman Thune and Ranking Member
Nelson for hosting this important discussion on Positive Train Control
(PTC). My name is Scot Naparstek, and I am Amtrak's Chief Operating
Officer. I joined Amtrak in 2012, and currently oversee Amtrak's
operations, including the Transportation, Engineering, and Mechanical
departments, and their nearly 17,000 hardworking operating employees.
Our workforce does a great job and I am proud to represent them here
today, on behalf of our President and Chief Executive Officer Richard
Anderson, who previously testified before this Subcommittee in March of
this year.
PTC represents an essential next step for the rail industry to
improve safety of train operations, and it will make the entire U.S.
rail network safer for passengers, railroad employees, and the cities
and towns through which the national rail network traverses. Thus, we
have developed a policy of network-wide PTC or PTC-equivalency at
Amtrak. Simply stated, we believe that all of our trains and routes
should eventually be equipped with PTC or employ some other equivalent
suite of technology and operating practices that addresses the safety
risks that PTC helps to mitigate. Given the tragic incidents Amtrak has
experienced since the PTC mandate was enacted in 2008, particularly
relating to over-speed situations which are a risk regardless of the
amounts or types of traffic using a specific route, we think this is
the safest course and the right standard for the Nation's intercity
passenger rail carrier.
Amtrak has long been a leader in the installation of PTC, having
deployed systems where we control the tracks. We have been operating on
the Northeast Corridor (NEC) since December 31, 2015 and on the
Harrisburg line since March 2016. Amtrak is committed to running the
safest intercity passenger rail system we can for our customers and
employees.
Overview
Today, I will provide an update on PTC, including its operation on
Amtrak-owned infrastructure, Amtrak's PTC operation on other hosts'
infrastructure, and other tenants' PTC operations on Amtrak-owned
infrastructure.
As we have discussed with you before, PTC systems are designed to
provide protection from the following conditions: train-to-train
collisions; operating over misaligned switches; over-speed events; and
work zone incursions. While we acknowledge that PTC is complicated and
difficult to implement, Amtrak has made significant progress
implementing PTC across the routes and equipment we control. As of
September 24, 2018:
91 percent of the minimum number of Amtrak-owned locomotives
required for revenue service are fully equipped and PTC
operable,
126 of 142 installations on 114 state-owned locomotives and
cab cars that Amtrak operates or maintains are complete, and 57
are also tested, and PTC operable,
8 of 11 installation/track segments completed,
132 of 140 radio towers fully installed and equipped,
100 percent of employees trained as required per the PTC
Implementation Plan to run in revenue service,
607 of 901 route-miles in PTC operation, and
480 route-miles in testing.
We are proud of the work we have accomplished thus far and remain
focused on the work ahead to advance PTC as soon as possible.
Amtrak's Operations Are Unique
In many ways, the installation and deployment of PTC reflects the
complicated nature of railway operations in the United States. Multiple
companies and agencies must cooperate closely to ensure the safe,
reliable, timely operation of various types of trains across differing
networks. To integrate PTC into this complex environment has been a
significant undertaking for the industry and its suppliers. Amtrak and
its industry partners remain eager to bring this technology online, but
there is no way around the fact that it is a difficult process and has
required the dedication of significant resources, both in terms of
funding and of our personnel. Over the last few years Amtrak and many
other railroads have worked to develop complicated deployment plans,
and then rethink them, as various limitations became apparent.
At a scale unlike any other carrier in North America, Amtrak
operates over a large and complex network of various host railroads and
is also a host itself to numerous tenants. Our unusual role within the
industry reflects our unique origins, and while this presents a wide
range of challenges, it also creates opportunities for us to serve as a
leader in a number of important ways. For example, earlier this year
Amtrak organized and hosted PTC summits in Seattle, Washington and
Chicago, Illinois, which brought together freight railroads, commuter
railroads, government agencies, and vendors to focus on the challenges
of PTC implementation in those regions. These events have been followed
by an ongoing series of regular calls that have allowed the
participants to learn from one another, to share their latest
developments, to coordinate testing schedules, and to work through all
sorts of unexpected issues.
Amtrak has also worked hard to share our PTC expertise with our
partners. We have done this in ways both large and small, but two quick
examples include: preparing to install and commission PTC equipment on
thirteen locomotives for the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, ensuring those units will be ready in time for the
deadline; and conducting an engineering survey of the new Siemens
Charger locomotives that belong to the Illinois Department of
Transportation, so that they could fully understand what they need to
do to equip that fleet to become PTC-ready.
Our work across all these fronts and with so many partners has
enabled us to make significant progress, but it has also revealed a
number of limitations and bottlenecks. System federation and the
subsequent interoperability testing of the Interoperable Electronic
Train Management System (I-ETMS) PTC system are complicated tasks. By
definition, they depend on coordinating with external partners who are
facing their own time and resource constraints. As we have worked
through these issues, we have learned much that we expect will
streamline the work involved in the remaining portions.
Another issue that was raised in March's hearing that has continued
to present challenges is the limited number of vendors available to
support the industry. While Amtrak has developed significant PTC
expertise in the last few years, there are still times when we would
appreciate the ability to better utilize additional vendors to expedite
the installation, configuration, and testing of various PTC components.
There is simply not a deep reservoir of relevant expertise available to
the rail industry, which has resulted in all of the railroads turning
to the same small number of vendors seeking the same resources. To work
around this, we have worked hard to foster the necessary skills inside
of Amtrak, and we will continue to do so, but that is a slow and
expensive process.
Looking ahead to the upcoming December 31 deadline, let me address
three important environments so that you can fully understand where
Amtrak stands with its PTC deployment.
Amtrak PTC Operation on Amtrak-Owned Infrastructure
First, the most straightforward scenario Amtrak faces is when
Amtrak trains operate over Amtrak infrastructure. In this case, Amtrak
plans to be fully PTC ready and compliant by the end of this year.
Where Amtrak owns or operates the infrastructure, Amtrak is
responsible for all elements of the PTC system. These rail lines
include the following: 397 miles of the 457-mile Northeast Corridor
mainline between Washington and Boston; 105 miles between Philadelphia
and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; 232 miles between Porter, Indiana and
Dearborn, Michigan; 94 miles between Schenectady and Poughkeepsie, New
York; and 61 miles between New Haven, Connecticut and Springfield,
Massachusetts. We also own or operate another 12 miles of track near
our terminals, for example, in Chicago and New York. These segments
total 901 route-miles. Currently 605 of them have at least one wayside
PTC system installed and operational. We have developed a detailed plan
for every portion of our network, and we are executing an aggressive
yet realistic plan which will enable the remaining third of the route-
miles to be complete by December 31.
In some places where we host tenant operations over our tracks, at
the freight railroads' request, we are installing the freights'
standard I-ETMS PTC system on our infrastructure in parallel with
either our Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES) or ITCS
system, which will eliminate the requirement for them to install either
ACSES or the Incremental Train Control System (ITCS) PTC equipment on
their locomotives. Locations where this occurs include along the NEC
between Washington and Philadelphia, along the Keystone Line between
Frazer and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and the eastern, Michigan-owned
portion of the Michigan Line between Kalamazoo and Dearborn. 345 miles,
or roughly two-fifths, of our 901 route-miles will be equipped with
dual PTC systems.
Amtrak is dedicating significant attention to the segments where
PTC installation is not yet complete, such as the Springfield and
Hudson Lines. We hold regular cross-department meetings to ensure rapid
coordination in our efforts, as we are giving this work the highest
priority. While the timeline for these segments is indeed tight, we are
planning to complete these projects by the December 31 deadline.
For Amtrak locomotives, the process starts with installing the
necessary equipment for one or, in some cases, two different PTC
systems, and then running each unit through the necessary tests to
ensure the proper functioning and integration of the various elements,
which we call ``commissioning.'' Given the need for multiple PTC
systems in individual locomotives, we have added 535 systems to 443
units, and have completed commissioning on 459 of them. Again, we have
developed detailed plans and are confident we will have the
commissioning work done in time for the December 31 deadline.
So much of the discussion around PTC relates to the hardware, that
sometimes we do not properly convey how important training is to the
successful rollout of PTC across our operations. To ensure our
workforce is ready, we will need to provide training to, and ensure the
successful completion of, 5,142 qualifications. All of those
qualifications are complete. As some employees will need to be trained
on multiple systems, the number of qualifications is higher than the
specific number of people being trained. Of the overall total, 70
percent are for the train and engine crews who operate the trains, with
dispatchers, maintenance of way, and mechanical forces making up the
remainder.
Amtrak PTC Operation on Other Hosts' Infrastructure
The second operating environment I would like to cover is where
Amtrak is a tenant on other entities' infrastructure. Since Amtrak runs
96 percent of its route-miles over tracks owned and maintained by other
railroads, we have spent a great deal of time and effort preparing for
PTC operations on such areas. For the tracks we use but do not own or
control, we are cooperating with our freight and commuter host
railroads as they advance their obligations to complete PTC
installations. In these models, Amtrak is responsible for the
locomotive portion of the PTC system, which I have already addressed.
We are currently interoperable with five hosts and we anticipate
several more before the year-end deadline, although this is dependent
on each host railroad's readiness.
In places where the host's PTC system is not anticipated to be
ready for service by year's end, if they have made sufficient progress
with installation, they will be able to apply for an alternative
schedule. We anticipate this being the case on 42 segments across our
route network.
We have stayed in close contact with the various hosts to keep
apprised of the status of their PTC installation work, and the best
information we have now suggests that approved alternative schedules
will be in place for all of the portions of the network where PTC is
mandated by law and is not available on January 1, 2019. Additionally,
the FRA permits railroads to seek Mainline Track Exclusion Addendums
(MTEAs) if the operation meets certain criteria. An MTEA waives the
requirement for a railroad to install PTC.
To prepare for operations where PTC is not in service, we have been
conducting detailed risk assessments to enable us to develop an
appropriate array of risk mitigation measures to address those areas
that are not mitigated by a functional PTC system, consistent with our
Safety Management System methodology. Starting in late spring, our
safety team began a detailed, cross-departmental process of reviewing
every portion of our network falling in one of two categories: places
where an MTEA is present or places where we had reason to believe PTC
is mandated but the railroads will qualify for an alternative schedule.
Ten members of the safety team lead these assessments.
They work with their Engineering and Transportation colleagues to
develop detailed profiles of each location under review, covering at
least 4,200 miles of track. Each assessment defines the segment under
review, with an emphasis on the physical characteristics of the
territory, including elements such as curves and speed restrictions. In
these instances, our Engineering department is performing analyses of
the sections of routes that have an approved MTEA using data acquired
from specialized train cars that take curvature and super-elevation
measurements of the track geometry. We then review the results of this
analysis to determine if there are any curves or other locations where
additional mitigations may be warranted to ensure that trains are
operated in accordance with Maximum Authorized Speeds. We also review
facing point switches as part of an inventory of the switches traversed
in each direction on each route. In the course of this inventory, we
identify the means by which the switch is controlled and what, if any,
safeguards are already in place to warn dispatchers and approaching
trains of a misaligned switch.
The assessments also address operational factors and local traffic
volumes and traffic mixes. As the assessment is conducted, the team
quantifies potential risks both in terms of likelihood of occurrence
and the potential severity. This methodology is based on the means of
assessing risk contained in the Department of Defense Standard Practice
for System Safety contained in MIL-STD-882E, which is widely known and
referenced by Safety Professionals. The assessment team then develops
operational and technological recommendations to reduce risk in the
near-, middle-, and long-term, and works with Amtrak leadership to
ensure there is a clear, organization-wide understanding of the results
before any approvals are sought to adopt the recommendations. These
assessments are being worked through as quickly as possible while
ensuring the quality of the work, and those covering MTEA territory are
slated to be complete by the end of October, with the rest by the end
of the year. As this work is all above and beyond statutory
requirements, the timing is driven by our own Safety Management System
approach.
The central value of these assessments will be their role in
determining what mitigations will be necessary to adopt for a given
location over a given period to ensure Amtrak has a high degree of
confidence in our ability to operate the safest possible railroad,
short of the installation of PTC. We envision these potential
mitigations in three tiers or layers.
The first is made up of changes to our operations, which may go
beyond compliance with the host railroads' rulebooks to create a
greater safety margin for our operations. These changes, most of which
could be implemented almost immediately, could include reducing the
maximum speed of our trains, further reducing speed when we approach
facing point switches, or even changing the composition of our crews.
In some cases, these changes may impose delays on our trains, but we
believe that the additional level of safety is justified.
The second level of potential mitigations would be technological in
nature but would take the form of relatively simple infrastructural
changes that could be installed fairly quickly to add additional safety
measures. Examples of such mitigations include warning signs for the
crews, or new switch position indicators, both of which would provide
additional situational awareness for our employees. The idea is to add
these additional layers of mitigation to the system, which may then
allow us to remove or minimize some of the more inconvenient
operational mitigations we initially put in place.
The third and final layer of mitigations consists of more elaborate
technological solutions that would take more time to develop and
deploy. In many cases, we may determine that a full PTC system is the
best long-term solution to strengthening safety on a given route. In
other cases, we believe there may be various technologies, that when
coupled with the other mitigations I have mentioned, could offer what
we term ``PTC equivalency'' once they were ready. Many of the ideas in
this category are in early stages, and still have significant
operational and procedural issues that will need to be resolved.
Nonetheless, we are determined to be open to innovative approaches to
obtaining the benefits of PTC across all of our network.
While this risk analysis process and mitigation plan development is
still underway, let me be clear that Amtrak's goal is to continue to
operate all of our services over all of our current routes come January
1, 2019. Exactly how we accomplish this will vary across our network,
based on the specifics of each route, but I want to assure the
Committee that, at this time, we believe we will have strategies in
place that will permit us to continue operations until operational PTC
or PTC-equivalency is achieved for all of our network.
Other Tenants' PTC Operations on Amtrak-Owned Infrastructure
Third, there are several freight and commuter railroads that
operate over Amtrak's infrastructure, and for those railroads who may
require an extension from the FRA, Amtrak is prepared to work
collaboratively with the FRA and each railroad on a case-by-case basis
with the aim of ensuring their continued, safe operations.
Since the passage of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008,
Amtrak has worked closely with all NEC commuters to define the ACSES
design requirements. As the pioneer, Amtrak has led the way with
designing, testing, and implementing this system. We regularly share
the lessons we have learned with the commuter railroads. Additionally,
we share all of our documentation, including hardware and software
variance approvals, FCC license approvals, our PTC ACSES Implementation
Plan, and our PTC ACSES Safety Plan. We have provided all of our
testing information and documentation to the commuters to help them
develop their own test plans. We work carefully at the boundary
locations between our systems and those of the commuters. Amtrak has
set the standards for all ACSES PTC on the NEC.
These various freight and commuter railroads that operate over our
infrastructure must equip their rolling stock with PTC for use on our
railroad and we are working cooperatively with them to advance these
tasks. This cooperation, where applicable, primarily takes the form of
linking our server system with the server systems of each tenant.
Additionally, we then conduct interoperability field testing to verify
the proper functioning of all the elements to enable both Amtrak and
the tenant to develop confidence that the systems are working as
intended.
Along the NEC, we have ten tenants that will use Amtrak's ACSES PTC
system, and another two tenants that will use the freights' I-ETMS
system. This is another example of how the PTC tasks facing Amtrak are
complicated by the wide range of rail partners with whom we interface.
Off the corridor, we also have one freight railroad that will operate
over our tracks using both I-ETMS and ITCS, and three freight railroads
and one commuter railroad that we host that will use I-ETMS only, so
there are many different integrations that all must be verified for the
whole network to be ready. Presently on the NEC, our tenants
Connecticut DOT, CSX, MBTA, SEPTA, and the Providence & Worcester
Railroad have completed implementation and are currently operating with
fully functioning PTC on our routes. MARC and Norfolk Southern will
both be I-ETMS ready, but it is not clear yet if everything for PTC
operation will be in place before the deadline. Our sense is that NJ
Transit has significant work facing it before it will be PTC
operational.
Amtrak believes strongly in the value and importance of PTC and our
aim is to ensure that all of our tenants have an operational system as
soon as possible. Having said this, we are mindful of the impacts that
any disruption of commuter service may have on the regions we serve and
the potential safety consequences that could follow. Thus, Amtrak is
continuing to work with the FRA and any tenants who believe they may be
at risk of not having fully completed the installation and
commissioning of PTC equipment on their trains for use on our tracks.
We will work with these carriers and the FRA to explore, through our
Safety Management System process, the potential of risk mitigation
strategies that could be applied in such situations until full
installation and commissioning is achieved.
Next Steps
Amtrak has worked for years to be ready for the upcoming PTC
deadline. When 2019 arrives, we will have our track, computer,
training, and locomotive PTC work complete and we will be operating PTC
across all of the tracks we control and across much of the host
railroad network. Already 222 of our 315 daily trains currently operate
with PTC protection along some or all of their routes. On January 1,
2019, we anticipate that this number will climb to 283, or 90 percent,
with only those portions of the network which have been granted an
alternative schedule or an exemption by the FRA being without the
protection of this system for our trains.
Having said that, given the difficulty of completing testing with
so many freight and commuter partners and the potential for some
limited technical issues to arise during testing of the sort that often
accompany the initial operation of any complex technology, Amtrak will
be required to submit an application to the FRA for an alternative
schedule to enable us to continue operating while we finalize testing
of our system and the systems of our hosts and tenants. This
alternative schedule is required due to the FRA's interpretation of the
law that full implementation status cannot be achieved until all non-
Amtrak trains operating on Amtrak's PTC-equipped lines are also PTC-
compliant. However, to be considered fully implemented requires that
all other railroads operating across any of Amtrak's PTC-equipped lines
must be capable of operating with Amtrak's PTC system. This
interoperability of PTC systems between railroads remains a work in
progress and we are currently working with each railroad to assess this
work, so we can determine the appropriate alternative schedule
durations. In addition, as I mentioned, we will implement mitigation
measures that we develop for all those areas which will not have
operational PTC due to a host's alternative schedule of PTC exemption.
Strengthening safety is a continuous process. Amtrak's
responsibility is to lead safety across our industry and serve as good
stewards of the vital resources that we receive from Congress and the
Administration to help us implement these advancements. Likewise, PTC
is not a silver bullet and railroads alone cannot solve all of the
safety issues that face us, such as grade crossing and trespasser
accidents, which require a broader effort of local, state, and Federal
stakeholders to educate motorists and pedestrians, better equip
vulnerable crossings, limit public access to rights of way, and
strengthen enforcement. Still, we are confident that achieving PTC or
PTC-equivalent levels of safety across our network will be a major
achievement in the safety performance of intercity passenger rail. One
need look no further than our accident history to see the universal
benefits that PTC can bring to Amtrak and our industry. We look forward
to continuing to work with all of our partners to improve safety across
the rail network.
Conclusion
I have the highest confidence in Amtrak's dedicated workforce and
the commitment I see across our company to becomes the safest passenger
railroad in North America. While the challenges described today are
difficult, they can, and will, be overcome. At Amtrak, we owe our
customers, and your constituents, nothing less.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I
welcome your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Naparstek.
We'll get right into it.
Ms. Fleming, as you and Mr. Batory testified, FRA's last
quarterly report identified nine railroads most at risk of not
qualifying for an extension by December 31. Based on GAO's
review of those nine railroads, could you speak to which
railroads are most at risk of not qualifying for an extension,
and whose failure to qualify would have the largest impact on
commuters?
Ms. Fleming. Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned, there are nine
commuter railroads that FRA has identified at risk because they
have installed less than 90 percent of their equipment. Six of
those have installed less than 75. So, they obviously have a
lot of work to do to meet the December deadline. However, the
size and complexity of the railroads vary. ACE, for instant, is
a tenant-only railroad, so it only has a few locomotives to
equip, where my colleague, NJ TRANSIT, here, has a lot more to
do. They are obviously the largest railroad on the list. They
are the third-largest railroad in the country, based on
ridership. So, they have about 122 more locomotives to equip.
And if you do the math, they've been able to do about 30 a
month, with a very accelerated pace, so I think it's going to
be really challenging for them to meet the December deadline.
And, as schedules get more and more compressed, more impact to
service is likely.
The Chairman. And based on all the information you've seen,
are you expecting these railroads ultimately to fail to qualify
for an extension?
Ms. Fleming. You know, that's hard to say, because some
folks can meet their time-frame in an accelerated pace.
However, they're all vying for the same vendors. There are a
limited number of vendors. And they have certain criteria to
meet in order to qualify for the extension. Again, not all
railroads on the list are as large as New Jersey. Most of them
have just a--more equipment or installation along tracks. New
Jersey, I think, has the biggest mountain to climb.
The Chairman. Mr. Corbett, I understand that NJ TRANSIT is
making progress toward PTC implementation every week, as you
pointed out in your remarks. Do you expect NJ TRANSIT to fully
install all PTC hardware on the remaining 122 vehicles by the
2018 deadline and qualify for an extension?
Mr. Corbett. Yes, I do. At least that number.
The Chairman. OK.
Ms. Fleming, based on GAO's review of PTC implementation,
do you have thoughts or further insight you could provide on
the feasibility of NJ TRANSIT's plan to complete its vehicle
installation and qualify for an extension?
Ms. Fleming. You know, again, I think, in the past 6
months, they deserve credit because they've had a fairly
accelerated pace. But, again, they've only been able to do 30
locomotives. They have 122 more to do. They're having to deal
with vendor and even engineer shortages. And, at the same time,
they have to balance ongoing operations while trying to get all
this done. So, with compressed timeframes, I think the
likelihood of further service reductions, and even cuts, is
likely. And NJ, like other railroads, does not currently have a
contingency plan. So, I think that leaves that as a question:
If they don't meet the December deadline, what does that mean?
And I asked my colleague, FRA, because I think we've been
trying to get clarity about what is FRA's game plan if a
railroad like NJ does not meet the December deadline.
The Chairman. Yes.
And, Mr. Corbett, if you fail to qualify for an extension,
what extent do you expect further service disruptions?
Mr. Corbett. I think the service disruptions that I alluded
to, critically, that we've had already and that we'll be
implementing on October 14. They are painful for our customers,
no doubt about it. As a regular commuter myself, I certainly
can relate to that. But, the--it's an existential threat. We
take it that way. And we fully expect to be able to make that--
make the deadline. And those service cuts are, indeed, painful,
but necessary.
The Chairman. Mr. Naparstek, where NJ Transit operates over
Amtrak-owned track, does Amtrak have any specific mitigation or
contingency plans in place as it relates to NJT's qualifying
for a PTC extension beyond the end of the year?
Mr. Naparstek. So, you look at where NJ Transit runs on
Amtrak--they're our tenant, and us being the host--we will
apply for an alternative schedule that, by what we've been
informed with the FRA, will also qualify NJ Transit. We have
been encouraged by the progress we've seen over the last 6
months. However, we've also began to work with NJ Transit on
risk mitigation, so we've had several meetings, and we'll
continue. Our plan is to run NJ Transit as safely as possible,
come January 1, 2019, on our territory.
The Chairman. Mr. Batory, could you speak to what would
happen, this was mentioned earlier by Ms. Fleming, from a
service perspective, if a railroad fails to qualify for an
extension? For example, would service be expected to cease for
the noncompliant railroad? And how would FRA be enforcing any
such requirements?
Mr. Batory. Thank you, Chairman.
First, let me make this statement. It's a statement of
fact. America's railroads are safe today. We have a quarter of
a million Americans that operate and maintain today's
railroads. We dispatch nearly 30,000 train and engine
assignments every 24 hours. Now, that represents over 10
million assignments a year. And if you put it in context to the
airline industry that flies 16 to 17 million flights, the
railroad industry is very safe.
Now, after I make that statement, one accident is one
accident too many. And the railroads that are operating today
are required to have PTC in place, will continue to operate in
accordance with the rules and regulations set forth before
them, as well as their timetables, their operating rules, and
their bulletins, and their special instructions. There will not
be any cessation of service unless that carrier elects to do
it, itself. But, the FRA will not, and does not, have the
ability to impose that type of action after 12/31/18.
The Chairman. How about assessment of penalties, though?
Mr. Batory. When it comes to penalties, you know, this has
been a 10-year journey. It has been like a soap opera. And we
need to bring a conclusion to it and get PTC 1.0 behind us. And
when I look at the regulatory fine schedule, it's hard for me
to rationalize anything less than the maximum fine, which is,
roughly, about $27,000 a day. So, if you were to extrapolate
that on an annualized basis, it would represent about 9 to 10
million dollars. Now, hopefully, nobody's going to run the
clock out that far. And hopefully, nobody's even going to get
past 12/31/18. But, if they do, I would recommend nothing less
than what I've sometimes referred to as full retail.
The Chairman. OK.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Batory, I think trains are safe, just
like I think airplanes are safe. And I ride on both, a lot.
But, since Positive Train Control has been such an agonizing
thing for us to get the railroads to complete, have we not seen
accidents that would have been prevented, had there been PTC?
Mr. Batory. Yes, Senator Nelson, there have been some
accidents that could have been PTC-preventable. That is
correct. The one that, unfortunately, involved the train
between your home state and New York City, that happened in
Cayce, South Carolina, was, by the strictest interpretation--
and it's hard for me to say this, but it was not PTC-
preventable, because the system--the signal system that was in
place was approved to be temporarily abandoned rather than
installing a signal suspension system. And that set up the
stage for a human error that allowed a head-on collision.
Senator Nelson. Had PTC been in effect on that or on the
one that happened between here and New York, would that have
saved that collision?
Mr. Batory. It definitely would have. Yes, sir.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Naparstek, what is the status of PTC
implementation of Amtrak in Florida?
Mr. Naparstek. At this point, in Florida, we are working
with our hosts. We will be PTC-ready. We believe our hosts will
be granted an alternative schedule. And then, when they are
ready for interoperability testing, as soon as they are ready,
we'll be ready to test with them.
Senator Nelson. So, that means there will be a delay?
Mr. Naparstek. Likely be under an alternative schedule for
much of the track in Florida.
Senator Nelson. Is that what ``alternative schedule''
means?
Mr. Naparstek. Yes.
Senator Nelson. It's a delay past the deadline of December
2018.
Mr. Naparstek. Yes.
Senator Nelson. Do you think that's acceptable for Amtrak?
Mr. Naparstek. It is not our preferred, which is why what
we will be doing--anywhere that we will be running, on January
1, 2019, that is--either been provided an exemption under the
MTA provisions of the FRA or an alternative schedule, we will
be doing, through our own safety management system risk-
assessment process--we are doing risk assessments today, and we
want to level--we want to raise the bar on safety for those
routes.
Our goal at Amtrak will be, over time that we will have PTC
or an equivalent PTC technology system in place across all our
route miles. That will take us more time, but our goal is, even
where we have exemptions or we have alternative schedules, to
eventually fill all PTC to make sure all our routes have PTC.
Senator Nelson. OK. You have just described what seems to
me like some breaking news, that, since a lot of people ride
Amtrak in Florida, that it's going to be beyond December 2018.
So, would you give us a date when PTC is going to be
implemented?
Mr. Naparstek. I would have to get back to you, Senator. I
really need to check with the host railroads as to when they
would be ready.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix.]
Senator Nelson. Well, you called it an alternative
schedule. What is that schedule?
Mr. Naparstek. It's unfortunately, the host railroad for
us. The host railroad applies for the alternative schedule in
Florida, and we then go under that.
Senator Nelson. So, is it their fault? Is Amtrak held
hostage to the host railroad? And, in this case, who is the
host railroad?
Mr. Naparstek. There are at least two different Florida
railroads involved.
Senator Nelson. Name them.
Mr. Naparstek. One would be SunRail, and I'd have to get
back to you with the second, to be honest.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix.]
It escapes me at the moment. But, essentially, when they
are ready to--when they have installed the wayside, and when
they are ready to test it with us and our locomotives--so,
essentially, our role for being able to run on another
railroad's PTC system is to have our locomotives ready. And we
will have our locomotive ready. We have to wait for their
system to be able to communicate with our locomotives.
Mr. Batory. Senator Nelson, those railroads that you
wanted--SunRail is the southernmost piece, going into Miami.
You have CSX, and you have Norfolk Southern. Those are the
three.
Senator Nelson. OK.
Mr. Naparstek. There's Tri-Rail, as well.
Senator Nelson. Tri-Rail. So, Tri-Rail's in south Florida.
Tri-Rail runs between West Palm and Miami. SunRail runs to
Orlando, north and south of Orlando. And also, you said CSX,
and who was the fourth one?
Mr. Batory. Norfolk Southern.
Senator Nelson. Norfolk.
Mr. Naparstek. Yes. To clarify, Senator, as well, CSX will
actually be ready in two weeks for us to begin testing with
them. So, we should have no problem on CSX territory. It's
really SunRail and Tri-Rail, for us that we would be running
under alternative schedule.
Senator Nelson. So, I would like, if you would submit for
the record, please, the number of passengers that travel daily
on Tri-Rail and SunRail.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix.]
Senator Nelson. And I think those passengers should be
fully aware that PTC has not been implemented. And also, I
think that they need to have an idea of your, quote,
``alternative schedule'' of when it is going to be implemented.
I think that's the least that we can do to inform the citizens.
And I'm just talking about my state. I'm sure other Senators
have got situation, particular Senator Blumenthal, in the very
heavy traveled Northeast Corridor.
Mr. Corbett, in your testimony, you stated that 7 years had
elapsed since NJ Transit awarded a contract. And then, up until
2014, the agency had only one full-time person assigned to PTC.
Now, I know you said you started later, but give me your
opinion. How is this possible?
Mr. Corbett. Senator, I don't like to speculate on what
motivated people or contractors to do work or not do work. All
I can say is that, you know, I assume that they did not take
the existential threat that I took, in coming in on end of
February, as seriously. Maybe they thought the deadline would
move. Whatever. But, I have not--it is not for me--I don't look
back on what made their decisions. I've looked to the situation
that I arrived in, and what I needed to do to fix it.
Senator Nelson. I think what you're saying is, if it had
been a higher priority in New Jersey, that it would have gotten
completed quicker.
Mr. Corbett. Absolutely.
Senator Nelson. OK.
Thanks.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A number of us on this side, and others on the Republican
side, as well, have been staunch advocates over many years for
PTC. And I particularly want to commend my colleagues, Senators
Nelson and Klobuchar. Obviously, PTC technology is not a cure-
all, it's not a panacea. We've also worked on issues like rail
crossings, an area that Senator Klobuchar, in particular, has
worked on. And there's still a lot more work to do on all of
these areas of rail safety.
Before I ask about PTC, I want to focus, Mr. Batory, on
Gateway, which, in many respects, is as important to rail
safety as any other issue facing us. There is still no final
EIS and record of decision for the Gateway Tunnel Project. Can
you commit to us when they will be done?
Mr. Batory. Thank you for that question, Senator. And being
nearly a 20-year resident of New Jersey, I am very familiar
with the Northeast Corridor and many of the projects termed
``Gateway.''
Naturally, when I was confirmed, my interest was stimulated
to learn more about where we were with Gateway; in particular,
the more profiled infrastructure subjects of Portal Bridge and
then the Hudson Tunnel. In--through my learning experience of
the facts that I asked for--and I just want to characterize
it--when it's the--the Portal Bridge, which is a $1.6 billion
project, from the time the EIS was announced until it was
finalized took two and a half years. There was a modification--
--
Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Batory, I want to apologize to you,
because I only have five minutes.
Mr. Batory. Yes, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. I would like a commitment as to when
the final EIS and record of decision for the Gateway Project
may be done. This is an issue of national importance. I'm the
only member of the Northeast region here. I appreciate that
you're a resident of New Jersey. If you can't commit to me now,
I would like to ask you to put it in writing to us.
Mr. Batory. OK. We've currently consumed 28 months. Legal
sufficiency is behind us. And we're in the final chapters of
reaching final EIS.
Senator Blumenthal. Does that mean it will be done by the
end of the year?
Mr. Batory. I think that you would--could see something
probably coming forth--forthcoming during, maybe, first or
second quarter of next year, based on what?
Senator Blumenthal. Well, that's a long time and a very
vague answer. And, with all due respect, I'd like a more
definite answer, if that's possible, from you, in writing. The
second quarter of next year is a long time away. Again, very
respectfully, I realize that you, personally, can't produce it
alone, but it is an issue of vital national importance.
Mr. Batory. I respect that question, and we will get you an
answer.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix.]
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
I'd like to ask you--Ms. Fleming, you said that you're
still awaiting, in your words, ``clarity'' from the FRA as to
what they will do if the deadlines are not met. Mr. Batory said
that he would impose the maximum fine, I think, or was inclined
to impose the maximum fine of $27,000 a day. Does that provide
clarity? What else would you like to know?
Ms. Fleming. No, there are obviously advantages and
disadvantages to instituting fines, and that's within FRA's
purview.
Senator Blumenthal. If you'd turn on your mic.
Ms. Fleming. Oh, I'm sorry.
You know, I think the railroads are looking for clarity
about host/tenant relationships, you know, because, obviously,
we heard that that's a big issue for Amtrak and others. What
will happen if a rail doesn't meet the deadline or qualify?
They're also looking for some understanding about how FRA and
we are--we made a recommendation--how they will handle their
workload. I mean, there's a lot of things that will be coming
to them in the near months for--to meet the deadline: extension
substitute criteria testing. The next couple of years, they're
going to be getting safety plans. And, quite frankly, they're
stretched, like everybody else. And so, I think folks--some
railroads said that, ``We're pretty far along, but we're going
to apply for an extension, because we feel that there's going
to be some back-and-forth with FRA, and some delay, because
everything they have to do.'' They have to work with the
railroads that are still pretty far in the early stages, trying
to get them to move the pendulum, and while they're also
reviewing all these documents. Some of these documents are
5,000 pages. It's taken FRA 6 months to a year to review the
safety plan. So, we think they should kind of hit a pause
button and really put down pen to paper and think about some
way to try to target their resources and what are their highest
risk, highest priorities? So, I think those are the types of
things that we're looking for clarity.
Senator Blumenthal. I think that the Nation deserves
clarity. And I appreciate your hard work and the hard work of
the railroads that are meeting the deadlines and who are
devoting the resources and attention necessary to meet this
December 2018 deadline, which, itself, is an extension of past
deadlines. So, any further delay seems unacceptable.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Fischer.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Batory, earlier this year the FRA considered
12 railroads to be at risk of not meeting the PTC requirements
for that extension. In August, the FRA lowered the number of
at-risk railroads to nine. What changes took place at those
three railroads that moved them out of that at-risk category?
And are there any lessons to be learned from those three
railroads that could now be applied to the other nine?
Mr. Batory. The primary contributor to getting the three
railroads off were centered around equipment installation, both
wayside as well as onboard locomotive equipment, where they
were behind the curve. Part of this was contributed, as far as
the network of to-be-compliant railroads, having a small
boutique supply community to draw from. And, as a result, when
you find out that nearly 50 percent of the to-be-compliant
railroads did not engage a supplier until 2015, you can imagine
the demand that they put on that boutique supply industry. So,
that's how I would categorize the three that got eradicated.
I know we're pressed for time, but I'll share with you: the
remaining nine that we do have are, basically, in California,
Texas, Florida, and the Northeast Corridor. And one is already
getting a temporary exception. And then, you know, based on
what we're learning daily from these railroads, I'm of the
belief that we should see further decrease of railroads at risk
after third-quarter results come out.
Senator Fischer. When you say ``what we're learning from
these railroads,'' are you encouraging railroads to try and
innovate? Is the FRA supportive of railroads so that they can
seek to develop their PTC systems for further safety and
operational benefits?
Mr. Batory. We are definitely an advocate insofar as
further innovation and building upon and exploiting the value
of PTC 1.0. But, we've got to get the first platform in place.
There's a lot of enthusiasm, energy to take this technology
even further, but, before we take that second step, we have to
finish the first steps that we've initiated.
Senator Fischer. Do you see opportunities for the second
step for railroads to be able to innovate new ideas on their
own, as long as the FRA is able to validate that those ideas do
conform to the regulations?
Mr. Batory. Yes. And----
Senator Fischer. So, it's not a cookie-cutter existence,
going forward, maybe?
Mr. Batory. It's not a cookie-cutter. And the other thing
that we're very cautious about is giving guidance and input
from the collaboration of all of us--the railroads, government,
as well as the supply industry--so that we can exploit the
benefits of PTC, and keeping in mind that one concern is that
technology moves faster than the ink will dry. So, the last
thing we need to do is start regulatory proceedings on
technology, as far as advancement, because otherwise we're
going to suffocate technology in the railroad industry.
Senator Fischer. The FRA has to review and also issue a
decision on the railroads' request for an alternative schedule
within 90 days. How does the FRA plan to review and make
decisions on the alternative schedule applications that are
received either close to or on the December 31 deadline?
Mr. Batory. Right now, we have an inventory that we're
maintaining with all the to-be-compliant railroads. And the
alternative schedules, at this juncture, we have eight already
in our possession. We expect probably somewhere in the vicinity
of four to five this month. November, I can't recall the exact
number, but we have commitment, through December, that we're
going to have 32. And we're seeking commitment from the
balance, and talking to them. Now, as far as the process, we
have 90 days from the time in which we receive them. And we're
encouraging nothing--we--or, we're encouraging not to receive
everything on December 31, because this has a 90-day clock to
it and we have a--45 days in which to respond to the applicant,
and then 45 days after that to get resolution. So, that's why
we're trying to create a queuing, if you will, among all the
PTC-compliant railroads so that we don't have an undue burden
of workload on ourselves. And, regardless of what we have--and
I say this personally, with my own involvement--if you come by
the DOT buildings this winter, the lights will be on late.
Senator Fischer. OK. Thank you, Administrator.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
Senator Udall.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Thune, and thank you,
Ranking Member Nelson, for convening this hearing.
Positive Train Control, or PTC, technology is an important
safety measure both for passengers and for employees of the
trains. Mr. Naparstek, in previous hearings, Amtrak has
stated--and I--this is a quote, ``Amtrak's goal is to continue
to operate all of our services over all of our current routes,
come January 1, 2019.'' That's the end of the quote. I'd like
you to clarify, if that means continuing rail service, will
Amtrak commit publicly to stop pursuing the proposal of
replacing the train with buses for the Southwest Chief for
Fiscal Year 2019?
Mr. Naparstek. We are well aware of the Senate's position,
as well as the directive that is in Senate's version of the
2019 Appropriations Act. We plan on running the Southwest
Chief, as is, through Fiscal Year 2019. And we await the
Congress's dealing with the Southwest Chief issue during
conference as well as in the final spending bill.
Senator Udall. Yes, thank you very much for that
commitment. And I think it will make many of the Senators who
are here at the dais--Senator Moran and Senator Gardner--we've
worked in a bipartisan way to keep this going. We intended to,
obviously, go well beyond 2019. But, I reiterate the need for
Amtrak to work with the communities impacted to create a real
plan for the future of the Southwest Chief.
Amtrak leadership has repeatedly emphasized the need for a
significant amount of capital investment for this route. And
so, it would be particularly shortsighted to walk away from the
$16 million TIGER grant recently awarded to rehabilitate tracks
in southeast Colorado. In light of your stated commitment to
continue rail service between Dodge City, Kansas, and
Albuquerque, does Amtrak plan on releasing the $3 million match
in order that the $16 million TIGER grant intended to make the
route safer can be released? And, if so, when?
Mr. Naparstek. At this point, we are committed to continue
to work with the stakeholders and to try to find successful
resolution.
Senator Udall. And that means you'll release the $3 million
match--Amtrak will release that?
Mr. Naparstek. It means we'll continue to have discussion,
at this point, and try to understand the issues.
Senator Udall. Well, you're not--I ask you to answer the
question. I mean, do you--are you making a commitment to
release the $3 million match in order that the $16 million
TIGER grant can also be released?
Mr. Naparstek. What I'm committing to is to continue to
have discussion.
Senator Udall. OK. Well, I think you're going to hear more
about that from other Senators here.
The--Administrator Batory, thank you for your discussion
yesterday in my office. And I appreciate the efforts of you and
your team to ensure that the Rail Runner in New Mexico, our
passenger rail service, will continue to operate. As you're
aware, Amtrak has threatened to severely damage the Southwest
Chief by replacing the trains running from Dodge City, Kansas,
to Albuquerque, New Mexico, with buses because of, quote,
``safety concerns.'' But, I'm very skeptical that buses on
highways are a safer option. Just this August, we saw a
horrendous head-on collision involving a bus in New Mexico,
where eight people died, among many other serious injuries. In
your opinion, do you believe that PTC must be installed on the
track segment in question for the Southwest Chief, even though
there are no freight trains operating there? And why should we
think that buses would be safer?
Mr. Batory. Thank you, Senator.
I can't speak to the economic analysis of a train versus a
bus. From a safety----
Senator Udall. Safety.
Mr. Batory. From a----
Senator Udall. That's what I want you to----
Mr. Batory. From a----
Senator Udall.--focus on.
Mr. Batory. From a safety perspective, my confidence
resides, OK, on rail passenger. OK? It doesn't----
Senator Udall. You believe they're safer than buses?
Mr. Batory. Well, it doesn't--you don't need a steering
wheel.
Senator Udall. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Batory. It's on the rail. And as far as that particular
route structure and my familiarization of it, both pre-and
post-confirmation, it is a line segment that hosts primarily
intercity passenger--Lamy, going east--just west of Lamy, going
down to Albuquerque, there's a combination of intercity
passenger commuter, and then, once you get into Albuquerque,
going down to Belen, there's a sparse amount of freight that
comes up from Belen into Albuquerque, and the balance is
intercity freight and passenger.
PTC was asked for by Amtrak for an exception, and it was
granted, a number of years ago. There was also a request,
though, for an extension for New Mexico Rail Runner for PTC
because of economic infusion that they needed for the capital.
They put together a risk-mitigation plan that was endorsed by
Amtrak. It was endorsed by Burlington Northern Santa Fe. It was
endorsed by Santa Fe Southern. So, as a result of those three
endorsements and our evaluation of that line segment, we
granted them a temporary exception.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much. And I really appreciate
your intense interest in this. And I know that you've been out
there and toured a lot of the lines and assessed what's going
on. So, thank you very much for doing a very good job.
Mr. Batory. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Senator Moran.
STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Congratulations, to you and the Ranking Member, on what I
assume will occur later today, in the passage of FAA
reauthorization, a significant victory on behalf of aviation
and an indication that Congress can get its work done once in a
while. It's nice to get the end of the extensions behind us.
So, thank you for your leadership.
Mr. Naparstek, it's fortuitous that I get to follow the
Senator from New Mexico. And Senator Gardner is here, as well.
This is an important issue for us. Your answer was
disappointing to me in regard, particularly, to the $3 million.
I'm pleased to hear you say that Amtrak will continue to run,
operate the line in its current form through Fiscal Year 2019.
I think that's a positive development, something that we were
unaware of. And we'll continue to work to see that the
legislative efforts that we've undertaken are successful in the
conclusion. My understanding is that Amtrak is not lobbying
against our provision. And I would encourage you to continue.
And I'd ask you, I guess, to confirm that that's the case.
You're not going to work against us providing you money to
improve the track and operate the rail line.
The disappointing part is the $3 million. And it's really
the issue that got me interested in this topic. It caught my
attention, initially, because this is the third TIGER grant
that has been granted. Amtrak has been a partner in all three
of those. It originated in Kansas, followed by Colorado and now
by New Mexico. And, in each of those instances, Amtrak kept its
commitment to provide a portion to co-work with us and the
local communities and the states, who all put in money. Amtrak
put in the $3 million for Kansas. Amtrak put in the $3 million
in the Colorado TIGER grant application. And then you failed,
in my view, to live up to your word in following through your
commitment in that TIGER grant application. And I would ask you
to please come up with a more positive answer to this question
about $3 million. We do not want to lose the TIGER grant money,
and it would be a disadvantage to Amtrak in our ability to find
the resources to improve the track lines. So, that $3 million
is critical.
And Amtrak says it's interested in working with the
partners. I assume that means the railroad, the State of
Kansas, the State of Colorado, the State of New Mexico, and the
communities along that line. But, you could improve the ability
to work together if you kept your commitment on the $3 million.
It really sours, in my view, the conversation. Certainly, my
view of Amtrak's good faith would be enhanced if that $3
million commitment was kept.
Let me ask a question about Positive Train Control, the
subject of this hearing. Your CEO, Mr. Anderson, has told
members of this committee multiple times, both in person and in
writing, that Amtrak will stop running the trains on any track
that does not have PTC fully operational by the end of the
year. I assume that means that's not true, based upon what you
just testified to, because you're going to operate the
Southwest Chief through FY19. So, is that a fair summary of
what I should think?
Mr. Naparstek. We will--the route in which the Southwest
Chief operates on is either PTC-compliant, will be under
alternative schedule, or under an exemption, an MTEA. So, we'll
be within the regulation. Anywhere it's under an alternative
schedule or an MTEA, we will apply the risk-mitigation
methodology that I mentioned earlier to do what we can to raise
the level. And then our goal will be to become PTC--fully PTC-
compliant or PTC-equivalent across the route. If it's an
exempted route, we could look at PTC-equivalency as well as
compliancy. In many cases, equivalency will be PTC.
Senator Moran. So, I don't know whether that's a change in
Amtrak's official position, because I've been unable to
determine what that is. It seems to have changed. In the
absence of PTC compliance, Amtrak will continue to not only
operate Southwest Chief, that line, but other passenger rail
service across the country past December 31?
Mr. Naparstek. If we run into a situation where route fails
to either qualify for an alternative schedule, be exempted
under the MTEA, or is not PTC-compliant, we can't run. Federal
regulation would prohibit it. However, if we have--if the route
has met the regulation for either being PTC-compliant, being
exempted, or being under an alternative schedule, then we will
run. Where we don't have PTC-operable as of January 1, 2019, we
have already begun working on the risk-mitigations on the route
miles we know. And there are many underway. And it's something
we're working very hard----
Senator Moran. So, was my understanding of Amtrak's
position, which, in my view, has at least been said, although
somewhat retracted, that if you're not PTC-compliant, it
doesn't matter whether there's a waiver, we're not going to
operate passenger service. You're saying that's not true?
Mr. Naparstek. That statement is not--that's not our
position.
Senator Moran. OK.
My time is expired. I hope to stay long enough to continue
our conversation. But, I am pleased to hear what you had to say
in response to Senator Udall, and I appreciate you clarifying
for me: passenger service, in the absence of PTC compliance,
will work on the $3 million, please.
Mr. Naparstek. We are--we think continued conversation is
very important with all the external stakeholders. We also
think there is a very real and serious financial issue that
needs to be addressed.
Senator Moran. Understood. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Moran.
And you only have one more person that'll beat you up on
that issue before this is all said and done.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Blunt's up next, followed by Senator
Hassan.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
Administrator Batory, I understand that your previous
answer that all railroads would continue to operate, even if
they're not in compliance, with a fine up to $27,000 a day.
Will you make them enter into some kind of consent decree that
creates a timeline that they have to comply in? Beyond the
fine, what do you anticipate doing to see that everybody gets
in compliance?
Mr. Batory. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
At this juncture, I have not contemplated going down that
avenue, based on the energy and enthusiasm that I've seen in
the past year since I've been confirmed, among the railroads,
including the ones at risk. And assessing fines, as we already
have been assessing fines, but we'll be able to assess more
fines if the situation constitutes itself after the first of
the year, I think will be enough of an incentive to get this
brought to closure.
One thing, very briefly, I just want to share for everybody
in relation to PTC, when I talk about, ``Let's just get this
thing over with,'' what I have been able to ascertain through
staff--and we do this daily and weekly, OK? But, this is our
scorecard. And you can't--you know, it's hard to see, but, when
you go through this, the Class 1 railroads, to bring finality
to PTC 1.0, they have about another 20 percent to complete, as
far as steps. The commuter agencies, which is another group
that we look at, is hanging right around 40 percent. Amtrak,
okay, as far as host, not tenant, they are right around 80
percent or, excuse me, 70 percent complete. And they have three
different platforms of PTC. They have two different platforms
in Michigan, and then another platform here on the Northeast
Corridor. So, all that said is, I'm beginning to see daylight
at the end of the tunnel, but the question is how fast we can
get to the end of the tunnel?
Senator Blunt. I'm assuming that green is good on that
chart. There seemed to be a lot of green there, so that is a
good thing.
Mr. Batory. Yes, I deliberately avoided red. And I'm not
colorblind. But, when we first started this, there was a lot of
white. So, that's what I said. The industry has done a lot of
good things, and they should be commended for it.
Senator Blunt. Do you or anybody else have a view of the
liability for either the host or the tenant railroad? If you're
using a line that's not your line, who has liability if PTC is
not working on that line?
Mr. Batory. Each railroad has its own respective joint
facility agreements with each other. And there's numerous
provisions in liability. And it is going to be how the parties
address PTC in those respective agreements. But, liability is
already outlined in all those joint facility agreements,
nationwide, among the railroads. You will not find one railroad
operating on another railroad without a piece of paper
outlining why it's there and who is responsible for what.
Senator Blunt. And those agreements are all new enough
that--you have no reason to believe that PTC compliance wasn't
included in that agreement?
Mr. Batory. Those are confidential agreements among those
business entities, both public and private----
Senator Blunt. You have no reason to believe that PTC
compliance wasn't included in that agreement?
Mr. Batory. Not at this juncture, because PTC, even though
it has been a ten-year journey, these agreements go back, some
of them, you know, a century old.
Senator Blunt. Anybody else have any view on that you'd
like to share?
[No response.]
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
Senator Hassan.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
thank you and the Ranking Member for having this hearing today.
And thank you, to all the witnesses, for being here.
Mr. Batory, as you know, obstructive sleep apnea was a
causal factor in two separate commuter train derailments, in
September 2016 and January 2017. More than 200 people were
injured and one person died, collectively, in these two
derailments. Earlier this year, Robert Sumwalt, Chairman of the
National Transportation Safety Board, said he was, and this is
a quote, ``mystified by your agency's lack of action on sleep
apnea.'' I wrote you a letter in February on this topic, which
you responded to, stating that there was and this is a quote
from your letter, ``insufficient data to support a rulemaking
at this time.'' So, how does the National Transportation Safety
Board, whose primary job is to provide unbiased safety
recommendations, have sufficient information to know that the
Federal Railroad Administration should move forward, here, yet
the Federal Railroad Administration does not have sufficient
data?
Mr. Batory. Senator, my understanding, when the proposed
rulemaking for sleep apnea was, if you will, pulled down, it
was because there's two other vehicles in place. One is on the
threshold of emerging that is going to address a holistic
matter, the health issue of employees, which would be sleep
apnea, diabetic conditions to avoid diabetic coma, things of
that nature. And that is going to be in the system safety plan,
which covers the passenger sector. We are currently trying to
work through some issues with the states and with rail labor.
Then there is the risk-reduction plan, which is primarily for
the Federal railroads or the freight railroads, excuse me. And
that is now in the final stages and should emerge sometime late
this year or early next year. And that will address sleep apnea
as well as other health issues, as a whole.
Senator Hassan. That's a somewhat different answer than the
one you provided in your letter. So, I am glad folks are
working on it, but, when there is clear evidence that the NTSB
says really requires or calls for action, it would seem to me
you guys could deal with the sleep apnea right away.
Mr. Batory. In the----
Senator Hassan. And so, I will look forward to further
conversation about this. But, the evidence is really clear that
this is something we should be dealing with, and the first
letter I got back from you all was saying there was
insufficient data. And here, the NTSB says there is.
Mr. Batory. And also, another favorable subset to that is
the fact that many of the entities, both private and public,
are already addressing those health issues today without
regulation.
Senator Hassan. Well, I would like to, I will follow up
with you on it, because I think it shouldn't be up to private
carriers to decide whether they're going to screen or test
employees for this. This is a real safety issue, and I think it
needs to be treated with a level of urgency by your
administration. So, I will follow up with you on that. All
right?
Mr. Batory. Thank you.
Senator Hassan. I do have another question, and it goes to
PTC. You talked a little bit about this. In reviewing the
Federal Railroad Administration's Positive Train Control
dashboard online, it's clear that there is a huge disparity
between rail companies who have complied with the Positive
Train Control deadline and those who haven't. In tracking this
information, has the Federal Railroad Administration noticed
any patterns or trends that will help us uncover why
implementing this lifesaving technology seems to be much easier
for some railroads and more difficult for others?
Mr. Batory. Well, from my experience in the private sector,
and also the experience that I've garnered in a short time here
in Washington, one of the primary contributors--and it had
nothing to do with the quality of leadership was, if you will,
the absence of consistent, focused leadership. When you look at
the commuter agency----
Senator Hassan. Yes.
Mr. Batory.--there are railroads, such as SEPTA and
Metrolink, that have done an outstanding job. There are others,
when you look at it--and its public record--and you see how
many times the Chair has turned in leadership, you can imagine
what happens when you have changing leadership----
Senator Hassan. Yes.
Mr. Batory.--in a rotating basis.
Senator Hassan. Is there more Congress can do to aid all
the railroads to help them reach full implementation? I mean,
you've referred to leadership, but are there other things that
we really should be doing to get us to full implementation
faster?
Mr. Batory. No, I think your support and sponsorship of
what you brought forth through your statutes of 2008 and 2015
suffices and leave it up to the private and public sectors, OK,
to deliver what you expect.
Senator Hassan. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hassan.
Senator Gardner.
STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, to the witnesses, for your time and
testimony today.
I just want to follow up on the line of questioning from
Senators Udall and Moran. Mr. Naparstek, something that I think
I didn't quite hear the answer to, Senator Moran had asked you
whether or not you would be lobbying against our efforts in
Congress to continue work with the Southwest Chief. Was that a
yes or a no, you're not lobbying against those efforts?
Mr. Naparstek. We're not lobbying against it, we're waiting
for----
Senator Gardner. OK, so you're not to oppose it or involve
in the process to do that?
Mr. Naparstek. No. We've committed to FY19 running the
Southwest Chief.
Senator Gardner. So, a letter from Amtrak to the Colfax
County Commission in New Mexico last year ended with this
sentence, in the last paragraph, ``The advancement of the
Southwest Chief improvement project will not only significantly
improve our Nation's transportation infrastructure, but will
also contribute to the economic competitiveness of the United
States.'' Do you still agree with that assessment?
Mr. Naparstek. I think we agree that service over the line
is important. We've got a financial issue that we would like to
have discussions with stakeholders on. I think what we've
proposed all along wasn't the ending of the service, but maybe
service by different means.
Senator Gardner. Right. So, you're talking about buses. Can
you tell me what long route along routes are covered by buses
right now?
Mr. Naparstek. Around the Southwest Chief?
Senator Gardner. No. Any line in the country.
Mr. Naparstek. I could get back to you?
Senator Gardner. Well, would you ever consider the
Northeast Corridor being shifted to buses?
Is there any other long route along this route?
Mr. Naparstek. In terms of the actual line, probably not,
given the number of passengers, et cetera.
Senator Gardner. But, is there any other long-distance
route in the country that has shifted to buses?
Mr. Naparstek. I mean, I can get back to you with details.
We have bus service along a lot of routes.
Senator Gardner. But, a long-distance route, like the
Southwest Chief, like the Northeast Corridor, there's no other
route that has a bus system.
Mr. Naparstek. I mean, I would truthfully, Senator, I would
have to look at the route map.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix.]
Senator Gardner. The $3 million that were promised to the
folks on the Southwest Chief, what's happened to that money?
Mr. Naparstek. I mean, I can't specifically talk to $3
million, per se. Certainly, Amtrak, like any other
organization, especially as we're implementing things like PTC,
has more than enough needs to exceed the capacity of our
resources.
Senator Gardner. Was that money set aside, though? I mean,
because there seems to have been a pledge and a commitment made
by Amtrak for this money.
Mr. Naparstek. I can't speak specifically, to be honest,
Senator, to that $3 million.
Senator Gardner. Do you think it has been spent somewhere
else or given back to somebody?
Mr. Naparstek. Well, I mean, I think $3 million gets
utilized in several different ways. I don't necessarily think
there's a set-aside $3 million, as opposed to, is it the $3
million we should be spending right now? And, frankly, I think
our concern still remains the financial viability. We're in a
very----
Senator Gardner. But, don't you think that there was a
little bit of a promise made by Amtrak? Don't you think there
was some reliance made? I mean, you've had these states
spending millions of dollars.
Mr. Naparstek. Yes.
Senator Gardner. A letter here that says, ``Amtrak strongly
supports this application as a continuation of the already
funded portions of the Southwest Chief route improvement
project under TIGER 6 and 7.'' I mean, don't you think this is
a reliance on the word of Amtrak to fund this effort?
Mr. Naparstek. Yes, I can speak to the fact that, where our
concern gets into, as the--what will be the sole user over a
portion of that railroad, relatively 230 route miles, we would
be responsible for approximately 50 to 60 million in capital
right off for PTC. We also would become responsible for, I'm
going to estimate, and these are strictly estimates another 10
to 20 million dollars to bring the route to state of good
repair for the long term. There would be annual operating costs
of about 4 to 8 million dollars. These are very real concerns.
When we are in a resource situation, where we always have
more things to do, as to, where is the right place to pace that
money?
Senator Gardner. Do you think Amtrak is a national carrier?
Mr. Naparstek. Absolutely.
Senator Gardner. Does it risk, though, becoming just a
regional carrier, or perhaps just an East Coast carrier, if it
decides to shift away from routes like the Southwest Chief?
Mr. Naparstek. I think it--I think, as part of our mission,
it is our--it is part of what we should be doing to always
analyze the routes that we run. It isn't to say that we
shouldn't be running intercity across the Nation, but certainly
we should evaluate each route and understand what is best. Now,
we look at it in moving forward, we have the FAST Act
reauthorization coming up. And if we really believe, at this
point, that there is any substantial changes to either their
routes or to the intercity rail policy, that would be the place
for us to introduce it.
Senator Gardner. I certainly hope that Amtrak will ``reach
a resolution.'' I think a commitment was made by Amtrak to
states that put millions of dollars into this through their
taxpayers. Their taxpayers are paying for Amtrak as well as the
money they've put into this to partner with Amtrak. And I don't
think this has been a fair outcome by Amtrak to have withdrawn
its support. And I hope that we can get this resolved in that
area of the country. If Amtrak is going to be a national
carrier, then it needs to be a national carrier.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
If Senator Klobuchar asks about the Southwest Chief, I'll
know you're having a bad day. So.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much. No, that wasn't in
my plans, but thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. And thanks, to Senator Nelson, as well.
As you all know, the Service Transportation Safety Board
has included Positive Train Control on its Most-Wanted Safety
List every year from its inception in 1990 until the enactment
of the Rail Safety Improvement Act in 2008. And, according to
the GAO, only eight passenger railroads anticipate reaching
full implementation of PTC by the end of the year. So, we
clearly have work to do, here. I know it's important to the
people in my state. I will say that the Northstar commuter line
is on track in Minnesota to meet 100 percent of its PTC
obligations, but that is not the case, as I mentioned, for all
commuter lines.
The nationwide implementation of PTC, as you all know, is a
complicated process. Mr. Naparstek, as PTC is phased in, can
consumers find information from Amtrak on which routes have
PTC--are PTC-fully operational?
Mr. Naparstek. We certainly can make that information
available, especially as we get closer and closer to the
deadline. We----
Senator Klobuchar. OK.
Mr. Naparstek. At this point, we are making judgments based
on discussions with the FRA and the various hosts and tenants
we work with.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you.
While railroads have expertise in operations and regional
geography, most do not have employees well trained--and we've
talked about this before--in the intricacies of PTC, including
short-line railroads in my--in Minnesota. They brought this to
my attention. This means they're relying on outside experts and
consultants to help them meet the PTC deadlines. Because of the
high demand, some railroads have reported difficulty finding
reliable PTC consultants.
Ms. Fleming, in your reporting, have you found PTC
expertise to be a constraint on the railroads' ability to meet
their deadlines?
Ms. Fleming. You know, this continues to be a concern,
particularly given the number--limited number of vendors. There
are about seven vendors that are out there that have expertise
to help design the systems, software and hardware, and to help
conduct testing. So, you, basically, have demand exceeding
capacity. And this has resulted in some railroads, most
recently, ACE, sharing at a testimony that they had to wait a
year for their equipment to be installed and delivered. These
challenges are likely to continue in the future as people move
into the testing phase.
Senator Klobuchar. And how about certifications
obligations?
Ms. Fleming. Absolutely.
Senator Klobuchar. Do you think the FRA has that knowledge?
Ms. Fleming. Yes. You definitely are going to need to rely
on this limited pool boutique, I think, as my colleague has
called it--for these very important tasks. And----
Senator Klobuchar. So, how do you think we could resolve
this?
Ms. Fleming. Yes.
Senator Klobuchar. How do you think? Any ideas?
Anyone?
Ms. Fleming. I don't know how we resolve it. I mean, I
think, quite frankly, I think that's why you see so many
railroads planning to apply for an extension, because of these
issues and other issues. And I think that, you know, they're--
for some of these, particularly those that are in the early
stages, quite frankly, 2020 may be difficult for them to meet
that deadline.
Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Batory, what steps has the FRA taken
to ensure railroads have clarity on the interoperability
provisions?
Mr. Batory. Thank you, Senator. And that was a--that's a
great question.
Because what we're concentrating on right now, between, if
you will, 2015 and 12/31/18, has been the prerequisites
necessary to get PTC in place, which, basically, is wayside
installation, onboard equipment, what we call, with the freight
railroads, 50 percent or more of their lines PTC-equipped. But,
getting it to work, not only for the host, which we've seen a
great deal of success, interoperability is huge. And we just
finished, if you will, taking a read as to how many railroads
we've--would populate this interoperability issue. And it's in
excess of 250 railroads.
Senator Klobuchar. Wow.
Mr. Batory. And of all sizes. So, we're amalgamating a
group of experts, OK, that are going to disperse themselves
both east and west of the Mississippi and then specialize on
the Northeast Corridor to concentrate on interoperability.
Because part of the 2-year window that we have from 1/1/19
through 12/31/20, you have to have interoperability in place.
Senator Klobuchar. Right. OK. All right.
And my last question--and I'm over my time, but I can do it
in writing or talk to you later, Mr. Naparstek, and that's
about just rail crossings. And we got a provision, back in the
FAST Act to try to find best practices to mitigate risks. And I
just wonder if there's been improvement on that?
Mr. Chairman, if you could just have him answer for 30
seconds, here.
Mr. Naparstek. Boiling down rail--or grade crossing, two
things. And, certainly, funding would always help there. But,
the best grade crossing is one that doesn't exist. So, where we
can provide resources to engineer grade crossings that exist
out, that is the best solution. The second is, where you can't
find ways to engineer out, how do we make sure it has the
latest and the best active technology to do its best to protect
the crossing?
Senator Klobuchar. All right.
Thank you, all of you.
Ms. Fleming. Mr. Chairman, may I make a plug? We have a
report coming out in November on grade crossings, looking at
the factors that affect incidents and accidents, fatalities,
what are some of the best practices out there, and what are
some of the challenges, and how do we move the pendulum a
little bit better. So, that's coming out early November.
Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you.
The Chairman. We'll look forward to seeing it.
Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Cantwell.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
thank you, again, and your staff and the Ranking Member Nelson
and staff, for getting the FAA bill done. It's a very important
bill for infrastructure investment for the United States, both
in NextGen and in the airport facilities. And so, so appreciate
all the hard work that went into that legislation.
I wanted to ask the witnesses--obviously, there has been
some progress by FRA and the railroads on improving PTC
implementation. I am concerned that about three-quarters of
passenger railroads will be seeking an extension past that
deadline. And that's obviously been what some of my colleagues
have been asking about. I'm sure many of you were aware of the
incident that happened in our state, in DuPont, Washington,
when Amtrak Cascade 501 entered a curve that, basically, should
have only been 30 miles an hour, but it entered it at nearly 80
miles per hour, and we lost three lives and over 80 people were
injured. So, I know that, Mr. Batory, you said in your past
testimony, that there was a lack of urgency among some
railroads to expand and get this done. What else do we need to
do to make sure that people take this implementation seriously?
Mr. Batory. I can't speak to the past, but I can speak to
the current. As far as this situation being taken seriously, I
have no doubt in my mind that it's being taken seriously by all
the entities. And part of that is not only what we have done,
but what you have done in our--in support of the FRA, plus what
you're done directly with some of these entities. So, at this
juncture, I am encouraged----
Senator Cantwell. So, you think the urgency is there, even
though we're seeing a lot of extension-seekers?
Mr. Batory. Yes. And it--I--at one time, people were
submitting information to us that would say, ``Well, OK, I'll
have it all done by 12/31/18,'' or, ``I'll have it all done by
12/31/20.'' They were treating it like income tax, you know,
``I'll just file by 4/15.'' That has since changed. We have a
population of to-be-compliant railroads that are submitting
aggressive schedules to us. And we're being aggressive with
ourselves, internally.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I definitely believe in the
technology. I also believe in situational awareness, because
there is no reason why--on this bypass, my understanding is--
and we can ask Amtrak about that--there won't be any run on
that Defiance bypass until the PTC is fully tested and
operated.
Mr. Naparstek. That is absolutely true. We are at this
point, we're projecting beginning to run, potentially and I
think WSDOT and Sound Transit have made this announcement in
spring of 2019, but we would have PTC fully installed. In fact,
for Amtrak right now in the State of Washington, we are fully
PTC-operational.
Senator Cantwell. Except for that----
Mr. Naparstek. But, we actually are not running that
bypass----
Senator Cantwell. Right. Right. And so, that's my point.
And so----
Mr. Naparstek. We also will requalify all our crews. We're
going to--we have reassessed our entire certification program,
and all the crews in Washington will go through the
recertification.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you for that. I really
do think--obviously, we're so proud of where aviation has been
because of implementation of technology. We definitely think
this will help here. But, definitely want to make sure that
Amtrak is doing good situational awareness training for those
on those lines where you don't have PTC implemented yet.
But, if I could just switch over quickly to the rules on
highway rail grade crossings. I was just conferring with the
Chair. Definitely, our state is on the Pacific, and we are
shipping lots of products to the Pacific. It makes the increase
in volume so challenging, because we have a lot of at-grade
crossings. And I know that FRA is going to create a rule
requiring states to submit their own highway rail grade-
crossing plans. What is the status of that rule?
Mr. Batory. The finalization is yet to be forthcoming. It
will be a very comprehensive and proactive rule, the--with the
states to take, if you will, the next steps that can be
advantageous to protecting the public when they are not totally
aware of their surroundings and environment near railroad
crossings.
One thing that was very interesting I will share with you
is, when we first started inventorying grade crossings, back in
the early to mid-1970s, we had nearly 11,000--11-12,000
fatalities a year. We're now under 1,000. It's still 1,000 too
many. The Federal Government has contributed nearly $4.6
billion through the Federal Highway Administration to eliminate
grade crossings as well as improve grade crossings. We,
nationally, stand on the principles of engineering, education,
and enforcement, but that second ``E,'' education, it lives
forever, and that's something that we have to concentrate on.
And, insofar as engineering, we have to exploit technology and
look at other types of technology that we can overlay on our
existing grade-crossing protection to make it safer for the
general public.
Senator Cantwell. I know my time is expired. I will just
say, Mr. Chairman, so this is so important, because we do need
the model from you about what states should use. And this at-
grade crossing--in this instance, the city of Lakewood, which
sits, you know, on The Point Defiance Bypass that we're
discussing, where the incident occurred, they have seven at-
grade crossings just in their region. So, it is a lot of
challenge for a community. It's right where our Joint Base
Lewis-McChord is. And so, there's so much activity there. We
need to have the leadership of FRA and working with all of us
to make these improvements. So, thank you.
Mr. Batory. You have my commitment.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cortez Masto.
STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
And let me echo the words of Senator Cantwell. In Nevada,
as well, we've had too many fatalities. So, we are looking at
some leadership from FRA when it comes to the rule and how we
address the rail crossings, make them safe, and you're thinking
on this, moving forward. So, just want to make you aware of
that. We'll be following that.
Mr. Batory, let me follow up on something. Last
conversation, last time we talked, we talked a little bit about
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste and its
shipment across the rail lines. And I need some clarification
from you. I understand that the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration has identified this spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste as a Class 7, and
not a Class 6. Is that correct?
Mr. Batory. Senator, I'll have to get back with you on
that. I'm not in a position to answer with facts.
Senator Cortez Masto. OK. Here's my concern. My
understanding is that, if it's a Class 7, then the PTC
technology is not mandatory. And that concerns me. So, if you
could verify that for me and then get back to me and understand
why PTC would not be--and the technology would not be mandated
for a shipment of Class 7, this high-level radioactive waste, I
would sure like to know that.
Mr. Batory. Thank you, and I will.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix.]
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Mr. Naparstek, thank you for being here, as well. And this
may have come up--and I apologize, I was in another committee
hearing, so I wasn't able to be here for the full hearing--but,
in Nevada, Amtrak's California Zephyr service is very important
for us and our--for our annual ridership. In fact, there's
84,000 rides a year, I know, on the California Zephyr. It's
incredibly important throughout the state for transportation
purposes for so many people in our urban and rural areas,
particularly. I hear about it constantly from State leaders.
And so, my--I guess my question to you is--and I know Amtrak
doesn't own the track, but what progress has been made on the
implementation of PTC with your Class 1 partners in Nevada and
through the Zephyr line?
Mr. Naparstek. We will be fully operational on PTC by 12/
31/18.
Senator Cortez Masto. Oh.
Mr. Naparstek. By----
Senator Cortez Masto. That's fantastic.
Mr. Naparstek. By the deadline.
Senator Cortez Masto. OK. And will they--will there be any
changes in service through this process?
Mr. Naparstek. No.
Senator Cortez Masto. None at all.
Mr. Naparstek. No, none at all.
Senator Cortez Masto. All right. Thank you. I appreciate
that.
Ms. Fleming, in the conversation that you've heard today,
was there anything else that we should be aware of from your
report or anything that's coming out that hasn't been talked
about today?
Ms. Fleming. In terms of grade crossing?
Senator Cortez Masto. Grade crossings, PTC, anything that
we should be aware of, moving forward, that hasn't been
discussed.
Ms. Fleming. I think we've hit the big-ticket items. Again,
for us, it's--the concern that the railroads and we share is
how FRA is going to manage the workload while they work with
the remaining railroads. I think the testing phase takes a lot
longer than railroads assume. Our analysis shows it takes 1 to
3 years to kind of get through initial testing to RSD, where
you're actually in revenue service demonstration. So, our
concern is, you don't want to shortchange that phase, but, at
the same time, the clock is ticking----
Senator Cortez Masto. Right.
Ms. Fleming.--for a lot of these railroads, and putting the
pressure on, as everyone said. So, I think those are the big
issues that we've highlighted in our work.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Mr. Naparstek, are you familiar with the X Train?
Mr. Naparstek. I have a high-level understanding of that--
--
Senator Cortez Masto. OK. So, I'm just curious if you can
talk to me or all of us about--I appreciate the challenges that
you face, moving forward, but could you talk to me about what
the implementation or compliance with the PTC mandate might
have for service like the X Train in the future?
Mr. Naparstek. Well, for sure--essentially, it will be
between a host and a tenant, but anywhere that the rail
requires PTC for them to run new service on their rail would
require them to be equipped to run PTC.
Senator Cortez Masto. OK. Thank you.
And I know my time is running out. Mr. Batory--is it
``Batory''?
Mr. Batory. ``Batory.''
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. For the very
certifications and waivers, what are you communicating to the
railroads as far as timelines they should expect for your
safety professionals to review and respond to the documents?
Mr. Batory. Exceptions and--OK, let me address exceptions
first.
Exceptions is an outgrowth of the statute in the reg. Once
the reg. was developed, in 2010-2011, the preponderance of the
exceptions were filed in 2011 and 2012. There were a couple
that have been filed in the last couple years. Two this year.
We're up to 50. And they're all permanent, other than for the
Rail Runner in New Mexico, which is temporary.
As far as waivers, there are no waivers that we have
issued. OK? Now, we are reviewing the documentation for
alternative scheduling, which could be construed as a waiver
that gets you past 12/31/18. And, in that regard as I said, we
already have a schedule for 32 of the 41 to-be-compliant
railroads as to when their alternative scheduling requests are
coming in. We're seeking the remaining nine so that we can then
allocate our workforce accordingly and get responses back
within that 90-day window.
Senator Cortez Masto. OK. Thank you.
I notice my time is up. Thank you so much for being here
today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Duckworth.
STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Duckworth. I'd like to thank Chairman Thune and
Ranking Member Nelson for holding this very important hearing.
And I also want to thank today's witnesses for an honest
and frank discussion about where we are with PTC
implementation.
Mr. Naparstek, I want to thank Amtrak for working so
closely with my office to advance the Passenger Rail Crew
Protection Act that was considered favorably by this committee
in August. This bipartisan bill was--of North Dakota, will
improve public safety and discourage violence aboard Amtrak
trains. And it's really a commonsense effort that I hope we can
expand to other commuter operations in the future.
I also want to thank Amtrak for considering the needs of
traveling mothers by installing private and sanitary
breastfeeding accommodations at some of its facilities. In
fact, I was so pleasantly surprised, when I visited your
facility in Chicago, to find more than one breastfeeding
location, and including an exclusive breastfeeding pod. And, as
a working mom who often travels on Amtrak, I was--such a
pleasure to see that.
Included in the FAA Reauthorization Act that is expected to
reach the President's later--desk later this week, thanks, in
part, to the Chairman's leadership, is my Friendly Airports for
Mothers Act, or FAM Act. It requires large- and medium-hub
airports to include clean, safe, lactation rooms for nursing
moms, separate from bathrooms, in every terminal. And I can
appreciate that commercial airports and commuter rail stations
are not an apples-to-apples comparison, but I do hope that
Amtrak will engage with me to identify ways to ensure that all
major Amtrak facilities include appropriate accommodations for
breastfeeding women, as you have in the Chicago station. Will
you work with me toward this goal?
Mr. Naparstek. Absolutely. We look forward to having
discussions and to help with the goal. Fact, we have four
lactation stations in place today: Washington, D.C., Philly,
Baltimore, and Chicago. A fifth is underway for New York as the
renovations continue. It'll be placed in during the renovation
process.
I'd also like to personally thank you for the leadership on
the bill which helps protect our crews from assault. It's a
bill that we've long supported at Amtrak, and, frankly,
provides another level of safety for our passengers and for our
crews. So, thank you.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I am extremely proud of the hard work and
tough choices that our commuter rail system in northeastern
Illinois has undertaken to meet its PTC obligations. Metra has
consistently met its PTC benchmarks, despite significant budget
constraints and one of the most complex rail systems in the
Nation. And I recently toured Metra's 47th Street railcar shop,
where PTC components are being installed in each railcar. Their
skilled workforce is building some of these systems from the
ground up, and it's really amazing to see it in action.
Administrator Batory, I'm concerned that the commuter
systems that made tough decisions early on, like Metra,
investing in PTC when Federal support was not readily available
may be put at a disadvantage in the coming months as rail
systems that are behind schedule in other parts of the country
demand additional resources in order to meet the 2018 and 2020
deadlines. They didn't make the responsible, tough choices like
our system did in Chicago. How would you ensure that Federal
resources are getting to rail carriers in an appropriate and
equitable way so as not to punish those who acted early on
meeting their PTC requirements at the expense of their long-
term capital plans?
Mr. Batory. Thank you, Senator. And I agree with everything
you just shared. I spent an entire day with Metra and Norm
Carlson, the Chairman.
Senator Duckworth. They're great.
Mr. Batory. OK? They're great people. I've known them for a
number of years. And I thoroughly understand what they, along
with some other peer commuter agencies, have done across the
country. And they, basically, had to requeue themselves, as far
as capital demands, and--in satisfying what was before them
with PTC.
We, if you will, in a very fair, impartial,
nondiscriminatory basis, disseminate information all the time
to the private and public sector, as far as funds that can be
available through the Federal Government. And I know that that
has also drawn the attention of Metra management, Metra board,
director, leadership. And, you know, there's for instance, I'll
just talk about state-of-good-repair money. When you have a
line segment that Metra owns that operates from Chicago Union
Station going out toward Fox Lake, they own that railroad. It
hosts Amtrak. It fits the criteria. So, there are those types
of opportunities. And I'm encouraged with the attention that
they, as well as other such agencies, such as NICTD in northern
Indiana, as well as what's--has taken place in Boston with
MBTA. There is an awareness.
But, you are exactly right, there was money given, if you
will, to some of the ``laggers.'' But, we've got to get PTC in.
And, if money is the issue, let's resolve it.
One thing that was very enlightening, though, when--before
I was confirmed and we started hosting these face-to-face
meetings with all the railroads, there was only two railroads
that came through the door and said they needed money. And one
was in California, and the other one was in New Mexico. Now,
that's not to say the other 39 wouldn't have taken a check.
But, those two said they needed a check. So.
But, I share everything you said.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
I'm over time, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Duckworth.
Senator Markey.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
And you are right, it's a lifesaving technology, but it's
not free. So, you mentioned the MBTA, in Massachusetts, which
has, alone, invested over $500 million to implement PTC,
supported by $27 million of direct Federal investment and
nearly $400 million in Federal loans. And, after
implementation, the MBTA may have to spend tens of millions
more to operate and maintain this technology for decades to
come. So, while I'm proud that I have recently helped secure
$20 million of Federal investment to help the MBTA implement
PTC technologies, I am concerned that our commuter rails may
not have the resources or the tools to continue operating and
maintaining that system.
So, Mr. Chairman, is there a role for continuing Federal
assistance, investment for technical assistance for PTC
technologies to ensure we are operating and maintaining these
technologies effectively?
Mr. Administrator?
Mr. Batory. Thank you, Senator.
That is a question that doesn't have an answer yet, and
it's going to be answered primarily by each of the individual
railroads that are installing PTC, as far as the maintenance
and testing of PTC, going forward. As with any capital
investment, okay, there's a cost that follows. And the question
is, what is that number, and how many zeros are behind that
number? And it has been addressed in our dialogues with each of
the individual railroads, but, as I said, it's going, like,
down a blind alley. They don't know what the number is.
Senator Markey. OK.
Mr. Batory. But, it----
Senator Markey. Ms. Fleming, what do you think?
Ms. Fleming. You know, I think everybody's focusing on the
December deadline, either meeting it or qualifying for an
extension. That being said, we've heard from railroads that,
you know, they are wondering what it's going to take to keep
the operations and maintenance, whether there'll be Federal
funds, what the role for FRA will be. So--whether the
resources--the constrained resources will be in play.
Senator Markey. Let me continue. Thank you.
Mr. Corbett, do you need more Federal money to help you
solve this problem?
Mr. Corbett. Senator, I don't know a single transit system
in the United States that would say they don't need more money,
Federal and otherwise. But, I would say the--what we see at NJ
Transit as we're coming to where I see the end, really, of the
implementation phase, more the installation, is now, when we go
to operationalizing, and that's more complex issues----
Senator Markey. OK, good. Thank you.
Mr. Naparstek, more Federal money?
Mr. Naparstek. I would agree with the comments heard. You
could always use more Federal money. There's always a tradeoff.
And when you look at PTC, my operating costs--when I look at my
budget for the upcoming year, I had to increase my operating
costs. Therefore, I either offset it by reductions elsewhere or
I've got to ask for more money.
Senator Markey. OK, great.
So, while Congress required PTC to be implemented on
passenger rail lines by December 31 of this year, we did grant
the Federal Railroad Administration the authority to give
commuter rail lines a two-year extension if they demonstrate
sufficient progress. That's installed hardware, acquired
spectrum, field testing, and employee training. And I'm pleased
that the MBTA, the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority, has
made this progress. But, as the December 31 deadline to meet
these requirements rapidly approaches, I fear that the FRA may
not have enough resources or staff needed to process the
volumes of plans and documents, literally thousands of papers,
in a timely manner.
Mr. Administrator, are you confident that the FRA will be
able to process this volume of materials so that no commuter
rail line is deprived of an extension due to untimely review
and approval? And, if commuter rail lines are not granted this
extension, they could have to halt service altogether to avoid
extensive fines, leaving passengers stranded. Can you please
give us some assurances with all of the--for all of those
systems that are moving fast toward meeting the deadline?
Mr. Batory. Senator, I have total confidence with the
organization that I'm associated with, not only in quantity,
but more so on quality. And it's a learning experience every
day. When you first get your first document, if you will, and
then you understand what the laborious task is and what you
have to do to modify it to be more efficient, going forward.
Senator Markey. You are confident that you can meet----
Mr. Batory. I am.
Senator Markey.--the deadline?
Mr. Batory. Based on what I know today and what I--and what
we have planned, I am confident.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Markey.
I think we have exhausted the number of questions the
members want to ask here today, but I suspect you'll get some
written questions that you can take for the record.
But, we do appreciate very much all of you. Thank you for
your responses, for being here today, and for giving us a very
timely and needed update on where we are with respect to
implementation of Positive Train Control. It's an issue that
has enormous implications for transportation in this country,
and certainly for safety.
So, we would ask that, as you receive those responses, that
you get them back as soon as possible. I'll give you,
hopefully, here, a time when we would like to have them
responded to. We'll keep the record open for two weeks. So, if
you could get the responses back in two weeks, and we'll use
that to continue to build out the record of the hearing.
So, again, thank you all very much.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Ronald L. Batory
Question 1. Interoperability has been cited by many railroads as
one of, if not the most, significant challenge in the implementation of
PTC. In the Chicago area for example, many different freight and
passenger railroads will need to interoperate in order to reach full
implementation. What is the current status of testing interoperability
in the Chicago region and is achieving interoperability expected to
affect network fluidity or cause any service delays going forward?
Answer. In their Quarterly PTC Progress Reports for Quarter 1 of
2019, the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation
(Metra), the Belt Railway Company of Chicago, the Northern Indiana
Commuter Transportation District, and the Class I railroads in the
Chicago area conveyed that they are testing PTC system interoperability
with eleven distinct tenant railroads, as of March 31, 2019. To date,
these host railroads have not reported any specific PTC issues during
interoperability testing in the Chicago area.
On June 12, 2019, Amtrak informed FRA that their operations, as a
tenant railroad, are currently governed by a PTC system on
approximately 16,032 of the 19,119 route miles (84 percent) where
Amtrak operates on Class I railroads', commuter railroads', and other
host railroads' PTC-equipped main lines. Specifically, Amtrak reports
having achieved PTC system interoperability on the Chicago-area main
lines of BNSF Railway, CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern
Railway, and Union Pacific Railroad.
Many of the host and tenant railroads that operate on main lines
subject to the statutory mandate in the Chicago area meet regularly in
a working group to discuss, among other PTC-related issues,
interoperability testing and potential resolutions to any ongoing
challenges. A common theme discussed at these meetings is concern
regarding the communications bandwidth in the Chicago area. Many
railroads continue to install back-up communications (WiFi and
cellular) to supplement the radio communications. However, only when
PTC is fully implemented in the Chicago area will any performance
issues, such as network fluidity or service delays, be identified.
Question 2. What actions is FRA taking to prepare for the numerous
extension applications railroads will submit in the next few months?
Answer. As of March 5, 2019, FRA approved all 33 requests for an
alternative schedule and sequence, as each applicable railroad
sufficiently demonstrated it, at a minimum, met the six statutory
criteria necessary to qualify for an alternative schedule and sequence
under the statutory mandate. These 33 requests encompassed supporting
documentation submitted on behalf of 37 railroads, including four
additional tenant-only commuter railroads. FRA issued each decision in
advance of the Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation
Act of 2015's (PTCEI Act) 90-day decision deadline and, on average,
within 66 days of receipt. In addition, FRA notes that four 2 railroads
self-reported to FRA that they fully implemented an FRA-certified and
interoperable PTC system on their required main lines before December
31, 2018.
In order to comply with the PTCEI Act's required review and
decision deadlines, FRA developed a process to review railroads'
proposed alternative schedules and sequences under 49 U.S.C.
Sec. 20157(a)(3)(A). Within two weeks of receipt, FRA staff evaluated
whether a railroad sufficiently demonstrated it met each of the six
statutory criteria necessary to qualify for an alternative schedule and
sequence. If FRA identified any issues that would prevent approval of
the proposed alternative schedule and sequence, FRA proactively
notified the railroad and provided an initial opportunity to correct
any deficiencies and provide additional supporting documentation to
FRA.
If the deficiencies were widespread or complex in nature or if the
railroad was otherwise not able to immediately rectify the
deficiencies, FRA provided the railroad, as the PTCEI Act requires and
within 45 days of receipt of the railroad's written notification: (1) a
letter identifying and describing each deficiency that would prevent
FRA from approving the railroad's proposed alternative schedule and
sequence, and (2) an opportunity to correct the deficiencies before
FRA's final decision was issued, not later than 90 days from receipt of
the railroad's initial written notification. FRA's interim deficiency
letters are available for download in a railroad's public PTC docket.
As noted above, FRA complied with the PTCEI Act's mandated FRA review
and decision deadlines.
FRA's decision letters are posted in railroads' public PTC dockets
on https://www.regulations.gov, and hyperlinks to railroads' PTC
dockets are available on FRA's website at https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/
P0628.
In addition, to help ensure that FRA met the statutory review and
decision deadlines, FRA proactively provided technical assistance to
the Association of American Railroads, the American Public
Transportation Association, and their member railroads throughout 2018,
regarding multiple, industry-created templates for railroads' written
notifications under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20157(a)(3)(A). Also, FRA reviewed
and provided substantive feedback on draft documentation from at least
six railroads, including Class I and II railroads and commuter
railroads, and FRA's subject matter experts remain available to provide
technical assistance and answer any questions.
Question 3. As FRA is well aware, in addition to passenger
railroads and Class I railroads, many short line railroads also are in
the process of implementing PTC. What is the status of PTC
implementation among short-line railroads and are they are facing any
challenges in implementing PTC?
Answer. Pursuant to the statutory mandate, seven Class II or III,
short line, or terminal railroads must implement PTC systems on their
main lines that provide or host regularly scheduled intercity or
commuter rail passenger transportation. All seven railroads reported
that, as of December 31, 2018, they had installed 100 percent of the
PTC system hardware set forth in their PTC Implementation Plans. In
addition, as of December 31, 2018, one of these seven railroads was
operating its FRA-3 certified and interoperable PTC system in revenue
service, and the other six railroads are currently conducting FRA-
approved field testing of their PTC systems on the general rail
network.
The challenges that these railroads have generally conveyed to FRA
regarding full implementation of PTC systems are similar in nature to
the challenges commuter railroads and Class I railroads regularly
convey to FRA:
There is a limited number of PTC system vendors and
suppliers, all of which are significantly resource-constrained
and serving all railroads simultaneously;
As reliability and stability of PTC systems is still
immature, railroads are experiencing significant technical
issues with both PTC system hardware and PTC system software
that often take considerable time to diagnose and resolve,
impacting current operations in some cases; and
Achieving PTC system interoperability between host railroads
and tenant railroads will require significant joint testing,
configuration management, and multi-party coordination over the
next 17 months.
FRA recognizes that this question might also relate to the status
of Class II and III railroads that operate as tenant railroads on the
main lines of other host railroads that are subject to the statutory
mandate. In total, there are approximately 101 distinct tenant
railroads nationwide--including Amtrak, commuter railroads, and Class
I, II, and III railroads--that operate on another railroad's main line
that is subject to the statutory PTC mandate, according to host
railroads' current PTC Implementation Plans. Although there are
approximately 101 unique tenant railroads, FRA estimates that there are
approximately 227 interoperable relationships because, in many cases,
one tenant railroad operates on multiple PTC-equipped railroads. In May
2018, FRA began providing additional information on its website
(https://www.fra.dot.gov/ptc) specifically about each host railroad's
self-reported progress toward achieving interoperability with its
tenant railroads. In July 2018, FRA also issued a revised and
simplified guidance document that addresses interoperability testing
and the responsibilities of a host railroad and its tenant railroads
with respect to a host railroad's PTC Safety Plan and FRA's
certification of PTC systems.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federal Railroad Administration, Revised PTC Guidance Regarding
Interoperability Testing, Operations and Maintenance Manuals, and
Certification Responsibilities (July 24, 2018), available at https://
www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L19583#p1_z5_gD_IPO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout 2019 and 2020, FRA will continue to provide extensive
technical assistance to all applicable railroads regarding the
statutory and regulatory interoperability requirements. On April 23,
2019, FRA commenced a significant interoperability initiative by
sending a letter to each freight, non-Class I tenant railroad \2\ that
operates on at least one main line that is subject to the statutory PTC
mandate, according to host railroads' current FRA-approved PTC
Implementation Plans. From late May to early August of 2019, the FRA
Administrator and PTC subject matter experts are meeting individually
with each tenant railroad's executive leadership and PTC program
manager to offer technical assistance and discuss any challenges the
tenant railroad might currently be experiencing with respect to PTC
system implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This encompasses Class II, Class III, short line, switching,
terminal, and regional tenant railroads that operate on PTC-mandated
main lines.
Question 4. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018,
Congress appropriated approximately $593 million for the Consolidated
Rail Infrastructure & Safety Improvements grant program, which works
with private, state, and local investments to assist much-needed rail
projects across the country. Of these funds, $250 million was
specifically set aside for PTC, and $318 million was dedicated to fund
projects that improve freight and intercity passenger rail
transportation safety, efficiency, and reliability. Applications for
that $318 million, as well as applications for the remaining $46
million for PTC funding, are due on October 12. Acknowledging that we
are generally hearing that funding is not a central challenge for PTC
implementation right now, what is FRA's timeline for reviewing these
applications and awarding the CRISI money?
Answer. Due to the statutory PTC mandate's deadlines of December
31, 2018, and December 31, 2020, FRA prioritized its resources to award
the $250 million in CRISI grant funding specifically set aside for the
implementation of PTC systems as efficiently as possible.
FRA issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the $250
million in PTC Systems Grants in May 2018, and selections for 28
projects for a total of $203 million were announced in August 2018.
Because the program was initially undersubscribed, FRA then issued
another NOFO for the balance of the PTC-specific funding in September
2018, and FRA announced the second set of CRISI PTC Systems Grant
selections on December 21, 2018. FRA recently announced the selections
for the full CRISI program on June 12, 2019, including $326 million in
grant funding.
Question 5. One clarification that FRA has made with respect to
achieving full PTC implementation is that a host railroad must be
interoperable with all tenant railroads on its line in order for FRA to
consider them fully PTC compliant. Setting aside that interpretation,
does FRA believe that the Class I railroads otherwise have largely
succeeded in implementing PTC with at least one Class I railroad having
fully completed PTC implementation?
Answer. Yes, apart from meeting the interoperability requirements
under the statutory mandate, Class I railroads have made significant
progress toward implementing PTC systems on their main lines that are
subject to the statutory mandate. In their Quarterly PTC Progress
Reports for Quarter 1 of 2019, Class I railroads reported that, as of
March 31, 2019, PTC systems are in operation on approximately 87
percent of the Class I railroads' main lines that must be governed by a
PTC system--specifically, on 46,826 route miles of the 53,756 route
miles subject to the statutory mandate that are owned or controlled by
Class I railroads, as set forth in their PTC Implementation Plans.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Ronald L. Batory
Question 1. Some railroad signal employees--including those at
Class I freight railroads--have raised concerns about not receiving the
type and level of PTC training that is necessary to properly install,
operate, and maintain these systems. What does FRA do to ensure that
training updates it receives from carriers are accurate?
Question 2. How has FRA overseen the training component of PTC
implementation and what does the agency do to verify that training is
adequately completed?
Question 3. Has the FRA provided freight and passenger rail
guidelines or guidance for PTC employee training?
Answer to Questions 1 to 3. Since January 2010, FRA's positive
train control (PTC) regulations have required that railroads subject to
the statutory mandate must establish and implement robust PTC training
and qualification programs, in accordance with the requirements under
49 CFR Sec. Sec. 236.1041-236.1049 and the host railroad's PTC Safety
Plan. A railroad's training and qualification program must provide
training for the following personnel and ``ensure that they have the
necessary knowledge and skills to effectively complete their duties
related to operation and maintenance of the PTC system'':
(1) Persons whose duties include installing, maintaining, repairing,
modifying, inspecting, and testing safety-critical elements of
the railroad's PTC systems, including central office, wayside,
or onboard subsystems;
(2) Persons who dispatch train operations (issue or communicate any
mandatory directive that is executed or enforced, or is
intended to be executed or enforced, by a PTC system);
(3) Persons who operate trains or serve as a train or engine crew
member on a train operating in PTC-governed territory;
(4) Roadway workers whose duties require them to know and understand
how a PTC system affects their safety and how to avoid
interfering with its proper functioning; and
(5) The direct supervisors of persons listed above.
In addition, FRA's PTC regulations generally describe the types of
training that such personnel must receive, prescribes minimum training
requirements, and requires that the railroad's training and
qualification program include periodic refresher training and
evaluation ``that includes classroom, simulator, computer-based, hands-
on, or other formally structured training and testing.'' See 49 CFR
Sec. Sec. 236.1041-236.1049.
Before a railroad commences revenue service demonstration (RSD) of
its PTC system, FRA requires that the railroad provide written
documentation to FRA establishing that all appropriate personnel have
received PTC training per the railroad's required PTC training program,
and FRA's PTC specialists monitor certain RSD operations and other
field testing on the railroad's property. See 49 CFR
Sec. Sec. 236.1035(b), 236.1041-236.1049.
Also, in a host railroad's PTC Safety Plan, which is subject to
FRA's approval and is necessary for PTC System Certification, a
railroad must include a ``complete description of the railroad's
training [and qualification program] for railroad and contractor
employees and supervisors necessary to ensure safe and proper
installation, implementation, operation, maintenance, repair,
inspection, testing, and modification of the PTC system.'' See 49 CFR
Sec. 236.1015(d)(6).
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto
to Ronald L. Batory
Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Waste by Rail--PTC Applicable?
Administrator Batory, as we discussed during the hearing, I have
confirmation from multiple rail safety experts that the law that
initiated the PTC mandate defines main lines for the purposes of PTC as
those carrying five million or more gross tons of freight annually and
authorizes your agency to define the term ``mainline'' by regulation
for passenger routes or segments over which limited or no freight
railroad operations occur. And that toxic materials are referred to as
either toxic-by-inhalation or poison-by-inhalation Class 6 hazardous
materials. But that Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Waste would be
Class 7, and thus not shipments that would require this important
technology.
Question 1. Can you speak to the future shipments of this kind of
material moving through various communities and states in our country,
if we can't require PTC because of the size or definition of this
product?
Answer. Under the statutory mandate, each Class I railroad and each
entity providing regularly scheduled intercity or commuter rail
passenger transportation must implement a PTC system on:
(1) its main line over which poison- or toxic-by-inhalation (PIH or
TIH) hazardous materials and five million or more gross tons of
traffic are transported per year;
(2) its main line over which intercity or commuter rail passenger
transportation is regularly provided; and
(3) any other tracks the Secretary of Transportation prescribes by
regulation or order.
The statutory mandate specifically defines PIH or TIH hazardous
materials as those classified as such under 49 CFR Sec. Sec. 171.8,
173.115, and 173.132. Accordingly, Class I railroads are generally
implementing PTC systems on main lines that transport those types of
hazardous materials and main lines where intercity or commuter rail
passenger transportation is regularly provided, at a minimum. Several
railroads have indicated they are also voluntarily implementing PTC
systems on main lines that are not required to be governed by a PTC
system by law.
Congress may also mandate PTC system implementation on additional
main lines, including those that transport other types of hazardous
materials that are not classified as PIH or TIH, through an act of
legislation. As noted above, the Department of Transportation is
authorized to require PTC system implementation on additional lines by
regulation or order, but all Federal agencies must follow the direction
of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 for rulemaking, which include
quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and
promoting flexibility.
FRA Resources for PTC Compliance. Administrator Batory, while I
asked this question during the hearing, I believe there may have been
confusion in your response, so I will ask again.
Question 2. For the various PTC certifications and waivers--what
are you communicating to railroads as far as timelines they should
expect for your safety professionals to review and respond to these
documents?
Answer. The Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation
Act of 2015 (PTCEI Act) requires that FRA shall approve a railroad's
alternative schedule and sequence within 90 days of receipt of the
railroad's written notification, if the railroad has demonstrated it
met the six statutory criteria necessary to qualify for an alternative
schedule and sequence. In the interim, within 45 days of receipt of a
railroad's written notification, FRA must provide the railroad with:
(1) a written notification of any deficiencies that would prevent FRA
from approving its proposed alternative schedule and sequence, and (2)
an opportunity to correct the deficiencies before FRA's final decision
shall be issued within 90 days total.
As of March 5, 2019, FRA approved all 33 requests for an
alternative schedule and sequence, as each railroad sufficiently
demonstrated it, at a minimum, met the six statutory criteria necessary
to qualify for an alternative schedule and sequence under the statutory
mandate. These 33 requests encompassed supporting documentation
submitted on behalf of 37 railroads, including four additional tenant-
only commuter railroads. FRA issued each decision in advance of the
PTCEI Act's 90-day decision deadline and, on average, within 66 days of
receipt.
FRA's decision letters are posted in railroads' public PTC dockets
on https://www.regulations.gov, and hyperlinks to railroads' PTC
dockets are available on FRA's website at https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/
P0628.
With respect to PTC System Certifications, FRA's regulations
provide that FRA will, to the extent practicable, approve, approve with
conditions, or deny a railroad's PTC Safety Plan and request for PTC
System Certification within 180 days of receipt. If FRA does not
approve or deny the railroad's PTC Safety Plan within 180 days, FRA's
regulations state that FRA will provide the railroad with a statement
of reasons as to why the submission has not been acted upon, a
projected deadline by which an approval or denial will be issued, and
any further consultations or inquiries to be resolved. See 49 CFR
Sec. 236.1009(j).
Question 3. I know Ms. Flemming has laid out some of the
expectations in her testimony, and these timelines seem concerning,
even if railroads do get all the way to December 31st to submit much of
this paperwork to the FRA.
From there, what has been the specific staffing plan and needs,
please give me a sense of numbers, for the FRA to be able to help
railroads comply with elements of PTC implementation during the tenure
of this Administration? Because it's clear from the GAO testimony that
these concerns are still very real as we've been heading toward this
2018 deadline for years now.
Question 4. Do you have all the personnel you need, because when we
previously all met as a committee on this issue, the staffing levels
within the Administration was a specific point of concern then as well?
That was seven months ago. We would hate there to have to build in
delays toward PTC implementation based on months or years of
bureaucratic delays on top of the additional challenges associated with
this technology.
Answers to Questions 3 and 4. FRA's PTC program consists of
technical and programmatic staff and contractors, many of whom are
dedicated to PTC on a full-time basis and a subset that supports the
program on a part-time basis, while also performing other duties. This
team includes 27 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions, as described
below:
Full Time FRA Technical Staff & Contractors (15 FTE): 1
Staff Director of the PTC/Signal & Train Control (S&TC)
Division, 2 senior test monitors, 8 PTC specialists (including
2 specialists that were hired in Quarter 1 of 2018), 1 software
engineer, and 3 technical contractors. These staff provide
direct technical assistance to the railroads throughout testing
and implementation.
Full Time FRA Programmatic Staff & Contractors (7 FTE): 1
attorney, 1 program analyst, 2 project management contractors,
and 3 data analyst contractors. These staff provide status
monitoring and manage documentation and approvals.
Part Time FRA Technical & Programmatic Staff (approximately
5 FTE): 1 Staff Director of the Passenger Rail Division, 2 S&TC
engineers, 1 attorney, and 1 contractor that provides PTC
Safety Plan reviews on a task-order basis (average 2.5 FTE).
These staff directly support PTC Safety Plan reviews.
As part of its agency budget, FRA is using PTC funds to not only
keep the current contract force in place, but also expand both the
contract force and staff to enable the expanded PTC team to provide
timely approval of documentation and effective support to railroads as
they strive to meet the statutory deadline. The expanded PTC team,
totaling approximately 36+ FTE, will also include:
Two railroad experts to provide additional subject matter
expertise in support of PTC Safety Plans.
Three new contract positions to support FRA's oversight of
interoperability in highly congested areas, including Chicago
and the Northeast Corridor.
An additional procurement is currently underway for another
set of contractors to support FRA's review of PTC Safety Plans,
with the skill set capable of reviewing a PTC Safety Plan in
its entirety, including approximately 5 to 10 FTEs.
FRA Enforcement Strategy--Discretion on Extensions.
Question 5. Mr. Batory, what is the average length of an extension
that you expect railroads to ask for--I ask because the law gives FRA
significant discretion on the length of the extension--correct?
Question 6. Will you be giving railroads exactly the amount of time
they want or will you use your discretion to get them to expedite their
implementation--because you have leverage to keep them on task and to
work to ensure 2020 doesn't turn out like 2015 when the industry was
asking Congress for more time to install this lifesaving technology?
Answer to Questions 5 and 6. Notably, four railroads--North County
Transit District, the Port Authority Trans-Hudson, Portland & Western
Railroad, and the Southern California Regional Rail Authority
(Metrolink)--self-reported that they fully implemented an FRA-certified
and interoperable PTC system on all of their required main lines before
December 31, 2018.
With respect to other railroads still implementing their PTC
systems, most railroads specified in their FRA-approved alternative
schedules and sequences that an FRA-certified and interoperable PTC
system will be fully implemented on all of their required main lines by
December 31, 2020. FRA, however, commends several railroads for
including an earlier deadline in their FRA-approved alternative
schedules and sequences, including three commuter railroads
establishing final deadlines in Quarter 3 of 2020.
Regarding your inquiry about whether ``the law gives FRA
significant discretion on the length of the extension,'' FRA notes that
the PTCEI Act requires a railroad to include a deadline in its
alternative schedule that is both ``as soon as practicable'' and not
later than December 31, 2020. The PTCEI Act strictly requires FRA,
without any discretion, to approve a railroad's proposed alternative
schedule if the railroad's written notification sufficiently
demonstrated it met the six necessary statutory criteria by December
31, 2018, and if the alternative schedule included a deadline not later
than December 31, 2020.
However, if any railroad's written notification failed to explain
the reasons the railroad's proposed deadline is ``as soon as
practicable,'' which is a part of the six statutory criteria necessary
to qualify for an alternative schedule, FRA would have required the
railroad to provide such a justification during FRA's 90-day review
period. In general, as noted above, if there were deficiencies in a
railroad's documentation that would prevent FRA from approving the
proposed alternative schedule and the railroad was not able to
immediately rectify them, FRA provided the railroad, as the PTCEI Act
requires and within 45 days of receipt of the railroad's written
notification: (1) a notification identifying and describing each
deficiency that would prevent FRA from approving the railroad's
proposed alternative schedule and sequence, and (2) an opportunity to
correct the deficiencies before FRA's final decision is issued, not
later than 90 days from receipt of the railroad's initial written
notification. As noted above, FRA complied with the PTCEI Act's
mandated FRA review and decision deadlines.
In addition, you inquired about how FRA will help ensure that
railroads fully implement PTC systems in a timely manner. Until all PTC
systems are fully implemented on the required main lines, FRA is
committed to continuing to conduct the mandated at-least-annual
compliance reviews to help ensure that railroads comply with the
interim requirements and the final deadlines set forth in their
alternative schedules and sequences.
FRA Enforcement Strategy--Need for a Strategy. In the 2015 GAO
report on PTC it recommends, among other things, that the FRA develop
the agency's enforcement strategy. At the hearing Mr. Batory, you
stated in your testimony quote ``FRA is currently considering all
options, within the framework established by law, to determine what
type of enforcement action will be most effective and appropriate under
the circumstances.''
Question 7. So to be clear, by definition, you still haven't landed
on a specific FRA enforcement strategy, correct, and we should take
from this statement that you're going to approach this going forward on
a case by case basis? That seems like it will be a challenge and may
create uncertainty with the railroads you oversee.
Answer. The three acts of Federal legislation governing railroads'
implementation of PTC systems specifically authorize the Secretary of
Transportation, and FRA by delegation, to assess civil penalties for
any violations of the statutory PTC mandate. Throughout 2018, I, as FRA
Administrator, maintained my recommendation that FRA should assess the
ordinary statutory maximum civil penalty (i.e., $28,474 per day)
against any railroad subject to the statutory mandate that neither
fully implements a PTC system by December 31, 2018, nor obtains FRA's
approval of an alternative schedule and sequence.
Also, it is important to clarify that with respect to any railroad
that submitted a written notification requesting FRA's approval of its
alternative schedule, the PTCEI Act contains a provision that
automatically extended the statutory December 31, 2018, deadline for
full PTC system implementation until the date on which FRA ``approves
or disapproves the alternative schedule and sequence, if such date is
later than'' December 31, 2018.
As noted above, as of March 5, 2019, FRA approved all 33 requests
for an alternative schedule and sequence, as each railroad sufficiently
demonstrated it met or exceeded the six statutory criteria necessary to
qualify for an alternative schedule and sequence under the statutory
mandate. These 33 requests encompassed supporting documentation
submitted on behalf of 37 railroads, including four additional tenant-
only commuter railroads. However, if there had been a case in which FRA
determined that an applicable railroad failed to qualify for an
alternative schedule and sequence under the statutory mandate, FRA
would have reserved the right to assess the ordinary statutory maximum
civil penalty (i.e., $28,474 per day) against the railroad. FRA would
have also reserved the right to initiate any other type of enforcement
action within its authority, if necessary to compel a railroad's
compliance, in addition to the assessment of civil penalties.
Question 8. You obviously have significant experience in the
railroad industry. When you were running a railroad, what would the FRA
at that time have had to say to you to compel you into compliance for a
requirement such as PTC?
Answer. I believe that FRA's increased technical assistance during
this Administration to the rail industry--in addition to FRA's several
series of enforcement actions against railroads that failed to meet
their interim schedule-related milestones--significantly helps
facilitate and foster railroads' compliance with this highly complex
and important statutory mandate. Furthermore, increased collaboration
within the industry, supported and facilitated by FRA, is enabling
railroads in the earlier phases of PTC system testing to learn and
benefit from the experience and advancements of the railroads that have
obtained PTC System Certification and are conducting network-wide
interoperability testing.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Susan Fleming
Question 1. Looking beyond the December 31, 2018 deadline, to what
extent are passenger railroads poised to meet the December 31, 2020
deadline for full PTC implementation? Specifically, based on the status
of testing, to what extent are there any railroads that will soon be
at-risk of failing to meet the 2020 deadline?
Answer. Testing is a key concern with regards to passenger
railroads meeting the 2020 deadline, as many railroads have substantial
work remaining. Less than a third of commuter railroads--8 of 28--
reported initiating an advanced form of field testing called revenue
service demonstration (RSD) as of June 30, 2018. RSD testing is part of
the criteria commuter railroads must meet in order to receive an
extension to 2020 by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
Specifically, to qualify for an extension, commuter railroads must
initiate RSD on at least one territory or ``meet any other criteria
established by the Secretary,'' which FRA refers to as ``substitute
criteria.'' Twelve commuter railroads reported that they plan to use
substitute criteria to qualify for an extension, and of these, eight
intend to apply for substitute criteria based on field testing. This
approach defers time-intensive RSD testing into 2019 and beyond. For
example, in March 2018 we testified that FRA officials told us that
moving from the start of field testing to the start of RSD can take
between 1 and 3 years, and has averaged about 2 years for those
railroads that have completed that stage. FRA officials told us that
they do not consider railroads that are approved for an extension under
substitute criteria to be necessarily at a higher risk of not
completing PTC implementation by 2020. However, in light of these time
estimates and the unknown challenges that railroads may face during
testing, railroads that are in the early field-testing stage moving
into 2019 could face challenges completing PTC implementation by the
extended December 2020 deadline.
Question 2. In its testimony, GAO noted that concerns regarding
FRA's ability to review extension requests filed before the end of the
year, as well as its ability to continue to review other PTC
submissions in a timely manner. As GAO understands it, does FRA have a
sufficient plan to review the extension requests, as well as other
ongoing PTC submissions, and does the GAO have any recommendations for
FRA in conducting this review?
Answer. In March 2018, we recommended FRA develop an approach to
prioritize the allocation of resources to address areas of greatest
risk as railroads work to complete PTC implementation. FRA has reported
that it taken some steps to bolster its workforce, such as by
reallocating existing expertise and expanding the PTC workforce through
training, expanding contracts with existing support contractors, and
initiating one additional contract to provide technical support.
Despite these efforts, FRA resources and review times remain a
significant concern--both for near-term efforts such as extension
requests as well as safety plans that need to be reviewed and certified
prior to the end of 2020. Taking steps to prioritize limited resources
will only increase in importance as the amount of documentation needing
FRA review continues to grow in 2019 and 2020, as railroads move
through testing and submit complex and lengthy safety plans.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Susan Fleming
FRA Oversight of Positive Train Control Implementation. Ms.
Fleming, after your testimony in March highlighted concerns with FRA's
oversight of positive train control implementation, Chairman Thune and
I urged the FRA to address these concerns.
Question 1. What has the FRA done to implement the GAO's
recommendations?
Answer. In March 2018, we recommended FRA identify and adopt a
method for systematically communicating information related to the
requirements and process for an extension to railroads. In June, July,
and August 2018, FRA held three PTC symposiums that were attended by
representatives from all 40 railroads and that focused on the extension
process and substitute criteria, PTC testing, and safety plans,
respectively. Furthermore, FRA has taken steps to better prepare
railroads for the 2018 deadline, such as meeting regularly with
individual railroads. We believe FRA's actions in this area are
consistent with our recommendation.
We also recommended in March 2018 that FRA develop an approach to
prioritize the allocation of resources to address areas of greatest
risk as railroads work to complete PTC implementation. In October 2018
we reported that FRA has reported taking action in this area, such as
reallocating existing expertise and expanding the PTC workforce through
training, expanding contracts with existing support contractors, and
initiating one additional contract to provide technical support. FRA
resources and review times remain a significant concern--both for near-
term efforts such as extension requests and for the safety plans that
need to be reviewed and certified prior to the end of 2020.
Question 2. What further actions must the FRA take to help
railroads quickly implement positive train control?
Answer. As the December 31, 2018 PTC deadline approaches, FRA has
reported taking some actions to manage the influx of documentation,
such as reallocating resources. Despite these efforts, railroads remain
concerned about the agency's ability to manage the PTC workload in the
coming months and beyond 2018. For example, in October 2018 we reported
that seven out of 29 passenger railroads we spoke to identified FRA's
resources and review times as a challenge. The need for FRA to
prioritize limited resources will only increase in importance as the
amount of documentation needing FRA review continues to grow in 2019
and 2020, as railroads move through testing and submit complex and
lengthy safety plans. As we reported in March 2018, in an environment
with limited agency resources, targeting agency efforts to the areas of
the greatest risk or highest priority areas is one way to leverage
existing resources. We also reported that FRA had not fully leveraged
the implementation progress data that railroads submitted to the agency
to identify and develop a risk-based approach to prioritize agency
actions. FRA resources and review times remain a significant concern--
both for near-term efforts such as extension requests and for the
safety plans that need to be reviewed and certified prior to the end of
2020.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Kevin Corbett
Question 1. How many of New Jersey Transit's employees have been
PTC trained?
Answer. NJTRANSIT has provided, and is continuing to provide, PTC
training to locomotive engineers and conductors, train dispatchers,
back office support personnel, field maintenance personnel and front-
line supervisors, as required and in accordance with 49 C.F.R.
Sec. Sec. 236.1041 through 236.1049. At the time of NJTRANSIT's
extension request (Alternative Schedule) to the FRA last month 1,745
employees have received training.
Question 2. Please provide an overview of the PTC employee training
program including what it consists of (such as video and hands-on
training activities) and the number of training hours and other factors
(such as successful completion of an exam) for an employee to be
considered fully trained.
Answer. NJTRANSIT's PTC Training Program complies with FRA
Regulations CFR Sec. 236.1041 to 1049. The program consists of three
primary areas of the PTC System (Onboard, Wayside, Office) to train the
various crafts that support those program areas for installation,
maintenance, operating, and troubleshooting. All employees must pass
their particular courses with an examination per CFR 236. The training
courses developed are performed in a live instructor led classroom
environment, typically with presentation material support (e.g.,
Powerpoint), and/or hands-on type training with specialized training
equipment or aides depending on the particular craft.
Employees are required to complete a total number of training hours
depending on their craft and responsibility to support railroad
operations for PTC. Roadway workers, supervisors, conductors and all
individual craft employees receive basic PTC Overview training, while
more detailed technical training is provided for Onboard, Wayside, and
Office employees.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Scot Naparstek
Question 1. What is the status of testing interoperability between
Amtrak and its hosts and what is the timeline on which Amtrak expects
to complete testing, particularly in the Chicago region?
Answer. Amtrak is interoperable with BNSF, UP, CSX, NS, Metrolink,
and NCTD. Amtrak plans to continue testing with the 18 other non-
interoperable railroads, with the majority of testing being completed
by the end of 2019. Currently, Amtrak plans to be PTC ready in Chicago
early in the second quarter of 2019, with interoperability testing
completing toward the end of the second quarter of 2019.
Question 2. Amtrak has stated that it is conducting risk
assessments to develop mitigation measures on portions of track without
a functional PTC system. For portions of track without PTC currently in
use but where its implementation is planned, such as along the
California Zephyr route from Denver to Salt Lake City, what is the
status of Amtrak paying costs of implementation, and when will Amtrak
make a determination as to whether it will pay such costs?
Answer. We are currently in negotiations with the Union Pacific on
Amtrak's costs.
Question 3. Amtrak's testimony mentioned that it plans to take a
risk-based approach to operating on lines of varying PTC implementation
statuses after the first of the year. Should Amtrak riders plan to
experience loss of service in any particular locations following the
end-of-the year deadline?
Answer. At this time, Amtrak does not anticipate any disruption to
service after December 31, 2018.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Scot Naparstek
Positive Train Control. Mr. Naparstek, Florida relies on Amtrak to
provide long-distance service to many of its cities. I understand that
Amtrak has had challenges implementing positive train control (PTC) on
tracks owned by host railroads that have not themselves installed the
safety systems.
Question 1. What will Amtrak do if PTC implementation does not
occur on Florida routes owned by other railroads before the 2018
deadline?
Answer. To prepare for operations where PTC is not in service,
Amtrak has been conducting detailed risk assessments to enable us to
develop an appropriate array of risk mitigation measures to address
those areas that are not mitigated by a functional PTC system,
consistent with our Safety Management System methodology. We plan to
run current service on all Florida routes after the 2018 deadline.
Question 2. FRA has raised concerns about Amtrak's ability to meet
the PTC deadline and considers the railroad to be high risk. Will
Amtrak meet the deadline? Please describe what challenges Amtrak is
facing in implementing PTC.
Answer. Due to the FRA's addition of including Amtrak's
transponders in the total hardware count, Amtrak appeared to have under
95 percent of hardware installed as of September 30, 2018. Since then,
however, Amtrak has installed all remaining hardware, and is therefore
not at risk. Amtrak has 100 percent of hardware installed and, as such,
was able to submit the application for the alternative schedule.
Question 3. Please provide an overview of the PTC employee training
program including what it consists of (such as video and hands-on
training activities) and the number of training hours and other factors
(such as successful completion of an exam) for an employee to be
considered fully trained.
Answer. Training courses include PTC system type training,
management of the wayside equipment, troubleshooting, overviews, train
rides, and operating rules. The training for locomotive engineers is no
less than 8 hours in length. It includes in-classroom training, written
assessments, demonstrations, documentation of participation, and
operational performance assessments. The operational performance
assessment consist of a supervised train ride with the PTC system
active and enforcing that is no less than 100 miles in length. For yard
employees the operational assessment is no fewer than 4 hours. To date
Amtrak has trained over 5,000 personnel.
Amtrak Service. Amtrak is charged with maintaining a national rail
network; however, some have raised concerns about Amtrak's commitment
to long-distance service.
Question 4. Does Amtrak intend on maintaining current service
levels on all routes in the National Network?
Answer. Yes, Amtrak plans to continue the current Long Distance
routes we operated in FY 2018 in FY 2019.
Question 5. What are Amtrak's long term plans for long-distance
routes? Is Amtrak committed to the sustainment and development of its
long-distance routes that often service communities with no other, or
very few, transportation options?
Answer. Amtrak will submit its next iteration of its long distance
five year plans in February 2019, consistent with its statutory
requirement to do so. At present, we anticipate that any Amtrak
proposals for major changes to the national network or intercity
passenger rail policy will be provided to Congress as part of the
reauthorization of the FAST Act.
Question 6. Does Amtrak expect to further reduce onboard or clerk
services and if so, why? If there were reductions, which services and
how many jobs would be affected? Would these positions be outsourced
and does Amtrak plan to retrain displaced employees for other roles
within the organization?
Answer. Amtrak is always interested in improving our customer
experience and becoming more efficient throughout our system. Relative
to our food and beverage offerings, Congress explicitly required us to
vastly improve the financial performance of these amenities by
eliminating all associated losses by December 2020. Achieving such a
mandate would require us to significantly change our model and
experiment with new approaches to serving the needs of our customers
during their journey. We are moving to a general hospitality
environment that is modernized and efficient. We want to put emphasis
on what the new generation of traveler expects from an experience. We
want the customer to have a greater say on where, when and how they
dine, whether that is communally, in their sleeper, alone with their
media devices or a combination of all of the above during their
journey. We are testing less structure--more individualization.
Question 7. All Amtrak employees are trained to act as on site
emergency responders in emergency situations. How will cuts in
reservation or food and beverage staff impact Amtrak's ability to
respond to incidents and has Amtrak factored this into its safety
plans?
Answer. Amtrak takes very seriously appropriate safety
considerations in our determination of crew size. We currently provide
on-board service (OBS) personnel with first aid and CPR training during
their initial training. After initial training every other year OBS
personnel continue to receive emergency preparedness training covering
rail equipment familiarization; situational awareness; passenger
evacuation; coordination of functions; and ``hands-on'' instruction
concerning the location, function, and operation of on-board emergency
equipment. Appropriate staffing levels have always been included in our
safety protocols. Since conductors and engineers have primary
responsibility for emergency response on a train, we do not believe
that changes in general OBS personnel levels impacts our ability to
sufficiently respond to an incident.
Safety. Mr. Naparstek, as you know, Amtrak has had significant
safety challenges. Since 2013, train crashes, derailments and other
incidents have injured nearly eight hundred passengers and six hundred
employees according the Department of Transportation inspector general.
I understand that one way you are trying to address this is by
providing a way for Amtrak employees to voluntary report safety
incidents.
Question 8. How will you ensure that Amtrak employees feel
confident that they can report incidents without being penalized?
Answer. Amtrak long had a policy prohibiting intimidation and
harassment of employees that report safety concerns and issues. At all
levels within the organization, we remain committed to compliance with
our policy and regularly perform audits to ensure the policy is
effective. Amtrak participates in Federal programs (FRA's C3RS) which
ensure confidentiality in reporting through the use of a third party
reporting processor (NASA). Reports received are investigated by a peer
review team.
We continually undertake efforts to advance our Just Culture
initiatives. Recent activities include expanding internal options for
reporting concerns and incidents which offer not only confidentiality
for reporters but also permit avenues for anonymous reporting. We
communicated our commitment to Just Culture principles with our
workforce as we work to imbed and expand a culture of organizational
learning.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto
to Scot Naparstek
Progress on Coordination for the California Zephyr. I was glad to
hear from you during our conversation at the hearing that the
California Zephyr is expected to be fully PTC compliant by the
deadline, and that this will come without a specific impact to the
current route schedule and service. That will be incredibly appreciated
by our 88,000 Nevada riders. One question that has arose however is
about an over 150 mile segment of that line, from Grand Junction, CO to
parts of Utah, that my office has been made aware will not have
functional PTC at any point because it currently experiences an
exemption to the PTC mandate.
Question 1. Can you please confirm the accuracy of this situation?
Answer. Grand Junction to Mounds (Green River Subdivision) is Union
Pacific territory, over which Amtrak is a tenant. It was granted a
mainline track exclusion addendum (MTEA) by the FRA. Amtrak conducted a
detailed risk assessment to enable us to develop appropriate risk
mitigation measures to address that area since it is not mitigated by a
functional PTC system.
Question 2. If this exemption exists, please describe what the
specifics are to the situation of this exemption.
Answer. This MTEA was granted under the CTC (centralized traffic
control) rule. In CTC territory, trains move on signal indication, and
double track CTC permits movement on either track in either direction
under signal control.
Question 3. If this exemption exists, please detail exactly what
alternative safety efforts will be employed on this segment of the line
and how these modifications in your operation won't change the current
operating schedule of the Zephyr line.
Answer. Amtrak plans to employ a technology solution to enhance
location based situational awareness for conductors and enhance the
existing onboard systems to provide alerts and enforcement of
authorized speeds to mitigate not having PTC implemented on this
territory.
[all]