    [Senate Hearing 116-599]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 116-599

                         AMTRAK: NEXT STEPS FOR PASSENGER RAIL

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                          SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 26, 2019

                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
                                 Transportation

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                    Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    52-727                     WASHINGTON : 2023

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

           SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                      ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
    JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
    ROY BLUNT, Missouri                      Ranking
    TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GARY PETERS, Michigan
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               JON TESTER, Montana
    TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
    RICK SCOTT, Florida                  JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
                           John Keast, Staff Director
                      Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director
                          Steven Wall, 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 June 26, 2019....................................     1
    Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     1
    Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     2
    Statement of Senator Gardner.....................................     4
    Statement of Senator Blunt.......................................    50
    Statement of Senator Udall.......................................    52
    Statement of Senator Tester......................................    56
    Statement of Senator Moran.......................................    58
    Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    60
    Statement of Senator Duckworth...................................    62
    Statement of Senator Markey......................................    64

                                   Witnesses

    Richard Anderson, President and Chief Executive Officer, National
      Railroad Passenger Corporation.................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association
      of American Railroads..........................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    13
    James M. Souby, Commissioner, Southwest Chief & Front Range
      Passenger Rail Commission (ColoRail)...........................    17
        Prepared statement...........................................    19
    Hon. Jennifer Homendy, Member, National Transportation Safety
      Board..........................................................    27
        Prepared statement...........................................    28

                                    Appendix

    Response to written questions submitted to Richard Anderson by:
        Hon. Roger Wicker............................................    71
        Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................    72
        Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    72
        Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................    74
        Hon. Tom Udall...............................................    75
        Hon. Tammy Baldwin...........................................    76
    Response to written questions submitted to Ian Jefferies by:
        Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    77

                     AMTRAK: NEXT STEPS FOR PASSENGER RAIL

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2019

                                           U.S. Senate,
            Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
    SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Roger Wicker,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Wicker [presiding], Cantwell, Gardner,
    Blunt, Udall, Tester, Moran, Blumenthal, Duckworth, and Markey.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

        Senator Wicker. Good morning. Today, the Committee gathers
    for a hearing to examine Amtrak: Next Steps for Passenger Rail.
        I'm glad to convene this hearing with my friend and
    colleague, Ranking Member Cantwell.
        I welcome our panel of witnesses and thank them for
    appearing.
        Today, we will hear from Richard Anderson, President and
    CEO of Amtrak; Ian Jefferies, President and CEO of the
    Association of American Railroads; Jim Souby, Commissioner of
    the Southwest Chief & Front Range Passenger Rail Commission;
    and Jennifer Homendy, Board Member, National Transportation
    Safety Board.
        I continue to be a strong supporter of our rail industry,
    both freight and passenger. Rail service is safe and efficient
    and also reduces congestion on our highways and spurs economic
    growth.
        In Mississippi, for example, we have 26 freight railroads,
    2,400 miles of track, five of the seven Class 1s, two long-
    distance Amtrak routes, 10 stations, and more than 100,000
    annual riders. Rail is vital to Mississippi.
        I have been a tireless advocate for the restoration of the
    Gulf Coast passenger service, which was suspended in 2005 after
    Hurricane Katrina.
        With funding support from DOT, Amtrak, and the states, I'm
    pleased to report that Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama are
    likely once again to have this Amtrak route and that will give
    Mississippi a third Amtrak route.
        Restoration of this service would support growing
    population centers, connect tourist destinations, bring new
    jobs and improve the region's quality of life. This will make a
    positive difference for the communities and the people of the
    Mississippi Gulf Coast.
        This hearing provides an opportunity to examine the state
    of passenger rail and consider how to support existing routes,
    like the Southwest Chief, and restore Gulf Coast service.
        In 2015, I introduced, along with Senator Booker, the
    Railroad Reform Enhancement and Efficiency Act, which
    reauthorized Amtrak. When the bill's revisions were included in
    the Fixing America's Surface Transportation or FAST Act, it
    authorized funding levels for Amtrak, created new rail grant
    programs, made improvements to existing rail financing
    programs, and changed Amtrak oversight and planning activities.
        The FAST Act and those rail provisions expire at the end of
    Fiscal Year 2020. It is important for us to examine what
    aspects of this important legislation and work and what should
    be improved.
        This hearing is an opportunity for witnesses to discuss the
    impact of Amtrak reauthorization in the FAST Act and how
    Congress can support rail service in the next reauthorization
    bill.
        The FAST Act also led to the creation of the Consolidated
    Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Grant Program,
    known as CRISI. This program provides grants to improve the
    rail network. CRISI strengthens inner city passenger rail,
    supports capital projects, and boosts rail safety initiatives.
        Among the most important safety initiatives for rail is the
    deployment of positive train control, PTC, which is designed to
    prevent tragic accidents, such as the Amtrak derailment in the
    state of Washington.
        Timely implementation of PTC is also important and the
    Committee will be holding a Full Committee hearing on this in
    the near future.
        In addition, earlier this week, the NTSB issued its report
    on that particular accident.
        So I hope our witnesses will discuss ways to support
    further capacity, enhance safety, and other improvements for
    passenger and freight rail service in the next Amtrak
    reauthorization.
        One area that still needs improvement is on-time
    performance of passenger rail. For Amtrak to be successful, its
    trains must be available to run on time. With only 42.8 percent
    of long-distance trains arriving at stations on schedule,
    Amtrak's on-time performance lags behind comparable transit
    networks.
        I hope our witnesses will provide suggestions to improve
    Amtrak's on-time performance while maintaining the overall
    fluidity of our Nation's rail network.
        I look forward to a robust discussion of passenger and
    freight rail service and again thank our witnesses for
    testifying this morning.
        I now recognize my friend and Ranking Member, Senator
    Cantwell.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    for scheduling this important hearing on Amtrak and to the
    witnesses for being here today.
        I certainly consider myself a big supporter of Amtrak
    funding and Amtrak's reauthorization and also consider myself a
    big supporter of the Chairman's initiative to make sure that
    that expansion for rework of Amtrak Sunset Limited service to
    the Gulf Coast is re-established.
        I know how important having Amtrak services is to the state
    of Washington, and I hope that we can continue to make Amtrak a
    priority within this Committee.
        I want to thank the witnesses for being here today and to
    talk about Amtrak services in an era when we see an increasing
    piece of global commerce, more trains than ever before, in my
    state.
        Our trade economy relies on rail transportation to our
    ports, of which the Chairman is also a big supporter and I
    appreciate his many years of leadership on port infrastructure
    financing.
        These issues are what plague us every day in the state of
    Washington. Communities in my state have Amtrak services and
    freight rail congestion, and at-grade crossings that make our
    challenges even more complex.
        One example of this is Pine Roads in Spokane Valley. Fifty-
    six freight and two passenger trains pass through there,
    creating 3 hours of rail-related closures daily. That means
    that the challenge of moving people and moving freight in our
    region, a gateway to the Pacific, is becoming more and more
    challenging.
        That's three hours every day when traffic is interrupted.
    Three hours every day when accidents between cars and trains
    are more likely. And three hours a day when emergency vehicles
    are blocked from getting where they need to go.
        This is a problem that is only going to get more
    challenging as our trade economy continues to grow. In 2014,
    121 million tons of freight were shipped by railroads in
    Washington. By 2035, that number is expected to double. So at
    intersections like Pine Roads, train traffic will increase.
    Right now, 56 trains pass through Pine Roads every day but by
    2035, that is estimated to grow to 114.
        So this issue of making sure that we have strong Federal
    support for Amtrak and also funding for freight rail
    infrastructure which is instrumental in making sure that
    passenger and freight run very safely and more efficiently and
    reliably is a big priority.
        We need to build on the proven Federal rail initiatives,
    like CRISI, which just provided a grant to improve the Pine
    Street intersection, but we also need to make sure that in the
    next Surface Transportation Act, we consider other ways in
    which we can help communities with at-grade crossings.
        Safety must remain a top priority. The need for safety was
    driven home by the 2017 Amtrak crash near DuPont in the state
    of Washington. I am concerned that we need to continue to make
    sure that we have situational awareness of the challenges that
    come with participating in a busy transportation corridor.
        I know that everybody is trying to figure out how to get
    these people, products and services to places in a timely
    fashion, but we need to make safety a top priority.
        Obviously positive train control, which we know is being
    implemented, is a key component of that. As we consider the
    number of freight trains coming through and their impacts on
    people's daily lives, we need to make sure that we've learned
    the lessons from the DuPont accident and everything that comes
    with it.
        So I hope my colleagues will continue to push the
    implementation of positive train control throughout the United
    States. I know where we are in the state of Washington, which
    is getting that job done, but we need to make sure we're doing
    this on a national basis, as well.
        So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this important hearing.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        I will now recognize Senator Gardner, who would like to say
    a few special words about a constituent of his.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I'm proud to welcome this morning Jim Souby of Denver,
    Colorado, a native of Longmont, Colorado. Jim currently serves
    as the President of the Colorado Rail Passenger Association or
    COLORAIL. He is also a member of the Colorado Southwest Chief
    and the Front Range Rail Commission.
        Previously, Jim served as President of the Park City Police
    Policy Center based in Utah before realizing there's better
    snow in Colorado as well as Executive Director of the Western
    Governors Association.
        He has been a steadfast advocate of the Southwest Chief in
    Colorado and our Nation's passenger rail service.
        Jim, thank you very, very much for being here. It's an
    honor to have Colorado's voice represented on the panel.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the opportunity.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
        We'll begin our testimony this morning with five-minute
    statements by each of our witnesses. We'll begin down at this
    end of the table with Mr. Anderson. You are recognized.

     STATEMENT OF RICHARD ANDERSON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
            OFFICER, NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

        Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Ranking Member.
        It's a privilege to be here today representing all the
    people at Amtrak and all of our customers.
        We're probably in the best shape we've been in in our
    history. So if we look at where we are in safety, and I agree
    with Senator Cantwell, the most important thing is safety, we
    have implemented PTC on the Amtrak Railroad. We're at 99
    percent. We have one mile left in Chicago. We complied with the
    statute. It's been remarkable in terms of what it's provided in
    terms of level of safety.
        Second, we're the first railroad in America to implement an
    SMS Program, a Safety Management System Program. It's modeled
    after the aviation programs that I was responsible for
    implementing at Northwest and Delta Airlines when I was CEO and
    actually have the chief safety officer from both of those
    airlines is now the chief safety officer at Amtrak and so we're
    well down the road on those two points.
        Number 2, on our customer surveys, our customer surveys on
    a scale of one to 10, we have high customer satisfaction at
    really record levels now. We've cleaned our trains. We're
    running our trains on time in the corridor. We put good
    technology in place. So our customer attributes are in the high
    80s in terms of a top seven box in our customer surveys.
        Financially, we are at zero net debt. So we have conserved
    our capital, paid down our debt, in order to position the
    railroad to be able to pay for the Acela and the new National
    Network locomotives and to replace our Amfleets.
        We will reach break even on an operating basis in the next
    12 months. Probably most people never thought that Amtrak could
    get to break even on an operating basis but on operating cash
    basis, we will get to break even, and our grant from you will
    really be used to invest in new cars and infrastructure and
    work on problems, like the Southwest Chief.
        So all in all, we feel good about where we are and how the
    company is moving forward.
        If we think about reauthorization, first principle is
    safety. We believe that we have to have PTC or PTC-equivalent
    on all of our trips and there are still 1,400 miles of mainline
    track exclusions and we need to close that gap and that's
    mostly in rural areas, but the first priority ought to be
    safety.
        Second, we need to clarify what our role is in the national
    transportation system.
        If you look out over the next 40 years, population in this
    country is going to grow by a hundred million. That hundred
    million is moving to dense corridors, Phoenix, Tucson, Houston,
    Austin, Dallas, the Mississippi Corridor from New Orleans to
    Mobile, Florida, the Upper Midwest, and that's where all the
    population is moving in this country, and the highway system is
    not going to be able to support short-haul transportation.
    You're not going to be able to add enough lanes and you're
    going to have more of what we have on the East Coast with I-95.
        We think we can play a really important role in a very
    efficient way in providing an alternative to what we've done so
    far as a country because millennials don't want to own cars.
    They want to take ride-sharing. They want to live in inner city
    areas and they want to be able to use mass transit to get to
    their jobs. So we have some good ideas about what to do.
        Third, we need to solve our Amtrak host railroad challenges
    that the Chairman mentioned in his remarks. We cannot sustain a
    long-distance system with 47 percent on-time, not in a system
    where the average speed is 45 miles an hour.
        If you're going to run at 45 miles an hour and charge more
    than airlines charge, you've got to run on time. If you don't
    run on time, we're going to continue to see a degradation in
    ridership on long distance.
        Four, we need to have access to Federal transportation
    programs and funding and should provide sufficient funding
    levels to address the underlying policy initiatives that you
    direct us over time to undertake as part of the national
    transportation policy.
        And, last, we want to strengthen our state partnerships.
    That's really where Amtrak does the most good, the cascade, the
    state partnerships. We are now the way to get from San Diego to
    L.A. We are the way to get from Milwaukee to Chicago, and the
    Northeast Corridor carries 820,000 people a day to and from
    their jobs and their homes. So we are playing an increasingly
    important role and we want to have stronger and stronger
    partnerships with the states who we partner with to provide
    short-haul service.
        Thank you for the opportunity to serve Amtrak and to serve
    the United States.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Richard Anderson, President and Chief Executive
                Officer, National Railroad Passenger Corporation
    Amtrak: Next Steps for Passenger Rail
        Good morning Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and all the
    members of this Committee. Thank you for holding this important hearing
    on the upcoming reauthorization of Amtrak and intercity passenger rail.
        My name is Richard Anderson. I serve as the Chief Executive Officer
    of Amtrak, and I am proud to be here on behalf of Amtrak's nearly
    20,000 hardworking employees. Today, I want to provide an update on
    where Amtrak finds itself at the moment, then discuss both the
    challenges and the benefits of passenger rail, and end with some
    thoughts about how Congress can help Amtrak modernize, evolve, and
    expand for the future.
        Let me start by saying, the state of Amtrak is strong. From our
    safety record, to our financial health, to our customer service, Amtrak
    is operating a sound business that is delivering a strong product and
    service to many of your constituents. While there are challenges that
    we will soon discuss, I want to be clear that Amtrak is doing better
    today than we were even just a few years ago. I want to thank all of
    you for your support. We appreciate it and hope it continues. There
    should be a lot of optimism about the future of intercity passenger
    rail.
        The safety of our operations is paramount. Amtrak's industry-
    leading commitment to positive train control (PTC) has ensured this
    vital technology is present on 899 of the 900 miles of track we own.
    The final mile will be done by November 2019. We operate over 20,000
    miles of host railroad miles targeted for PTC installation, and of
    those miles 85 percent have been completed. Amtrak has continued to
    implement the Safety Management System throughout our operations in
    accordance with the System Safety Program Plan submitted to the Federal
    Railroad Administration in 2018. This plan includes numerous focus
    areas to enhance the safety of operations. Building on `Just Culture'
    principles, Amtrak is engaging its workforce as we build robust,
    viable, and sustainable safety solutions across the network. We have
    matured our risk assessment practices to include regular assessments of
    operational safety during signal suspensions, both in territory without
    PTC and prior to the initiation of new service. These assessments
    identified several opportunities to reduce risk through technological
    enhancements and operational mitigations. Risk assessments are being
    expanded to include additional focus areas such as operations over
    grade crossings and reducing trespasser incidents.
        In addition, Amtrak is delivering strong customer performance
    scores, including a systemwide score of 88.5 percent in April. We know
    how important on time performance (OTP) is to customer satisfaction. In
    May, 94 percent of our trains departed their initial terminal on time
    and 75 percent of our customers arrived at their destinations on time,
    up 2 percent from the prior year. The exceptions were mostly driven by
    the chronic freight delays we encounter, which is an existential
    problem for our national network and something I will discuss in
    greater detail later. On our Acela and Downeaster trains, 90 percent of
    our customers reached their destinations on time. In our top 100
    stations, we have nearly completed our ``Customer Now'' program and
    customers are commenting on our improved appearance.
        One result of Amtrak's strong operations and business discipline is
    our strongest financial position ever. We are executing against a plan
    that demonstrates how far Amtrak has come as an efficient, customer-
    oriented organization. Targeted promotions and careful yield management
    have enabled us to reach the end of April slightly ahead of an
    aggressive revenue plan. When combined with strict cost controls, we
    reached the end of April $52 million favorable to our operating
    earnings plan. When Amtrak manages its business this carefully, we can
    direct a greater proportion of the taxpayers' investments to our Core
    Capital spend, which is $734.3 million year to date through April
    (excluding Gateway and fleet acquisition) and almost 12 percent higher
    than last year. In an earlier era of Amtrak, the company labored under
    a significant debt load. Now, we have reached the point where we have
    sufficient cash and liquid investments available to repay all
    outstanding debt. At the end of FY 2018 Amtrak's cash and investments
    exceeded outstanding debt and this will be the case at the end of FY
    2019 as well. As we face a daunting capital backlog, this cash is
    programmed to help advance many of the most critical capital programs.
        A prime example of our capital spending can be found north of here,
    where Amtrak track crews are upgrading 31 miles of the Northeast
    Corridor (NEC) track between Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, Maryland.
    This work will enable trains to operate at higher speeds, and include
    track and curve realignment, track undercutting, and the installation
    of new rail. Across the NEC, our maintenance of way forces are
    executing an aggressive series of FY 2019 projects, budgeted at more
    than $300 million, which includes resurfacing 339 miles of track,
    undercutting 61 miles of track, installing more than 65 miles of
    continuously-welded rail, installing more than 158,000 wood and
    concrete ties, and renewing more than 55,000 miles of electric
    catenary.
        Amtrak is also determined to modernize our fleet to ensure we can
    deliver to our customers the safety, comfort and convenience that will
    persuade them to travel with us again and again. These efforts include
    our ongoing procurement of 28 new American-built, high-speed trainsets
    which will begin revenue service in 2021. We have also signed a
    contract for 75 new American-made diesels designed to improve the
    reliability and efficiency of our state supported and long-distance
    trains. We are taking delivery of the final units in our order for 130
    Viewliner cars, intended for our Eastern long-distance trains. We are
    also reviewing preliminary vendor responses to replace our Amfleet I
    equipment, and final vendor responses for this milestone order will be
    evaluated this summer. We have completed refresh programs on our
    Amfleet I and Acela fleets, and are working on similar programs on our
    Amfleet II and Horizon cars. All of these refresh programs are within
    budget, scope, and schedule.
        As most of you are no doubt aware, Amtrak's past two
    reauthorizations, PRIIA and the FAST Act, helped to address financial
    concerns and strengthen partnerships. They have contributed to the
    healthy state of Amtrak today and I am proud to say that Amtrak is on
    track to break even, on a net operating basis, in FY2021. This is a
    landmark accomplishment, and one that I am sure many people never
    thought Amtrak would be able to reach.
        As we look ahead to reauthorization next year and think about the
    future direction of Amtrak, it is quickly apparent that the need for
    intercity passenger rail service is greater than at any time in
    Amtrak's 48-year history. This creates an enormous opportunity for
    Amtrak--provided that the challenges to meeting the growing demand for
    our service can be overcome.
        Changes in demographics, technology and customer preferences are
    transforming the American travel landscape. Our population is growing,
    from the current 327 million to a projected 438 million by 2050. Nearly
    all of that growth is occurring in urban areas, mostly within the
    eleven megaregions that tie together our largest cities in continuous
    urban corridors.
        Fueling that population growth are the Millennials--the twenty-and
    thirty-somethings who now comprise our largest age cohort. Ninety
    percent of them live in urban areas according to the Pew Research
    Center. A Travelport survey found that they already travel more and
    spend more on travel than any other age cohort. Millennials care less
    about owning cars and do not particularly enjoy them: in a study by
    Arity, 16 percent of 22- to 37-year olds said they could live without
    access to a car and more than half said they would rather be doing
    something other than driving. Millennials are accustomed to arranging
    their travel with a smartphone app: 55 percent of urban 18- to 29-year
    olds have used an app-based ridesharing service according to the Pew
    Research Center. They expect good Wi-Fi: in a Forbes survey, 97 percent
    of Millennials said they had used social media while traveling. Eighty
    three percent of them prefer frequent trips of short duration over
    longer vacations according to Priceline.com. Millennials also care more
    about sustainability: in a OnePoll survey, 77 percent of 18- to 29-year
    olds said sustainability influences their travel decisions.
        Rapid population growth and increased travel by our country's
    largest and youngest age cohort will place unprecedented demands on the
    two primary intercity travel modes: automobiles and airplanes. The
    Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) projects that vehicle-miles
    traveled on our highways will increase 27 percent by 2036, and FAA
    projects that the number of domestic airline passengers will increase
    38 percent by 2038. What that means for automobile and air travelers is
    that the congestion and delays they experience today are going to get
    worse--much worse.
        The FHWA projects that the number of interstate highway miles with
    recurring peak period congestion will triple by 2040. That means that
    the congestion drivers experience on urban interstates today will
    become the norm between major cities as well. Increased air travel
    means more flight delays at major airports, such as the three New York
    City airports where a quarter or more of the arriving flights were late
    last year according to the Federal Aviation Administration.
        While domestic air travel is growing, there are fewer passengers
    and fewer flights in most short distance city pairs due to the
    unfavorable economics of short distance flights and the
    disproportionate impact of enhanced security screening and other delays
    on shorter trips. A Bombardier study found that passenger trips in
    under 500-mile domestic city pairs fell 30 percent from 2000 to 2016.
    Increasing capacity constraints and delays are likely to exacerbate
    that trend, resulting in less air service and higher airfares in short-
    distance markets.
        All of these trends are very good news for the future of Amtrak.
    Intercity passenger rail is best suited to offer what Millennials are
    looking for, including stations in city centers, Wi-Fi connectivity
    throughout their trip, and contemporary food and beverage choices in
    the cafe car. Passenger rail is also the sustainable intercity travel
    mode: Amtrak trains use 47 percent less energy per passenger mile than
    automobiles and 33 percent less than travel by air according to the
    Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Increasing
    congestion on other modes makes rail travel an attractive alternative
    to driving or flying for short distance travel.
        Clearly, there is great potential--and great need--to increase
    travel by train in under 400-mile corridors between major cities
    throughout the United States, where Amtrak can advance our statutory
    mission to provide service that is ``trip-time competitive with other
    intercity travel options.'' (49 USC 24702(b)). However, in most of the
    country, the service Amtrak provides today is not fulfilling, or poised
    to fulfill, that potential.
        The Northeast, where the population grew 5 percent from 2000 to
    2016, is the only region in which Amtrak offers high-frequency, high-
    speed service. In most of the South, where the population grew 22
    percent during the same period, and in the fast-growing Southwest and
    Mountain West Regions, Amtrak service is limited to a handful of long-
    distance trains that make a negligible contribution to regional
    transportation needs.
        The map of Amtrak's current route network looks little different
    from the map of our original network in 1971. It is not designed to
    meet travel needs and passenger demand in today's fastest growing
    regions and metropolitan areas, most of which have little or no Amtrak
    service. Amtrak does not serve Las Vegas, Phoenix, Nashville, or
    Columbus. A long-distance train operating just once a day provides the
    only Amtrak service in Dallas, Tampa, Atlanta, Denver, and Salt Lake
    City. The Houston metropolitan area, population seven million, is
    served by a long-distance train that operates only three times a week
    but accounts for nearly 40 percent of Amtrak's service in Texas, the
    second largest state. Amtrak has less service in Florida--the nation's
    third largest state--than it did in 1971, when Florida's population was
    less than a third of what it is today.
        While long distance trains play an important role in some small
    communities, they suffer from limited frequencies, uncompetitive trip
    times, and extremely poor on-time performance (OTP)--on average, less
    than 50 percent. They do not meet the needs of short distance travelers
    in the growing, vital regions and city pair markets where they provide
    the only Amtrak service today. They attract very few Millennial
    travelers, who comprise 31 percent of the adult population but only 16
    percent of Amtrak's adult long distance ridership.
        Speaking of on time performance, just last week during a hearing
    before this very committee, Chairman Wicker asked the FRA to provide an
    update on the development of new metrics and standards as required by
    PRIIA. In response to this question, the FRA stated that it had just
    formed a commission to begin this important work, which was surprising
    to me as Amtrak is not part of this commission. It is also concerning;
    in fact, it appears to be in direct conflict with the law. PRIIA
    Section 207 clearly states that ``. . . the Federal Railroad
    Administration and Amtrak shall jointly . . .'' develop the
    aforementioned metrics and standards. We appreciate that the FRA is
    looking to move forward with this important work, but Amtrak must have
    a seat at the table and jointly develop these metrics and standards
    consistent with the law. It is the process that was implemented in
    2009/2010 and it is consistent with what Congress expected of PRIIA
    Section 207.
        In addition, during last week's hearing, the FRA's witness stated
    that Amtrak's on-time performance (OTP) was 77.9 percent. Amtrak's
    actual customer OTP--the percentage of customers who arrived on time--
    was 73.0 percent in FY2018. However, that figure includes the Northeast
    Corridor and other Amtrak-dispatched routes, all of which had OTPs of
    80 percent or more.
        Further, the FRA seemed to focus on train schedules. To be clear,
    these metrics are designed as a trigger for a Surface Transportation
    Board (STB) investigation, which would examine the schedules as one of
    many potential factors influencing poor OTP.
        If you look at OTP on the long-distance and state-supported routes
    on Amtrak's host railroads, the picture is very different. Only four of
    the 41 host railroad-dispatched routes had an OTP of 80 percent or
    more. Average OTP on long distance routes was just 43.1 percent. The
    worst performing long-distance route--the New York-to-New Orleans
    Crescent, which serves the Chairman's constituents--had an OTP of just
    25.1 percent. It averaged more than two and hours of freight train
    interference delays per trip and arrived at its destination over two
    hours late on more than half of its trips. Very few travelers would
    choose to fly on an airline flight that had such an abysmal on-time
    performance.
        We know from what we have accomplished in the Northeast Corridor,
    and from working with our state partners elsewhere, what frequent,
    reliable, trip time-competitive Amtrak service can do to attract new
    customers in short distance city pairs and alleviate congestion on
    other modes. Ridership on our state-supported Hiawatha corridor between
    Chicago and Milwaukee, where our seven daily trains are faster than a
    car or bus trip on congested highways, has more than doubled since
    2003. On our fast-growing Amtrak Cascades service between Seattle and
    Portland, Federal and state investments to improve service and reduce
    trip times have enabled us to capture 58 percent of passengers who
    travel by air or rail.
        A recently awarded Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety
    Improvements (CRISI) grant to the Southern Rail Commission that will
    facilitate the restoration of Amtrak service between New Orleans,
    Louisiana and Mobile, Alabama illustrates the types of projects Amtrak
    needs to be pursuing if we are to contribute to meeting growing
    transportation demands in underserved regions and corridors. That 145-
    mile corridor was last served by a long-distance train that was poorly
    patronized because it operated only three days a week, was invariably
    hours late, and served Mobile in the middle of the night. The planned
    new service will operate twice daily during daytime hours. While there
    is still much more work to complete before this project is fully
    realized, it is an example of the type of future investments Amtrak
    could be making across the country.
        We are working internally to assess the potential of numerous other
    markets for operational and financial viability. This work includes:
    identifying new markets; evaluating frequencies and schedules;
    forecasting ridership, revenue, and operating expenses; and estimating
    fleet and infrastructure capital needs. Once we have a better
    understanding of the market demands and the assets needed to deliver a
    modern, improved service, then we will be prepared to engage partners,
    such as state DOTs, local communities, rail advocacy groups and
    businesses, and host railroads. This work is meant to help Congress
    determine how it can help Amtrak modernize, evolve, and expand.
        While there has been a lot of attention paid to our National
    Network of state-supported and long-distance routes, we must not forget
    about the NEC. The NEC is an amazing machine--Amtrak and eight commuter
    railroads provide 820,000 trips per weekday, and the services there
    include America's fastest train service, the Acela. However, as the NEC
    Commission recently stated, there is a $42 billion state of good repair
    backlog. The NEC is both a prime example of the benefits of passenger
    rail and an illustration of what happens when adequate funding is not
    provided for essential investments. The traveling public along the NEC
    does not doubt the value of intercity passenger rail--in fact, Amtrak
    carries more passengers within the NEC than all airlines combined in
    the region. However, asset failures, rail traffic congestion, and other
    factors cost $500 million per year in lost productivity. Without
    additional capital investment, those losses will only grow. An
    unexpected loss of the NEC for one day alone could cost the Nation
    nearly $100 million in transportation-related impacts and productivity
    losses.
        At last week's Commerce Hearing, there was some discussion on
    aspects of the Gateway Program, including environmental review and
    funding gaps. It is important to understand that funding and an EIS are
    two separate things. Funding is not required in order to finalize the
    NEPA process, although finishing NEPA is critical to being able to
    receive Federal funding. The FRA suggested that the Portal North Bridge
    was ready to go except for funding. However, to be clear Amtrak and our
    state partners have 100 percent of our local matches ready to go right
    now. It is, in fact, the USDOT who is holding up the project from
    advancing by not committing the necessary Federal share. This is
    especially concerning given the robust funding levels provided by
    Congress in FY 2018 and FY 2019 for DOT grant programs, such as the
    FTA's Capital Investment Grants program and FRA's Federal State
    Partnership for State of Good Repair program. Let's get Portal North's
    funding finalized today, there is simply no good reason to wait another
    day. In addition, the FRA mentioned that the Hudson Tunnel Project FEIS
    is actively being worked on. This is encouraging; however, we have
    heard nothing from FRA on the project since the document was submitted
    in December 2018. I know the FRA mentioned that the process still
    requires some 27 steps to be addressed after already completing 95
    steps, but we're talking about the most urgent infrastructure project
    in the Nation. We need to get this done and stop the unnecessary red
    tape. Period.
        Having outlined our national challenges, here are some of Amtrak's
    core principles for reauthorization, which we believe should be top of
    mind for Congress as it decides the future of intercity passenger rail:

       Principle #1--Congress should continue to support programs
            and policies that improve safety throughout Amtrak's rail
            network.

         Requiring PTC or PTC-equivalency for all common-
                carrier, regularly scheduled passenger rail operations
                nationwide. Amtrak's position remains that PTC should be
                required for passenger rail operations in the United
                States. Only in unique cases where it does not make
                technical or practical sense will we consider a PTC-
                equivalent solution as a final solution. Amtrak
                acknowledges that it will take time to implement this
                strategy. As we continue to collect data from host
                railroads, our assessments continue to evolve as to whether
                PTC or PTC-equivalency is most appropriate for any
                territory. Therefore, for the near term, Amtrak is putting
                in place non-PTC risk mitigations on these MTEA segments.

         Increased investments in grade crossing safety.

         Amtrak's adoption of its industry-leading safety
                management system and pursuit of a just culture.

         Development and implementation of new technologies to
                improve safety.

       Principle #2--Congress should clarify the role of intercity
            passenger rail within the Nation's transportation system and
            Amtrak's mission and goals. It should identify what goals it
            wishes to achieve through the intercity passenger rail network,
            and how those goals are to be prioritized.

         Amtrak's focus should be providing a trip time
                competitive alternative to congested highways and airspace
                in heavily-populated and growing corridors and regions
                throughout the nation, as opposed to simply maintaining
                existing rail service as established many decades ago and
                which may serve relatively few passengers.

         Market demand, changing demographics, and ridership
                (both current levels and future projections) should be the
                primary drivers for service level decisions.

         Capital costs for infrastructure, fleet, and stations
                should also be taken into consideration, as should the
                subsidy level needed to operate a route and the importance
                of sustainability.

       Principle #3--Congress should address Amtrak-Host Railroad
            challenges.

         On-time performance (OTP) on much of the National
                Network is abysmal. In FY 2018, long distance trains OTP
                was, on average, 47 percent. A legislative fix is necessary
                to remedy poor OTP and ensure host railroad compliance with
                existing Federal law, which requires that Amtrak passenger
                trains be given preference over freight transportation.

         In addition, legislation is needed to provide a fair
                and expeditious process to grant access to Amtrak for new
                or changed routes and services and for determining access
                terms. Without such changes, Amtrak's ability to expand
                services in response to demand and to currently underserved
                communities will be extremely limited. Access to new tracks
                and frequency expansion--how to assess capacity and develop
                neutral, fair estimates of capital upgrade costs.

       Principle #4--Congress should ensure Amtrak has access to
            Federal transportation programs and funding and should provide
            sufficient funding levels to address the challenges across the
            network.

         Congress should authorize sufficient funding to
                advance critical state of good repair and modernization and
                capacity enhancement projects on the NEC and the National
                Network. Congress should specifically fund priority
                investments on the NEC to advance major projects currently
                in design and to complete acquisition of new passenger
                cars. Similarly, specific and significant funding is
                necessary to replace aging fleet across Amtrak's Long-
                Distance network and to expand intercity passenger rail
                corridor service in existing and new markets where Amtrak
                can meaningfully contribute to addressing currently and
                future mobility challenges.

         Congress should ensure predictable funding levels
                consistent with the role and goals it establishes for
                Amtrak through a trust fund or other multi-year mechanism
                at levels sufficient to meet the needs of both the NEC and
                National Network. The nation has underinvested in intercity
                passenger rail for nearly all of Amtrak's existence. It is
                the only major surface transportation mode that does not
                receive dedicated, predicable funding through a trust fund.
                All FHWA programs, most FTA programs, and most DOT safety
                programs receive contract authority at levels set by
                Congressional authorizations, which allows for strong
                planning and the efficient execution of multiyear
                investment programs. Amtrak simply seeks parity for
                intercity passenger rail capital investments.

         Congress should eliminate the current prohibitions
                against funding intercity passenger rail projects through
                existing surface transportation programs. For example, the
                FTA's governing statute defines ``public transportation''
                as explicitly not including intercity passenger rail
                provided by Amtrak. This creates confusion and
                inefficiencies when Amtrak and state partners try to
                advance rail projects that have shared benefits between
                commuter and intercity rail. In addition, FHWA programs
                should be able to fund beneficial intercity passenger rail
                projects that support the agency's mission. For example,
                the intent of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
                (CMAQ) program, is to do what passenger rail does best:
                improve air quality and reduce congestion by taking cars
                off the road and promoting alternative transportation
                options for drivers. However, the current program is
                limited to eligible costs under Chapter 53 of Title 49, and
                therefore intercity passenger rail is generally not
                eligible.

       Principle #5--Congress should look at ways to strengthen
            state partnerships for the benefit of the traveling public.

         The current Amtrak-State partnership created by PRIIA
                and enhanced by FAST Act forms the basis for how states in
                the NEC and the National Network partner with Amtrak. To
                confront the challenges of aging assets (infrastructure,
                fleet, and stations), along with the need for network
                modernization and expansion, States' role in providing
                intercity passenger rail should be reevaluated to ensure a
                fair balance between Federal and state participation.
                Amtrak and the Federal government must play a greater role
                in working with states to advance and fund passenger rail
                expansion in under 400-mile corridors between our country's
                major metropolitan areas. This may include the Federal
                government covering the capital and operating costs of new
                short corridor service, including both adding additional
                frequencies on existing routes and establishing new routes
                not currently served by Amtrak.

       Principle #6--Congress should allow Amtrak to operate like a
            business.

         The Rail Passenger Service Act, as codified at 49 USC
                24301(a), clearly states that Amtrak ``shall be operated
                and managed as a for-profit corporation.'' Amtrak's Mission
                and Goals, codified at 49 USC 24101(b) and (c), states that
                our service should be ``efficient and effective'' and
                Amtrak ``shall use its best business judgement in acting to
                minimize United States Government subsidies. . ..''.
                However, in recent years, Congress has repeatedly attempted
                to undue actions Amtrak has taken to modernize our
                services, reallocate resources to reflect technological
                advances like e-ticketing, satisfy changing customer
                preferences and achieve cost savings. It has earmarked
                Amtrak's funds for specific capital projects. This has
                increased the losses on our long-distance trains and the
                costs to our state partners for our state-supported routes,
                which of course are borne by taxpayers. It has also
                prevented Amtrak from reinvesting savings into necessary
                capital investments to improve our customers' experience
                and provide cost-effective competition with other modes,
                such as aviation and bus.

        Critical investments for equipment and infrastructure are required
    over the next few years if Amtrak is to maintain current services and
    meet the increasing demand for passenger rail service in underserved
    regions and corridors. As a result, Congress will need to make some
    tough choices in reauthorization.
        If Congress intends for Amtrak to meet intercity passenger rail's
    unrealized potential in short distance corridors throughout the country
    and make vital investments in the NEC, while continuing to provide
    without alteration or cost reduction all of the services we provide
    today, it will need to provide the additional funding required to
    fulfill all of those mandates. We cannot kick the can down the road
    while Amtrak equipment and infrastructure deteriorate and congestion on
    highways and in airspace becomes even worse because the services we
    provide meet fewer and fewer travelers' needs. With sufficient
    investment, however, Amtrak can be a ``game changer'' in America's
    transportation network.
        I look forward to working with each of you. While the challenges
    described today are difficult, they can 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.

        Senator Wicker. Thank you very, very much.
        Mr. Jefferies.

                      STATEMENT OF IAN JEFFERIES,

                 PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

                   ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS

        Mr. Jefferies. Thank you.
        Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, Members of the
    Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
        The Association of American Railroads has a diverse
    membership of both large and small freight and passenger
    railroads. Our freight railroad members, including the seven
    large Class 1 railroads and over 100 shortline and regional
    railroads, account for the overwhelming majority of our
    Nation's freight railroad activity while Amtrak and AAR's
    commuter railroad members account for more than 80 percent of
    annual U.S. passenger railroad trips.
        AAR's membership agrees that America can and should have
    both safe, effective passenger railroading and a safe,
    productive freight rail system. Mutual success for both
    passenger and freight railroads requires collaboration and a
    recognition of the challenges that must be managed to meet our
    country's need to move people and goods safely and efficiently.
        Well into the 20th Century, railroads were the primary
    means to transport people and freight in the United States but
    that did not last. Following years of financial challenges due
    to falling passenger rail demand, Congress passed the Rail
    Passenger Service Act of 1970. The Act, which led to the
    creation of Amtrak, was designed to preserve a basic level of
    inner city passenger rail service while relieving private
    railroads of their obligation to provide passenger service.
        Freight railroads initially helped capitalize Amtrak in
    cash, equipment, and services, and were required to provide
    preference to Amtrak trains.
        Today, freight railroads provide the infrastructure for
    most passenger rail. Approximately 97 percent of Amtrak's
    22,000 mile system consists of tracks owned and maintained by
    freight railroads.
        When looking at projects, each project involving passenger
    and freight railroads should be evaluated on a case by case
    basis; but these projects are more likely to succeed if certain
    overarching principles are followed.
        First and foremost, we all agree safety always comes first,
    whether for freight or passenger railroads. Second, current and
    future capacity needs of both freight railroads and passenger
    railroads must be front of mind and properly addressed.
        Today, freight railroads carry twice the volume as they did
    when Amtrak was formed while passenger rail ridership continues
    to increase as well. To improve capacity and safety of the
    network, freight railroads spend on average $25 billion in
    private capital each year on maintenance and capital
    improvements.
        When existing or potential freight traffic levels are so
    high that there is no spare capacity for passenger trains, new
    infrastructure might be needed before passenger trains can
    reliably operate.
        This leads to the third principle. Proper funding for
    Amtrak is critical, especially as it looks to change and expand
    service offerings. Policy-makers should provide Amtrak the
    level of funding necessary to address its capital needs and pay
    for expanded capacity when required.
        It is not reasonable to expect Amtrak to effectively plan,
    build, and maintain adequate infrastructure and service when
    there is excessive uncertainty regarding its capital allocation
    from 1 year to the next.
        Fourth, all parties must recognize that preference of
    Amtrak trains over freight trains does not mean there will
    never be delays to Amtrak trains. Any number of factors
    contribute to rail delays, including bad weather, heavy traffic
    volume, network maintenance, and other factors. While Amtrak
    may be given preference, preference cannot mean a guarantee of
    zero delay.
        Ever since Amtrak was created, Amtrak and the freight
    railroads have worked together to establish and implement rules
    and procedures governing their interactions. Keeping both
    Amtrak and freight trains running on time is a tremendously
    complex issue.
        Last week before this Committee, FRA Administrator Batory
    laid out his framework for next steps on standards and metrics
    for on-time performance. AAR's members, both passenger and
    freight, stand ready to constructively participate throughout
    this process.
        Having both safe, effective passenger railroads and a safe,
    productive freight rail system should be a common goal of all
    of us because it is in America's best interests. Achieving this
    goal requires successful navigation and management of several
    complex challenges, but I am confident that together freight
    railroads, Amtrak and other passenger railroads, as well, can
    find common ground that benefits all parties.
        Thank you for your time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Jefferies follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive
                   Officer, Association of American Railroads
    Introduction
        On behalf of the members of the Association of American Railroads
    (AAR), thank you for the opportunity to appear before you.
        AAR has a diverse membership of both freight and passenger
    railroads, both large and small. The freight railroad members, which
    include the seven large U.S. Class I railroads as well as approximately
    170 U.S. short line and regional railroads, account for the vast
    majority of freight railroad mileage, employees, and traffic in the
    United States. Amtrak is a member of the AAR, as are various commuter
    railroads that in aggregate account for more than 80 percent of U.S.
    passenger railroad trips.
        Like freight railroads, passenger railroading plays a key role in
    alleviating highway and airport congestion, decreasing dependence on
    foreign oil, reducing pollution, and enhancing mobility. All of us want
    passenger railroads that are safe, efficient, and responsive to the
    transportation needs of our country.

        Meanwhile, America is connected by the most efficient, affordable,
    and environmentally responsible freight rail system in the world, a
    system which is overwhelmingly built and maintained by the freight
    railroads themselves. Whenever Americans grow something, eat something,
    export something, import something, make something, or turn on a light,
    it's likely that freight railroads were involved somewhere along the
    line. Looking ahead, America cannot prosper in an increasingly
    competitive global marketplace without a best-in-the-world freight rail
    system.
        AAR's membership agrees that America can and should have both safe,
    effective passenger railroading and a safe, productive, freight rail
    system. Mutual success for both passenger and freight railroads
    requires collaboration and a recognition of the challenges -especially
    capacity--railroads face. Government efforts should balance the
    country's need to move people and goods safely and efficiently.
    Freight and Passenger Rail Partnerships: Decades in the Making
        Well into the 20th century, railroads were the primary means to
    transport people and freight in the United States, but that didn't
    last. Thanks to the huge expansion of America's highway system and the
    development of commercial aviation, private railroads were losing
    around $725 million annually by 1957--equivalent to approximately $5
    billion per year in today's dollars--on passenger service.
        These massive losses continued for years, largely because
    government regulators made it very difficult for railroads to
    discontinue unprofitable passenger rail service. In essence, for
    decades railroads were forced to lose huge sums every year providing a
    public service that fewer and fewer people chose to use. By 1970,
    passenger rail ridership had plummeted to around 11 billion passenger-
    miles, down 88 percent from its 1944 peak of 96 billion, despite a 40
    percent increase in population during that time. The massive passenger
    losses were draining a rail system that was also facing unrelenting
    pressure on its freight side from subsidized trucks and barges, leading
    to railroad bankruptcies, consolidations, service abandonments,
    deferred maintenance, and general financial deterioration.
        The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (RPSA), which created
    Amtrak, wanted to preserve a basic level of intercity passenger rail
    service while relieving private railroads of the obligation to provide
    money-losing passenger service that threatened the viability of freight
    railroading.
        Given the huge financial drain, railroads generally welcomed the
    opportunity to largely exit the passenger business, but first they had
    to provide the backbone of today's system. Freight railroads initially
    helped capitalize Amtrak in cash, equipment, and services; these
    payments to Amtrak totaled around $850 million in today's dollars.
    Freight railroads were also required to provide preference to Amtrak
    passenger service over freight service, a benefit that still continues.
    Finally, when operating on another railroad's tracks, Amtrak generally
    is required to pay no more than the incremental costs. To this day,
    this low track rental fee is a major indirect subsidy paid not by
    taxpayers or Amtrak riders, but by the freight railroads.
        Today, freight railroads provide the foundation for most passenger
    rail. Amtrak owns approximately 730 route-miles, primarily in the
    Northeast Corridor, which account for about 40 percent of Amtrak's
    total ridership. Nearly all of the remaining 97 percent of Amtrak's
    22,000-mile system consists of tracks owned and maintained by freight
    railroads. Freight railroads also furnish other essential services to
    Amtrak, including train dispatching, emergency repairs, station
    maintenance, and, in some cases, police protection, claims
    investigation, and communications capabilities.
        In addition, hundreds of millions of commuter trips each year occur
    on commuter rail systems that operate at least partially over tracks or
    right-of-way owned by freight railroads, and most of the higher speed
    and intercity passenger rail projects under consideration nationwide
    involve using freight-owned facilities.
    Principles to Guide Passenger Rail Operations on Freight-Owned
            Corridors
        Each project involving passenger and freight railroads should be
    evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Projects have a better chance of
    success if certain overarching principles are followed. These
    principles should not be seen as barriers; instead, they should be seen
    as a means to ensure what all of us want: the long-term success of
    passenger rail and a healthy freight rail system that shippers all over
    the country rely on every day.
        First and foremost, safety always comes first. Railroads are an
    extremely safe way to move people and freight, and everyone in
    railroading wants to keep it that way.
        Second, current and future capacity needs of both freight and
    passenger railroads must be properly addressed. Today, freight
    railroads carry twice the volume they did when Amtrak was formed.
    Freight corridors are expensive to maintain and many freight corridors
    lack spare capacity. Passenger rail use of freight rail corridors must
    be balanced with freight railroads' need to provide safe, reliable, and
    cost-effective freight service to present or future customers. To
    improve capacity and the safety of the rail network, privately owned
    freight railroads spend on average $25 billion each year on maintenance
    and capital improvements, ultimately benefiting Amtrak, surrounding
    communities, and the Nation a whole. When existing or potential future
    freight traffic levels are so high that there is no spare capacity for
    passenger trains, new infrastructure might be needed before passenger
    trains can be added to operate over a line.
        Third, proper funding is necessary, especially as Amtrak looks to
    change and expand service offerings. As laid out in AAR's surface
    transportation reauthorization recommendations, policymakers should
    provide passenger railroads--including Amtrak--with the dedicated
    funding they need to operate safely and effectively, and to pay for
    expanded capacity when they require it. It is not reasonable to expect
    Amtrak to be able to plan, build, and maintain an adequate network that
    provides optimal transportation mobility and connectivity when there is
    excessive uncertainty regarding what its capital and operating funding
    will be from one year to the next. If Congress provides predictable and
    needed levels of Federal funding support, Amtrak and its state partners
    could better deliver a future of improved reliability, enhanced
    capacity, more service, and reduced trip times.

        Fourth, all railroads are committed to providing reliable service
    to all its customers--shippers and passengers. All parties must
    recognize that the priority of Amtrak's trains over freight trains does
    not mean there will be no delays to Amtrak trains. We're all familiar
    with the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) highway lanes here in Washington.
    These lanes give preference to automobiles with more than one person
    inside, allowing them, in theory, to get where they're going with
    little to no delay. That doesn't always happen, though. Sometimes bad
    weather, unexpected heavy traffic volume, accidents, or other problems
    cause motorists in HOV lanes to be delayed. The same principle must be
    applied to the rail network: Amtrak is given preference, but preference
    cannot mean a guarantee.
    On-Time Performance Metrics
        Ever since Amtrak was created, Amtrak and freight railroads have
    worked together to establish and implement the rules and procedures
    governing their interactions. Most of these rules and procedures are
    spelled out in formal bilateral operating agreements negotiated between
    Amtrak and host railroads. These operating agreements are the products
    of decades of real-world experience regarding what works well and what
    does not. The agreements often include clauses that provide incentives
    and penalties to freight railroads to help ensure that Amtrak trains
    meet specified on-time targets.
        The freight railroads and Amtrak are in a far better position than
    anyone else to determine, working together, what these operating
    agreements should contain and how they should be structured.
        Keeping both Amtrak and freight trains running on time is a
    tremendously complex issue. When Amtrak was created, freight railroads
    had significant excess capacity. Since then, much of this excess
    capacity has been shed, and freight traffic growth has consumed much of
    what remained.
        Day-to-day realities of the 140,000-mile rail network come into
    play too. For example, when track conditions warrant it, freight
    railroads temporarily reduce allowable operating speed for safety
    reasons. These ``slow orders'' can delay trains of all types, but
    safety must take precedence over everything else. Similarly, railroads
    must devote sufficient time to needed track and signal maintenance.
    This often produces unavoidable delays in the short term for freight
    and passenger trains, but improves service reliability--and enhances
    safety--in the long term.
        The establishment and periodic review of reasonable and realistic
    schedules and determination of meaningful on-time performance metrics
    should be undertaken jointly by host railroads and Amtrak and governed
    by private, bilateral contracts that consider the unique circumstances
    of particular routes. One-size-fits-all solutions will not work on a
    network as complex or important as our Nation's rail system.
        I was encouraged by Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
    Administrator Ron Batory's testimony at last week's hearing where he
    indicated the next steps on setting metrics and standards rules.
    Specifically, he said that the rules would be made using a cooperative
    process with both Amtrak and the freight railroads at the table, that
    schedules would be reviewed and updated based on today's rail
    conditions, that future schedules between Amtrak and the host railroad
    would be validated, that the industry would use technology, not human
    measurement tools, to determine reasons for delay, and that the focus
    would be on realistic consumer expectations. All of AAR's members stand
    ready to work with the Administrator as this process continues.
    Positive Train Control (PTC) Update
        Before I close, I want to provide this committee with an update on
    railroad efforts to implement PTC. The seven Class I freight railroads
    all met statutory requirements by having 100 percent of their required
    PTC-related hardware installed, 100 percent of their PTC-related
    spectrum in place, and 100 percent of their required employee training
    completed by the end of 2018. In aggregate, Class I railroads had 89
    percent of required PTC route-miles in operation as of April 2019. Each
    Class I railroad expects to be operating trains in PTC mode on all
    their PTC routes no later than 2020, as required by statute. In the
    meantime, railroads, in coordination with Amtrak, other passenger
    railroads, and other tenant railroads, are continuing to test and
    validate their PTC systems thoroughly to ensure they are interoperable
    and work as they should.
    Conclusion
        Having both safe, effective passenger railroads and a safe,
    productive, freight rail system should be the common goal of all of us
    because it is in America's best interest. I am confident that together
    the freight railroads and Amtrak can find common ground that benefits
    all parties.

        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Souby, you are welcome.

               STATEMENT OF JAMES M. SOUBY, COMMISSIONER,

                SOUTHWEST CHIEF & FRONT RANGE PASSENGER

                       RAIL COMMISSION (COLORAIL)

        Mr. Souby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Wicker, and
    thank you, Ranking Member Cantwell.
        I'm delighted to be here and honored to provide testimony
    on this extraordinarily important topic.
        First of all, let me thank this committee for all you've
    done for Amtrak to date through PRIA and all the other efforts
    you've given to that railroad. It is our passenger-carrying
    line and as was already mentioned, it provides that service to
    over 80 percent of the railroad passengers that the Nation
    sees.
        You asked me, Mr. Chairman, to kind of relate the Colorado
    experience with Amtrak, particularly with respect to the
    Southwest Chief, and I can tell you, starting in 2011 and all
    the way through 2017, we had a tremendously positive
    relationship with the railroad.
        The CEO came out twice to our state. They sent the Exhibit
    Train out twice to test new routes within Colorado. That was a
    train that Amtrak ran up until just a couple of years ago.
        Together with Amtrak, our local communities and Kansas, New
    Mexico, and Colorado, and the BNSF Railway, we raised $75
    million to help improve the route of the Southwest Chief, and
    three TIGER Grants. It was the most successful program and
    still remains the most successful TIGER Grant Program that's
    ever been initiated under that program.
        Unfortunately, in 2017 and then again starting in 2018, we
    ran into a big change of heart at Amtrak. The match they had
    provided for our TIGER 9 Grant, which was promoted by Colfax
    County, New Mexico, which would have repaired another 50 miles
    of track for the Southwest Chief, Amtrak pledged a $3 million
    match to that grant and then with little notice, in fact to our
    Commission with no notice, they withheld that $3 million grant,
    which caused that project to be delayed.
        Now thanks to Senators Gardner, Bennett, Senator Udall, and
    Senator Heinrich, and I'm thinking of--oh, Senator Moran,
    Senator Moran, of course, and Senator Roberts, that decision
    was reversed and so Amtrak did come in with the $3 million but
    at a tremendous cost and that cost was we missed the entire
    build grant cycle.
        So our partnership, which had prepared a proposal for that
    grant, was unable to submit it because we couldn't get the
    TIGER 9 Grant underway. So we fell a year and a half behind.
        The next issue that arose was the bus substitution proposal
    from Amtrak. Once again, our Commission in Colorado was not
    notified in advance of this proposal. We were told about it
    after it had been announced and we, of course, had to respond
    that it was a poor idea. It would have essentially ended the
    Southwest Chief as a viable rail line through our three states
    and on from Chicago on to L.A.
        So that changed the whole tenor of our relationship with
    Amtrak and I'm pleased to say that because of the Senators I
    mentioned and because of this committee, Amtrak has turned
    around, at least for this Fiscal Year, their position on those
    items, but we're not positive yet that Amtrak will sustain the
    long-distance system once the appropriation bill that was
    passed and put provisions in to maintain a national railroad
    and to protect those routes. Once that expires, we're concerned
    about what might happen at Amtrak.
        So one of our main recommendations to you on
    reauthorization is to take that language, that language that
    was in the Appropriations Act that said we're going to maintain
    a national network and the foundation for that network is going
    to be these very valuable long-distance trains that exist, we
    want to see that language put into the reauthorization so we
    have a 5-year window with which to continue to address these
    issues on our long-distance trains.
        I share Amtrak's position on on-time performance. I think
    they need an enforceable standard so that they can make sure
    their trains run on time. That is a problem for our long-
    distance trains. It's not the only problem.
        I share Amtrak's position that they need extensive funding
    to re-equip the long-distance trains. There's no doubt about it
    in my mind, but that has to be done within this policy
    framework where a national system is going to be maintained and
    these underlying routes are going to be sustained.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Souby follows:]

               Prepared Statement of James M. Souby, President,
                 Colorado Rail Passenger Association (ColoRail)
        Thank you Chairman Wicker, Minority Leader Cantwell and members of
    the Committee. I am honored to join you for this important hearing on
    the future of our Nation's passenger rail system. I am James M Souby,
    from Denver, Colorado. I am a Commissioner on the State's Southwest
    Chief & Front Range Passenger Rail Commission which was created by our
    Legislature in 2017. I also serve as President of the Colorado Rail
    Passenger Association and until this April I was a member of the Board
    of Directors of the Rail Passengers Association (RPA), a national
    advocacy organization. I currently serve on the RPA Council and have
    consulted with the organization on the preparation of this testimony.
        My testimony today will cover four themes about the topic Amtrak:
    Next Steps for Passenger Rail. which may be equally important to other
    current and future passenger rail operators in the Nation. I will
    describe the topic, then look at what we have learned. The themes
    include the ongoing campaign to save the Amtrak Southwest Chief service
    in Colorado, the ongoing efforts to facilitate Front Range Passenger
    Rail in Colorado, and the successful efforts to restore ski train
    service to our state between Denver and Winter Park. These experiences
    and my service with RPA have also provided me with some recommendations
    for the fourth theme, Congressional direction that will ensure that
    Amtrak and our Nation continue to improve our passenger rail system.
    1. Southwest Chief Campaign--Save the Chief! (2011-present)

        Colorado's Save the Amtrak Southwest Chief campaign began in early
    2011 when Colorado communities, the State Department of Transportation
    and advocates learned from Amtrak that its operating and maintenance
    contract between BNSF Railway would expire in 2015 and the terms and
    conditions would change dramatically. The BNSF was operating far fewer
    freight trains between Newton, KS, and Madrid, NM, than when the
    contract was first agreed to some 20 years beforehand. This segment
    totaled 642 miles of the 2,256 mile route of the Southwest Chief from
    Chicago to Los Angeles. In fact, the BNSF had stopped operating any
    trains on the 219 mile segment between Trinidad, Colorado, and Lamy,
    New Mexico. Thus, Amtrak would be asked to bear a significantly larger
    share of the operating and maintenance costs for the route segment as
    its contract with BNSF provided for.
        Amtrak estimated that the costs to maintain and improve the track
    over ten years would be $94.7 million in capital costs, and $111
    million in operating and maintenance costs. These costs were based on
    initial figures provided by BNSF. BNSF took into account the fact that
    much of the rail and ties on the segment were over fifty years old and
    would have to be replaced if higher speed passenger train service was
    to be maintained. This situation forced Amtrak to consider rerouting
    the SW Chief to the BNSF transcontinental route, which would eliminate
    service to western Kansas, southeastern Colorado and northeastern New
    Mexico. Nine communities would lose service: Hutchison, Dodge City and
    Garden City in Kansas; Lamar, La Junta and Trinidad in Colorado; and
    Raton, Las Vegas and Lamy in New Mexico. This possible reroute was not
    favored by any of the parties, including Amtrak and BNSF Railway. BNSF
    expressed concern over interference with its heavy freight volumes on
    its transcontinental route and Amtrak didn't want to lose the historic
    cache of the Santa Fe Trail for its passenger train. In fact, it was
    later determined that rerouting the train would require expenditures
    equal to or more than the cost estimates for its historic route.
        ColoRail immediately initiated a campaign to find ways to prevent
    the elimination of service across southern Colorado and neighboring
    states and instantly found allies in the three Colorado communities,
    including Rick Klein, City Manager of La Junta, Colorado who has
    testified to this Committee. Over the ensuing ten months, ColoRail
    members visited Las Vegas, NM, Raton, NM, Trinidad, CO, La Junta, CO,
    and Lamar, CO, Santa Fe, NM, and Kansas City, MO, as well as Action 22,
    the County Association which includes the Colorado counties served by
    the SW Chief. Rick Klein immediately obtained support from his
    colleagues in KS. Resolutions of support for maintaining the train were
    obtained from the communities, counties, local economic development and
    tourism boards and utilities.
        Relying on the success of the first community visits, the City of
    La Junta and ColoRail organized a ``summit'' meeting to deal with the
    impending crisis in November, 2011. Representatives and advocates from
    communities in the three states attended and the campaign was formally
    organized. Amtrak briefed the participants on its budget issues and
    provided information of possible Federal funding sources. A steering
    committee of reps from Garden City, KS, La Junta, CO, and Colfax County
    (Raton) NM was formed comprising one elected and one senior appointed
    official. ColoRail agreed to support the effort with its advocacy. This
    partnership has survived to this day and has been a mainstay in the
    campaign's success.
        In the spring of 2012, ColoRail and its new local and legislative
    allies from both political parties drafted a state resolution in
    support on continuation of the SW Chief route through Colorado. This
    resolution passed on a overwhelming bi-partisan vote after a standing
    room only hearing at the State Capitol. The strength of public support
    for preserving passenger rail service in Colorado was becoming evident.
        Following the passage of the state resolution, ColoRail asked the
    Colorado Senate delegation to host a three state (CO, KS, NM) staff
    meeting in Washington, DC. ColoRail's President would be meeting there
    in his capacity as a representative of the National Association of
    Railroad Passengers. At the meeting, he presented the Amtrak cost
    estimates and the newly formed coalition's view that the survival of
    the train was a Federal issue meriting their attention and support. The
    legal assertion was accepted, but the funding request of some $200
    million over ten years was rebuffed. ``If you want to raise that kind
    of money to save the train, you better have some skin in the game'' was
    the most memorable comment from the meeting.
        Thus, the campaign entered a new phase. Garden City, KS, elected to
    apply for a newly inaugurated Transportation Infrastructure Generating
    Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant from the U.S. Dept. of Transportation.
    While this request did not succeed, it did generate considerable
    interest from all the partners in new possibilities to deal with saving
    the SW Chief.
        With the new information about funding possibilities in hand,
    ColoRail convened a second ``Save the Chief Summit'' in Pueblo, CO, in
    September, 2013. Flexing its new found political muscles, Coalition
    mayors and legislators of both parties from CO, KS and NM met. They
    agreed to aggressively seek local, state and Federal funding to save
    the train. Another key observation for Colorado was that the state DOT
    seemed structurally ill-suited for dealing with regional passenger rail
    issues. This was to lead to major legislation in Colorado. The summit
    was also instrumental in enlisting of greater bi-partisan elected
    support at the County and State Legislative levels.
        In 2012 and 2013, ColoRail support also included taking local,
    state and Congressional elected representatives and staff on the Amtrak
    SW Chief on what became known as the ``Las Vegas Turn'', a daylong trip
    on the train from La Junta or Trinidad, CO, to Las Vegas, NM, and
    return. ColoRail briefed the officials during the ride and the
    conductors would then take the VIPs on a tour of the train. In Las
    Vegas, the Mayor hosted a further briefing on the economic benefits of
    the train at the train station. He then conducted a tour of the city
    and its universities and many attractions before the return trip to
    Colorado on the eastbound SW Chief. Many of the participants never had
    travelled on a passenger train and the experience was extraordinarily
    valuable in garnering their support.
        In the 2014, Colorado state legislation to create a state
    commission to deal with the train and its threats was introduced and
    passed. With strong, bi-partisan support the Southwest Chief Rail Line
    Economic Development, Rural Tourism, and Infrastructure Repair and
    Maintenance Commission (2014 Commission) was formed. This independent
    agency operated with the support of the State Department of
    Transportation's Transit and Rail Division, but had its own power to
    receive and expend funds and was able to give the train's survival
    undivided attention. It also was directed to help coordinate activities
    across Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico. Its membership included local
    officials, advocates, Amtrak, CDOT and a liaison with the BNSF Railway.
    Its meetings were regularly attended by legislators, local leaders,
    Congressional Staff, and on one occasion, the Administrator of the
    Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). While participation was
    voluntary and unreimbursed, the Commission did receive a grant from the
    County of Pueblo, which allowed it to obtain professional assistance on
    contract. The new Commission was given a sunset date of June 30, 2017.
        The creation of the Commission had its intended effect. Meetings
    including participation of representatives from KSDOT and NMDOT were
    held monthly and a three state strategy to save the Chief was designed
    and implemented. Amtrak cooperation was outstanding, including two
    visits to the State by the railroad's President and CEO and two visits
    by the Amtrak Exhibit Train. One Exhibit Train visit took place in
    Pueblo, an important demonstration of the potential for future service
    on the Front Range. This positive relationship was to have other
    beneficial outcomes which included the resumption of ski train service
    in the State.
        One additional directive in the Commission's legislative mandate
    was to explore the rerouting of the SW Chief through Pueblo and then on
    to Trinidad, with the possibility of a stop in Walsenburg, CO. Though
    this would add some 60--70 miles to the overall route, time savings
    from track improvements under the three state strategy were thought to
    be sufficient to keep the train's schedule intact for arrival and
    departure in Chicago and Los Angeles. Amtrak's revenue division
    estimated ridership on the train would increase by about 15,000
    passengers and yield a net of over a million dollars to the train's
    financial performance. While early completion of the reroute was soon
    deemed impractical due to necessary La Junta-Pueblo-Trinidad track and
    signal improvements, the concept remains intact and may become
    practical when Front Range Passenger Rail is fully implicated.
        In the meantime, the idea of ``through car'' service to Pueblo from
    La Junta was raised by Amtrak. This would entail detaching cars from
    the westbound SW Chief in the morning and taking them to Pueblo. They
    would be turned and returned to La Junta to join the eastbound SW Chief
    in the late afternoon. This proposal was attractive. The service would
    be the first step toward bringing Front Range passenger rail to
    Colorado, it could possibly be extended to Colorado Springs, and as a
    through car service it would remain part of the SW Chief for funding
    and operations as are other Amtrak through cars. It would also bolster
    the train's financial performance. While the concept is still being
    evaluated, the Positive Train Control mandate would add route
    improvement costs which were not initially anticipated.
        The most significant outcomes of the 2014 Commission's brief tenure
    were due to its role in helping to coordinate and advance the three
    state strategy involving Transportation Infrastructure Generating
    Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants. This fund raising approach was
    pioneered by Garden City, KS, with a grant application in 2012. Their
    effort, though unsuccessful, brought the process into sharp focus for
    Kansas, then Colorado and eventually New Mexico.
        The first successful grant under TIGER VI was sponsored by Garden
    City, as well. Kansas DOT (KDOT) matched the grant with $3 million,
    Amtrak with $4 million and BNSF Railway with $2 million. Kansas and
    Colorado communities and advocates matched with $300,000. In connection
    with the grant award of $12,469,963, BNSF Railway announced that they
    would take full responsibility for maintenance costs of any rail, ties
    and ballast replaced under the grant for the useful life of the
    improvements. This was a major contribution which improved the
    financial picture for maintenance of the entire 642 mile segment.
        The Garden City success was followed by La Junta's success on a
    TIGER VII application which received a $15,210,143 award. In this
    grant, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), KDOT and New
    Mexico DOT (NMDOT) each pledged a $1 million match. Local communities
    and advocates in the three states pledged matches of $234,000. Amtrak
    matched with $4 million and BNSF matched with $2 million. TIGER VII
    became the model for future funding of SW Chief route improvements.
        Following a Lamar, CO, sponsored TIGER VIII application which was
    not funded, Colfax County, New Mexico mounted a successful TIGER IX
    application in 2017. Lamar's loss was not attributed to the quality of
    the application, but because the state of Colorado had competing
    priorities in the same grant cycle. Colfax County, on the other hand,
    became the first New Mexico TIGER grant applicant for the SW Chief
    three state coalition. It yielded a $15.2 million Federal award with
    approximately $10 million in match from CDOT, KDOT, and NMDOT; BNSF;
    Amtrak; and, communities and advocates in the three states.
    Improvements under this grant were delayed and have only begun in 2019.
        As the sunset date for the 2014 Commission approached, the
    Commissioners including CDOT's representatives agreed that a follow-on
    Commission should be formed. Its purpose would be to continue the SW
    Chief campaign and also to advance the concept of Front Range passenger
    rail which was growing more feasible. Population growth and congestion
    in the I-25 corridor from Wyoming to New Mexico was driving costly
    highway expansion and significant future population and traffic growth
    were predicted. It was clear that a more efficient way to move people
    would be necessary if Colorado's positive economic momentum was to be
    maintained.
        This legislative proposal also received broad bi-partisan support
    leading to the formation of the Southwest Chief & Front Range Passenger
    Rail Commission (2017 Commission) in the 2017 Colorado legislative
    session. The 2017 Commission included a voting representatives from
    each of the five Front Range Councils of Governments/Metropolitan
    Planning Organizations, the two Class I freight railroads (BNSF Railway
    and Union Pacific Railroad), two passenger rail advocates, a
    representative from the counties served by the SW Chief, and a
    representative of the Denver Regional Transportation District. CDOT and
    Amtrak were named as non-voting members. In 2018, the legislature
    appropriated $2.5 million to the 2017 Commission to begin Front Range
    passenger rail planning in earnest.
        As the 2017 Commission was forming a major and controversial glitch
    in the TIGER IX grant award occurred. Unbeknownst to the 2017
    Commission, Amtrak had filed a letter of support to the grant sponsor,
    Colfax County, which conditioned the award of their $3 million match on
    the development of a long-range financial plan for the SW Chief
    including needed improvements in the New Mexico, 219 mile sole use
    segment between Trinidad, CO and Lamy, NM. These costs were estimated
    at $30 to $50 million. The importance and implications of this
    condition were not understood by Colfax County, and the 2017 Commission
    was not informed of the existence of the letter and its conditions. It
    was only when the grant was awarded and detailed planning for the grant
    program began, e.g., filing for a categorical exemption under NEPA,
    etc., that the partners became award of Amtrak's position. The
    successful three state strategy was brought to a stunning halt. Only
    through the firm and adamant intervention by U.S. Senators from the
    three state coalition was Amtrak compelled to honor its match.
        As a consequence of this uncertainty and delay, the partners missed
    the 2018 BUILD grant cycle. In the meantime, the 2017 Commission still
    awaits a reply to its letter of May 6, 2019 to Amtrak proposing a
    collaborative meeting to commence the requested long-range financial
    planning for the SW Chief.
        Early in 2018, KDOT, CDOT, BNSF, Amtrak and the 2017 Commission
    successfully applied for a Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety
    Improvements (CRISI) grant in order to install Positive Train Control
    signaling between Dodge City, KS, and Las Animas, CO, which is
    necessary to meet the FRA standards for safety on this segment and
    reqired by Amtrak. The Federal award was $9.2 million.
    2. Colorado Front Range Passenger Rail (2017--ongoing, see Front Range
            Corridor Map)
        During the 2014 Commission deliberations, the rerouting proposal
    and subsequent consideration of through car service to Pueblo and
    possibly Colorado Springs brought the advantages of Front Range
    Passenger Rail into greater focus. This was not a new issue for
    Colorado; previous efforts to propose these services had been tried
    without success. What was new was the increased congestion and demand
    on the I-25 corridor and the shrinking opportunities to deal with it
    with highway expansion alone. The costs were now becoming comparable
    with passenger rail construction, which would yield up to 14 times the
    capacity of highway expansion when fully implemented.
        The need for connectivity between Amtrak services and growing
    Colorado State Bustang Front Range intercity bus services became a
    matter of frequent discussions. Facing the sunset of the Commission and
    its unfinished business with new TIGER grant applications under
    development, the Commissioners asked the legislature to broaden the
    Commission's mission while maintaining support for the SW Chief, which
    was viewed as the southern anchor for Front Range rail. Public
    awareness of the need for Front Range passenger rail was also
    increasing. In March of 2017, ColoRail conducted a statewide poll of
    the public concerning support for passenger rail. A resounding over 62
    percent of citizens supported not only the development of a Front Range
    passenger rail system, but also the creation of a funding mechanism to
    underwrite its construction. In Front Range communities, the support
    ranged from 64 percent in the Colorado Springs metro area to 75 percent
    in the Denver metro area.
        The Colorado Legislature accepted the Commission's recommendations
    and created the Southwest Chief & Front Range Passenger Rail Commission
    (2017 Commission). The goals now included facilitating the development
    of Front Range passenger rail as well as sustaining the operations of
    the SW Chief in Colorado. The powers were expanded and representatives
    from Colorado Front Range councils of governments, the Denver Regional
    Transit Authority (RTD), and the Union Pacific Railroad Company were
    added. The legislature added an appropriation of $2.5 million to begin
    formal planning activities.

        At present, the 2017 Commission has hired a full-time project
    director and will shortly select a contractor to undertake more
    detailed planning and public outreach efforts. Also, the State of
    Wyoming has joined as a non-voting member represented by the Cheyenne
    Chamber of Commerce. Like their colleagues in New Mexico, Wyoming's
    Department of Transportation (WYDOT) staff also routinely participate
    in Commission meetings. Economic interests in Wyoming have already seen
    the eventual value of a rail link as growth expands to the north from
    the Colorado Front Range.
        The Denver Front Range so-called Mega Region has also attracted the
    attention of Amtrak. Their representatives have often commented on the
    fact it is one of the railroad's ten attractive expansion regions but
    without commenting on Colorado's assertion it will have to link the SW
    Chief and California Zephyr. The lack of creativity about how this
    might work is once again, baffling. The railroad is simply frozen in
    time and looking backwards. All they seem to want is immediate
    passenger revenue, not passenger connectivity, which is the key to
    growing both.
    3. Winter Park Express Ski Train Service Campaign (2014-Present)
        During an Amtrak special inspection train along the SW Chief Route
    in June, 2014, ColoRail advocates met with the President and CEO about
    the organization's three top priorities: Saving the SW Chief, Restoring
    ski train service, and developing Front Range Passenger rail. The ski
    train idea was thought to be a no-brainer but was met, instead, with
    disdain. On the other hand, the SW Chief and Front range ideas were met
    with enthusiastic support. It was later learned that previous
    litigation over ski train service had soured the railroad on its
    prospects. A new strategy was called for. This was generated by
    ColoRail member and Amtrak employee Brad Swartzwelter, who drafted a
    business plan for a new ski train service to be inaugurated at Denver's
    magnificently renovated Union Station. A ColoRail team set about
    reviewing and refining the plan which was then submitted to Winter Park
    Resort's CEO and Amtrak through appropriate channels in December, 2014.
        Not surprisingly, ColoRail's no-brainer tag prevailed. The new
    service was indeed a no brainer, provided the Winter Park Resort, Union
    Pacific Railroad and Amtrak could work out an agreement to safely and
    economically operate a train. It was also provident that 2015 was the
    75th anniversary of Winter Park's founding. That provided the impetus
    to get a demonstration run for a train. It did not hurt that ColoRail
    arranged a bus trip over Berthoud Pass back to Denver following as
    early planning meeting to demonstrate the advantages of train travel to
    the Amtrak execs. Following a hair-raising trip over the pass and two
    hour delay in I-70 traffic, the advantages of a train trip became
    apparent. Thus, on a Saturday in March, 2015, a demonstration train was
    organized and deployed. It sold out in under 8 hours. In cooperation
    with the Union Pacific, a second run was deployed the following day
    with virtually no advanced notice. It too sold out in hours. The
    business plan seemed secure.
        The big issue facing the plan was the safety of passengers boarding
    and alighting the train in their gear. In the old days, they had
    alighted onto the roadbed, not safe by today's standards. The answer
    was a new platform running the length of the train. It had to be
    engineered to follow the curve of the tracks just after they leave the
    famous Moffat tunnel and reach the resort. It had to resist the
    thunderous vibrations of passing coal trains, and it had to be heated
    to stay ice free for safe traction. This was no small feat. In fact,
    engineers from the resort contractors, Union Pacific Railroad and
    Amtrak designed and constructed an extraordinary platform.
        To make sure the service was passenger friendly, ColoRail, Winter
    Park Resort and Amtrak developed a train host program. Over 50 ColoRail
    members provide the hosting service at Denver Union Station, aboard the
    train and on the Winter Park platform making sure passengers are well
    informed and safe. The hosts who are trained by Amtrak and Winter Park
    Resort provide information about the route, ski conditions and other
    venues at Winter Park, and of course, the advantages of rail travel.
    The service is very popular and gains continual support for better
    passenger rail service in Colorado. (see WPE brochure).
        After three years of service the Winter Park Express is a great
    success. Amtrak, Winter Park Resort and Union Pacific Railroad are
    presently negotiating a continuation contract for the service. ColoRail
    supports a long range continuation of the service and thanks all the
    business partners for making the service happen.
        The Winter Park Express Service is a great example of how Amtrak,
    our freight host railroads, tourist industries and advocates can work
    together to develop popular, beneficial services. Congress needs to
    realize that these services may require Federal investment, however
    they return important public and private economic benefits, just as
    they do for communities along the SW Chief route.
    4. Congressional Direction
        As you approach reauthorizing the rail provisions of the FAST Act
    several key passenger rail issues need to be understood and/or
    resolved. These recommendations have been developed over the past year
    at the Rail Passengers Association (RPA).
        First is the fact that Amtrak is an economic engine, and its
    economic benefits far outweigh the Federal investment it receives.
        Amtrak returns value for the taxpayer dollars invested in it.
    Whether a particular route is ``profitable'' to Amtrak misses the
    point: the value returned to the communities Amtrak serves is many
    multiples of what is spent on it. This is the taxpayers' own ``return
    on equity,'' as small towns, rural communities and urban centers see
    tourism, hotels, restaurants, stores and services grow up around train
    stations.
        As we consider ways to transform the U.S. passenger rail system,
    it's important to begin with a cleareyed understanding of what Amtrak
    is for and why this transformation makes good business sense for the
    country and the taxpayer. Amtrak does not exist to make a profit. In
    fact, seven years after Amtrak began accepting passengers Congress
    stepped in to make it explicitly clear that while the Congress expected
    Amtrak to be good stewards of public money by running an efficient and
    business-like operation, a profit was neither expected nor required.
        In its report on the Amtrak Improvement Act of 1978, House
    lawmakers specified that they were amending the Rail Passengers Service
    Act ``to conform the law to reality, providing that Amtrak shall be
    `operated and managed as' a for-profit corporation. This amendment
    recognizes that Amtrak is not a for-profit corporation.''
        The Rail Passengers Association (RPA) has undertaken several
    studies in the past year to quantify the economic benefits of rail
    service to individual communities. The Empire Builder route between
    Chicago and Seattle, for example, generates about $327 million each
    year for the served communities in the form of tourism, induced travel,
    indirect job creation, increasing the tax base and avoiding highway
    maintenance. This is 5.7 times what is spent on the route each year
    through Amtrak's annual grant.
        Likewise, a planned additional frequency between Chicago and
    Minneapolis-St. Paul is projected to be worth more than $50 million
    annually to Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota, while the annual
    continuing investment by these states is expected to be only $6
    million.
        And when proposals emerged last year to substitute buses for rail
    on a significant portion of the Southwest Chief route between Kansas
    and New Mexico via Colorado, the annual damage to the three affected
    states was estimated at $180 million--roughly 3.5 times Amtrak's annual
    investment on the entire route in a year.
    Passenger Rail Funding
        Transforming the U.S. passenger rail system will require a
    significant increase in passenger rail investment to address decades of
    stagnant funding.
        Rather than relying on the annual appropriations process, Congress
    must create a predictable, dedicated, and robust Passenger Rail Trust
    Fund. This Trust Fund could utilize diverse revenue streams, including
    a Per Barrel Tax on crude oil, an Intercity Railroad Passenger Tax
    assessed at point of sale, an E-Commerce Transportation Tax for online
    sales, a General Sales Tax, similar to those established by the
    Commonwealth of Virginia to fund rail infrastructure and operations; a
    broadly-based tax Station Area Value Capture Tax program for NEC and
    National Network-served train stations.
        Since 2008, Congress has sustained highway spending by transferring
    $143 billion in general revenues to the HTF, including $70 billion in
    2016 as a result of the FAST Act. To the extent that non-road user
    revenue is directed to the transportation, states should be able to
    flex these funds to non-highway projects. Granting local officials
    discretion in modal allocation of general revenue funds will allow
    states to direct resources to the highest impact projects.
        Intercity rail connects with and supports transit rail systems
    across the U.S., and therefore the Rail Passengers Association believes
    states and municipalities should be able to flex transit funds to
    intercity rail projects that support local transit systems.
        RPA also supports transformation of the current FAST Act INFRA
    program to create a larger Intermodal Freight Fund, establishing a 1
    percent freight user fee. This fee is projected to produce $9 billion a
    year for an intermodal fund with no limitation on the percentage
    committed to rail projects.
    Encouraging Transparency and Stakeholder Involvement
        Congress has radically overhauled the intercity passenger rail
    authorization and funding structure over the past decade to try to
    incentivize greater state and local investment and oversight in the
    passenger rail network. Yet in recent years, just as Congress was
    directing funds to passenger rail grant programs authorized by the
    FAST, Amtrak has adopted a worryingly opaque planning process:
    withdrawing from previously agreed-upon funding pacts with little or no
    notice; engaging in fights with elected officials over these sudden
    changes in direction; and changing company policy towards customers and
    employees with no chance for stakeholder input. In a letter addressed
    to Senator Jerry Moran, dated May 20th, 2019, Mr. Anderson failed to
    respond to a clear and direct question about whether Amtrak is
    considering truncating or otherwise altering any long-distance routes.
    Instead, Mr. Anderson answered the question for Fiscal Year 2019 only,
    acknowledged they planned to reexamine the current route structure of
    the National Network during this reauthorization cycle, highlighted
    short-distance corridors they believed would benefit from additional
    passenger rail service, while refusing to any information on which
    routes it believes are the best candidates for elimination or
    alteration.
        In this same May 20th letter, Amtrak fails to address the
    fundamental question posed by the concerned Senators: ``does the fully
    allocated cost produced by Amtrak's Cost Accounting Amtrak Performance
    Tracking (APT) give an accurate and complete picture of the incremental
    costs of providing service on a long-distance corridor?'' Amtrak
    avoided answering this question, engaging in ad hominem attack on our
    association rather than engaging with the question.
        This will have serious ramifications for any analysis of the cost
    of providing service to rural communities and small towns. To give one
    small example: between the FY 2019 Amtrak legislative grant request and
    FY 2020 Amtrak legislative grant request, the amount charged to the
    National Network as its share of the Northeast Corridor investment
    swung by $165 million (from $115 million in FY 2019 to $280 million in
    FY 2020), with no clear explanation for why given to appropriators. If
    Amtrak wants to have a debate over which communities should have their
    service taken away, stakeholders must understand what costs are fixed,
    what costs are incremental, and the debate must be public. Instead,
    Amtrak has walled off much of this information from public view. This
    is an inappropriate mode of operation for a publicly funded entity, and
    it has real consequences for the communities which are being asked to
    invest more in their stations and their service--and have
    enthusiastically responded in the affirmative, in many notable cases.
        Congress has recognized this in recent appropriations bills,
    stating that this lack of transparency ``could have unintended
    consequences for long-distance customers, especially in rural and small
    communities where passenger rail serves as an important mobility option
    and economic driver.'' Appropriators have directed Amtrak to ``conduct
    comprehensive outreach and consultation'' with a whole range of
    stakeholders, including ``passenger rail organizations,'' noting that
    Amtrak ``must engage in an open and transparent process'' which takes
    into account anyone who might be affected by changes.
        Until Amtrak signals a willingness to develop their reauthorization
    in a transparent fashion with stakeholder communities, Congress should
    assume that it must provide the national vision for passenger rail
    service in the U.S., with a special recognition that rural stations
    remain in special danger of losing service in the absence of that
    leadership.
    Incentivizing Regional Rail
        Development of passenger rail systems in the U.S. has been a
    product of historical accident and disinvestment. This has resulted in
    a fragmented patchwork of localized systems that duplicate operating
    costs and restrict connectivity, providing slower and less frequent
    service at a higher cost to passengers. Rail Passengers proposes a
    comprehensive restructuring of the intercity, commuter, and urban rail
    systems to introduce a hybrid urban-suburban rail model. This hybrid
    model has already demonstrated success in Germany (S-Bahn) and France
    (Paris RER) and would allow for the creation of a faster, more frequent
    rail service within the constrained fiscal environment.
        Utilizing the recently completed regional rail studies overseen by
    the FRA as part of the Passenger Rail Improvement and Improvement Act
    of 2008 (PRIIA), Congress should authorize programs that incentivize
    coordination between Governors, State Departments of Transportation,
    and other relevant state and local officials and entities.
        To promote regional coordination and sustain a vision of passenger
    rail service, Congress should incentivize the creation of interstate
    passenger rail compacts by providing operating funding for the entities
    created by the compact, establishing benchmarks for the compacts to
    reach to acquire and maintain certification.
        These compacts should work to create systems should work to achieve
    certain operation goals, including:

            Through-running rather than stub-end, city-center terminals;

            Integrated governance within a single regional agency to
            streamline administration costs and optimize system planning;

            Implement short dwell times, install fully electrified double
            track, use rapid transit signals.

            Run service on dense networks with infill to transform low-
            ridership commuter rail into high-ridership rapid rail transit.
    Revitalize the National Fleet of Rail Equipment
        With the Fiscal 2019 funding boost, Congress has given Amtrak and
    the States a mandate to continue work on modernizing the U.S. rail
    fleet. Amtrak is well into the procurement process for the new
    Northeast Corridor fleet (ACELA 2021); safer, more energy-efficient
    next-generation diesel locomotives to replace the aging National
    Network locomotive fleet; and has issued a Request for Proposals for
    new single-level equipment to replace Amfleet I cars on the Northeast
    Corridor and neighboring StateSupported services. However, there is
    still a long way to go towards fleet modernization. Congress must work
    with States and Amtrak to establish a stable funding mechanism to allow
    for critical investments in equipment that will meet public demand for
    reliable, energy-efficient equipment with modern amenities.
        In particular, RPA strongly encourages granting the full amount of
    Amtrak's $533 million grant request for new equipment for the National
    Network and $374 million grant request for new equipment for the NEC.
        The U.S. lacks a robust domestic rail manufacturing market,
    resulting in increased costs for operators and longer lead times for
    equipment procurement. In recognition of this fact, Congress should
    create a U.S. Rail Manufacturing Bureau (USRMB) to encourage co-
    production agreements between U.S. and international firms.
        The aviation industry has created a blueprint for this kind of
    successful technology transfer between mature manufacturing markets and
    emerging manufacturing markets. While the technology transfers in
    aviation are usually a U.S. export, this USRMB can help establish
    offset agreements in order to gain economic benefits for the
    expenditure of public funds on the purchase of equipment from foreign
    suppliers.
    Improving Operations
        Amtrak needs to have an enforceable On Time Performance (OTP)
    mechanism. Granting Amtrak the right of private action under its
    statutory authority, in addition to correcting its equipment
    maintenance problems through reinvestment in its fleet, would allow the
    railroad to move to correct the majority of its delays which reduce
    ridership and revenue.

        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Homendy.

              STATEMENT OF HON. JENNIFER HOMENDY, MEMBER,
                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

        Ms. Homendy. Thank you.
        Good morning, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and
    Members of the Committee.
        Thank you for inviting the National Transportation Safety
    Board to testify today.
        Rail is one of the safest modes of transportation. However,
    when an accident does occur, the consequences can be
    devastating, particularly for those who lost loved ones or who
    were injured. Recent accidents remind us of the need to be
    vigilant in improving safety.
        The Board recently held a meeting to determine the probable
    cause of a 2017 Amtrak derailment near DuPont, Washington,
    which resulted in three deaths and 57 injuries. This accident
    is one of several Amtrak accidents that we've investigated over
    the past few years, including accidents in Philadelphia,
    Pennsylvania; Chester, Pennsylvania; Bowie, Maryland; and
    Cayce, South Carolina.
        On behalf of the NTSB, I'd like to take a moment to extend
    our deepest sympathies to the families and friends of those who
    died in these accidents and wish the fullest recovery to those
    who were injured.
        There were multiple factors contributing to the DuPont
    accident but the tragic fact is that the deaths and injuries
    were preventable. Frustratingly, this was another crash that
    could have been prevented with positive train control. PTC is
    on the NTSB's Most Wanted List.
        This August, we will remember those who lost their lives 50
    years ago in a collision of two Penn Central trains in Darien,
    Connecticut, that led to our first recommendation on PTC. Since
    then, we've investigated more than 150 accidents that caused
    over 300 fatalities and 6,700 injuries.
        While the railroads are making progress toward implementing
    PTC, much work remains. Full implementation must not be further
    delayed and exemptions should be eliminated, including
    exemptions on the 1,400 miles of freight-owned track that
    Amtrak will be operating on without PTC.
        Additionally, the NTSB has recommended that the FRA
    prohibit the operation of passenger trains on new, refurbished,
    or updated territories unless PTC is implemented.
        While PTC will greatly enhance safety on our Nation's
    railroads, a well-trained crew is vital to safe operations. Our
    investigation of the DuPont accident found that there was
    inadequate training provided to the engineer.
        The Amtrak Qualification Program did not effectively train
    and test crew members on the physical characteristics of the
    new territory and did not provide sufficient training on the
    new locomotive. The training deficiencies were evident on the
    recordings examined by the NTSB. This investigation reinforced
    the safety benefit of inward and outward facing cameras.
        The FAST Act required that all passenger railroads install
    cameras but left it up to the Secretary to determine whether
    they should include audio. The NTSB believes all railroads
    should be required to install cameras that provide both audio
    and image capabilites.
        Finally, I want to stress the importance of requiring all
    railroads, including Amtrak, to implement a comprehensive
    Safety Management System, modeled after the programs developed
    and implemented by commercial airlines. Had Amtrak established
    an SMS program, this accident and many others likely would
    never have occurred.
        The NTSB has long recommended the implementation of SMS in
    all modes of transportation and we've recommended it before in
    our investigation of the 2016 Amtrak collision in Chester.
    Since then, with the exception of risk assessments for roadway
    workers, Amtrak has made tremendous progress in implementing
    SMS. While the program is still in its infancy, Amtrak is much
    further ahead of the other railroads.
        Congress has also recognized the importance of SMS. The
    Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 required the Secretary of
    Transportation to issue a regulation requiring all railroads to
    implement a risk-reduction program. More than a decade later,
    FRA still hasn't implemented this mandate. A final rule was
    published in August 2016 but the FRA has delayed its
    implementation six times.
        Earlier this month, the FRA issued an NPRM seeking a
    seventh stay of the final rule that would delay it again for an
    unknown period of time.
        The absence of a sense of urgency by FRA to implement our
    safety recommendation and the willingness to continue to
    jeopardize the safety of train crews and their passengers is
    unacceptable.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I'm
    happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Homendy follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Jennifer Homendy, Member,
                      National Transportation Safety Board
        Good morning Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members
    of the Committee. Thank you for inviting the National Transportation
    Safety Board (NTSB) to testify today.
        Congress established the NTSB in 1967 as an independent agency
    within the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) with a
    clearly defined mission to promote a higher level of safety in the
    transportation system. In 1974, Congress reestablished the NTSB as a
    separate entity outside of the DOT, reasoning that ``no Federal agency
    can properly perform such (investigatory) functions unless it is
    totally separate and independent from any other . . . agency of the
    United States.'' \1\ Because the DOT has broad operational and
    regulatory responsibilities that affect the safety, adequacy, and
    efficiency of the transportation system, and transportation accidents
    may suggest deficiencies in that system, the NTSB's independence was
    deemed necessary for proper oversight.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 Sec. 302, Pub. L. 93-633,
    88 Stat. 2166-2173 (1975).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The NTSB is charged by Congress with investigating every civil
    aviation accidents in the United States and significant accidents in
    other modes of transportation--highway, rail, marine, and pipeline. We
    determine the probable cause of the accidents we investigate, and we
    issue recommendations to federal, state, and local agencies, as well as
    other entities, aimed at improving safety, preventing future accidents
    and injuries, and saving lives. The NTSB is not a regulatory agency--we
    do not promulgate operating standards nor do we certificate
    organizations and individuals. The goal of our work is to foster safety
    improvements for the traveling public.
        Our Office of Railroad, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
    Investigations is responsible for investigating railroad accidents. The
    majority of railroad investigations involve freight train accidents,
    such as collisions and derailments, but the office also places special
    emphasis on train accidents that involve the traveling public, such as
    passenger train and rail transit accidents. Based on these accident
    investigations, the NTSB issues safety recommendations to Federal and
    state regulatory agencies, industry and safety standards organizations,
    railroads, rail transit agencies, manufacturers and emergency response
    organizations. There are currently 25 open recommendations that we have
    made to Amtrak, and 89 open recommendations that we have made to the
    Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ A list of all open and closed unacceptable recommendations to
    Amtrak and the FRA is contained in the appendix.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Our nation's system of rail transportation is generally safe.
    However, when an accident does occur the consequences can be
    devastating. When there is a fatality or an accident involving a
    passenger train, it is the NTSB's role to investigate, determine
    probable cause, and issue safety recommendations. Recent accidents
    involving passenger rail remind us of the need to be vigilant in
    improving safety, and should compel all those who are responsible for
    the safety of rail transportation and of the travelling public to make
    improvements.
        On May 15, 2019, the Board held a meeting to determine the probable
    cause of the December 18, 2017, derailment of Amtrak train 501 onto
    Interstate 5 near DuPont, Washington.\3\ Of the 83 people on the train,
    3 passengers died, and 57 passengers and crew members were injured. In
    addition, eight people in highway vehicles were injured. There were
    multiple factors contributing to this accident and its severity, but
    the tragic fact is that it, and the deaths and injuries that resulted,
    were preventable. Several of the factors relate to safety issues that
    we have identified and made recommendations to address in previous
    investigations.\4\ This testimony will discuss those issues and the
    need to address them in order to prevent the continued recurrence of
    such accidents.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ NTSB, Amtrak Passenger Train 501 Derailment, DuPont,
    Washington, December 18, 2017.
        \4\ A list of all open recommendations to Amtrak is contained in
    the appendix.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Positive Train Control
        Positive Train Control (PTC) is an advanced train control system
    designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, overspeed derailments,
    incursions into established work zones, and movement through a switch
    left in the wrong position. The first NTSB-investigated accident that
    train control technology would have prevented occurred in 1969, when 4
    people died and 43 were injured in the collision of two Penn Central
    commuter trains in Darien, Connecticut. In the 50 years since then, we
    have investigated over 150 accidents that could have been prevented by
    PTC. These accidents have claimed almost 300 lives.
        On February 4, 2019, we announced our Most Wanted List of
    Transportation Safety Improvements for 2019-2020, which identifies the
    top safety improvements that can be made across all modes to prevent
    accidents and injuries and save lives, based on our investigations.\5\
    The implementation of PTC appeared on the first Most Wanted List in
    1990, and remains on the current list due to lack of full
    implementation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ National Transportation Safety Board, 2019-2020 Most Wanted
    List.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to Amtrak's First Quarter 2019 PTC Progress Report
    submitted to the FRA, Amtrak has made progress in implementing PTC on
    the tracks that it owns. Amtrak-owned locomotives are all PTC-equipped
    and 85 percent of the route miles on its own tracks are operational.\6\
    However, Amtrak's progress toward PTC implementation on host railroads
    cannot be determined through reports provided to the FRA because the
    host railroads report on the entirety of their systems (all locomotives
    and all infrastructure), with no transparency as to whether Amtrak is
    PTC operational on their lines. Additionally, the NTSB remains
    concerned about the FRA's granting of exemptions to PTC, including more
    than 1,400 miles of freight railroad-owned track on which Amtrak
    operates, some of which is in dark (non-signaled) territory.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Amtrak Quarter 1, 2019, PTC Progress Report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the DuPont investigation, the Central Puget Sound Regional
    Transit Authority (Sound Transit) had identified the need for PTC to
    mitigate the risk of the accident curve on the Point Defiance Bypass;
    and, at the time of the accident was working with Amtrak and BNSF
    Railway on the installation, testing and verification, and validation
    of the PTC system on the route. However, service was initiated even
    though neither PTC, nor any other risk mitigation, had been
    implemented. Without PTC and the lack of oversight to implement
    mitigations, there was an increased safety risk to the traveling
    public. We found that had PTC been fully installed and operational at
    the time of the accident, it would have intervened to stop the train
    prior to the curve, thus preventing the overspeed derailment.
        As a result of the DuPont investigation, we have recommended that
    the FRA prohibit the operation of passenger trains on new, refurbished,
    or updated territories unless PTC is implemented. PTC must be fully
    implemented to ensure the safety of railroad passengers and crews.
    Speed Limit Action Plans
        Without PTC in place, it was critical for Sound Transit, Amtrak,
    and FRA to ensure that processes and procedures were in place to reduce
    the risk of derailment at the accident curve due to train overspeeds.
    The maximum authorized speed for passenger trains on the Point Defiance
    Bypass was 79 miles per hour (mph), but it reduced to 30 mph at the
    curve.
        Section 11406 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of
    2015 (the FAST Act) required each railroad carrier providing intercity
    rail passenger transportation or commuter rail passenger
    transportation, in consultation with host railroad carriers, to survey
    their systems and identify each main track location where there is a
    reduction of more than 20 mph from the approach speed to a curve,
    bridge, or tunnel. The carriers also must develop appropriate actions
    to enable warning and enforcement of the maximum authorized speed for
    passenger trains at each of those locations. The plans must be reviewed
    and approved by the Secretary of Transportation, who is also provided
    authority to add conditions to the approval. The FAST Act did not
    require the FRA to continue to solicit updates from railroads beyond
    the initial submission deadline, nor did FRA pursue additional
    submissions for new or updated routes from railroads that owned or
    operated service on such routes even though the FRA has authority to do
    so. Because the upgrade had not yet occurred at the time of the
    enactment of the FAST Act, the accident curve was not addressed in any
    speed limit action plans. Additionally, FRA did not require railroads
    in the planning or construction phases of projects to evaluate the
    potential risk to future operational territories, and Sound Transit did
    not apply risk mitigation strategies as outlined by the FAST Act on the
    accident curve.
        For its part, Amtrak had planned to update its Speed Limit
    Reduction Action Plan through a General Order implementing a ``crew
    focus zone'' at the accident curve. Crew focus zones are locations
    where the operating crews are required to communicate warnings of
    upcoming speed restrictions. This was not planned to be completed until
    January 2018, several weeks after revenue service on the subdivision
    had begun. We recommended that Amtrak update its safety review process
    to ensure all operating documents are up to date and accurate before
    initiating new or revised revenue operations.
        Although FRA participated in the Point Defiance Bypass project
    through Federal grant funding administration and safety oversight, FRA
    officials located in both headquarters and in the field failed to
    recognize that additional hazard mitigations strategies were not
    implemented by Sound Transit or Amtrak at the accident location. While
    the FAST Act did not require it, the FRA should have ensured that speed
    limit action plans include new or updated routes owned or operated by
    railroads. As a result of this investigation, we have recommended that
    FRA require intercity and passenger railroads to periodically review
    and update their speed limit action plans to reflect any operational or
    territorial operating changes requiring additional safety mitigations
    and to continually monitor the effectiveness of their speed limit
    action plan mitigations. We also recommended that the agency require
    railroads to apply their existing speed limit action plan criteria for
    overspeed risk mitigation to all current and future projects in the
    planning, design, and construction phases, including projects where
    operations are provided under contract.
    Safety Culture and Management
        Our investigation of the DuPont accident, as well as of the
    February 4, 2018, collision of Amtrak train 91 and a CSX train in
    Cayce, South Carolina, highlighted that there is inconsistency in the
    approach to managing safety on the territories in which Amtrak
    operates. Amtrak operates on track that it owns, as well as track that
    it does not own--referred to as a host railroad. Amtrak maintains host
    railroad agreements to access the infrastructure necessary to provide
    nationwide passenger rail service. On July 10 and 11, 2018, we held an
    investigative hearing regarding the DuPont and Cayce accidents to
    explore issues on managing safety on passenger railroads.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ NTSB, Investigative Hearing: Managing Safety on Passenger
    Railroads (July 10-11, 2018).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the Cayce accident, the Amtrak train unexpectedly entered a
    siding and collided with a stationary CSX freight train. Two of the
    Amtrak crewmembers--the engineer and the conductor--were killed, and 91
    others transported to medical facilities.\8\ At the time of the
    accident, a signal suspension was in place through the area, due to
    signal work being done by CSX, including upgrades to prepare for
    implementation of PTC. Trains were being directed through the area by a
    CSX dispatcher, who would issue warrants, or permissions, to use the
    main line.\9\ The crew of the CSX train had completed work in the area,
    moved the train to the siding, and released their authority to use the
    main line back to the dispatcher. However, the switch on the main line
    was left open to the siding and locked. As we saw in DuPont and other
    accidents, this accident also demonstrates Amtrak's incapability to
    control or influence the management of safety on the host railroad.
    When operating over the territory of a host railroad Amtrak is
    subjected to the risk mitigation strategies implemented by that host.
    Although there is a host railroad agreement in place between Amtrak and
    the host railroad, this agreement does not establish the parameters for
    safe operations and a consistent level of risk mitigation from host
    railroad to host railroad.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ NTSB, Amtrak Passenger Train Head-on Collision With Stationary
    CSX Freight Train, Cayce, South Carolina, February 4, 2018.
        \9\ Signal suspension means train control signals located alongside
    the track have been taken out of service, oftentimes for maintenance or
    system upgrades. When these signals are taken out of service, train
    movements are controlled by means such as absolute blocks or by track
    warrants.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Amtrak relies on host railroads to meet the minimum Federal safety
    standards to ensure safe operations of Amtrak trains. However, on its
    own territory, Amtrak aims to meet and exceed these standards. Our
    investigation of the DuPont derailment determined that, to improve
    safety for the public, Amtrak needs to implement a safety management
    system (SMS) program on all of its operations, whether internal or on a
    host railroad. We have recommended that Amtrak work collaboratively
    with all host railroads and states that own infrastructure over which
    Amtrak operates to develop and implement a comprehensive SMS program.
        The NTSB has long recommended the implementation of SMS across all
    modes of transportation. For example, SMS is becoming a standard of
    practice among Part 121 commercial aviation operators. There are four
    components to SMS per Federal Aviation Administration Order:

       a safety policy that sets out what the organization is
            trying to achieve; outlines the requirements, methods, and
            processes the organization will use to achieve the desired
            safety outcomes; establishes senior leadership's commitment to
            incorporate and continually improve safety in all aspects of
            the business; and reflects management's commitment to
            implementing processes and procedures for establishing and
            meeting safety objectives and promoting a safety culture.

       a safety risk management process that identifies all
            hazards, analyzes the risk, assesses the risk, controls the
            risk, and then continually evaluates whether those risk
            management strategies are working.

       a safety assurance process that evaluates the continued
            effectiveness of, and compliance with, requirements and
            implemented risk control strategies and supports the
            identification of new hazards.

       a safety promotion program which includes training,
            communication, and other actions to create a positive safety
            culture within all levels of the workforce.

        Had Amtrak developed and implemented a comprehensive SMS, the
    DuPont accident, and others, would likely never have occurred.
        This accident is not the first time we have raised the importance
    of Amtrak implementing SMS. In 2016, an Amtrak train traveling near
    Chester, Pennsylvania, struck a backhoe with a worker inside, killing
    the operator and a track supervisor and injuring 39 others.\10\ We
    found that Amtrak allowing a passenger train to travel at maximum
    authorized speed on unprotected track where workers were present, the
    absence of worker protection devices, the failure of the foreman to
    conduct a job briefing at the start of the shift, all coupled with the
    numerous inconsistent views of safety and safety management throughout
    Amtrak, led to the accident. We also found that Amtrak did not have an
    effective program to ensure that its employees, especially those in
    safetysensitive positions, were drug-free while performing their public
    transportation duties. We continue to investigate other accidents where
    unsafe practices have killed railway workers In our report, we
    recommended that Amtrak develop a comprehensive SMS that vitalizes
    safety goals and programs with executive management accountability;
    incorporates risk management controls for all operations affecting
    employees, contractors, and the traveling public; improves continually
    through safety data monitoring and feedback; and is promoted at all
    levels of the company.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ NTSB, Amtrak Collision with Maintenance-of-Way Equipment,
    Chester, Pennsylvania, April 3, 2016.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 required the Secretary of
    Transportation to promulgate a regulation that requires each Class I
    railroad and railroad carriers that provide intercity rail passenger or
    commuter rail passenger transportation to develop and implement a
    railroad safety risk reduction program that systematically evaluates
    railroad safety risks on its system and manages those risks in order to
    reduce the numbers and rates of railroad accidents, incidents,
    injuries, and fatalities. On August 12, 2016, the FRA published a final
    rule to implement the 2008 mandate, known as the System Safety Program,
    with an initial effective date of October 11, 2016.\11\ However, the
    enactment of the final rule has been continually delayed, and on June
    12, 2019, the FRA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking to
    further delay for an undetermined time period the final rule for a
    seventh time.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ 49 CFR Part 270
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As part of our investigation into the collision near Chester,
    Pennsylvania, we found that by delaying progressive system safety
    regulation, the FRA had failed to maximize safety for the passenger
    rail industry and the traveling public and recommended that the FRA
    enact the System Safety Program without further delay. We also
    recommended that Amtrak and the labor unions work collaboratively to
    develop and implement a comprehensive SMS program that complied with
    the pending System Safety Program regulation.
        We also reiterated our recommendation to FRA to enact the 2016
    final rule without delay in the DuPont accident report. Despite
    evidence further demonstrating the need for the timely enactment of the
    System Safety Program regulation, the FRA continues to delay the
    requirement for commuter and intercity passenger railroads to improve
    the safety of their operations. It has been 11 years since Congress
    mandated implementation of a final rule. The rule itself provides
    another year for railroads to submit their plans for review and
    approval to the FRA and another three years for them to implement it,
    which means a full 15 years will have gone by before the mandate is
    even implemented, and that is assuming there is not another delay as
    the FRA has proposed. The absence of a sense of urgency by the FRA to
    implement this safety recommendation and the willingness to continue to
    jeopardize the safety of train crews and their passengers is
    unacceptable. The railroads should not wait one more day on the FRA to
    implement a final rule, and each railroad should take swift action to
    ensure system safety.
    Training
        The failure of Sound Transit to provide an effective mitigation for
    the hazardous curve on the Point Defiance Bypass without PTC in place
    allowed the engineer of Amtrak 501 to enter the curve at too high of a
    speed due to his inadequate training on the territory and inadequate
    training on the newer equipment.
        Our investigation found that the engineer only had rudimentary
    knowledge and experience with both the accident locomotive and the
    physical characteristics of the territory. The Amtrak qualification
    program for the Point Defiance Bypass did not effectively train and
    test qualifying crewmembers on the physical characteristics of a new
    territory, and Amtrak did not provide sufficient training on all
    characteristics of the Charger locomotive, the type of lead locomotive
    involved in the accident. The engineer had qualified on the route two
    days before the accident, and the accident trip was his first time
    operating on the territory in revenue service and without supervision.
    He was accompanied in the operating compartment by a qualifying
    conductor who was making his first trip over that territory. The
    engineer's qualification training included a number of observation
    rides, then making two northbound and one southbound trips while
    operating the train under supervision. Some of these trips were made on
    the Charger locomotive.
        As a result of our investigation, we made recommendations to Amtrak
    to improve training for crewmembers to ensure proficiency on the
    physical characteristics of a territory and operating characteristics
    of locomotives, including through the use of simulators. Simulators are
    very useful in addressing in a controlled environment operating
    behaviors that are either too dangerous to undertake using actual
    equipment or that must be evaluated more precisely than is possible
    through observation alone. However, to be most effective, this type of
    training must closely reproduce the conditions and operating tasks of
    the equipment being represented.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ NTSB, Derailment and Collision of Amtrak Passenger Train 66
    with MBTA commuter train 906 at Back Bay Station, Boston,
    Massachusetts, December 12, 1990.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We also recommended that Amtrak conduct training that specifies and
    reinforces how each crewmember, including those who have not received
    their certifications or qualifications, may be used as a resource to
    assist in establishing and maintaining safe train operations.
    Passenger Rail Car Crashworthiness
        The rail cars involved in the DuPont accident have a unique design,
    different from conventional United States passenger equipment. The
    Talgo Series VI trainsets were manufactured by Talgo for Amtrak and the
    Washington State Department of Transportation between 1996 and 1998,
    and the accident trainset was built in 1998. On May 12, 1999, the FRA
    published a final rule strengthening passenger equipment safety
    standards.\13\ The Talgo Series VI trainsets did not meet the
    requirements of the new rule, so Amtrak petitioned the FRA to
    grandfather or permit the use of the Talgo Series IV trainsets on three
    corridors, including the Pacific Northwest corridor between Eugene,
    Oregon, and Blane, Washington, via Portland and Seattle (Puget Sound
    route). In 2009, the FRA ultimately authorized the use of the Talgo
    Series VI on the route. However, the FRA did express concern about the
    performance of the trainsets in higher energy events, particularly
    collisions at greater than 25 mph. Additionally, although risk analyses
    conducted by Amtrak at the request of the FRA showed that PTC would
    have reduced the risk of fatality by 47 percent and injury by 30
    percent, the FRA did not require implementation of PTC on the route,
    even the FRA had the authority to attach special conditions to the
    approval of the petition.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ 49 CFR Part 238
        \14\ FRA Docket ID: FRA-1999-6404
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On September 6, 2017, Amtrak submitted a petition to the FRA
    requesting permission to operate the Talgo Series VI trainsets on Sound
    Transit's Lakewood Subdivision near Tacoma, Washington. On December 14,
    2017, just four days before the accident, FRA determined that granting
    Amtrak's request was ``in the public interest and consistent with
    railroad safety'' with no risk assessment of the new route or review of
    the risk of operations between the original route and the new
    route.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FRA-1999-6404-0098
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As the result of our investigation, we found that the Talgo Series
    VI did not provide adequate occupant protection, resulting in complex
    uncontrolled movements and secondary collisions with the surrounding
    environment which led to damage so severe to the railcar body
    structure, that it caused passenger ejections. The failure of the
    railcars directly resulted in three fatalities and two partially
    ejected passengers. We recommended that WSDOT discontinue the use of
    the Talgo Series VI trainsets as soon as possible and replace them with
    passenger railroad equipment that meets all current safety
    requirements. We also found that allowing the grandfathering provision
    to remain in FRA regulations is an unnecessary risk that is not in the
    public interest nor consistent with railroad safety, and recommended
    its removal.
    Audio and Image Recorders
        In the DuPont accident, the locomotive was equipped with an inward-
    facing image recorder that provided investigators with both a visual
    and audio recording of the crewmember activities during the accident
    trip. Amtrak installed these devices even though they are not required
    by the FRA. This accident demonstrated the value of image and audio
    data for investigations and development of safety recommendations
        Dozens of previous railroad accident investigations would have
    benefitted from this technology. These types of recorders are also
    critical to improving operational safety and management oversight. When
    investigating the September 12, 2008, accident in Chatsworth,
    California, we were unable to determine the actions of the Metrolink
    engineer leading up to the collision and after discovering some illicit
    activities by the engineer during previous trips. The railroad had no
    way of monitoring the engineer's activities to ensure appropriate
    behaviors. This accident, in which 25 people were killed and 102 people
    were injured, underscored the importance of understanding the
    activities of crewmembers in the time leading up to the accident. As a
    result of that investigation, we recommended that the FRA require the
    installation, in all controlling locomotive cabs and cab car operating
    compartments, of crash-and fire-protected inward- and outward-facing
    audio and image recorders.\16\ The FAST Act required the Secretary of
    Transportation to require each railroad carrier that provides regularly
    scheduled intercity rail passenger or commuter rail passenger
    transportation to the public to install inward- and outward-facing
    image recording devices in all controlling locomotive cabs and cab car
    operating compartments in such passenger trains.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ NTSB Safety Recommendations R-10-001 and R-10-002.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We continue to believe that inward- and outward-facing audio and
    image recorders improve the quality of accident investigations and
    provide the opportunity for proactive steps by railroad management and
    the FRA to improve operational safety. Nonetheless, after six
    reiterations of the NTSB's recommendations, the FRA has not taken
    positive action regarding inward-facing devices nor developed inward-
    facing recorder regulations as required by the FAST Act. Therefore, as
    a result of the DuPont investigation, we have recommended that the
    Secretary of Transportation require the FRA issue regulations for
    inward-facing recorder regulations that include audio recordings as
    recommended by NTSB, not just image recordings as required in the FAST
    Act.
    Conclusion
        Over the last 52 years, our investigations have found that railroad
    safety is a shared responsibility among operators, government oversight
    agencies, and local communities.
        Railroads remain one of the safest means of transportation.
    However, the consequences are tragic when there is a lack of PTC, lack
    of SMS, or insufficient training. Our 2019-2020 Most Wanted List of
    Transportation Safety Improvements includes additional safety issues
    related to rail that, if addressed, would make a significant impact. To
    that end, the NTSB urges FRA, Amtrak, and other operators to
    expeditiously implement all NTSB safety recommendations.
        We recognize the progress that has been made; yet, there will
    always be room for improvement. The NTSB stands ready to work with the
    Committee to continue improving the safety of our Nation's rail
    network.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy to
    answer your questions.
                                    Appendix

           Open Safety Recommendations to Amtrak (as of June 26, 2019)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-15-28        TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER           Open--Accept
                    CORPORATION (AMTRAK): Install, in all        able
                    controlling locomotive cabs and cab car      Response
                    operating compartments, crashand fire-
                    protected inward-and outward-facing audio
                    and image recorders capable of providing
                    recordings to verify that train crew
                    actions are in accordance with rules and
                    procedures that are essential to safety as
                    well as train operating conditions. The
                    devices should have a minimum 12-hour
                    continuous recording capability with
                    recordings that are easily accessible for
                    review, with appropriate limitations on
                    public release, for the investigation of
                    accidents or for use by management in
                    carrying out efficiency testing and system
                    wide performance monitoring programs.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-15-29        TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER           Open--Accept
                    CORPORATION (AMTRAK): Semi-annually, issue   able
                    a public report detailing Amtrak's           Response
                    progress in installing crashand fire-
                    protected inward-and outward-facing audio
                    and image recorders. The report should
                    include the number of locomotives and cab
                    car operating compartments that have been
                    equipped with the recorders, as well as
                    the number of locomotives and cab car
                    operating compartments in Amtrak's fleet
                    that still lack those devices.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-16-37        TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER           Open--Accept
                    CORPORATION (AMTRAK): Incorporate            able
                    strategies into your initial and recurrent   Response
                    training for operating crewmembers for
                    recognizing and effectively managing
                    multiple concurrent tasks in prolonged,
                    atypical situations to sustain their
                    attention on current and upcoming train
                    operations.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-16-45        TO BNSF RAILWAY, CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY,  Open--Await
                    CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY, CSX                Response
                    TRANSPORTATION, KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN
                    RAILWAY, NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
                    INTERCITY RAILROADS, AND COMMUTER
                    RAILROADS: Review and revise as necessary
                    your medical rules, standards, or
                    protocols to ensure you are informed of
                    any diagnosed sleep disorders that
                    employees in safety-sensitive positions
                    must report and, when an employee makes
                    such a report, perform periodic
                    evaluations to ensure the condition is
                    appropriately treated and the employee is
                    fit for duty.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-17-19        TO AMTRAK (NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER       Open--Initia
                    CORPORATION): Establish a method to ensure   l Response
                    that ontrack protection in an active work    Received
                    zone is not lost during shift transfer.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-17-20        TO AMTRAK (NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER       Open--Initia
                    CORPORATION): Develop and implement an       l Response
                    engineering safety procedure for preparing   Received
                    site-specific work plans for maintenance
                    projects on the Northeast Corridor main
                    line tracks spanning multiple shifts or
                    multiple workdays to reduce or mitigate
                    the inherent risks of maintenance-of-way
                    work in a high-speed train operations
                    environment.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-17-21        TO AMTRAK (NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER       Open--Initia
                    CORPORATION): Require supervisors to         l Response
                    review train dispatchers' foul time log      Received
                    sheets to verify whether supplemental
                    shunting devices are being adequately
                    applied.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-17-22        TO AMTRAK (NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER       Open--Initia
                    CORPORATION): Revise its train dispatcher    l Response
                    rules so that potentially distracting        Received
                    activities, such as making personal
                    telephone calls, are not allowed while
                    dispatchers are on duty and responsible
                    for safe train operations.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-17-23        TO AMTRAK (NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER       Open--Initia
                    CORPORATION): Conduct a risk assessment      l Response
                    for all engineering projects and use the     Received
                    results to issue significant speed
                    restrictions for trains passing any
                    engineering project that involves safety
                    risks for workers, equipment, or the
                    traveling public, such as ballast
                    vacuuming, as part of a riskmitigation
                    policy.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-17-24        TO AMTRAK (NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER       Open--Initia
                    CORPORATION): Work with labor to achieve     l Response
                    full participation in all applicable         Received
                    safety programs.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-17-25        TO AMTRAK (NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER       Open--Initia
                    CORPORATION): Work collaboratively with      l Response
                    labor to develop and implement a viable      Received
                    safety reporting system (for example,
                    C3RS); ensure that employees do not
                    experience reprisal for using the system;
                    respond quickly to the data collected; and
                    communicate any resulting safety
                    improvements to all employees.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-17-26        TO AMTRAK (NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER       Open--Initia
                    CORPORATION): Work collaboratively with      l Response
                    labor in an effort to develop a              Received
                    comprehensive safety management system
                    program that complies with pending Federal
                    Railroad Administration regulation Title
                    49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 270,
                    System Safety Program, and that vitalizes
                    safety goals and programs with executive
                    management accountability; incorporates
                    risk management controls for all
                    operations affecting employees,
                    contractors, and the traveling public;
                    improves continually through safety data
                    monitoring and feedback; and is promoted
                    at all levels of the company.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-17-27        TO AMTRAK (NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER       Open--Initia
                    CORPORATION): Once Safety Recommendation R-  l Response
                    17-26 is completed, implement the safety     Received
                    management system program throughout the
                    company with resources sufficient to
                    ensure that all levels of management and
                    all labor unions involved with Amtrak
                    operations accept and comply with the
                    system.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-19-6         TO CSX TRANSPORTATION AND THE NATIONAL       Open--Initia
                    RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION: Prohibit     l Response
                    employees from fouling adjacent tracks of    Received
                    another railroad unless the employees are
                    provided protection from trains and/or
                    equipment on the adjacent tracks by means
                    of communication between the two
                    railroads.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-19-19        TO AMTRAK (NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER       Open--Await
                    CORPORATION): Ensure operating crewmembers   Response
                    demonstrate their proficiency on the
                    physical characteristics of a territory by
                    using all resources available to them,
                    including; in-cab instruments, signage,
                    signals, and landmarks; under daylight and
                    nighttime conditions; and during
                    observation rides, throttle time, and
                    written examinations
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-19-20        TO AMTRAK (NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER       Open--Await
                    CORPORATION): Revise your classroom and      Response
                    road training program to ensure that
                    operating crews fully understand all
                    locomotive operating characteristics,
                    alarms and the appropriate response to
                    abnormal conditions.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-19-21        TO AMTRAK (NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER       Open--Await
                    CORPORATION): Require that all engineers     Response
                    undergo simulator training before
                    operating new or unfamiliar equipment (at
                    a minimum, experience and respond properly
                    to all alarms), and when possible, undergo
                    simulator training before operating in
                    revenue service in a new territory and
                    experience normal and abnormal conditions
                    on that territory
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-19-22        TO AMTRAK (NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER       Open--Await
                    CORPORATION): Implement a formal,            Response
                    systematic approach to developing training
                    and qualification programs to identify the
                    most effective strategies for preparing
                    crewmembers to safely operate new
                    equipment on new territories.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-19-23        TO AMTRAK (NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER       Open--Await
                    CORPORATION): Work with host railroads and   Response
                    states that own infrastructure over which
                    you operate to conduct a comprehensive
                    assessment of the territories to ensure
                    that necessary wayside signs and plaques
                    are identified, highly conspicuous, and
                    strategically located to provide operating
                    crews the information needed to safely
                    operate their trains.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-19-24        TO AMTRAK (NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER       Open--Await
                    CORPORATION): Conduct training that          Response
                    specifies and reinforces how each
                    crewmember, including those who have not
                    received their certifications or
                    qualifications, may be used as a resource
                    to assist in establishing and maintaining
                    safe train operations.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-19-25        TO AMTRAK (NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER       Open--Await
                    CORPORATION): Update your safety review      Response
                    process to ensure that all operating
                    documents are up to date and accurate
                    before initiating new or revised revenue
                    operations.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-19-26        TO AMTRAK (NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER       Open--Await
                    CORPORATION): Incorporate all prerevenue     Response
                    service planning, construction, and route
                    verification work into the scope of your
                    corporate-wide system safety plan,
                    including your rules and policies, risk
                    assessment analyses, safety assurances,
                    and safety promotions.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-19-27        TO AMTRAK (NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER       Open--Await
                    CORPORATION): Work collaboratively with      Response
                    all host railroads and states that own
                    infrastructure over which you operate in
                    an effort to develop a comprehensive
                    safety management system program that
                    meets or exceeds the pending Federal
                    Railroad Administration regulation Title
                    49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 270,
                    ``System Safety Program.''
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-19-28        TO AMTRAK (NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER       Open--Await
                    CORPORATION): Conduct risk assessments on    Response
                    all new or upgraded services that occur on
                    Amtrak-owned territory, host railroads, or
                    in states that own infrastructure over
                    which you operate.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-19-29        TO AMTRAK (NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER       Open--Await
                    CORPORATION): Develop policies for the       Response
                    safe use of child safety seats to prevent
                    uncontrolled or unexpected movements in
                    passenger trains and provide customers
                    with guidance for securing these child
                    safety seats.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Open Safety Recommendations to the Federal Railroad Administration (as
                                of June 26, 2019)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-00-002       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Develop, then periodically publish, an       ptable
                    easy-to-understand source of information     Response
                    for train operating crewmembers on the
                    hazards of using specific medications when
                    performing their duties.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-00-003       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Establish and implement an educational       ptable
                    program targeting train operating            Response
                    crewmembers that, at a minimum, ensures
                    that all crewmembers are aware of the
                    source of information described in R-00-2
                    regarding the hazards of using specific
                    medications when performing their duties.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-00-004       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Establish, in coordination with the U.S.     ptable
                    Dept. of Transportation, the Federal Motor   Response
                    Carrier Safety Administration, the Federal
                    Transit Administration, and the U.S. Coast
                    Guard, comprehensive toxicological testing
                    requirements for an appropriate sample of
                    fatal highway, railroad, transit, and
                    marine accidents to ensure the
                    identification of the role played by
                    common prescription and over-the-counter
                    medications. Review and analyze the
                    results of such testing at intervals not
                    to exceed every 5 years.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-01-002       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Evaluate, with the assistance of the         able
                    Research and Special Programs                Response
                    Administration, the Association of
                    American Railroads, and the Railway
                    Progress Institute, the deterioration of
                    pressure relief devices through normal
                    service and then develop inspection
                    criteria to ensure that the pressure
                    relief devices remain functional between
                    regular inspection intervals. Incorporate
                    these inspection criteria into the U.S
                    Dept. of Transportation hazardous
                    materials regulations.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-01-017       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Modify 49 Code of Federal Regulations        able
                    219.201(b) as necessary to ensure that the   Response
                    exemption from mandatory postaccident drug
                    and alcohol testing for those involved in
                    highway-rail grade crossing accidents does
                    not apply to any railroad signal,
                    maintenance, and other employees whose
                    actions at or near a grade crossing
                    involved in an accident may have
                    contributed to the occurrence or severity
                    of the accident.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-06-007       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Require railroads to implement for all       ptable
                    power-assisted switch machines, regardless   Response
                    of location, a formal commissioning
                    procedure and a formal maintenance program
                    that includes records of inspections,
                    tests, maintenance, and repairs.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-07-002       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Assist the Pipeline and Hazardous            able
                    Materials Safety Administration in           Response
                    developing regulations to require that
                    railroads immediately provide to emergency
                    responders accurate, real-time information
                    regarding the identity and location of all
                    hazardous materials on a train.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-08-006       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Require redundant signal protection, such    ptable
                    as shunting, for maintenance-of-way work     Response
                    crews who depend on the train dispatcher
                    to provide signal protection.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-08-007       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Revise the definition of covered employee    ptable
                    under 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part    Response
                    219 for purposes of Congressionally
                    mandated alcohol and controlled substances
                    testing programs to encompass all
                    employees and agents performing
                    safetysensitive functions, as described in
                    49 Code of Federal Regulations 209.301 and
                    209.303.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-09-001       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Establish uniform signal aspects that        ptable
                    railroads must use to authorize a train to   Response
                    enter an occupied block, and prohibit the
                    use of these aspects for any other signal
                    indication.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-09-002       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Study the different signal systems for       ptable
                    trains, identify ways to communicate more    Response
                    uniformly the meaning of signal aspects
                    across all railroad territories, and
                    require the railroads to implement as many
                    uniform signal meanings as possible.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-09-003       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Require that emergency exits on new and      ptable
                    remanufactured locomotive cabs provide for   Response
                    rapid egress by cab occupants and rapid
                    entry by emergency responders.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-10-001       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Require the installation, in all             able
                    controlling locomotive cabs and cab car      Response
                    operating compartments, of crash-and
                    fireprotected inward-and outward-facing
                    audio and image recorders capable of
                    providing recordings to verify that train
                    crew actions are in accordance with rules
                    and procedures that are essential to
                    safety as well as train operating
                    conditions. The devices should have a
                    minimum 12-hour continuous recording
                    capability with recordings that are easily
                    accessible for review, with appropriate
                    limitations on public release, for the
                    investigation of accidents or for use by
                    management in carrying out efficiency
                    testing and systemwide performance
                    monitoring programs.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-10-002       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Require that railroads regularly review      able
                    and use in-cab audio and image recordings    Response
                    (with appropriate limitations on public
                    release), in conjunction with other
                    performance data, to verify that train
                    crew actions are in accordance with rules
                    and procedures that are essential to
                    safety.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-12-003       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Require that safety management systems and   able
                    the associated key principles (including     Response
                    top-down ownership and policies, analysis
                    of operational incidents and accidents,
                    hazard identification and risk management,
                    prevention and mitigation programs, and
                    continuous evaluation and improvement
                    programs) be incorporated into railroads'
                    risk reduction programs required by Public
                    Law 110-432, Rail Safety Improvement Act
                    of 2008, enacted October 16, 2008.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-12-016       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Require railroads to medically screen        ptable
                    employees in safetysensitive positions for   Response
                    sleep apnea and other sleep disorders.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-12-017       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Establish an ongoing program to monitor,     able
                    evaluate, report on, and continuously        Response
                    improve fatigue management systems
                    implemented by operating railroads to
                    identify, mitigate, and continuously
                    reduce fatigue-related risks for personnel
                    performing safety-critical tasks, with
                    particular emphasis on biomathematical
                    models of fatigue.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-12-018       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Conduct research on new and existing         able
                    methods that can identify fatigue and        Response
                    mitigate performance decrements associated
                    with fatigue in on-duty train crews.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-12-019       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Require the implementation of methods that   able
                    can identify fatigue and mitigate            Response
                    performance decrements associated with
                    fatigue in on-duty train crews that are
                    identified or developed in response to
                    Safety Recommendation R-12-18.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-12-020       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Require the use of positive train control    ptable
                    technologies that will detect the rear of    Response
                    trains and prevent rear-end collisions.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-12-021       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Revise Title 49 Code of Federal              able
                    Regulations Part 229 to ensure the           Response
                    protection of the occupants of isolated
                    locomotive operating cabs in the event of
                    a collision. Make the revision applicable
                    to all locomotives, including the existing
                    fleet and those newly constructed,
                    rebuilt, refurbished, and overhauled,
                    unless the cab will never be occupied.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-12-022       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Revise Title 49 Code of Federal              ptable
                    Regulations Part 229 to require              Response
                    crashworthiness performance validation for
                    all new locomotive designs under
                    conditions expected in a collision.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-12-027       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Require railroads to install, along main     ptable
                    lines in non-signaled territory not          Response
                    equipped with positive train control,
                    appropriate technology that warns
                    approaching trains of incorrectly lined
                    main track switches sufficiently in
                    advance to permit stopping.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-12-039       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Develop side impact crashworthiness          able
                    standards (including performance             Response
                    validation) for passenger railcars that
                    provide a measurable improvement compared
                    to the current regulation for minimizing
                    encroachment to and loss of railcar
                    occupant survival space.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-12-040       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Once the side impact crashworthiness         able
                    standards are developed in Safety            Response
                    Recommendation R-12-39, revise 49 Code of
                    Federal Regulations 238.217, ``Side
                    Structure,'' to require that new passenger
                    railcars be built to these standards.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-12-041       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Require that passenger railcar doors be      ptable
                    designed to prevent fire and smoke from      Response
                    traveling between railcars.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-13005        TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Identify, and require railroads to use in    able
                    locomotive cabs, technology-based            Alternate
                    solutions that detect the presence of        Response
                    signalemitting portable electronic devices
                    and that inform the railroad management
                    about the detected devices in real time.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-13-007       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Require railroads to implement initial and   ptable
                    recurrent crew resource management           Response
                    training for train crews.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-13-018       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Determine what constitutes a reliable,       ptable
                    valid, and comparable field test procedure   Response
                    for assessing the color discrimination
                    capabilities of employees in safety-
                    sensitive positions.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-13-019       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    When you have made the determination in      ptable
                    Safety Recommendation R-13-18, require       Response
                    railroads to use a reliable, valid, and
                    comparable field test procedure for
                    assessing the color discrimination
                    capabilities of employees in
                    safetysensitive positions.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-13-020       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Require more frequent medical                ptable
                    certification exams for employees in         Response
                    safety-sensitive positions who have
                    chronic conditions with the potential to
                    deteriorate sufficiently to impair safe
                    job performance.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-13-021       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Develop medical certification regulations    ptable
                    for employees in safety-sensitive            Response
                    positions that include, at a minimum, (1)
                    a complete medical history that includes
                    specific screening for sleep disorders, a
                    review of current medications, and a
                    thorough physical examination, (2)
                    standardization of testing protocols
                    across the industry, and (3) centralized
                    oversight of certification decisions for
                    employees who fail initial testing; and
                    consider requiring that medical
                    examinations be performed by those with
                    specific training and certification in
                    evaluating medication use and health
                    issues related to occupational safety on
                    railroads. [This recommendation supersedes
                    Safety Recommendations R-02-24 through -
                    26.]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-13-022       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open
                    Require all information captured by any      Unacceptabl
                    required recorder to also be recorded in     e Response
                    another location remote from the lead
                    locomotive(s), to minimize the likelihood
                    of the information's being unrecoverable
                    as a result of an accident.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-13-038       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Work with the Federal Highway                able
                    Administration to (1) include guidance in    Response
                    the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
                    Devices (MUTCD) for the installation of
                    advance warning devices, such as movement-
                    activated blank-out signs, that
                    specifically use the word ``train'' to
                    indicate the preemption of highway traffic
                    signals by an approaching train, and (2)
                    amend the MUTCD to indicate that
                    preemption confirmation lights, while not
                    intended to provide guidance to the
                    general public, would be useful in
                    providing advance information on train
                    movements to law enforcement and emergency
                    responders.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-14-002       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Develop a program to audit response plans    able
                    for rail carriers of petroleum products to   Response
                    ensure that adequate provisions are in
                    place to respond to and remove a worst-
                    case discharge to the maximum extent
                    practicable and to mitigate or prevent a
                    substantial threat of a worst-case
                    discharge.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-14-011       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Revise the Track Safety Standards            ptable
                    specified in Title 49 Code of Federal        Response
                    Regulations 213.233(b)(3),removing the
                    exemption for high-density commuter
                    railroads and requiring all railroads to
                    comply with these requirements: (1)to
                    traverse each main track by vehicle or
                    inspect each main track on foot at least
                    once every 2weeks, and (2) to traverse and
                    inspect each siding, either by vehicle or
                    on foot, at least once every month.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-14-015       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open
                    Promulgate a regulation for permitting a     Acceptable
                    train to pass a red signal aspect            Alternate
                    protecting a moveable bridge that is         Response
                    similar to the criteria for allowing a
                    train to cross a broken rail as contained
                    in Title 49Code of Federal
                    Regulations213.7(d) to ensure that the
                    bridge has been inspected by a qualified
                    employee before a train is authorized to
                    proceed across the bridge.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-14-016       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Collaborate with the Pipeline and            able
                    Hazardous Materials Safety Administration    Response
                    and the American Short Line and Regional
                    Railroad Association to develop a risk
                    assessment tool that addresses the known
                    limitations and shortcomings of the Rail
                    Corridor Risk Management Safety software
                    tool.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-14-017       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Collaborate with the Pipeline and            able
                    Hazardous Materials Safety Administration    Response
                    and the American Short Line and Regional
                    Railroad Association to conduct audits of
                    short line and regional railroads to
                    ensure that proper route risk assessments
                    that identify safety and security
                    vulnerabilities are being performed and
                    are incorporated into a safety management
                    system program.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-14-035       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Work with the Occupational Safety and        able
                    Health Administration (OSHA) to establish    Response
                    clear guidelines for use by railroads and
                    railroad workers detailing when and where
                    OSHA standards are to be applied.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-14-036       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION AND   Open--Accept
                    THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION:          able
                    Require initial and recurring training for   Response
                    roadway workers in hazard recognition and
                    mitigation. Such training should include
                    recognition and mitigation of the hazards
                    of tasks being performed by coworkers.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-14-044       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION AND   Open--Accept
                    THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH           able
                    ADMINISTRATION: Assist the Federal Transit   Response
                    Administration in establishing roadway
                    worker protection rules, including
                    requirements for job briefings.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-14-048       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Require equivalent levels of reporting for   ptable
                    both public and private highway--railroad    Response
                    grade crossings.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-14-069       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    When the proposed system safety program      able
                    regulation is promulgated, develop and       Response
                    implement a robust performancebased audit
                    program to ensure that railroads are
                    maintaining effective system safety
                    programs.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-14-074       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Develop a performance standard to ensure     able
                    that windows (e.g., glazing, gaskets, and    Response
                    any retention hardware) are retained in
                    the window opening structure during an
                    accident and incorporate the standard into
                    49 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR)
                    238.221 and 49CFR 238.421 to require that
                    passenger railcars meet this standard.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-14-075       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Revise Title 49 Code of Federal              able
                    RegulationsPart213 to define specific        Response
                    allowable limits for combinations of track
                    conditions, none of which individually
                    amounts to a deviation from Federal
                    Railroad Administration regulations that
                    requires remedial action, but, which when
                    combined, require remedial action.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-14-076       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Once you have completed the actions          able
                    specified in Safety Recommendation R-14-     Response
                    75, program your geometry inspection
                    vehicles to detect combinations of
                    conditions that require remedial action.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-15-001       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Revise Title 49 Code of Federal              ptable
                    Regulations (CFR) 238.213 to require the     Response
                    existing forward-end corner post strength
                    requirements for the back-end corner posts
                    of passenger railcars.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-15-002       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Revise Title 49 Code of Federal              ptable
                    Regulations Part 238 to incorporate a        Response
                    certificate of construction, similar to
                    the one found at Title 49 Code of Federal
                    Regulations 179.5, and require that the
                    certificate be furnished prior to the in-
                    service date of the railcar.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-15-004       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Review your existing regulations and your    able
                    motive power and equipment compliance        Response
                    manual, and revise them as needed to
                    prohibit automatic systems from resetting
                    the locomotive alerter. (Urgent)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-15-026       TO FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:          Open--Unacce
                    Prohibit the use of a white light as a       ptable
                    marking device on the rear of a train.       Response
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-15-035       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Enhance your medical standards by            ptable
                    identifying a list of medical conditions     Response
                    that disqualify employees for
                    safetysensitive positions because of the
                    conditions' potential for negatively
                    affecting rail safety.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-15-036       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Enhance your medical standards by            ptable
                    identifying a list of medical conditions     Response
                    that disqualify employees for
                    safetysensitive positions because of the
                    conditions' potential for negatively
                    affecting rail safety.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-15-037       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Once disqualifying medical conditions and    ptable
                    medications have been identified, develop    Response
                    specific criteria (such as standards for
                    medical test results) that may allow
                    employees who have been disqualified but
                    have been determined by a subsequent,
                    individualized assessment to pose no
                    increased danger to rail safety to obtain
                    a medical certification.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-16-032       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Require railroads to install devices and     ptable
                    develop procedures that will help            Response
                    crewmembers identify their current
                    location and display their upcoming route
                    in territories where positive train
                    control will not be implemented.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-16-033       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Initia
                    Modify form 6180.54 (Rail Equipment          l Response
                    Accident/Incident Report) to include the     Received
                    number of crewmembers in the controlling
                    cab of the train at the time of an
                    accident.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-16-034       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Initia
                    After form 6180.54 is modified as            l Response
                    specified in Safety Recommendation R-16-     Received
                    33, use the data regarding number of
                    crewmembers in the controlling cab of the
                    train at the time of an accident to
                    evaluate the safety adequacy of current
                    crew size regulations.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-16-035       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Conduct research to evaluate the causes of   ptable
                    passenger injuries in passenger railcar      Response
                    derailments and overturns and evaluate
                    potential methods for mitigating those
                    injuries, such as installing seat belts in
                    railcars and securing potential
                    projectiles
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-16-036       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    When the research specified in Safety        ptable
                    Recommendation R16-35 identifies safety      Response
                    improvements, use the findings to develop
                    occupant protection standards for
                    passenger railcars to mitigate passenger
                    injuries likely to occur during
                    derailments and overturns.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-16-043       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Require freight railroads to use validated   ptable
                    biomathematical fatigue models, similar to   Response
                    the models used by passenger railroads, to
                    develop work schedules that do not pose an
                    excessive risk of fatigue.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-16-044       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Develop and enforce medical standards that   ptable
                    railroad employees in safety-sensitive       Response
                    positions diagnosed with sleep disorders
                    must meet to be considered fit for duty.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-17-003       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Evaluate the risks posed to train crews by   able
                    hazardous materials transported by rail,     Response
                    determine the adequate separation distance
                    between hazardous materials cars and
                    locomotives and occupied equipment that
                    ensures the protection of train crews
                    during both normal operations and accident
                    conditions, and collaborate with the
                    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
                    Administration to revise 49 Code of
                    Federal Regulations 174.85 to reflect
                    those findings.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-17-006       TO THE PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS      Open--Initia
                    SAFETY ADMINISTRATION AND THE FEDERAL        l Response
                    RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION: Work together to    Received
                    develop specific guidance for railroads
                    when using the list of items found in
                    appendix D of title 49 Code of Federal
                    Regulations Part 172 in their risk
                    assessments and apply the information
                    gathered in those risk assessments when
                    analyzing proposed routes for high-hazard
                    flammable trains or high-hazard flammable
                    unit trains.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-17-017       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Enact Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations   ptable
                    Part 270, System Safety Program, without     Response
                    further delay.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-17-018       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Accept
                    Require railroads to install technology on   able
                    hi-rail, backhoes, other independently       Response
                    operating pieces of maintenance-of-way
                    equipment, and on the leading and trailing
                    units of sets of maintenance-of-way
                    equipment operated by maintenance workers
                    to provide dispatchers and the dispatch
                    system an independent source of
                    information on the locations of this
                    equipment to prevent unauthorized
                    incursions by trains onto sections of
                    track where maintenance activities are
                    taking place in accordance with the
                    Congressional mandate under the Rail
                    Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-17-032       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Initia
                    Research and evaluate wheel impact load      l Response
                    thresholds to find remedial actions that     Received
                    address the mechanical condition of tank
                    cars used in high-hazard flammable trains.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-17-033       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Initia
                    Mandate remedial actions that railroads      l Response
                    should take to avoid or identify             Received
                    mechanical defects that are identified by
                    wheel impact load detectors.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-17-034       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION AND   Open--Accept
                    THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS:       able
                    Collaborate in the evaluation of safe kip    Response
                    thresholds to determine the remedial
                    actions for suspected defective wheels
                    conditions in high-hazard flammable train
                    service based upon equipment detector
                    data, and revise the Federal Railroad
                    Administration Safety Advisory 2015-01 and
                    the Association of American Railroads
                    interchange rules.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-18-001       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Initia
                    Require intercity passenger and commuter     l Response
                    railroads to implement technology to stop    Received
                    a train before reaching the end of tracks.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-18-002       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Initia
                    Include the Collision Hazard Analysis        l Response
                    Guide for Commuter and Intercity Passenger   Received
                    Rail Service as part of the regulation or
                    part of a detailed compliance manual to
                    assist railroads in implementing Title 49
                    Code of Federal Regulations Part 270.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-18-005       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Unacce
                    Issue an Emergency Order directing           ptable
                    railroads to require that when signal        Response
                    suspensions are in effect and a switch has
                    been reported relined for a main track,
                    the next train or locomotive to pass the
                    location must approach the switch location
                    at restricted speed. After the switch
                    position is verified, the train crew must
                    report to the dispatcher that the switch
                    is correctly lined for the main track
                    before trains are permitted to operate at
                    maximum-authorized speed. (Urgent)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-18-009       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Initia
                    Review and evaluate the notifications        l Response
                    received from the Occupational Safety and    Received
                    Health Administration, and use the
                    information contained in them to modify
                    the National Inspection Plan to include
                    more plant railroads in your routine
                    inspections.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-18-010       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Initia
                    Require railroads to develop a device or     l Response
                    technique to eliminate the possibility of    Received
                    employees failing to perform critical
                    tasks such as lining a switch, lining a
                    derail, or ensuring cars are in the clear.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-18-011       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Await
                    Assist the Federal Highway Administration    Response
                    (FHWA) in developing specific criteria to
                    establish when an existing grade crossing
                    should be reconstructed, closed, or
                    otherwise have the risk posed by its
                    unsafe vertical profile comprehensively
                    mitigated, to be incorporated into the
                    FHWA Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing
                    Handbook.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-18-016       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Initia
                    Review, and modify if necessary, your        l Response
                    current inspection guidance regarding        Received
                    watchman/lookout equipment to verify that
                    it requires railroads to provide the
                    necessary equipment for a watchman/lookout
                    to notify a roadway work group of
                    approaching trains and that this
                    accurately reflects the definition
                    contained in Title 49 Code of Federal
                    Regulations 214.7.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-18-017       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Initia
                    Review railroads' on-track safety programs   l Response
                    to determine if the necessary equipment is   Received
                    required and provided for a watchman/
                    lookout to notify roadway work groups of
                    approaching trains. If deficiencies are
                    discovered, use enforcement options to
                    encourage compliance.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-18-018       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Initia
                    Revise your guidance for inspectors          l Response
                    regarding required watchman/lookout          Received
                    equipment and procedures, train all of
                    your inspectors on the revised guidance,
                    and audit subsequent inspections to verify
                    adherence to the specifications outlined
                    in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
                    214.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-18-019       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Initia
                    Modify the National Inspection Plan to       l Response
                    require periodic unannounced inspections     Received
                    for roadway worker protection regulation
                    compliance.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-18-024       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Initia
                    Issue a guidance document railroads can      l Response
                    use to assess their on-track safety          Received
                    program to ensure it encompasses the role
                    of signal and train control equipment,
                    including redundant protection, such as
                    supplemental shunting devices to protect
                    roadway workers and their equipment.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-18-025       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Initia
                    Study available technologies that            l Response
                    automatically alert maintenance-of-way       Received
                    workers fouling tracks of approaching
                    trains, then require that such technology
                    be implemented as a redundant protective
                    measure.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-18-026       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Initia
                    Provide additional training to all your      l Response
                    track inspectors on regulatory track         Received
                    safety standards compliance and provide
                    guidance of available enforcement options
                    to obtain compliance with minimum track
                    safety standards when defective conditions
                    are not being properly remediated by
                    railroads on all routes that carry high
                    hazardous flammable materials.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-19-008       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Await
                    Study the efficacy of how signs used in      Response
                    other modes of transportation may be
                    effectively used in the railroad industry.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-19-009       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Await
                    Require railroads to periodically review     Response
                    and update their speed limit action plans
                    to reflect any operational or territorial
                    operating changes requiring additional
                    safety mitigations and to continually
                    monitor the effectiveness of their speed
                    limit action plan mitigations.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-19-010       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Await
                    Require railroads to apply their existing    Response
                    speed limit action plan criteria for
                    overspeed risk mitigation to all current
                    and future projects in the planning,
                    design, and construction phases, including
                    projects where operations are provided
                    under contract.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-19-011       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Await
                    Prohibit the operation of passenger trains   Response
                    on new, refurbished, or updated
                    territories unless positive train control
                    is implemented.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-19-012       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Await
                    Remove the grandfathering provision within   Response
                    Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
                    338.206(d) and require all railcars comply
                    with the applicable current safety
                    standards.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-19-013       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION: Use  Open--Await
                    your authority and compel all commuter and   Response
                    passenger railroads to meet the
                    requirements outlined in Title 49 Code of
                    Federal Regulations Part 238 without
                    delay, such that in the event of a loss of
                    power, adequate emergency lighting is
                    available to allow passengers,
                    crewmembers, and first responders to see
                    and orient themselves, identify obstacles,
                    safely move throughout the railcar, and
                    evacuate safely.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-19-014       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Await
                    Reevaluate existing seat securement          Response
                    mechanisms and their susceptibility to
                    inadvertent rotation, to identify a means
                    to prevent the failure of these devices to
                    maintain seat securement.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    R-19-015       TO THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION:      Open--Await
                    Conduct research into the effectiveness of   Response
                    occupant protection through
                    compartmentalization for passengers whose
                    size (including children) is not within
                    the current range of anthropomorphic
                    passenger sizes in Federal Railroad
                    Administration standards.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Senator Wicker. Well, thank all four of you for excellent
    testimony, and we'll now move to questions by members of the
    Committee.
        Let me start with Mr. Anderson. In a Wall Street Journal
    article from February of this year, Amtrak indicated it would
    like to move away from long-distance routes and promote more
    frequent service between pairs of cities.
        Does that accurately describe Amtrak's vision for the
    national network? How will Amtrak support and improve long-
    distance and state-supported routes over the next five to 10
    years, and do you plan to shrink any of the long-distance train
    routes through state-supported?
        Mr. Anderson. Yes, I don't think the Wall Street Journal--
    had part of it right, part of it not right.
        On the state-supported----
        Senator Wicker. Astounded.
        Mr. Anderson. Are you shocked by that? On the state-
    supported network under 209 of PRIA, that's the strongest part
    of Amtrak and that piece of Amtrak is really where the future
    lies for inner city passenger rail and short-haul markets where
    freeways are jammed and you can't add more capacity.
        So I'd say under Section 209 of PRIA, our state-supported
    piece, which is really separate from the long distance, is
    performing very well and we have great partnerships with over
    20 states in the United States in that piece of Amtrak. That's
    half of Amtrak's business and it's growing.
        Here's the challenge on the long distance. Since Fiscal
    Year 2013 to Fiscal Year 2018, our trips for miles over 600
    miles, in other words, passengers buying a ticket to go over
    600 miles, is down 30 percent. The train goes 45 miles an hour
    and the ticket is more than a low-cost discount airline ticket
    in the same market.
        So we are working hard to try to get ridership up but it's
    just clear that trips over 600 miles are not where consumers
    want to use Amtrak and 85 percent of our long-distance trips
    are short-haul trips where people get on in Chicago and get off
    in 100 or 200 miles.
        The challenge in long distance is the on-time performance
    is a threat to the viability of that business and, Number 2, it
    needs billions of dollars of investment. So what I want to do
    is have this dialogue with you and your professional staff as
    we go into reauthorization about how we tackle that challenge.
        I do think that there are historically important trains in
    the long-distance network that we should always operate, like
    the Builder, like the Zephyr, like the Coast Starlight, but
    because we spread our resource like peanut butter, we don't
    have the kind of investment you should have in making those a
    really special product to experience.
        So we believe there has always a role for long distance but
    on the margin, we should be looking at breaking up some of
    those long-distance trains and figuring out how we serve the
    American consumer to provide high-quality service in short-haul
    markets where they're using that service today.
        Senator Wicker. Well, let's look forward to having that
    dialogue between your team and our professional staffs.
        Let me quickly move to one other topic and that's on-time
    performance, OTP. There was a recent Supreme Court decision. I
    assume you agree that that moved the issue along and that
    Amtrak and FRA must now reformulate and issue new OTP metrics.
    Once they do, the Surface Transportation Board will be able to
    investigate situations where OTP falls below 80 percent.
        At last week's Senate Commerce testimony, Ron Batory, the
    FRA Administrator, testified about the Administration's work to
    reissue on-time performance metrics and standards.
        What do you envision as the timeline and process for
    reissuing these metrics?
        Mr. Anderson. We don't have a timeline. I don't think the
    statute contemplates any sort of commission. It's suppose to be
    done by the FRA and Amtrak. The work was done a decade ago
    before the litigation with the host railroads was undertaken.
        When the Supreme Court denied cert on that case, it put the
    validity of the statute on firm ground. We ought to be able to
    get this done in about 90 days. There's already a template. In
    1987, the United States Department of Transportation, Consumer
    Affairs, passed these same kinds of rules for airlines and you
    all live under those rules today.
        Senator Wicker. Will you do this? We're going to have to
    close the record at some point. Will you get back to Senator
    Cantwell and me and other members of the Committee in about 90
    days and give us an update on how that's going----
        Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir.
        Senator Wicker.--because that's a very optimistic
    prediction and good news as far as I'm concerned.
        Mr. Anderson. Thank you.
        Senator Wicker. Very good. Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again thank
    you to the witnesses for their testimony.
        Ms. Homendy, I think I want to start with you. I think the
    discussion this morning, you know, Puget Sound and certainly
    the DuPont accident is Exhibit Number 1 of the challenges we
    face and what we have to get right. There is more congestion
    than ever, and there are still exempted freight tracks, as you
    were mentioning, that aren't coming into standard.
        So what do you think we need to do to make sure that that
    happens here in Washington, D.C., to get FRA to implement that?
        Ms. Homendy. As far as the exemptions, the law did not
    allow for exemptions from PTC. The law actually allowed, in
    addition to main line tracks, for the Secretary to go beyond
    the requirements for passenger rail and for toxic by inhalation
    lines, for main lines. That was done in the rule.
        So the exceptions, we have 1,400 miles, over 1,400 miles of
    exceptions that have been granted for PTC for Amtrak and some
    of those, I believe it's about 20 curves where there's a 20-
    mile-per-hour difference, so something similar to what occurred
    in DuPont, and so there has to be, without PTC, a risk
    mitigation.
        Amtrak and the freight railroads are going to have to look
    at what can be put in place if there's not going to be PTC.
    We're on record as saying PTC should be everywhere. There
    shouldn't be exceptions and we continue to believe that. We've
    had 153 accidents.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, I certainly believe that it needed
    to be implemented and I'm sure if I asked Mr. Anderson, he's
    going to tell me it is implemented in Washington, but that
    doesn't give all our riders that ride outside the state of
    Washington a sense of security. We need to learn from the
    DuPont accident and implement this.
        I think underlying this, Mr. Jefferies, is this increase in
    volume of freight traffic is what is causing--we're doubling. I
    mentioned over in Spokane Valley, if you're going from--if
    you're going to double the train traffic in the next 15 years,
    from 56 freight trains a day and it's going to go to 114,
    congestion is our Number 1 problem.
        So then, looking at these other freight corridors, which is
    exactly what happened in DuPont, people said, oh, my God, we
    have so much congestion, how are we going to get around it, and
    then we didn't put in place the system management and the risk
    reduction plans that went along with that. We need to stop the
    next DuPont from happening.
        So, Mr. Jefferies, Mr. Anderson, could you comment on how
    we do that? I'm assuming that you are for positive train
    control being implemented across the country and that this
    exemption not be allowed by FRA.
        Mr. Jefferies. Thank you for that question.
        Right now, railroads nationwide have 89 percent of their
    required PTC miles fully operational. We're working through
    that last bit on the lines that host Amtrak trains. I think
    that number is at 85 percent right now. We're really working
    toward interoperability between the various railroads, making
    sure everyone's systems talk together seamlessly.
        The FRA regulations are very clear about where PTC is
    required on existing passenger train routes and then any new
    passenger service that might be stood up in the future.
    Certainly, we support those regulations. We abide by those
    regulations and we'll continue to do so. If there's interest in
    re-engaging on that, certainly we'll be at the table.
        Senator Cantwell. Mr. Anderson.
        Mr. Anderson. I agree with everything you've said. I do not
    think we should operate a passenger train in the United States
    without PTC or PTC-equivalent technology to give us that layer
    of safety.
        The Southwest Chief is the prime example. It doesn't have
    PTC along that route and it's a lower level of safety and we
    shouldn't tolerate a lower level of safety and so where we
    could use help from you is we think that there are PTC
    solutions that don't require as much trackside implementation
    that involve putting pads in cabs of locomotives where we use
    geo-fencing and other kinds of technologies that you're used to
    in your car, and we are up against the wall at FRA about having
    a tablet available in the cab of the locomotive.
        So we think that there might be some PTC-equivalent
    capabilities by using GPS and geo-fencing to at least get
    speeds under control.
        Senator Cantwell. May I just ask you, you're not against
    Ms. Homendy's recommendation that there are cameras inside and
    out?
        Mr. Anderson. Oh, absolutely. You need cameras inside and
    out. Our goal in our SMS Program, which is what we did when I
    was CEO of Delta, every flight every day, the data recorder is
    downloaded into a database and you find all the parameters
    where the operation was outside.
        We need to have the data on every single one of our
    operations in a flexible database so that we can monitor what's
    going on and quickly react to any out-of-tolerance operation.
        Senator Cantwell. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Blunt.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI

        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman. Thanks to all of you
    for being here.
        Last week in front of this committee, the FRA Administrator
    stated that the agency was beginning the process of putting a
    new on-time rule in place. At the risk of losing all my 4
    minutes and 40 seconds here with this question, Mr. Jefferies
    and then Mr. Anderson, and remember I want the other one to
    respond, too, what would you like to see included in that rule
    in both cases, and also some discussion of the right to
    preference, Richard, when it comes to you?
        Mr. Jefferies, you want to start?
        Mr. Jefferies. Sure. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
        The important thing for the AAR--knowing that we have
    Amtrak and commuter railroads as members as well as Class 1s
    and other host railroads as members--we are encouraged by the
    comments Mr. Batory made last week where he laid out a process
    seeking input from all involved parties.
        To achieve a fully sustainable solution that's going to
    work into the future, we think it's important to take input
    from all stakeholders involved.
        As my colleague, Mr. Anderson said, the law states that the
    FRA and Amtrak shall develop standards and metrics. In my
    opinion, that doesn't come at the expense of seeking input and
    stakeholder involvement from other involved parties. Having
    everybody at the table, taking a hard look at the data and
    getting all parties to a totally sustainable long-term solution
    is an appropriate path forward.
        Senator Blunt. I guess if everybody was on time, right to
    preference wouldn't matter, but assuming everybody won't be on
    time all the time, do you have anything to say about the impact
    of an Amtrak train being given the preference over other track
    users?
        Mr. Jefferies. In my opening statement, I made the point
    that, giving Amtrak preference doesn't guarantee zero delays in
    all instances. The important thing is that FRA move forward in
    its development of metrics and standards that can be used to
    measure preference. The STB is then the appropriate authority
    to evaluate and investigate those situations once the metrics
    and standards are in place.
        The STB is the agency with the expertise to take a national
    view and look at the impacts of what's going on in the railroad
    network. Mr. Batory laid out the first few steps in the right
    direction. The devil will be in the details, but there's a path
    forward that can be workable.
        Senator Blunt. Mr. Anderson, what would you like to see in
    that rule?
        Mr. Anderson. That it would be gauged around the customer,
    so it's customer on-time. The number needs to be about 80
    percent customer on-time because we compete against railroads
    and buses and people in their cars. So our statute says we have
    to be competitive with other modes of transportation in inner
    city travel.
        So if you look at the DOT rules on airlines, you know, the
    goal was to have arrival within 14 statistics that mimic what
    passengers wanted to be able to see as consumers.
        Number 2, on the question of preference, the preference was
    given in the statute in 1970-71 and then reinforced again when
    PRIA was passed in 2009. We litigated for 10 years over it. We
    won the litigation and now it's time to get on with putting a
    program in place that accommodates what Ian talks about, which
    is, you know, we are going to have bridges wash out and we are
    going to have hurricanes and we are going to have acts of God
    that are going to cause us to terminate service.
        We understand that, but the day-to-day operation from the
    eyes of the customer is what's key.
        Senator Blunt. Well, you know, every Member of Congress
    thinks they're an expert in air travel, as I've talked to you
    about when you were in your other job. Politics and air travel
    are the two things that every Member of Congress thinks they
    know everything about.
        But do you know about what happens, too, when you begin to
    get behind some place in the day, what happens all over the
    rest of the system? How do you see that impacting particularly
    the freight line that you use and most of the line you use is,
    as you pointed out earlier, not line you own but line you use,
    you don't own?
        Mr. Anderson. Well, the best way to answer that is the way
    I did it at the airline, which we ran the best airline in the
    United States by far.
        When the weather was good, you better run at 95 because
    there are going to be some days when weather's bad. So the
    bottom line is when you use an average of customer on-time
    performance, that average of customer on-time performance has
    got to include a lot of days where you run on time, taking into
    account there are going to be some times when you have bridge
    wash-outs or the like.
        So, you know, we were able to sort of consistently run in
    the mid 80s and on a good day, we were running in the mid 90s.
    Today, Amtrak runs the Northeast Corridor up in the high 80s
    on-time performance. So it's something that can be done.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
        Senator Udall, I understand that you've said you're used to
    being skipped over and that you're willing to go last today, is
    that correct?

                     STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

        Senator Udall. That's not correct.
        Senator Wicker. Oh, OK.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Wicker. Well, then the Chair recognizes Senator
    Udall for five and a half minutes.
        Senator Udall. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        As many of you are aware,--and great to have you here, good
    testimony today. As many of you are aware, the Southwest Chief
    is vitally important to many of the Senators on this dais and
    to the communities we represent.
        I'm grateful for the work of my friends on this Committee,
    Senators Moran and Gardner, as well as the work of Senators
    Heinrich, Roberts, and Bennett. This bipartisan coalition of
    Senators proves that we can work together on issues of common
    interest to our constituents.
        As you may recall, nearly a year ago the Senate voted on my
    Sense of the Congress Amendment, 92 to 6, to support the
    importance of the National Network for Amtrak, and I don't
    think that support has diminished since.
        President Anderson, thank you for our recent discussion and
    for changing course for now, an action that's on discontinuing
    the Southwest Chief, an action that would be a disservice to
    Amtrak customers and hurt all communities on the line between
    Dodge City, Kansas; and Albuquerque, New Mexico; and I was very
    discouraged to hear you say that you are looking at breaking up
    long-distance routes. That wasn't in your written testimony
    quite that strongly but I want to take a big disagreement with
    that.
        You know, while progress has been made, I am confident that
    the threat is not over. I see that Amtrak continues to blame
    Congress and others for budgetary woes when it's convenient,
    yet when tasked with engaging with stakeholders, you're slow to
    do so.
        Last year when Amtrak wasted resources proposing to disband
    the Southwest Chief, I repeatedly requested Amtrak engage
    directly with our active stakeholders, but we don't seem to be
    there yet.
        According to Mr. Souby's testimony, Amtrak has not even
    responded to a written request for stakeholder engagement.
        When Congress rejects Amtrak's Corridor Plan, it appears
    that Amtrak will once again be left without a real vision for a
    national network. That is deeply disappointing. Amtrak must
    develop a visionary and bold plan to preserve and improve long-
    distance rail for the American public.
        Mr. Souby, first, thank you for your efforts to save
    Southwest Chief. Our present success staving off
    discontinuation of service wouldn?t have happened without your
    efforts. Your testimony highlights the lack of transparency
    from Amtrak's leadership, recognizing you continue to work with
    many dedicated Amtrak employees.
        What is the evidence of the willingness of top management
    in Amtrak to meaningfully engage with stakeholders?
        Mr. Souby. I hate to be speaking for Amtrak, Senator, but
    my opinions on this are they should--we have a great example of
    this and that is, we went to Amtrak four-five years ago and
    asked them to help us restore ski train service in Colorado and
    we presented a business plan and the railroad responded. They
    sent executives out to Colorado. They met with the Winter Park
    Resort executives. They met with COLORAIL, our advocacy group.
    They met with the Union Pacific Railroad and, in fact, that ski
    train service with great support from this Committee and our
    Colorado Senators as well as our Governor, that ski train
    service is restored. It just had its most successful year ever
    this past year and hopefully Amtrak can renegotiate a new
    contract with the Union Pacific and continue that service.
        So my example of how Amtrak ought to behave is exactly that
    particular effort.
        I'll say one other thing about this issue that I think is
    extremely important and it hasn't been touched on yet by Mr.
    Anderson and I want to make sure that the Committee hears this
    and that is the way Amtrak evaluates long-distance service or
    any of its services is purely based on metrics related to
    passenger trips and the greatest value of long-distance trains
    are the economic and social benefits they bring to the
    communities they serve.
        No doubt that rural communities aren't going to have as
    many passengers boarding and alighting the system as you do in
    a heavy metropolitan area, but the interesting fact is that in
    the three states, Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico, that the
    Southwest Chief runs through, the economic and social benefits
    total $180 million a year and the Amtrak asserts that it costs
    $60 million of public support a year to run that train over all
    eight states.
        And so there's something wrong with that equation when
    they're not taking into account the value that it brings. It's
    a public transportation system. Most public transportation
    systems return about 50 percent on their fare box recovery, but
    they're necessary because that's how people get to work and so
    we provide support for them, public support, and that argument
    never appears in any of Amtrak's statements about these
    services.
        I'll also note that when Mr. Anderson replied to the
    earlier question about long-distance trains, he didn't mention
    the Southwest Chief which is disturbing, but, you know, I
    accept that as just a minor item compared to this value
    argument.
        It has to be a part of this equation. I know you understand
    it and I know all of our mayors, county commissioners, city
    managers, all along the route understand that. It's
    intrinsically understood. We just finished research on this
    where we actually have documented those values and that's where
    that $180 million amount comes from, and we've looked at the
    Empire Builder. It returns over $337 million a year and I think
    it's subsidized or supported by Federal funds to the extent of
    about $50 million or $60 million a year, just like the
    Southwest Chief.
        So we're talking about a huge public return on that Federal
    investment and it needs to be a part of that equation. If you
    just go on passenger boardings, well, yes, we're going to these
    small communities, La Junta, Colorado; Lamar, Trinidad
    communities, but that 15,000, maybe 20,000 residents, you're
    not going to have that ridership, but when you think about the
    value, the economic and social value of that train to that
    community, it's immense and that's why we support it and that's
    why most elected officials and others sense that. They get
    that.
        We finally documented it, the Rail Passengers Association,
    working with the Trent Lott Institute. We documented how you
    can discover those economic benefits and we've published a
    report to that effect and I shared it with, I think, the
    Committee staff and I know I've shared it with our Colorado
    Senators.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Souby.
        Senator Udall. Mr. Chairman,----
        Senator Wicker. Yes?
        Senator Udall.--could I just thank him for that very
    powerful statement, and I hope, President Anderson, you were
    listening to that.
        I also want to say to Senator Tester, he asked me to not
    ask too many questions that were in his arena and I've only
    asked one. So, Senator Tester, there you go.
        Senator Wicker. I'm sure he appreciates that as he
    appreciates you on every occasion.
        Senator Gardner.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to add to that comment my appreciation for Senator
    Udall. Thank you very much for your leadership on this,
    Senators Moran, Heinrich, Bennett, and Roberts, as well, for
    the work on the Southwest Chief.
        Mr. Souby, thank you very much for your leadership in
    Colorado. Thank you for being here today.
        Just for the record, I mean, the ski train has been an
    incredible success. You can now fly into Denver International
    Airport. You can hope on the train to Union Station, hop on the
    train from there up to Winter Park, and you can ski off the
    train down the slope. You don't even to go up the slope because
    you're already on it. It's still snowing in Colorado. So you
    can still come out and enjoy it.
        So, anyway, thank you very much for the opportunity to hear
    from all of you, and, Mr. Souby, you talked a little bit about
    the lessons learned in terms of Amtrak, Colorado, and how we
    can work together to succeed in the future with passenger rail
    in our state.
        Could you talk about once again the importance of just
    quickly maintaining a national transportation network so it's
    not just a Northeast Corridor Amtrak?
        Mr. Souby. Well, it's terribly important to the three
    states the Southwest Chief runs through but also to the states
    that the Empire Builder runs through and, of course, the Zephyr
    runs through Colorado, as well.
        This uncertainty of whether or not this train is going to
    be continued has definitely impacted our efforts in Colorado.
    We were working with Amtrak Vacations, a company called Yankee
    Holidays, to develop excursions off the Southwest Chief. It's a
    tremendous destination or not destination but a tremendous
    European vacation venue and Europeans come through La Junta,
    get off, go to Bent's Old Fort. They're thinking about the
    Santa Fe Trail.
        So we proposed these excursions to Yankee Holidays. They
    said this looks great but it will take us two to three years to
    develop the marketing outreach and make these vacations happen.
    Then we estimated they'll be very profitable and they'll
    increase the ridership, of course, of the train.
        I'm not referring to Mr. Anderson when I say this. It was
    before his immediate time, but that's when all this uncertainty
    arose over whether the train needed to be relocated down to the
    BNSF Transcontinental Line back in the early 2000s.
        And so what happened was Yankee Holidays says we cannot
    engage. We can't get involved in developing these vacation
    packages. They're very expensive. We have to market them
    internationally. We just can't do this unless we have certainty
    that the train's going to continue to run and so we lost that
    opportunity.
        So this uncertainty about what the future of the long-
    distance train service is has a tremendous economic and social
    effect on our communities and our citizens.
        Senator Gardner. That's a really good point because as we
    look at ways to increase ridership, as we look at ways to help
    encourage people to join the Southwest Chief, that uncertainty
    then is the same uncertainty that prevents more people from
    enjoying it because a company like you just mentioned cannot
    market to its customers to go on the Southwest Chief because
    they have to plan a year or more in advance on a big trip like
    that, it may not be in existence----
        Mr. Souby. Absolutely.
        Senator Gardner.--if that's the concern that they have. I
    think that's a really good point. So we need to have that
    certainty.
        To the point of certainty, Mr. Anderson, thank you for your
    leadership. I know it's not an easy job. So I appreciate it,
    even if we disagree on some things, I appreciate your
    willingness to come and meet with us and talk to the Senators
    about some of these issues and challenges, and I hope we can
    continue to work on that.
        I would just ask for a couple things. On the certainty
    front, a letter that several of us had sent on April 5, 2019,
    Amtrak responded on May 17, I believe it was, and this is what
    the letter said.
        ``Amtrak is not planning to truncate or substantially alter
    any long-distance routes as we have been given clear direction
    by Congress to maintain the status quo in 2019, and we believe
    Congress generally endorsed continued operation of our current
    route network for the five-year period from Fiscal Year 2015 to
    Fiscal Year 2020.''
        The paragraph basically ends by saying, ``We plan on
    operating all of our long-distance routes for the trains for
    the remainder of the period while seeking to drive improved
    performance.''
        Do you maintain that commitment?
        Mr. Anderson. Sure. I signed the letter. I actually wrote
    that line.
        Senator Gardner. Very good. Thank you for that. Thank you.
    I look forward to working with you on this and beyond and would
    just, Mr. Anderson, if I could get your commitment to work with
    Mr. Souby and the Colorado and Kansas and New Mexico interests,
    as well, to resolve these issues and make this work for the
    Southwest Chief and the states involved.
        Mr. Anderson. That would be great. I'm glad to hear that
    it's worth $180 million to the states, so then they can get
    their matches up for us to be able to do the work that needs to
    be done to keep this operation underway.
        Senator Gardner. Mr. Souby?
        Mr. Souby. That goes into the general economy of our rural
    communities, but that does raise an interesting point, and it's
    positive train control, which we all support, but as was
    mentioned earlier, other risk mitigation might be necessary
    because not every single mile of the 1,400 miles of non-PTC
    track that Amtrak runs on.
        Should we pay to have PTC on in my opinion, at least not
    yet, until traffic increases, and I specifically want to
    mention the New Mexico line where Amtrak is the only user of
    the line and runs one train one way and one train the other in
    24 hours. That's about 230 miles.
        If in fact it's $500,000 or so a mile to install positive
    train control, then we're talking about $100 million for that
    200 and some odd mile line. That's an extremely costly
    investment for two trains.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Souby. I see my time has
    expired.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, Senator Gardner.
        Senator Tester, since Senator Udall asked one of your
    questions for you, will three minutes be all right?

                     STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

        Senator Tester. That's fine. I'm willing to work with you,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Senator Tester is recognized.
        Senator Tester. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ranking
    Member Cantwell. I want to thank you all for your testimony.
        Mr. Anderson, I've got to tell you you come here with an
    incredible resume and I was a Northwestern flyer before I was a
    Delta flyer and you made that transition incredibly well and
    you have a personality that, quite frankly, is hard to get mean
    with, and we've had some differences on decisions that were
    made.
        Your testimony about breaking even in the next 12 months,
    about the fact that we have a highway system that's overloaded
    in certain areas and you can be a solution to that and play an
    increasing role in transportation, I think it's really, really
    good, and something that I don't think anybody on this
    committee would disagree with.
        My concern is, is in Montana, and you know Montana pretty
    well from your previous job, is that whether we're talking
    about Amtrak transportation or whether we're talking about
    broadband and closing the Digital Divide or whether we're
    talking about making sure the Postal Service can deliver to
    Rural America and then changing their postal delivery standards
    or whether we're talking about air travel, it's always a
    challenge. It's always a challenge.
        If we go off of numbers, as Mr. Souby said, and strictly go
    off of numbers, and I get it, man, I mean, I want Amtrak to be
    able to run itself without any dollars from the Federal
    Government, but the truth is I do think it's bigger than that
    and I know your board has given you a charge probably to make
    this thing run with zero dollars input from the taxpayer.
        But I will tell you that as I talk to folks and I've never
    ridden a train in Europe, I've talked to Max Block as he talked
    about the high-speed train network that?s being built in China,
    everybody that's been in Europe tells me that those trains are
    absolutely incredible and something that people gravitate to
    for their transportation needs.
        I just really hope that moving forward that we really try
    to make Amtrak all it can be moving forward and you talk about
    the population areas and I agree with you. I mean, truthfully,
    you've got to go where the money is, right, but we can't forget
    about the rural areas either and so where I'm going with this,
    you probably already know, is that in two little small towns
    that happen to be fairly close to where I live personally,
    there was a ticket office that was closed, no big deal, except
    for the fact that in Montana, we don't have broadband. Twenty-
    five percent of the places in Montana don't have broadband. So
    we can't buy tickets online. Except for the fact that there is
    no kiosk in these places. If there is, there's a person there
    but they can't sell tickets.
        The question becomes for me if we're not going to leave
    Rural America out like the Postal Service guy, Postmaster
    General tried to do a few years ago, like we're having this
    challenge with broadband, how do we make it so these folks in
    rural areas that, quite frankly, would use a train and have
    said if we don't have train service, we're not going to use it,
    and I've talked too much. It truly ticks me off.
        But the truth is, is that, how do we make this work for
    rural areas and I know your heart's in the right spot, but the
    truth is, is that, Mr. Souby is correct. There are economic and
    social benefits to this that we also need to include in the
    equation. Could you respond to that?
        Mr. Anderson. I agree with your policy statement. I think
    that inner city passenger rail can play a really important role
    in connecting Rural America to Urban America. There's no doubt
    about it. We see it across the network and there is a permanent
    place for the long-distance network.
        I just don't think the long-distance network serves a lot
    of these communities very well and that we could do a lot
    better job serving these communities.
        I have to say that, you know, I have a Secretary of
    Transportation and an Administration that wants to basically
    cut our funding to a point where we'd have massive layoffs and
    I disagree with the Secretary and I disagree with OMB.
        Senator Tester. Yes, so, well, I would just say this. I
    don't know how we can get to the 21st Century on railroads but
    we're not there. We're not there and it's not your fault. It,
    quite frankly, is Congress's fault and if we don't make the
    investment, we're never going to get the dividend.
        Mr. Anderson. You're right.
        Senator Tester. And so I would just encourage you to keep
    pushing very, very hard to make sure that not only do we have
    good passenger service in the places where the high populations
    are that you talked about because they're important. I've
    ridden the Northeastern line. It's handy. Don't taken offense
    to this. It's actually easier to ride the rails than it is to
    fly an airplane.
        Mr. Anderson. I think it's far better than flying an
    airplane.
        Senator Tester. That's exactly right and you should in your
    position.
        But the bottom line is, is that, we need your advocacy
    because you know this issue better than any of us to be able to
    push forward so we can make smart investments that work well
    for the American public.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Tester.
        Senator Moran.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

        Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you to our
    panel for being here.
        You have the joy of having three Senators who care strongly
    about Southwest Chief on this committee. So our focus--I'm
    sorry the other two witnesses seem to be on two other folks.
        Let me start with Mr. Souby. You mentioned an equation that
    doesn't take into account benefits to communities that are
    served by long-distance passenger rail service. Where does that
    equation come from? Is that something that Amtrak has developed
    on its own volition or is that statutory or----
        Mr. Souby. No, no, no. The Rail Passengers Association,
    which is a national group, I served on the board until just
    recently, I'm a national representative now, did research. They
    went to the Trent Lott Institute because we worked on that for
    the Gulf Coast possible resumption of service.
        We went back to them because they do a very good job in
    this analysis, but they then went out and looked, as I recall,
    they looked at 11 or some odd----
        Senator Moran. Let me make sure you understand my question.
    You tell me that Amtrak is using this particular equation
    that----
        Mr. Souby. No, no, no, they're not. I'm recommending that
    they should.
        Senator Moran. Correct, sir. But where do they get the
    authority? Where did they make the decision to use that
    equation that they use?
        Mr. Souby. Oh, in any evaluation, particularly of a long-
    distance line, in other words,----
        Senator Moran. Is that a legislative mandate on Amtrak?
        Mr. Souby. I think it should be part of a policy framework,
    as I mentioned earlier. It should be part--that policy
    framework should say we're going to maintain a national system.
    We're going to maintain this underlying set of highly valued
    long-distance train service and we're going to grow the
    expansion of our national rail network based on that existing
    network, and when decisions are made about how to establish
    additional service, then we should take into account not just
    passenger demand but also the benefits to communities.
        Senator Moran. I understand fully your point and agree with
    that.
        Let me turn to Mr. Anderson so that I can turn my fire to
    somebody that I disagree with less than I thought I used to but
    still disagree with.
        Mr. Anderson, you've set the stage for my skepticism about
    your view toward the Southwest Chief and long-distance
    passenger service. We had a conversation with you and my
    colleagues and you indicated that it was in the planning stages
    or at least thought process at Amtrak a replacement of long-
    distance or passenger service on the Southwest Chief from Dodge
    City, Kansas, to Albuquerque using bus service.
        My reaction--I never intended when I met with you, I was
    annoyed by Amtrak's failure to pay the $3 million that I
    believe they committed to in a grant process for the Southwest
    Chief. That's what originated my outreach to you, but it was
    the bus comment that caught my attention and it stayed with me,
    and the idea that Amtrak would think about replacing passenger
    service with bus service for 400 miles and believed that we
    would still have a long-distance passenger train service is
    something I can't get over because it tells me your attitude
    toward that line or maybe toward long-distance non-profitable
    passenger service.
        So I'll say a few more things before the Chairman
    determines my time is gone, but I'm anxious for you to assure
    me that my perception about your belief in regard to this is
    erroneous and in that regard, what I would add to my question
    or comment is can you reassure me that you will follow the law?
        Can you assure me that if you follow the law that long-
    distance non-profitable passenger train service would continue,
    and in the letter that Senator Gardner read to you that you
    claim credit for that paragraph, which is pretty appealing to
    me, is there anything in that letter that I should be concerned
    about that you are using hedge words or things that give you
    greater flexibility than I think you're conveying by what
    you're saying today?
        Mr. Anderson. First of all, we brought the issue--you're my
    boss. OK. So Congress decides what our funding is. You decide
    the policy. I keep a laminated copy of the policy with me at
    all times because the best thing to do, given how many of you
    are up here on the Hill, is to just tell people that you follow
    the law and the law is fairly straightforward in terms of what
    our mission is.
        Senator Moran. So in what the law allows you to do, what do
    I need to be worried about that you might do in regard to the
    reduction in service on the Southwest Chief?
        Mr. Anderson. Well, look, you've been clear on the
    Southwest Chief and we're headstrong in terms of using the $50
    million. We've leveraged the $50 million, I think I told you
    when we met, to $90 million.
        But, look, it still has three big problems and we shouldn't
    run from these problems. It needs to have PTC. I fundamentally
    disagree with him and I don't think anybody should tell Rural
    America that they have a lower level of safety than Urban
    America and that their trains are not going to have the kind of
    technology that the Northeast Corridor has. That happened in
    aviation. We had a whole series of accidents and Congress,
    Oberstar, changed the law.
        So I disagree with that and I bet that the NTSB disagrees
    with that. So that's Number 1. You've got to fund what has to
    be funded to operate that railroad safely and it needs $100
    million of investment. We don't have that hundred million. I
    have an OMB and a Secretary of Transportation that has a
    different view of my budget than I do. I agree with all of you
    that we need to invest in a national railroad network, but
    we've got to have the funding. We've got to fix on-time
    performance because you cannot hope to sustain this service
    with the Southwest Chief with the kind of continual
    deterioration of on-time performance.
        Senator Moran. I'll take it that you want to increase and
    improve the service, but there are no hedge words in that
    paragraph. Thank you.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Moran.
        Senator Blumenthal.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
    all the participants this morning.
        Mr. Anderson, last month I sent you a letter expressing my
    deep disappointment that Amtrak has failed so far to reinstate
    its discount program for veterans and their immediate family
    members.
        Until March 2018, as you know, Amtrak provided a 15 percent
    savings to veterans on tickets for nationwide travel and for
    the Acela Express travel on weekends. In fact, under previous
    leadership, Amtrak expanded this program to include same-day
    travel and benefits to immediate family members. Last year
    inexplicably, Amtrak eliminated this program.
        I'd like to ask you, as I did in the letter, when this
    discount program will be reinstated for veterans?
        Mr. Anderson. Well, first of all, we've always had a good
    discount program for Active Duty military. So that program has
    continued unabated, and we're in the process of implementing
    the 10 percent discount for retired military personnel. I can
    have my staff get back to you on when it will be fully
    implemented.
        We have a lot of computer programming that has to be done
    since most of our tickets are sold over the internet.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, can you give me an approximate
    timeline?
        Mr. Anderson. We should be pretty quick here, you know.
        Senator Blumenthal. Days?
        Mr. Anderson. I don't know. Days? End of this fiscal year.
    So end of September. Is it all programming?
        Senator Blumenthal. Why does it take that long?
        Mr. Anderson. Well, you've got to reprogram.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, I wrote to you back in----
        Mr. Anderson. You want us to go faster.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well,----
        Mr. Anderson. OK. I got it.
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. Actually, the veterans of
    America want you to go faster.
        Mr. Anderson. I got it, I got it.
        Senator Blumenthal. I'm glad you got it and I hope,----
        Mr. Anderson. I got it.
        Senator Blumenthal.--in all due respect, that you will
    address their request to you.
        Mr. Anderson. On it.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        Ms. Homendy, I thank you for your commitment to positive
    train control and a reminder that it was 50 years ago in Darien
    that a crash occurred that prompted the focus on positive train
    control, PTC, and it was actually included on the first of the
    most wanted list, as you say in your testimony, back in 1990.
    We're not talking about a novel or technologically new process.
        I assume you agree that that 2020 deadline should not be
    waived or delayed or in any respect abrogated.
        Ms. Homendy. It should not be.
        Senator Blumenthal. Do the rest of the panel members agree?
        [Affirmative responses.]
        Senator Blumenthal. They are nodding. What should be done
    if they fail to meet that deadline? What would you recommend?
        Ms. Homendy. You know, I know there has been a lot of
    discussion about civil penalties. I myself have looked at the
    penalties and I do have some concerns about commuter railroads
    because they're cash-strapped about charging them with civil
    penalties that in the end they could use that funding for
    implementation of PTC instead of putting that money in the
    Treasury, but I think the pressure needs to remain on not just
    for implementation of PTC by 2020 and I would urge swift
    implementation.
        You don't have to wait to 2020 to get that done, do it
    immediately, but also eliminating the exemptions to PTC. We
    just talked about an exemption on the Southwest Chief, and I
    just want to make sure that Senators are aware. I'm very
    supportive of our national passenger rail system and I spent
    many years defending the Southwest Chief and all the other
    long-distance routes, but when it comes to talking about
    numbers, the NTSB has investigated 153 PTC preventable
    accidents since 1969, over 300 fatalities, over 6,700 injuries.
        In that amount of time, we put a man on the Moon. We could
    have implemented PTC. And, thankfully Congress required it back
    in 2008 and if we're going to talk about measures where there
    are exemptions to PTC and there should be no exemptions, those
    exemptions should be eliminated. They weren't authorized in the
    law and iPads in the locomotive cab will not stop the train if
    an engineer runs through a red signal, if there's an over-speed
    derailment, if there's a switch in the wrong position, or if a
    roadway worker is on the track.
        So we have to implement PTC and these exemptions need to go
    away.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, I have one more quick question.
        Mr. Anderson, you called the Gateway Project ``the most
    urgent infrastructure project in the nation,'' and then you
    said, ``We need to get this done and stop the unnecessary red
    tape.'' I could not agree more.
        What can we do to cut through that red tape?
        Mr. Anderson. The FRA needs to give the environmental
    approval for the Hudson Tunnel Project and, Number 1, we need
    to kick off. All the funding is in place from New York and New
    Jersey for the matches to go forward on the construction of the
    Portal Bridge.
        All of this Northeast Corridor is owned and operated by
    Amtrak. We serve 820,000 people a day by either our operation
    or hosting all the commuter railroads, the Connecticut
    Railroad. It's an essential part of the economy of the
    Northeast Corridor and the idea that we don't brace up and go
    make the kinds of investments that other countries around the
    world make all the time is, candidly, discouraging.
        Senator Blumenthal. And as a practical matter, commerce,
    transportation, rail transportation would be absolutely
    crippled, that is, cratered.
        Mr. Anderson. It would crater the Northeastern economy
    because when you have that many people that rely upon the
    railroad to get to and from work every day and to get in and
    out of Manhattan, it would cripple the economy.
        Senator Blumenthal. And we're talking about tunnels that
    have decayed and are literally potentially dangerous due to
    Hurricane Sandy.
        Mr. Anderson. Hurricane Sandy. Now, first of all, we have a
    lot of really good Amtrak people that have gone in those
    tunnels, but the bottom line is they were ruined by Hurricane
    Sandy and we got our money's worth. They were built in 1908.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Duckworth.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS

        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    holding today's hearing on the implementation of FAST Act
    Freight and Passenger Rail Programs.
        Mr. Anderson, Mr. Jefferies, I'd like to start with you.
    Last week, I extended an invitation to the heads of FRA, NHTSA,
    and FMCSA to meet with me to discuss their ideas and priorities
    for surface transportation reauthorization. I think it would
    also be helpful to discuss industry and quasi-governmental
    perspectives.
        Would you each come to my office in the coming weeks to
    discuss your specific ideas and priorities for the surface
    transportation reauthorization?
        Mr. Anderson. Absolutely.
        Mr. Jefferies. Would love to.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Mr. Anderson and Mr.
    Jefferies, implementation of PTC continues to be my primary
    focus as it is for many of my colleagues for the rail industry.
        The December 2020 deadline is right around the corner and
    while significant progress has been made, I'm still concerned
    about the interoperability components specifically in dynamic
    areas, like Northeastern Illinois.
        Mr. Jefferies, are you still confident that the inter-
    operability issue will be fully addressed before December 31,
    2020?
        Mr. Jefferies. I am. As you know, we've briefed your office
    on a few occasions and as issues come up, we've been able to
    work through those. You are absolutely right, Chicago is the
    epicenter of interoperability and we've got an interoperability
    working group among all of the industry stakeholders. We are
    working through the interoperability challenges and I have full
    confidence we will meet the deadline.
        Senator Duckworth. Mr. Anderson, are you equally
    optimistic?
        Mr. Anderson. Yes, we have great relationships with the
    freight railroads and our last mile of PTC implementation for
    Amtrak-owned tracks is a mile going into Chicago Union Station
    and we are on schedule to have that completed on time.
        If I could just note for the Committee, the real challenge
    for PTC implementation by the deadline is going to be commuter
    railroads, particularly in the Northeast Corridor, and Ron
    Batory has actually done a very good job marshalling everybody.
        There's a big summit meeting in July at the FRA to get the
    heads of all those railroads and Amtrak together to make sure
    they're going to hit the deadline.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Mr. Jefferies, I assume AAR
    supports raising funding levels for both the Freight Formula
    Program, INFRA Grant Program, and eliminating the CAFE non-
    highway spending under both programs. Is that a correct
    statement?
        Mr. Jefferies. AAR absolutely supports the federal grant
    funding programs you mentioned, Multimodal grant programs have
    been enormously helpful to help fund projects like CREATE in
    Chicago. And our railroad members have been active contributors
    to those projects as well.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Mr. Anderson, last week FRA
    Administrator Batory, for whom I have the highest respect,
    highlighted that Amtrak's nationwide on-time performance is
    77.9 percent and on par with U.S. airlines, sounds pretty good,
    but as you have testified many times today, that's really not
    the true story when you scratch beneath the surface.
        Can you give some figures? The Chicago to San Francisco
    Zephyr line is actually 48.8 percent on time, Southwest Chief
    47 percent, Empire Builder 46.3 percent on time, New Orleans
    45.1, Capital Limited 41 percent, Texas Eagle 39 percent, and
    dead last, the Saluki line from Chicago down through Southern
    Illinois 35 percent on-time performance. I myself have been
    stuck on that train oftentimes for hours at a time parked on a
    side track.
        Reliability is the entire game, as you have mentioned, for
    passenger and commuter rail. It doesn't matter if there's one
    train per day or 10 trains per day if your customers cannot
    rely on that train to arrive on time as scheduled. As you have
    said, they might as well drive or book a flight. It's that
    simple.
        Last week, I pressed Administrator Batory to direct his
    staff to be more engaged on the short shunting issue in
    particular on the Saluki line and I'm confident that he will
    keep that commitment.
        I am, however, curious if Amtrak is experiencing this
    signal activation issue in other areas of the country and on
    other rail lines.
        Has Amtrak experienced short shunting issues elsewhere in
    the nation?
        Mr. Anderson. The real place we've experienced short
    shunting issues is on the line you've described. We did have
    some of the trouble, I think, on the Hoosier line but the State
    of Indiana has discontinued the Hoosier service.
        So I think it has been principally there and Ron Batory's
    been really good about pressing the host railroad to come up
    with solutions.
        Senator Duckworth. So did you ever find a solution for the
    Hoosier line or you never did?
        Mr. Anderson. We haven't found a solution. The solution
    they've told us is to put more cars on the train and just haul
    more empty cars in the hope of closing the circuit which seems
    goofy but it's what we're doing.
        Senator Duckworth. OK. I am deeply concerned and I hope
    that we can really--it has been years----
        Mr. Anderson. Yes.
        Senator Duckworth.--and I hope we can troubleshoot this and
    he has said that he will commit to----
        Mr. Anderson. He has been good about it.
        Senator Duckworth. Yes.
        Mr. Anderson. He has been.
        Senator Duckworth. But you really haven't seen this
    anywhere else?
        Mr. Anderson. No, I don't know. I don't think we have.
    Missouri, Steven says in Missouri on the Union Pacific a little
    bit.
        Senator Wicker. You may supplement the record to check with
    staff on that.
        Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator Duckworth.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        Senator Wicker. Senator Markey.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
        In March 2017, a public works official was killed when his
    snowplow was struck by an Amtrak train at a rail crossing in
    Longmeadow, Massachusetts. This tragic event marked the seventh
    collision and fifth death at the location since 1975, making
    the Longmeadow crossing the deadliest in Massachusetts.
        Regrettably, 33 percent of rail-related fatalities occur at
    similar grade crossings nationwide. The area where the railway
    line intersects with the road or path is a significant danger
    zone and we need to do more to prevent these kinds of
    tragedies.
        Mr. Anderson, what is Amtrak doing to prevent fatal
    accidents at these rail crossings? We would like to hear that
    because in Longmeadow, I'm proud to have helped Amtrak and the
    Massachusetts State Government come together on a joint funding
    agreement for safety improvements at this particular crossing,
    including the installation of warning lights and gates, but I
    also understand that we're currently waiting for work to begin
    in Longmeadow.
        So, Mr. Anderson, can you provide me with any information
    on Amtrak's expected timeline for the Longmeadow project?
        Mr. Anderson. I don't have the details on the Longmeadow
    project. I did get your correspondence and the correspondence
    of the other officials. I remember writing on the top we need
    to go fix this.
        Senator Markey. Fix it, please.
        Mr. Anderson. OK. So I got that. Look, crossings are--it's
    really incredible in this country, as wealthy as this country
    is, that we still have about 1,800 people a year die at
    crossings. I mean that's a really big number, and the FRA has a
    good program, a good grant program, and it seems to me that you
    would just methodically take Longmeadow and force rank the most
    dangerous intersections in the United States and use an FRA
    grant program because there is a basic way to keep that from
    happening and we know what that technology is. It's just a
    matter of forcibility implementing a nationwide strategy to
    stop it from happening.
        Senator Markey. Well, we need obviously more work to be
    done, but I need you to also commit to giving us the
    information on Longmeadow----
        Mr. Anderson. OK.
        Senator Markey.--as soon as possible.
        Mr. Anderson. Got it.
        Senator Markey. Briefing for the community so that they
    know that this whole thing has been brought to a conclusion.
        Mr. Anderson. Got it.
        Senator Markey. So I ask you to make a commitment to do
    that and to do it in the very near future.
        The Federal Railroad Administration recently withdrew a
    proposed rule that would have mandated trains, both passenger
    and freight, to have at least a two-person crew. The FRA also
    went a step further and created a regulatory black hole by
    saying it would not allow individual states to control the size
    of train crews no matter their unique needs.
        I believe the FRA's decision represents an abdication of
    responsibility. It is another example of the Trump
    Administration's anti-safety regulatory rollbacks.
        The FRA's goal prior to the Trump Administration was to
    make sure that there are always at least two certified crew
    members, a conductor and an engineer, onboard and ready to
    protect the train as well as people living beside the tracks.
        In response to the FRA's withdrawal of the two-person crew
    rule, I'm introducing the Safe Freight Act. The legislation
    will mandate two-person crew safety standards on trains
    nationwide.
        Mr. Jefferies, I know that your organization disagrees with
    me about the need for a national crew size rule and applauded
    the FRA's recent rollback.
        However, can you please explain whether you also believe
    that individual states should have zero power to protect the
    safety of local cargo, passengers, and citizens near railways?
    Shouldn't a state have the ability to guarantee a minimum crew
    size if it believes such a rule would be necessary for the
    unique circumstances in their states?
        Mr. Jefferies. Thank you for that question, Senator Markey.
        The FRA was pretty clear in its reasoning and data, or lack
    thereof, justifying any Federal crew size rule. We agree with
    the FRA's finding. A 17-year review of accidents concludes that
    there is no data showing that having two individuals in the cab
    reduces the risk of accidents.
        Every day, we have single-person crews operating throughout
    the country. You're right that the AAR does not agree that it
    makes sense to lock in a current operating practice in
    perpetuity. This has always been a matter of collective
    bargaining and we believe that's where it should stay.
        The FRA laid out its legal justification regarding its
    views on its action and the federal preemptive effects of its
    ruling. Railroading is the epitome of interstate commerce and
    we feel strongly that railroads need to operate under a uniform
    code of rules and regulations. The Federal Railroad Safety Act
    lays that out and makes clear that federal action have a
    preemptive effect on state and local actions.
        So, for our purposes, uniformity is certainly desirable.
        Senator Markey. All right. Well, you know, from my
    perspective, the Obama FRA reached a different conclusion and
    that's why I'm introducing legislation to proceed toward
    resolving the issue. So I just think it's imperative.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Markey.
        Ms. Homendy, I'm told PTC really is not designed to help
    with grade crossings, is that correct?
        Ms. Homendy. That's correct.
        Senator Wicker. Is there a possibility that PTC could be
    upgraded for that purpose?
        Ms. Homendy. I know that in the FAST Act, Congress required
    a study of technologies and advancements that could be used
    after PTC is implemented for grade crossings, but I don't know
    the status of that. I believe that was for FRA.
        Senator Wicker. OK. Let's see. Mr. Anderson, Senator Tester
    mentioned these two little towns where there's no ticket
    officer or no ticket agent and a kiosk.
        Can you discuss Amtrak's current plan for updating its
    reservation ticket payment systems to improve the customer
    ticket experience, increase efficiency, and reduce operating
    costs?
        I assume these little towns with train stops and the
    passenger can get on and buy a ticket on the train.
        Mr. Anderson. Right.
        Senator Wicker. Could you discuss that?
        Mr. Anderson. Well, first of all, if you look across
    Amtrak's system, I think we have 517 places we stop and the
    vast majority of those have no one there. It's like the old
    days where you pull up at the train station, the conductor puts
    the little stool down, people get on and off, load the bags,
    and head on.
        About 93 percent of our tickets are sold electronically now
    and in those two particular cities, I went back and looked and
    since we removed station agents, which have an all-in cost of
    about $150,000 minimum a year, we are still selling the same
    amount of tickets for people to get on and off trains in those
    two towns in Montana.
        So it has been something we've been doing over time and as
    we deploy more technology, we want to be able to give our
    customers the capability to do a hundred percent of all
    transactions on their phone with Amtrak.
        Senator Wicker. OK. When you were with Delta, what was your
    daily passenger count?
        Mr. Anderson. It depended upon the day, but we carried 186
    million passengers a year.
        Senator Wicker. OK. And how's that compare to Amtrak?
        Mr. Anderson. Well, Amtrak carries about 32 million, but if
    you look at the number of passengers we carry on the railroad
    we operate, the Northeast Corridor, it's 250 million probably.
    So if you take our 30 million but then we're the operator of
    the railroad up and down the Northeast Corridor for all the
    commuter agencies, that number exceeds what Delta did a year in
    passenger enplanements.
        Senator Wicker. So if Amtrak were an airline, where would
    it rank?
        Mr. Anderson. Oh, it would probably--I don't know. It would
    rank pretty--if you count all the Northeast Corridor, it would
    rank at the top, but if you count just----
        Senator Wicker. Would you explain that distinction?
        Mr. Anderson. Yes, so we----
        Senator Wicker. I want to make sure that everyone----
        Mr. Anderson. Yes, so we own the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak
    owns and operates the Northeast Corridor and all the stations
    up and down the Northeast Corridor and that's Union Station in
    D.C. all the way up to Springfield in Boston, and there are
    eight commuter railroads that operate, that Amtrak dispatches.
    We take care of the stations. We take care of the track. We run
    the railroad. There are 2,200 trips a day, 2,100 trips a day on
    the Northeast Corridor.
        Amtrak itself has about--this year, we're going to grow at
    record numbers. We're going to add 900,000 riders. We have
    about 32 million riders on Amtrak metal and we probably have
    about 250 million that operate somewhere or we operate
    railroads for other operators. We operate the commuter railroad
    in L.A. We do maintenance for Sound Transit. We operate a
    railroad in Florida and then we maintain the corridor.
        If you take all of that, it's probably a quarter of a
    billion or more.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you. That's, I think, a very
    instructive bit of testimony.
        Mr. Jefferies, in the fall of 2018 and early 2019, Union
    Pacific, Norfolk Southern, Kansas Southern announced they would
    be implementing precision scheduled railroading, PSR. This is
    an operating plan previously implemented at CSX, CN and CP
    intended to create greater operational efficiencies.
        Shippers have raised concerns about the impact of PSR on
    their business and rail service. In May 2019, the Surface
    Transportation Board held a two-day hearing on changes to Class
    1's demurrage and accessorial charges in the context of PSR
    implementation.
        How do you see Class 1s' implementation of precision
    schedule railroading affecting passenger service let's say in
    the next 6 months, this year, and how is implementation of
    precision scheduling affecting shippers, and what are Class 1s
    doing to minimize negative impacts and improve service?
        Mr. Jefferies. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman.
        You're absolutely correct that several of the railroads in
    the latter half of last fall announced changes to their
    operational plans. Each railroad is certainly unique in its
    network and its operation.
        I wouldn't want to cast a blanket statement about what all
    of them are doing, but I think some of the principles or tenets
    that you've mentioned are being undertaken or discussed and
    that's certainly not limited just to the folks that you listed.
    Railroads are evaluating increased asset utilization, increased
    efficiency, increased visibility into orders and shipments, and
    augmenting customer knowledge of product delivery.
        Any successful company is always evaluating how it does its
    job and how it operates and looking for a better way to improve
    its products or its service, and that's exactly what these
    railroads are doing, all of them.
        When you look at some of the goals--again increasing
    efficiency, creating additional capacity, creating better
    visibility, and more predictable schedules into delivery of the
    product--I would expect those benefits to extend into the
    passenger realm as well.
        Richard can certainly chime in on Amtrak's point of view,
    but if the goal overall is a more timely, predictable schedule
    on the delivery of goods and services, including passenger, you
    would expect to see a positive improvement.
        Senator Wicker. Let me just then ask one more question to
    you, Mr. Jefferies, and then perhaps we can stop.
        On Page 4 of your testimony, you mention correctly that to
    improve capacity and safety of the rail network, ``privately-
    owned freight railroads spend on an average of $25 billion each
    year on maintenance and capital improvements,'' and you point
    out that this ultimately benefits Amtrak, surrounding
    communities, and the Nation as a whole.
        You go on to say, ``When existing or potential future
    freight traffic levels are so high that there is no spare
    capacity, new infrastructure might be needed before passenger
    trains can be added to operate over a line.''
        Does your association or do you personally have a
    recommendation in that regard as to how to supplement? Tell us
    for the record how the freight railroads--where this extra $25
    billion each year comes from?
        Mr. Jefferies. So the $25 billion in private investment
    every year comes from the revenues earned by the freight
    railroads.
        Senator Wicker. OK. Is that encouraged by tax benefit of
    some kind?
        Mr. Jefferies. Oh, absolutely. It's encouraged by the
    economic paradigm under which we operate. The Class 1s don't
    benefit from any specific tax credit; they benefit from a
    balanced economic regulatory scheme. They benefit from a
    competitive economy. They benefit from customers who want to
    ship goods and in turn railroad plow those revenues back into
    their networks. Because of this investment, the freight
    railroad network is in the healthiest shape it has been in the
    history of the network and so all users, whether it's freight,
    whether it's passenger, benefit from the health of that
    network.
        Senator Wicker. The point I'm trying to get to is you're in
    the unique position as being able to speak for passengers and
    also for freight, but do you have a recommendation to us? Is
    there a need for more capacity than the average additional $25
    billion each year on maintenance and capital improvements and,
    if so, do you have a recommendation?
        Mr. Jefferies. OK. Depending on the particular project
    involved, both sides--the host railroad and Amtrak--work
    together to identify and model where demand is today and where
    demand will be in the future so that potential capacity
    constraints can be identified.
        If there are capacity constraints, then absolutely there's
    a Federal role to play whether it's funding through the INFRA
    grant program, whether it's through the CRISI grant program, or
    other federal programs that Amtrak or other public partners can
    draw from to secure a match or a contribution to construct the
    necessary capacity to ensure the long-term success of both
    passenger and freight rail service.
        Senator Wicker. OK. Well, look, thank you all and I guess
    we'll close it down at this point. You've been very helpful and
    informative.
        The hearing record will remain open for two weeks. During
    this time, Senators are asked to submit any questions for the
    record. Upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to submit
    their written answers to the Committee as soon as possible but
    no later than Wednesday, July 24, 2019.
        So thank you very much. We appreciate the participation of
    all members, and we thank the witnesses.
        This hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to
                                Richard Anderson
        Question 1. What is the long term status of dining car service?
    Please also provide a specific schedule for replacement and
    refurbishment of long distance equipment (diners, coaches, sleepers and
    locomotives).
        Answer. Starting October 1, 2019, flexible contemporary dining will
    be offered on six single night long-distance routes; The Capitol
    Limited, Cardinal, City of New Orleans, Crescent, Lake Shore Limited,
    and Silver Meteor and we intend to reintroduce a dining car operating
    with this new service on our Silver Star later in the Fiscal Year.
    These meals will be hot ready-to-serve entrees and reflect our
    transition to a more flexible and modern dining environment on these
    trains. Additionally, we are further differentiating our Auto Train
    product by adding more Sleeper capacity and aligning our Coach product
    to match all other long-distance routes by no longer including
    complimentary dinner service for that fare class. Finally, Amtrak is
    considering modifications to our Viewliner II diners used on the
    single-night overnight long-distance trains which would allow these
    cars to function both as diners and cafes and/or to support cart
    service throughout the train. We plan to have a conceptual design in FY
    2020 leading to the development of a working prototype.
        FY 2020 plans for two-night trains are more modest. Current
    planning and design efforts are underway on an in-depth evaluation of
    our food and beverage service on these trains given their unique
    characteristics and needs of our passengers for FY 2021. In the
    meantime, our intent is to maintain the basic product and service
    delivery methods.
        As for long-distance equipment refurbishment and replacement, we
    have ongoing work to refresh our existing fleet, complete the
    introduction of new equipment now being delivered to the company,
    monitor the manufacture of new Diesel Locomotives and undertake a
    number of design and prototyping efforts as we continue to experiment
    with product innovations and improvements. Our Amfleet II Coach Refresh
    project is estimated completion is December 2019, which will impact
    most long-distance trains in the East. The refresh of Superliner I/II
    Coaches, predominately used on our Western trains and similar in scope
    to the Amfleet program, is scheduled to kick-off in FY2020 and will be
    completed in approximately 12-18 months. Superliner I/II and Viewliner
    I Sleeper Refreshes are scheduled to kick-off in FY2020 and detailed
    schedules are still being refined.
        Incremental work to improve customer experience in the Superliner
    Sightseer Lounges and the Diners continues and Amtrak is currently
    engaged with a design firm to provide conceptual designs for each of
    these cars in FY 2020. Designs are to provide a cohesive image and
    contemporary amenities aligning not only with industry but our vision
    of the network.
        Finally, Amtrak is exploring the introduction of a new service
    class that fits between our current offerings of Coach and Sleeper on
    either the one-night, two-night trains or both, realizing there may be
    opportunities to reach more customers. In FY 2020, we plan to develop
    conceptual designs and perform further market research and analysis to
    determine if this is truly viable. Designs could include a semi-
    enclosed seat that reclines into a bed for those long journeys. We are
    working towards prototyping this in FY21.

        Question 2. What is the status of Amtrak's regional marketing
    functions?
        Answer. To support Amtrak's ridership and revenue goals, the
    Marketing team executes both national advertising campaigns that reach
    all markets that Amtrak serves as well as campaigns targeting specific
    geographies and audiences. Consistent with consumer trends, Amtrak
    advertising campaigns are approximately 90 percent digital and allows
    us to track bookings resulting from the advertising and the associated
    return on investment (ROI). Campaigns reflect a ``total market''
    approach to ensure that images of people shown in ads are
    representative of the overall population. These ``always on''
    continuous running campaigns leverage such tactics as paid search,
    programmatic digital banner placements on hundreds of websites based on
    behavioral targeting, paid social media placements on Facebook,
    Instagram, YouTube and LinkedIn, terrestrial radio and streaming radio
    such as Pandora and Spotify. Amtrak's Marketing team also works closely
    with state-corridor route representatives to provide access to creative
    assets, facilitate participation in flash sale fare promotions and to
    assist them with the planning and execution of advertising and
    promotions at the local level.
                                     ______

     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito
                              to Richard Anderson
        Amtrak provides valuable service to thousands of West Virginians
    every year. Amtrak operates two National Network trains in my state:
    the Capitol Limited that provides daily service and the Cardinal that
    runs three times a week.
        There has been a growing concern that Amtrak has not been
    communicating with states before making decisions that impact rail
    service. That is why I was happy to get language in the FY 2018
    Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development (THUD) Appropriations
    bill that mandated Amtrak to improve their communication efforts when
    it comes to these kinds of decisions.
        Question 1. For the past 52 years, the Collis P. Huntington
    Railroad Historical Society had been running the annual New River Train
    excursion from Huntington, WV to Hinton, WV. However, for 2019 the
    country's last-surviving and longest mainline passenger excursion train
    was cancelled. I know that Amtrak has been working with the City of
    Hinton on a way to continue the New River Train, but there has been
    come confusion on whether a deal has been reached or not. Could provide
    some clarity on Amtrak's discussions and see if a deal has been
    reached?
        Answer. Amtrak was in regular contact with the entities involved
    with the New River Train over the past couple years, working hard to
    find resolution on a project we felt was mutually beneficial for Amtrak
    and the communities in West Virginia. We will continue to maintain
    regular and meaningful contact with our business partners. As I am sure
    you know at this time, we have reached a deal to operate this train,
    now called the Autumn Colors Express, in 2019. We remain hopeful that
    this will continue in future years.

        Question 2. This July through August, the Summit Bechtel Family
    National Scout Reserve in Glen Jean, WV will host the 24th World Scout
    Jamboree. I understand that the Boy Scouts have been working with
    Amtrak on potentially allowing greater train access on the Cardinal
    line for the upcoming jamboree.
        Does Amtrak work with organizations--like the Boy Scouts--in order
    to provide service in these unique cases? Follow up. When service on
    Amtrak's line is known in advance and for a temporary period--like for
    the Boy Scouts--what does Amtrak take into consideration?
        Answer. Amtrak does review unique requests and opportunities for
    service from a variety of interested parties and organizations. Such
    requests are considered on the basis of their value and contribution to
    Amtrak, the feasibility of supporting the proposed operation, potential
    issues with host railroads, equipment availability, and other
    considerations. We reviewed the request from the Boy Scouts
    Organization for 2019 and unfortunately, it did not meet our Charter
    Train Guidelines, which establish our policies for such services,
    because of the extensive amount of equipment and resource needed to
    provide adequate transportation for over 4,000 passengers on a one-time
    movement. Amtrak would have needed to pull equipment away from other
    routes in order to serve this one-time movement because we do not have
    dozens of extra cars that are not being utilized elsewhere in the
    system.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
                                Richard Anderson
        Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Amtrak's passenger train service
    operates on freight tracks in Washington State where 121 million tons
    of freight were shipped by rail in 2014. And the state expects this
    freight volume to more than double by 2035.
        Delays at grade crossings create congestion on our roads. At the
    worst 50 grade crossings in Washington State, trains block each
    crossing for an average of 2 hours every day.
        The FAST Act authorizes the Railway-Highway Crossings program,
    which supports safety improvements to reduce fatalities, injuries, and
    crashes at public railway-highway grade crossings.
        But it will cost $830 million to improve the 50 most congested
    grade crossings in Washington State and in Fiscal Year 2018 the state
    received only $4.4 million from the Federal Railway-Highway Crossings
    program. That is less than half a percent of the total funds needed to
    improve these crossings.

        Question 1. Your testimony states that Amtrak's safety risk
    assessments are being expanded to include grade crossings as a focus
    area. Will you provide those risk assessments for grade crossings to
    this committee?
        Answer. Specific assessments we conduct of grade crossing are part
    of our Safety Management System (SMS) and contain privileged
    assessments and recommendations internally undertaken for the purpose
    of evaluating, planning, and implementing safe and efficient rail
    service operations. We stand ready to meet with the Committee, explain
    the risk assessment process and to provide examples of the types of
    issues we examine in grade crossing risk assessments.

        Amtrak Safety Culture and Safety Management System (SMS). One month
    before the Amtrak derailment in DuPont, the Chairman of the NTSB,
    Robert Sumwalt, provided an ominous warning about Amtrak's safety
    culture.
        He said quote, ``Amtrak's safety culture is failing, and is primed
    to fail again, until and unless Amtrak changes the way it practices
    safety management.'' In your testimony in front of this Committee in
    March 2018, you stated that improving the safety culture at Amtrak was
    one of your top priorities.
        In your written testimony today, you explain that quote, ``Amtrak
    has continued to implement the safety management system throughout our
    operations. . ..''
        However, according to the NTSB, the fatal incidents in DuPont,
    Washington and Cayce, South Carolina demonstrate that cannot control
    safety management when it is operating on the territory of a freight
    railroad.

        Question 2. How will Amtrak fully implement its safety management
    system, or SMS, on all operations when Amtrak does not control the
    management of safety where passenger trains run on host railroad
    tracks?
        Answer. This is an area where Amtrak has responsibility but not
    authority, per se. We are utilizing our SMS to make decisions to
    operate in a manner that is best for Amtrak, our customers and
    employees, and not merely at the discretion of our host railroads. We
    will work with them and have observed host railroads to be open to the
    mitigations that we have recommended and have agreed to implement some
    of these, as demonstrated by our procedures for signal suspensions and
    non-PTC operations. This remains an area where legislative assistance
    would benefit Amtrak customers and employees. We believe it is
    imperative that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) establish one
    system safety program plan standard for freight and passenger railroads
    by combining 49 CFR Parts 270/271.

        Question 3. How will you ensure that Amtrak meets the same safety
    standards on host tracks compared to where Amtrak operates on its own
    track?
        Answer. Meeting the same safety standards is a twofold approach. We
    are developing a change management process and performing a major
    operating rule analysis comparing our rules to those of our host
    railroads. In a mature operation, significant change (such as new route
    segments or other changes to infrastructure, facilities, equipment,
    services, etc.) is known to introduce risk. The objective of this
    process is to institutionalize how these changes are evaluated to
    ensure the risks are understood and properly mitigated. The major
    operating rule analysis is designed to start formalizing where key
    differences in how we operate exist in comparison to our host
    railroads, enabling a clear assessment of the risks and opportunities
    for improvement. We envision that our partnership with hosts, state
    services, and applicable stakeholders will only continue to increase as
    our SMS matures due to our dependency on their support for safe and
    effective operations.
        Amtrak is looking at Reauthorization and other opportunities to
    work with Congress and stakeholders to consider a consolidated national
    operating book to replace the multiple books that are present today
    across the industry.

        Question 4. Are employees able to report legitimate safety
    violations to Amtrak management without the fear of retaliation?
        Answer. Not only are employees able to report legitimate safety
    violations to Amtrak management, they are encouraged to report safety
    violations and concerns. The reporting of safety violations allows
    Amtrak to become a learning organization where violations are shared,
    root causes are identified, and mitigations are implemented in a non-
    punitive environment. A variety of means are available for reporting
    safety violations to include sharing a violation with an immediate
    supervisor, voluntary safety reporting programs, a safety hotline that
    is monitored daily and a safety e-mail inbox. Amtrak has zero tolerance
    for retaliation for reporting or properly acting upon safety concerns.

        Question 5. Are employees allowed or encouraged to report safety
    violations directly to you as CEO?
        Answer. Yes, employees are allowed to report safety violations or
    concerns directly to the CEO. In fact, the CEO does receive reports of
    safety violations or concerns directly from employees. However, they
    are encouraged to utilize their chain of command first. The front-line
    management at Amtrak is more than capable of addressing most safety
    violations or concerns. Issues that cannot be addressed by the front-
    line management are escalated up the chain until resolution.

        Question 6. Since the implementation of Amtrak's SMS program, how
    many safety violations have been reported year-over-year compared to
    the number of safety violations reported in the two years prior to SMS
    implementation?
        Answer. Over the last two Fiscal Years we have received over 1,400
    reports of safety concerns annually as part of the C3RS program and the
    implementation of the Engineering Department voluntary reporting
    program. This is an increase in comparison to the reports received in
    the two prior years. We attribute this to heightened awareness of the
    programs and we anticipate the upward trend to continue as
    communication and education around the programs continue.

        Positive Train Control (PTC) Exemptions. NTSB Board Member
    Homendy's written testimony notes that the NTSB remains concerned that
    the Federal Railroad Administration is, quote ``granting exemptions to
    PTC, including for more than 1,400 miles of freight railroad-owned
    track on which Amtrak operates, some of which is in dark (non-signaled)
    territory.''

        Question 7. What are Amtrak's plans to mitigate safety risks in
    areas where PTC is not operational?
        Answer. Amtrak's position remains that PTC should be required for
    passenger rail operations in the United States. Only in unique cases
    where it does not make technical or practical sense, will we consider a
    PTC-equivalent solution as a final solution. Amtrak completed a review
    of over 1,400 miles of Main Track Exclusion Addendum (MTEA) territory
    and identified approximately 60 mitigations to improve operating safety
    in non-PTC areas. Over half of those mitigations have already been
    implemented and the remaining items are in work with the responsible
    host railroad. Amtrak acknowledges that it will take time to implement
    this strategy. As we continue to collect data from host railroads, our
    assessments continue to evolve as to whether PTC or PTC-equivalency is
    most appropriate for any territory. Therefore, for the near term,
    Amtrak is putting in place non-PTC risk mitigations on these MTEA
    segments.

        Amtrak's Long-Distance Routes. Amtrak's long-distance routes are
    important to Washington's rural communities. There are two long-
    distance lines in my state, the Coast Starlight and the Empire Builder.
    These lines serve 15 communities in my state, the majority being
    smaller rural communities.
        The Trump administration has repeatedly advocated for eliminating
    these long-distance routes, and while I know you do not support their
    elimination, it has become a very sensitive issue for the Committee.

        Question 8. Can I receive your commitment that you will notify this
    Committee of any decisions at Amtrak that could impact the service of
    any of Amtrak's long-distance routes?
        Answer. We have no plans to materially alter long-distance routes
    until Congress has an opportunity to consider reauthorization, which we
    believe is the appropriate venue for this discussion. Congress
    continues to invest in these routes through the Appropriations process
    consistent with the current authorization enacted by the FAST Act, and
    we continue to try to improve our long-distance services and deliver
    value to the American taxpayer's investment. We believe the Coast
    Starlight and the Empire Builder are key routes in this current
    network.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
                                Richard Anderson
        The Empire Builder, one of Amtrak's longest rail lines, provides a
    critical link for many rural communities in Minnesota. In your
    testimony, you noted the important role that long-distance trains play
    in these communities while also highlighting that these trains often
    have poor on-time performance.

        Question 1. How does poor on-time performance of long-distance rail
    lines negatively impact small communities, including in rural areas?
        Answer. Long-distance train ridership and passenger-miles (the
    measures of long-distance train usage) have fallen in recent years.
    This is during a period when ridership has grown significantly both on
    Amtrak's NEC and state-supported routes. Passenger miles on long-
    distance trains have fallen dramatically--they are down 12.5 percent
    from FY 2010 to FY 2018. The major cause of this decline is freight
    train interference on host railroads, which has devastated on-time
    performance and reduced demand for longer distance rail trips. Trips
    over 600 miles on long-distance routes have fallen 20.5 percent from FY
    2010 to FY 2018. These decreases are more significant in coach than in
    sleeper, reflecting the reduced appeal of the trains to those whose
    travel is less likely to be for leisure purposes. Unfortunately, we do
    not see these trends changing and it is evident freight railroads that
    host passenger trains will continue to ignore the law and delay
    passenger trains. That is why it is critical that Congress look at ways
    to ensure freight railroads follow the law of preference.

        Question 2. What steps is Amtrak taking to address this?
        Answer. Amtrak is dedicated each day to improving on-time
    performance (OTP) for our customers traveling on host railroads. We
    pursue a strategy rooted in collaboration. We strongly prefer to
    resolve all performance issues by working together with host railroads.
    Amtrak crews and operating managers are in continuous dialogue with
    each host on a daily basis to work to deliver safe and reliable service
    on host lines and address any operating issues that may arise. Amtrak
    management convenes regular meetings with host railroad executives and
    passenger operations staff to discuss performance trends, identify
    opportunities for improvement, and actions both the host and Amtrak
    might take to reduce delays. Furthermore, the operating agreements
    between Amtrak and each of the Class I host railroads contain financial
    incentives based on performance. While these incentive systems vary by
    host and in their effectiveness, they nonetheless provide an
    opportunity for substantial financial gain for the timely operation of
    Amtrak trains. Taking a collaborative approach to improving on-time
    performance is our top priority, and we pursue every opportunity
    available to us to work with host railroads on joint performance
    initiatives.
        However, we know from experience that Amtrak customers receive the
    highest level of reliability on host railroads when there is a
    mechanism to enforce the Federal statute requiring freight railroads to
    provide Amtrak trains preference over freight transportation. Following
    the passage of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of
    2008 (PRIIA), OTP exceeded 75 percent for long-distance trains and 80
    percent for state-supported trains, and on certain hosts freight train
    interference delays--the largest cause of delay to Amtrak passengers on
    the National Network--dropped by roughly two-thirds in a matter of
    weeks. We observed similar trends in the reverse when the PRIIA Section
    207 metrics and standards regarding OTP were ruled unconstitutional,
    after which freight train interference delays rapidly increased. Please
    see our annual Host Railroad Report Card, an On-time Performance Report
    by Route for FY2018, and our monthly Host Railroad Report provided
    publicly on our website: https://www.amtrak.com/reports-documents.
        Throughout this time, Amtrak has sought to work together with host
    railroads to improve performance, but the dramatic swings in delays and
    OTP immediately following major legislation and legal decisions
    suggests that OTP on host railroads is ultimately driven by the
    Congressional and judicial appetite to hold freight railroads
    accountable to existing law. By statute, currently only the U.S.
    Department of Justice (DOJ) can enforce preference in a civil action
    before a District Court judge. In Amtrak's entire history, DOJ has
    initiated only one enforcement action, against the Southern Pacific in
    1979. Amtrak supports continued authority for the DOJ to initiate an
    action, but we request that this authority be supplemented by creating
    an ability for Amtrak to enforce preference, just as any other company
    would have a right to resort to the courts if its rights were being
    violated.
        History has proven that the ability to enforce Amtrak's right to
    preference has the greatest likelihood of resulting in sustained levels
    of reliable rail service across the country, and we appreciate your
    leadership on this issue.
                                     ______

          Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
                                Richard Anderson
        Question. On April 5th, 11 Senators, including myself, wrote to you
    to, among other things, raise concern regarding the cost allocations
    for the state-supported and long-distance routes. I am aware how the
    cost allocation works. However, there is concern that Amtrak uses
    accounting mechanisms that inflate costs associated with the national
    network--by charging long-distance and state-supported routes for costs
    which may be more appropriately charged to Amtrak. This is not the
    first time Amtrak has been criticized for employing opaque accounting
    methods. As recently as 2016, the Government Accountability Office
    identified issues with state supported routes--including states not
    trusting the allocation and the costs that Amtrak attempted to shift.
    Given the proposal in your testimony to shift to more state supported
    lines, how does Amtrak expect to regain the trust of states and other
    stakeholders and ensure that its cost allocation methods are
    legitimate?
        Answer. Assertions that Amtrak's accounting is misleading or
    inaccurate are false. Amtrak is audited by Ernst & Young every year in
    accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and
    that audit is then audited by the Amtrak Office of the Inspector
    General (OIG). The Trains Magazine article, cited in your letter to
    Amtrak, features an often heard and spurious claim that Amtrak's
    accounting improperly allocates costs to the National Network services
    in favor of the Northeast Corridor service. This favorite theory of a
    small and ill-informed subset of the hobbyist ``railfan'' community is
    without merit and seems aimed at obfuscating the costs of the long-
    distance network rather than illuminating the substantial and fairly
    well-known costs of Northeast Corridor infrastructure, which is the
    busiest main line railroad in North America.
        There are many legitimate questions regarding the equity of Federal
    support for the Amtrak network. Some passenger rail advocates chafe at
    the significant funding that goes to support the Northeast Corridor and
    long for large governmental investments that could greatly expand
    intercity passenger rail service to other regions of the nation,
    particularly long-distance trains. Yet, these same advocates often fail
    to realize that in FY2018, $922 million, or nearly half of our $1.94
    billion Federal appropriation, went to support the long-distance
    network and its 4.5 million annual trips. Only $498 million of this
    appropriation was available for capital investments that support the
    over 12 million annual Amtrak passenger trips on the Northeast Corridor
    and to fund Amtrak's share of joint projects benefitting the 200
    million Amtrak and commuter passenger trips on the Northeast Corridor.
    We generally support such calls for intercity passenger rail expansion
    but find it essential to do so within the mandate of the laws passed by
    Congress and with fully transparent and accurate finances.
        As you may know, Amtrak uses the Amtrak Performance Tracking System
    (APT), developed at the behest of Congress by the John A. Volpe
    National Transportation Center of the U.S. Department of Transportation
    (Volpe Center), to allocate revenues and costs to service lines. Using
    Amtrak's audited financial data, APT assigns the majority of the
    operating expenses Amtrak incurs directly to individual trains, from
    which those costs then are linked to routes and service lines. For
    expenses that benefit multiple routes and/or cannot be directly
    assigned, APT uses formulas that allocate costs to routes as accurately
    as possible based upon 45 different measures of usage. APT uses a
    similar approach to assign capital costs, including NEC infrastructure
    investments which are treated as capital costs, and allocated to routes
    that benefit from them, in accord with the requirements of Generally
    Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the Surface Transportation
    Board regulations that apply to freight railroads.
        Accounting methodologies are not the reason that long-distance
    trains consume a disproportionate share of Amtrak's Federal funding for
    both operating and capital expenses. Rather, long-distance trains
    require large Federal subsidies because their revenues are lower and
    operating costs are higher than Amtrak's state-supported and NEC
    services. The Federal government is virtually the only funding source
    for the capital investments they require. These costs are set to
    increase significantly in the future as we face host railroad-related
    poor on-time performance across the network and much of our equipment
    used in long-distance service reaches the end of its useful life and
    requires replacement.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to
                                Richard Anderson
        The Milwaukee-Chicago Hiawatha line is one of the most successful
    Amtrak routes in the country. In 2018, the Hiawatha served an all time-
    record number of more than 858,000 passengers, a 3.6 percent increase
    over the previous year. Ridership has more than doubled since 2003 when
    seven daily round-trips began. Current service is at capacity, and many
    trains are now standing room only.
        Wisconsin would like to increase the seven daily roundtrips to ten.
    I understand conversations and negotiations over this expansion plan
    are ongoing between the Wisconsin and Illinois Departments of
    Transportation, in partnership with Amtrak.

        Question 1. What steps has Amtrak taken to add capacity to the
    current seven daily round-trips?
        Answer. Due to Amtrak's severe equipment shortage, adding capacity
    to those trains is extremely difficult. However, during the summer of
    2019, Amtrak identified a Lounge car or ``table car,'' that was not
    being used in regular service and could thus be placed in service on
    one of the Hiawatha train sets. While this car is not a regular
    passenger coach, it does have seats at booths with tables for use by
    passengers who would otherwise be standing. This ``table car'' is not
    available on every train in the Hiawatha's but we have dedicated it to
    the set of equipment that is used on the two trains most likely to have
    standees. It should be noted, that by adding this car to the train's
    consist, Amtrak is bound by its labor agreement to add a third
    conductor to those trains on which the car is used, which is a factor
    in the operating costs that states must bear consistent with Section
    209. WisDOT received a State of Good Repair grant from the FRA for up
    to $25.7 million to support equipment acquisition to replace existing
    equipment and grow seating capacity on the Hiawatha's service.

        Question 2. What are the benefits of expanding Amtrak service from
    seven daily round-trips to ten on the Hiawatha line?
        Answer. Expanding Amtrak service from seven to ten daily round
    trips increases traveler utility by providing service in new time
    channels, giving consumers more choice. These new trips would generate
    additional demand and would provide capacity to meet the existing
    demand on the corridor, thus growing ridership significantly, by over
    100,000 trips. WisDOT is seeking an agreement with CP and with Illinois
    DOT on a set of capacity improvements on the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor
    that will allow for the additional round trips to begin. The parties
    have engaged a consulting firm to help with this process. Amtrak is
    stands ready to work in cooperation with WisDOT, IDOT, and CP to launch
    the 3 additional round trips as soon as possible.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
                                 Ian Jefferies
        Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Amtrak's passenger train service
    operates on freight tracks in Washington State where 121 million tons
    of freight were shipped by rail in 2014. And the state expects this
    freight volume to more than double by 2035.
        Delays at grade crossings create congestion on our roads. At the
    worst 50 grade crossings in Washington State, trains block each
    crossing for an average of 2 hours every day.
        The FAST Act authorizes the Railway-Highway Crossings program,
    which supports safety improvements to reduce fatalities, injuries, and
    crashes at public railway-highway grade crossings.
        But it will cost $830 million to improve the 50 most congested
    grade crossings in Washington State and in Fiscal Year 2018 the state
    received only $4.4 million from the Federal Railway-Highway Crossings
    program. That is less than half a percent of the total funds needed to
    improve these crossings.

        Question 1. Given the unmet need for funding grade crossing safety
    improvements, do you support increasing the authorization level of the
    Federal Railway-Highway Crossings (Section 130) Program?
        Answer. Under the Section 130 program, more than $240 million in
    Federal funds are allocated each year to states for installing new
    active warning devices, upgrading existing devices, and improving grade
    crossing surfaces. The program has helped prevent tens of thousands of
    fatalities and injuries associated with grade crossing accidents.
        Without a budgetary set-aside like the Section 130 program, grade
    crossing needs would fare poorly in competition with more traditional
    highway needs such as highway construction and maintenance. One of the
    primary reasons the Section 130 program was created in the first place
    was that highway safety--and especially grade crossing safety--
    traditionally received low funding priority. The FAST Act appropriately
    included continued dedicated funding for this important program for
    five more years and has meant more injuries averted and more lives
    saved. Providing additional funding for the Section 130 program would
    further improve rail-related safety, something railroads always
    support.
        In addition to increased funding, other improvements can be made to
    the Section 130 program to help ensure the funds are spent in the most
    efficient manner. Some examples are identified in the answer to
    Question 2 below.

        Question 2. What should Congress change in the next surface
    transportation reauthorization to fully address safety and efficiency
    problems for congested grade crossings?
        Answer. Everyone associated with railroading wants the number of
    accidents at highway-rail grade crossings to fall to zero. Because most
    such grade crossing accidents are preventable, engineering solutions
    (such as closing unneeded crossings and upgrading warning devices),
    education, and enforcement are key. Thanks in part to the Section 130
    Federal program, grade crossing collisions are down 36 percent since
    2000, but much more work remains. In that regard, railroads support the
    following policy priorities:

       Increase Section 130 incentive payments for grade crossing
            closures from the current cap of $7,500 to $100,000.

       Expand flexibility in the use of Section 130 funds by
            eliminating the arbitrary 50 percent cap on spending for hazard
            elimination projects and by enabling replacement of certain
            protective warning devices.

       Enable costs by public and private entities incurred for
            preliminary engineering for grade crossing projects to be
            counted toward the non-federal share.

       Enable or incentivize states to bundle grade crossing
            projects into a single grant application under applicable
            discretionary grant programs, such as Better Utilizing
            Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD), Infrastructure for
            Rebuilding America (INFRA) or Consolidated Rail Infrastructure
            and Safety Improvements CRISI.

       Require or incentivize accelerated deployment of
            navigational warnings for motorists (e.g., smartphone apps) to
            warn of grade crossings.

       Require future fleets of automated vehicles to provide grade
            crossing warnings and/or prevention of incursions into grade
            crossings where gates or other devices have been activated.

       Require grade crossing safety training in driver education
            curricula both at FMCSA for truck driver training and at NHTSA
            through recommendations to states.

       Authorize at least $3 million per year for Operation
            Lifesaver through FHWA, FRA and FTA.

        The rail industry appreciates the Senate Environment and Public
    Works Committee for its leadership in beginning to address our Nation's
    transportation infrastructure needs in the America's Transportation
    Infrastructure Act of 2019. Among other things, the legislation calls
    for funding of not less than $245 million per year from 2021 to 2025
    for the Section 130 program. Railroads also support the legislation's
    call to further streamline project permitting by codifying the `one
    Federal decision' model. Reforming the permitting process will help
    railroads address critical infrastructure needs in all areas of their
    operations, including at major grade crossing projects.

        Multimodal Freight Investment. Nationally, our country moves over
    $19 trillion worth of goods every year. That's over $54 billion a day.
    This number is expected to nearly double by 2045 to $37 trillion worth
    of freight transported in the United States every year.
        Rail is a vital part of our freight transportation. According to
    the Association of American Railroads weekly traffic reports,
    intermodal rail traffic has increased by over 40 percent since 2009,
    and is expected to continue to increase.
        However, according to a 2017 report from the Federal Highway
    Administration, 75 percent of intermodal rail connectors are congested,
    resulting in a 35 percent decrease in efficiency. This congestion costs
    the Nation $82 million annually.

        Question 3. What more should the U.S. be doing to prepare for this
    anticipated increase in freight movement--to improve both efficiency
    and safety?
        Answer. Today, there's a tremendous amount of strength and
    flexibility in America's freight transportation systems. It's also
    clear, though, that our Nation faces significant challenges in
    maintaining our existing freight-moving capability and in improving it
    to meet the needs of tomorrow.
        One of the key challenges is financial. Railroads are
    overwhelmingly privately funded. That said, railroads agree that
    adequate investments should be made in public infrastructure like ports
    and highways, which combine with rail to make up the Nation's
    integrated freight supply chain.
        Railroads also support other efforts that will improve freight
    transportation efficiency and safety and help transportation providers
    address future freight transportation demand.
        First, railroads urge policymakers to reject efforts to upset the
    existing balanced, reasonable system of regulation of rail rates and
    services. Unfortunately, some want to give government regulators
    excessive control over rail rates and service by instituting what in
    effect would be price controls in one form or another. Policymakers
    should be taking actions that enhance, rather than impair, railroads'
    ability and willingness to make the investments a best-in-the-world
    freight rail system requires.
        Second, railroads encourage the use of more partnerships between
    the public and private sectors. These arrangements under which private
    freight railroads and government entities both contribute resources to
    a project, commensurate with the benefits accruing to each party--offer
    a mutually beneficial way to solve critical transportation problems.
    Without a partnership, many projects that promise substantial public
    benefits (such as increased rail capacity for use by passenger trains)
    in addition to private benefits (such as enabling more efficient
    freight train operations) are likely to be delayed or never started at
    all because neither side can justify the full investment needed to
    complete them. Cooperation makes these projects feasible.
        Third, modal inequities should be addressed. America's freight
    railroads operate overwhelmingly on infrastructure that they own,
    build, maintain, and pay for themselves. By contrast, trucks, airlines,
    and barges operate on highways, airways, and waterways that are largely
    taxpayer funded. Railroads agree that other transportation modes are
    crucial to our nation, and the infrastructure they use should be world-
    class--just like U.S. freight railroad infrastructure is world class.
    That said, public policies relating to the funding of other modes have
    become misaligned.
        With respect to federally funded capacity investments in public
    road and bridge infrastructure, the United States has historically
    relied upon a ``user pays'' system. Until relatively recently, that
    system worked well. Unfortunately, the user-pays model has been eroded
    as Highway Trust Fund (HTF) revenues have not kept up with HTF
    investment needs and so have had to be supplemented with general
    taxpayer dollars. Including general fund transfers scheduled to be made
    in the next few years through provisions of the FAST Act, general fund
    transfers to the HTF since 2008 have totaled almost $144 billion,
    according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO recently
    estimated that between 2020 and 2029, the HTF will require $191 billion
    in additional payments to keep the fund solvent.
        Moving away from a user-pays system also distorts the competitive
    environment by making it appear that truck transportation is less
    expensive than it really is and puts other modes, especially rail, at a
    competitive disadvantage.
        Congress could help ameliorate this modal inequity by reaffirming
    the ``user pays'' requirement. Through application of current
    technology, the current fundamental imbalance could be rectified by
    ensuring that commercial users of taxpayer-financed infrastructure pay
    for their use.
        Fourth, enhancing flexibility through regulatory and permitting
    reform would help all transportation modes. Federal regulations provide
    a critical safety net to the American public, but rules borne from
    faulty processes only deter economic growth without any corresponding
    public benefits. Dictating the means to an end via overly prescriptive
    policy increases compliance costs, can chill innovation and investment
    in new technologies and can slow--or defeat entirely--an outcome both
    industry and government would view as a success.
        America today has an opportunity to not only address specific,
    harmful policies, but also to improve the system that creates rules by
    incorporating common sense principles. Regulations should be based on a
    demonstrated need, as reflected in current and complete data and sound
    science. Regulations should provide benefits outweighing their costs
    and should take into consideration the big picture view for industries
    and sectors--including market forces, future offerings, and current
    regulations in place.
        Finally, policymakers should embrace performance-based regulations,
    where appropriate, to foster and facilitate technological advancement
    and achieve well-defined policy goals. Defining the end goal, rather
    than narrow steps, will boost citizen confidence in government,
    motivate U.S. industry to research and innovate, and create new
    solutions. Outcome-based measures can better avoid ``locking in''
    existing technologies and processes so that new innovations, including
    new technologies, that could improve safety and improve efficiency, can
    flourish.

        Question 4. What investments do we need to make to eliminate
    congestion at intermodal connectors and other choke points to keep
    freight moving?
        Answer. One of the main reasons why America has the world's most
    efficient total freight transportation system is the willingness and
    ability of firms associated with various modes to work together in ways
    that benefit their customers and the economy. Policymakers can help
    this process by implementing programs that improve ``first mile'' and
    ``last mile'' connections where freight is handed off from one mode to
    another--for example, at ports from ships to railroads or from ships to
    trucks, or from railroads to trucks at intermodal terminals. These
    connections are highly vulnerable to disruptions, and improving them
    would lead to especially large increases in efficiency and fluidity and
    forge a stronger, more effective total transportation package.
        Some multimodal connection infrastructure projects that are of
    national and regional significance in terms of freight movement could
    be too costly for a local government or state to fund. Consequently,
    Federal funding awarded through a competitive discretionary grant
    process is an appropriate approach for these needs.
        The BUILD Transportation grant program and INFRA grant program are
    examples of approaches to help fund crucial multimodal projects of
    national and regional significance.
        Attention to first-and last-mile connections is a critical element
    of both local and state freight planning and policy as well. At the
    local level, land use planning has been largely inadequate in
    accommodating the needs of freight. Freight movement--whether in rail
    yards, intermodal facilities, ports, or regional distribution--must be
    sufficiently considered when planning land uses such as residential
    developments, schools, and recreational areas.
        Railroads also urge Congress to support a permanent extension of
    the ``Section 45G'' short line tax credit program. Section 45G creates
    a strong incentive for short line railroads to invest private sector
    dollars on freight railroad track rehabilitation. Short line freight
    rail connections are critical to preserving the first and last mile of
    connectivity to factories, grain elevators, power plants, refineries,
    and mines in rural America and elsewhere.
        Finally, railroads urge policymakers to remember that, in the
    context of ports, railroads offer tremendous potential in safely and
    efficiently moving freight to and from port facilities, thereby greatly
    enhancing overall transportation productivity. Investments that support
    the rail-port interface deserves careful attention as policymakers
    address our national transportation infrastructure.

                                      [all]