[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]