[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]