[Senate Hearing 116-606]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        S. Hrg. 116-606

          NEXT STEPS FOR POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 31, 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

52-748 PDF                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 July 31, 2019....................................     1
Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     1
Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     2
Statement of Senator Duckworth...................................     3
Statement of Senator Gardner.....................................    41
Statement of Senator Thune.......................................    43
Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    45

                               Witnesses

Hon. Ronald L. Batory, Administrator, Federal Railroad 
  Administration.................................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Susan Fleming, Director of Physical Infrastructure, U.S. 
  Government Accountability Office...............................    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    12
Robert Bourg, Vice President, Strategy and Growth, Wabtec 
  Corporation....................................................    22
    Prepared statement...........................................    23
Chris Matthews, Assistant Vice President, Network Control 
  Systems, BNSF Railway..........................................    28
    Prepared statement...........................................    30
James Derwinski, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, 
  Metra..........................................................    33
    Prepared statement...........................................    35

                                Appendix

Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association 
  of American Railroads, prepared statement......................    51
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Ronald L. Batory 
  by:
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    51
    Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................    53
    Hon. Gary Peters.............................................    54
    Hon. Jacky Rosen.............................................    57
Response to written question submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to:
    Susan Fleming................................................    58
    Chris Matthews...............................................    58
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell 
  to:
    James Derwinski..............................................    59











 
          NEXT STEPS FOR POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 2019

                                       U.S. Senate,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:06 p.m., in 
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Roger Wicker, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Wicker [presiding], Thune [presiding], 
Fischer, Gardner [presiding], Scott, Cantwell, Blumenthal, 
Peters, Baldwin, Duckworth, Tester, Sinema, and Rosen.

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

    The Chairman. Good afternoon. Today the Committee gathers 
for a hearing to examine the ``Next Steps in Positive Train 
Control Implementation''.
    I am glad to convene this hearing on this important issue 
with my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Senator Cantwell. 
I welcome our panel of witnesses. Thank them for appearing. Mr. 
Ronald Batory, Administrator of the Federal Railroad 
Administration; Susan Fleming, Director of Physical 
Infrastructure, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Robert 
Bourg, Vice President of Strategic Development, Wabtec 
Corporation; Chris Matthews, Assistant Vice President, Network 
Control Systems, BNSF Railway; and Jim Derwinski, Chief 
Executive Officer and Executive Director of Metra. Today's 
hearing will evaluate progress on implementation of Positive 
Train Control, PTC, and examine potential challenges in meeting 
the final implementation deadline of December 31, 2020.
    As recent committee hearings have highlighted, PTC is an 
important technology, which has the ability to prevent 
accidents, including overspeed derailments, such as the tragic 
derailment in DuPont, Washington in 2017, as well as preventing 
train to train collisions. PTC Enforcement and Implementation 
Act passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama 
in October 2015, required railroads to implement PTC by 
December 31, 2018. However, it allowed a railroad to apply for 
an extension of up to 24 months, if and only if that railroad 
met important milestones.
    I am pleased to say that under Secretary Chao and 
Administrator Batory's leadership, this framework has been 
faithfully implemented as of December 31, 2018. All railroads 
required to implement PTC by the deadline either submitted 
documentation to show that they met the requirements for system 
activation or qualified for an extension for up to two 
additional years to complete the full implementation. As we 
will hear today, many railroads received such an extension. 
Since that December 2018 deadline, railroads have continued to 
make progress on PTC implementation.
    This hearing provides an opportunity for updates on the 
current status of PTC implementation across the network and the 
gains that have been made since the end of last year. Witnesses 
should discuss how freight and passenger railroads are 
implementing PTC and describe the remaining work needed to 
achieve full implementation. Full PTC implementation requires, 
among other things, that railroads be interoperable. In other 
words, they must be able to operate seamlessly across tracks 
owned by different railroads. Achieving interoperability 
requires coordination across the rail industry, including 
between the Federal Railroad Administration, host railroads, 
tenant railroads, vendors and suppliers, and other 
stakeholders. This undertaking is particularly complex in 
regions of this country where multiple railroads interact.
    I hope witnesses will provide an update on interoperability 
testing and any successes or challenges identified through such 
testing. I also invite our expert witnesses to discuss any 
suggestions they have for further facilitating interoperability 
throughout the network. With the final deadline for 
implementation less than a year and a half away, today's 
hearing will help this committee focus on any other issues that 
require additional attention. For instance, at past PTC 
hearings, we heard about challenges related to vendors and 
software, as well as railroads in the early stages of field-
testing.
    So, I invite our witnesses to update the Committee on the 
availability of vendors to support PTC installation and provide 
testing services. Witnesses might also identify any other 
challenges to full implementation as the final deadline 
approaches. I look forward to a robust discussion of the 
progress of PTC implementation. I thank all of our witnesses 
for appearing today.
    And before, as we recognize Senator Duckworth for a special 
introduction, I will recognize our Ranking Member, Senator 
Cantwell.

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

    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for 
holding this important hearing on the next steps for Positive 
Train Control implementation.
    I want to thank the panel of witnesses and we look forward 
to hearing your perspective on how railroads will meet that 
deadline of 2020 to fully implement PTC. The importance of this 
life-saving technology was made abundantly clear in my State of 
Washington, December 2017, when the Amtrak Cascade 501 derailed 
around a bend near DuPont, Washington, and fell onto the 
highway before claiming 3 lives and injuring 65 people.
    The National Transportation Safety Board investigation 
found that PTC would have prevented this tragedy, but sadly 
this is just one of many PTC-preventable tragedies. In fact, 
since the National Transportation Safety Board first 
recommended Positive Train Control implementation, PTC could 
have prevented over 150 different crashes, and many fatalities 
and injuries.
    So I am pleased that Chairman Wicker shares my commitment 
to making sure that 2020 is a full PTC implementation deadline, 
and that this committee takes its oversight role seriously when 
it comes to Positive Train Control. It is unacceptable that in 
the year of 2019 we still have not fully implemented this 
important safety, and even when PTC has been fully implemented, 
according to the Federal Railroad Administration, there will 
still be miles of tracks that do not have PTC. They will be 
exempted, including over 1,400 miles of track used by Amtrak.
    Both the NTSB and Amtrak expressed concerns about this 
during a committee hearing last month, and we followed up on 
that hearing to seek more information from the FRA about the 
safety measures that should be in place where PTC is not 
operational. This includes speed limit action plans, adequate 
crew training, and PTC equivalent technologies. I want to thank 
Administrator Batory for the FRA response to my letter, and for 
your commitment to ensuring safety everywhere that Amtrak 
operates. This will help prevent another DuPont, Washington 
accident from happening again.
    Even with PTC in place, we have to continue to prioritize 
safety. No technology is a cure-all, or a complete replacement 
for well-trained engineers and conductors who have strong 
safety cultures at a railroad, and for the track maintenance 
and the structurally sound railroad cars that are needed.
    That said, implementing PTC is truly a major step forward 
for safety, and I know it has been a long time coming to get 
where we are today. Railroads, and especially commuter railroad 
systems, have faced many challenges, so I look forward to the 
opportunity to hear from the witnesses about the steps to have 
PTC fully implemented everywhere, and to make sure it is 
required on our national rail system. And, I look forward to 
asking specific questions about that implementation and the 
1,400 miles of track that won't be covered.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. And now I turn to our friend, Senator 
Duckworth, for a special introduction.

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

    Senator Duckworth. Thank you Mr. Chairman. It is my 
pleasure to introduce Metra CEO and Executive Director, Mr. Jim 
Derwinski, who has successfully led the organization since 
2017. Every weekday, Metra operates nearly 700 trains that 
transport nearly 290,000 passengers. Metra provides service to 
and from downtown Chicago with 242 stations on 11 lines 
covering more than 1,200 miles of tracks.
    Jim's extensive experience and technical expertise enable 
him to lead one of the largest and most complex, commuter rail 
systems in the Nation while squeezing every drop of value out 
of the limited Federal and State resources that Metra receives. 
A few months ago, Jim invited me to tour Metra's 47th Street 
coach and diesel shop, and watch its highly skilled mechanics 
and electricians install, test, and fine-tune PTC components 
aboard Metra's rolling stock. Jim explained to me how they were 
able to stretch every dollar just a little bit further by doing 
much of the work in-house.
    It was there that I gained a real and deep appreciation for 
the complexity of PTC. Metra has spent nearly $250 million on 
positive train control efforts, while receiving less than $50 
million in Federal grants to support its efforts. Metra expects 
its PTC implementation to ultimately cost between $350 million 
and $400 million, with an additional $15 million to $20 million 
per year in increased operating costs.
    While these costs are a challenge, I am confident that 
Metra customers are getting the most bang for their buck with 
Jim at the helm. Welcome, Jim. Thanks for being here today. We 
stand to learn a lot from you.
    And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you Senator, and we now will proceed to 
hearing summaries of 5 minutes or less from each of our 
witnesses. We will begin with Administrator Batory. Sir, you 
are welcomed.

  STATEMENT OF HON. RONALD L. BATORY, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL 
                    RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

    Mr. Batory. Good afternoon, all. Chairman Wicker, Ranking 
Member Cantwell, members of the Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today about one of the FRA's highest 
priorities, the railroad's full implementation of FRA-certified 
and interoperable PTC systems as soon as possible and by 
December 31, 2020. FRA commends the industry for its notable 
progress to date.
    As of March 31, PTC was in operation on 83 percent of the 
58,000 miles subject to the statutory mandate. Nevertheless, 
railroads must still complete extensive work in the next 17 
months, including activating PTC on the remaining required main 
lines, and achieving interoperability with tenant railroads. 
Notably, four host railroads reported they fully implemented 
PTC on their required main lines in 2018. The other 37 
railroads requested an alternative schedule which the statutory 
mandate required FRA to approve if the railroad qualified by 
law. As of March 5, FRA approved all applicable alternative 
schedules well before the statutory 90-day deadline.
    FRA continues to actively monitor railroads' progress, 
including the Quarter 2 reports due today. Preliminary reports 
indicate PTC was an operation on 87 percent of the required 
mainlines nationwide as of June 2019, including 91 percent of 
the Class I railroads required main lines. Host commuter 
railroads were either conducting revenue service demonstration, 
or operating PTC, on 37 percent of their required miles as of 
June, a 12 percent increase since Quarter 1. Amtrak, a host 
railroad on and off the Northeast Corridor, reports PTC is in 
operation on 99.8 percent of its required mainlines.
    In addition, six other railroads must implement PTC on 
their main lines that host passenger rail service. One Class II 
host railroad has been operating its full implemented PTC 
system since 2018. The other five are conducting field-testing. 
Currently, FRA is directing its focus to the PTC mandated main 
lines that have a high concentration of host and tenant 
railroads, including commuter railroads with significant 
remaining work.
    On July 12, I initiated not less than monthly meetings with 
executive leadership of Amtrak and the commuter railroads that 
operate on the Northeast Corridor, or their own PTC required 
main lines in the Northeast. As this committee is aware, 
interoperability remains the primary challenge to railroads' 
full implementation of PTC by December 31, 2020. Approximately 
101 tenant railroads operate on PTC mandated main lines. 
Because railroads operate on multiple hosts' railroads, there 
are 227 host-tenant relationships where interoperability must 
be achieved.
    As of March 31, 17 percent of the tenant railroads achieved 
interoperability and 38 percent were conducting testing. Since 
May, I have met with the leadership of 61 of the 71-freight 
non-Class I tenant railroads to discuss next steps for 
interoperability. FRA will also host four additional 
collaborations over the next 17 months focusing on best 
practices to achieve the ultimate statutory deadline. Railroads 
continue to cite that PTC vendors and suppliers are resource 
constrained, in part due to increased demand as the deadline 
approaches and also to certain railroads' late engagement. 
After being confirmed as Administrator, I met with the 10 major 
vendors and suppliers to stress the critical role they play.
    This year, I have sent letters that underscore issues that 
require some suppliers' immediate resolution, including the 
recall of the ACSES II equipment due to manufacturing defects 
and capacity limitations hindering railroads from activating 
the I-ETMS interoperability. FRA continues to engage with 
vendors and suppliers, as they are integral to the railroad's 
ability to meet the deadline. In addition to technical 
assistance, DOT has awarded $2.6 billion in grant funding and 
loan financing to support PTC implementation, representing 18 
percent of the $15 billion industry cost for implementation, 
and specifically, 42 percent of the $4.1 billion that APTA 
estimates implementation is costing the commuter railroads.
    The industry also estimates that operation maintenance 
costs will be substantial, with AAR citing hundreds of millions 
of additional dollars, and after quoting $80 million to $130 
million per year in maintenance and operation costs. FRA 
appreciates Congress prioritization of safety and the continued 
funding it provides for PTC. FRA will continue to work with all 
stakeholders to help ensure that railroads fully implement PTC 
systems quickly and safely as possible. If any railroad fails 
to meet the deadline, FRA plans to enforce statutory mandate by 
assessing the maximum civil penalties authorized by Congress.
    Thank you, and I am here to answer your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Batory follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Hon. Ronald L. Batory, Administrator, Federal 
       Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, Members of the Committee,

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about one of the 
Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) highest priorities--the 
railroad industry's full implementation of FRA-certified and 
interoperable positive train control (PTC) systems on all required main 
lines as soon as possible, and not later than December 31, 2020.
    First, FRA commends the railroad industry for its significant 
progress toward fully implementing PTC systems where required 
nationwide. As of June 30, 2019, PTC systems were in operation on 
approximately 50,300 (87 percent) of the nearly 58,000 route miles 
subject to the statutory mandate, based on certain preliminary reports 
about railroads' progress as of Quarter 2 of 2019.\1\ This represents a 
4 percent increase in implementation since Quarter 1 of 2019. In 
addition, railroads are currently testing PTC systems in advanced field 
testing, known as revenue service demonstration (RSD), on at least 718 
route miles as of June 30, 2019.\2\ Nonetheless, railroads must still 
complete significant work to fully implement their PTC systems by 
December 31, 2020, especially with respect to activating PTC systems on 
the remaining required main lines and achieving the necessary 
interoperability with their tenant railroads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Railroads' Quarterly PTC Progress Reports for Quarter 2 of 2019 
are due by July 31, 2019. See Form FRA F 6180.165, Office of Management 
and Budget Control No. 2130-0553. In August 2019, FRA expects to 
publish updated infographics on its website (https://www.fra.dot.gov/
ptc), summarizing railroads' progress toward fully implementing PTC 
systems as of Quarter 2 of 2019.
    \2\ RSD is the stage of implementation when FRA conditionally 
permits a railroad to operate PTC-equipped trains in revenue service 
with passengers or freight onboard under certain testing conditions, 
prior to obtaining certification of their PTC systems from FRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Overview of the Statutory Mandate
A. Background
    As the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 first mandated, each 
Class I railroad and each entity providing regularly scheduled 
intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation must implement an 
FRA-certified PTC system on: (1) its main lines over which poison-or 
toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials are transported, if the line 
carries five million or more gross tons of any annual traffic; (2) its 
main lines over which intercity or commuter rail passenger 
transportation is regularly provided;\3\ and (3) any other tracks the 
Secretary of Transportation prescribes by regulation or order.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ In January 2010, FRA issued its first final PTC rule, defining 
the term ``main line'' for purposes of ``intercity . . . or commuter 
rail passenger transportation routes or segments over which limited or 
no freight railroad operations occur,'' which the statutory PTC mandate 
specifically required FRA to define by regulation. See Title 49 United 
States Code (U.S.C.) Sec. 20157(i)(4)(B), as implemented by Title 49 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Sec. Sec. 236.1003, 236.1019. Since 
January 2010, Amtrak and other railroads have requested ``main line 
track exceptions'' covering only 3.8 percent of the main lines 
otherwise subject to the statutory mandate. Despite any earlier 
requests for exceptions, railroads may still implement PTC systems on 
these track segments, and Amtrak recently committed to implementing a 
PTC system on its Post Road Branch in New York, potentially in addition 
to other lines for which Amtrak or its host railroads previously sought 
an exception by law.
    \4\ Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-432, 
Sec. 104(a), 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, 2008), as amended by the Positive 
Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 
114-73, 129 Stat. 568, 576-82 (Oct. 29, 2015) and the Fixing America's 
Surface Transportation Act, Pub. L. No. 114-94, Sec. 11315(d), 129 
Stat. 1312, 1675 (Dec. 4, 2015) (codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 
Sec. 20157). See also 49 CFR part 236, subpart I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By law, PTC systems must be designed to prevent certain accidents 
or incidents, including train-to-train collisions, over-speed 
derailments, incursions into established work zones, and movements of 
trains through switches left in the wrong position.\5\ Railroads are 
primarily implementing the following PTC systems in the United States: 
(1) the Interoperable Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS), 
which Class I railroads and many commuter railroads are implementing; 
(2) the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System II (ACSES II), which 
most railroads operating on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) are 
implementing; (3) Enhanced Automatic Train Control (E-ATC), which six 
intercity passenger or commuter railroads are implementing; and (4) the 
Incremental Train Control System, which Amtrak is implementing in parts 
of Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20157(g)(1), (i)(5); 49 CFR 
Sec. 236.1005 (setting forth the technical specifications).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Statutory 2018 and 2020 Deadlines and the Requirements for 
        Compliance
    On October 29, 2015, the Positive Train Control Enforcement and 
Implementation Act of 2015 (PTCEI Act) extended the original statutory 
deadline for full implementation of PTC systems from December 31, 2015, 
to at least December 31, 2018.\6\ In addition, the PTCEI Act permits 
railroads to utilize an ``alternative schedule and sequence'' with a 
full implementation deadline beyond December 31, 2018, but not later 
than December 31, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20157(a). Please note that the PTCEI Act also 
required FRA to extend each deadline under 49 CFR 
Sec. 236.1006(b)(4)(iii)(B) by three years, related to equipping 
certain Class II and Class III railroads' locomotives that operate in 
PTC territory. See 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20157(k); 81 Fed. Reg. 10126 (Feb. 
29, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notably, four host railroads subject to the statutory mandate--
North County Transit District, the Port Authority Trans-Hudson, 
Portland & Western Railroad (including its commuter tenant railroad, 
Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon), and the 
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink)--reported that 
they fully implemented an FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system on 
all their required main lines by December 31, 2018.
    The other 37 railroads that were directly subject to the statutory 
mandate in 2018 formally requested an alternative schedule and sequence 
(in some cases jointly with their host railroads), establishing a final 
deadline that they certified was as soon as practicable and not later 
than December 31, 2020. As background, the PTCEI Act required FRA to 
approve a railroad's alternative schedule and sequence within 90 days 
of receipt of the railroad's request, if the railroad demonstrated it 
met the six statutory criteria necessary to qualify for an alternative 
schedule and sequence.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20157(a)(3)(C) (using the term ``shall'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As of March 5, 2019, FRA approved all applicable requests for an 
alternative schedule and sequence, as each railroad sufficiently 
demonstrated it, at a minimum, met the six statutory criteria necessary 
to qualify for an alternative schedule and sequence under the statutory 
mandate. FRA issued each decision in advance of the PTCEI Act's 90-day 
decision deadline and, on average, within 66 days of receipt of a 
railroad's request. The 33 requests encompassed supporting 
documentation submitted on behalf of 37 railroads, including certain 
tenant-only commuter railroads. Specifically, these 37 railroads 
sufficiently demonstrated that, as of December 2018, they each:

  1.  Installed all hardware that must be installed for PTC system 
        implementation, consistent with the governing railroad's PTC 
        Implementation Plan (PTCIP);

  2.  Acquired all spectrum necessary for implementation of a PTC 
        system, if applicable, consistent with the governing railroad's 
        PTCIP;

  3.  Completed the employee training required under FRA's PTC 
        regulations for all applicable personnel in any territory, or 
        segment thereof, where the PTC system was presently being field 
        tested or operated in RSD or revenue service;

  4. (A)  For Class I railroads and Amtrak, implemented a PTC system or 
        initiated RSD on most territories (e.g., subdivisions or 
        districts) or route miles the railroad owns or controls that 
        are required to have operations governed by a PTC system; or
    (B)  For other railroads subject to the statutory mandate, the 
        railroad initiated RSD on at least one PTC-required territory, 
        or met any substitute criteria established by FRA;

  5.  Included in the revised PTCIP an alternative schedule and 
        sequence for fully implementing a PTC system as soon as 
        practicable, but not later than December 31, 2020; and

  6.  Certified to FRA in writing that the railroad will be in full 
        compliance with the requirements of the statutory mandate on or 
        before the deadline in the proposed alternative schedule and 
        sequence.

    With all necessary PTC system hardware installed, spectrum 
acquired, and testing having been initiated as of December 31, 2018, 
the key remaining steps for full implementation of PTC systems 
generally include conducting RSD of uncertified PTC systems on the 
general rail network or expanding RSD to additional required main 
lines, submitting a PTC Safety Plan and obtaining PTC System 
Certification from FRA (host railroads only), achieving 
interoperability between host railroads and tenant railroads, and 
activating the PTC system so it governs all operations on the required 
main lines.
II. The Railroad Industry's Progress Toward Full Implementation of PTC 
        Systems
    Railroads' mandatory Quarterly PTC Progress Reports for Quarter 2 
of 2019 must be submitted to FRA by July 31, 2019. Information FRA 
preliminarily received indicates that approximately 87 percent of the 
required main lines (i.e., 50,300 of the nearly 58,000 required route 
miles) were governed by a PTC system as of June 30, 2019.
    Specifically, Class I railroads recently informed FRA that PTC 
systems were in operation on approximately 91 percent of their required 
main lines as of June 2019--that is, on 48,945 of the 53,756 required 
route miles that are owned or controlled by Class I railroads--
representing a 4 percent increase since Quarter 1 of 2019.
    As of June 2019, host commuter railroads were reportedly operating 
PTC systems in revenue service on 443 route miles and in RSD testing on 
approximately 718 route miles, which, in total, is 37 percent of the 
host commuter railroads' 3,111 required route miles and a 12 percent 
increase since Quarter 1 of 2019. Amtrak, as a host railroad on and 
near the NEC and other parts of the country (including Chicago and 
Michigan), reports that approximately 899 of Amtrak's 900 required 
route miles are governed by a PTC system as of June 2019. In addition, 
Amtrak has stated that its operations are currently governed by a PTC 
system on approximately 16,032 of the 19,119 route miles (84 percent) 
where Amtrak operates as a tenant railroad on other railroads' PTC-
equipped main lines.
    Also, pursuant to the statutory mandate, six Class II or III, short 
line, or terminal railroads must implement PTC systems on their own 
main lines that provide or host regularly scheduled intercity or 
commuter rail passenger transportation. One of these six railroads has 
been operating its FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system in 
revenue service since 2018, and the other five railroads are currently 
conducting FRA-approved field testing of their PTC systems on the 
general rail network and largely planning to commence RSD during 
Quarter 3 of 2019.
    In terms of railroads' progress toward achieving PTC system 
interoperability, host railroads reported that 17 percent of the tenant 
railroads that operate on their PTC-required main lines had achieved 
interoperability as of March 31, 2019. In addition, host railroads also 
specifically reported that 33 percent of their applicable tenant 
railroads were currently installing necessary PTC system hardware 
(e.g., on the tenant railroads' controlling locomotives), and 38 
percent had advanced to the interoperability testing stage, as of March 
31st.
III. FRA's Initiatives to Assist with Major Remaining Challenges
    With approximately 17 months remaining until the statutory 
deadline, FRA will continue to perform comprehensive oversight, provide 
extensive technical assistance to all applicable host railroads and 
tenant railroads, and hold each railroad accountable for the timely 
implementation of an interoperable PTC system on all main lines subject 
to the statutory mandate.
    FRA is currently directing its focus and resources to the PTC-
mandated main lines that have a high concentration of host railroads 
and tenant railroads, including commuter railroads with significant 
remaining work, such as the PTC-mandated main lines in the Northeast, 
Chicago area, Florida, and Texas. For example, on July 12, 2019, I 
initiated a series of not-less-than monthly meetings with the executive 
leadership of Amtrak and each commuter railroad that operates on or 
near Amtrak's NEC and/or the commuter railroad's own PTC-mandated main 
lines in the Northeast. FRA is committed to continuing to help 
facilitate railroads' collaboration, expeditious resolution of 
remaining issues, and full implementation of interoperable PTC systems 
on all required main lines throughout the country.
A. Achieving Interoperability Among Required Railroads
    Under the statutory mandate, ``interoperability'' is the 
requirement that the controlling locomotives and cab cars of any host 
railroad and tenant railroad operating on the same main line will 
communicate with and respond to the PTC system, including uninterrupted 
movements over property boundaries.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Except a railroad's controlling locomotives or cab cars that 
are subject to either a temporary or permanent exception under 49 
U.S.C. Sec. 20157(k) or 49 CFR Sec. 236.1006, consistent with the 
applicable host railroad's PTC Implementation Plan. See 49 U.S.C. 
Sec. 20157(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), (a)(2)(D), (i)(3); 49 CFR 
Sec. Sec. 236.1003, 236.1006, 236.1011(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Interoperability, given its scope and complexity, remains one of 
the primary challenges to railroads' full implementation of PTC systems 
by December 31, 2020. Approximately 101 distinct tenant railroads 
operate on PTC-mandated main lines, according to host railroads' 
current PTCIPs. Because many railroads operate on multiple host 
railroads subject to the statutory mandate, there are approximately 227 
host-tenant railroad relationships in which PTC system interoperability 
must be achieved by December 31, 2020. As noted above, 17 percent of 
the applicable tenant railroads have already achieved PTC system 
interoperability (as 38 tenant railroads were reported as PTC-
operational by March 31, 2019), and an additional 38 percent (87 tenant 
railroads) were reportedly conducting interoperability testing as of 
Quarter 1 of 2019. FRA is optimistic that railroads' Quarterly PTC 
Progress Reports for Quarter 2 of 2019, due today, July 31st, will show 
continued advancement toward interoperability.
    As support, during FRA's June and July 2018 PTC Symposia, FRA 
provided technical assistance to all host railroads about the statutory 
and regulatory interoperability requirements, including any exceptions, 
and best practices for interoperability testing between host railroads 
and tenant railroads. In July 2018, FRA also issued a revised and 
simplified guidance document that addresses interoperability testing 
and the responsibilities of a host railroad and its tenant railroads 
with respect to a host railroad's PTC Safety Plan and FRA's 
certification of PTC systems.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Federal Railroad Administration, Revised PTC Guidance Regarding 
Interoperability Testing, Operations and Maintenance Manuals, and 
Certification Responsibilities (July 24, 2018), available at https://
www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L19583#p1_z5_gD_lPO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In terms of ongoing assistance during 2019, FRA recently engaged 
with each Class I railroad and several NEC railroads to help validate 
the list of PTC-required tenant railroads. To help ensure that tenant 
railroads also understand the statutory and regulatory requirements, 
FRA commenced a significant interoperability initiative in April 2019 
by sending a letter to each freight, non-Class I tenant railroad \10\ 
that operates on at least one main line that is subject to the 
statutory PTC mandate, according to their host railroads' current 
PTCIPs. FRA's letters to these tenant railroads provided an overview of 
the interoperability requirements, emphasized the importance of timely 
PTC system implementation, and invited them to meet with FRA in 
Washington, DC, this summer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ This encompasses Class II, Class III, short line, switching, 
terminal, and regional tenant railroads that operate on PTC-mandated 
main lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From late May to early August of 2019, I, as the FRA Administrator, 
and FRA's PTC subject matter experts have been meeting individually 
with each tenant railroad's executive leadership and PTC program 
manager to offer technical assistance and discuss any challenges the 
tenant railroad might currently be experiencing with respect to PTC 
system implementation. In addition, FRA will host the remaining four of 
six PTC Collaboration Sessions over the next 17 months to further 
support all railroads subject to the statutory mandate and to convene 
the industry's technical experts to share best practices and jointly 
resolve common technical problems.
B. PTC System Vendors and Suppliers
    Another predominant challenge that railroads commonly convey is 
that the limited number of PTC system vendors and suppliers are 
significantly resource-constrained, as they are serving all 42 
railroads \11\ subject to the statutory mandate and all their tenant 
railroads. For example, several railroads specifically cited vendors' 
or suppliers' schedule delays and technical issues as a reason 
initiation of RSD was infeasible by December 31, 2018, and utilizing 
substitute criteria (often an earlier phase of field testing) was 
therefore necessary to qualify for an alternative schedule by law.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ A 42nd railroad, TEXRail, is now subject to the statutory 
mandate given its commencement of commuter rail operations during 2019. 
TEXRail's FRA-approved PTCIP, dated February 13, 2019, provides that it 
shall implement a PTC system by December 31, 2020, on its applicable 
main lines.
    \12\ FRA generally meets with the 13 railroads that utilized 
substitute criteria monthly, if not weekly, to discuss testing progress 
and actively address any challenges or technical issues they have 
encountered. Such regular meetings help facilitate these railroads' 
advancement toward RSD. Also, 6 of the 13 railroads that utilized 
substitute criteria have since initiated FRA-approved RSD on at least 
one main line subject to the statutory mandate as of June 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In March 2018, FRA sent a letter to each of the 10 major PTC system 
vendors and suppliers to underscore the critical role they play in 
ensuring that railroads fully implement FRA-certified and interoperable 
PTC systems in a timely manner. In addition, during the spring of 2018, 
FRA's PTC subject matter experts and I met individually with each of 
these PTC system vendors and suppliers. These meetings covered 
challenges they are experiencing; risks they foresee with respect to 
railroads' timely implementation of PTC systems; and their plans to 
expedite delivery of PTC system products, components, and other 
services to ensure railroads' compliance with both the 2018 
requirements under the PTCEI Act and the final statutory December 31, 
2020, deadline for full PTC system implementation.
    Based on information FRA learned during its meetings with the 10 
major PTC system vendors and suppliers during 2018, FRA found that 
approximately 10 percent of the contracts between railroads and the 
major PTC system vendors and suppliers were initiated before the 2008 
enactment of the statutory mandate; approximately 48 percent of 
contracts were initiated from 2008 to 2014; and approximately 42 
percent were initiated from 2015 to 2018. Accordingly, over time and 
under constricted deadlines, PTC system vendors and suppliers have 
experienced increased demand for the services they offer, which are 
essential to the railroad industry's full implementation of PTC 
systems.
    In October 2018, FRA also held a second series of one-on-one 
meetings with the vendors and suppliers that mainly support the host 
railroads that had made less progress toward implementing their PTC 
systems as of that point. The vendors and suppliers stressed that they 
prioritize railroads' compliance with the statutory mandate, including 
interim requirements, and they direct additional resources to railroads 
that are at risk of noncompliance.
    FRA continues to actively engage and meet with the major PTC system 
vendors and suppliers. For example, in March 2019, I sent letters to 
two PTC system suppliers to underscore issues that require their 
immediate attention. These letters stressed the importance of: (1) a 
supplier's prompt resolution of certain capacity limitations hindering 
several I-ETMS railroads from conducting robust interoperability 
testing and achieving interoperability; and (2) another supplier's full 
and complete resolution of issues surrounding a major recall of certain 
ACSES II equipment, due to certain manufacturing defects and ongoing 
quality concerns.
IV. Industry Cost Estimates and the Department's Grants and Financial 
        Assistance
    In addition to providing technical assistance and oversight, the 
Department of Transportation (the Department)--including FRA, the 
Federal Transit Administration, and the Build America Bureau--supports 
railroads' implementation of PTC systems by providing financial 
assistance. The railroad industry has estimated that initial costs 
associated with fully implementing PTC systems will exceed $14.7 
billion in total, including approximately $4.1 billion in 
implementation costs for commuter railroads, according to the American 
Public Transportation Association (APTA).\13\ The industry also 
estimates that ongoing operations and maintenance costs post-full 
implementation will likely be substantial, with APTA citing an 
estimated ``$80 to $130 million a year in maintenance and operation 
costs,'' \14\ and the Association of American Railroads reporting in 
2017 that ``hundreds of millions of additional dollars [will be] needed 
each year . . . to maintain the system.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ See American Public Transportation Association, Commuter Rail 
and Positive Train Control: Fact Sheet, at 2, http://ptcfacts.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/03/PTC_FactSheet
_2019Update_v3.pdf.
    \14\ See id.
    \15\ See Association of American Railroads, Positive Train Control, 
at 2 (March 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since 2008, through FRA, the Department has awarded over $2.5 
billion in grant funding and loan financing to support railroads' 
implementation of PTC systems, which amounts to nearly 18 percent of 
the industry's estimates for initial PTC system implementation costs. 
Also, more specifically, through FRA, the Department has awarded 
commuter railroads PTC grant funding and loan financing for 
approximately 42 percent of APTA's estimated $4.1 billion in initial 
implementation costs. The Department appreciates Congress's 
prioritization of rail safety and the continued funding it provides to 
support railroads' implementation of PTC systems.
V. Enforcement of the Statutory Mandate
    As I previously committed to this Committee in 2018, FRA will 
continue to hold railroads accountable for timely implementation of PTC 
systems and will enforce the statutory mandate, including interim 
requirements and the December 31, 2020, deadline.
    The three acts of Federal legislation governing railroads' 
implementation of PTC systems specifically authorize FRA, by 
delegation, to assess civil penalties for any violations of the 
statutory mandate. Consistent with FRA's commitment to helping ensure 
railroads comply with the statutory mandate, FRA continues to monitor 
railroads' compliance with the implementation schedules in their 
PTCIPs, and FRA has assessed nearly $400,000 in civil penalties since 
2017 to railroads that failed to meet interim implementation 
requirements in a timely manner.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ See 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20157(a)(2)(D), (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As FRA Administrator, I have stated that if any required railroad 
fails to fully implement an FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system 
on its required main lines by the applicable statutory deadline (in 
most cases, December 31, 2020), I will recommend that FRA assess the 
ordinary statutory maximum civil penalty against the railroad, which is 
currently $28,474 per day. FRA also continues to reserve the right to 
initiate any other type of enforcement action within its authority, if 
necessary to compel a railroad's compliance, in addition to the 
assessment of civil penalties.
    FRA also acknowledges, however, that the statutory mandate 
generally prohibits FRA from imposing or enforcing the operational 
restrictions (e.g., speed restrictions) under FRA's current regulations 
against any railroad until approximately January 1, 2022.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ See 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20157(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FRA will continue to work diligently and collaboratively with all 
stakeholders, including railroads, railroad associations, and PTC 
system vendors and suppliers, to help ensure all railroads subject to 
the mandate fully implement FRA-certified and interoperable PTC systems 
as expeditiously and safely as possible.
    I appreciate the Committee's interest in promoting safe, reliable, 
and efficient rail transportation in the United States and, 
particularly, your assistance in helping ensure that railroads fully 
implement this rail-safety technology in a timely manner. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to answer any 
questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much. Director Fleming.

                  STATEMENT OF SUSAN FLEMING,

              DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE,

             U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

    Ms. Fleming. Good afternoon, Chairman Wicker, Ranking 
Member Cantwell, and members of the Committee. Thank you for 
the opportunity to provide an update on passenger railroads' 
implementation, and FRA's oversight of PTC, which is one of the 
most promising technological advances in rail safety in 
decades.
    Over the years, we have reported on railroads' progress 
implementing PTC, which has been a complex and lengthy process 
involving nearly all major rail lines and almost every aspect 
of railroads' operations. While railroads were required to 
implement PTC by last December, FRA was allowed to grant 
extensions up to December 2020 if railroads met specific 
requirements. While four railroads have fully implemented PTC, 
the others continue to work to achieve full implementation. 
Railroads progressed in terms of installing equipment and 
testing, but much work, particularly with respect to 
interoperability, remains to fully implement PTC.
    Today, I will focus on two main issues: railroads' 
implementation progress and remaining challenges, and FRA's 
approach to meeting the 2020 deadline.
    Turning to the implementation update, since December many 
railroads reported making progress on testing and 
implementation of their own PTC systems. Six railroads reported 
implementing PTC on all their own territories, and almost all 
these railroads reported being in this stage at the end of 
2018. However, 11 railroads reported that they remain in field-
testing, which is an early stage of implementation.
    Regarding interoperability, as of March, 11 of the 31 host 
railroads that must have interoperable PTC systems reported 
that they achieved interoperability with at least one of their 
other tenant railroads. Collectively, of the 227 unique host-
tenant relationships that require interoperability, railroads 
have achieved this for only 17 percent of these relationships. 
Turning now to implementation challenges, in response to our 
questionnaire, most railroads reported that vendor and software 
issues were still a significant problem.
    These issues are more acute now, because as the 2020 
deadline nears, less time remains to address these issues and 
associated delays, and the limited supply of vendors and high 
demand for services continues to pose problems. More than half 
of the railroads also reported that interoperability was a 
major challenge, and can be complicated by software issues and 
coordinating host and tenant schedules. For example, one 
railroad said that certain software functionality still has to 
be developed, tested, and implemented to address reliability 
issues that have caused system disruptions.
    Interoperability challenges also differ across systems and 
geographic areas, and can be particularly difficult in dense, 
urban areas like the Northeast or Chicago, where railroads are 
at different stages of implementation. In the Northeast, eight 
commuter railroads, Amtrak, and most freights are implementing 
a form of the ACSES system on at least a portion of their 
equipment and track. In some cases, two different PTC systems 
will be operated concurrently, which adds to the complexity of 
interoperability.
    Moving on to my second point, FRA's plans to meet the 2020 
deadline. FRA continues to provide assistance and support to 
railroads on interoperability and the testing process, but 
workload challenges for the agency persist. FRA will continue 
to face a substantial workload through 2020, overseeing 
railroads' PTC implementation and reviewing documents, 
including lengthy safety plans. As such, it will remain 
important for FRA to prioritize resources based on risk, as we 
recommended last year. While FRA has made improvements, the 
extended 2020 deadline for full PTC implementation is less than 
18 months away, and FRA and railroads have substantial work to 
complete and challenges to address before that deadline.
    Going forward, FRA also needs to transition to overseeing 
PTC as a routine part of railroad operations after the 2020 
deadline. Similarly, railroads will need to transition from 
implementation, largely done by contractors, to operating and 
maintaining their PTC systems.
    Therefore, December 2020 represents not only the deadline 
for a full PTC implementation, but also a point after which 
railroads and FRA will face a new operational and oversight 
environment. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I 
would be pleased to answer questions that you or members of the 
Committee may have.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Fleming follows:]

Prepared Statement of Susan Fleming, Director, Physical Infrastructure, 
             United States Government Accountability Office
                         POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL

   As Implementation Progresses, Focus Turns to the Complexities of 
                   Achieving System Interoperability

    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the 
Committee:

    Congress mandated the implementation of positive train control 
(PTC) systems by certain railroads over a decade ago to prevent train-
to-train collisions and other types of accidents.\1\ PTC is a 
communications-based system designed to automatically slow or stop a 
train that is not being operated safely. Forty-two railroads are 
currently subject to the statutory mandate to implement PTC, including 
30 commuter railroads, Amtrak, and several freight railroads. Over the 
years, we have periodically reported and testified on railroads' 
progress implementing PTC, which has been a complex and lengthy 
process, involving nearly all major rail lines and almost every aspect 
of railroads' operations.\2\ Full implementation includes but is not 
limited to equipment installation, testing, interoperability, and 
system certification by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 
According to a 2018 National Transportation Safety Board testimony, 
since the PTC mandate was enacted, 22 rail accidents it investigated 
could have been prevented by PTC, including the December 2017 
derailment of an Amtrak passenger train near DuPont, Washington, that 
killed 3 passengers and injured 57 passengers and crewmembers.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Certain railroads were required to implement PTC by December 
31, 2015. Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-432, 
div. A, 122 Stat. 4848 (2008). In 2015, Congress extended this original 
deadline. Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 
2015, Pub. L. No. 114-73, Sec. 1302, 129 Stat. 568, 576-582 (2015), 
codified at 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20157.
    \2\ See, for example, GAO, Positive Train Control: Many Commuter 
Railroads Still Have Significant Additional Implementation Work and 
Opportunities Exist to Provide Federal Assistance, GAO-18-367T 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2018) and Positive Train Control: Most 
Railroads Expect to Request an Extension, and Substantial Work Remains 
Beyond 2018, GAO-18-692T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 13, 2018).
    \3\ National Transportation Safety Board, The State of Positive 
Train Control Implementation in the United States (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 13, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While railroads were required to implement PTC by December 31, 
2018, FRA was required under the statutory mandate to grant railroads 
an extension up to December 31, 2020, if they met specific requirements 
and requested an alternative schedule and sequence (i.e., an 
extension).\4\ Four railroads reported that they had fully implemented 
PTC for all rail operations on their own track by yearend 2018. FRA 
approved 36 railroads' requests for an extension.\5\ Consequently, 
while railroads have installed all needed PTC equipment on locomotives 
and along tracks and met some other statutory requirements, much work--
particularly with respect to interoperability--remains to fully 
implement PTC. Achieving interoperability is critical as U.S. railroads 
often operate some or all of their trains as ``tenants'' on the track 
of another railroad, known as the ``host.'' The individual PTC systems 
of host and tenant railroads must be interoperable in order for their 
respective trains to move safely and seamlessly across others' track.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20157.
    \5\ As of December 31, 2018, 41 railroads were required to 
implement PTC. In September 2018, FRA approved a temporary main line 
track exception for one railroad; while this exempted the railroad from 
the December 31, 2018, deadline, the railroad is still required to 
implement PTC by December 31, 2020. One new commuter railroad that 
began service after January 1, 2019, is now also required to implement 
PTC, bringing the total number required to implement PTC by December 
31, 2020, to 42. FRA has reported that it approved 37 railroads' 
requests for extensions; FRA's count includes one tenant railroad that 
submitted documentation to demonstrate it met the statutory 
requirements though it was not required to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My statement today addresses (1) the progress railroads have made 
to complete PTC implementation, and any related implementation 
challenges, and (2) FRA's plans to oversee railroads' PTC 
implementation to meet the December 2020 deadline.
    To describe railroads' progress, we analyzed the most recent 
available quarterly PTC implementation reports railroads submitted to 
FRA, that reflected their progress as of March 31, 2019. We analyzed 
the reports to determine the extent to which each railroad has 
initiated different stages of testing and different steps to achieve 
interoperability with other railroads. To identify the implementation 
status of tenant-only railroads, we categorized them based on the 
furthest stage of implementation their host(s) railroads have reached. 
Based on our review of these data for anomalies, outliers, or missing 
information and our previous assessment of such quarterly reports for 
our March 2018 and September 2018 testimonies, we determined that these 
data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes of describing 
railroads' progress in PTC implementation. In addition, we interviewed 
representatives from Amtrak, two freight railroads, and five commuter 
railroads, selected to ensure variation in PTC implementation status 
and number of tenant railroads. To describe railroads' progress and 
FRA's plans to oversee PTC implementation, we sent the 42 railroads a 
questionnaire to obtain information on their implementation progress, 
including interoperability, as of May 31, 2019; challenges to 
implementing PTC; and any guidance or assistance needed from FRA. We 
received responses from all 42 railroads. We also interviewed industry 
associations for commuter (American Public Transportation Association) 
and freight (Association of American Railroads) railroads. We reviewed 
applicable laws and FRA regulations, presentations, reports, and 
guidance, and we interviewed FRA officials in headquarters and three of 
FRA's nine PTC field specialists who serve as the technical leads for 
the PTC systems most commonly used by railroads. We also reviewed prior 
GAO products related to PTC.
    We conducted this performance audit from May 2019 to July 2019 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background
    The vast majority of the 42 railroads subject to the statutory 
mandate to implement PTC--including 30 commuter railroads, Amtrak, 
seven Class I and four Class II and III freight railroads--are 
implementing one of three types of PTC systems.\6\ These systems 
include the Interoperable Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS), 
the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System II (ACSES), and Enhanced 
Automated Train Control (E-ATC). While these PTC systems are 
functionally similar, the technologies they use differ. For example, to 
determine a train's location, ACSES and E-ATC rely on equipment 
embedded on the track while I-ETMS uses Global Positioning System 
information. ACSES and E-ATC both supplement existing train control 
systems to provide all required PTC functionality, while I-ETMS was 
designed as a new system to provide this functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Freight railroads are classified by operating revenues. As of 
2017, Class I railroads have annual operating revenues of $447.6 
million or more. Class II railroads have annual operating revenues of 
less than $447.6 million but more than $35.8 million, and Class III 
railroads have annual operating revenues of $35.8 million or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As noted above, testing is one of the many steps to achieving full 
implementation. Through multiple stages of testing, which are 
summarized below, railroads must demonstrate that the PTC system meets 
functional requirements.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ PTC systems are required to prevent train-to-train collisions, 
over-speed derailments, incursions into work zone limits, and the 
movement of a train through a switch left in the wrong position. Pub. 
L. No. 110-432.

   Laboratory testing: locomotive and wayside equipment testing 
        in a lab environment to verify that individual components 
        function as designed.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ In this statement, we use the term locomotive generally to 
refer to any of the variety of vehicles, such as cab cars and electric 
multiple unit trains, that railroads may need to equip. Wayside 
equipment includes items such as communication towers or poles, switch 
position monitors, wayside interface units, and base station radios.

   Field testing: includes several different tests of 
        individual components and the overall system, such as testing 
        each locomotive type to verify that it meets functional 
        requirements and field integration testing--a key 
        implementation milestone to verify that each PTC component is 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        integrated and functioning safely as designed.

   Revenue service demonstration (RSD): an advanced form of 
        field testing in which the railroad operates PTC-equipped 
        trains in regular service under specific conditions. RSD is 
        intended to validate the performance of the PTC system as a 
        whole and to test the system under normal, real-world 
        operations.

    Using results from field and RSD testing, combined with other 
information, host railroads must then submit a safety plan to FRA for 
system certification and approval. We previously reported that these 
safety plans have been up to 5,000 pages in length.\9\ Once FRA 
approves a safety plan, the railroad receives system certification, 
which is required for full implementation, and is then authorized to 
operate the PTC system in revenue service. According to FRA officials, 
the FRA may impose conditions to the PTC safety plan approval as 
necessary to ensure safety, resulting in a conditional certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ GAO-18-367T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Interoperability is achieved when the locomotives of any host 
railroad and tenant railroad operating over the same track segment can 
successfully communicate with and respond to the other railroad's PTC 
system, allowing uninterrupted movements over property boundaries.\10\ 
For example, when a locomotive enters another railroad's territory as a 
tenant, it immediately needs information about the upcoming track--such 
as any temporary speed restrictions in place due to track work (see 
fig. 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20157.
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Note: Communications configurations beyond those used in this 
figure are possible for a host and tenant railroad using I-ETMS or 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACSES.

    To achieve interoperability, railroads have to complete a series of 
steps including (1) additional installation work (such as installing 
equipment on a tenant railroad's locomotives) and scheduling (such as 
coordinating with the relevant railroad to reach any needed agreements 
and identify dates for testing), (2) laboratory testing, (3) field 
testing, and (4) RSD or revenue service operations.\11\ Many railroads 
will complete much of the implementation for their own PTC systems, 
such as starting RSD on some or most of their track, before they begin 
to take steps to achieve interoperability with other railroads. 
However, a railroad can take steps to achieve interoperability with 
other railroads while simultaneously completing field testing or other 
stages of testing on its own PTC system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ For certain PTC systems, railroads also have to ensure that 
their PTC back office servers, which contain information on track 
features and speed restrictions, are linked and can communicate to 
achieve interoperability; railroads call this process ``federation.'' 
However, depending on the PTC system, federation can occur at different 
points. For I-ETMS, for example, railroads must complete federation 
before conducting lab or field testing. Because ACSES relies on 
transponders to communicate certain information to locomotives, 
railroads can complete federation either before or after lab or field 
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FRA is responsible for overseeing railroads' implementation of PTC, 
and the agency monitors progress and provides direct assistance to 
railroads implementing PTC. For example, each railroad had to develop 
an FRA-approved PTC implementation plan that includes project schedules 
and milestones for certain activities, and a railroad is required to 
report quarterly and annually to FRA on its PTC implementation status 
relative to its implementation plan.\12\ FRA also provides technical 
assistance to railroads, addresses questions, and reviews and approves 
railroads' documentation, including test and safety plans. FRA has a 
national PTC project manager, designated PTC specialists in the eight 
FRA regions, and approximately a dozen engineers, test monitors, and 
other staff responsible for overseeing technical aspects of 
implementation. FRA also has oversight tools, which includes authority 
to impose civil penalties when a railroad fails to meet certain 
statutory PTC requirements.\13\ Since 2017, FRA reports that it has 
assessed nearly $400,000 in civil penalties against railroads that 
failed to comply with their implementation plan milestones or reporting 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ To effectively monitor each railroad's progress implementing 
PTC, FRA requires the submission of quarterly progress reports under 
its investigative authorities. See e.g., 49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 20107, 
20902, 20157(c)(2); 49 C.F.R. Sec. 236.1009(h). In addition, each 
railroad is required to annually report to FRA on PTC implementation 
progress in areas such as spectrum acquisition, installation progress, 
and the total number of route miles where RSD has been initiated or PTC 
is in operation. See 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20157(c)(1); 49 C.F.R. 
Sec. 236.1009(a)(5).
    \13\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20157(e)(1)-(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroads Continue to Make Progress Implementing PTC, but Significant 
        Work Remains to Achieve Interoperability
Railroads' Implementation of Their Own Systems Has Advanced, but Some 
        Commuter and Smaller Freight Railroads Remain in the Early 
        Stages of Testing
    Since the end of 2018, some railroads have reported making progress 
on testing and implementation of their own PTC systems. Figure 2 shows 
the 42 railroads' reported progress by PTC implementation stage.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Notes:

    Full implementation means a railroad has implemented an FRA-
certified PTC system on all its own territories and has achieved 
interoperability with any railroads that operate on its tracks.

    Revenue service demonstration on one territory or 50 percent of 
territories was one of the statutory requirements a railroad had to 
meet to receive an extension.

    The two railroads not yet in field testing are one new commuter 
railroad and one railroad that received a temporary main line track 
exception. This allowed the railroad to remain in installation beyond 
the 2018 deadline. FRA can grant main line exceptions under certain 
conditions, such as through limited operations. 49 C.F.R. 
Sec. 236.1019(c).

    Six railroads--two Class Is and four commuters--reported to FRA 
that they had implemented PTC on all of their own territories but had 
not completed interoperability as of March 31, 2019, and almost all 
these railroads reported being in this stage at the end of 2018.\14\ In 
addition, as of March 31, 2019, no additional railroads beyond the four 
that were complete at the end of 2018 reported reaching full 
implementation. Nearly all railroads still implementing PTC plan to 
reach full implementation in the last quarter of 2020, based on our 
analysis of railroads' extension requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ These railroads continue interoperability efforts with their 
tenants, and so have not fully implemented PTC. We considered railroads 
to be in this stage if they reported 100 percent of their route miles 
or track segments in PTC operation as of March 31, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Few railroads reported moving into RSD during the first quarter of 
2019, and the extent of RSD testing being conducted by railroads in 
this stage varied considerably. Of the 19 railroads that reported RSD 
testing on some portion of their own track as of March 31, about half 
(9 of 19) reported RSD testing on more than 75 percent of their total 
route miles, while about a quarter (5 of 19) reported RSD testing on 
less than 25 percent of their total route miles. RSD testing also 
varied between Class I railroads and commuter railroads. On average, 
the 5 Class I railroads in this stage reported RSD on 86 percent of 
route miles, while commuter railroads reported an average of 39 percent 
of route miles in RSD.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ All 7 Class I railroads required to implement PTC have 
received conditional system certification from FRA or provisional 
authority to operate a PTC system under revenue service. 49 U.S.C. 
Sec. 20157(h)(2). Therefore, these railroads' PTC operations are 
considered to be revenue service, rather than RSD testing. For our 
purposes, we consider these railroads to be in the late stages of PTC 
testing akin to RSD testing, so we report their activities as RSD 
rather than revenue service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, based on our analysis, 11 railroads--7 commuters and 4 
Class II and III railroads--reported that they remained in field 
testing as of March 31, 2019. Similar to railroads in RSD testing, the 
extent of field testing reported by railroads varied. Of the 11 
railroads in field testing, most (7) reported field testing on the 
majority or all of their route miles, whereas 4 railroads--all 
commuters--reported conducting field testing on less than half of their 
route miles. Based on railroads' responses to our questionnaire, 
railroads' PTC implementation status did not change significantly as of 
May 31, 2019; two additional railroads--both commuters--began RSD 
testing on some portion of their track, and one commuter railroad began 
field testing.
Host Railroads Have Achieved Interoperability with Less Than 20 Percent 
        of Tenants, but Nearly All Railroads Have Started 
        Interoperability Planning
    As of March 31, 2019, 11 of the 31 host railroads that must have 
interoperable PTC systems reported to FRA that they had achieved 
interoperability with at least 1 of their tenant railroads.\16\ 
Collectively, of the 227 unique host-tenant relationships that require 
interoperability, FRA reported that railroads had achieved 
interoperability for 38 (17 percent) of these relationships.\17\ The 
number of tenants each railroad must work to achieve interoperability 
with ranges from 1 to 31 railroads, based on railroad reports to FRA. 
For example, Class I railroads, as host railroads, average about 18 
tenants, while commuter railroads average about 3 tenants. A railroad 
does not generally start work to achieve interoperability with all the 
railroads it interoperates with at once, according to FRA; instead a 
railroad will prioritize its interoperability work. For example, 
representatives from one Class I railroad we interviewed said it 
prioritized achieving interoperability in the following sequence: first 
with commuter-railroad tenants given the need to ensure passenger 
safety; second with other Class I railroads given the high total miles 
of track they share; and finally with smaller Class III railroads. In 
addition, a railroad may be in multiple interoperability steps (e.g., 
installing, testing) with different tenants at the same time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ The 31 railroads exclude six tenant-only railroads that only 
operate on track of other railroads and 5 railroads that have PTC 
systems that do not have to be interoperable with other railroads.
    \17\ As of May 31, 2019, the number of railroads (11) that had 
achieved interoperability with at least one tenant railroad had not 
changed, based on responses to our questionnaire. Based on responses, 6 
railroads had started field testing with at least one tenant, 12 
railroads had started interoperability work but not field testing with 
at least one tenant, and 2 railroads had not yet started work to 
achieve interoperability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FRA counts a relationship as having achieved interoperability if 
the tenant is operating PTC on all of the host's track miles. This 
binary measure for interoperability--that is, achieved or not--does not 
describe the extent to which railroads have started work on 
interoperability or, according to representatives from two railroads we 
interviewed, reflect when interoperability has been achieved along most 
but not all of its host's track.\18\ Railroads reported to FRA that 
they had begun work on interoperability for more than 90 percent of the 
remaining host-tenant relationships that need to achieve 
interoperability. In particular, based on their quarterly reports, 
railroads were installing for 82 host-tenant relationships and testing 
for 89 host-tenant relationships as of March 31, 2019. Overall, the 
status of interoperability work did not vary much among Class I, 
commuter, and Class II and III railroads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ In addition to this interoperability measure in FRA's PTC 
implementation graphics, the FRA PTC website includes links to each 
railroads' most recent quarterly report and presentations with 
additional detail on the number of railroads in the installing or 
testing stage of achieving interoperability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FRA officials and others we spoke with could not provide an 
estimate of how long it takes on average for two railroads to complete 
the individual steps to achieve interoperability. Representatives from 
industry associations we interviewed said that it can vary. An FRA 
specialist we interviewed agreed, explaining that interoperability 
field testing, for example, varies based on track availability. One 
railroad might complete testing in 4 days while another railroad might 
need weeks because it can only test at specific times. In its quarterly 
reports, FRA asks host railroads to provide the scheduled date for 
completing interoperability testing with each tenant railroad. As of 
March 31, 2019, seven railroads reported that they did not anticipate 
completing interoperability testing with at least one tenant until the 
last quarter of 2020.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Of the 42 railroads, 24 reported scheduled completion dates 
for their tenants, 14 did not provide these dates because they do not 
have tenants or because they have completed implementation, and another 
4 left the field blank. Railroads' reported dates varied considerably 
in format, with some only providing a year and others providing a month 
and year. We only included railroads providing a month and year in our 
count of 7 railroads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroads Continue to Report Challenges with Vendors and Software, and 
        Face New Interoperability Challenges
    In responding to our May 2019 questionnaire, most railroads 
reported that vendor and software issues remain major or moderate 
challenges for PTC implementation.\20\ As part of our ongoing work 
related to PTC, we have reported that railroads have faced challenges 
associated with the limited number of vendors that design PTC systems, 
provide the software and hardware, and conduct testing.\21\ However, as 
representatives of half of the railroads we interviewed emphasized, 
vendor and software issues are more acute now because as the 2020 
deadline nears, less time remains to address these issues and 
associated delays. Software and vendor issues can be interrelated as a 
small pool of vendors develop and update the software that supports 
railroads' PTC systems. Representatives from several railroads and FRA 
specialists we interviewed said that software issues routinely arise in 
lab testing, field testing, and RSD that require vendor revisions 
before a railroad's PTC implementation can continue. For example, 
representatives from one railroad said that existing software defects 
affecting its PTC system must be addressed and a new version of the 
software is needed before they can start RSD. They added that they had 
no control over this process, as they must rely on the vendor to 
provide reliable software. Representatives from this railroad also 
noted that resolving software issues is often not entirely within a 
railroad's control due to the need for vendor support, in contrast to 
some earlier challenges leading up to the 2018 deadline, where, for 
example, the railroad itself had more control as it was installing 
equipment and could more clearly track progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ We only asked railroads that reported they were not fully 
implemented to identify whether a challenge was a major, moderate, 
minor, or not at all a challenge. In response, 31 of 37 railroads said 
software issues were a major or moderate challenge, and 26 of 37 
railroads said vendor/contractor issues were a major or moderate 
challenge.
    \21\ GAO, Positive Train Control: Additional Authorities Could 
Benefit Implementation, GAO-13-720, (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 16, 2013) 
and GAO, Positive Train Control: Additional Oversight Needed As Most 
Railroads Do Not Expect to Meet 2015 Implementation Deadline, GAO-15-
739, (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 4, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, the limited supply of vendors and high demand for 
services as railroads work simultaneously to implement PTC by the 2020 
deadline continue to pose problems. For example, representatives from 
one railroad said their vendor has consistently had issues meeting 
milestones and delivering on its commitments. Representatives from a 
small railroad said they had limited internal resources to implement 
PTC, making the railroad's progress heavily reliant on its vendor. 
Representatives from two other railroads and FRA officials also 
highlighted implementation delays caused by recalls for some locomotive 
equipment, which has caused additional work for railroads as well as 
the vendor. Specifically, the equipment had to be removed, sent in for 
repair, and then re-installed.
    More than half of the railroads implementing PTC also responded to 
our questionnaire that interoperability was a major or moderate 
challenge.\22\ Railroads said that interoperability can be complicated 
by software issues and coordinating host and tenant railroad schedules, 
when asked to describe the biggest challenges to achieving 
interoperability.\23\ Fifteen railroads specifically mentioned software 
issues, and representatives from several railroads noted that 
interoperability will require reliable software. For example, one 
railroad reported that certain software functionality remains to be 
developed, tested, and implemented to facilitate interoperability and 
to address software reliability issues that have caused system 
disruptions. Also, 14 railroads noted that scheduling time with other 
railroads to begin interoperability testing can be cumbersome and time 
consuming. For example, several railroads that we interviewed and that 
responded to our questionnaire said that scheduling can be complicated 
by whether other railroads have made enough progress on their own PTC 
implementation to begin work on interoperability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ As noted above, we asked railroads that had not achieved full 
implementation to report how much of a challenge--major, moderate, 
minor, not at all--a list of previously identified challenges currently 
posed. Twenty-one of 37 railroads said this was a major or moderate 
challenge. Half or more of the 37 railroads reported major or moderate 
challenges in only three areas: vendor issues, software issues, and 
interoperability.
    \23\ The questionnaire asked railroads that had not achieved full 
implementation to describe their biggest challenges specific to 
achieving interoperability. We analyzed the narrative responses 
received from 31 railroads to report the major themes identified about 
challenges specific to achieving interoperability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to FRA officials, interoperability challenges also differ 
across PTC systems and geographic areas. Below, we use the Northeast 
Corridor and the Chicago metropolitan area--where most railroads are 
implementing ACSES and I-ETMS, respectively--to illustrate the 
challenges faced in working to achieve interoperability. However, 
railroads in other areas or implementing other PTC systems may face 
some of these same challenges or face additional different challenges.
Northeast Corridor and Surrounding Area
    Over a dozen railroads operating on the Northeast Corridor and in 
the surrounding area are required to implement PTC. The Northeast 
Corridor runs from Washington, D.C., to Boston, Massachusetts, and 
Amtrak predominantly owns track on the corridor. Eight commuter 
railroads, Amtrak, and most freight railroads are implementing a form 
of the ACSES system on at least a portion of their equipment and track. 
In some cases, railroads in the Northeast will be operating two 
different PTC systems concurrently on the same track, which will add to 
the complexity of interoperability, according to FRA.\24\ Examples of 
interoperability challenges faced in the Northeast include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ In these cases, railroads plan to either install their 
locomotives with equipment for both systems or install wayside 
equipment along the tracks for both systems. Freight railroads, for 
example, plan to dual-equip the wayside equipment where they operate as 
a tenant on the Northeast Corridor so their locomotives can use I-ETMS.

   Software issues. PTC software presents particular challenges 
        in the Northeast because software is being supplied by multiple 
        vendors and has been developed to accommodate railroads' 
        existing systems that have different configurations. Therefore, 
        according to FRA officials, ACSES does not have a common set of 
        requirements or specifications. Also, even if two railroads use 
        the same vendor for their locomotive equipment or software, 
        each railroad may use a different version of software. In 
        addition, representatives from two railroads that operate in 
        the Northeast told us they built different software 
        functionality into their PTC systems to accommodate their own 
        operations, so additional work is needed to resolve such 
        differences to achieve interoperability. In light of these 
        software issues, representatives from one industry association 
        and one railroad we interviewed said that Northeast Corridor 
        railroads are discussing creating a software management process 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        to aid interoperability.

   Boundary issues. A train needs to seamlessly operate PTC 
        when it crosses the boundary between two railroads' 
        territories, as previously described. According to a rail 
        industry association, as of June 2019, there are about 20 
        boundaries on the Northeast Corridor where more work is needed 
        to ensure seamless operation. FRA officials and one industry 
        association said boundary issues are complex and time-consuming 
        to resolve but not insurmountable. For example, FRA officials 
        said a railroad could install its own equipment such as 
        transponders and wayside devices across the boundary to create 
        an overlap between their system and that of the other railroad.

   Securing PTC wireless communication. FRA requires that PTC 
        wireless railroad communications be encrypted.\25\ However, a 
        solution that aims to encrypt all PTC wireless communication 
        and data transmittal among railroads operating ACSES in the 
        Northeast is currently in lab development. In August 2016, 
        Amtrak received a grant from FRA to create this solution for 
        ACSES. Amtrak originally planned to implement this solution in 
        December 2018, but Amtrak has experienced delays and currently 
        estimates that it will implement the solution by January 2020. 
        However, Amtrak has reported several risks that it will need to 
        overcome to meet this implementation deadline. Further delays 
        could affect railroads' ability to fully implement PTC in the 
        Northeast by the December 2020 deadline. FRA noted it will 
        continue to monitor and support the railroads as they implement 
        security measures in the Northeast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ 49 C.F.R. Sec. 236.1033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area
    Ten I-ETMS railroads that operate in the greater Chicago 
metropolitan area received extensions to implement PTC. Throughout PTC 
implementation, FRA, industry associations, and railroads have 
identified Chicago as a place where interoperability would be 
challenging due to the dense freight, passenger, and commuter 
operations in the area. Examples of such challenges include:

   Software issues. According to FRA and railroads we 
        interviewed, software issues have slowed interoperability work 
        by railroads implementing I-ETMS. The underlying problem is the 
        memory available on the locomotive equipment, which is needed 
        to store its railroad's track data, according to FRA and 
        railroads we interviewed. To be interoperable, the locomotive 
        equipment also needs to store and exchange multiple railroads' 
        track data, causing the memory to fill up very quickly. 
        According to railroad representatives, memory limitations for 
        I-ETMS locomotive equipment prohibited railroads with large 
        track data files--mainly the Class I freight railroads--from 
        being able to interoperate. The vendor for this equipment has 
        been working on a software solution for this problem, and 
        according to a few railroads we interviewed, the vendor 
        delivered an interim software solution in March 2019 that 
        allowed the four largest Class I railroads to achieve 
        interoperability. However, this software was delivered 7 months 
        later than initially planned, and an additional software 
        solution is still needed to allow the locomotive equipment's 
        memory to store the data of all railroads operating I-ETMS, 
        according to representatives from two railroads and an industry 
        association we interviewed.

   Other technical issues. Railroads in the Chicago area 
        conducted modeling to help ensure that sufficient 
        communications capacity (e.g., spectrum and radio capacity) 
        would be available to support PTC interoperability in the 
        region.\26\ According to one industry association, while actual 
        PTC operations in the area are minimal right now relative to 
        full expected operations, railroads must continue to monitor 
        the communications capacity as more railroads progress with 
        their own PTC implementation and start to interoperate. For 
        example, railroads may have to re-engineer their radio 
        networks, such as re-routing certain communications through 
        different radio towers and other network connections, if issues 
        are subsequently identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Radio frequency spectrum is the medium for wireless 
communications and supports a vast array of commercial and governmental 
services, such as mobile voice and data, broadcast television and 
radio, and satellite services, among other wireless services. We 
previously reported that railroads have faced challenges obtaining 
spectrum to operate PTC. In particular, railroads have raised concerns 
about the potential for railroads operating in close proximity to cause 
interference to each other's radios, mostly in congested metropolitan 
areas where multiple trains are operating with PTC. GAO-15-739.

   Scheduling interoperability work with other railroads. 
        Within the Chicago area, the total number of railroads and the 
        number of railroads that have to be interoperable on a single 
        line complicates interoperability. Chicago is the busiest rail 
        hub in North America and handles one-fourth of the Nation's 
        freight rail traffic. Nearly 500 freight trains and over 700 
        passenger trains travel through the area on tracks owned by 
        several different railroads every day. For example, one 
        commuter railroad, for one of its lines, operates over track 
        owned by four host railroads that alternates with its own 
        track. Achieving interoperability for this line will involve 
        sequencing and scheduling with multiple railroads to activate 
        PTC along the entire line, including across the numerous 
        boundaries between different railroads' territories, according 
        to representatives from that railroad. According to one FRA 
        specialist, work to achieve interoperability in the Chicago 
        area will ramp up in late 2019 or early 2020. As a result, many 
        railroads will have to coordinate schedules to sequence 
        interoperability work across the dozens of host-tenant 
        relationships in the area.
FRA Is Assisting Railroads with Testing and Interoperability while PTC 
        Workload Challenges Persist
    FRA officials told us that the agency continues to provide 
assistance to railroads on interoperability and to support railroads 
through the testing process. In summer 2019, FRA began an effort to 
meet with all freight, non-Class I tenant railroads that have to be 
interoperable with host railroads required to implement PTC.\27\ FRA 
officials said they will use meetings with these 72 individual tenant 
railroads to discuss PTC requirements and review the railroads' plans 
for implementing PTC with their host railroads. FRA officials said they 
have also continued to meet regularly with railroads still in field 
testing or starting RSD on their own PTC systems. For example, FRA 
officials said the agency meets weekly or monthly with each railroad 
that has not yet initiated RSD to provide targeted technical assistance 
to resolve any issues. FRA and representatives from one railroad also 
told us that FRA has met with vendors to discuss specific equipment or 
software issues and to stress the importance of resolving these issues. 
FRA also participates in meetings held by the railroad industry's PTC 
working groups, including those focused on the Northeast Corridor and 
Chicago area, as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ These tenants are largely Class II and III railroads that 
operate on tracks of the railroads currently required to implement PTC 
by law. According to FRA, some Class II or III tenant railroads that 
have four or fewer unequipped movements per day on PTC-required main 
lines could have until December 31, 2023, to implement PTC, but their 
host railroads are requiring their tenants to implement PTC by December 
31, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, FRA officials told us that they are working with 
industry to improve the safety plan review process. Specifically, 
according to a June FRA presentation, FRA is working with two railroads 
and an industry association to create templates for streamlined, more 
consistent safety plans for two types of PTC systems--I-ETMS and E-ATC. 
The goal of the template is to reduce the burden on both railroads and 
FRA by using a shorter format and, where possible, relying on 
standardized system documents. FRA officials anticipate that the 
templates will be ready for other railroads to use in fall 2019.\28\ In 
addition, FRA has contracted for help in reviewing safety plans.\29\ 
However, representatives from four railroads and two industry 
associations we interviewed noted that they remained concerned about 
the amount of time it has taken FRA to review safety plans. FRA 
reported in February 2019 that it took on average 331 days to review a 
safety plan.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ As noted above, there are no common specifications for the 
ACSES system, so a template or baseline for a safety plan for ACSES 
would not help speed up FRA's review, according to FRA. Instead, FRA 
officials said the FRA field specialist for ACSES will work 
individually with railroads to provide feedback on draft safety plans.
    \29\ In March 2018, we reported that FRA had 12 technical staff 
dedicated to the review of railroads' PTC documentation and monitoring 
of PTC testing. GAO-18-367T. As of February 2019, FRA reported it had 
32 staff, including contracted staff, to carry out these duties. The 
current contract for additional help to review safety plans has ended, 
and FRA officials said in July 2019 they plan to let a new contract to 
continue to procure additional support to help review safety plans.
    \30\ For example, FRA reported that, of safety plans reviewed 
through February 2019, one E-ATC safety plan took 78 days, the 2 ACSES 
safety plans took an average of 310 days, and the 10 I-ETMS safety 
plans took an average of 319 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While it is too early to determine the effect of FRA's efforts to 
improve the safety plan review process, much work remains for FRA in 
the next 18 months. According to FRA, 23 railroads will be submitting 
safety plans in the next 12 months. While FRA has conditionally 
certified 13 PTC systems as of March 31, 2019, these railroads, too, 
are required to continue to work with FRA to provide additional 
documents to respond to FRA's conditions. Some of these railroads also 
plan to resubmit safety plans for FRA to review, hoping to receive an 
unconditional certification before the December 2020 deadline.
    In March 2018, we reported that railroads had expressed a need for 
additional clarification about applying for an extension and that FRA 
could provide more consistent information to railroads. We recommended 
that FRA identify and adopt a method for systematically communicating 
extension-related information to railroads.\31\ In 2018, FRA held three 
symposiums for railroads to consistently communicate information to 
help railroads prepare to qualify for an extension and to understand 
what was required to have a fully implemented PTC system. FRA held two 
similar sessions in February and June 2019.\32\ Representatives from 
most of the railroads we interviewed (six of eight) said they have been 
happy with the communication with FRA, via these sessions as well as 
regular meetings with FRA's PTC field specialists and other staff. For 
example, representatives of two railroads said it was helpful to have 
the FRA Administrator attend the sessions with railroads and talk 
directly to railroad representatives. In addition, clarity of 
information from FRA was the lowest rated challenge in response to our 
questionnaire, with 29 railroads reporting this as a minor challenge or 
not at all a challenge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ GAO-18-367T.
    \32\ Based on these collaboration sessions, we closed this 
recommendation as implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While FRA has made improvements, the extended 2020 deadline for 
full PTC implementation is less than 18 months away, and FRA and 
railroads have substantial work to complete and challenges to address 
before that deadline. Moreover, unlike the 2018 deadline, no additional 
extensions are available beyond December 2020.\33\ In March 2018, we 
recommended that FRA develop an approach to use the information it 
gathers on railroads' PTC implementation progress to prioritize the 
allocation of resources to address the greatest risk.\34\ FRA agreed 
with this recommendation, and while FRA officials have described 
testing and interoperability as areas of focus in 2018 and 2019, they 
have not articulated or demonstrated how, within these broad areas, 
they are monitoring risk and prioritizing resources. For instance, FRA 
plans to meet with all 72 tenant railroads in over 30 meetings rather 
than use the data it collects from host railroads to target this 
outreach. In addition, while FRA will have to review dozens of new and 
resubmitted safety plans in the coming months, FRA officials have not 
identified how they will prioritize these reviews relative to other 
reviews (e.g., other documentation that railroads submit as they 
continue testing on their own systems and for interoperability).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ As noted above, FRA has the authority to assess civil 
penalties against a railroad that fails to implement PTC by its 
extended deadline, which for most railroads is December 31, 2020.
    \34\ GAO-18-367T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to FRA, it has communicated to railroads in industry-wide 
meetings that conditional certification for a PTC system is generally 
sufficient to meet the statutory requirement for full implementation; 
FRA noted this would only not be sufficient if a railroad's PTC system 
did not otherwise meet the technical requirements in regulations and 
one or more of the conditions related to such non-compliance. However, 
representatives from two railroads we interviewed also said it was 
unclear whether conditional certification would be enough for a 
railroad to comply with the 2020 deadline, and uncertainty remains 
about which conditions must be addressed to meet the statutory 
requirement for full implementation.
    Related to system certification, representatives from three 
railroads and one industry association we interviewed also said FRA 
still needed to clarify how it would handle situations where a host or 
tenant railroad is not fully implemented by the 2020 deadline. Although 
the FRA Administrator has publicly said he will enforce the 
implementation deadline (which is December 31, 2020, for most 
railroads) and recommend assessing the maximum civil penalty against a 
railroad that did not meet its deadline, FRA has not clarified if this 
would apply in situations where a host or tenant relationship affects 
another railroad's implementation. We continue to see value in FRA 
developing a risk-based approach to allocating its limited resources 
and will continue to monitor FRA's actions on this recommendation.
    Going forward, FRA will also need to transition to overseeing PTC 
as a routine part of railroad operations after the 2020 deadline. 
Similarly, railroads will need to transition from implementation--
largely done by contractors--to operating and maintaining their own PTC 
systems. Several railroads, in response to our questionnaire, said that 
they anticipate difficulties funding ongoing operations and maintenance 
as well as managing software and other updates. Therefore, December 31, 
2020, represents not only the deadline for full PTC implementation but 
also a point after which railroads and FRA will face a new operational 
and oversight environment.
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the 
Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to 
respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

    The Chairman. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Bourg.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BOURG, VICE PRESIDENT, STRATEGY AND GROWTH, 
                       WABTEC CORPORATION

    Mr. Bourg. Good afternoon, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member 
Cantwell, and all the members of this committee. Thank you for 
holding this important hearing on next steps for PTC 
implementation. My name is Robert Bourg, and I am Vice 
President of Strategy and Growth for Wabtec Corporation.
    It is a privilege to represent Wabtec and appear before you 
today along with two of our earliest PTC partners, BNSF and 
Metra. Going back to our origins in 1869 as the Westinghouse 
Air Brake Company, safety has been and remains a core mission 
for Wabtec. Supporting our freight and passenger customer 
railroad commitments to meet the December 31, 2020 deadline for 
PTC implementation is a foremost priority. At the outset, I 
thought it might be helpful to note that as currently approved 
by the FRA and deployed by the railroads, PTC functions as a 
safety overlay. That is, PTC is designed to enforce existing 
railroad signal indications and other operating rules. This 
means that PTC presently serves as a supplementary safety 
assurance measure supporting existing railroad safety practices 
and procedures.
    Wabtec's role in PTC builds on our interoperable electronic 
train management system, or I-ETMS, which is deployed on 
freight and passenger railroads operating outside the 
electrified Northeast Corridor. Wabtec is a hardware and 
software supplier for I-ETMS PTC onboard and back-office 
segments. Wabtec also serves as a PTC system integrator for a 
number of passenger railroads. To enable railroads implementing 
I-ETMS to meet the RSIA 2018 requirements, Wabtec manufactured 
and delivered more than 23,000 onboard I-ETMS systems. Wabtec 
also developed new customized software applications for the 
back-office that interface to, and in some cases replace, 
existing railroad back-office systems. Our focus on enabling 
our customers to meet the December 31, 2020 PTC deadline is 
twofold.
    First, Wabtec is committed to meeting our railroad customer 
requirements for PTC interoperability. Specifically, we have 
released software updates that enable increased track file 
size, and we are working toward another update this fall that 
will double the onboard capacity to handle train bulletins. 
These and other planned software upgrades, along with even 
closer stakeholder collaboration, are intended to enable our 
Class I customers to continue their plans for completing 
interoperability and enabling more efficient PTC operations.
    Second, we are committed to delivering for our passenger 
railroad customers, where Wabtec has a majority as a major 
system integration role. Building on our experience across the 
railroad system including our early work with Metrolink in 
Southern California, the first passenger railroad to complete 
interoperability testing and receive FRA PTC certification, we 
are supporting customer agencies to, one, complete PTC revenue 
service demonstrations, two, achieve FRA approval of PTC safety 
plans, and three, validate host and tenant PTC 
interoperability.
    In summary, Wabtec is dedicated to fulfilling its 
commitments to enable full I-ETMS interoperability across the 
rail system. We are teaming closely with our customers to 
continually improve PTC performance, and we are working 
directly with our passenger railroad customers where Wabtec has 
a lead system integration role. Looking to the future, PTC is 
an ongoing commitment for all stakeholders, and the work and 
investment will continue past 2020. New digital technologies 
will enable even greater safety and operational benefits.
    Wabtec looks forward to partnering with our customers and 
other rail industry stakeholders to advance this vision for the 
future. Thank you for this invitation to testify, and I would 
be pleased to answer any questions that you have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bourg follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Robert Bourg, Vice President, Strategy and 
                       Growth, Wabtec Corporation
    Good afternoon Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell and all the 
members of this Committee. Thank you for holding this important hearing 
on the implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC).
    My name is Robert Bourg, and I am Vice President of Strategy & 
Growth for Wabtec Corporation. Prior to my current role, I led Wabtec's 
Electronics Group, which developed and supplies the Wabtec PTC 
Interoperable Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS) now 
operating on our customer freight and passenger railroads across the 
United States. I have been with Wabtec Corporation and its predecessor 
companies for 26 years. Before that, I worked in the instrumentation 
and controls industry and served as a U.S. Naval officer in the nuclear 
propulsion program headquarters. It is a privilege to represent Wabtec 
and appear before you today along with two of our earliest PTC 
partners, BNSF Railway and Metra.
Wabtec Corporation
    As background, five months ago on February 25 of this year, Wabtec 
completed the acquisition of the GE Transportation business unit from 
General Electric Company. This merger establishes Wabtec as a new 
Fortune 500, global transportation and logistics leader by combining 
Wabtec's broad range of freight, transit and electronics products with 
GE Transportation's equipment, services and digital solutions in the 
locomotive, mining, marine, stationary power and drilling industries. 
The new Wabtec has more than 27,000 employees globally with revenues 
exceeding $8 billion.
    Wabtec traces its origins back to 1869 with the founding of the 
Westinghouse Air Brake Company by American innovator George 
Westinghouse to produce his revolutionary air brakes designed to 
enhance train safety. Safety has always been and remains at the core of 
our operations, including our early involvement in PTC, to the present 
and into the future. Wabtec today is still headquartered in the 
manufacturing plant Westinghouse built in Wilmerding, Pennsylvania in 
1889. This fall we will move just west to our new global headquarters 
in Pittsburgh.
PTC Implementation
    Supporting our customer freight and passenger railroad commitments 
to meet the December 31, 2020 deadline for PTC implementation is a 
foremost priority for Wabtec. We are teaming closely with our customers 
and supporting them with a singular goal of achieving mandated PTC 
implementation by the end of 2020.
    Before summarizing our program for the Committee, I thought it 
might be helpful to review from a rail technology supplier perspective 
what PTC is, and is not, intended to do. As you know, as mandated by 
the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA), PTC is designed to help 
prevent four rail incident scenarios:

   Train-to-train collisions

   Overspeed derailments

   Train incursions into established work-zone limits

   Movements of trains through switches in the wrong position

    As currently approved by the FRA and deployed by the railroads, PTC 
functions as a safety overlay. That is, PTC is designed to enforce 
existing railroad signal indications and other operating rules. PTC 
intervenes by stopping a train only when the specific signal 
indications or operating rules, such as not proceeding into the next 
block that may be occupied by another train, are not observed by train 
crews in a timely fashion.
    PTC serves as a supplementary safety assurance measure supporting 
the full range of existing railroad signal, maintenance, inspection, 
operating and other practices. PTC cannot prevent incidents such as 
highway-rail grade crossing or trespassing incursions, or address other 
risk scenarios, but PTC's overlay function does provide a valuable 
safety enhancement. In the future, Wabtec envisions the potential for 
vital PTC implementation that would enable PTC to serve as a direct 
means of railroad signal and train control.
PTC Operations
    Wabtec PTC I-ETMS as presently implemented to meet the RSIA has 
four main segments (FIGURE 1):

   Locomotive On-board--computer, display screens, GPS units 
        and radio/antennas

   Wayside--interfaces to existing equipment to provide data 
        about signals, switches and other detection needs, such as 
        broken track

   Communications--a mixture of RF base stations, Wi-Fi 
        connections and cellular networks

   Office Systems--software applications that manage 
        information from the railroad signal network, dispatch system 
        and other data systems to integrate items such as movement 
        authorities and restrictions and train makeup
        
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
        
    During the Initialization process before a train leaves a terminal 
or siding, all relevant information, such as the train's consist 
(connected cars), track data and speed restrictions, is downloaded from 
the ``back-office'' system to the locomotive's onboard computer. Once 
the train is en route, its exact location is determined by matching GPS 
positioning with the on-board track database. Meanwhile, the on-board 
computer is continuously calculating the distances for issuing any 
warnings or activating the braking system if needed. At the same time, 
I-ETMS communicates with wayside equipment to check current signal 
status, the presence of incorrectly aligned switches and the status of 
other monitoring equipment.
    Train crews operating Wabtec PTC I-ETMS-equipped locomotives 
receive constant real-time visual and audible communication letting 
them know when a train must be slowed or stopped. If a train crew does 
not respond to the PTC warning system, onboard computers will activate 
the brakes and stop the train.
Wabtec's Interoperable Electronic Train Management System
    Wabtec's I-ETMS builds on three decades of innovation and 
investment in positive train control. I-ETMS traces its roots back to 
pioneering work done in the late 1980s by Rockwell and Burlington 
Northern Railroad on a pilot called ARES (Advanced Railroad Electronics 
System). Wabtec acquired the railroad electronics division of Rockwell 
in 1998 and has since worked to refine the architecture and 
functionality of its PTC system.
    In 2007, the FRA approved Wabtec's PTC system for initial 
deployment on BNSF, making Wabtec's technology the first federally 
approved PTC system in the United States. I-ETMS has since been 
deployed on all Class I carriers, on Class II and Class III short-lines 
implementing PTC, and many of the passenger railroads on the general 
system, including Amtrak and commuter railroads, operating outside the 
electrified Northeast Corridor.
    Of the four core I-ETMS segments, Wabtec provides the On-board and 
Back-Office components and software. The appendix to this statement 
offers more background on the Wabtec I-ETMS on-board Train Management 
Computer (TMC) and Cab Display Unit (CDU). Wabtec also provides the 
critical Back-Office servers and systems which enable PTC to interface 
with a railroad's signal and train control functions.
    The Wabtec I-ETMS TMC and CDU are American-made, having been 
engineered and manufactured at Wabtec's facilities in Cedar Rapids, 
Iowa and Germantown, Maryland (just north of Washington, DC on I 270). 
Our I-ETMS software development team is based in Cedar Rapids, and we 
invite interested Members and staff of this Committee to please join us 
to see either site.
Wabtec Supports Customer Railroads Implementing PTC
    Although the basic principles of operation for I-ETMS were 
established before enactment of the RSIA in 2008, deploying I-ETMS on 
much of the non-electrified railroad network outside the Northeast 
Corridor has involved substantial railroad financial investment and 
commitment, and supplier dedication and focus.
    Wabtec is principally a PTC hardware and software provider to Class 
I, short line and passenger railroads. For certain passenger railroads, 
Wabtec also serves as the system integrator or principal support to a 
third-party system integrator contractor. For these customers, Wabtec 
also provided the training and on-site equipment installation and 
software support necessary to meet the initial 2018 deadline and/or 
qualification for alternative schedule.
    In support of our work with BNSF, Metra and other freight and 
passenger railroads implementing I-ETMS to meet the RSIA mandate, 
Wabtec manufactured and delivered more than 23,000 on-board I-ETMS 
systems. New customized software applications and interfaces needed to 
be developed as well. For example, most railroads have computer aided 
dispatch systems and other back-office configurations optimized for 
their unique operations and needs.
    Interfacing I-ETMS to these systems required close cooperation 
between Wabtec and the railroads to establish specifications, develop 
the software and certify it for production operation.
    A sustained and comprehensive partnership enabled freight and 
passenger railroads implementing I-ETMS to meet either the FRA's 
requirements for conditional certification or the statutory criteria 
for alternative schedule. By December 31, 2018 these railroads received 
FRA approval for their PTC Implementation Plan, installed all PTC 
equipment and trained all required personnel, performed required 
Functional Testing, and received FRA approval of their implementation 
schedule.
    Currently, 25 host railroads operate I-ETMS, with 93 total 
railroads using I-ETMS. More than 45,000 route-miles are in I-ETMS 
operations today out of 47,000 total route-miles planned.
    Supporting our customer commitments to meet the December 31, 2020 
deadline for PTC implementation is a foremost priority for Wabtec. We 
have mobilized significant additional resources to meet customer 
schedules, leveraged our experience with PTC implementation to date to 
apply lessons-learned and reemphasized our focus on quality program 
delivery. Our workplan priorities are to:

   Meet our railroad customer requirements for PTC 
        interoperability
    Wabtec has responded to our Class I freight railroad customer needs 
        by:

     Increasing track file size. Wabtec's recent software 
            update enables more than 50 percent additional flexibility 
            for larger subdivisions and total file storage.

     Increasing on-board train data storage in support of 
            interoperability. Wabtec has a planned software release in 
            2019 to double the on-board bulletin capacity.

    These and other planned software upgrades are intended to enable 
        our Class I, short line and passenger railroad customers to 
        continue their plans for completing interoperability--that is, 
        ensuring that PTC works when a locomotive from one railroad is 
        in the lead of a train entering another railroad's territory. 
        We are collaborating closely with our customers to facilitate 
        an ongoing technical and management dialogue to ensure that 
        these upgrades are successfully implemented and any critical 
        software issues for 2020 compliance are addressed, while also 
        meeting customer objectives for more efficient, and improved 
        PTC operations.

   Deliver for the passenger railroads where Wabtec is the PTC 
        system integrator or provides significant system integration 
        services
    To enable our passenger rail customers to meet the 2020 PTC 
        deadline, Wabtec has drawn upon the substantial lessons learned 
        from our earliest ventures in PTC, including pioneering work 
        with our partner, Metra, even before the RSIA mandate. More 
        recently, we successfully supported the achievements by 
        Metrolink in Southern California as the first commuter railroad 
        to fully complete interoperability across its network and 
        receive conditional FRA PTC certification.

    Building on our experience with these and other passenger railroads 
        around the country in meeting the 2018 PTC requirements, 
        Wabtec's 2020 focus for our system integration passenger 
        railroad customers is to:

     Progress customer initiatives to complete PTC Revenue 
            Service Demonstrations;

     Achieve FRA approval of PTC Safety Plans; and

     Validate Host and Tenant PTC interoperability.
Conclusion
    Wabtec fully appreciates the magnitude of the PTC implementation 
challenge ahead to enable I-ETMS railroads to meet the 2020 statutory 
deadline. Wabtec is dedicated to fulfilling its own commitments to 
enhance software reliability and performance.
    We are teaming closely with our customers to continually improve 
PTC system availability on train start-up and reduce unnecessary or 
undesired PTC enforcement actions. We are working directly with our 
passenger railroad customers where Wabtec has a prime system 
integration role to support their timetables and performance objectives 
for PTC implementation by December 31, 2020.
    PTC is an ongoing commitment, and the work will continue past 2020. 
System enhancements and other updates will require close, regular 
engagement with our customer railroads and with the FRA. Looking ahead 
to the future, Wabtec is investing in new safety and technology 
enhancements, drawing fully upon the deep digital background of our 
colleagues from GE Transportation in our newly combined organization, 
to enable even greater efficiency and operational improvements.
    We appreciate this and every opportunity for continued dialogue 
with all stakeholders including this Committee to continually enhance 
railroad safety and operational performance. Thank you for this 
invitation to testify and I would be pleased to answer any questions 
you may have.
                                APPENDIX
  Visual Supplement to July 31, 2019 Testimony of Robert Bourg, Vice 
           President of Strategy & Growth, Wabtec Corporation
            Wabtec PTC I-ETMS Locomotive On-Board Equipment
    The Wabtec I-ETMS TMC and CDU are American-made, having been 
developed and manufactured at Wabtec's facilities in Cedar Rapid, Iowa 
and Germantown, Maryland.
Train Management Computer (TMC)
   Accepts and validates data from peripheral devices on board 
        the locomotive, including the braking and navigation systems 
        and event recorder.

   Accepts and interprets controlling data from the Central 
        Office and Dispatch systems and Wayside equipment.

   Monitors a train's position and speed with dual GPS 
        receivers and activates braking as necessary to enforce speed 
        restrictions and unauthorized train movement.

   Designed for triple-redundancy of Central Processing Unit 
        (CPU) hardware. The I-ETMS software on three distinct CPUs 
        confirm synchronization by voting, and the system will allow 
        the train to operate only if at least two agree.
        
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
        
Cab Display Unit (CDU)
   Provides the graphical user interface to the Wabtec I-ETMS 
        Train Management Computer (TMC) for the crew.

   Through function keys, the train operator can view and 
        configure system data and acknowledge visual and audible alerts 
        and prompts from the TMC.
        
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
        
Wabtec ``Back-Office'' Systems and Software
   Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) systems provide a graphical 
        user interface of the rail network to dispatch operators and 
        allow them to control movement of trains including meet-pass 
        planning. The Back-Office Server is the interface between PTC, 
        CAD and other railroad data systems providing for example 
        movement authorities, work zone information and temporary speed 
        restrictions.
        
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
        

    The Chairman. Thank you, sir. Mr. Matthews.

STATEMENT OF CHRIS MATTHEWS, ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, NETWORK 
                 CONTROL SYSTEMS, BNSF RAILWAY

    Mr. Matthews. Good afternoon, Chairman Wicker, Ranking 
Member Cantwell, and members of the Committee. Thank you for 
inviting me today to provide an update on BNSF's implementation 
of Positive Train Control.
    PTC is an important component of BNSF's overall Risk 
Reduction Program that has resulted in meaningful progress 
toward our vision of zero accidents and injuries. Safety is the 
most important thing we do at the railroad. BNSF's ongoing risk 
reduction efforts combine a robust capital investment program, 
training that reinforces safe operating practices, and 
maintenance of a strong employee safety culture. It also 
increasingly involves development and deployment of new 
technology. BNSF has invested nearly $65 billion in private 
capital back into the railroad since 2000 and plans to invest 
more than $3.5 billion in 2019. The railroad's physical plant 
is in the best condition in its history.
    PTC is an important safety development and also one of the 
most significant, costly, and complex technologies that the 
rail industry has ever deployed. BNSF's capital investment in 
PTC will exceed $2 billion. As the rail industry deploys PTC 
and other important technological advancements, we are working 
closely with the FRA in support of moving toward a regulatory 
paradigm that will allow for leveraging our PTC investment and 
support future innovation. Today, BNSF is operating PTC on all 
88 federally mandated subdivisions, covering more than 11,500 
route miles and 80 percent of our freight volume.
    We have also equipped and are operating PTC on nine non-
mandated subdivisions, providing an additional 2,000 miles of 
PTC protection. We are running more than 1,000 trains daily in 
PTC revenue service and have run more than two-and-a-half 
million trips with PTC since December 2012. BNSF has trained 
more than 21,000 employees to operate and maintain PTC trains 
and equipment, which involves not just technology, but changes 
to the work processes of our operations teams and many other 
departments.
    The volume of PTC trains running on our network 
demonstrates that our people know how to operate and support 
the system. Moving forward, BNSF has three major focus areas to 
continue refining and driving continuous improvement with PTC, 
ensuring reliability, fully integrating PTC into our train 
operations, and achieving full interoperability. We are closely 
engaged with our vendors, and in particular Wabtec, the 
supplier of our onboard hardware and software, to refine key 
components of the system and ensure they have the necessary 
capacity, longevity, and reliability to support our operations.
    BNSF is also actively working on interoperability with our 
suppliers in each of the railroads, with which we need to be 
interoperable to identify their needs and provide technical and 
operational assistance along with services such as back-office 
hosting and crew training as needed. BNSF has now achieved 
interoperability with 10 of the 23 tenant railroads that will 
operate PTC on our network. That includes all passenger 
railroads, where they run on BNSF, as well as several short 
line railroads.
    Last month, we began running PTC trains with the Union 
Pacific, our largest interchange partner and the first Class I 
freight railroad with which we have achieved interoperability. 
BNSF will be able to fully test interoperability upon 
completion of ongoing efforts with the remaining Class I 
railroads. This is a time and labor-intensive process involving 
weeks, and in some cases months, of preparation and testing 
with each railroad. PTC interoperability relies heavily on the 
reliable flow of accurate information. The amount of data that 
will ultimately be transmitted between railroads and the 
various components that comprise the PTC system is significant.
    We are working closely with Wabtec to ensure that upcoming 
software releases will accommodate the amount of data required 
for full nationwide interoperability, and testing to prove that 
out will be ongoing. BNSF and the rail industry have made 
tremendous progress on PTC implementation, but there is still 
significant work to do in coming months. A highly reliable 
system is important not only for the safety benefits it 
delivers, but also essential to efficiently meeting the freight 
transportation needs of our customers.
    BNSF will continue to work with all stakeholders to meet 
the goal of implementing an interoperable PTC system as 
Congress envisioned. Thank you for the opportunity to be here 
today, and I would be happy to answer any questions you might 
have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Matthews follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Chris Matthews, Assistant Vice President, 
             Network Control Systems, BNSF Railway Company
    Good Morning Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell and members 
of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me today to provide an update 
on BNSF's implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC) technology. As 
Assistant Vice President of Network Control Systems, I have 
responsibility for the railroad's ongoing implementation of PTC along 
with other safety and operations technology initiatives. PTC is an 
important component of BNSF's overall risk reduction program that has 
resulted in meaningful progress toward our vision of zero accidents and 
injuries.
    BNSF is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. and 
one of North America's leading freight transportation companies. BNSF 
operates a rail network of 32,500 route miles, serving 28 states in the 
western two-thirds of the United States and three Canadian provinces. 
BNSF handled 10.7 million units of freight in 2018, an all-time volume 
record for our railroad. BNSF operates about 1,500 trains per day, 
including 245 passenger trains that run over our network.
BNSF Commitment to Safety
    Safety is the most important thing we do at the railroad. BNSF's 
ongoing risk reduction efforts combine a robust capital investment 
program, training that reinforces safe operating practices and 
maintenance of a strong safety culture among our employees. It also 
increasingly involves technology development and deployment to drive 
the next level of safety and efficiency improvements on the railroad.
    Our ongoing and significant capital investments play a key role in 
our ability to safely deliver the best transportation services for our 
customers. To maintain, optimize and position our network for 
opportunities, BNSF has invested nearly $65 billion in private capital 
back into the railroad since 2000 and plans to invest more than $3.5 
billion in 2019. The railroad's physical plant is in the best condition 
in its history.
    BNSF is committed to a culture that continuously examines the 
effectiveness of its safety processes and performance, and we've made 
steady improvements over time in reducing employee injuries and the 
number of mainline derailments. We've also made steady improvements in 
grade crossing safety. Since 2009, BNSF's employee injury frequency 
ratio has been reduced by 55 percent while the rail equipment incident 
rate has been reduced by 26 percent. BNSF's highway grade crossing 
incident rate has decreased by 21 percent over this same time period.
    BNSF has made significant safety progress in partnership with our 
employees and by continually investing in new technologies that help 
make the railroad safer and more efficient. Technology is playing a key 
role in how we ``design-in'' safety on our railroad to drive additional 
improvements throughout the system. PTC is an example of this, with 
deployment of the technology helping to address human factor risks 
associated with train operations. While PTC has received the most 
public attention in recent years when it comes to railroad safety, 
there are also many other important safety technologies being developed 
and deployed on the railroad.
    For example, BNSF has 4,000 trackside detectors across the network 
that monitor and analyze trains as they roll by, helping to proactively 
identify and address issues that may otherwise cause equipment to fail. 
These detectors, which utilize infrared, vision, force, acoustic and 
laser technologies, among others, provide us with more than 35 million 
readings a day about the health of our locomotives and the railcars 
moving along our network.
    Yet another example is deployment of an evolving fleet of advanced 
rail inspection vehicles, placing a premium on automated inspections 
that allow for near-continuous observation of the state of the railroad 
infrastructure. This reduces the risk of derailment while also allowing 
for better management and planning of preventative track maintenance.
    Because of these and other technological advancements and our 
commitment to continuous improvement, we are working closely with the 
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in support of moving towards a 
regulatory paradigm that incentivizes and empowers innovation. The 
regulatory treatment of PTC, for example, should ultimately be managed 
in a manner that will not impede--and actually encourage--the next 
generation of rail operational technologies that will be built upon the 
foundation of PTC and drive safety, expand network capacity and 
increase performance. This means in part that regulatory oversight 
should focus not on monitoring and inspecting every aspect of the 
equipment and technology but rather on the overall functionality and 
effectiveness of the system to deliver expected safety outcomes.
PTC Implementation
    PTC is an important safety development and also one of the most 
significant, costly and complex technologies that the rail industry has 
ever deployed. BNSF's capital investment in PTC will exceed $2 billion. 
It is an unprecedented ``system of systems'' that integrates advanced 
analytics, wireless communications networks, GPS, trackside and 
locomotive hardware and software and a back office computer system.
    PTC is technology that provides a safety overlay over the existing 
infrastructure and operating rules that ensure safe operations today. 
PTC determines the location, direction and speed of a train; ensures 
the train does not exceed the authorities granted to it by the 
dispatching system; warns the train crew of a potential problem; and 
takes corrective action by stopping the train if there is not a 
response from that crew.
    BNSF made the decision to develop and deploy PTC technology on 
certain portions of its network before Congress mandated it in the Rail 
Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA). BNSF developed a form of PTC--
the Electronic Train Management System (ETMS)--and in 2003 submitted 
the system to the FRA for approval. BNSF partnered with the FRA to 
initially pilot ETMS technology on our Beardstown subdivision in 
central Illinois and over time expanded testing to more complex 
operating environments on our network. ETMS is the platform upon which 
the industry's current PTC technology is based.
    Today, BNSF has PTC infrastructure installed on all 88 subdivisions 
required to be equipped under the Federal mandate, covering more than 
11,500 route miles and 80 percent of our freight volume. We have also 
equipped and are operating PTC on nine non-mandated subdivisions, 
providing an additional 2,000 miles of PTC protection. We are running 
more than one thousand trains daily with PTC in revenue service, and 
have run more than two and a half million trains with PTC since 
December 2012. BNSF has trained more than 21,000 employees to operate 
and maintain PTC trains and equipment, and the volume of PTC trains 
running on our network demonstrates that our people know how to manage 
and support the system.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Driving Continuous Improvement
    Moving forward, BNSF is working to address remaining technological 
and operational challenges with PTC to ensure high reliability of the 
system. Always with safety in mind, railroads still need to operate 
trains and serve customers as they work through these issues. There may 
also be occasions where the rail network is under stress--this year's 
unprecedented flooding is a good recent example--where flexibility is 
needed to recover operations and maintain the flow of commerce. With 
the underlying infrastructure and operating rules in place that ensure 
safe operations today, we continue to work cooperatively with the FRA 
to ensure railroads have the flexibility to avoid severe disruptions to 
their operations.
    BNSF closely tracks and analyzes key performance metrics to 
understand the root cause of any issues with the PTC system and has 
three major focus areas to drive continuous improvement with PTC: 
ensuring reliability, fully integrating PTC into our train operations 
and related work processes, and achieving full interoperability.
    We are working closely with our vendors to ensure the reliability 
of the system, which includes having sufficient capacity and redundancy 
in our communication systems, continuous monitoring and maintenance of 
wayside devices and making enhancements to our back office systems. 
Like other railroads implementing PTC, BNSF is closely engaged with 
Wabtec, the supplier of our onboard hardware and software, to refine 
key components of the system and ensure they have the necessary 
capacity, longevity and reliability to support our operations.
    To operate PTC, we have essentially built a ``digital railroad,'' 
which needs to be maintained right alongside the physical railroad. 
However, PTC implementation does not just involve technology; it 
requires changes to the work processes of our various operations team, 
including Transportation, Mechanical and Engineering, along with a host 
of other departments. Examples include additional equipment moves to 
build trains with PTC-equipped locomotives in the lead; maintaining 
technologically sophisticated locomotives that are becoming rolling 
data centers; and maintaining thousands of additional devices along the 
track. BNSF has been focused on integrating PTC into our operations for 
several years, and while we must continue to test and refine this 
highly complex system to support safe and, importantly, efficient and 
fluid train movement, running trains on our PTC network is becoming 
just a part of how we do business.
Interoperability
    The lynchpin of a fully functioning and interconnected PTC system 
across the country is interoperability. Interoperability for BNSF 
requires that all railroads operating across our PTC-equipped lines be 
capable of operating with our PTC system, and vice versa where BNSF 
trains operate over another rail carrier's PTC network. Railroads also 
exchange locomotives routinely, and the locomotives owned by other 
railroads need to be able to operate PTC in our trains. BNSF is 
actively working with each of the approximately 30 railroads--including 
other Class Is, short lines and passenger operations--with which we 
need to be interoperable to identify their needs and whether and how 
BNSF can help. This assistance ranges from technical, operational and 
regulatory advice to a variety of services such as back office hosting 
and crew training.
    Aware that BNSF's PTC reliability would in part be dependent upon 
the reliability of every other railroad with which we interoperate, we 
engaged early on with each of the passenger and freight tenant carriers 
that will operate PTC on BNSF track. We sought to establish certain 
protocols between BNSF and its tenants to ensure implementation of PTC 
technical solutions which meet the regulatory and operational 
requirements of interoperability; communicate expectations for 
participation in a PTC testing program to verify functionality and 
interoperability; and facilitate the exchange of technical information 
needed to effectively and efficiently implement PTC.
    BNSF has now achieved interoperability with--and PTC is currently 
active on--ten of the 23 tenant railroads that will operate PTC on our 
network. That includes all passenger railroads, including Amtrak, 
Metra, Metrolink, Northstar and Sound Transit where they run on BNSF. 
We are also interoperable with short line railroads Montana Rail Link, 
the Otter Tail Valley Railroad, Louisiana & Delta Railroad, and the 
Portland and Western Railroad. We have worked closely with these short 
lines to enable their PTC-equipped locomotives to function with BNSF's 
PTC back office while operating on our track. Last month we began what 
we call production interoperability (operating PTC trains in revenue 
service) with the Union Pacific, our largest interchange partner and 
the first Class I freight railroad with which we've achieved 
interoperability. While BNSF and UP are fierce competitors in the 
freight transportation marketplace, we cooperate on safety and our 
technical teams worked well together to achieve this important 
milestone. PTC is in fact a prime example of how the entire industry 
comes together to advance safety.
    BNSF will be able to fully test interoperability upon completion of 
bilateral testing with each of the remaining Class I railroads. This is 
an intensive process that involves federation of each railroads' back 
office servers, commissioning of locomotives, and lab and field testing 
followed finally by revenue service production interoperability. We 
conduct weeks, and in some cases months, of testing and preparation 
with each railroad.
    Once we are interoperable, we need to maintain the flow of accurate 
information between railroads to ensure smooth interchange of trains 
and prompt resolution of any technical problems. For example, with the 
Union Pacific alone we have over 200 locations where our tracks connect 
on PTC territory. For each of those we must make digital connections to 
match the physical connection, ensure communication systems can hand 
off trains without interruption of data flow, and be able to provide 
real-time information to another railroad's trains and crews.
    The amount of data that will ultimately be transmitted between 
railroads and the various components that comprise the PTC system is 
significant. While the industry's modeling shows we will have 
sufficient spectrum in the industry's most heavily trafficked areas 
(e.g., Chicago), that will be confirmed when all railroads are fully 
implemented there. Similarly, we are working closely with our supplier 
to ensure that upcoming software releases will accommodate the amount 
of data required for full nationwide interoperability, and testing to 
prove that out will be ongoing.
Conclusion
    The implementation of PTC--layered on top of an already safe rail 
network and in combination with current and emerging innovative risk 
mitigation efforts--is already advancing railroad safety for BNSF and 
its employees and will create a foundation upon which additional safety 
and efficiency technologies can one day be deployed. We have 
accomplished much but still have significant work to do in the coming 
months to ensure a highly reliable PTC system. This is important not 
only for the safety benefits it delivers but also essential to 
efficiently meeting the freight transportation needs of our customers. 
BNSF will continue to work collaboratively with all involved 
stakeholders to meet the goal of implementing an interoperable PTC 
system as Congress envisioned.

    The Chairman. Thank you, sir. Mr. Derwinski.

   STATEMENT OF JAMES DERWINSKI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 
                   EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, METRA

    Mr. Derwinski. Good afternoon Chairman Wicker, Ranking 
Member Cantwell, members of this esteemed committee, and 
especially Senator Tammy Duckworth from Illinois. My name is 
Jim Derwinski. I am the CEO and Executive Director of Metra in 
Chicago, as Senator Duckworth pointed out. I am also in APTA's 
Board of Directors. I am a member of APTA's Commuter Rail CEO 
subcommittee, and I am Chairman of the newly formed Commuter 
Rail Coalition, which was formed to bring a distinct voice of 
commuter rail to advocate its unique needs to legislators and 
regulators. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak with 
you about positive train control implementation and next steps 
for both Metra and this esteemed body.
    First, I would like to provide a little bit of background 
on commuter rail industry and our system. There are 31 active 
commuter rail systems in the United States that deliver over 
500 million passenger trips annually, and they provide the 
safest form of service transportation for commuters. In 
Metropolitan regions that we serve, we support economic 
development, tax base growth, reduce congestion, reduce 
emissions, and compared to traveling on the highway, we give 
back valuable time to our customers, time which they can be as 
productive as they want or they can catch up on rest, both 
activities not possible behind the wheel of an automobile.
    Commuter rail also offers customers the ability to access 
more affordable housing, as they still will be able to come 
downtown to work and be there safe and on time. Commuter 
railroads are in existence for two basic reasons. Freight 
railroads in the 1980s and beyond were unable to sustain 
operations without great losses. Cities and states identified 
the public necessity for commuter and began funding these 
subsidies. These commuter railroads are now known as legacy 
systems. Second are the newer systems, or new starts, which 
cities and states have identified the need for commuter in a 
region and have re-invested heavily in commuter for the 
benefits provided to those cities.
    Broadly, commuter railroads face major funding challenges. 
Our industry has been working diligently to install PTC, but 
the Federal safety mandate has put great strain on our limited 
dollars for state of good repair and capital project. Further, 
legacy commuter systems, like Metra, face unique capital 
challenges as we work to maintain and upgrade our aging 
infrastructure.
    Since its creation in 1984, Metra has grown to be the 
largest commuter railroad in the country based on track miles 
and the fourth largest based on ridership. Metra has 11 
separate lines with 242 stations. Our trains operate over our 
own infrastructure as well as infrastructure owned by our 
freight partners. We are both a host and a tenant railroad in 
Chicago. Metra's primary goal is to operate nearly 700 trains 
that run daily throughout our system with our partners, 
intermingled with approximately 700 additional freight and 
passenger trains.
    PTC implementation will further enhance the safety of our 
networks. Simultaneously, we will work to sustain our legacy 
system that includes some capital components dating back well 
into the 1800s. Approximately half of all trips made from 
suburban Chicago to downtown are on our network. Despite 
complexity in our network and our infrastructure challenges, we 
are pleased to report that, since our inception, we have been 
able to maintain a 93 percent on-time performance or better. It 
is with these realities in mind that I provide an update to the 
Committee on PTC implementation status, challenges we face, and 
potential next steps for both Congress and industry.
    In 2018, we met all the statutory requirements for the 
extension. Interoperability right now is one of our biggest 
challenges, not only for Metra, but also for the entire rail 
network in Chicago. PTC must work for any train on any track, 
even though different railroads have different PTC systems, 
different operating rules. In Chicago alone, there are 14 
railroads working together. While implementing PTC, we have run 
into some unforeseen challenges, including setbacks with 
hardware and software, and it forced us to modify our 
implementation schedule. And limited supplier network, 
including technical support, has further exacerbated these 
issues for Metra. Our suppliers, Wabtec, and we share these 
resources with majority of the railroads in the United States. 
Since the conversion of our dispatching system last year, we 
are on our 31st software upgrade in 1 year.
    Despite setbacks, Metra will meet the deadline of the 
alternative schedule implementation. We must have increased 
timely support from our supplier network. This will help us 
build back into our schedule the lost contingencies that we 
originally built into the schedule, lost because of these past 
setbacks. There also must be enough resources readily 
available, not just for Metra, but the entire industry.
    Positive Train Control will increase safety of our system 
for nearly 290,000 passengers that we give trips to every day 
and get them to work on time. However, PTC implementation, and 
its expected cost to maintain, have put additional stresses on 
our limited capital and state of good repair budget. PTC 
installation is expected to cost Metra over $400 million, 
originally estimated at $75 million. That is equivalent to two 
and a half years of our Federal formula funding. Original 
estimates were based on what was known at the time, and as you 
can see, we did not know enough. An estimate of $15 to $20 
million is what our operating costs will be each year, and each 
commuter railroad will have to bear its perpetual operating 
costs. While we are grateful to Congress for recognizing the 
burden of PTC, we ask Congress to increase the Federal formula 
funding to help support that.
    Additionally, we encourage Congress to create a commuter 
rail grant program that would provide some relief to railroads 
struggling to address most PTC operations and maintenance 
costs. Congress will have several opportunities coming up. I 
want to thank you for inviting us to testify.
    I look forward to answering any questions you may have. I 
also invite any members of this committee to come out, see, 
touch, and feel PTC in Chicago, the most complicated network in 
the U.S.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Derwinski follows:]

    Prepared Statement of James Derwinski, Chief Executive Officer/
              Executive Director, Metra Commuter Railroad
    Good afternoon, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and 
Members of this esteemed committee--especially our home state Senator 
Duckworth. My name is Jim Derwinski and I am CEO/Executive Director of 
Metra, Chicago's commuter rail agency. In addition, I am here 
representing the commuter rail industry as a member of the APTA Board 
of Directors and Commuter Rail CEO Committee, and as Chairman of the 
newly formed Commuter Rail Coalition. I am pleased to have this 
opportunity to speak to you today about Positive Train Control (PTC) 
implementation and next steps.
    But first, I would like to provide a little background on the 
commuter rail industry and on our system. There are approximately 30 
active or planned commuter rail systems in the United States that 
deliver over 490 million passenger trips annually and provides the 
safest form of surface transportation for commuters. In the 
metropolitan regions that we serve, our services support economic 
development, tax base growth, and many of us are now working directly 
with private employers to ensure new offices, factories, and facilities 
are accessible to our services. Commuter rail also allows for our 
customers to access more affordable housing opportunities, as they know 
they will still be able to get to work on-time and safely every day.
    Broadly, commuter railroads face major funding challenges. Our 
systems receive a combination of funding from federal, state, and local 
government sources, though not all receive Federal funds. Our industry 
has been working diligently to install and implement PTC, but the 
Federal safety mandate has put great strain on our limited dollars for 
state of good repair and capital projects. Further, legacy commuter 
railroads, like Metra, face unique capital challenges as we work to 
maintain and upgrade aging track infrastructure and rolling stock.
    Metra was created to run Chicago's commuter rail system by the 
Illinois General Assembly in 1983. Our creation followed a tumultuous 
period in which the private railroads that had been operating the 
service experienced major financial problems and bankruptcies.
    Over the years, Metra has grown to be the largest commuter railroad 
in the country based on track miles, and the fourth largest based on 
ridership. The Metra system has 11 separate lines with 242 stations and 
nearly 1,200 miles of track throughout the northeastern Illinois 
region. Metra owns and operates four of those lines, has trackage-
rights or lease agreements to operate Metra trains over freight 
railroads on three lines, and has purchase of service agreements with 
two freight railroads, which operate commuter service on four other 
Metra lines.
    Metra's primary business is to serve people traveling to downtown 
Chicago to work. Approximately half of all work trips made from 
suburban Chicago to downtown are on Metra. Our riders, whose trips 
average 22 miles in length, come from all parts of our region's 3,700 
square miles. Additionally, riders and employers are also now 
supporting reverse commute services and we are excited by the potential 
to expand our service into the suburbs during peak commute times.
    Metra is particularly proud that it has maintained an ontime 
performance of 93 percent or better in each year since 1984, the year 
after Metra was created. This has been achieved despite operating one 
of the oldest fleets in the country.
    Metra's primary goal is the safe operation of nearly 700 trains 
that run daily throughout our system, carrying nearly 290,000 
passengers. Our customers rely on us to get them to and from work, 
home, school, and medical offices every single day. PTC implementation 
will further enhance the safety of our network and furthers our 
commitment to safety. Our secondary goal is to sustain our legacy 
system that includes some capital components dating back to the late 
1800s. It is with these goals in mind that I provide an update to this 
committee on our PTC implementation status, challenges we have faced, 
and potential next steps for both Congress and the industry.
    On October 29, 2018, we submitted a Request for Alternate Schedule 
and Sequence to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) demonstrating 
that all 2018 PTC regulatory requirements were achieved, and we were 
granted an alternate schedule on January 2, 2019. In our 2019 Quarterly 
PTC Report to the FRA, we reported that we have fully installed and 
equipped all radio towers and acquired all spectrum needed to operate 
PTC, trained 85 percent of our employees on PTC, and have begun Revenue 
Service Demonstration on 20 percent of our network, while the remainder 
of our network is undergoing field testing.\1\ Our dedicated team is 
working hard to continue to equip our rolling stock with the required 
safety equipment and is completing required installation and safety 
work on our track segments. However, we have had to overcome several 
challenges as we have worked to implement PTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation--
Metra (NIRC) Q1 2019 PTC Progress Report. OMB Control No. 2130-0553. 
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FRA-2010-0042-0037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chicago is one of the Nation's largest rail hubs, as all seven 
Class I railroads, Amtrak, other commuter railroads, switching 
railroads, short line railroads and transit all converge in the city. 
Interoperability of PTC systems is a major challenge for not only 
Metra, but Chicago's entire rail network. PTC must work for any train 
on any track even though different railroads may have different PTC 
systems. While Metra owns some of its network, we rely on freight 
railroad hosts to meet the needs and demands of our customers. Further, 
we host ten railroads on our own infrastructure and are working 
diligently with both our tenants and hosts to ensure our systems are 
interoperable.
    While implementing PTC, unforeseen challenges, including glitches 
and software errors, have forced us to modify our implementation 
schedule while a limited supplier network has further exacerbated these 
issues. False clears are an example of one of the glitches the industry 
has encountered.\2\ A false clear is a miscommunication between a 
locomotive and a wayside signal. The wayside signal may tell a train to 
stop, but the onboard system will say that the track is clear and to 
proceed. As PTC is a brand-new safety system that is being tested and 
implemented in real time, unforeseen glitches requiring the issuance of 
software patch solutions have presented themselves. Once a patch is 
issued, our internal team must then test the patch and ensure the issue 
the patch is addressing has been resolved. As a result, we have 
reported to the FRA that PTC software on the entire Metra fleet will be 
executed ``just in time'' for PTC system testing or revenue service 
demonstration in order to mitigate the delay effects of software 
updates and patches. Further, without a competitive supply network, we 
lack the opportunity to change vendors based on their performance. The 
available vendors currently lack market incentive to develop software 
patches to meet the needs and demands of railroads working under an 
intense statutory implementation deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Association of American Railroads. Expert Q&A: Complexities and 
Challenges of PTC. Accessed July 26, 2019. https://www.aar.org/article/
complexities-challenges-ptc/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite the challenges of PTC interoperability and software, I am 
pleased to report that Metra will meet the December 31, 2020, PTC 
implementation deadline. Positive Train Control will increase safety on 
our system and for the nearly 290,000 daily passengers that rely on us 
to get them to and from work, safely. However, PTC implementation, and 
its expected costs to maintain, have increased the stress placed on our 
limited capital and state of good repair budgets. We believe Congress 
has an important role to play in developing shared ``next steps'' for 
PTC.
    Since 1985, Metra has invested more than $6 billion to rebuild, 
maintain and expand the Chicagoland's passenger rail network. Operating 
funding is provided through system-generated revenues--primarily 
fares--and subsidized in large part through a regional sales tax. 
Capital funding is provided through a variety of Federal programs and 
state and local funding sources and a small amount of fare revenue. 
Metra's total budget for 2018 is $994 million. That includes $797 
million for operations and $197 million for capital.
    Capital funding to maintain and improve our aging system remains a 
constant challenge. Metra's capital program is mostly funded by Federal 
formula funding (Sec. 5307 and 5337) totaling $173.6 million for Fiscal 
Year (FY) 2019. However, our needs far exceed the level of funding 
available. In fact, the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), our 
region's transit funding and oversight agency, estimates that Metra 
needs to invest $1.2 billion annually over the next decade to achieve 
and maintain a state of good repair.
    While we must reinvest in our network to continue to safely and 
efficiently move our customers, complete PTC installation is expected 
to cost Metra between $350 million to $400 million, equal to the amount 
of Federal formula funding Metra receives every 2\1/2\ years. Further, 
based on our own estimates and discussions with our freight railroad 
partners, PTC operation and maintenance costs are expected to be 
between 5-10 percent of the total installation cost per year. An 
additional $15-$20 million will be required annually to operate this 
complex safety system with no current Federal financial assistance 
available.
    I wanted to take this opportunity to thank Congress and the FRA for 
allowing commuter railroads, including Metra, to utilize the 
Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement (CRISI) grant 
program for PTC projects. However, this source of funding is not 
sustainable, and we strongly believe more needs to be done by Congress 
to financially help commuter agencies with the ongoing costs of PTC, 
especially those agencies that will meet their statutory PTC deadlines.
    There is no doubt that the Federal PTC mandate has added to the 
pressure on our capital and state of good repair needs and the expected 
PTC operations and maintenance costs will continue to add pressure for 
years to come. While the State of Illinois recently passed a much-
needed state capital bill, which will help address some of our needs, 
we believe the Federal government has a role to play in recognizing and 
supporting the unique challenges faced by commuter railroads resulting 
from the dual mandate of PTC implementation and safely maintaining 
aging capital-intensive infrastructure. Creating a new grant program 
specifically for commuter railroads would provide some relief to these 
public agencies struggling the most to address PTC operations and 
maintenance costs and associated capital costs.
    The Federal formula funding that Metra receives annually is the 
bedrock of our capital program. However, because our needs are great 
and state funding has been inconsistent, it has been nearly impossible 
to effectively budget and plan a capital renewal program. One area that 
Metra is struggling to meet demands is in its bridge infrastructure. 
Many of the bridges Metra operates over are aging and tend to be 
expensive pieces of infrastructure to maintain. Congress may help us 
remedy this situation by increasing Section 5307 Urban Area Formula 
Grants and Section 5337 State of Good Repair transit formula funding. 
Further, we believe Congress should also consider creating a dedicated 
funding stream for commuter railroads to ensure the numerous commuter 
rail systems across the country are no longer forced to rely on 
sporadic discretionary grants and can effectively plan for both safety 
and capital expenditures.
    Metra, like other railroads, is a highly regulated, capital-
intensive entity. It requires a substantial annual investment to 
maintain its own rights-of-way and track structure. Metra's capital 
assets are diverse and extensive: locomotives, passenger cars, track 
signal and communications equipment, yard and maintenance facilities, 
station buildings, platforms, parking lots and headquarters. Each day, 
the delivery of safe, reliable, efficient train service depends on 
these assets. Constant maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement, and 
significant funding, are required to keep Metra's facilities and 
equipment in working order.
    Congress will soon have several upcoming opportunities to address 
the unique needs of commuter railroads as its debates reauthorizing the 
Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Metra looks forward 
to working with Congress as its debates authorizing new surface 
transportation programs. Our current funding situation is unsustainable 
and threatens the future viability of the important service Metra, and 
commuter railroads across the country, provide.
    Metra thanks Congress for its continued support of public 
transportation and systems like ours and appreciates the opportunity to 
update this committee on our PTC implementation status, challenges, and 
future needs. Federal support has provided the majority of funding for 
our capital and safety needs over the last decade, and Metra will 
continue to depend on it while working with all our funding partners to 
secure additional assistance.
    Thank you for inviting me to testify and I look forward to 
answering any questions you may have.

    The Chairman. Can't wait. But Mr. Derwinski, you are going 
to make it on time?
    Mr. Derwinski. Currently, right now we are scheduled to 
make everything on time, sir. We do not need any more hiccups 
in the road. All we need is to have the software be delivered 
without any bugs, and we need those resources at hand on a 
daily basis.
    The Chairman. Mr. Batory, Mr. Derwinski said they are 
different PTC systems. How did that--how did we get to that 
place?
    Mr. Batory. Thank you, Senator Wicker, for that question. 
The Class I railroad community, the leadership that was in 
place when this became law, and before it became law, demanded 
among themselves standardization. And that is why you have a 
system that is called I-ETMS that is represented across the 
United States.
    The Chairman. Say that again.
    Mr. Batory. It is called I-ETMS, and it is a system that is 
across the United States among all the Class I railroads, and 
many of the short lines and regionals. They have to have it, 
and do the switch and terminal companies. It was with the 
commuter railroads that there was solicitation of the FRA to 
agree to alternate systems other than I-ETMS. I cannot speak 
from fact because I was not part of that decisionmaking 
process, but in knowing that hindsight is 20/20, I think it was 
a leadership error in the commuter agency arena, and I am 
available to make more comment later today in so far as the 
severity of it in certain parts of the country.
    The Chairman. But it was an error?
    Mr. Batory. In my personal opinion, I think we could they 
could have done better and brought about standardization.
    The Chairman. OK. Well, Mr. Derwinski says there are a 
number of things Congress will have an opportunity to do to 
address the unique needs of computer railroads, consider 
creating a dedicated funding stream. A number of items listed 
on page four of his testimony. Mr. Batory, and other members of 
the panel, would you like to respond to these suggestions?
    Mr. Batory. Well, as far as responding to money amounts, it 
would be not appropriate for me to, if you will, site money 
amounts per se----
    The Chairman. Well, tell us about what you would like for 
us to do?
    Mr. Batory. One thing that I will say about Metra, and it 
was mentioned in Senator Duckworth's remarks, and I have said 
this time and time again throughout my career, it is not about 
how much money you spend, it is how wisely you spend it. And 
Metra is a classic example of that on how wisely they spend 
their money. When I see the total spectrum of money being spent 
among the different railroads, you kind of shake your head and 
say, what is going on here? And a lot of it has to do with the 
attentiveness of the leadership in the corner office.
    And, you know, Metra is kind of a poster child in so far as 
being a commuter railroad that spends its money wisely. That is 
not to say that others don't, but I think they do an extremely 
good job.
    The Chairman. Anyone else want to respond to ways that 
Congress can help in the near term or long term? Mr. Bourg?
    Mr. Bourg. Mr. Chairman, I fully support Mr. Derwinski's 
position. I think there should be additional funding. My 
perspective is that some of the funding challenges have led us 
to this compression of the schedule at this point. But 
notwithstanding, there will be an investment for ongoing 
maintenance of this system. Once we achieve the 2020 deadline, 
there will be an ongoing need for operational funding to 
support the maintenance, and therefore I am fully behind Mr. 
Derwinski's position of additional Federal funding in that 
area.
    The Chairman. Director Fleming, are there going to be some 
disappointments after this next 18 months expires?
    Ms. Fleming. You know, I think we are at a crossroads. I am 
cautiously optimistic. We have heard from the panel there has 
been a lot of progress. I think folks are taking this very 
seriously, but that being said, we only have 4 railroads that 
have crossed the finish line, and we have 11 railroads that are 
still in the early stages. There are some pretty complex 
hurdles to get through, whether it is the limited number of 
vendors or, whether it is the software issues. The ACSES and I-
ETMS systems also have different issues, such as the locomotive 
memory capacity issues with I-ETMS.
    I think you also have the big hurdle of interoperability 
and having to work through that, particularly in certain parts 
of the country. So, we are at a crossroads. A lot of work has 
happened, but there continues to be software issues, 
reliability issues, and vendor issues, and FRA also has a lot 
on its plate. Some of the PTC safety plans are thousands of 
pages. FRA is trying to create a template to try to have some 
standardization for the safety plans it has to review, but a 
template is not going to work with every PTC system. So, how is 
that going to all play out? This is why we are at a critical 
juncture. Six months from now, I think we will be able to take 
a closer pulse to where railroads are.
    The Chairman. Sounds like we may have some disappointments 
at the end of 2020.
    Ms. Fleming. I hope not.
    Mr. Batory. We are doing everything to keep that from 
happening.
    The Chairman. Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Batory, you 
know I sent a letter after the NTSB findings and lessons 
learned from the Amtrak 501 derailment in the State of 
Washington, and the FRA response to my letter states that, 
``FRA's investigation of the Amtrak 501 accident found that 
training for assigned crewmembers does not comply with Federal 
regulation and was a contributing factor in the cause of the 
accident, and FRA's enforcement action is ongoing.''
    So I don't want to talk about the ongoing investigation, 
but can you explain how a deficient crewmember training 
standard was able to comply with FRA's existing regulations, 
and what are you doing to improve those regulations?
    Mr. Batory. As far as what transpired that morning and when 
I learned of it, just from my career experience, I shook my 
head in dismay. To think that you would have an inaugural train 
with an engineer, regardless of what level of training he had 
at proficiency, and not have a road form of engines on that 
train, it is just unprecedented. We do not do that in the 
railroad industry. So there was a failure in management that 
allowed that to happen. On top of that, there was a conductor 
that was trying to get qualified on the territory.
    So now, if you have somebody that is not familiar with the 
territory, an engineer that supposedly qualified on the 
territory, communicating back and forth in the cab at the early 
hours of the morning. And when I saw the video, in-cab video, 
and also the audio, I just shook my head in dismay and said, 
that should never have happened. It was like the perfect storm. 
It is not representative of this railroad industry, but 
unfortunately, there was that incident.
    Senator Cantwell. Well, so what--I mean your job, 
obviously, is the oversight of that culture. So how did this 
happen and what do we need to do to address it?
    Mr. Batory. Amtrak was not enforcing its engineer 
certification program and line characteristics, in that 
particular instance, properly. And we do spot checks and audits 
on engineer certification programs to make sure the carriers 
are complying, but as I said, what transpired there that 
morning was something that should never have happened.
    Senator Cantwell. So what should we do to update our rules 
if you are saying, and we did spot inspections--what should we 
do to make sure that Amtrak creates that culture?
    Mr. Batory. The rules were there, but, you know, you can 
write rules, and rules, and rules, but it takes people to 
enforce them. And the people that were responsible for 
enforcing them either were not cognizant of what they were 
supposed to enforce, or if they were cognizant, they were 
lacking in fulfilling their duties.
    Senator Cantwell. Do you mean people within Amtrak?
    Mr. Batory. Yes.
    Senator Cantwell. And so what should FRA do about that? If 
you think--because obviously we are going to keep going through 
this, and now we just had this discussion about what may or may 
not get done by 2020, what do we need to do to make sure that 
the culture addresses this issue?
    Mr. Batory. Well with that there is a lesson learned, and 
Richard Anderson and his organization was new. They realized 
that they had an issue, and they have done a lot as far as 
improving the organization structure and operating department, 
and the culture that is there, in so far as adding additional 
road form of engines, getting the rise in with the engineers as 
they are supposed to, doing more training, both in the field as 
well as in simulators. Richard has done an extremely good job 
in addressing that.
    Senator Cantwell. So you are confident that adequate safety 
is in place at Amtrak?
    Mr. Batory. I feel very comfortable with everything that 
they have done as a result of that lesson learned.
    Senator Cantwell. And so you think there is adequate safety 
there now?
    Mr. Batory. Safety never sleeps and never ends. You have 
got to keep on top of it constantly. And it does not matter who 
is at the helm, OK, you have got to stay on top of it. People 
do not come to work to have an accident. That engineer didn't 
want that to happen. If you listen to what he said on that 
audio, OK, it is scary, he should have never left.
    Senator Cantwell. So, I am very interested--look, I get 
cultures are hard to legislate. You have to create these safety 
standards and you do have to make sure they are implemented. So 
from FRA's perspective I just want to know whether you think 
that everything FRA has done today, you have done everything 
you can to make sure that that is implemented?
    Mr. Batory. Yes, I think the railroads, first, are the 
responsible parties. And the men and women who lead and 
maintain, and operate those railroads, it is FRA's 
responsibility to do a double-check and make sure everything is 
being fulfilled.
    As I often share with people, and I think this is a good 
news story, even though it is one too many. As far as head-on 
collisions, which were the most pronounced type of collision 
that the railroad industry had, I may have shared earlier there 
was a total of 68 head-on collisions in 1978. In the industry 
today, and one is one too many, but last year we only had one 
and that was in KC, North Carolina between CSX and Amtrak.
    Senator Cantwell. So we are definitely going to be keeping 
the record open if there is anything else that FRA wants to 
suggest during this time period. We will certainly continue to 
look at implementation of recommendations from the NTSB on this 
accident.
    Mr. Batory. And if I can, I would certainly afford myself 
to your staff to give more information. I have more I can 
share.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Batory. Senator 
Gardner.

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

    Senator Gardner. Thank you. I believe it is Senator 
Duckworth next. Senator Duckworth. Senator Duckworth go ahead.
    Senator Duckworth. I will take it.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Duckworth. If it is a jump ball, I am going for it. 
Thank you. Well, first, I want to applaud the diligent efforts 
of passenger commuter and freight rail operators who have 
prioritized PTC installation testing and interoperability. 
Administrator Batory, as we have discussed on several 
occasions, railroads that are still working to implement PTC 
have so far sufficiently demonstrated continued progress toward 
the December 2020 deadline. You will continue to keep us 
apprised of any changes in that progress, is that correct?
    Mr. Batory. Yes.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Mr. Derwinski, as your 
testimony suggests, Metra made the tough choice to make early 
investments in PTC, and I saw that when I came out to visit the 
yard, but even after PTC is fully implemented, Metra still 
faces an estimated $15 to $20 million in additional annual 
operating costs. Can you scratch a bit below the surface on 
some of the ideas you highlighted in your testimony to provide 
operators some relief from the tremendous PTC investments that 
you have incurred?
    Mr. Derwinski. Yes, I think, you know, with support from 
the Congress from the CRISI program, just an expansion of the 
CRISI program into the grants that are available there. But 
discretionary grants are kind of hard, so we have been actually 
asking Congress to consider a commuter rail funding source in 
the future as they look at the FAST Act Reauthorization. And 
any time we can get increased Federal formula funding, 49 
U.S.C. 5307 to 5337, this certainly will help.
    Planning has always been one of our biggest things when we 
have ebbs and flows within funding. Anything we can do to get 
sustainable, continuous funding, we can actually probably take 
PTC and look at the next wave of safety initiatives that the 
rail industry can undertake.
    Senator Duckworth. Would you want that funding to be more 
of a multi-year type of funding then? Is that what you are 
asking for? Instead of a single year, 5 years, and that sort of 
timeframe?
    Mr. Batory. The longer the funding period, the better for 
the industry. That helps us with planning.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I am troubled to hear about 
software glitches and performance issues in the supply chain. 
Mr. Derwinski, could you paint a picture for us about how 
unforeseen software challenges can impact the PTC timeline for 
real operators? Every time there is a glitch, what exactly 
happens to you, to Metra?
    Mr. Derwinski. Well, what ends up happening is we beta test 
everything in labs, and in the labs, certain things are able to 
be, you know, smoked out I would say. Once we get it out on the 
railroad and we actually start interoperating with the other 
trains even on that track, not even on other railroads, we 
start finding sometimes operational glitches, things that just 
were not, you know, found earlier.
    So we have to work with the vendors. We are held handcuffed 
to the people that actually can write the software. They then 
work on writing software updates, and those software updates 
that have to be brought back to us, tested, and then redeployed 
out in the field. And in a network like Chicago, where we are 
having 1,400 trains that eventually will work within that tight 
little area, we are continually always finding new challenges 
that just did not exist in other areas of deployment in the 
country.
    Senator Duckworth. So then how do those glitches get shared 
with other rail networks out there, other systems, are you in 
contact with others or does that go to the software people? How 
does that happen?
    Mr. Derwinski. Yes, the ITC committee actually has the 
ability to have only the latest revision of software available 
to everybody. So as they come out with the latest revision, it 
is not just fixing problems maybe on our network, it might be 
fixing problems in Los Angeles, Seattle, or New York as well, 
depending on where the operators are at. So it is all 
controlled by that ITC committee. So there is really only one 
of the eventual version of software that is out there.
    Senator Duckworth. But if you are finding a glitch, or you 
find a glitch that is problematic, and the software does not 
actually fix it, it keeps on going, do you then, the way you 
function, do you ever reach out to Los Angeles or somewhere 
else and say, hey, are you guys seeing this or we are seeing 
this problem? What are you doing, that sort of thing, so that 
you are not out there trying to troubleshoot on your own with 
just the software company?
    Mr. Derwinski. Yes, absolutely. We have a great network of 
people that have been set up through APTA and also through AAR. 
We are constantly in communication with our peers. We also in 
Chicago, because of the complexity of Chicago and the Chicago 
Deployment Group, which meets every 2 weeks, and we have 
constant conversations. And Wabtec themselves actually holds 
meetings with us so we can always be chattering about what is 
the latest and greatest thing that is happening and what 
lessons have been learned elsewhere.
    Senator Duckworth. Great. And so, Mr. Bourg, I would like 
to hear from Wabtec. I have heard from a number of operators, 
both freight and commuter, who have concerns about the software 
updates. Can you describe the challenges that Wabtec is facing 
with software updates and how this might affect that PTC 
testing and interoperability?
    Mr. Bourg. Yes, Senator. So the magnitude of the issue in 
Chicago is significantly greater than elsewhere. We have had 
challenges in Chicago. I believe that we have turned a corner. 
Several of the subdivisions within Metra are now in revenue 
service demonstration and are performing well.
    We have had our share of challenges but based on the 
progress that we have made in the interoperability testing done 
elsewhere in the country, I have confidence that we have 
overcome the most significant problems. Certainly a lesson 
learned is there cannot be enough testing, and it also requires 
a lot of collaboration with the ITC committees that Mr. 
Derwinski mentioned, as well as our other railroad customers to 
make sure that we stay in front of the problems before they 
cause an operational impact.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I am over time. I yield back.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

    Senator Thune. OK. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. Let me 
just say that during my time as Chairman of this Committee, I 
held numerous oversight hearings on the implementation of 
Positive Train Control, and I appreciate the Chairman and the 
Ranking Member's continued oversight of this very important 
issue. Under Administrator Batory's leadership, railroads have 
made significant progress toward full implementation of PTC, 
and continued oversight from FRA will be critical to ensuring 
that railroads can overcome various challenges, particularly 
those associated with achieving interoperability as we approach 
the December 2020 deadline.
    Mr. Batory, aside from the 42 railroads subject to the 
mandate, I am interested to hear more about the progress of the 
dozens of short line railroads implementing PTC as tenants due 
to contracts with host railroads. Short lines provide a 
critical service in South Dakota, connecting facilities like 
grain elevators and ethanol plants to Class I main lines.
    And so I am wondering if you could provide an update on the 
status of PTC implementation among short line railroads, and 
could you speak to some of the major challenges they face in 
reaching full interoperability with host railroads?
    Mr. Batory. Thank you, Senator, for those kind remarks. As 
far as the short line regional community, when we finally were 
able to get a list put together from the Short Line Association 
and the AAR, we consolidated and basically got rid of the 
redundancy. We came up initially with 76 railroads of which 41 
were independent, the balance were associated with 
conglomerates. We have met with 61 of those railroads so far, 
face-to-face or on conference calls, and today I have not yet 
learned of any short line or regional railroad that has 
basically thrown its hands up and said, we cannot get this done 
by the deadline of next year.
    The two things, though, as far as challenges that they are 
faced with is primarily financial. One is the cost of equipping 
their locomotives when you realize that the cost is probably 
$100,000 plus per locomotive and some of the locomotives they 
are operating they purchased for the same amount of money at 
one time. So that is a hard pill to swallow. The second one 
that is emerging though is the amount of insurance that they 
are having to take on now as resolved the underwriters 
reviewing their operation and their requirement to have PTC.
    So, a railroad that maybe handles 10, 15 cars a day, and it 
has to make an investment of $100,000. They have the locomotive 
pull the 10 to 15 cars a day, and then finds out that its 
insurance is going on up, its insurance premiums are going up 
as well. It is hard and something that needs to be addressed, 
OK. And if FRA is actually not in a position to address it, it 
is going to have to be through the Short Line Association and 
its membership.
    And I think the rail industry network as a whole needs to 
recognize this because we are an integrated industry and we 
interchange traffic every day among all of the railroads 
regardless of size.
    Senator Thune. Right. So just as a follow up to that, Mr. 
Matthews, BNSF has been a leader in implementation of PTC, 
could you speak briefly about what you are doing to ensure that 
short line tenants operating on your track will achieve full 
interoperability?
    Mr. Matthews. Thank you, Senator. We take a very targeted 
approach to helping each of our short line tenants that we work 
with. So of the several hundred short lines that operate on our 
system, we have worked with them to understand every move on 
PTC territory and whether or not we can protect that within 
alternate means other than PTC, such as restricted speed, close 
to yard limits, or changing interchange points.
    We have taken that large list and taken down to 16 short 
lines that are going to have to equip PTC on our system. Right 
now five of those are interoperable, and we work closely to 
help them with training and some cases back-office hosting, in 
some cases helping with equipping locomotives or leasing 
locomotives through us. So it is a case-by-case basis on the 
support we provide each of the short lines.
    Senator Thune. And Mr. Bourg, can you speak to what some of 
the challenges are that you face with achieving 
interoperability from an equipment perspective, particularly in 
areas with high traffic volumes and numerous interchanges, and 
perhaps respond to some of the things Mr. Batory said regarding 
those resource issues and how you all are going to deal with 
that?
    Mr. Bourg. Thank you, Senator. Yes. So with regard to 
interoperability, we did have a recent challenge with regard to 
capacity in the onboard system in file size, and Wabtec 
received one of the letters that Administrator Batory talked 
about, about highlighting the importance of solving that issue. 
We worked with our industry partners, with BNSF and others, and 
we have implemented software changes that address that.
    We implemented a partial change initially that provided 
some relief, and we do have a software release scheduled for 
September that will fully address it. And our railroad partners 
have agreed that that will address it. With respect to 
resources, it has been challenged in the industry. There is a 
lot of specialized operational knowledge and software knowledge 
that goes into supporting this system.
    I personally believe that we are over the hump with respect 
to this, but the ongoing maintenance of the system will be a 
challenge. And retaining those people and ensuring that we keep 
the pipeline with qualified resources that understand the 
application and have the technical skills to maintain the 
application, are very important, and we are highly focused on 
that.
    Senator Thune. My time has expired. Thank you. Senator 
Blumenthal.

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

    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Senator. Thank you all for 
being here today. As you may know, PTC has been an abiding 
issue for me, a challenge, that I think our Nation must 
fulfill. We are celebrating 50 years since the day we put a man 
on the Moon. If we cannot implement PTC, it is due to a lack of 
will, not technological knowledge, and certainly not resources 
because the Nation has the resources. And I hope none of you 
disagree with those two basic propositions. The record will 
note no one is disagreeing.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Batory, I would like to ask you 
about a recent report, April, 18, 2019 in the Connecticut Post 
about hundreds of defective antenna assemblies for Metro-
North's Positive Train Control Safety System, which were 
recalled, ``threatening further delays in an already delayed 
project.'' It refers to 1,200 scanner assemblies that allow 
trains, as it says, to communicate with a central system, 
recalled over defective parts. The system evidently was made by 
Siemens. Are you familiar with this issue?
    Mr. Batory. Yes, sir, I am.
    Senator Blumenthal. Do you know whether that delay will 
threaten Metro-North's compliance with the 2020 deadline?
    Mr. Batory. I certainly, at this juncture, think that there 
is an opportunity to recover that lost time as a result of that 
quality control issue, but I am not here to make a statement of 
fact that is, we are going to make the finish line, because of 
all the territories in the United States, the one that has most 
of my attention is the eight railroads that represent the 
Northeast Corridor.
    Senator Blumenthal. And I am going to ask you generally 
about that Corridor, but focusing for the moment on this issue, 
do you think Siemens ought to be debarred?
    Mr. Batory. That is an excellent question. I will leave 
that up to the respective commuter agencies. I know what the 
State of New York has done under Chairman Foye. He apprised me 
of that personally. It is certainly an alternative that others 
can look at, but at this juncture, my full concentration is 
looking at what we can do today to make the system implemented 
by the deadline.
    Senator Blumenthal. I am not going to ask you for 
definitive answers as you sit here now, but would you get back 
to me at some point, in the next week or so, with an estimate 
on whether or not Metro-North is going to make that December 
2020 deadline, sent to me?
    Mr. Batory. Most definitely. We'll be with the leadership 
on Monday of next week, and when I return from New York, I will 
reach out to your office.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Let me ask you about the 
Northeast Corridor. What is your level of confidence that those 
systems will meet the December 2020 deadline?
    Mr. Batory. In respect to the time that we have here----
    Senator Blumenthal. And you can get back to me on the 
record if that would be easier.
    Mr. Batory. I will but basically here is what we have. We 
have eight railroads on the Northeast Corridor that operate a 
network. If any one railroad doesn't operate properly out there 
and has a functional system, it has a domino effect in so far 
as the service impact. If they do not have an operational 
system, the host railroad is not going to allow the tenant to 
be out there, because then they will be both subject to 
violations and fines, plus the risk.
    And that is why on July 12 we brought that leadership 
together. We decided we would meet not less than once a month. 
Most of it is going to be in New York, face-to-face, and it is 
strictly the leadership. It is not the technical people. They 
meet all the time and talk, but those technical people need 
support and leadership, and that is why I decided to amalgamate 
this group and see what we can accomplish over the next 17 
months. The risk is too great, too many trains, too many 
people.
    Senator Blumenthal. The risk is literally that the entire 
Northeast Corridor could be crippled transportation wise.
    Mr. Batory. It has the potential, especially in the New 
York metropolitan area and in your territory going up toward 
Connecticut, it has a domino effect. And you want, you know, 
seamless interoperability, and you want everybody equipped out 
there.
    Senator Blumenthal. Given that threat, I would appreciate 
your coming back to me after the leadership meeting as soon as 
possible to give me an update, and obviously not just me but 
the entire committee, because I think the Northeast Corridor is 
not just about any single state, or even about that region, it 
is about the whole country and the economic effect, 
catastrophic and disastrous economic effect that the failure to 
meet that deadline could have on our Nation as a whole.
    Mr. Batory. You have my word. I will be in your office.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. And part of the issue with 
disciplining the vendors, as Ms. Fleming points out, is the 
limited number of them and the fact that the barring or 
disqualifying one sounds easier than it is in terms of the 
effect on, you know, meeting those deadlines. Am I correct, Ms. 
Fleming?
    Ms. Fleming. Yes, I mean everyone needs the vendors, you 
know, for everything from equipment, to helping with software 
glitches, to helping with interoperability securing, and 
securing wireless PTC communications. As you know, there is a 
limited pool of vendors, and at this point, you know, these 
types of slippage will affect the railroads' ability to move to 
that next critical stage of implementation and meet the 2020 
deadline. But at the same time, the vendors have the expertise, 
and it is really, I think, critical that everyone do their part 
in order for us to finish PTC implementation and to make that 
2020 deadline.
    Senator Blumenthal. I do not know what the answer is, but 
whether it is in the Midwest or the Northeast, there needs to 
be a very aggressive and proactive intervention by Federal 
authorities to make sure the deadline is met, which is required 
by law, but also that the potential market power or 
monopolistic power of these companies doesn't put your 
railroads at their unfair mercy, and ultimately consumers in 
the entire country.
    Ms. Fleming. And you know, you raise some important issues 
about the Northeast Corridor. I mean, the key challenge there 
include that software for PTC systems in the Northeast are 
supplied by multiple vendors, and the railroads still have to 
work through and secure the wireless PTC communications. You 
have 20 boundaries that you still have to work through. It is 
very complex and these are pretty significant challenges. So 
the Northeast Corridor is an area that we have highlighted as 
well in addition to the Chicago area. It is two of the 
trickiest parts of the country for different reasons.
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, I appreciate your being here, and 
thank you also to Senator Thune for his leadership on this 
issue over many years. We have had a lot of conversations, and 
he has provided a lot of good leadership, and I really 
appreciate it.
    Senator Thune. Thank you. Senator Baldwin----
    Mr. Batory. Senator, if I could share one remark?
    Senator Thune. Permissible. Yes.
    Mr. Batory. In regards to Northeast Corridor, and I 
answered this yesterday, just to put it in perspective, if you 
look at the equipment configurations, they are required to 
support two different types of PTC systems on the Northeast 
Corridor. There are 40 different options among 8 different 
railroads involving 7 different vendors. That is the demand 
that is being put on the supply industry. And keep in mind, 
some of these commuter railroads did not initiate their 
engagement until round 2015, and the law was passed in 2008.
    So I am not defending the supply industry, but there is a 
little bit of blame on both sides of the equation here. But it 
is behind us. We have got figure out how to get this thing 
fixed sooner than later because we are behind the eight ball 
right now insofar as 37 percent in the commuter industry as a 
whole. Now, when you go to Chicago, it is I-ETMS. It is 
basically one system, and that is not to say it is going to be 
easy, but I often tell the people in Chicago after serving four 
different corporate flags over a third of my career, that can 
be Chicago's worse blizzard or snowstorm if they don't get PTC 
right.
    Senator Blumenthal. I want to avoid any unfairness, and I 
apologize Senator Thune for going over in time, but the Apollo 
project involved 400,000 people across the United States in 
thousands of different companies making the spacesuit, and the 
rocket, and the craft that carried the astronauts, and somehow 
they put it all together.
    So America can do it. Other countries have done it. And I 
understand the complexity and the challenges, but you know, I 
have been a longtime advocate of avoiding any further delay and 
at this point I am very doubtful about any excuses for the 
delay. Easy for me to say here on the dais, but I hope that you 
all will do your best. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Thune.
    Senator Thune. The Chairman is back, and I just had one 
quick question. He has indulged me. Allowed me to ask it, but 
you talked a lot about this vendor supply constraint on 
implementation schedules, and I would direct this to you, Ms. 
Fleming because in your testimony you discussed that effect 
specifically, but have issues with supply constraints in your 
view improved since the end of 2018 or have they gotten worse?
    Ms. Fleming. I think things are about the same. You know, I 
think the difference is that everybody is really trying to work 
through this. It has gotten everyone's attention, including our 
attention, but there is a limited pool, and everybody is 
working toward that same deadline. So far, you have only four 
railroads that have crossed the finish line, and everyone is 
looking for their plans and their implementation schedule to be 
adhered to.
    But at the same time, when the railroads encounter a 
software glitch or I-ETMS faces problems with the locomotive 
memory capacity, these are things that have to be worked 
through because the railroads have to get it right. So we are 
at a critical juncture. I do not know if things are better or 
worse. I think, unfortunately, we really need the vendors, and 
we need them on their A-game to cross that finish line and get 
it right.
    Senator Thune. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Well, thank you all. We have now embarked on 
a series of roll call votes on the floor of the Senate, which 
were unexpected. I want to thank all the witnesses for 
indulging us and for being with us today on a very important 
topic. We remain hopeful but watchful, and we look forward to 
your suggestions.
    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 
by no later than Wednesday, August 28, 2019.
    Thank you very much, and with that, we conclude the hearing 
with the thanks of the members.
    [Whereupon, at 3:17 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

  Prepared Statement of Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive 
               Officer, Association of American Railroads
    On behalf of the members of the Association of American Railroads 
(AAR), thank you for the opportunity to provide this update to the 
Committee.
    As I mentioned at the Amtrak hearing last month, the railroads have 
made tremendous progress on positive train control (PTC) implementation 
and we continue to make progress. 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 91 
percent of required PTC route-miles in operation as of July 1, 2019.
    Railroads, in coordination with Amtrak, commuter railroads, and 
other tenant railroads, are continuing to methodically test and 
validate their PTC systems to ensure they are interoperable and work 
correctly. This process includes a number of AAR managed committees and 
working groups that identify and resolve the unique interoperability 
challenges throughout the network including--the PTC Interoperability 
Committee, the PTC Executive Committee, a committee for each of the two 
main PTC systems, and a working group focusing on the unique challenges 
posed by Chicago.
    While work still continues, each Class I railroad expects to be 
operating trains in PTC mode on all mandated PTC routes no later than 
the end of 2020, as required by statute.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                         Hon. Ronald L. Batory
    FRA Oversight of PTC Implementation Progress. The fast approaching 
deadline for all 42 railroads to fully implement PTC is December 31, 
2020. It's likely that FRA will see an influx of documents from 
railroads that must be reviewed by the agency in order for PTC systems 
to be certified.
    In March 2018, the GAO recommended that FRA develop a risk-based 
approach for allocating its resources to effectively carry out its role 
in oversight of PTC implementation.
    Question 1. Has the agency developed a risk-based approach to 
ensure it is dedicating resources to where they are needed most? If so, 
what does this approach entail and how do you plan to implement it?
    Answer. Yes, a risk-based approach is in place to prioritize FRA's 
resources. FRA Administrator Batory and FRA's PTC subject matter 
experts are monitoring all railroads' progress on a continuous basis, 
with a key focus on providing technical support to railroads not yet in 
revenue service demonstration \1\ (RSD) and host railroads with a high 
concentration of tenant railroads that operate in complex areas, such 
as the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and Chicago area, where 
interoperability is critical for the full implementation of PTC 
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ RSD is the final stage of testing a PTC system when FRA 
conditionally permits a railroad to operate PTC-equipped trains in 
revenue service with passengers or freight onboard under certain 
conditions, prior to obtaining certification of its PTC system from 
FRA.

   Railroads Not Yet in RSD: Throughout 2018, and more 
        frequently in 2019, FRA continues to engage with railroads that 
        have not commenced RSD. This engagement has included reviews of 
        railroads' status in relation to their alternative schedules 
        and sequences, as well as face-to-face meetings with railroads 
        and their suppliers to discuss technical roadblocks. Additional 
        manpower has also been brought onboard, supported by FRA 
        regional staff, to support the aggressive testing program of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        many of these railroads.

   Complex Operations: Beginning July 12, 2019, the FRA 
        Administrator initiated a series of monthly meetings with the 
        executive leadership of Amtrak and each commuter railroad that 
        operates on or near Amtrak's NEC and/or the commuter railroad's 
        own PTC-mandated main lines in the Northeast. These meetings 
        continue, with a key focus on the interoperability and 
        configuration management of the Advanced Civil Speed 
        Enforcement System II (ACSES II). In addition, on December 19, 
        2019, FRA met in Chicago with Wabtec, all seven Class I 
        railroads, Amtrak, Belt Railway Company of Chicago, Chicago 
        South Shore & South Bend Railroad, Indiana Harbor Belt 
        Railroad, Metra, and the Northern Indiana Commuter 
        Transportation District to discuss the remaining work that host 
        railroads and tenant railroads must complete to fully implement 
        the Interoperable Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS) 
        on the PTC-mandated main lines in the Chicago area.

    Supporting and informing FRA's risk-based approach, FRA continues 
to regularly engage, in a direct, sustained, and intensive manner, with 
all stakeholders--including railroads, PTC system suppliers and 
vendors, and railroad associations--to underscore the importance of 
railroads' full implementation of FRA-certified and interoperable PTC 
systems on all required main lines by December 31, 2020. These focused 
interactions provide opportunities for candid discussion and the 
exchange of highly technical information, with a key focus on resolving 
outstanding technical issues that could impede the full implementation 
of PTC systems.
    Throughout 2020, FRA will continue engagement with railroads, 
meeting monthly with any railroad that has not yet commenced RSD of its 
PTC system to directly support such railroads' ongoing field testing 
and actively address any technical issues, including software-related 
issues, to enable them to advance to RSD as soon as possible. In 
addition, even if a railroad is operating its PTC system in RSD, FRA 
will meet regularly throughout 2020 with any railroad that has 
significant technical issues that, if not resolved, could jeopardize a 
railroad's ability to fully implement a PTC system on its required main 
lines by December 31, 2020.

    Question 2. In 2017, FRA officials said that they expected PTC 
safety plans--which GAO found to be up to 5,000 pages--to take up to 12 
months to review. Based on FRA's experience since that time, how long 
do you estimate the majority of PTC plans that you will receive will 
be? How long do you estimate it will take for the agency to review 
those safety plans and other documents a railroad submits to certify 
their PTC systems?
    Answer. FRA's regulations do not dictate the length of a host 
railroad's PTC Safety Plan (PTCSP). However, during FRA's July 2018 
symposia and FRA's three collaboration sessions during 2019, FRA has 
consistently instructed railroads to provide in their PTCSPs only the 
information and analysis required under FRA's PTC regulations, 
including 49 CFR Sec. 236.1015, PTCSP content requirements and PTC 
System Certification. For example, multiple provisions under 49 CFR 
Sec. 236.1015(d) require only ``a complete description,'' not the 
entire referenced material, and host railroads' adherence to the 
existing regulations, when developing their PTCSPs, should help ensure 
PTCSPs are more concise and streamlined.
    In addition, many railroads implementing the same type of PTC 
system are collaborating effectively to develop their PTCSPs 
consistently and using baselined supplier documentation, which will 
also enable FRA to review PTCSPs more expeditiously. FRA has been 
working with railroads on the development of these baselined safety 
case documents. FRA's regulations provide that FRA will, to the extent 
practicable, approve, approve with conditions, or deny a railroad's 
PTCSP within 180 days of the filing date, which FRA is striving to do 
for each PTCSP it receives during 2019 and 2020. See 49 CFR 
Sec. 236.1009(j)(2)(ii). If FRA does not approve or deny a railroad's 
PTCSP within 180 days, FRA will provide the railroad with a statement 
of reasons why the submission has not yet been acted upon, a projected 
deadline by which an approval or denial will be issued, and any further 
consultations or inquiries to be resolved. See 49 CFR 
Sec. 236.1009(j)(2)(iii).

    Question 3. Are you confident that FRA will be able to concurrently 
review all remaining railroads' safety plans and provide necessary 
feedback in time to certify each of the railroads before the deadline?
    Answer. Yes. FRA is prioritizing its review of host railroads' 
PTCSPs and will ensure it dedicates sufficient resources to reviewing 
all remaining PTCSPs, providing necessary feedback to railroads, and 
issuing its certification decisions by December 31, 2020. FRA is 
currently procuring additional contractor support from one or more 
entities with the expertise necessary to assist FRA as it reviews these 
complex PTCSPs, including hazard logs, risk assessments, and other 
safety analyses. This support will be in place in early 2020, when the 
existing contracts for PTCSP review support end.

    Question 4. When do you estimate railroads will need to submit 
documents to ensure they are certified by December 31, 2020?
    Answer. FRA has advised railroads that all remaining PTCSPs must be 
submitted to FRA by mid-2020 (specifically, not later than Friday, July 
3, 2020), given that FRA's regulations provide a minimum 180-day review 
period. Currently, railroads' FRA-approved PTC Implementation Plans, 
including the alternative schedules and sequences therein, indicate 
that the latest date any host railroad will submit its PTCSP is July 1, 
2020.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to 
                         Hon. Ronald L. Batory
    Question. The FRA's Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety 
Improvements grants program has been a critical source of Federal 
funding to improve rail safety through the implementation of Positive 
Train Control (PTC). Last year, the FRA awarded $250 million for PTC 
projects, although it received more applications than it was able to 
fund. Can you speak to what additional resources the FRA needs to fully 
implement PTC?
    Answer. FRA's PTC program consists of technical and programmatic 
staff and contractors, many of whom are dedicated to PTC on a full-time 
basis and a subset that supports the program on a part-time basis, 
while also performing other duties. This team includes 27 Full-time 
Equivalent (FTE) positions, as described below:

   Full-time FRA Technical Staff and Contractors (15 FTE): 1 
        Acting Staff Director of the PTC/Signal & Train Control (S&TC) 
        Division, 2 senior test monitors, 8 PTC specialists, 1 software 
        engineer, and 3 technical contractors. These staff members 
        provide direct technical assistance to railroads throughout 
        testing and implementation.

   Full-time FRA Programmatic Staff and Contractors (7 FTE): 1 
        attorney, 1 program analyst, 2 project management contractors, 
        and 3 data analyst contractors. These staff members monitor 
        railroads' status and manage documentation and approvals.

   Part-time FRA Technical and Programmatic Staff 
        (approximately 5 FTE): 1 Staff Director of the Passenger Rail 
        Division, 2 S&TC engineers, 1 attorney, and 1 contractor that 
        helps review PTCSPs on a task-order basis (average 2.5 FTE). 
        These staff members directly support FRA's review of railroads' 
        PTCSPs.

    FRA is using appropriated PTC funding, from our Safety and 
Operations account, not only to keep the current contract force in 
place, but also to expand both the contract force and FRA staff to 
enable the PTC team to timely review documentation and provide 
effective support to railroads as they strive to meet the statutory 
deadline. The expanded PTC team, totaling approximately 36+ FTE, will 
also include:

   Two railroad experts to provide additional subject matter 
        expertise in support of FRA's review of railroads' PTCSPs.

   Three new contract positions to support FRA's oversight of 
        interoperability in highly congested areas, including Chicago 
        and the NEC.

   An additional procurement is currently underway for another 
        set of contractors to support FRA's review of PTCSPs, with the 
        skill set capable of reviewing a PTCSP in its entirety, 
        including approximately 5 to 10 FTEs.

    Several additional procurements are also planned in early 2020 to 
support PTC cyber security review and opportunities for PTC to improve 
grade crossing safety.

    In your view, what are the safety concerns associated with the 
delay in railroads implementing PTC?
    Answer. By law, PTC systems must be designed to prevent certain 
accidents or incidents, including train-to-train collisions, over-speed 
derailments, incursions into established work zones, and movements of 
trains through switches left in the wrong position. Given the 
importance of this rail safety technology, FRA continues to actively 
oversee and assist railroads and to collaborate with railroad 
associations and PTC system suppliers and vendors, to help ensure all 
railroads subject to the statutory mandate fully implement FRA-
certified and interoperable PTC systems on the nearly 58,000 required 
route miles by December 31, 2020.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to 
                         Hon. Ronald L. Batory
    Question 1. Your testimonies touched on a wide range of challenges 
with PTC interoperability: given the myriad challenges, do you feel 
confident with the current testing protocol to ensure full PTC 
interoperability?
    Answer. Host railroads and tenant railroads continue to conduct 
interoperability testing to ensure that any PTC-equipped locomotives 
operating on the same main line will communicate with and respond to 
the PTC system(s), including uninterrupted movements over property 
boundaries. As of September 30, 2019, approximately 59 of 236 
applicable tenant railroads have reportedly both completed 
interoperability testing and achieved interoperability, according to 
host railroads' Quarterly PTC Progress Reports for Quarter 3 of 2019 
(Form FRA F 6180.165, OMB Control No. 2130-0553).
    To help ensure railroads are conducting robust interoperability 
testing, FRA provided technical assistance to railroads about the 
statutory and regulatory interoperability requirements and best 
practices for interoperability testing, during FRA's June and July 2018 
PTC symposia. Also, in July 2018, FRA issued a revised and simplified 
guidance document that addresses, in relevant part, interoperability 
testing and the responsibilities of a host railroad and its tenant 
railroads with respect to a host railroad's PTCSP and FRA's 
certification of PTC systems.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Federal Railroad Administration, Revised PTC Guidance Regarding 
Interoperability Testing, Operations and Maintenance Manuals, and 
Certification Responsibilities (July 24, 2018), available at https://
www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L19583#p1_z5_gD_lPO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FRA's PTC specialists continue to monitor various phases of 
railroads' PTC system testing, including field testing, RSD, and 
interoperability testing, across the country; provide on-site support 
during PTC system testing; and offer technical assistance on an ongoing 
basis, as necessary, to help railroads address and resolve any 
critical, remaining issues.

    Question 2. FRA has been conducting public collaboration sessions--
can you provide an update of any new issues you've learned about from 
these sessions regarding PTC implementation?
    Answer. During FRA's three PTC collaboration sessions during 2019, 
FRA provided technical assistance during the general sessions and 
hosted break-out sessions for each major type of PTC system, enabling 
railroads with similar PTC systems to share lessons learned and best 
practices. For example, the break-out sessions offered railroads 
utilizing ACSES II to collaborate about various methods to comply with 
the communications security requirements under FRA's PTC regulations. 
FRA learned that these railroads have identified two vendors they can 
work with to implement 49 CFR Sec. 236.1033-compliant security 
measures, including cryptographic message integrity and authentication. 
Also, during the break-out sessions for I-ETMS and Enhanced Automatic 
Train Control (E-ATC), FRA learned more about each host railroad's 
approach to developing its PTCSP, including a general interest among 
the railroads in using a consistent approach or methodology, when 
possible, and baselined supplier documentation.

    Question 3. You indicated to Senator Blumenthal during the hearing 
that you would keep him updated on PTC's progress in the Northeast 
Corridor. Will you please share these updates with my office as well?
    Answer. Yes, FRA Government Affairs staff will reach out to 
schedule a briefing to update you on the Northeast Corridor's PTC 
implementation progress.

    Question 4. Given the ongoing challenges identified with achieving 
PTC interoperability, do you anticipate financing to be a challenge for 
short line railroads?
    Answer. FRA would defer to the rail industry on the financing 
issues that they will face. FRA's discussion with industry has focused 
on the timeline for implementing PTC, not funding challenges.

    Question 5. A number of my colleagues here on the Committee would 
like to see updated schedules for on-time performance as soon as 
possible--as this is a major hindrance to Amtrak and passenger rail 
service. FRA has indicated some larger efficiencies can be gained with 
PTC implementation--particularly with the technologies that can be 
utilized along with PTC technology. Is PTC implementation going to 
affect your getting schedules out as soon as possible? Has the timeline 
you identified earlier this year for FRA to complete its work changed 
or are you still anticipating completion by the second quarter of next 
year?
    Answer. The timeline identified earlier this year for releasing a 
proposed rule on the Metrics and Minimum Standards for Intercity 
Passenger Rail remains the same. FRA and Amtrak are jointly developing 
the Metrics and Minimum Standards. FRA anticipates publishing a notice 
of proposed rulemaking in the 2nd quarter of 2020.

    Question 6. FRA recently issued a Request for Information (RFI) 
regarding automation in the railroad sector. Are there initial findings 
from this RFI that you can share?
    Answer. In March 2018, FRA published an RFI on the future of 
automation in the railroad industry. FRA received over 3,000 separate 
comments in response to the RFI from a wide variety of stakeholders, 
including members of the public, railroads, railroad industry suppliers 
and equipment manufacturers, individual railroad employees, labor 
organizations, and state and emergency response organizations. The vast 
majority of public commenters equated automation in the railroad 
industry with full automation (i.e., fully autonomous rail operations 
and the elimination of operating crews). Railroads and industry 
suppliers, on the other hand, acknowledged that automation is an 
incremental process already underway and noted that existing automation 
technologies (e.g., PTC technology, automated track inspections) are 
already resulting in increased efficiencies and safety benefits in the 
railroad industry by reducing the potential for human error, the 
primary cause of railroad accidents. These commenters asserted that to 
take full advantage of the benefits automation may offer, a flexible 
regulatory approach is necessary. At the same time, other commenters, 
including rail labor organizations, urged caution noting infrastructure 
concerns, the unique operating environment in which U.S. railroads 
operate, and the importance of maintaining skilled railroad personnel.
    The comments received in response to the RFI reinforce FRA's 
longstanding belief that a balanced approach to technology 
implementation and automation is required. FRA currently has several 
regulatory initiatives in process designed to encourage the use of 
advanced technologies involving various levels of automation (e.g., 
continuous rail testing, certain revisions to FRA's air brake 
standards). FRA is also working with railroads to develop and implement 
test programs designed to evaluate both existing automated track 
inspection technologies and technologies still under development. 
Coupled with FRA's Risk Reduction and System Safety programs, these 
efforts are designed to encourage technological developments while 
ensuring the safety of railroad operations.

    Question 7. With respect to FRA's withdrawal of its Notice of 
Propose Rulemaking regarding crew-size, The National Transportation 
Safety Board (NTSB) submitted comments on the NPRM and recommended that 
the FRA capture data on crewmember size to evaluate the adequacy of 
crew-size regulations. FRA has indicated it does not have conclusive 
data. Have you begun gathering this data? Is FRA taking into account in 
its gathering of data the changes in train length (longer and longer 
trains) and precision train scheduling (faster movement of trains 
generally)--both of which are rapidly evolving in the industry?
    Answer. Although FRA continues to monitor any potential safety 
impact of train crew staffing, as noted in its May 29, 2019 withdrawal 
of its 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) pertaining to train 
crew staffing, FRA has found no direct safety connection between train 
crew staffing and railroad accidents that have occurred. See 84 FR 
24735. However, at FRA's request, and consistent with NTSB's comments 
to the 2016 NPRM, the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) has 
formed a working group to meet and discuss possible changes and updates 
to FRA's data collection requirements. That RSAC task will include 
consideration of NTSB's recommendations.
    With regard to train length and ``precision train scheduling,'' FRA 
enforces a comprehensive set of railroad safety regulations and laws 
designed to ensure the safety of railroad operations, but the agency 
does not directly regulate either train length or what is referred to 
as ``precision train scheduling.'' Accordingly, FRA is not gathering 
specific data on train length or ``precision train scheduling.'' 
Specific to train length, however, FRA, through its Office of Railroad, 
Research, Development and Technology, is currently studying issues 
related to train makeup and handling, including the braking performance 
of longer trains. Moreover, through FRA's comprehensive safety program, 
the agency continually assesses railroad safety performance through 
data analysis, inspections, audits, and accident investigations. 
Accordingly, any train, regardless of length and all railroad 
operations, regardless of scheduling factors, must meet all applicable 
Federal safety standards.

    Question 8. approximately 90 percent of fatal train accidents are 
due to trespassing or collisions at highway-rail grade crossings--the 
inspector general is apparently auditing FRA's use of data in this 
area. Is there anything you can tell us about how you're using data to 
better address railroad related fatalities? How, if it all, do you 
expect PTC to affect fatalities with regard to collisions and 
trespassing?
    Answer. The Department of Transportation Office of Inspector 
General (OIG) completed its audit of FRA's use of grade crossing data 
in September 2019.\3\ FRA's safety program has historically been and 
continues to be data-driven. Highway-rail grade crossing safety and 
trespassing prevention are no exceptions. Both issues, however, are 
highly dependent not only on FRA data and actions, but on the 
involvement of stakeholders outside of FRA as well (e.g., railroads, 
state transportation departments, local governments and communities). 
Accordingly, FRA has amplified its efforts to improve the quality of 
its data and to ensure data related to grade crossing safety and 
trespassing incidents is available and accessible to all stakeholders. 
Key strategies the agency uses to address both issues are included in 
its Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Business Plan and National 
Strategy to Prevent Trespassing on Railroad Property. As described in 
each of these documents, FRA has created and maintains numerous data 
visualization tools (e.g., dashboards, maps) which enable the agency 
and our stakeholders to better monitor and analyze key safety metrics 
over time, and FRA is using analytical tools, such as GradeDec and Web 
Accident Prediction System, to gain insight into grade crossing safety 
from multiple angles (e.g., from system-level overviews to localized 
detail). FRA is also seeking new and unconventional data sources and 
voluntary methods of sharing data among stakeholders to identify 
leading indicators of both grade crossing and trespassing risk factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector 
General, Report No. ST2019063 (Sept. 4, 2019) (available at 
www.oig.dot.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although PTC technology is intended to reduce the risk of certain 
human-error caused accidents, by law, PTC systems are not required to 
be designed to prevent grade crossing collisions or accidents or 
incidents involving trespassers. FRA recognizes, however, that PTC 
technology will likely serve as a basis for further development of 
fully integrated technological systems designed to ensure railroad 
safety and gain efficiencies in railroad operations. Consistent with 
the mandate of Section 11404 of the FAST Act, FRA will conduct a study 
of the possible effectiveness of PTC and related technologies on 
reducing collisions at highway-rail grade crossings and will report the 
results of that study to Congress when completed.

    Question 9. About 18 months ago, we had a train block a crossing 
around Detroit--in the Plymouth area--for nine hours. In the township 
of Huron and in Romulus Michigan, I've heard of emergency vehicles that 
could not get passed train tracks. I understand the IG is looking at 
FRA's use of grade crossing data--but we definitely see incidents where 
cars/trucks try to beat trains because they know they're going to 
experience long wait times--and sometimes this leads to tragedies. Do 
you have data on this phenomenon and are you using the data to help 
address blocked crossings?
    Answer. As noted in response to question 8, the OIG completed its 
audit of FRA's use of grade crossing data in September 2019. Idling 
trains blocking highway-rail grade crossings are not a new concern, so 
for years the Federal government, including FRA, has provided technical 
expertise, data, education, and outreach to assist all stakeholders in 
resolving issues related to blocked crossings. Specific to the 
Plymouth, Michigan area, over the last several years, FRA's Region 4 
office has been actively engaged in assisting stakeholders to address 
concerns with blocked crossings.
    As railroad operations have changed in recent years, generally, FRA 
has received an increasing number of blocked crossing complaints, and 
is working towards innovative solutions to address the issue. 
Historically, FRA has been notified of blocked crossings via e-mail 
through information contained in formal complaints and correspondence, 
and a generic ``Contact Us'' website used by the public to submit any 
type of comment/question to FRA's Office of Railroad Safety, not just 
reports of blocked crossings. Accordingly, the information submitted 
via e-mail is varied and often does not identify the key facts (e.g., 
location, time, duration, impact) of the incident being reported. 
However, FRA is currently using GIS mapping to track reports of blocked 
crossings from these formal and informal sources, as well as reports of 
blocked crossings that several States are voluntarily submitting to 
FRA. In addition, on December 20, 2019, FRA launched a new online 
portal \4\ through the FRA website to collect additional data from the 
general public and public safety officials on blocked crossings. When 
submitting a report, information will be specifically requested on the 
location of the blocked crossing, the time, duration, and impacts of 
the blocked crossing, which will provide the agency with more 
standardized data on instances of blocked crossings throughout the 
United States. Recognizing that even with this additional information, 
FRA will not have complete data on blocked crossings, we anticipate the 
additional data will tell FRA where, when, for how long, and what 
impacts resulted from blocked crossing incidents reported by the 
public. FRA intends to maintain, analyze, and share that data with all 
affected stakeholders to help inform the development of local solutions 
to reduce and prevent incidents of trains blocking crossings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Federal Railroad Administration, Blocked Crossing webpage 
available at: https://www.fra.dot.gov/blockedcrossings/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Earlier this year I wrote to the CEOs and senior leadership of the 
railroad companies regarding the impacts to quality of life and public 
safety associated with blocked crossings. My request was that the 
railroads determine appropriate actions to minimize blocked crossings 
and to redouble their efforts in working with states and local 
communities to advance the safety and efficiency of both railroad and 
highway operations. FRA will also continue to help facilitate meetings 
between stakeholders and share expertise on potential solutions to the 
issues, as it has historically done and as we have done most recently 
through an ongoing series of technical symposiums and listening 
sessions on grade crossing and trespassing issues. However, because the 
factors leading to blocked crossings are necessarily location and 
railroad specific, the Federal government cannot dictate solutions.

    Question 10. Can you provide an update on FRA's smart phone app--
with respect to citizen engagement and the ability to provide more data 
on blocked crossings?
    Answer. As noted in response to question 9 above, on December 20, 
2019, FRA launched a new online portal to collect additional 
information on incidents of blocked crossings. The portal will provide 
a way for the public and other stakeholders to report blocked crossing 
incidents to FRA. FRA will then make the submitted data available 
online and will engage with all stakeholders to encourage the 
development and implementation of local solutions to blocked crossings.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jacky Rosen to 
                         Hon. Ronald L. Batory
    NUCLEAR WASTE AND POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL. Although we require 
railroads that carry passengers or have high-volume freight traffic 
with hazardous materials to implement Positive Train Control systems, 
from my reading of the current regulations, this rule does not apply to 
transporting nuclear waste when it is not part of high-volume freight 
traffic. This presents a major concern for a state like Nevada, which 
for decades has been fighting back Federal efforts to make our state a 
nuclear dumping ground. While the railroad industry has done much to 
reduce the rate of accidents, rail incidents are unfortunately not 
unheard of in our state. Just last month, a train carrying bombs, 
ammonium, and grenades derailed outside the City of Elko. Thankfully, 
the 22 cars that derailed were located on the opposite end of the 
train, separate from the cars filled with military munitions. But this 
serves as an example of why it would be so dangerous to transport 
nuclear waste into an area where thousands live and work . . . and 
without positive train control, no less.
    This Administration has tried to restart the licensing process for 
Yucca Mountain, which the majority of Nevadans strongly oppose, in part 
because it would require shipping radioactive waste through nearly 
every state in the country and through numerous major cities before 
getting to Nevada, and the vast majority of those shipments would be by 
rail, possibly with no positive train control.
    Question. Will your agency commit to requiring PTC technologies to 
transport nuclear waste in all instances? If not, why not?
    Answer. The statutory mandate requiring certain railroads to 
implement PTC systems does not necessarily extend to a main line 
carrying nuclear waste, unless the main line also transports the types 
of traffic identified below. Under the statutory mandate, each Class I 
railroad and each entity providing regularly scheduled intercity or 
commuter rail passenger transportation must implement a PTC system on:

  (1)  its main line over which poison-or toxic-by-inhalation (PIH or 
        TIH) hazardous materials and five million or more gross tons of 
        traffic are transported per year;

  (2)  its main line over which intercity or commuter rail passenger 
        transportation is regularly provided; and

  (3)  any other tracks the Secretary of Transportation prescribes by 
        regulation or order.

    The statutory mandate specifically defines PIH or TIH hazardous 
materials as those classified as such under 49 CFR Sec. Sec. 171.8, 
173.115, and 173.132, which does not include nuclear waste. Class I 
railroads are generally implementing PTC systems on main lines that 
transport those types of hazardous materials (PIH or TIH) and main 
lines where intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation is 
regularly provided, at a minimum. Several railroads have indicated they 
are also voluntarily implementing PTC systems on main lines that are 
not required to be governed by a PTC system by law.
    Over the last dozen years, the FRA has overseen the railroad 
industry's efforts to implement PTC within this statutory framework 
established in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, and further 
endorsed in the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2015.
    Under this mandate, 41 railroads have made tremendous progress in 
implementing PTC systems on nearly 58,000 route miles in anticipation 
of the December 31, 2020 statutory deadline established by Congress. 
That said, FRA is willing to offer technical assistance if Congress is 
considering mandating PTC system implementation on additional main 
lines, including those that transport other types of hazardous 
materials that are not classified as PIH or TIH, through an act of 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to 
                             Susan Fleming
    Question. Your testimonies touched on a wide range of challenges 
with PTC interoperability: given the myriad challenges, do you feel 
confident with the current testing protocol to ensure full PTC 
interoperability?
    Answer. More than half of the railroads implementing PTC reported 
to us that achieving interoperability was a major or moderate challenge 
because of issues such as software bugs and coordination between 
railroads--issues that often arise during the testing phase. We did not 
evaluate the effectiveness of railroads' testing protocols or the 
Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA's) oversight of this testing, 
but several railroads told us that interoperability testing can be a 
time and resource intensive process. Railroads generally must go 
through all steps of testing with each host or tenant railroad they 
interoperate with individually, including testing each point at which 
the systems interact (boundaries), which can number in the hundreds 
between just one host and tenant. The amount of time it takes two 
railroads to achieve interoperability varies and is case by case, 
according to one industry association, as the testing is used to prove 
that the PTC systems interoperate to function correctly. 
Representatives for one railroad also explained that the level of 
testing between railroads using one particular type of PTC system--the 
Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System II (ACSES)--is much greater 
because their systems are customized and they use different vendors. 
While testing PTC systems--including their ability to interoperate with 
other railroads' systems--can be challenging, it is critical for 
ensuring the effective and safe operation of PTC.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to 
                             Chris Matthews
    Question. Mr. Matthews, given the ongoing challenges identified 
with achieving PTC interoperability, do you anticipate financing to be 
a challenge for short line railroads?
    Answer. BNSF is currently working with 18 different short line 
railroads on PTC implementation, having so far achieved 
interoperability with five of them including Montana Rail Link; the 
Otter Tail Valley Railroad; Louisiana & Delta Railroad; Dakota, 
Missouri Valley and Western Railroad; and the Portland and Western 
Railroad. As I stated in my written testimony, we have worked closely 
with these short lines to enable their PTC-equipped locomotives to 
function with BNSF's PTC back office while operating on our track. 
While I do not have clear visibility into the condition of the various 
short line railroads' finances, to date funding has not appeared to be 
a significant challenge and we are aware of at least one shortline 
applying for Federal grant money to support implementation.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                            James Derwinski
    Federal Funding for PTC. Commuter railroads are public agencies 
that face funding challenges for installing and maintaining positive 
train control (PTC) systems. Last year, Congress appropriated 
approximately $250 million in CRISI grants specifically for PTC 
implementation and other Federal programs can also support PTC 
projects.
    Question 1. After Metra's PTC system is fully operational, what do 
you estimate will be the cost per year to maintain and update your 
agency's PTC system? Is it important that Congress continue to help 
support commuter railroads maintain and upgrade PTC systems following 
the 2020 implementation deadline?
    Answer. Our PTC system is expected to cost us more than $400 
million, equal to the amount of Federal formula funding Metra receives 
every 2\1/2\ years. Further, based on our own estimates and discussions 
with our freight railroad partners, PTC operation and maintenance costs 
are expected to be between 5-10 percent of the total installation cost 
per year, or $15-$20 million.
    We strongly believe Congress should continue to support publicly-
funded commuter rail agencies as they work to maintain and upgrade 
their PTC systems in the years to come.

    PTC Training. According to FRA's PTC implementation progress 
dashboard, nearly 90 percent of Metra's employees have completed 
training required by PTC regulations as of June 30, 2019.
    Question 2. Do employees continue to receive training as Metra 
adopts new technologies, including updates to the PTC system? Will 
employees continue to receive training beyond the 2020 deadline as the 
PTC system is maintained and updated? What if any feedback have you 
received from Metra employees regarding the training that has been 
given to date, and do you plan to incorporate that feedback into future 
training?
    Answer. PTC will be part of recertification process as well as 
being part of the annual rules exams. New employees will receive the 
full training program that will be adjusted as the PTC system matures. 
Current employees will receive these adjustments through safety 
contacts. If system adjustments are determined to be to such an extent 
that they cannot be given through safety contacts, we will provide 
addition classroom training. We have not received any negative 
feedback. Attendees have said that the practical exercises on the 
actual equipment are more beneficial than use of the simulator.

                              [all]