[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]