U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–999 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 115–41 

MOVING AMERICA: STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES 

ON OUR MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

AND MERCHANT MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SAFETY AND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 15, 2017 

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

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

RENAE BLACK, Senior Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND MERCHANT 

MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY AND SECURITY 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 15, 2017 ....................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Fischer ................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Booker .................................................................................. 3 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 4 

Statement of Senator Cruz ..................................................................................... 5 

Statement of Senator Peters ................................................................................... 6 

Statement of Senator Blumenthal .......................................................................... 34 

Statement of Senator Inhofe ................................................................................... 36 

Statement of Senator Young ................................................................................... 38 

Statement of Senator Gardner ............................................................................... 40 

Statement of Senator Hassan ................................................................................. 42 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 44 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 46 

Statement of Senator Duckworth ........................................................................... 48 

WITNESSES

Matthew K. Rose, Executive Chairman, BNSF Railway Company ..................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Dr. Christopher B. Lofgren, President and Chief Executive Officer, Schneider 

National, Inc. ........................................................................................................ 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Tom Gurd, Vice President, Integrated Supply Chain, The Dow Chemical 

Company ............................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Wick Moorman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Amtrak ........................ 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted to Matthew K. Rose by: 

Hon. Deb Fischer .............................................................................................. 55 

Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................ 58 

Hon. Maggie Hassan ........................................................................................ 61 

Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Christopher B. Lofgren by: 

Hon. Deb Fischer .............................................................................................. 62 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 64 

Hon. Maggie Hassan ........................................................................................ 64 

Response to written questions submitted to Tom Gurd by: 

Hon. Deb Fischer .............................................................................................. 65 

Hon. Maggie Hassan ........................................................................................ 67 

Response to written questions submitted to Wick Moorman by: 

Hon. Deb Fischer .............................................................................................. 68 

(1) 

MOVING AMERICA: STAKEHOLDER 

PERSPECTIVES ON OUR MULTIMODAL 

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND

MERCHANT MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY AND SECURITY,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:31 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Deb Fischer, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Fischer [presiding], Nelson, Cantwell, 

Klobuchar, Blumenthal, Booker, Udall, Peters, Duckworth, Hassan, 

Wicker, Blunt, Cruz, Inhofe, Moore Capito, Gardner, and Young. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good afternoon, everyone. And welcome to the 

Surface Transportation Subcommittee. I thank you for being here 

today for our first hearing of the 115th Congress. 

Today’s hearing, entitled, ‘‘Moving America: Stakeholder Perspectives on our Multimodal Transportation System,’’ brings together 

an esteemed panel of transportation leaders. 

As many of you are aware, President Trump mentioned strengthening and renewing our Nation’s transportation infrastructure in 

his inaugural address. I’m encouraged to see the President making 

transportation infrastructure a top priority. 

As Congress and this new administration seek to develop infrastructure solutions, my hope is that we address future infrastructure funding challenges. Like many of my colleagues, I am proud 

of the bipartisan work Congress did to enact the Fixing America’s 

Surface Transportation, or the FAST Act. 

However, our work is not done. According to the latest projections by the Congressional Budget Office, the Highway Trust Fund 

will face a deficit of over $100 billion in the next 5 years, following 

the expiration of the FAST Act. The Highway Trust Fund serves 

as a fair and equitable source of transportation funding for all 

states. 

To address this funding shortfall, I’ve introduced the Build USA 

Infrastructure Act, modeled on Nebraska’s successful transportation funding efforts. This bill would divert a portion of the revenues collected by the Customs and Border Patrol on freight and 

2 

passengers at ports of entry to cover the projected deficit. In addition, the bill would establish measures to offer states greater flexibility in initiating critical transportation infrastructure projects. 

Certainty in Federal highway funding and project flexibility for 

states should be key elements of any major infrastructure package. 

I also suggest that Congress build off of the successful freight programs established in the FAST Act. The multimodal freight program provides dedicated formula funding to states for critical 

urban and rural corridors. 

It’s important that our work to make America’s transportation 

system more reliable and efficient also addresses the challenging 

regulatory environment. In 2015, I authored the TRUCK Safety Reform Act. This bill reformed the controversial and obscure regulatory process at the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 

and it was included in the FAST Act. Because of this measure, the 

FMCSA now needs to conduct a more transparent, inclusive, and 

responsive regulatory process with stronger cost-benefit analysis. 

The FMCSA’s ‘‘entry level driver training’’ negotiated rulemaking 

is a good example of stakeholders coming together with the agency 

to produce positive outcomes and increased safety. 

I hope to work closely with Transportation Secretary Elaine 

Chao, my colleagues here in Congress, and stakeholders to address 

similar regulatory process challenges across agencies at the DOT. 

For example, in the previous administration, the Federal Railroad Administration’s electronic braking rule represented a multibillion dollar mandate without clear safety benefits. In fact, several 

railroads had tested and then abandoned these systems, a fact effectively disregarded by the FRA. This effort was followed by an 

ideological ‘‘government knows best’’ PR campaign that criticized 

operators opposed to the mandate. 

In reviewing this rulemaking, the Government Accountability Office found that, ‘‘DOT’s modeling lacked transparency as the information published may not be sufficient for a third party to replicate . . .’’ 

With new leadership at the FRA, we hope the agency will improve, but we cannot rely on that alone. Congress must act to improve the use of data, risk-based analysis, transparency, collaboration, and objective-based rules at the FRA. 

As we examine how the FRA conducts its regulatory process, we 

must consider the cumulative impact of regulations across the government on a freight rail industry that is projected to infuse $22 

billion in private investment in our Nation’s transportation system. 

We should all applaud this tremendous investment in our transportation network. 

Today, I look forward to hearing how Congress can work to 

strengthen our Nation’s transportation infrastructure while enhancing safety, reliability, innovation, and efficiency across the entire network. 

I would now recognize the Ranking Member of the Commerce 

Committee, Senator Nelson, for any statement he wishes to make. 

Senator BOOKER. No, you go ahead. 

Senator NELSON. Well, I always want the Ranking Member of 

the Subcommittee to go first. So would you, please? 

Senator BOOKER. Sir, your wish is my command. 

3 

The CHAIRMAN. Ranking Member Booker, great to have you. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CORY BOOKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator BOOKER. I actually first want to give some acknowledgement and gratitude to the Chairperson of this committee. One of 

the things I feel most excited about in my time as a Senator has 

been the partnership I’ve had with the Chairperson of this committee. We have found a good way to work together in a bipartisan 

fashion to actually move some very positive things forward. When 

I’m talking to friends of mine, I often describe this relationship as 

a bipartisan Batman and Robin, and I’ll say here for the record just 

in case you have heard about that, I am Robin, you are Batman. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRUZ. Nice tie. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much. You should see the full 

gear. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOOKER. But I do want to say that I still believe even 

with the progress that we’ve made, we’re at a point in our Nation 

where we’re in a crisis, we are in an infrastructure crisis. The 

American Society of Civil Engineers ranks American infrastructure 

now at D-plus. Literally in a generation, my father’s generation, we 

had the number one ranked infrastructure on the planet Earth, 

and now our infrastructure in this country is not even in the top 

10. 

Nothing about our country, we are a phenomenal gift to humanity in so many ways, nothing about our country should be a D-plus. 

We should lead the globe in infrastructure, and that’s in particular 

because having a great infrastructure is a critical ingredient to 

having a great economy. 

That’s why I use the word ‘‘crisis’’ very purposefully, because the 

Chinese symbol—and the Chinese obviously spending 5 percent of 

their GDP on their infrastructure, us spending 1 percent or less— 

the Chinese symbol for a crisis is danger and opportunity. There 

is a tremendous opportunity here to help infuse our economy with 

strength, to put people back to work—Americans back to work—to 

give industries a boost through Buy America provisions. All of 

these things give us an opportunity that is especially important 

now because the cost of capital is so low. 

For those of us who are concerned about debt-to-GDP ratio, we 

understand that every dollar invested in infrastructure growth actually grows our economy by two dollars, making that debt-to-GDP 

ratio even better. 

We are a nation that can and must do better, and there is bipartisan space for us to work together to get it done. One of the areas 

I’m obviously most concerned about is the Northeast corridor in 

which I live and reside and represent. One of the worst chokepoints 

in the Nation in terms of the value of this piece of real estate, the 

greater—I call it the greater Newark metropolitan area, but some 

people call it the greater New York metropolitan area, is one of the 

most economically productive regions on the planet Earth, it has 

one of the most inadequate infrastructures there are. The chokeVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:38 Jul 05, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\25999.TXT JACKIE
4 

point that exists there is literally strangling our national economy, 

and that’s one of the reasons why the Gateway Project has been 

so important to me, and I value my partnerships again with Republican colleagues like the Ranking Member, like Senator Roger 

Wicker. 

I would be remiss if I don’t speak finally, Chairwoman, about one 

very important thing, which is just this idea of safety. It doesn’t 

have to be an either/or. We can find ways to control regulations. 

I’ve actually learned a lot from Senator Fischer’s approach, but we 

can also do things to emphasize the safety and security of our highways, of our airways, and more. And we should have that balance. 

Right now, we’re seeing a startling increase of traffic fatalities on 

our highways specifically involving large trucks. That does not 

have to be the case. We can and must do better to elevate human 

life. 

So I’m excited about this Congress. I’m excited about under the 

leadership of my Chairman that we’ve put forth, Democrats put 

forth, a trillion dollar proposal for improving our infrastructure. I 

think it’s a solid proposal, it’s a fiscally wise proposal, and those 

investments will help to really make our economy boom, but not 

just for today, for tomorrow. 

Remember, we got an inheritance from our grandparents, the 

best infrastructure on the globe, we’ve now trashed that inheritance. It’s time for our generation to step up and do the right thing, 

make the investments so that our children and grandchildren can 

again be number one on the planet Earth, not just for the quality 

of our infrastructure, but because that infrastructure ensures we 

will continue to be the dominant economy and innovators on the 

globe for the future. 

Thank you very much, Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

And now I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the 

Full Committee, Senator Nelson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Thank you. I want to point out Senator Peters 

and Senator Cantwell, along with the Ranking Member of this subcommittee, we really got some terrific Members assigned on this 

side, Amy Klobuchar, Richard Blumenthal, Tom Udall, Tammy 

Baldwin, Tammy Duckworth, and Maggie Hassan. So you can see 

this subcommittee has a lot of interest. 

Now, for example, you need a tunnel. There is a chokepoint. 

There are one or two tunnels there between New Jersey and New 

York. Right here, coming across the Potomac River from the south 

there’s a chokepoint. We’ve got to shore these up. 

Dr. Lofgren is concerned with the roads and bridges. There are 

56,000 structurally deficient bridges in this country. In Florida 

alone, there are 200 that are determined by the Florida Department of Transportation as structurally deficient. And, of course, we 

remember the very tragedy that we saw in Minneapolis with the 

collapse of an interstate bridge. 

I can go on and on, whether it’s the bottleneck at our ports or 

the congestion on our roads, this aging infrastructure goes on and 

5 

on. Now, there is going to be a lot of consensus around here for 

spending on infrastructure, but then you’re going to get to the 

question, How are you going to pay for it? 

All of your industries—and I assume, Mr. Gurd, you are one of 

the shippers, so you’ve got the freight railroad, you’ve got the passenger railroad, you’ve got the trucks right here at the table. Tell 

us what we need to know so that we can light a fire under these 

folks that keep sticking their heads in the sand to not fix this national security issue of a tunnel going into New York, et cetera, et 

cetera. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

At this time, I would like to recognize Senator Cruz, from Texas, 

who will be introducing the BNSF Executive Chairman. 

Senator Cruz. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member Booker, for holding this important hearing. And it’s a privilege 

to join you this afternoon and have the opportunity to introduce my 

fellow Texan, Matt Rose, who’s the Executive Chairman of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, otherwise 

known as BNSF. 

As many of you know, Matt has a long history working within 

the rail industry, which includes having served 13 years as Chief 

Executive Officer and 11 years as Chairman of BNSF. In this role, 

Matt has led one of North America’s leading freight transportation 

companies, which has a rail network of 32,500 route miles in 28 

states and three Canadian provinces—you’ve always got to be careful traveling to Canada—and which transports millions of shipments each year, thanks to the dedication and commitment of 

41,000 employees. 

As all of you know, this is no easy task. Over the past few years, 

the rail industry has experienced declines in commodities such as 

coal and crude oil moving across rail networks, has faced challenges from environmental advocacy groups opposing the construction of facilities, and must still ultimately operate within one of the 

most regulated industries in the United States. 

In addition to his leadership at BNSF, Matt and his wife, Lisa, 

are very active within the Fort Worth community in Texas, where 

they started Gatehouse, a supportive living community where 

women and their children in crisis can discover a new path for permanent change. 

Matt also dedicates his time to Read Fort Worth, a coalition of 

businesses, civic, education, philanthropic, nonprofit, and volunteer 

leaders working to ensure that 100 percent of Fort Worth third 

graders are reading on grade level by 2025. 

In short, Matt brings a wealth of knowledge about the rail industry as well as the communities in which they serve. I look forward 

to his testimony before this subcommittee this afternoon as we explore both the challenges and the opportunities facing the rail industry, as well as the steps that this subcommittee can take to help 

6 

ensure American competitiveness today and beyond, for our nation’s transportation sector. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cruz. 

And now I would like to recognize Senator Peters, who will introduce Dow Chemical’s Tom Gurd. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN 

Senator PETERS. Well, thank you, Chairman Fischer and Ranking Member Booker, for having this very important hearing. 

And I would like to introduce Mr. Tom Gurd to the Subcommittee today, another fellow Michigander. 

Mr. Gurd is the Vice President of Integrated Supply Chain for 

the Dow Chemical Company and is also a member of the American 

Chemistry Council. And I am pleased that he has taken the time 

to be with us to share his thoughts on how we can develop policies 

that foster growth in the manufacturing sector and grow our economy. 

Our state of Michigan, which we’re very proud to live in, has a 

long history of being a leader in scientific and engineering advancements, and Dow Chemical Company is certainly an excellent example of my state’s talented and innovative companies in today’s global workforce. 

Founded and headquartered in Midland, Michigan, Dow has 

grown to be one of the world’s largest chemical companies, in part, 

due to its commitment to continually pushing scientific boundaries 

of plastics, chemicals, and agricultural products. These products 

reach consumers across the United States and in nearly 160 countries around the world, and they reach those locations by efficiently 

using our multimodal transportation system. 

Companies like Dow depend on a well-maintained, safe, and efficient transportation system to move their goods to market. However, our transportation infrastructure is falling behind the rest of 

the developed world. I believe that we have to invest in 21st century infrastructure that focuses on new and emerging technologies, 

which is one reason why I’m a huge proponent of connected and 

automated vehicles, which will revolutionize the way that we move 

people and goods in the next 10 to 20 years. 

But I’m honored to have had the opportunity to work with Tom 

in Dow Chemical on a range of critical policy issues, and I believe 

that Tom’s understanding of our nation’s transportation needs will 

be of great benefit to this Subcommittee and to the Committee as 

a whole. 

Thank you for being with us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Peters. 

And it’s my pleasure to introduce Dr. Christopher Lofgren, who 

has been the Chief Executive Officer and President of Schneider 

National, Incorporated, since August 2, 2002. Dr. Lofgren served as 

the Chief Operating Officer of Schneider from 2000 to 2002, and 

served as its Chief Information Officer and Chief Technology Officer. 

He holds a Bachelor’s degree—a Bachelor of Science and Master 

of Science degrees in industrial and management engineering from 

7 

Montana State University, and a Ph.D. in industrial and system 

engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. 

We are also joined today by Wick Moorman. Welcome. The Amtrak Board of Directors appointed Charles W. ‘‘Wick’’ Moorman IV, 

President and Chief Executive Officer effective September 1, 2016. 

Mr. Moorman is the tenth executive to lead America’s railroads 

since the company began operations in 1971. Prior to coming to 

Amtrak, Mr. Moorman spent approximately 4 decades at Norfolk 

Southern Corporation and its predecessor, Southern Railway. He 

retired as Chairman and CEO of NS in 2015. 

Mr. Moorman earned a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering 

from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1975 and a Master’s of 

Business Administration at Harvard University. 

So welcome to all of you gentlemen. We will now begin with your 

opening statements. And I would ask Mr. Rose if you would please 

begin with yours. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW K. ROSE, EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN, 

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY 

Mr. ROSE. Thank you, Senator Fischer, Senator Booker, members 

of the Subcommittee, for inviting me here to appear before you 

today on our perspective as a stakeholder in the U.S. supply chain. 

I would like to start by thanking the Committee for its good work 

last Congress on a number of matters important to the rail industry. 

The U.S. supply chain is changing under our feet. The rail industry is going through a transition driven by shifts in the energy 

landscape, our customers’ ever-changing supply chain, our competitors, and, yes, public policy, such as how our Nation’s highway infrastructure is funded and whether railroads will be constrained 

from innovating. 

Rail volume in recent periods are lagging the already lethargic 

U.S. manufacturing and economic growth. Over the past 5 years, 

GDP has grown about 2 percent in our United States, while rail 

volumes have declined actually by two-tenths of 1 percent. 

So the big game changer for the industry is the loss of the coal 

business. The cumulative impact of environmental policies, the 

price of natural gas, and the incentives provided to renewables has 

resulted in about a 50 percent decline in coal’s historic volumes. 

Weak consumer demand and changing consumer habits has also 

impacted our international intermodal markets. There is softness 

in other segments as well. 

We do believe that 2017 will be a better year, but we still will 

not reach historic peak volumes. We’re hopeful that Congress will 

enact policies that help stimulate the economy, like corporate tax 

reform, sensible regulatory reforms, coupled with growth-oriented 

trade policies. 

We will also be focused on the rail industries national labor negotiations, which we are now in the final stages. A work stoppage 

would negatively impact rail volumes and the entire U.S. economy. 

For railroads in 2017 and beyond to remain competitive will require a level playing field across competing freight transportation 

modes. For our part, we will continue to focus on cost control in all 

areas of the operation and make significant investments in our 

8 

track, equipment, and new technologies consistent with this evolving business environment. 

My written testimony discusses the many operating practices in 

technologies and use being developed which promote necessary efficiencies and also increase safety. By all measures, recent years 

have been the safest in rail history. In 2016, reportable train accidents on BNSF were at historic lows, down more than 16 percent 

when compared to 2015. This reflects the increased leverage of 

data from our expansive trackside detector network and other technologies as well as the effectiveness of our annual maintenance and 

ongoing employee training and rules compliance program. 

BNSF’s ability to earn adequate returns becoming increasingly 

more efficient supports these continuous safety improvements and 

our efforts to consistently meet our customer service needs and 

their expectations. 

BNSF’s risk management goes beyond compliance with government regulations. We’re already transitioning to the next level of 

safety through technology-driven data integration provides a comprehensive view into how various conditions on the railroad interact with each other, identifying issues well before problems can 

occur. We think regulations should incentivize these efforts in contrast to which some which we believe currently discourage it. 

Over the last 130 years, unique legal and regulatory schemes 

have developed that govern nearly every facet of the rail industry. 

I believe I can affirm that the railroads are one of the most ‘‘command and control’’ regulated industries in the United States. We 

believe that regulation can be improved to take into account a railroad safety record and the successful risk management activities. 

Neither the Congress nor the FRA has taken a comprehensive look 

at the cumulative impact and the effectiveness of the totality of 

railroad regulation. 

My written testimony details recommended steps for improving 

the regulatory process. They include improving procedures for 

granting waivers, ensuring rules provide benefits that outweigh 

their costs, and avoiding or removing potential redundancies. 

Congress should also direct the FRA to account for the rail industry’s exceptional safety record, which would support movement 

toward a more balanced, collaborative, and transparent approach to 

performance-based regulatory policies. 

Turning to surface transportation policy, we support additional 

investments in highways. We know it’s necessary. The General 

Fund’s transfers to the Highway Trust Fund, now totaling some 

$140 billion since 2008, is not a sustainable model for the future, 

and unfairly tilts the playing field against privately funded freight 

railroads. Congress must find a new way to at least increase the 

commercial user’s contribution to the infrastructure that they use 

through increased fuel taxes, a weight/distance fee, or similar 

proxy. This isn’t something that must happen eventually; it’s time 

to look at it now. The trucking industry, to its credit, also recognizes this. 

In closing, whether the issue is highway funding, truck weights, 

regulatory policy, or taxes, I would ask policymakers to carefully 

consider freight rail’s public benefits, including environmental, supVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:38 Jul 05, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\25999.TXT JACKIE
9 

ply chain efficiencies, and reduced highway congestion, and maintenance costs. 

Whatever policy you enact, will it result in more or less freight 

on the privately funded freight railroads? That’s the important 

question. And more is better for us and the country. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rose follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MATTHEW K. ROSE, EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN, 

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY

Introduction 

Thank you Senator Fischer, Senator Booker and Members of the Subcommittee 

for the opportunity to submit testimony and appear before the Subcommittee to provide our perspective as a stakeholder in the U.S. supply chain. It is a privilege to 

discuss with you the challenges and opportunities that may affect our outlook. As 

we look at 2017, we see a time of change and uncertainty. As a railroad, understanding the future is critical; we make long-term decisions and it is crucial to 

match our capacity—manpower, track, equipment and facilities—with demand. If 

we have too little capacity, then we can suffer service issues, like those in 2013– 

2014, with which the Committee is familiar. If we overestimate and have too many 

assets, our ability to continue to make strong investments could be jeopardized, 

which also negatively impacts our customers, and the economy. 

The U.S. supply chain is changing under our feet. The rail industry is going 

through a transition that is the largest we have seen in the twenty years that I 

have been in leadership at BNSF. It is being driven by shifts in the energy landscape, our customers’ ever-changing supply chains, our competitors and, yes, public 

policy, such as how our Nation’s highway infrastructure is funded, and how railroads will be permitted to innovate. The railroad industry must become more efficient in order to remain competitive, and since we pay for our own infrastructure, 

we need a level playing field as we compete with other modes for freight. We ask 

that policymakers consider the public benefits that freight rail transportation provides—energy and environmental benefits, supply chain efficiencies, reduced highway congestion and maintenance costs—and how they are affected by public policy. 

At the outset, I would like to commend this Committee on enactment of an extraordinary amount of good legislation related to railroads in the last Congress, including an extension of the Positive Train Control (PTC) implementation deadline, 

passing a range of railroad-related provisions in the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, as well as reauthorizing the Surface Transportation Board 

(STB) for the first time since 1995. In this Congress, we look forward to working 

closely with the Committee on a proactive agenda that provides for updating and 

improving regulation and ensures that infrastructure investment and policy treats 

railroads equitably. BNSF and the freight rail industry hope to be a resource to the 

Committee as it addresses these important issues. 

Economic Update and Outlook 

Over the past five years, GDP has produced more than two percent growth, while 

rail volumes have declined by two-tenths of a percent due to a change in consumer 

buying habits, the service sector attracting a larger portion of GDP, and the decline 

in the coal sector. BNSF moved more than 9.7 million units in 2016, half a million 

fewer units than in 2015, representing five percent decline in our total business. We 

experienced declines in three important commodities that are at the core of the railroad’s business–energy, namely coal and crude oil, and international intermodal 

containers. 

In 2016, BNSF handled about 480,000 fewer units of coal than in 2015, and finished the year with our lowest coal volumes since the Powder River Basin (PRB) 

mine expansion in 2002–2003. Our utility customers are in the midst of a long-term 

transition of their generation assets, moving away from coal and toward natural gas 

and renewables due to the low price and abundant supply of natural gas, regulatory 

pressures on coal, and tax policies that incentivize renewables. 

10 

The U.S. freight rail industry as a whole has experienced a similar trend related 

to coal. In 2008, the peak year for U.S. rail coal traffic, Class I railroads originated 

7.5 million carloads of coal. In 2016, coal carloads totaled just 4.1 million carloads, 

or 3.4 million fewer carloads than in 2008. The revenues and profits lost by railroads 

because of coal’s decline will be extremely difficult to replace. Many of railroads’ coal 

assets have or will become ‘‘stranded,’’ meaning their revenue-generating potential 

is lost or greatly reduced even though the costs of most of these assets will remain 

on railroads’ balance sheets for years to come. The loss of railroads’ coal traffic combined with the market volatility of other commodities hauled by railroads means 

that the market outlook for railroads has become inherently less stable. Typically, 

coal provided a base revenue load for many rail lines that helped keep costs down 

for other lines of traffic. For many rail lines, that base is gone. 

BNSF’s crude oil volumes declined with domestic U.S. oil production due to the 

long-term drop in the world price of oil and increased pipeline competition. In 2016, 

we handled almost 130,000 fewer units of crude than in 2015, which is a decline 

of about 40 percent. 

International intermodal volumes from west coast ports on BNSF were down by 

more than 60,000 units in 2016 as compared to 2015, and will continue to face 

headwinds, as volumes have been flat or down the past several years. Domestic 

intermodal continues to grow, but at a slower pace than we would like. Trucks are 

our customers and our competition. They have benefited from consistently low fuel 

prices and truck over-capacity which contributes to flat near-term forecasts for railroad domestic intermodal. 


215ROSE1.eps
11 

BNSF’s primary area of growth was in the agricultural sector. The U.S. had 

record corn and soybean volumes in 2016 due to several factors, including strong 

harvests, but also due to Asian buyers purchasing more U.S. corn when Brazilian 

supplies were reduced by summer droughts. This, in tandem with a stronger Brazilian currency, helped enhance U.S. corn and soybean export sales and also contributed to all-time record volumes and shuttle sales on BNSF in the fall. However, agriculture represents just ten percent of our annual volumes. 

In general, rail volumes have been linked to the performance of the broader economy; when the economy is suffering, most rail traffic categories suffer too. However, 

it is less true now that when the economy does well, most segments of rail traffic 

do better. Rail volumes for commodities like grain and energy products often vary 

significantly year-to-year for reasons that have little to do with the state of the economy (e.g., the price of natural gas can have a big effect on coal volumes; droughts, 

exchange rates and worldwide weather patterns can affect grain volumes). 


215ROSE2.eps 215ROSE3.eps
12 

Consumers are changing their buying patterns. In recent years, changes in consumer spending have also reduced rail volumes as a larger percent of GDP moves 

to technology, like smart phones, and to services and entertainment. Consumer staples, such as clothing and household goods, appear to be moving down on the list 

of consumer spending, resulting in fewer containers of imported goods destined to 

the big box retailers. There will likely always be growth in freight volumes associated with consumer goods spending related to population growth, but the future 

may bring less of it than in previous cycles, and railroads must compete hard for 

every load. This means that the rail industry must continue to become ever more 

efficient. 

At BNSF, and throughout the industry, our focus has been on reducing variable 

costs wherever possible, including shrinking the size of our active equipment and 

locomotive fleets to match volumes. Given the drop in volumes and the resulting financial impact, we also need to address fixed costs and ensure our workforce is 

sized to our needs. Unfortunately, non-seasonal furloughs of scheduled employees 

peaked at about 5,000 early in 2016; these numbers dropped to about 2,700 by the 

end of the year. In 2016, we also reduced salaried headcount by about nine percent 

and significantly restructured our operating teams. As we continue into 2017, our 

attention to cost control and efficiency across our operations will continue to be intense. We need to be able to continue to provide excellent service and invest where 

demand does exist. BNSF’s infrastructure maintenance and investment remains 

strong relative to volumes and market demand and I believe our network has never 

been in better overall condition. 

BNSF’s business model is predicated on a ‘‘virtuous cycle,’’ where we actively grow 

our markets and volumes, which allows us to continue to invest in and expand our 

system, improve our service, and continue to grow. We believe 2017 will be a better 

year but we will not grow past peak volume levels. Volumes have the potential to 

grow if policy changes stimulate the economy through corporate tax reform and infrastructure investment, as long as other policies like trade—which impact roughly 

one-third of our economy’s GDP—are still growth-oriented. Additionally, the rail industry is in final stages of labor negotiations. If a related work stoppage occurred, 

rail volumes would be impacted. 

In sum, for railroads in 2017 and beyond, remaining competitive will require 

stringent attention to cost control in all areas of operation and continued significant 

levels of rail investment in infrastructure, equipment, and new technologies, consistent with the evolving business environment. Many of the operating practices and 

technologies being developed and used promote necessary efficiencies and increase 

safety. 

Safety Overview 

The laws of physics that make railroads the most efficient mode of surface transportation are also unforgiving; however railroading has been made incredibly safe. 

The industry’s most recent safety statistics demonstrate the trend of continuous 

safety improvement. Preliminary Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) data indicates that the train accident rate in 2016 was down 80 percent from 1980 and down 

45 percent from 2000; the employee injury rate in 2016 was down 84 percent from 

1980 and down 49 percent from 2000; and the grade crossing collision rate in 2016 

was down 80 percent from 1980 and down 40 percent from 2000. By all of these 

measures, recent years have been the safest in rail history. 

13 

At BNSF our safety vision is a workplace free of injuries and incidents. We believe that we can achieve this goal, and that is the reason safety continuously improves. But we have not yet achieved our vision; incidents and accidents do occur. 

However, we believe that they are outliers; operating safely every day is our normative behavior. We are committed to the work of continuous safety improvement, 

because derailments and other significant safety failures, which pose risks to employees and communities, are not an acceptable cost of doing business, nor are they 

morally acceptable. 


215ROSE4.eps 215ROSE5.eps
14 

In the freight rail industry, safe operations supported by the industry’s continuous 

safety improvements are not achieved through just compliance with FRA regulations. It requires a comprehensive risk based safety program, many elements of 

which go well beyond Federal mandates. And perhaps most importantly, it requires 

earning adequate revenues for the significant reinvestment necessary to safely operate the freight rail network and serve customers. 

Railroad Technology and Operational Innovation 

Technology has been an essential element of the improvements in safety seen by 

the rail industry over the last decade. In 2015, BNSF testified before the Subcommittee about the technologies being applied to railroad operations that allow us 

to detect safety standard deviations in real time so that we can respond before 

something happens. BNSF has increased the pace with which we install and utilize 

technologies, helping to transform the railroad’s efficiency, while making it smarter 

and safer. 

In 2016, reportable train incidents on BNSF were at historic lows, down 16.6 percent year-over-year, which reflects the increased leverage of data from our detector 

network to resolve issues before they become problems, as well as the effectiveness 

of our annual maintenance and on-going employee training and rules compliance 

programs. Derailments caused by human error, a significant subset of these incidents, also declined on BNSF in 2016. Below is a review of the technologies being 

implemented and developed on BNSF. 

• Track Inspection: 

» Track geometry inspections employ high-speed laser and inertia test systems 

to collect track condition data on main line routes, a minimum of three times 

per year. Track geometry cars measure the track’s surface under load for 

gauge, cross-level, alignment and vertical acceleration; data indicating any detected flaws is communicated to BNSF personnel for remediation. 

» BNSF utilizes a fleet of manned and unmanned track geometry cars, track 

measurement trucks and strength testing and reporting (STAR) cars to test 

several geometric parameters of the track. 

» Rail defect detection systems utilize ultrasonic technology to detect internal 

flaws in rail. Minimum intervals between inspections are determined by tonnage moved; heaviest traffic routes are inspected every 18 days. 

• Mechanical Wayside Detectors: 

» Wheel temperature detectors, using infrared technology, are used to identify 

braking issues. BNSF currently has approximately 260 detectors located at 

over 190 sites along our network. 

» Acoustic and Hot Bearing Detectors are used to identify wheel bearing fatigue. On BNSF, there are over 1,200 hot bearing detectors and 16 permanent 

and 3 portable acoustic bearing detectors. 

» Machine Vision systems inspect freight cars for defects in passing trains at 

track speed with over ten different technologies used through 64 detectors on 

BNSF’s network. 

• BNSF is using Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)—or drones—for supplemental visual track and bridge inspections in a variety of conditions. As part 

of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Pathfinder Program, we are a 

partner to the agency on developing rules, procedures and technology for extended range (beyond visual line of sight) track integrity flights. Since 2015, 

BNSF has expanded the use of both short range and long range aircraft as well 

as computer vision and data analytics to provide our engineering staff with 

bridge and structure change detections, track integrity analysis and yard measurement capability. In 2017, BNSF’s UAS team (in partnership with the FAA), 

will continue to expand our areas of long range flight research and enhancement of detection capabilities to include non-visual conditions. 

• Train Operations and Control 

» As you know, the industry is engaged in installing PTC. BNSF will have the 

physical installation completed by 2017 and it will be operational by the 2018 

deadline. We are currently operating PTC on 47 of the 90 mandated subdivisions and have already run PTC on over 200,000 trips and have trained over 

22,000 employees. 

» BNSF is the largest user of energy management systems (Trip Optimizer or 

TO) with over 3,300 locomotives equipped. TO serves as an automated train 

operations control which was designed to reduce fuel use, and our carbon footVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:38 Jul 05, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\25999.TXT JACKIE
15 

print, by requiring the most fuel-efficient operation of the locomotive. It also 

considerably reduces the potential for operating rules violations, particularly 

in a non-PTC environment. 

» Movement Planner (MP) is a tool in development that plans train operations 

and optimizes use of the network’s capacity. Current computer aided dispatching is being augmented with a system to auto-route a train’s most efficient movement, coordinate movements along a corridor, and provide for better human dispatch management. PTC will overlay MP, so that it can utilize 

real time location information. Ultimately, the integration of PTC, MP, and 

other planning tools will increase efficiency and visibility into train operations 

by operations and maintenance personnel. 

These innovations demonstrate our commitment to leveraging technology in the 

continuous pursuit of more safe and efficient operations for our employees and the 

communities we serve. 

Railroad Regulation Review and Improvement 

It is well known to this Committee that, as one of the country’s oldest industries, 

nearly every facet of the rail industry is governed by unique legal and regulatory 

schemes that have been developed over the last 130 years. Freight railroads’ business interactions are governed by the Interstate Commerce Act. Our employees receive Railroad Retirement benefits instead of Social Security. Labor negotiations 

with unions representing our employees are governed by the Railway Labor Act. 

Railroads do not have insurance-based Workman’s Compensation; instead, we operate under a nearly 110 year old statute called the Federal Employee Liability Act 

(FELA), established long before Workman’s Compensation. FELA is a tort-based 

system that requires employees to litigate injury claims against railroads under a 

comparative fault system. Railroad operations are governed by the Federal Rail 

Safety Act and more than a century of design-based regulation where safety compliance can only be achieved by executing mandated step-by-step processes or activities 

against which regulators inspect and enforce. 

There are very few exceptions to this ‘‘command and control’’ regulatory paradigm. 

Therefore, railroads are one of the most regulated industrial activities in the U.S. 

Between 2008 and 2013, Congress mandated 49 percent of all prescriptive, economically significant regulations that were promulgated by regulatory agencies. These 

mandates have been a product of Congressional action—and in recent years are a 

common ‘‘reaction’’ to an incident. 

I attach to my testimony a 1982 Chicago Tribune article that demonstrates the 

process of regulatory change. It is about how the Class 1A 500 mile brake inspection 

standard, which was based on old steam engine stops was finally updated to a 1,000 

mile brake inspection. It highlights for the Committee that the process for updating 

standards may have marginally changed, but not fundamentally. In 2017, notwithstanding the tremendous advances in locomotive, brake and detection technology, 

railroads have been unsuccessful in updating the brake inspection standard originally based on steam engine technology, which was last changed more than thirty 

years ago through negotiation with labor unions. 

There are a multitude of internal and external incentives for railroads to operate 

safely, in addition to regulation, which is why railroads have well-developed risk 

management plans. As the railroad industry develops new technologies, they are 

overlaid upon railroads’ existing regulatory compliance activities. We find that these 

activities in some cases no longer fit an operating environment increasingly supported by technology. At BNSF, our maintenance standards meet and even exceed 

FRA regulations. For example, BNSF inspects our densest lines both visually and 

technically at a rate at least twice the FRA requirement, in many ways rendering 

the prescriptive inspection activity requirements moot. 

Advances in locomotives, signal systems, grade-crossing warning devices, and 

track inspection made possible by technology in some ways are marginalized for 

purposes of regulatory compliance because they exist outside of the current regulatory construct, which recognizes only the safety value of prescribed practices. Existing regulations which prescribe physical inspection at specific intervals for equipment and facilities now make less sense because of the advances in equipment, 

which is itself continuously self-diagnostic and self-reporting in the event of defects. 

Technology-based inspection can also reduce the safety exposures related to frequently putting people in, under and between equipment or out on the line of road 

to perform physical inspections for the same conditions. Technology-driven operational advancements, like electronic delivery of mandatory train orders and directives in lieu of required paper versions which will enable other technologies, should 

be incentivized. 

16 

Granting waivers is a measured approach to bridging past with present and help 

make regulatory evolution possible. The FRA’s waiver authority is appropriately 

very broad. The regulations provide that, ‘‘the Secretary may waive compliance with 

any part of a regulation prescribed or order issued under this chapter if the waiver 

is in the public interest and consistent with railroad safety.’’ Waivers represent industry and the regulator’s best opportunity to modify FRA regulatory directives in 

light of changed circumstances, with appropriate regulatory oversight. However, implementation of the existing waiver process has been difficult and the timelines for 

even the simplest of waivers are measured in months or years, and quite often come 

with conditions that sub-optimize the value of the waiver or innovation being 

sought. 

Waivers are important to allow the industry to demonstrate new technologies and 

practices that might—or might not—work to enhance safety. As the regulatory mandate to implement electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brake mandate demonstrates, some technologies are determined by the industry after demonstration to 

simply not be ready for prime time or could be disruptive if integrated into operations. Mandating a demonstrated technology after it has been shown to not be suitable for implementation will chill this kind of important experimentation. Nonetheless, waivers help create common understanding between the regulator and the regulated about railroad operations, and waiver-generated data can lay the predicate 

for updating regulations. 

New rules should only be adopted when the rule’s benefits clearly outweigh its 

costs. The cost-benefit analysis process for imposing costly new mandates will rarely 

work when the industry is already so safe. Regulators recently have resorted to tortured cost-benefit calculations to justify proposed mandates. One of the most glaring 

examples, which required legislation by this Committee, was the recent ECP brake 

mandate where the FRA averaged the cost-benefit analysis across the tank car safety rule to justify mandating ECP brakes. 

Neither Congress nor the FRA has taken a comprehensive look at the cumulative 

impact and effectiveness of the body of railroad regulations, or how they can be 

changed to reflect the current state of operations practices and ensure that they 

incentivize technology, or at least do not discourage it. We believe that regulation 

can be improved to take into account a railroad’s safety record and their successful 

risk management activities. 

Regulatory requirements for prescriptive activities is not the best way to improve 

safety if measuring safety outcomes can provide better incentives and flexibility. We 

believe that PTC is one of the best examples of how a technology mandate could 

have been more performance-based, which we believe could have achieved better 

safety outcomes sooner. As you may recall, the PTC regulations as originally adopted by the FRA had a cost of approximately $20 for every dollar of benefit. Had Congress and the FRA required performance standards for the types of incidents prevented by PTC, then railroads could have identified and implemented the best way 

to achieve those goals. This would have included PTC; in 2008, BNSF was in the 

process of implementing a version of PTC called Electronic Train Management System (ETMS). But given more flexibility to develop it, it could have been implemented in a more efficient and cost effective manner, possibly in tandem with some 

of the recent operationally beneficial technologies outlined, above. 

Going forward, Congress needs to create a process that directs the FRA to, in 

more cases, embrace collaboration and transparency toward identifying the optimal 

performance targets and more formally aligning regulator and the regulated entities 

around incentives for continuous safety improvement. We believe that currently deployed and in-development safety and detector technologies combined with advanced 

data analytics has allowed us to achieve a level of safety that makes regulatory development and oversight of performance standards supportable. 

There is a pending risk reduction regulation (FRA–2009–0038), required by Congress in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 which may have been, in fact, 

an effort by Congress to move the FRA towards a more performance-based regulatory paradigm. However, when the Congressional directive became a proposed rule 

by the FRA, the rule moved in the direction of imposing extensive reporting requirements, mandating risk reduction activities and applying regulation to technology innovations to prescribe design and maintenance requirements—all layered on top of 

existing mandates, and not in lieu of them. In the FRA’s approach to implementation of this rule, railroads see detailed requirements for reporting their risk management plans, accompanied by related ‘‘paperwork violation’’ enforcement opportunities without the tradeoff of performance based regulation. Furthermore, any requirement for detailed safety evaluation and risk management disclosures must be closely accompanied by information protections which railroads believe must be improved 

in this rule. If required railroad operational review and mitigation data is not proVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:38 Jul 05, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\25999.TXT JACKIE
17 

tected, then the ‘‘lottery’’-like recoveries we increasingly see in courts will impede 

innovation and even possibly challenge compliance. 

Railroads, and the public for that matter, need forward-thinking Federal railroad 

safety regulators and appropriate regulations. In a technologically and operationally 

complex and increasingly data-driven railroad industry, the existing ‘‘inspect and 

enforce’’ paradigm may not allow regulators to best understand the evolving technology-based railroad operating environment. Regulatory ‘‘reform’’ does not happen 

overnight, and it is especially hard when there are more than 100 years of how ‘‘it 

has always been done.’’ But there is payoff, as well as a role, for all stakeholders 

involved in achieving near-, mid- and long-term goals for the Administration, Congress and the industry. A framework for that is outlined below. 

Near-Term Goal—Improve the Waiver Process 

• The Secretary of Transportation and FRA Administrator should review existing 

waivers, streamlining them as appropriate, and making some permanent in 

order to provide certainty to the industry and stakeholders. Typically waivers 

are granted for no longer than five years. 

• Expeditiously consider and act on pending waivers, especially those that promote innovation, demonstrate technology or proof of concept, or allow operating 

practices that are more efficient and consistent with railroad safety, and 

promptly grant them when appropriate. 

• The FRA should reform the process for granting new waivers with a focus on 

efficiency, prioritizing technology and collaboration. 

» Shorten the waiver review period to six months; the current process requires 

that waiver requests be presented to the FRA Safety Board which in turn has 

up to nine months to act on the request; 

» Conduct an ongoing evaluation of waivers to determine whether and how they 

become permanent rule changes consistent with their grant; 

» Include a railroad/industry representative on the FRA Safety Board, even as 

a non-voting member; 

» Prioritize waivers that provide technology demonstration; 

» Ensure that waivers are not conditioned with unreasonable or unrelated operating restrictions; and 

» Ensure that waiver reporting requirements are reasonable and related to 

helping achieve performance based regulatory treatment. 

With process improvements, the FRA and railroads would be able to more quickly 

address and implement waiver applications, especially those demonstrating innovation and technology. 

Mid-Term Objective—Regulatory Rationalization and Administrative Procedures Act 

Reform 

Although prescriptive, activity-based regulation is likely to continue in certain 

areas, the rail industry’s extraordinary safety record should allow for movement toward a balanced approach that also includes performance based regulation, with the 

goal of achieving greater safety and operational benefits. As Congress reviews how 

railroads are regulated and considers needed improvements, the following guidelines 

should be kept in mind: 

• Regulations should be based on a demonstrated need, as reflected in current 

and complete data and sound science. They should have a well-defined and 

measurable objective, and be regularly evaluated as to their effectiveness in 

achieving it. 

• All components of an agency’s decision-making should be transparent to the 

public and subject to meaningful analysis and comment before the rule is finalized. 

• Non-prescriptive regulatory tools, like performance-based regulations, should be 

deployed wherever possible to align the interests of the regulator and the industry, and to foster and facilitate innovation to achieve well-defined policy goals. 

• Regulations should provide benefits outweighing their costs, and the potential 

redundancies and general interplay with other existing regulations should be 

considered in every rulemaking. 

• Use of ‘‘guidance’’ should be limited to appropriate situations and time periods. 

While these comments are focused on the FRA, many of these principles can and 

should be adopted by all agencies with railroad oversight, like the STB. 

18 

Long-Term Objective—FRA Implementation of Performance Standards for Compliant 

Railroads 

After creating a statutory framework that allows the FRA to develop performance 

based regulations, Congress should oversee FRA’s progress in achieving it. The FRA 

should be empowered to set up a standard for identifying precursors to accidents. 

Specifically, the FRA could develop a targeted standard that is as safe, or safer, 

than current operations, and apply a different level of mandated requirements if the 

railroad met the standard. In that event, the FRA would maintain a broad review 

of a railroad’s safety performance plan, including the railroad’s track and equipment 

safety practices and technology, along with its operating practices such as training 

and employee engagement. Done correctly, regulation would incentivize railroads to 

achieve safety performance standards. Acknowledging that creating such a framework will be complex, we believe that it is possible and will benefit all stakeholders. 

Infrastructure Investment and Policy 

Modal Equity 

There has been a lot of discussion about additional infrastructure investment on 

both sides of the aisle, but it is important to point out that during the last Congress, 

this Committee provided opportunities to the transportation community by helping 

to enact the FAST Act. Railroads supported the FAST Act. Except, that it was not 

entirely paid for by users, which I will discuss further. 

While BNSF and the Nation’s Class I freight railroads are almost entirely funded 

with private capital, we have a strong vested interest in ensuring adequate investments are made in public infrastructure like ports and highways, which, when combined with rail, make up the Nation’s integrated freight supply chain. The U.S. has 

achieved today’s efficient supply chain with each mode of transportation doing what 

it does best—railroads move freight long haul, often in partnership with trucking 

company customers; trucks handle the bulk of shorter haul and local delivery; and 

ocean carriers, dock workers and freight owners all come together to help create an 

efficient intermodal freight transportation network. 

In order to sustain a strong and efficient supply chain to handle future freight 

growth, we must all work to ensure the necessary capacity is in place across all 

modes. The investment looks a bit different for each stakeholder. For rail and 

BNSF, this means expanding our line haul and terminal capacity to keep trains 

moving and avoid congestion or delay. As rail volumes grew over the past 25 years, 

the industry invested a massive amount into infrastructure maintenance and expansion to create capacity. BNSF’s recent investments are evidence of our commitment 

to increase capacity. In fact, since 2000, we have invested more than $55 billion in 

our network to ensure we are positioned to grow with our customers. 

With respect to federally funded capacity investments in public road and bridge 

infrastructure, the U.S. has historically relied upon a ‘‘user pays’’ system, which 

until recently worked extremely well. However, the user pays model has experienced 

significant erosion as Highway Trust Fund (HTF) revenues, generated through fuel 

taxes and other static user fees, have failed to keep up with investment needs and 

have been supplemented with general taxpayer dollars and other non-traditional 

funding sources. 

General fund transfers to the HTF, now totaling some $143 billion since 2008, 

amounts to more than three years’ worth of non-user, or ‘‘free’’ taxpayer money for 

those who benefit from federal-aid highway programs, assuming FAST Act levels of 

budget authority. Further, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that 

under FAST Act funding levels the gap between dedicated surface transportation 

user-based revenues and spending will average $21.2 billion annually from Fiscal 

Year 2021 to 2026. 

The heaviest of trucks already underpay their share of the wear and tear on Federal highways. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Highway Cost 

Allocation Study released in 2000, 80,000-pound, five-axle combination trucks cover 

just 80 percent of the damage they cause to our highways; six-axle, 97,000-pound 

trucks cover just 50 percent of their cost responsibility; and trucks weighing more 

than 100,000 pounds cover only 40 percent. Underpayments on state taxes are also 

significant and are in addition to the Federal underpayment. Recent studies suggest 

that, adjusted for inflation, the DOT findings mean that 80,000-pound trucks currently underpay their Federal cost responsibility by around 27 cents per gallon of 

fuel. For some truck size and weight configurations, the Federal underpayment 

could be as high as $1.17 per gallon. Many states already have exemptions to allow 

heavier trucks on state roads, and in recent years, a number of Federal truck size 

and weight exemptions have passed, without any related increase in fees. Last Congress, the trucking industry supported an increase in the fuel tax. 

19 

Some of BNSF’s biggest customers and valued supply chain partners are trucking 

companies, and they are also in many cases intense competitors. Railroads have a 

significant cost advantage over all-truck long-haul freight moves, but this is eroded 

by the ongoing infusions of General Funds into the HTF without appropriate increases in the fees, taxes and other charges paid by truck users of the infrastructure. As I like to say, if you subsidize something, you get more of it. Moving away 

from the trucking industry paying its fair share in usage taxes will result in more 

trucks on the highway system and shifts modal equity from more fuel efficient and 

environmentally-friendly freight rail. Even public policy support for development 

and testing of truck automation could tilt the playing field away from intermodal 

freight rail, especially if railroads’ own automation, both within facilities and along 

the line of road, is not also a public policy priority. 

Congress should strengthen the ‘‘user pays’’ requirement. It could be done by increasing the fuel tax and/or moving toward a weight distance/vehicle-miles-traveled 

tax system for trucks. The FAST Act established the Surface Transportation System 

Funding Alternatives grant program to fund projects testing the design, implementation and acceptance of user-based alternative revenue mechanisms. The program 

has awarded over $14 million in grants to the following state transportation departments: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, Missouri, Oregon and Washington. 

Congress should be aware of these and other opportunities for demonstrating ways 

to determine and assess a fair fee for commercial use of highway infrastructure. 

Permitting Reform 

Turning back to the FAST Act, there were many things to like, especially in terms 

of freight transportation policy. The law calls for development of a national freight 

strategy and prioritizes freight projects in a way no previous surface transportation 

authorization bill has. Below are highlights of the law from the railroad perspective, 

as well as additional recommendations where appropriate. 

The FAST Act continued and expanded upon project delivery and permitting reforms enacted as part of the reauthorization bill’s predecessor legislation, MAP–21. 

For example, FAST directs the DOT to review all previously enacted highway permit reforms and project streamlining procedures and apply them to railroad 

projects. The bill also expands on the types of rail projects that can be categorically 

excluded from extensive review requirements, and further mandates that the DOT, 

in consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, create a process 

to mirror that of the Federal highway system, which would exclude railroad rightsof-way from unnecessary historic reviews. Careful implementation of these reforms 

by the DOT and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be important 

to ensuring that the intended benefits are fully realized. 

While project delivery reforms at the Federal level have been an important focus, 

improved permitting processes remain a critical need at all levels of government. 

Almost weekly, negative decisions from courts or permitting authorities at the local 

and state level demonstrate to BNSF and its customers that our growth, especially 

at origins and destinations, is limited by the inability to secure required permits. 

Over the past few years, facility expansion on the West Coast for both BNSF and 

our customers has been severely challenged by the regulatory process and environmental advocacy groups opposed to facility construction. These decisions effectively 

cut the rest of the U.S. off from valuable access to the Pacific Ocean. 

In some cases, local permitting processes are used as a means to target and prevent interstate transportation, particularly of fossil fuels. Under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA), many state or local regulations are 

preempted with respect to rail transportation—including zoning and land use regulation, construction and environmental permitting of rail facilities and regulation of 

railroad operations. When it comes to interstate commerce, Federal agencies, including the STB, must not be reluctant to intervene and provide clear direction that 

using such regulations to block these projects is preempted. Strong direction is necessary to ensure that important rail projects are not shelved or abandoned altogether, and that the flow of interstate commerce is not impeded. Additional permitting reform recommendations include: 

• Statutorily prioritize project permitting for international commerce. 

• Review the scope of state implementation of Federal statutes to ensure consistency with Federal regulators for projects in interstate commerce. 

• Expand Federal Communications Commission regulatory streamlining to expedite the deployment of technologies that improve safety and efficiency in the 

railroad industry 

20 

FASTLANE and Other Grant Programs 

The FAST Act provides dedicated freight funding both by formula to the states 

as well as through a competitive FASTLANE grant program for addressing critical 

freight needs including, among other things, intermodal connectors, port facilities, 

highway-rail grade separations and certain rail projects. Below are several examples 

of FASTLANE grant projects which demonstrate the intermodal significance of the 

program. 

• The CREATE Project in Chicago makes improvements including grade separations along four rail corridors that handle passenger and freight traffic reducing 

train and vehicle delays throughout the Chicago area, the busiest rail hub in 

the country. A pending $160 million FASTLANE grant for the 75th Street Corridor Improvement Project will eliminate the most congested chokepoint in the 

Chicago Terminal, Belt Junction, where 30 Metra trains and 90 freight trains 

cross each other’s path each day. In total, the CREATE partnership has committed $1.4 billion in funding for the Chicago Region’s freight network. 

• The Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis’s (TRRA) Merchants Bridge 

across the Mississippi River, which was originally constructed in 1890, requires 

replacement of the east approach and main spans, a $222 million project. The 

Missouri DOT has applied for a $75 million FASTLANE grant to help pay for 

an upgrade of the bridge’s seismic resilience, as part of the project which will 

be otherwise funded by the TRRA. The bridge is one of the busiest rail bridges 

across the Mississippi River, facilitating Amtrak service as well as the efficient 

movement of freight. 

• The Tennessee DOT has applied for an approximately $100 million FASTLANE 

grant as part of a more than $300 million project to improve critical roadway 

infrastructure in a key freight corridor through Memphis. Roadway capacity improvements in the corridor will benefit a large number of freight transportation 

companies and their customers, including helping facilitate efficient truck flows 

in and out of BNSF’s Memphis intermodal facility, in which BNSF invested 

$200 million for expansion in 2010. The project will have significant traffic congestion and delay savings, environmental benefits from improved vehicle flows 

and reduced idling, and improved roadway safety. 

The FAST Act also importantly provided a funding increase for the Railway-Highway Crossings Program (‘‘Section 130 program’’) from $230 million in 2017 to $245 

million in 2020—funding that should be fully utilized by states but often is not. The 

Section 130 program provides apportioned funds to states for the elimination of hazards at highway grade crossings, with 50 percent of a state’s apportionment dedicated to installation of protective devices at crossings and the remainder for any 

hazard elimination project. Section 130 is a critically important program, and while 

it does allow for some funding to go towards highway-rail grade separation projects, 

it does not come close to meeting the pressing needs that states and local governments have to increase funding toward projects that separate their roadways from 

railroad operations. The FAST Act prioritized grade separations in ways previous 

highway bills did not by making them eligible grade separation projects across multiple funding programs, but if the legislative opportunity to assist state and local 

governments with additional funding for this important roadway investment presents itself, railroads would continue to participate and support those projects. 

As Congress considers additional infrastructure-related legislation, we believe the 

project grant eligibilities developed by Congress in the FAST Act provide an excellent framework. However, we also recommend that Congress consider providing additional funding for commuters and Amtrak to implement PTC, and to provide funding for track and other improvements on the Amtrak national route system. 

Conclusion 

I always like to remind Members of Congress about their important role in designing and paying for a transportation network to facilitate American competitiveness. Many of the more than 150 million Americans who go to work every day rely 

on their employers to be able to compete in the global competitive marketplace. Congress provides Federal funding for the highway network which is key to this ability 

for the American worker to compete. Our supply chain is also enormously blessed 

with the most efficient freight rail network in the world. This freight rail network 

participates in almost 40 percent of all of the intercity gross ton miles that move 

in our country. It is privately funded and Congress does not have to debate the 

funding levels for these networks because their maintenance, expansion and operations are fully paid for by the railroads. These well-maintained and efficient networks benefit our customers but these investments are also an important part of 

21 

why railroads are setting new safety records. They also provide key public benefits 

by mitigating the impacts of highway congestion and wear and tear. 

By increasing the cost of compliance, preventing efficiency or adequate returns 

through regulation, or creating a playing field that is not level for railroads vis-a`- 

vis their competitors, Congress and the Administration ‘‘control the dial’’ on how 

much of the railroad industry’s benefits we can afford to deliver. However, we know 

that Congress and especially this Committee understand the role of railroads in the 

economy, and in each of your states, and we appreciate that we are heard and able 

to remain engaged in dialogue with you about these issues and others related to 

strengthening freight movement in our Nation. 

ATTACHMENT

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1982/01/10/page/67/article/ancient-rail-rulesgetting-an-update 


215ROSE6.eps
22 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rose. 

And next, Dr, Lofgren. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DR. CHRISTOPHER B. LOFGREN, PRESIDENT 

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SCHNEIDER NATIONAL, INC. 

Dr. LOFGREN. Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member Mr. Booker, 

distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

Schneider National was founded in 1935 by Al Schneider when 

he sold the family car and bought the truck. Since then, we’ve 

grown to become one of the largest truckload and intermodal transportation companies in North America. We employ more than 

19,000 associates across the country, with strong presence in many 

states represented on this subcommittee. 

Trucking companies like Schneider are the backbone of America’s 

economy. The trucking industry transports more than 80 percent of 

the Nation’s freight tonnage and employs approximately 7 million 

workers in trucking-related jobs. In addition to moving goods into 

and out of the U.S. ports, we also provide essential lifeline to communities across the country, delivering supplies and essential commodities. 

In order to meet the current and projected future demand for 

freight movement, Congress and the new administration should 

promote policies and regulations that ensure safety, support innovation, and increase productivity. 

At Schneider, safety is our number one core value. This commitment stems from our founding common sense observation that 

nothing we do is worth hurting others or ourselves. We are constantly striving to put safety first and always, which is why we’ve 

established industry-leading policies, practices, and technologies. 

This includes significant investments in safety-enhancing equipment and technology, including roll stability, collision avoidance, 

forward-facing cameras, training simulators, and real-time truck 

sensor monitoring. 

We were the first to install game-changing in-cab communication 

devices back in 1985, and have continued to adopt cutting edge 

technology since then. A more recent technological investment, 

making our trucks, our drivers, and highways safer every day is 

the OnGuard collision mitigation system. Installed in every new 

tractor, this forward-looking, radar-based system monitors the distance, speed, and deceleration of the vehicle ahead. 

Since our deployment of the collision mitigation technology in 

2012, Schneider has experienced a 69 percent decrease in rear-end 

accidents and a 95 percent reduction in rear-end accident claim 

costs. While Schneider has excelled as an industry leader in safety, 

innovation, and technology, we still draw concern from a range of 

critical issues impacting our business and the future of our industry. 

As you seek input on these matters in order to shape policy for 

the 115th Congress, I would like to highlight the following. We operate in a highly regulated industry. While some regulations have 

merit and will successfully increase safety within our industry, 

these things, such as hours of service, requirements for electronic 

logging devices, hair follicle testing, and speed limiters, we’ve also 

23 

experienced a general trend of restrictive and complex regulations, 

which impact the overall supply of trucks and drivers in the industry. 

We’re also subject to regulation at the State level, where new 

laws and litigation threaten our efficiency and the ability to conduct business in a uniform manner. Although Congress provided 

for the express preemption of State laws related to the prices, 

routes, and services of motor carriers through legislation in 1994, 

that preemption has recently been challenged. State laws regarding 

drivers’ meals and rest breaks, payment agreements, and more 

have evolved into a new patchwork of rules and regulations at the 

State level. The lack of consistency on this and other issues governing interstate trucking have created unintended consequences 

that actually decrease safety and hurt the environment. 

In the area of cybersecurity, while the application of innovative 

technologies around information, automation, and communication 

optimizes our operations and increases safety, it also makes our 

businesses more dependent upon uninterrupted and secure networks. Infrastructure investment is crucial, as you’ve highlighted. 

Underinvestment in our Nation’s surface transportation infrastructure produces inefficiencies in ways that we move our goods, it 

wastes fuel, and increases operating costs. 

Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member Booker, and other distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify and provide Schneider’s perspective on increasing safety 

and efficiency for the trucking industry. As the Committee continues to work, we stand ready to support your efforts and offer insights about our industry and policies that pertain to your jurisdiction. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lofgren follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. CHRISTOPHER B. LOFGREN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SCHNEIDER NATIONAL, INC. 

Introduction 

Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member Booker and distinguished members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify about ‘‘Moving America with 

our Multi-modal Transportation System.’’ My name is Chris Lofgren and I am President and Chief Executive Officer of Schneider National, Inc., headquartered in 

Green Bay, Wisconsin. Today, I would like to offer you my insights about the trucking and transportation logistics industry and share with you the best practices that 

Schneider National has deployed that increase the efficiency, effectiveness and safety of our Nation’s multimodal transportation system. I hope that it will inform the 

Committee’s agenda in the 115th Congress. 

Schneider National was founded by Al Schneider in 1935 when he sold his family 

car to buy the company’s first truck. Since that time, Schneider National has grown 

to become one of the largest truckload and intermodal transportation companies in 

North America. Our business consists of approximately 10,800 company and 2,800 

owner-operator trucks, 38,400 trailers and 18,000 intermodal containers. Schneider 

National employs 19,300 associates across all 48 of the contiguous United States, 

with a strong presence in many of the states represented on this subcommittee such 

as New Jersey, Wisconsin, Washington and Nebraska. 

We serve a diverse customer base, which includes multiple industries represented 

by approximately 10,000 customers, including more than 200 Fortune 500 companies. Each day, our freight moves more than 8.8 million miles, equivalent to circling 

the globe approximately 350 times. Our logistics business manages over 20,000 

qualified carrier relationships and, in 2015, managed approximately $2 billion of 

third-party freight. Our portfolio diversity, network density throughout North America, and large fleet allows us to provide an exceptional level of service to our cusVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:38 Jul 05, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\25999.TXT JACKIE
24 

1 American Trucking Associations, American Trucking Trends 2016 (August 2016) 

tomers and consistently excel as a reliable partner, especially at times of peak demand. 

Schneider National is driven by our uncompromising values to deliver the goods 

that enhance the lives of people everywhere. Core to these values is our commitment to safety, integrity, respect and excellence. These principles are guiding tenants of our business at every level of the company. 

Trucking companies like Schneider National are the backbone of America’s economy. The trucking industry transports more than 80 percent of our Nation’s freight 

tonnage and employs approximately 7 million workers in trucking-related jobs.1 In 

addition to moving goods into and out of U.S. ports, we also provide an essential 

lifeline to communities across the country, delivering supplies and essential commodities. 

Our nation’s ability to compete in global markets, and to meet the needs and expectations of consumers and businesses, depends on a robust freight system driven 

by the trucking industry. In order to meet current and projected future demand for 

freight movement, Congress and the new Administration should promote policies 

and regulations that ensure safety, support innovation and increase productivity. 

Safety, Innovation and Technology 

At Schneider National, safety is our number one core value. This commitment 

stems from our founding common sense observation that ‘‘nothing we do is worth 

hurting others or ourselves.’’ Today, our culture of safety starts with our people and 

layers in training, processes and technology. We are constantly striving to put safety 

first and always, which is why we have established industry-leading policies, practices and technologies. 

Our relentless focus on safety not only enables us to better uphold our responsibility towards our employees, customers and the community, but also provides a 

critical competitive advantage in an industry with increasingly stringent safety and 

regulatory requirements, resulting in lower operating risk and insurance costs. 

I would like to share some of the policies, practices and technologies we at Schneider National have adopted that may serve as best practices in the eyes of the Committee as it seeks to increase the safety of our multi-modal transportation system. 

• Safety through Innovative Technology: At Schneider National, we have made 

significant investments in safety-enhancing equipment and technology, including roll stability, collision avoidance, forward facing cab cameras, training simulators and realtime truck sensor monitoring. We were the first to install gamechanging in-cab communication devices back in 1985 and have continued to 

adopt cutting edge technology since that time. A more recent technological investment making our trucks, drivers and highways safer every day is the 

OnGuardTM collision mitigation system. Installed on every new tractor, this forward-looking, radar-based system monitors the distance, speed and deceleration 

of the vehicle ahead. OnGuard alerts the driver to possible collision risks and 

actively works to eliminate, or at worst mitigate the severity of, any impact. 

Since our deployment of the collision mitigation technology in 2012, Schneider 

National has experienced a 69 percent decrease in rear-end accidents and a 95 

percent reduction in rear-end accident claims cost. Additionally, Schneider National was an early adopter of Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) and supports 

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) final rule requiring 

the installation of ELDs by December of this year. We recommend the Committee continues to advance policies that encourage the development and implementation of innovative technologies that can improve safety. 

• Practices that Promote Health and Safety: As a company that is strongly committed to safety, Schneider National is constantly seeking ways to protect the 

traveling public and the communities in which we operate. This includes our 

investments in cutting edge technology as well as our pursuit of additional opportunities to enhance health and safety, such as mandatory pre-employment 

drug tests that surpass U.S. Department of Transportation standards by requiring hair samples. Under current FMCSA regulations, truck drivers are required 

to undergo mandatory pre-employment urine testing for drugs and alcohol. 

While urine testing has been somewhat effective in identifying drug use, 

Schneider National has recognized that there are alternative routes to urinalysis, such as hair follicle testing that can better identity drug users. Specifically, hair testing can detect drug use for a period of up to 90 days, while urine 

testing only detects usage over a much shorter period of time (48–72 hours). At 

Schneider National, we believe there is no place for drug use in a safety-senVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:38 Jul 05, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\25999.TXT JACKIE
25 

2 U.S. Department of Transportation, Beyond Traffic 2045: Trends and Choices 

sitive environment such as the trucking industry. That is why we have voluntarily opted to utilize the more reliable and comprehensive hair follicle testing, 

despite its increased cost. We recommend the Committee encourage the voluntary adoption of practices that promote health and safety by allowing companies like Schneider National to substitute proven practices in lieu of less stringent U.S. DOT requirements. 

Critical Issues and Future Challenges 

While Schneider National has excelled as an industry leader in safety, innovation 

and technology, we still draw concern from a range of critical issues impacting our 

business and the future of our industry. As you seek input on these matters in order 

to shape policy for the 115th Congress, I would like to highlight the following: 

• Federal Regulations: We operate in a highly regulated industry. While some 

regulations have merit and will successfully increase safety within our industry 

and across the system—like Hours of Service rules, requirements for ELDs, hair 

follicle testing and speed limiters, we also have experienced a general trend of 

restrictive and complex regulation, which impacts the overall supply of trucks 

and drivers in the industry. Furthermore, the use of guidance rather than 

rulemakings creates an unintended sense of uncertainty within the industry 

while also increasing liability exposure. 

• State Regulations: In addition to Federal regulations, we are subject to regulation at the state level where new laws and litigation threatens our efficiency 

and ability to conduct business in a uniform manner. Although Congress provided for the express preemption of state laws related to the prices, routes and 

services of motor carriers when it passed the Federal Aviation Administration 

Authorization Act (FAAAA) of 1994, that preemption has recently been challenged. State laws regarding drivers’ meal and rest break periods, payment 

agreements and more has evolved into a new patchwork of rules and regulations at the state level. The lack of consistency on this and other issues governing interstate trucking have created unintended consequences that decrease 

safety and hurt the environment. 

• Cybersecurity: While the application of innovative information, automation and 

communications technologies optimizes our operations and increases safety, it 

also makes our business more dependent on an uninterrupted and secure network. If the stability or capability our technologies is compromised, it could adversely affect our revenue, customer service, driver turnover rates and data 

preservation. Additionally, if any of our critical information or communications 

systems fail or become unavailable, we would be required to perform certain 

functions manually, which could temporarily affect the efficiency and effectiveness of the supply chain. 

• Infrastructure Investment: Underinvestment in our Nation’s surface transportation infrastructure produces inefficiencies in the way we move goods, wastes 

fuel and increases operating costs. Current freight bottlenecks and interstate 

congestion already challenges our operations. With U.S. freight volume anticipated to increase 45 percent by the year 2040 2, the system must be updated 

and prepared for this surge. Otherwise, our environment and economy will suffer. 

Conclusion 

Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member Booker and other distinguished members of 

the subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity to testify and provide 

Schneider National’s perspective on increasing safety and efficiency for the trucking 

industry. As the Committee continues its work in the 115th Congress, we stand 

ready to support your efforts and offer insight about our industry and policies that 

pertain to the jurisdiction of this committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Lofgren. 

Mr. Gurd, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF TOM GURD, VICE PRESIDENT, 

INTEGRATED SUPPLY CHAIN, THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY 

Mr. GURD. Good afternoon. I’m Tom Gurd, Vice President of Integrated Supply Chain for the Dow Chemical Company. I would like 

26 

to thank Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member Booker, and members of the Subcommittee for inviting Dow to testify at this hearing. I’m here to testify on behalf of Dow and also a member of the 

American Chemistry Council, a trade association representing 

America’s leading chemical companies. 

I would like to thank the Subcommittee for recognizing that the 

chemical industry is a principal stakeholder in developing policies 

that can keep our economy moving. We welcome the opportunity to 

work closely with the Subcommittee to develop infrastructure and 

transportation policies that further drive investment and manufacturing growth in the U.S. 

Dow’s products help address many of the world’s most challenging problems, such as the need for fresh food, safer and more 

sustainable transportation, clean water, energy efficiency, more durable infrastructure, and increasing agricultural productivity. 

Dow is one of the largest chemical and plastic shippers in North 

America. Our operations continue to grow, most significantly in the 

U.S. Gulf Coast. In 2016, we made over 1 million shipments from 

over 60 production facilities. This represented over 40 billion 

pounds of product being shipped; over 16 billion pounds shipped by 

rail, 13 billion pounds by road, and over 11 billion by marine. 

We contract with over 200 different third-party carriers to transport our products. Two of them are here with me today. 

We have over 160 third-party warehouses, terminals, and 

transloading facilities. We operate a fleet of 18,000 railcars, including 7,500 tank cars for the transportation of chemicals. Approximately 20 percent of our shipments are hazardous material shipments. Transportation of chemicals, including hazardous materials, 

is vital to U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace as well 

as to the health, safety, and welfare of the American public. 

Safety is Dow’s top priority. We strive to ensure safe operations 

at our production facilities. We collaborate with our logistics service 

providers to ensure safe, secure, and compliant transportation of 

our products. We work with our customers at their locations for the 

safe handling of our products. 

Dow is committed to Responsible Care, the chemical industry’s 

world-class environmental, health, safety, and security performance 

initiative. Our transportation partners demonstrate the same safety commitment through the Responsible Care Partnership program. 

Dow has an extensive risk management program, but we’re also 

committed to ensuring communities are aware and prepared if an 

incident does occur. We support this commitment through 

TRANSCAER and CHEMTREC, which provide the training, support, and information necessary for effective and timely emergency 

response. 

Dow is fully committed to transportation safety and security advancements and to the reduction of risk to people, communities, 

and the environment. This requires close collaboration with all industry stakeholders. An example of this is Dow’s participation as 

the ACC member representative on the Advanced Tank Car Collaborative Research Program to improve tank car safety. 

Dow supports the Federal Government’s comprehensive regulatory framework to mitigate safety and security risks. We encourage the government agencies to further collaborate with industry 

27 

stakeholders to ensure that current and proposed regulations are 

designed to improve safety and reduce unnecessary burdens. 

In advance of the Commerce Committee’s recent hearing on ‘‘Reducing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens,’’ ACC identified a number of regulatory actions by the DOT that impose burdens without 

advancing safety. These actions include regulatory provisions and 

interpretations that directly impact Dow. We welcome further discussion on these issues. 

The DOT serves a critical role in establishing uniform national 

standards for the safe transportation of hazardous materials. The 

DOT must maintain this exclusive role. Any new requirements imposed on the regulated community must be developed through an 

appropriate Federal rulemaking process, and supported by a costbenefit analysis. If regulations are adopted with an unsubstantiated cost-benefit analysis, the regulated community will incur significant costs, yet without increased safety. 

I conclude my testimony by acknowledging your efforts and willingness to work with the chemistry industry and our integrated 

transportation partners to ensure that the U.S. has a safe, secure, 

sustainable, and competitive network to deliver our products when 

and where they’re needed. 

We look forward to working closely with the Subcommittee, our 

transportation partners, and the DOT to further collaborate on 

policies and programs that will enhance our Nation’s transportation infrastructure. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gurd follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM GURD, CORPORATE VICE PRESIDENT, 

INTEGRATED SUPPLY CHAIN, THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY

Good afternoon. I am Tom Gurd, Vice President of Integrated Supply Chain for 

The Dow Chemical Company. I would like to thank Chairman Fischer, Ranking 

Member Booker and Members of the Subcommittee for inviting Dow to testify at 

this hearing. I am here to testify on behalf of Dow and also as a member of the 

American Chemistry Council (‘‘ACC’’), a trade association representing America’s 

leading chemical companies. 

I would like to thank the Subcommittee for recognizing that the chemical industry 

is a principal stakeholder in developing policies that can keep our economy moving. 

We welcome the opportunity to work closely with the Subcommittee to develop infrastructure and transportation policies that further drive investment and manufacturing growth in the U.S. 

Dow’s products help address many of the world’s most challenging problems, such 

as the need for fresh food, safer and more sustainable transportation, clean water, 

energy efficiency, more durable infrastructure, and increasing agricultural productivity. 

Dow is one of the largest chemical and plastics shippers in North America. Our 

operations continue to grow, most significantly in the U.S. Gulf Coast. In 2016, we 

made over 1 million shipments from over 60 production facilities. This represented 

over 40 billion pounds of product. Over 16 billion pounds shipped by rail, over 13 

billion by road, and over 11 billion by marine. We contract with over 200 different 

third party carriers to transport our products. Two of them are here today. We have 

over 160 third party warehouses, terminals and transloading facilities. We operate 

a fleet of 18,000 railcars, including 7,500 tank cars for the transportation of chemicals. Approximately 20 percent of our shipments are hazardous materials shipments. Transportation of chemicals, including hazardous materials, is vital to U.S. 

competitiveness in the global marketplace, as well as to the health, safety, and welfare of the American public. 

Safety is Dow’s top priority. We strive to ensure safe operations at our production 

facilities. We collaborate with our logistics service providers to ensure safe, secure 

28 

and compliant transportation of our products. We work with our customers at their 

locations for the safe handling of our products. 

Dow is committed to Responsible Care®, the chemical industry’s world-class environmental, health, safety, and security performance initiative. Our transportation 

partners demonstrate this same safety commitment through the Responsible Care®

Partnership program. 

Dow has an extensive Risk Management Program, but we are also committed to 

ensuring communities are aware and prepared if an incident does occur. We support 

this commitment through TRANSCAER® and CHEMTREC®, which provide the 

training, support, and information necessary for effective and timely emergency response. 

Dow is fully committed to transportation safety and security advancements and 

to the reduction of risk to people, communities and the environment. This requires 

close collaboration with all industry stakeholders. An example of this is Dow’s participation as the ACC member representative on the Advanced Tank Car Collaborative Research Program to improve tank car safety. 

Dow supports the Federal Government’s comprehensive regulatory framework to 

mitigate safety and security risks. We encourage the government agencies to further 

collaborate with industry stakeholders to ensure that current and proposed regulations are designed to improve safety and reduce unnecessary burdens. 

In advance of the Commerce Committee’s recent hearing on ‘‘Reducing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens,’’ ACC identified a number of regulatory actions by the 

DOT that impose burdens without advancing safety. These actions include regulatory provisions and interpretations that directly impact Dow. We welcome further 

discussion on these issues. 

The DOT serves a critical role in establishing uniform, national standards for the 

safe transportation of hazardous materials. The DOT must maintain this exclusive 

role. Any new requirements imposed on the regulated community must be developed 

through an appropriate Federal rulemaking process, and supported by a cost-benefit 

analysis. If regulations are adopted with an unsubstantiated cost-benefit analysis, 

the regulated community will incur significant costs, yet without increasing safety. 

I conclude my testimony by acknowledging your efforts and willingness to work 

with the chemical industry and our integrated transportation partners to ensure 

that the U.S. has a safe, secure, sustainable and competitive network to deliver our 

products when and where they are needed. We look forward to working closely with 

the Subcommittee, our transportation partners and the DOT to further collaborate 

on policies and programs that will enhance our Nation’s transportation infrastructure. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gurd. 

And, Mr. Moorman. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF WICK MOORMAN, PRESIDENT 

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMTRAK 

Mr. MOORMAN. Thank you, Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member 

Booker, members of the Subcommittee, and my fellow witnesses. 

Good afternoon, everyone. I am Wick Moorman. And it’s a privilege 

for me to be here today to testify on behalf of Amtrak. 

As you’ve heard, I joined Amtrak in September 2016, after a 40- 

some-year career with Norfolk Southern Corporation that culminated in my service as President, CEO, and Chairman of the 

Board. I retired from those positions in 2015, with the idea of enjoying time with my family and absolutely no idea of working fulltime again. 

However, I’ve followed Amtrak since its creation in 1970. I have 

a deep appreciation for its mission. And to my wife’s dismay, I was 

ultimately persuaded to come on board as President and CEO with 

really two responsibilities: one is to build on the progress that Amtrak has seen over the past decade, and then to lead the search for 

the right long-term CEO. 

29 

First, let me express my gratitude to the Committee for the passage of the FAST Act, which recognizes the critical role Amtrak 

plays in our Nation’s transportation network. 2016 was a strong 

year for our company. We tick at revenues of $2.2 billion in more 

than 31 million passengers. We set another record. And additionally and importantly, we reduced our need for Federal operating 

grants to cover our operating loss by covering 94 percent of our operating costs through ticket sales and other revenues, a first for us 

and an achievement matched by few, if any other, passenger railroads worldwide. 

As strong as that performance was, I know that we can get better first by working on our safety culture. Amtrak is a safe company today, but we can get better. And then modernizing and upgrading our products and strengthening our operational efficiency 

and our project delivery. 

We streamlined our organizational structure. We have a consolidated senior executive team to provide focused leadership. And 

with this change, Amtrak is organized now like most freight railroad companies and, in fact, most major corporations, which is entirely appropriate because that’s what Amtrak is, it’s a corporation. 

And while our business model is somewhat different than the 

typical publicly held for-profit company, at the end of the day, Amtrak is a business and will operate like a business on par with all 

of the other companies that rely largely on government funding as 

part of their business model. Our job is to deliver the services and 

run the network that you, our principal stakeholders, believe is in 

the public interest and warrants Federal investment. 

With our new structure in place, I think we’re well positioned for 

future growth opportunities and for delivering more value to the 

American public. However, for us to truly seize the opportunities 

before us, we need to begin a new era of investment in the critical 

assets that are central to our operations: our infrastructure, our 

fleet, and our stations. 

This brings me to my core message today—now is the time to invest in our aging assets. The infrastructure challenges that plague 

our National Highway System, our ports, our inland waterways, 

and transit systems are in many ways similar to the problems facing Amtrak today. More than ever, our Nation and the traveling 

public rely on Amtrak for mobility, but our future depends on 

whether we can renew the cars, locomotives, bridges, tunnels, stations, and the other infrastructure that will allow us to meet these 

growing demands. Our list of needs are long, and several are included in my written testimony submitted for the record. 

We applaud the growing consensus in Congress and certainly the 

work of this committee and the administration that the time is 

right for major infrastructure investments, and we urge you to consider the many ways in which the Federal Government can help 

bring this to fruition, from direct funding for projects to the 

streamlining of things like the environmental review process and 

the removal of unneeded regulation and red tape. 

Additionally, public-private partnerships and innovative financing mechanisms should be part of this mix, and they will be good 

options for us. But if we’re serious about maximizing the value of 

30 

our investments and advancing them quickly, direct Federal funding to entities such as Amtrak should also play a major part. 

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t emphasize the important 

nature of our relationships with the 21 states and the various commuter agencies that we partner with. The growth of our State services is a testimony to the strength of these routes and the demand 

for passenger rail traffic. They now account for about half of our 

total ridership. 

Likewise, in the Northeast Corridor and the other parts of the 

United States where Amtrak owns significant infrastructure, we 

host hundreds of millions of annual commuter trips, and now we’re 

seeing significant investments from these agencies toward our common cause. We’re very focused on identifying ways to work even 

more collaboratively with these states and agencies on our long list 

of important needs, many of which I’ve discussed today. 

I look forward to your questions. Thanks for the opportunity to 

appear before you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moorman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WICK MOORMAN, PRESIDENT

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMTRAK

Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member Booker, members of the Subcommittee, and 

fellow witnesses, good afternoon. My name is Wick Moorman, and it is my privilege 

to be here today on behalf of Amtrak to discuss our integral role in America’s 

multimodal transportation system. 

Introduction 

As most of you know, in September of 2016, I joined Amtrak after a forty-two year 

career with Norfolk Southern Railway that culminated in my service as President, 

CEO and Chairman of the Board. I retired from those positions in 2015, with the 

idea of enjoying time with my family and had absolutely no intention of working 

full-time again. However, I was then approached by the Amtrak Board about the 

possibility of leading Amtrak. Having followed Amtrak since it was created in 1970, 

I have a deep appreciation for the company’s mission and ultimately was persuaded 

to serve as President and CEO, with the goal of building upon Amtrak’s progress 

of the past decade and leading the search to find a long-term CEO that can lead 

the company into the future. 

I come to Amtrak at an important time in our history, as intercity passenger rail 

service has reemerged as a vital and growing part of our national transportation 

network in the new century. In recognition of this, Congress passed the FAST Act 

in December 2015, the first surface transportation bill to include a reauthorization 

of Amtrak and the first to bring the Federal Government’s rail, highway and transit 

programs together into one legislative package. I’d like to thank the members of this 

Subcommittee for your leadership of that effort and applaud steps like today’s hearing that look at ways to further integrate Federal policy and programs for the benefit of mobility, safety and efficiency. 

The FAST Act recognizes the critical role Amtrak plays in our Nation’s transportation network. I am pleased to report to you that Fiscal Year 2016 was a strong 

year for the company. With ticket revenues of $2.2 billion and more than 31 million 

passengers, it was another record year. Additionally, we reduced the need for our 

Federal grant to fund operations, by covering 94 percent of our operating costs 

through ticket sales and other revenues—another first. This is an achievement 

matched by few, if any, other passenger railroads worldwide. 

Corporate Reorganization 

As strong as our FY16 performance was, I’m certain that we can get even better 

by first relentlessly improving our safety culture, modernizing and upgrading our 

products, and strengthening our operational efficiency and project delivery. The first 

step we took towards these goals was streamlining our organizational structure, creating a consolidated senior executive team to provide focused leadership and to work 

with our Board of Directors to drive long-term value. With this change, Amtrak is 

now organized like most freight railroads and major corporations, which is entirely 

appropriate because that is just what Amtrak is—a corporation. 

31 

Although we have a somewhat different history, in that the core of our business 

and mission was established by Congress, we are a business and that business is 

moving people by rail and serving our main stakeholders, the Federal Government 

and the American taxpayer. Our business model is different than that of a typical, 

publicly held, for-profit company. But we have a lot in common with other businesses, from defense contractors to highway builders, who are in business to serve 

government and to support public purposes. Highway builders, for instance, design 

and build essential road infrastructure projects for our government and in support 

of the national economy, charging the public for these services at levels sufficient 

to generate adequate returns for their owners. Similarly, Amtrak receives funds 

from the Federal Government to augment the more than $2 billion in revenue we 

generate directly through ticket sales every year. In that way, we also provide infrastructure and services that produce public benefit and promote the Nation’s economy. 

Federal funds are what allow us to meet the operational and capital needs of our 

46-state national network of trains and our infrastructure that serve more than 500 

communities, urban and rural, across America. We serve these communities and operate these routes because Congress, various Administrations, and the public generally have recognized the unique value that intercity passenger rail service can 

provide to these communities and the Nation. Our job is to deliver the services and 

run the network that you, our principal stakeholders, believe is in the public interest and that provides sufficient value to warrant the investment. In doing so, my 

pledge to you is to operate Amtrak as safely, efficiently, and effectively as possible. 

From better project delivery to greater operational excellence, we are working on 

ways to deliver even greater value from your investments in our mission. 

Let me also take a moment to answer a question I receive from a lot of people 

about whether the government needs to fund passenger rail service at all, and 

whether or not private entities or the freight railroads could just take over the operation of this network. I began my career with the Southern Railway, a Norfolk 

Southern predecessor that chose not to join Amtrak in 1971 and operated some of 

the last privately funded, regularly scheduled intercity service in the U.S. until 

1979. Eventually, dwindling revenues and the cost of equipment improvements led 

the Southern to turn over operation of passenger service to Amtrak, just as every 

other private freight railroad has done. Having led Norfolk Southern, and as a student of the industry for many years, it is clear to me that the fundamentals of the 

rail passenger business remain the same today. If the Nation wants a passenger 

network of any significant size and impact, like the one we operate today, it will 

take public support to make it happen, just as it does everywhere across the globe. 

Passenger Rail Investment Opportunities—Northeast Corridor 

and National Network 

With a new corporate structure in place and with a renewed focus on strengthening safety, operational excellence, and the quality of our product, we are well-positioned for future growth opportunities and for delivering more value to the American public. However, for us to truly seize the opportunities before us, we need to 

begin a new era of investment in the critical assets that are central to our operations—our infrastructure, fleet, and stations. 

This brings me to the core message that I want to share with you today—now 

is the time to advance initiatives to provide funding and investment opportunities 

for our aging assets. The infrastructure challenges plaguing our National Highway 

System, ports, inland waterways, and transit systems are similar to some of the 

problems Amtrak is facing in these major areas: 

(1) Northeast Corridor: Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor is North America’s busiest 

railroad, with 363 miles of Amtrak-owned infrastructure and 2,200 daily highspeed, commuter, and freight trains operating on an underlying infrastructure 

built between 80–110 years ago. While the track and signal systems are reasonably sound, they need improvement, and many major bridges, tunnels and 

stations must be replaced and expanded to preserve current service levels and 

permit future growth. 

(2) National Network: Outside of the Northeast Corridor and across the National 

Network, Amtrak is a tenant operating over the 20,000 miles of freight and 

commuter railroads—including Mr. Rose’s railroad, BNSF. While the condition 

of the freight railroad infrastructure is generally very good, we still encounter 

capacity constraints that limit and delay both passenger and freight volumes. 

(3) Rolling Stock and Stations: Much of our current equipment has reached or exceeded the end of its useful life. In order to meet the current requirements 

and growing demands of our passengers, we must replace these assets. The 

32 

depots that Amtrak inherited are old and in significant need of repair and 

modernization. 

More than ever, our Nation and the traveling public rely on Amtrak for mobility, 

but the future of Amtrak depends on whether we can renew the cars, locomotives, 

bridges, tunnels, stations, and other infrastructure that allow us to meet these 

growing demands. Amtrak already has begun to face this challenge. Enabled by the 

RRIF loan program championed by this Committee, and using our own ticket revenue, we are purchasing new electric locomotives and new trainsets for our second 

generation Acela Express. But we need the help of Congress, if we are to make a 

serious dent in the massive backlog of deferred investment in right-of-way infrastructure and rolling stock that constricts growth and reliability today. As Congress 

and the Administration develop and advance a multimodal transportation investment program to rebuild assets and spur job growth, it is imperative that significant 

funds for Amtrak and passenger rail capital investments be included in that package. 

Our list of needs is long, but each item offers the country a chance to invest in 

long-term assets with big benefits to the travelling public and the national economy. 

A few specific examples include: 

• Construction of the Portal North Bridge and new Hudson Tunnels, both parts 

of the larger Gateway Program that will ensure that 450 daily Amtrak and NJ 

Transit trains can continue to serve New York City from the south; 

• Construction of a new Baltimore & Potomac Tunnel and replacement of the 110- 

year old Susquehanna Bridge in Maryland to improve reliability, expand service, and lower trip time; 

• Construction of fleet of new or rebuilt diesel locomotives and passenger cars to 

support Amtrak’s National Network; 

• Construction of track, signaling, and other improvements to remove chokepoints 

on our host railroads or restore service in key underserved markets, such as 

along the Gulf Coast; and 

• Expansion and improvement of Chicago and Washington Union Stations to improve accessibility, expand capacity, spur local development and enhance safety. 

We applaud the growing consensus in Congress and in the Administration that 

the time is right for major infrastructure investments. We urge you to consider the 

many ways in which the Federal Government can help bring this to fruition, from 

direct funding for projects to streamlining of the environmental review process and 

removal of red tape. In that regard, I want to thank this Committee for including 

the provisions in the FAST Act that help streamline environmental reviews and 

project delivery for railroad projects. I am also aware of the President’s recent executive order directing agencies to streamline and expedite high priority infrastructure projects. These are important steps that can help reduce time and expense for 

both freight and passenger rail projects across this country, and we look forward 

to working with our partners to identify additional steps to further expedite these 

critical rail projects. 

Additionally, public-private partnerships and innovative financing mechanisms 

should be part of this mix and will be good options for some projects. But if we are 

serious about maximizing the value of these investments and advancing them quickly, direct Federal funding to entities such as Amtrak should also play a major part 

of a multi-pronged investment strategy to jumpstart the American economy. Rail infrastructure investments stimulate job growth in construction, manufacturing, and 

professional services. Rail cars, locomotives, steel, concrete, machinery, signals, and 

track are all sourced from across the Nation. Investments in these sectors can help 

spur the rebirth of America’s passenger rail manufacturing and supply sector which 

largely has been dormant and overtaken by international firms. 

Amtrak stands ready to work with each of you and all of Congress to seize this 

opportunity to make smart investments and help make America’s transportation 

network the greatest in the world for generations of Americans to come. 

I look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

I would like to begin by posing a question to all of our panelists. 

As we look at major infrastructure initiatives in this Congress and 

with the new administration, I think we need to be strategic in 

how we invest in our transportation system. For example, the 

multimodal freight program in the Highway Bill offers dedicated 

33 

funding and incentivizes investment in critical urban and rural 

freight corridors. 

I would like to know if any of you believe that that freight program might be a model on how we move forward? Is that something we could build off of so that we can look strategically and be 

focused in an infrastructure proposal? 

Mr. Rose. 

Mr. ROSE. So, I think the FAST Act that you all passed, is undoubtedly the most important freight policy structure that’s ever 

been passed up here. And so I think it has great bones for the future. 

Whether we think about projects of national significance, TIGER 

funding, intermodal connectors, all of those things, they’re all vitally important. And the way we think of it, from the railroad industry, is that every ton of freight that we can take off the national 

highway system to create more capacity for the passengers and the 

traveling public is a ton of freight that you don’t have to maintain. 

And so those individual categories that you listed and I listed are 

really important to facilitate things like permit reform, things like 

investment reform, investments, and how we look at those things, 

at the end of the day really achieve the goal of creating the most 

efficient supply chain in our country that we can have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Dr. Lofgren. 

Dr. LOFGREN. Our heritage, as a company, was long-haul random 

one-way trucking. If you look at our business today, close to $1 billion of our revenue actually comes in partnership with Matt’s company and our partner in the eastern half of the United States 

where for those long distances, it’s effective and efficient for us to 

put our equipment onto the train and to take that first and last 

mile and run it by road. 

So clearly, we have opportunities, and, frankly, we have opportunities here in this country that are beyond what exists anywhere 

else to take advantage of multimodal transportation, and technology and appropriate structures, where they interface, are really 

critical to effectively moving the goods of this country. 

I think the actions that we have taken recently are important. 

I think there’s more to come. And I think that the challenge is, is 

that oftentimes the infrastructure that’s required to connect large 

population centers run through rural areas, and so we have to keep 

in mind what those look like and how they’re maintained in order 

to keep a connected network together, which is really where the 

competitive advantage that allows this country in total to participate in the economy. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Gurd. 

Mr. GURD. As mentioned, we continue to have growth in the U.S. 

Gulf Coast and many of our other production facilities, so anything 

that would support safe transportation of our materials as we grow 

in order to get product to our customers is something that’s very 

important to us. 

Multimodal is something that we continue to look to for opportunities. Where we can ship rail as our safest mode of transportation, 

34 

we’ll continue to do that; where we can’t, we’ll be shipping with 

truck. Multimodal is something that we continue to support. 

So I would say anything with regards to infrastructure that 

would help with the safe transportation of those materials we 

would be supporting. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Moorman. 

Mr. MOORMAN. Let me echo what Matt said in two ways. First, 

the importance of the FAST Act for the entire transportation network. The second thing I would say is that as you look at that 

model and you look at the impact on the freight railroads, the important thing for Amtrak is we’re part of the railroad industry, and 

our strength—we’re only as strong as the freight railroads. Seventy 

percent of our train mileage is on freight hosts, such as BNSF. So 

I think that it’s an important framework and something that will 

be good not only for the transportation of freight, but ultimately for 

the transportation of people as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you all very much. 

Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Chairwoman, Senator Blumenthal has a pressing obligation, so I’m going to pass my time to him if that’s okay 

with you. 

The CHAIRMAN. That would be fine. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much, Senator Booker. I 

really appreciate that courtesy. 

I have a couple of brief questions, beginning, Mr. Moorman, with 

yourself. You may recall that I wrote you just a few weeks ago concerning the noise generated by Amtrak trains going through 

Stonington, and, in particular, I’ve been in contact with the town, 

and I understand perhaps you have been as well. I would like your 

commitment that you will work with the town to resolve these concerns, which are extremely pressing to the town of Stonington and 

people who live in the region generally. 

Mr. MOORMAN. Well, you absolutely have the Amtrak commitment on that. And as I wrote the town, and I think you saw a copy 

of the letter, there’s a process for the town to go through primarily 

driven by the Federal Railway Administration. And so we will assist in any way that we can in helping the town through that process. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I hope that that process can be expedited 

and that any sort of bureaucratic delay can be avoided. I know 

you’ll give it your personal attention. 

Mr. MOORMAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

All of the witnesses may be aware that there are ports in Connecticut: Bridgeport, New Haven, and New London. My colleague 

from New Jersey has ports as well in his state. When we talk 

about rail, we talk about delivering freight that may come through 

our ports. Would you agree with me that increasing the reliability 

35 

and capacity of our ports is essential to delivering more freight, 

more readily, more speedily to the places and people who need 

them? 

Mr. ROSE. We would agree with that totally, Senator, and go on 

to say that our ports are really national treasures. And if we go 

back 30 or 40 years ago, trade was not that big of an impact to our 

country, GDP. Today, arguably, it represents almost 40 percent of 

our GDP, inbound, outbound trade, going through those specific 

ports. 

And when we don’t have the right funding for the ports, two bad 

things happen. One is I believe you have more environmental concerns at the ports themselves. But you also have congestion at 

those ports. And then that freight is going to come into our country 

another way versus the most efficient port. So it will come through 

Canada, it will come through Mexico, it will come through another 

port. 

And so the ports—we’ve got to—and part of the programs, the 

legislation you all passed, and some of the things you’re talking 

about doing, is money that can go directly to ports, and we’re very, 

very supportive of that. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I appreciate those very well-stated comments. Thank you. 

I also want to ask about Positive Train Control. 

Mr. Rose, you have really done yeoman’s work in this regard. Do 

you have guidance for other railroads that may be behind yours in 

implementing Positive Train Control and perhaps some comments 

about its importance to rail safety? 

Mr. ROSE. So Positive Train Control will not be the be-all/endall for rail safety. It is a very important risk mitigation, and it will, 

without a doubt, reduce injuries, fatalities, and derailments. We’re 

very excited about the progress that we’re making and that the rail 

industry is making. Last month, for instance, we ran 35,000 Positive Train Control segments at 85 percent that went through the 

entire system without having a defect. 

So we’ve still got another year and a half on our implementation 

schedule through 2018. We feel very, very confident that we will 

have our entire network outfitted. And we think that all the work 

that we’re doing at BNSF is getting rid of a lot of the challenges, 

a lot of the problems, that some of the other railroads maybe that 

are not as far along as we are, that they will face, and we’re working with the same suppliers. And so we hope that our hard-knock 

lessons will help the rest of the industry. 

The final thing is there are a lot of passenger commuter rails 

that still have not had the—they just don’t have the money to implement Positive Train Control, and it doesn’t escape me that the 

main reason that Congress passed the law in 2009 was because of 

a passenger/freight accident. 

And so as a freight railroad, it may sound out of line, but I actually urge Congress to fund passenger/commuter rail funding for 

Positive Train Control. I can’t imagine a more difficult train wreck 

for us to have to go to where we have the Positive Train Control 

on the freight rail, and the passenger or the commuter didn’t because of lack of funding. It is technology that will work, and we’re 

excited to be leading the charge. 

36 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. My time is expired, but I hope 

that railroads around the country, including commuter railroads, 

Metro-North being one of them, will take your guidance seriously. 

Some of them may have the resources or access to the funds to implement Positive Train Control, but still have not implemented this 

life-saving technology, which is hardly novel or new. It has been 

around for a long time, and I thank you for your commitment to 

it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman—Madam Chairwoman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator Inhofe. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. Lofgren, in your remarks, you mentioned something that’s 

very obvious, and that is that a patchwork of State-level laws negatively impacts what you’re able to do, and that’s one of the reasons 

way back when the National Highway System started, we wanted 

uniformity, particularly not just truckers, but everyone going 

across the country. 

Now, I was here in 1994 when we established the Federal standards for prices, routes, and services of motor carriers. Then along 

comes California, and they established that State meal and rest 

break requirements are in violation of this law, but in 2014, the 

Ninth Circuit said, ‘‘no, it’s not in violation.’’ 

So I would ask you, what kind of impact is this having on your 

business? 

Dr. LOFGREN. Well, I think as it relates to interstate commerce, 

which we’re involved in, we can have a driver who starts in one 

state, travels across multiple states, and will finish his day or her 

day in another state. And as these things start to creep up, with 

all of the best of intentions, you can find yourself violating one or 

the other because they don’t take into account how a driver works 

through their day. 

And that’s the challenge, and that was really what was driving 

the legislation back in 1994, was a recognition that interstate commerce had people moving, and it was the ability to freely move 

around this country to transport goods was giving us a competitive 

advantage. 

And so the challenge is, is that they don’t recognize the very 

work that’s being done and how they impact, and it essentially can 

create discontinuities in terms of doing that and operating consistent with the regulations. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, and you agreed with me that you were 

probably somewhat surprised in 2014 when the Ninth Circuit came 

out with their ruling on this. 

Dr. LOFGREN. Well, I think, look, when you operate within a 

state, and we have some of our drivers who operate within just one 

state or, frankly, one municipality, and in those circumstances, we 

can certainly design the work, design the pay programs, and ensure compliance to that and serve customers. 

37 

And so the issue isn’t one where it’s operating within a state, it 

is absolutely around interstate commerce. And so that’s the part 

that I guess seems strange to me. 

Senator INHOFE. It’s a little strange, yes. 

And, Mr. Rose, first of all, thank you for all your help and cooperation in our tank car efforts. You’ve been a big, big help. The 

BNSF is part of the FAA’s Pathfinder Program to perform research 

aimed at expanding the drone system and their capabilities. This 

is something that I successfully pushed in the FAA bill when we 

had the language—and I was actually aiming at pipelines, an obvious exception that should have been made. 

Now, do you want to share with us any kind of benefits that you 

see in that expansion? 

Mr. ROSE. Sure. So we’re pleased that we have a partnership 

with the FAA, and we were the first company to get non-line-ofsight, which really opens up a whole different world for us. We’re 

using it in some cases out in New Mexico to fly drones ahead of 

trains. We’re using it to take videos of track conditions. We’re using 

it to inspect bridges instead of having to hang an individual in a 

very precarious situation over a bridge to look at the structural 

ability of a bridge. 

So I think we’re just in the first inning of seeing everything that 

is out there for us with drones. We’re working with IBM in terms 

of looking at big data. We’re getting just millions of pieces of information coming from these drones, and now creating the information set that will allow us, quite frankly, to improve our operation 

reliability and improve our safety greatly—— 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, I was going to say every example you used, 

it’s a matter of safety that it addresses. 

Mr. ROSE. Right. 

Senator INHOFE. Not just efficiencies. 

Mr. ROSE. Correct. 

Senator INHOFE. Safety. That’s good. Let me—the Chair, when 

she opened up, was talking about our bill that we passed, the 

FAST Act, and the fact that we had for the first time a national 

freight program, and I was chairing that committee at that time. 

And the reason that she is bringing it up and the reason I want 

to bring it up also is because we’re going to be starting to work 

right away on the next one. And since this is the first time we had 

a national freight program, I just want to get into the record that 

it’s something that is really desired, something that’s helpful. 

Any comments, Mr. Rose, or anyone else that you have on that 

program, other than what you’ve already responded to? 

Mr. ROSE. Yes. We’re very, very supportive. I served on the last 

time the surface transportation network in this country was studied through the SAFETEA–LU legislation back in 2009, and we 

looked at what happens. At that time, our population in this country, we had 312 million people. We actually modeled the highway 

network, the port network, and the railroad network when we get 

to 330 million people, when we get to 350 million people. 

And the only way to stay up and remain our competitiveness 

from an infrastructure supply chain as a percent of GDP is, quite 

frankly, to handle this freight. And freight is a vital link to our Nation’s economy. 

38 

And so I think really for the first time through the FAST Act, 

we’ve actually seen a freight program. It’s not fully fleshed out. The 

bones, I would call it, it has good bones to be able to build on, like 

you’re talking about, and we want to participate in terms—specifically for things like intermodal connection; freight collection areas; 

overpasses; underpasses; grade crossing safety, which I know Senator Gardner is very, very interested in; rail relocation; port enhancements; all these things that at the end of the day make 

freight move more efficiently because when freight doesn’t move efficiently, you get massive congestion costs, and massive congestion 

of commuters on the Nation’s highways. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Young. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA 

Senator YOUNG. Madam Chair, thank you for holding this hearing. I want to thank our Ranking Member and all our witnesses 

here today. 

Indiana is the hub for several major interstate highways. It’s 

earned us the moniker ‘‘The Crossroads of America,’’ in addition to 

‘‘Paradise.’’ You may not have heard that one, but it’s popular back 

home. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator YOUNG. Dr. Lofgren, you spoke to, in response to a question by my colleague from Oklahoma, the impact and enterprise 

level of this Ninth Circuit Court decision pertaining to the preemption of Federal law related to interstate commerce by state laws, 

and the impact it’s had at a company level. Could you sort of translate that down to the worker level and the consumer level, please? 

Dr. LOFGREN. Sure. So, for example, where that law really started was to make sure that agricultural workers were getting the opportunity to take their breaks and get rest. That’s where it started, 

had its roots, and appropriately so. 

The challenge can be when you look at applying it the way that 

the state of California would like us to do it, and, frankly, the way 

which we do, do it now. But what it requires is, is that when a 

driver has to take a 15-minute rest break, our drivers are not going 

to pull off on the side of the road. It’s a safety hazard. It creates 

issues. So they’re going to find the best place where they can move 

that vehicle off, they can park it safely, and take their break. 

The challenge is the way that that restriction is, is that you have 

to do it like now. So it doesn’t really account for the work. And the 

issue that we have is we want our drivers to take breaks, to do 

things safely, we encourage them to do that, and we want them to 

do it when it’s safe, at appropriate times, and those regulations 

just put us at odds, and it frankly makes it difficult. 

And so just recognizing how freight moves, how the industry 

works, it’s not about being safe, it’s about recognizing how it works 

and making sure that the requirements align up with that. 

Senator YOUNG. So in your estimation, this actually—this could 

decrease safety among those who work for trucking companies like 

39 

yours, and we certainly don’t want that. That’s a correct characterization, right? 

Dr. LOFGREN. That’s correct. 

Senator YOUNG. Right. Yes. Let me transition to regulatory reform. It’s my sense, informed by conversations with people back 

home, that the need for regulatory reform, whether it’s in the manufacturing sector or services or in the logistics industry, has never 

been greater. And in your testimony, you speak to the unintended 

sense of uncertainty within the trucking industry by rulemakings. 

I maintain concerns that in recent years well-intended regulations 

have been issued without a firm basis in the facts, without the supporting data. 

Some industry groups point to the inadequate data from Federal 

Highway Safety regulators when they issue proposed rules, such as 

mandatory speed limit requirements and sleep apnea screenings. 

We can all support, I know, everyone in this hearing and beyond, 

everyone throughout the country, improved safety standards for 

your industry and others, and we’re looking for ways to remove obstacles to that happening. 

Could you speak to the need to require our Federal Highway 

Safety regulators to ground their rules in rigorously supported 

data, preventing the sort of uncertainty you spoke to? 

Dr. LOFGREN. Well, certainly. And, actually, we got involved, 

were asked—I think the industry stands ready, or a number of people who are committed to safety, because I’ll just give you one example. The great competitors that we have in the industry have 

said safety is not going to create competitive advantage, so we do 

benchmarking sharing best practices because we believe it in the 

industry, and therefore each of our company’s, best interest to do 

that. 

I think that we recently were asked by FMCSA to help give real 

data on the day of a driver. And, I mean, we’re pulling all of this 

information off the truck all of the time, and we said, ‘‘Sure. Here. 

Here’s some data.’’ 

I think there is a willingness, I think there is an awareness, and 

I think the way we get to the right kinds of answers is to engage 

the people doing the work with the people regulating the work with 

the people legislating the work because I think there are real answers. 

There is more data available today coming off of our trucks and 

interfacing with our drivers to get to the right answer, and I think 

there is a willingness and commitment that we get to the right answer because nothing is worth having somebody injured. And I 

think you will find my best competitors would line right up along 

with that. 

So I think there’s a pathway. We just have to get on the pathway 

to do it. 

Senator YOUNG. And I want to play a constructive role as we look 

to improve the rulemaking process, so perhaps we can work together in that regard. 

Mr. ROSE. We would be delighted. 

Senator YOUNG. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Young. 

Senator Gardner. 

40 

STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And, Senator Young, I didn’t realize that Colorado and Indiana 

shared the same slogan. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GARDNER. It’s fantastic. So thanks to all the witnesses—— 

Senator YOUNG. Are you the crossroads, too? You’re the crossroads, paradise part, yes. 

Senator GARDNER. Right, yes. 

I want to thank you all for being here and the opportunity to 

hear what’s on your mind. And just a couple quick questions as 

we’ve gone through and heard some of our other colleagues ask 

questions. 

Mr. Rose, 10 years or so when we saw the auto industry starting 

to see its decline, we saw a number of car carriers that were off 

the tracks and resting. And later on, we saw oil tankers. That was 

a pretty good indication of what was happening in the economy, so 

really sort of the indicator of what’s happening, what’s moving. 

Is there anything that we should be concerned about that you’re 

seeing right now in business, economic leaders, indicators, that we 

ought to be aware of? 

Mr. ROSE. So last year, when we ended the year, we looked at 

22 businesses on the railroad, and only half a dozen of them were 

positive, the rest were all negative. So that’s a bad sign. We should 

be at least 50-50, if not a few more being positive. 

I do believe there’s a sense of things are getting better, and for 

us, in the railroad industry, and to some degree with Chris’s business, it all is going to depend on consumer confidence and the U.S. 

manufacturing footprint. And the investments that Dow Chemical 

is making on the chemical coast, it’s enormous. I mean, there are 

probably $150 billion being invested in the entire chemical coast of 

our country today, and it’s due to one thing—well, several things, 

but one thing mainly, it’s low natural gas prices. 

And so low-cost, affordable, reliable energy goes through a thread 

of our society, it’s goes through the railroads, it goes through the 

trucking company, and it goes through the consumer. 

And so we’re real bullish that with sustained domestic production, diversification of fuel, that the consumer is enjoying that and 

the consumer is going to keep spending money, because we’ve got 

a hole, as I said in my testimony, we’ve got a hole to dig out of with 

what has happened in the coal business for the railroads. 

The railroads used to account for about 20 percent of all their 

units from coal, and that’s going to be somewhat less than 10 percent. So it’s a big commodity to replace, and that’s why we need 

to rely on people, partnerships we have with Schneider National, 

UPS, Federal Express, and all these trucking partners, to really 

achieve what is a great public policy destiny of bringing trucks, 

trailers, containers, to the railroad, taking them off the highway, 

preventing that highway damage, we have a great environmental 

footprint, and then taking them to a destination and letting them 

redeliver it back into the consumer supply chain. 

41 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you. And the issue came up in your 

testimony, or at least you answered or responded to a question, 

about the issue of crossings, the train horn rule currently being discussed by the Freight Rail Administration. What is the FRA—what 

is—the Federal Railroad Administration, excuse me—what is your 

idea perhaps of a better balance between the safety of grade crossings as well as train noise? 

Mr. ROSE. That’s a tough situation, Senator, because in our country we have almost 240,000 grade crossings. On BNSF alone, we 

have almost 30,000 of them, and about half of them are non-signalized or non-gated crossings. And I think we’re early on to this question of quiet zones, but, unfortunately, I do think that we will have 

the unfortunate information that accidents per million train miles 

through grade crossings that do not sound the horn have higher incident rates of injuries and fatalities. And so I think we have to 

walk cautiously down this path. 

There is some new technology like directional horns that would 

be placed on the actual crossing themselves that would lower the 

decibel, instead of having a locomotive hitting the entire spray of 

the noise if you will. So those types of things I’m encouraged about, 

but we really, I think, would walk cautiously down before we would 

ask the FRA to revert the rules that have been in place since about 

1998. 

And the challenges that communities have is that these are expensive technologies to put in these grade crossings. You can easily 

spend $400,000, $500,000, $600,000 per crossing to go to a whistlefree zone, but you’ve got to make a big investment to replace that 

reliability that that locomotive horn provides. 

Senator GARDNER. Thanks, Mr. Rose. 

Just a couple of questions related to Mr. Moorman, I wanted to 

talk a little bit about—thank you for the Winter Park Ski Train 

and the incredible opportunities that it presents. It’s paradise 

there. And if we could expand a little bit about that. I know we 

have some maintenance employees that may be moving, some concern was raised in Colorado about that and what that means for 

Ski Train. Obviously, Southwest Chief is very important to southeastern Colorado, and what that means. 

And I’m going to get one last question in here before—my time 

has already run out. Somebody mentioned the ports. I think Senator Nelson mentioned, or Blumenthal mentioned, the ports issue. 

In a few years, we have a situation, the East Coast and West Coast 

ports that could lead to a similar slowdown, shutdown, like we saw 

in the West Coast port just a couple of years ago, cost our economy 

dramatically. 

Maybe somebody could address the impact if that were to happen, what would happen to our economy if that happens again on 

the East Coast and West Coast at the same time? 

Mr. ROSE. Yes, I think we saw it in 2000, we saw it again in 

2012, where a relatively few number of ports can have an outsized 

impact to our economy, and the challenge is, is that those ports are 

not under the same labor act or same negotiating act like the airlines or the railroads or anything else are. And it’s very, very unfortunate, but we literally, when we have a big port strike, we’re 

42 

changing the nature of supply chains in this country, and we are 

definitely hurting our commerce. 

So I would just urge that there would be a process in place, 

whether it’s baseball arbitration or some sort of mediation, that 

could at least be imposed because there are a lot of Americans that 

depend on their jobs for the competitiveness of these ports. And 

these are enormously well-paying, high-paying jobs. And when the 

West Coast or the East Coast decides to go out, the hundreds of 

millions and billions of dollars of economic impact are felt for literally weeks and months. And we back up trains all the way to 

Chicago, and it creates conditions that take us out of our normal 

pace, that we don’t like the risk of that as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Hassan. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you, Chairwoman Fischer and Ranking 

Member Booker, and thanks to all of you for being here today. I’m 

sorry I wasn’t here to hear your testimony, but I will be well 

briefed on it. 

I wanted to start with a question to you, Mr. Lofgren. The trucking industry obviously plays a critical role in our country, it certainly does in New Hampshire, where we have about 27,000 jobs 

that are related to the trucking industry, and not only is New 

Hampshire paradise, we’re small, so from 1.3 million people, 27,000 

jobs is quite a lot. 

We all know how hard our drivers work, often in really rigorous 

weather conditions. And some of the roads aren’t very well kept up. 

You know, we’ve all had our infrastructure challenges over the last 

couple of decades really. The American Society of Civil Engineers 

has deemed one in nine U.S. bridges structurally deficient, clearly 

posing a risk to travelers, including truckers, all around our country. 

So I think we all talk about the need for more infrastructure investment and that it’s very, very clear. It seems to me it’s always 

how we do it that’s the question, right? Some are good for tax 

breaks and public-private partnerships. Others maintain direct 

Federal spending will be needed if we’re going to really develop a 

21st infrastructure that lasts. 

As an industry expert and a business leader, do you believe we 

can reach infrastructure goals with tax cuts alone, or do you think 

we need to take an all-of-the-above approach to tackle this challenge? 

Dr. LOFGREN. Well, you’re really putting me on the spot, aren’t 

you? 

Senator HASSAN. I know. 

Dr. LOFGREN. Well, I will tell you that the trucking industry recognizes that we have to pay our fair share, and we realize that the 

mechanism for doing that has to be created. Now, there’s a lot of 

debate here in this city as to how that should happen. 

Senator HASSAN. Right. 

Dr. LOFGREN. I’ll just go back, when Eisenhower started the effort that said we’re going to build an interstate system that will 

43 

connect this country, he talked about a usage fee, and it was really 

a recognition that as people gained benefits from this infrastructure that was put in place, they should contribute to both its 

growth and its maintenance. I would say our industry is more than 

willing to do it because it is fundamental to successfully and safely 

executing what it is that we do. 

So I think there is an absolute willingness for us to pay more. 

We want it to be effectively deployed to address the need. And I 

think that’s why we send all of you here, is to figure out what’s 

the best way for that to happen. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HASSAN. Well, thank you. Now you’ve put me on the 

spot, so we’re even, right? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HASSAN. Well, thank you very much. 

And, Mr. Rose, I wanted to just talk a little bit about some of 

the innovations, and as I came in, you were talking about some of 

them, some of the uses of drones. As a former Governor, I got to 

appreciate the importance of technology, especially for particular 

safety functions. It is my understanding that BNSF has successfully been utilizing UAS or drone technology to assist, as you were 

talking about. And certainly the use of technology can save on your 

bottom line and increase safety. 

So I guess it’s an open-ended question. What can we do here to 

make sure that companies like yours have a regulatory framework 

in place that will allow businesses to innovate and experiment as 

new technologies emerge? 

Mr. ROSE. Yes, so in my statement, I talk about doing a full comprehensive review of the FRA, Federal Railroad Association, undertaking that. I could point to a lot of rules in the railroad industry 

that go back to the steam locomotive. 

Senator HASSAN. Yes. 

Mr. ROSE. Literally. I mean, we set up our crude districts on 

that, we set up our inspections. And so things like the command 

and control structure of railroad regulations go back to a time 

when we had steam locomotives, and here we are, fast-forward, 

we’ve got the technology we have in these locomotives today now 

with Positive Train Control are going to totally change the face of 

that. 

So the problem is that we don’t have a good process in this country for looking at old regulations and the cumulative impact on regulations. And so I think we just need to take a holistic view and 

find where technology has replaced that old command and control, 

activity-based, regulatory oversight structure and start peeling 

them off. 

Senator HASSAN. OK. All right. 

Mr. ROSE. And while I’ve got my mic open, I just want to comment briefly on the highway system because I’ve studied it a lot 

and I just—Chris is exactly right on a user-based system. You 

know, long term, the gas tax doesn’t work. The hybrids, the alternative issues, the inflation that comes into the gas tax. We all have 

studied it, know that we’ve got to come up with a different issue. 

44 

The ideal perfect issue is some sort of vehicle miles travel. We 

know that there are all sorts of public sensitivity around that. The 

information is already there in these cars. 

Senator HASSAN. Yes. 

Mr. ROSE. The information is there in our cell phones. And the 

faster we get that, I truly believe the faster we’ll find a sustainable 

methodology to pay for our nation’s highway, which, quite frankly, 

the railroads rely on. 

Senator HASSAN. OK. Well, thank you. 

And I see that I’m over my time. I would love to follow up with 

you all separately about the issue of Twin 33s on our highways, 

and now my office will do that. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Chair Fischer and 

Senator Booker. Thank you for this important hearing. I was very 

proud of the work that was done on the FAST Act last year, and 

was one of the early Senators to support it. I think you know why 

we need it, but for me, that’s a floor, and I hope we can do even 

more in the years to come. 

I did want to thank Mr. Rose. We have some rail projects in Minnesota in the metro area, including Southwest and Bottineau light 

rail projects. And I really appreciate the work that he has been 

doing to work with the Governor and others. So thank you so 

much. 

We had a little snow out in the western states, and I’m not going 

to get into that, but thank you for responding. I know it’s not easy. 

Mr. Moorman knows that we had to stop some planes and some 

trains from running during that time. 

But I thought I would lead with just some of the issues. I know, 

Mr. Rose, that Burlington Northern makes long-term capacity decisions and must anticipate changes in market demand years in advance. This planning can be difficult. In 2016, you handled about 

480,000 fewer units of coal than in 2015, while at the same time, 

you saw high U.S. corn and soybean export sales, and many from 

my state, contribute to an all-time record volume in shuttle sales 

and BNSF in the fall. 

How do you adjust to better accommodate these variations? You 

know, we had that one year where it was really difficult because 

of oil coming in from North Dakota and other places, and because 

of the commodities at the same time. Since then, things have been 

pretty even keeled from my perspective, and I want to thank you 

for that. 

But can you talk about how you accommodate things? 

Mr. ROSE. Yes, well, it helps when you start with spending a lot 

of money. And unfortunately sometimes those massive investments 

like we made on the Northern line at $1 billion, sometimes markets do change, and we know that that’s just the nature of the 

business that we’re involved in. It wasn’t literally 7 or 8 years ago 

when FERC—we were being called into FERC, a railroad. We were 

45 

like, ‘‘Why are we going into FERC?’’ That’s not our territory. We 

like FRA, NTSB, STB, you all, T&I, but—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. You’re really fast with those initials. That’s 

very impressive. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ROSE. And we were being call in there because they thought 

that there was going to be a massive expansion in the coal business. And so, you know, that’s just the nature of these networks. 

And I really am serious, though, we’ve spent enormous amounts of money. The industry will spend—we’ll spend about $115 billion 

in this country on the highway system—that’s Federal, State, and 

local—and the railroads are spending about $25 billion. 

So what we’ve got to do is to make sure that the railroads can 

continue to spend that money and then we’ve got to have the best 

insight by working with our customers, such as Dow and Schneider, to see where their needs are going to go because, as you know, 

building—once you have a market and once you have the money, 

the ability to build it out because of the challenges of permitting 

are really significant. 

And we feel like we literally, in some cases, need to be out 5 

years, and when we think about our vision of going out 5 years and 

understanding where Chris’s business is going to be in 5 years, it’s 

sometimes hard to see that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. How about rail crossings? Any developments with those? I know we’ve worked on those together before. 

Mr. ROSE. Yes. Again, I think that—we call it—you all call it section 130 money, we call it that, too. That’s a good thing. You’ve increased the funding of that to I think about $225 million a year. 

Quite frankly, it probably needs to be closer to a billion dollars a 

year. That allows communities to draw into that, do separations, 

overpasses, underpasses, increase the level of safety, go to flashers, 

grade gates, those types of things. 

As I said earlier, we have about 250,000 grade crossings in this 

country. Probably half of them have absolutely no mechanized devices at all. They’re traditionally out in the middle of the country. 

We call them crossbuck-protected crossings. 

But when you look at these metropolitan areas like Minnesota 

and Saint Paul-Minneapolis, where we start getting—the urban 

sprawl is going out further and further, a great way to relieve congestion is to separate that crossing, but they’re really expensive to 

do. 

And so I would just urge more money, more programmatic reform, like you all have already started to do, that will allow states 

to draw down. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you. 

Just one quick question at the end, Mr. Moorman. I led the bill 

with Senator Cornyn on human trafficking last year, and then we 

actually, this committee, passed through a bill with the airlines 

and flight attendants to improve training of workers on the front 

end to catch human trafficking. We’ve been amazed at the cases 

that can come in. 

I was just wondering, I know that Amtrak is interested in this 

issue. Could you just very briefly tell me about your efforts? Because I’ve run out of time here. 

46 

Mr. MOORMAN. We have done a lot of education across the entire 

company with all of our field people, exposed them to the issues, 

given them training on them. We keep a lot of information displayed still to make sure that information remains timely and that 

they’re aware of it. I think there is the Blue program, which Amtrak participates in as well. 

So it’s an issue that we continue to educate our people about and 

deal with, but we’re very involved with that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. Thank you, all of 

you. Thanks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Udall. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Chair Fischer and Ranking Member Booker. Welcome. Good to see all of you today. Had 

an opportunity to watch you from my office, but good to be here 

today in person with you. 

A WalletHub study recently ranked my home state number four 

on the list of states that could be hardest hit by a trade war with 

Mexico. In 2016, New Mexico exported $1.5 billion in goods across 

the southern border, significant transportation investments in 

Santa Teresa, for example, to help facilitate trade and increase economic opportunity in southern New Mexico. 

But President Trump seems to be leading us to a trade war with 

Mexico. He has proposed a 35 percent tariff on goods coming from 

Mexico. Mexico’s economic minister has recently reported that if a 

border tax like that is put on Mexican goods, they would immediately seek retaliation. 

So I would ask Mr. Rose and Dr. Lofgren, is this saber-rattling 

on trade good for the transportation industry? Would a trade war 

with Mexico be good for your businesses? And are other transportation companies concerned about this from what you’re hearing 

from your colleagues in the industry? 

Mr. ROSE. So I would like to just brag for a minute on my largest 

competitor, Union Pacific, who really is responsible for Santa Teresa. 

Senator UDALL. You bet. You’ve got it. 

Mr. ROSE. I sit on the Dallas fence, and we watch all of your 

state as well as Texas. And Santa Teresa is a great example of how 

a large rail logistics park can go in and create enormous economic 

commerce and create jobs for a community and facilitate the flow 

of goods across our country. 

Senator UDALL. You’re absolutely right on that. 

Mr. ROSE. And I let my favorite customer and colleague, Dr. 

Lofgren, answer the question on the trade war. 

Senator UDALL. You’re going to punt. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Rose, you’re punting then on me. You’re 

passing it off, the hot potato. 

Mr. ROSE. We do not believe in trade wars. 

Senator UDALL. The hot potato. OK. Good. That was good. You 

put it on the record, we don’t need trade wars. 

47 

[Comment off microphone.] 

Senator UDALL. For the record. 

Dr. LOFGREN. Yes, I know. This is an example—this is an example of Matt’s great sophistication and time spent here in this fine 

city, how he handled that. He will pay for that one way or another. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. LOFGREN. Clearly, we have significant operations that move 

freight both into Mexico and out of Mexico, and clearly, these kinds 

of issues are not going to be helpful to our business in terms of reducing the flow of goods. Now, I know that a lot of our customers 

have significant manufacturing facilities that bring component 

parts or build component parts, which they need to finalize here in 

the U.S. So I’m pretty sure that it’s not going to go to zero, but 

there is no doubt that if the path that we’re on here continues, 

we’ll see reductions in the amount of business that we’re going to 

conduct between the United States and Mexico. 

Senator UDALL. Yes, and the reduction in business means reduction in jobs, and that’s what we’re really worried about in New 

Mexico. 

Now, I very much support investing in infrastructure, but there 

is one massive infrastructure project proposed by President Trump 

I’m not very excited about, and that’s a border wall with Mexico. 

This wall could cost $21.6 billion, and that’s with a ‘‘B,’’ $21.6 billion. That’s according to a news report quoting Department of 

Homeland Security cost estimates. And now we know that American taxpayers, not Mexico, will pay for the wall. Business leaders 

in southern New Mexico are also worried about the economic costs 

to their companies once Trump’s taxpayer-funded wall is built. 

And Jerry Pacheco, President and CEO of the Border Industrial 

Association, explained that building a border wall would hamper 

cross-border partnerships. In my view, building this wall could 

send a message to foreign companies that the border is closed for 

business. 

Mr. Rose, how would a border wall impact our trade relationship 

with Mexico? And, specifically, how would a border wall impact the 

rail business in places like Santa Teresa along the southern border? 

Mr. ROSE. I’m really not sure how a border wall would be impacted. I think, you know, right, wrong, or indifferent, we’ll probably haul a lot of the product going into if there is a wall being 

built. But I really don’t know how that wall will impact our business. We, quite frankly, haven’t thought a lot about it. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. One of the things that I’d want to put on 

the record, this area that I’m talking about that Jerry Pacheco— 

many people think that Albuquerque is our biggest economic area. 

It’s actually the border area, where you’re across border, have huge 

amounts of activity, and then in New Mexico, it’s growing, it’s 

booming, and they’re very worried, they’re very worried about it. So 

it’s something that concerns me a lot. And the whole issue here is 

jobs, as you know. 

Could I ask one more question? I want to get to Amtrak, which 

we love in New Mexico. You know, all the Boy Scouts, whenever 

you run into Boy Scouts around the country, they’re headed to New 

Mexico on Amtrak to go to the Philmont Ranch, premier area to 

48 

go. So we want to make sure that Amtrak continues running. And, 

as you know, New Mexico, Kansas, and Colorado have worked together successfully to get TIGER grants that help support track 

safety improvements for the Southwest Chief line. Do you agree 

with me that rail projects should continue to be eligible for TIGER 

grant support? 

Mr. MOORMAN. Well, absolutely. And I think that the model you 

cite is a classic example of communities and states understanding 

the importance and desirability of passenger rail transportation. 

We see that in a lot of other parts of the country as well. So I certainly agree that the accessibility of TIGER grants is an important 

tool for them to use. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, for your courtesy. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. I really appreciate it. Take care. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Duckworth. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you 

to the Ranking Member, for convening this important hearing on 

the Nation’s multimodal transportation system. You know, the people of Illinois sent me here with a clear message: Americans are 

ready, willing, and eager to rebuild our Nation’s infrastructure. 

Whenever I travel across Illinois, whatever else is happening 

that’s dysfunctional in this country, one of the things that unites 

people, whether I go into a rural community or an urban center, 

is an agreement that we need to finally come together and work 

to modernize our country’s aging roads, railways, and bridges. 

It doesn’t matter where I go, whether I am in El Paso, Illinois, 

or whether I am in Chicago, Illinois, people are deeply concerned. 

They’re ready for us to place a big bet on America, and they want 

to invest in American workers and American companies as part of 

a multiyear rebuilding effort for our infrastructure using American 

workers, using American steel in particular. 

Mr. Rose, as BNSF knows well, any serious efforts to upgrade 

our Nation’s freight rail system must prioritize Illinois. Our great 

state is proud to be home to more than 9,000 miles of railroad 

tracks and the 41 railroads that travel on them. Chicago is the 

busiest rail hub in America, and East St. Louis is another major 

rail center. Millions of tons of freight rail travel across Illinois 

every single year. And, in fact, we’re almost like the arteries in 

your body when it comes to the railroad, and if you just have one 

artery that gets clogged, the entire Nation does suffer. 

I’ll give you an example. Right now, today, a train can ship 

freight from Los Angeles to Chicago in under 48 hours, closer to 

about 35 hours, but it takes that same train 30 hours just to get 

from one side of Chicago to the other. And that reverberates up 

and down the supply chain. 

So, Mr. Rose, would you agree with me that this status quo must 

be improved and upgrades increasing rail capacity and reliability 

49 

to combat congestion in Illinois would both improve supply chain 

efficiency and strengthen our entire economy? 

Mr. ROSE. Senator, when we think about Chicago, it really is the 

textbook example of a project of national significance. All freight 

railroads, six of the seven big-class ones, touch Chicago, Amtrak, 

Metra, hundreds and hundreds of passenger trains. And we agree 

with you about Chicago really being at the epicenter of the entire 

freight railroad network. We have looked at it over the years. I will 

tell you I share many of your frustrations. 

There is a significant effort, as you know, CREATE. It has made 

progress for improving the connectedness of the freight rails. The 

next stage of it is additional funding. Projects like the 75th Street 

overpass we know are vitally important to the passenger commuter 

side of Chicago. We will continue to be supportive in those efforts. 

But if we were going to place one big bet on a project of national 

significance for the freight railroad industry, it would come back to 

Chicago. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. I thank you for highlighting 

CREATE. Could you describe a little bit, just take a moment to describe, how the FASTLANE grant for this vital project and—well, 

FASTLANE grants for both the 75th Corridor Improvement 

Project, as well as the Merchants Bridge project, would be absolutely vital to the transportation of goods and services as you were 

mentioning? 

Mr. ROSE. Yes. So, again, I think that the FASTLANE program 

has great bones. It’s going to need more funding for the first time, 

multimodal projects, intermodal projects. The Merchants Bridge is 

a great example of where that money could be applied to that, 

lower the financing costs of that. Chicago, CREATE, a lot of 

multimodal projects in Chicago that would be eligible for 

FASTLANE. 

So we’re real excited about the program. I know it’s going to 

come under funding constraints, but, again, I said earlier, I think 

for the first time ever what you all have done is by really highlighting the necessity of a freight program and having those freight 

plans, will give people a better pathway to justify the funding that 

you all will eventually have to come up with. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

Mr. Moorman, do you want to talk a little bit about Amtrak’s 

role in this? Because as the Merchants Bridge is concerned, Amtrak also goes over that bridge and I believe has agreed that we 

need to really prioritize the improvements there. 

Mr. MOORMAN. We have. We have a very strong interest obviously in the Merchants Bridge and in the Chicago area as well. 

Amtrak is a participant in CREATE and certainly has stepped up 

I think to support all of the freight industry in Metra, in the 75th 

Street project, the application for the grant there. 

Anything, as I’ve said before, anything that improves the rail infrastructure of this country in those places where Amtrak operates 

is something that we strongly support and believe in and want to 

work with you and the Congress as well as our partners in the 

freight industry to further those initiatives. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rose. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

50 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much, Chairman. 

Mr. Moorman, you heard me in my opening comments talk about 

the Gateway chokehold, and obviously we have two tunnels there, 

about 107 years old, that probably, given on whose estimates you 

look at, have 10 to 15 years left in life. The last Congress, the administration ranked that as like the number one infrastructure urgency in the United States of America. What’s going to happen if 

the Federal Government doesn’t continue what we’ve seen in the 

last Congress and really step up to partner on the project? 

Mr. MOORMAN. Well, we’re already seeing increased reliability 

issues through the tunnels, primarily are driven largely by the recent flooding of Hurricane Sandy, which flooded not only the two 

tunnels under the Hudson, but the four tunnels under the East 

River, and they are creating lots of electrical problems, signal problems. Those problems will just continue to get worse. And at some 

point, if it’s 10 years or 15 years, we’ll have to shut one of them 

down. 

Senator BOOKER. And what’s the economic impact of shutting one 

of those tunnels? 

Mr. MOORMAN. Well, it’s extraordinarily difficult to calculate. If 

you look at our peak service through those tunnels in the morning 

and the evening, we put about 24 trains an hour through them. 

Senator BOOKER. You’re moving literally hundreds of thousands 

of people a day. 

Mr. MOORMAN. Absolutely. There are several hundred thousand 

people a day. Once one tunnel goes out, and it would go out for well 

over a year to rebuild, you’re down to six trains an hour, and it 

would be nonfunctional. 

Senator BOOKER. Am I overly dramatic to say you would have a 

traffic ‘‘Armageddon’’ in that region? 

Mr. MOORMAN. You would. No, I don’t think it’s overdramatic. It 

would freeze that side of the river I think in terms of people getting 

in and out of the city. 

Senator BOOKER. Yes. So I’m a little frustrated because I think 

that in the beginning of your remarks, you talked about bringing 

business sense and practices, and I really just—I’m excited about 

your leadership with that. 

But one of the biggest problems it seems is that your funding is 

not in any way regular or reliable and it’s not a part of the overall 

Transportation Trust Fund. Could you address the challenges that 

that brings to the way you’re trying to run this Amtrak like a business? 

Mr. MOORMAN. Well, it obviously creates a lot of problems. Now, 

but one thing let me applaud the Committee for is that the FAST 

Act, under the provisions of the FAST Act, the authorization is at 

least for a known amount of money over the next few years, so we 

can make better plans as a result. The only issue with that is that 

while that’s sufficient to keep the network certainly operating and 

to do some modest improvements, these major projects that you’re 

describing are far beyond the funding that’s committed to Amtrak, 

and that’s where my real concern comes in about the Northeast 

51 

corridor and about the long-term needs we have in terms of locomotives and rolling stock. So—— 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Moorman, I hate to interrupt you, but anytime you want to applaud this subcommittee, you should go right 

ahead and do it, literally or figuratively. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOOKER. Just for the Committee as a whole—and, Mr. 

Gurd, I really feel bad, like you have not been grilled sufficiently 

in this hearing, and so I’m going to allow you to answer this as 

well—direct government investment in infrastructure, a lot of talk 

about infrastructure by our President and by Congress. 

I believe that you need to have a direct investment by government in addition to like we did through the FAST Act, making the 

RRIF program and other loan programs. 

How do you feel about direct government investment? Is that 

necessary in terms of the economic growth strategy for our country? 

Mr. Gurd? 

Mr. GURD. Thank you. 

Senator BOOKER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GURD. I would say so, yes. With regards to infrastructure 

and our ability to be able to ship products to our customers, every 

day customers are continuing to get more demanding in what they 

need, when they need it, and our ability to connect with our carriers. Our ability to make sure that we get products to get products 

to our customers safely and on time when they require them is 

something that is very important to us and our ability to be competitive. And being able to have the infrastructure in place in order 

to make sure that that happens as it comes outside of our fence 

line is extremely important. 

Senator BOOKER. So you would be in support of direct government spending on infrastructure? 

Mr. GURD. Yes. 

Senator BOOKER. And, Dr. Lofgren, the man with more degrees 

than the month of July, sir, yes or no, when an infrastructure 

package comes down, would you like to see a big robust part of that 

being direct government spending? 

Dr. LOFGREN. Yes, I would. 

Senator BOOKER. And, Mr. Rose, by any other name? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ROSE. Yes, so if you think about our nation’s infrastructure, 

it’s really a weapon of competitiveness for the U.S. worker. 

Senator BOOKER. I love that, a weapon of competitiveness. 

Mr. ROSE. Yes. And investments in this network are going to enable that worker to be more competitive. I’m fine with direct government investments with the caveat that we don’t change the balance of modal equity. OK? What you should want—I’m sorry, I interrupted. 

Senator BOOKER. No, I was just saying modal equity meaning? 

Mr. ROSE. Between the highway and the railroads. OK? We pay 

for 100—99.3 percent of our own infrastructure in the railroad industry, and clearly I hope I’ve made the point today, what you 

should want is for the next ton of freight that’s moved on the surface of this network in this country, that somehow it gets off the 

52 

highway and gets put to the railroad industry because of our efficiency, our environmental impact, and the fact that then you don’t 

have to pay for that next road pavement on that highway system. 

And if we lose the economic tilt, if you will, of how these networks are funded—and I’ll say Chris has been—he has advocated 

that the trucking industry needs to pay their fair share, and as 

long as we go down that pathway and that the trucks continue to 

pay for their use of the highway network, it’s great. 

If we just move away from this user pay system and end up 

where all the money that goes into the Highway Trust Fund is paid 

through general revenues or some of the creative things that had 

to get passed in this last bill, then what will happen over time, because you’ll be subsidizing the railroad’s largest competitor, and 

our largest customer, and what will happen over time is that you’ll 

get more and more trucks to the highway network, and I don’t 

think that that’s what anybody in this town wants. 

Senator BOOKER. No, sir. I appreciate that. And I want the 

record to show that as I looked at Dr. Lofgren’s face, that he took 

no umbrage to that comment whatsoever, none. 

OK. And I am over my time. I only have one more sort of question for us, but I’ve learned to defer to my senior Senator and the 

chairperson of this committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. No, go ahead. 

Senator BOOKER. Go ahead. OK. 

So I just want to say first of all that, Mr. Rose and Dr. Lofgren, 

you guys are really leaders, amongst the leaders, in industry when 

it comes to safety issues, and I’m just grateful for the commitment 

you both have made, Mr. Rose, you all are ahead of schedule in 

your industry for putting in Positive Train Control, and I’m really 

grateful for the sincere effort you all are making to meet the Congressional mandates, but also, as you said in your testimony earlier, that it’s not a be-all and end-all to train safety, and you all 

are innovating in ways to find other ways to ensure safety, and 

that means I speak at least as one Senator that really appreciates 

that work. 

Dr. Lofgren, the same thing goes for you all. You know that I’m 

a guy that has been harping on truck safety, you may have heard 

that, sir, but I just want to say that you and your company, really 

again, amongst industry leaders and what you’re doing to try to 

lead in safety innovations and technology, and I’m one Senator, I 

just want to say publicly, I am deeply appreciative of the work that 

you all do. I know how seriously your company takes it. So I really 

want to have that on the record. 

I do, though, just have the concern, Dr. Lofgren, if I can focus, 

on what the trend is out on our highways. And, again, the preliminary data that’s come from the National Safety Council released in 

a report found that these preliminary estimates, as many as 40,000 

people died just last year in vehicle crashes, it’s yet another year 

where we’re seeing a 6 percent increase over 2015 and a 14 percent 

increase over 2014. That’s a 2-year increase, the most dramatic 2- 

year increase in 50 years. 

And I say that to say—and I talk to truckers now all the time 

and they rightfully point out that cars act whacky around trucks 

and often are the ones causing the so-called truck accidents. So I 

53 

don’t want to pin this on the trucking industry, the level of carnage 

we’re having on our highways, but, as someone who I afford a lot 

of respect to because I know how seriously you take this, could you 

just give me just some thoughts that you have about, how can we 

deal with what I think is a major crisis, one of the leading causes 

of death in our country, destroying so many families? 

I’m wondering if you have some thoughts and input and advice. 

That’s really my last request, my last question here, if you could 

just sort of talk to me specifically about what your industry could 

be doing or should be doing to make us more safe out there, because the gravity of the carnage and injury and loss of life, loss of 

property, is just stunning. 

Dr. LOFGREN. Do you want me to answer? 

Senator BOOKER. Yes, sir. I’m done. 

Dr. LOFGREN. OK. You are right. With forward-facing cameras, 

some of the video that we can show you of behaviors of the motoring public, you would think we had maybe created a comedy. It’s 

not comedy, but the reality is, is that if you look at vehicle miles 

traveled on the road today, the real growth is in passenger vehicles 

versus trucks. That’s not to say that we haven’t at times really 

messed things up and very, very horrific things have happened. 

What I find interesting, as we think about putting in regulations, 

the reality is, is if you look at the dramatic improvement in rearend accidents that we’ve had at the company since we have put the 

OnGuard technology in, it speaks for itself. The reality is, is that 

there is no requirement that a truck coming off the manufacturing 

line today, Class 8 vehicle, have that equipment on it as standard. 

So when you look at some things where you say there are regulations that could have massive impact, the reality is, is that you 

cannot reverse engineer that back into a piece of equipment, it has 

to be a new vehicle. 

So I think some of the things like that, I mean, there are regulations that I don’t think are productive that we operate under in the 

industry, that would be one that there is so much evidence to say 

this needs to be a part of what is coming on and hauling freight 

today. 

So I think there are things that are going to emerge over time 

where there ought to be incentives to get people to do that and to 

invest the incremental money because of the paybacks. So that 

would be one area where I think there is opportunity. 

Senator BOOKER. So let me just say thank you because the data 

in your testimony was stunning about the rear crash, and that you 

all are doing that, not as an industry mandate, but—— 

Dr. LOFGREN. And there are others of our competitors who are 

doing it as well, so I don’t want to stand up and say we’re the only 

ones. 

Senator BOOKER. But now at the risk of being kicked by my 

Chairperson here, I do want to note for the record that an industry 

leader just called for some more regulation. Thank you very much. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. LOFGREN. The right regulation. 

Senator BOOKER. The right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

54 

And I would like to thank the panel for being here today. I think 

this has been an important hearing where we talk about moving 

people and moving freight, seeing our economy grow, provide jobs. 

We move America, but as you can tell from the questioning, there 

are differing views on how we’re going to do that. And we need, I 

believe, to look outside the box. 

Earlier—I’m going to go on since the Ranking Member went on 

for a while. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I think earlier we heard about the issues we 

have with the fuel tax. It is not sustainable. I would propose to you 

that it hurts lower income people. It, in many cases, can limit job 

opportunities. But as we move to new technologies, a fuel tax is not 

going to grow our transportation system, in my opinion. 

So I think it is important that we look outside the box. And I 

thank you, Dr. Lofgren, for being willing to step up and assume 

more of the cost of roads, but that’s hard for a trucker who has one 

truck and is trying to take care of his family. I heard that when 

I was in New Hampshire. There are many small truckers in that 

state, and they were worried about it. 

I come from a state that has small truckers, but also has a number of very, very big companies, and I have always appreciated the 

support of truckers when I am trying to work on financing for infrastructure at the State level and now at the level here that we’re 

looking at nationally. So I thank you as we move our freight. 

Mr. Gurd, I appreciate the consideration that you have to give 

for transporting materials that are needed for our economy but are 

also difficult to transport, and you do that with care and you do 

that with a sense of responsibility to your drivers, to the public, to 

our country. So I thank you. 

And, Mr. Moorman, when you are moving people in this country, 

especially in the Northeast Corridor, where my Ranking Member, 

he just wants more and more and more—— 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN—but we do appreciate the services that you provide as well. And I think there should be a way that we can provide for the needs that you face in a creative way in the future. 

And, Mr. Rose, I know that Ted Cruz claims you in Texas, but 

we claim Burlington in Nebraska. I have family ties to Burlington. 

As I think if you go back far enough to the people in Nebraska, 

somewhere in our history, our family history, there is a connection 

to a railroad. You folks have grown and built this country. 

So I thank you all for being here today. I appreciate it. 

The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks, and during this 

time, Senators are asked to submit any questions for the record. 

Upon receipt, I would ask the witnesses to please submit your written answers to the Committee as soon as possible. 

With that, I thank you all, and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:22 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(55) 

A P P E N D I X 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DEB FISCHER TO

MATTHEW K. ROSE

Question 1. Mr. Rose in your testimonies you each discussed reforms in the FAST 

Act that streamlined the environmental review process and removed some of the red 

tape on routine infrastructure and asset maintenance. Would you please elaborate 

on the types of challenges your railroads face when attempting to build or improve 

its infrastructure? Are there ways that Congress can improve on the work within 

the FAST Act? 

Answer. Congress has recognized the difficulty of project permitting, including 

projects related to railroad operations, which the rail industry appreciates. There 

are areas where additional Congressional action would be helpful, in both the railroad-specific context and in ways that benefit all permitted projects. Congressional 

oversight of the implementation of items that Congress has already addressed is 

also important. 

As noted in my testimony over the past few years, facility expansion on the West 

Coast for both BNSF and our customers has been severely challenged by the regulatory process and environmental advocacy groups opposed to facility construction. 

In some cases, local permitting processes are used as a means to target and prevent 

interstate transportation, particularly of fossil fuels. Under the Interstate Commerce 

Commission Termination Act (ICCTA), many state or local regulations are preempted with respect to rail transportation—including zoning and land use regulation, construction and environmental permitting of rail facilities and regulation of 

railroad operations. When it comes to interstate commerce, Federal agencies, including the STB, must not be reluctant to intervene and provide clear direction that 

using such regulations to block these projects is preempted. Strong direction from 

Congress could ensure that important rail projects are not shelved or abandoned altogether, and that the flow of interstate commerce is not impeded. 

An area of needed reform common to many projects, including railroad projects, 

relates to reviews under the Endangered Species Act. In some cases both the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service must 

be consulted before a permit or clearance can be issued. Neither agency has a 

speedy consultation process. It is imperative that Congress consider time limits 

after which, if the Service cannot articulate an adverse impact on a species that is 

likely to occur from the project, then the project is deemed ‘‘not likely to have an 

adverse effect’’ by the Service under the Endangered Species Act. Many times, particularly for most fish species, the Service knows the appropriate time windows 

when work should and should not proceed, and knows the best management practices that will protect the species of concern. However, instead of promulgating regulations or agreements that would streamline projects that agree to use the standard 

fish windows and best management practices, the Services go through long, laborious processes to recommend the same windows and practices. In some cases, we 

have seen the Services use this process to make comments regarding the lead agency’s scope of review under NEPA. 

Lengthy consultations between Federal agencies are also a challenge under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The process for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) to initiate a consultation with the USFWS to examine impacts to fish and 

wildlife needs to be streamlined and expedited. There should be a hard deadline for 

the USACE to initiate the consultation process. 

When it comes to mitigating environmental impacts of projects, we concur with 

the USACE that mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs are usually the right 

answer from an environmental standpoint. However, the process that allows a person or group to create a mitigation bank is overly burdensome. There are some watersheds where no banks are available, and this is at least in part because of the 

onerous, years long process that must be undertaken before a bank can sell credits. 

Congress should encourage the USACE to study its process and streamline it to the 

maximum extent practicable for both public and private mitigation banks. 

56 

Congress can make additional improvements to the FAST Act to ensure the timely 

delivery of much needed infrastructure projects. 

• Statutorily prioritize project permitting for international commerce. 

• Review the scope of state implementation of Federal statutes to ensure consistency with Federal regulators for projects in interstate commerce. 

• Expand Federal Communications Commission regulatory streamlining to expedite the deployment of technologies that improve safety and efficiency in the 

railroad industry. 

• Expand FAST–41 to railroad projects. 

» The FAST Act (under Title 41 or ‘‘FAST–41’’) creates a new initiative to expedite permitting and environmental review for complex infrastructure projects. 

The FAST–41 provisions make fundamental changes in project delivery by 

setting timetables for review which can be modified under limited circumstances, creating accountability through performance metrics, and limiting judicial review. Unfortunately there are a number of limitations on 

projects that are covered under FAST–41, including rail projects. Rail projects 

are increasingly complex, with multiple agency reviews and uncertain 

timelines. The benefits of this new permitting structure should also include 

large rail projects. 

• Require that permitting authorities at all levels of government use technology 

for streamlining. 

• Public and Private Geographic Information System tools are widely available 

and make relevant, scientific, environmental, cultural and other data easily accessible to facilitate project siting. Congress should statutorily prioritize the use 

of GIS tools for NEPA analysis instead of costly on-the-ground studies to help 

reach conclusions in a timely manner. 

Congress should exercise careful oversight of the FAST Act rail project delivery/ 

permit reform provisions to ensure they are implemented in a fashion to deliver 

their intended efficiency benefits. As I covered in my testimony, the FAST Act directs the U.S. DOT to apply, to the extent feasible, previously enacted highway-related environmental streamlining to railroad projects. The rail industry stands 

ready to work with the Department to determine how best to apply these roadway 

project efficiencies to railroad and intermodal projects. The FAST Act also mandates 

that the DOT, in consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP), establish a Section 106 exemption for railroads rights-of-way consistent 

with the exemption currently in place for the Nation’s Interstate system. At the 

time of transition to the new Administration, the Department had not completed action on a draft proposal for submittal to the ACHP. The Department had also began 

but did not conclude the process called for in the FAST Act to survey the Federal 

Railroad Administration’s use of NEPA categorical exclusions and a rulemaking for 

new exclusions to facilitate rail projects. Finally, the Act exempts from Section 4(f) 

review the use of railroad and rail transit lines that are in use or that were historically used for the transportation of goods or passengers. 

Question 2. Mr. Rose, in your written testimony, you mentioned that FRA data 

indicates a drop in employee injuries by a remarkable 80 percent from 1980. At 

BNSF, what would you say are the major elements of this drastic increase in safety 

on our Nation’s railroads? And, as a follow up, how is technology and innovation 

enhancing safety on our Nation’s railroads? 

Answer. Government data shows that for the freight rail industry, the train accident rate has fallen 43 percent since 2000 and 79 percent since 1980, and the rail 

employee injury rate has fallen 46 percent since 2000 and 83 percent since 1980. 

Continued robust investment in infrastructure has played a direct role in this success, along with the deployment of technology and safe operating practices, which 

involve rules compliance and a commitment to safety by our employees. According 

to the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the industry has spent on average 

close to $25 billion annually over the last five years and a total of $600 billion since 

1980. Since 2000, BNSF has invested more than $55 billion in its network, and our 

infrastructure is in the best shape it has ever been to meet customer needs and operate safely. 

While railroading has become extremely safe, it remains a very unforgiving environment. The scope and complexity of the Nation’s rail operations, operating over 

a 140,000 mile outdoor production line, means that infrastructure and equipment 

will sometimes fail or that human error can occur. In response, BNSF employs a 

broad-based risk reduction framework to reduce risk in all aspects of our operations. 

Infrastructure investment, intense focus on fostering a safety ‘‘Culture of CommitVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:38 Jul 05, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\25999.TXT JACKIE
57 

ment’’, along with risk countermeasures including a combination of critical safety 

processes and technology, have produced tremendous safety results. Our vision and 

ultimate goal is to operate completely accident and injury free and so we recognize 

and are committed to the fact that there is more work to be done. 

BNSF recognizes that effective safety programs include the engagement of every 

employee. BNSF’s employee safety training initiative, ‘‘Approaching Others About 

Safety,’’ (AOAS) is a training program for all BNSF employees that focuses on confident and effective peer interaction. AOAS launched in 2013 and is the single largest training program BNSF has ever undertaken. The idea is simple: If you care 

about someone, you’ll approach them when you see them working safely and let 

them know. At the same time, if you see them putting themselves at risk, you will 

approach them and recommend a safer way. AOAS was created with the involvement of many BNSF employees, including focus groups with union employees within 

our Transportation, Mechanical, Engineering, Intermodal and Telecom groups. The 

program encourages attention to behaviors that, when done safely, reduce the level 

of risk. Training focuses on the exposures that result in 97 percent of injuries, specifically the critical or primary exposure areas, including: line of fire/release of energy, pinch points, ascending/descending, walking/path of travel, and life-saving 

processes. We believe Approaching Others has fundamentally changed our safety 

culture. 

Technology continues to play an important and growing role in improving safety. 

BNSF and the freight rail industry deploy a range of safety technologies and operational innovations across the North American rail network, a considerable amount 

of which was developed in cooperation with the Transportation Technology Center, 

Inc. (TTCI) in Pueblo CO, and in coordination with the FRA and backed by support 

from the U.S. Congress. These technologies include: 

• Wayside detectors that identify defects on passing rail cars 

• Wheel profile monitors which use lasers and optics to capture images of wheels 

• Wheel Impact Load Detectors (WILD), which measure vertical wheel forces on 

the rail. Algorithms help identify wheels that have experienced a recent traumatic event and wheels with low-level long-term defects that could negatively 

affect the bearing or wheel life and rail health over time. 

• Trackside detector systems that use ‘‘acoustic signatures’’ to evaluate the sound 

of internal wheel bearings 

• Wheel temperature detectors, using infrared technology, to identify wheel bearing fatigue 

• Rail inspection systems using induction or ultrasonic technology to detect internal flaws in the rail 

• Track geometry vehicles that use sophisticated electronic and optical instruments and ground-penetrating radar to monitor all aspects of our track infrastructure 

• Machine Visioning systems which use camera-based technology to identify defects like worn truck components, worn brake shoes and missing bolts in the 

coupler carrier plate. These systems can identify defects of equipment in motion 

at over 70 mph, day or night, rain or shine. 

• BNSF is also now in its third year of piloting Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

(UAS)—drones—for visual right of way and supplemental track inspections in 

a variety of conditions. We are one of three companies partnering in the FAA 

Pathfinder Program which will allow BNSF to perform extended track integrity 

flights. 

• Positive Train Control (PTC) is an unprecedented ‘‘system of systems,’’ bringing 

together advanced analytics, wireless communications networks, GPS, trackside 

and locomotive hardware and software and a back office computer system. 

BNSF is committed to the technology and will ultimately invest more than $2 

billion to deploy it, which will be important to help prevent the extremely rare 

but potentially catastrophic human error-caused accidents, like head-on collisions. 

The future potential for technology’s role in improving safety remains tremendous 

provided we have a regulatory environment that encourages innovation. Policy makers and the FRA should support movement toward a more balanced, collaborative 

and transparent approach to a performance-based regulatory paradigm, one that focuses on safety outcomes and not necessarily the specific means by which to achieve 

them. The old ‘‘command and control’’ paradigm simply cannot keep up and doesn’t 

make sense in the modern and rapidly evolving world of technology and data analytics. The rail industry will continue to innovate to support our culture of safety 

58 

and sound operating practices—ensuring railroads can continue to earn the revenues necessary to invest adequately in infrastructure, maintenance and technology 

will be one of the most significant things that Congress can do. 

Question 3. As we enter into a new administration and a new Congress, how can 

we improve the regulatory process at agencies to move towards outcome, or performance-based regulations with better data? As you are aware, in the FAST Act, I authored measures to reform the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to ensure more participation and a stronger cost-benefit analysis. Are there specific 

changes you would hope to see across the DOT to improve the regulatory process? 

Answer. My written testimony outlined near-, mid- and long-term improvements 

that Congress, the Administrator and railroad safety stakeholders should consider. 

While the underlying framework of regulations between the FMCSA and the FRA 

are different, the regulatory process improvements in the FAST Act informed aspects of those recommendations. 

Neither Congress nor the FRA has taken a comprehensive look at the cumulative 

impact and effectiveness of the body of railroad safety regulation, or how safety and 

operating technology can be incentivized by regulatory processes. In particular, moving towards measuring outcomes, rather than activities, guided by better data would 

represent a change not only for railroads, but for regulators. Moving to more data 

driven oversight of outcomes does present certain risks for rail carriers, if not implemented cooperatively and if data is not adequately protected. 

Many other industries in this country and across the globe now participate in the 

performance based regulatory model. The foundation of this model is a mature industry with a good safety record and appropriate incentives to be safe, like adequate 

returns and the ability to easily implement technologies. There are a multitude of 

internal and external incentives for railroads to operate safely. 

We believe that the cost and efficiency of regulatory compliance can be improved, 

and that the safety gains we have achieved can be enhanced. That is always our 

goal; it is part of our corporate vision and drives how we operate. We look forward 

to working with the Committee on the details of its proposals, and thank you for 

opening the discussion. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

MATTHEW K. ROSE

Question 1. Support for Freight Funding 

• Should there be robust Federal freight investment in a future infrastructure 

package? 

• Do you support lifting the current $500 million cap on multimodal projects in 

the FASTLANE program? 

• How have state freight plans and the National Freight Plan guided BSNF’s capital investment decisions? 

Answer. The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act is an important 

step in developing a national freight policy structure, and can serve as a good template to build upon for any additional infrastructure legislation that Congress might 

consider in the future. With one exception—it continues the regular and sizable infusion of General Funds into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). This cannot continue 

in the future because it not only puts necessary transportation investments in budget competition with many other Federal funding priorities, it represents a national 

freight policy of subsidizing one mode over another and incentivizing the very road 

and bridge damage that Congress struggles to find the funding to mitigate. 

Job one of a Federal highway program is to reinvest in the maintenance of the 

existing system and bring it to a state of good repair. Basic maintenance and operations of key infrastructure are critical to capacity and fluidity. Congress, the Administration and the users of the highway network need to be working aggressively 

now to strengthen the user based foundation of the HTF. This key principle has experienced significant erosion as HTF revenues have failed to keep up with investment needs and have been supplemented with general taxpayer dollars and other 

non-traditional funding sources. 

Fortunately, the FAST Act contained provisions for demonstrating alternatives to 

the gas tax in a number of states and there are pilot programs underway. However, 

as the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and states oversee how the private 

sector develops automated vehicle development and testing, driver assisted trucks 

and platooning, and even the requirement to maintain electronic logs for trucking 

59 

fleets, they should explore how these technologies will contribute to a future with 

sustainable, user derived fees for maintaining the highways. 

One of the most notable elements of the FAST Act is the ‘‘Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of National 

Efficiencies’’ (FASTLANE) grant program. This program is intended to help states, 

localities, and other entities overcome funding barriers to complete projects of national or regional significance. The program is funded at $800 million annually, increasing to $1 billion annually by 2020. Eligible projects must be highway freight 

projects on the National Highway Freight Network, highway or bridge projects on 

the National Highway System (NHS), intermodal facilities or railroad grade crossings, although intermodal projects are capped at a total of $500 million over the life 

of the bill. It would be beneficial to the national freight system to lift the $500 million cap on multimodal projects in the FASTLANE program, given that a significant 

amount of funding is generated by the General Fund. The competitive FASTLANE 

grant program should be just that, competitive. While there are a finite number of 

public-private partnerships in the freight rail segment, the demand for grants is 

strong as many communities seek to work with railroads to realign tracks through 

or around urban areas to change development patterns, want to separate more highways from rail rights-of-way or improve terminal railroads that serve key industrial 

areas. These multimodal projects could help ease congestion across the U.S. and improve the efficiency of our national highways. In addition, port projects are excellent 

candidates for FASTLANE grants. 

As Congress considers additional infrastructure-related legislation, there should 

be continued eligibility and funding for the Railway-Highway Crossings Program 

(‘‘Section 130 program’’)—funding that should be fully utilized by states but often 

is not. Section 130 is a critically important program, and while it allows for some 

funding to go towards highway-rail grade separation projects, it does not come close 

to meeting the pressing needs that states and local governments have to increase 

funding toward projects that separate their roadways from railroad operations. The 

FAST Act prioritized grade separations in ways previous highway bills did not by 

making them eligible projects across multiple funding programs. If the legislative 

opportunity to assist state and local governments with additional funding for these 

critical roadway investments presents itself, railroads would continue to participate 

and support those projects. 

Regarding state and national freight plans, BNSF believes they have been useful 

in identifying, prioritizing, and positioning important freight projects that provide 

substantial public and private benefits but have not traditionally fit within past 

transportation funding mechanisms. These plans are critical to securing the necessary public funding and benefits in cases where these important projects align 

with BNSF’s interest in providing a safe, reliable, and efficient U.S. supply chain. 

This influences BNSF private funding decisions in three primary ways: 

• Allows BNSF to plan and commit its private funding commensurate with its 

benefit in projects that also have public benefits and public funding (PPPs), 

such as Tower 55 in Fort Worth, Texas, the Willmar Wye project in Willmar, 

Minnesota, or Sound Transit projects in Washington State. 

• Provides funding for public infrastructure which enables BNSF to unlock latent 

capacity or justify investment in parallel projects, such as intermodal connectors 

and collectors. This also encourages BNSF (and our customers) to make investments in intermodal facilities or warehouses dependent on those roadways, such 

as the investments in the roadways and highways around BNSF’s Logistics 

Park, Kansas City in Edgerton, Kansas. 

• Providing funding for ports, industrial parks, and other major freight demand 

generators drives BNSF’s investment decisions which support network capacity 

and performance to serve those facilities. 

Question 2. Port of Quincy 

• Why has BNSF not renewed service at the Port of Quincy for refrigerated cars? 

• Will you commit to working with the Port of Quincy to restore cold train service? 

Answer. BNSF is always looking for ways to be responsive to market demands 

and bring innovative rail solutions to our customers that make economic sense for 

us and our customers. We are always open to working with the Port of Quincy or 

any other port or customer to explore new market opportunities and provide service 

products that are in demand in the marketplace. 

60 

Question 3. Port of Bingen 

• Why does BNSF believe that these grade crossings need to be closed? 

• Has BNSF worked to understand the Port of Klickitat? 

• Will you commit to ongoing discussion with Bingen to resolve this issue? 

Answer. BNSF is engaged with Washington’s Department of Transportation 

(WSDOT) as it looks to provide a grade separation to support access to the Port of 

Klickitat and Bingen Point. WSDOT believes an improved rail crossing will reduce 

potential backups on SR 14 while increasing mobility and safety in order to support 

future economic growth in the area. BNSF remains engaged with stakeholders including the Port of Klickitat and the City of Bingen at regular project development 

meetings and has offered to meet separately with the Port. 

Question 4. Short-Line Railroads 

• How will investment in last-mile projects benefit short-line railroads? 

• How can freight investment be combined with the short-line tax credit to better 

improve freight infrastructure? 

Answer. BNSF connects with approximately 200 shortlines who perform local and 

gathering activities (first-mile/last mile) for BNSF. In 2016, shortlines originated or 

terminated about one third of BNSF’s agriculture and industrial products traffic. 

Shortline investments improve safety and service to our mutual customers and supports growth with existing and new customers. 

The Shortline Tax Credit leverages private sector investment in rail infrastructure by providing a tax credit of 50 cents for every dollar spent on track improvements. The tax credits help shortlines make necessary investments in their infrastructure, ensuring these lines will continue to provide service to our shared customers. 

Question 5. Viability of West Coast Ports. According to a recent article in the Journal of Commerce, West Coast ports’ market share of Asian import cargo has declined from 78.3 percent in 2005 to a new low of 67 percent last year, a reduction 

of 12 percent. Additionally, the article goes on to say that the increasing intermodal 

rail rates we are seeing are the single biggest reason for this decline in market 

share. 

As a stakeholder and an important service provider for the Pacific Northwest 

trade gateway—and one that has the ability and flexibility to set prices—what are 

your plans for ensuring its viability as far as the cost of your product is concerned? 

Answer. A fair and comprehensive review of what considerations determine shippers’ corridor and gateway utilization would include multiple factors such as commodity, time and distance to port and inland markets, capacity, port capabilities 

and perceived reliability. Rail cost is merely one component of the total cost of doing 

business through a particular port. Some perceived advantages in the Canadian 

supply chain include greater labor stability, strategic terminal expansions, a robust 

defense of industrial land to serve the global market, no Harbor Maintenance Taxes 

and alignment in support of serving Canada’s product and commodity spectrum at 

the Federal, Provincial, and Local levels. 

2015 was a pivotal year for U.S. Cargo diversions due to the cumulative effect of 

U.S. West Coast port congestion resulting in severe disruption and financial harm 

to shippers’ supply chains. All major U.S. West Coast container ports contributed 

to the disruption. At one point in 2015, there were forty one ships anchored off the 

coast of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland and the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. 

Although the congestion has improved, the long-term effect to the supply chain— 

and shippers’ diversions to mitigate risk—is still being felt today. Canadian ports 

in particular have benefited by ensuring stakeholders that they can be a reliable 

routing alternative. 

As the largest rail intermodal provider in North America, BNSF continues to invest to ensure that it offers needed capacity, service and value to its customers. 

BNSF has committed to transforming and enhancing our Northern Corridor between the Pacific Northwest and Chicago into a rail superhighway, just as we have 

with our Southern Transcon route between Southern California and Chicago. Since 

2013, BNSF has invested more than $5 billion to maintain and expand the Northern 

Corridor. We have added more than 135 miles of double track to our network with 

over 1,000 miles of centralized traffic control technology and 32 new or extended sidings. With this investment, we have permanently expanded the capacity of our network, which we believe will contribute to maintaining the U.S. supply chain advantage and supporting the Pacific Gateway Ports competitiveness. 

The West Coast ports’ market share is extremely important to BNSF. We offer 

our customers optionality by serving a broad Pacific gateway with multiple origin/ 

61 

destination options, thus giving customers the power and flexibility to decide where 

best to direct their freight movements. We will continue to work closely with our 

customers, understanding their proprietary needs and preserving their confidentiality as we offer the value needed to win their business. There is robust competition in the marketplace—at each port, and between ports—and a wide range of factors driving customer decisions. 

There are also challenges at West Coast Ports that must be addressed if they are 

to maintain their current market share, much less grow it. A recent study entitled 

‘‘Unleashing Washington’s Maritime Potential: Identifying challenges to Port Competitiveness and Recommending Solutions’’ released in October 2016 highlighted the 

need to invest in maritime facilities in the state and the difficulty in doing so related to local land use decisions on waterfront property, related funding decisions 

and difficulty in permitting port and trade related projects for which funding and 

public and private support does exist. This includes local waterfront development in 

the Puget Sound area which must consider potential long-term conflicts with freight 

movement in the region. 

We have and will continue to make investments in service innovation through line 

and facility capacity expansion, technology implementation, improved service design 

and by focusing on operating efficiency. Continued growth on BNSF’s Northern Tier 

is essential and we have been fully committed to helping grow imports and exports 

of all kinds through Washington state, but achieving growth has been difficult. We 

will continue to work closely with the Washington ports, Washington DOT and other 

stakeholders to understand and support how to fully utilize Washington’s gateways. 

Question 6. Competition from Canadian Ports. The Canadian Government, ports 

and railroads appear to be doubling down on the strategy of increasing their share 

of U.S. cargo. Where before Canadian ports handled mostly Canadian cargo, today 

24 percent of Vancouver’s cargo and fully two-thirds of Prince Rupert’s is bound for 

or originates from the US. In recent years the ports of Seattle and Tacoma have 

lost market share, associated jobs and export capacity to these Canadian ports. 

• What is your perspective on the cost advantage by Canadian railroads in terms 

of why they can offer lower rates and how it will affect your business strategy? 

• Are you aware of incentives from the Canadian government that allows them 

to charge lower rates than those in the Pacific Northwest? 

Answer. The Canadian Federal and provincial governments, ports and key stakeholders have developed an effective long-term collaboration focused on growth and 

reliability, especially in advancing infrastructure and adding capacity to meet the 

changing needs of the ocean container industry. For example, all three major Canadian ports have extensive and expanding on-dock rail facilities. Ongoing support and 

effective policies by government have made the Port of Prince Rupert and the Port 

of Vancouver attractive routing alternatives to U.S. West Coast ports. There is also 

alignment between interior and coastal Provinces on projects that benefit the Port 

of Vancouver and Rupert as both recognize the importance of exports to the viability 

of their local and national economies. This collaborative and aligned effort extends 

to permitting and approvals for key projects. In Canada, the combination of a strong 

effort to ensure port competitiveness between governments at all levels and key 

stakeholders has created a largely stable, cost efficient and achievable environment 

to attract growth. In contrast, U.S. West Coast ports have lagged in developing a 

comprehensive approach that results in long-term infrastructure investments to attract more volumes. 

For West Coast container ports competing with Canada, the U.S. Harbor Maintenance Tax creates a competitive disadvantage. Not only are ports disadvantaged because of the added cost of the tax, they receive little or no benefit from the authorized use of the tax. In addition, Canada has a long-standing successful national port 

infrastructure and corridor program that not only assists with port development but 

finds projects in the corridors connecting the ports. At BNSF, we stand ready to 

work with Federal, State and local public policy makers to similarly support our 

port partners. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MAGGIE HASSAN TO

MATTHEW K. ROSE

Question. One area that I know has repeatedly come before this Committee and 

the full Senate is the issue of increasing the size of trucks by allowing for a massive 

tractor-trailers, known as Twin 33s. While these larger trucks may drive decently 

on long stretches of highway in sparsely populated swaths of our country, I worry 

about how they would fare travelling through busy small and medium-sized towns 

62 

and on winding mountainous roads like the ones in New Hampshire. I want to keep 

our truck drivers and travelers on the roads with them safe. Do you agree that the 

industry, state, and Federal governments must meticulously study the potential impacts of these larger trucks—specifically on the types of communities I’ve described—before making decisions that could harm people in our communities? 

Answer. BNSF agrees that the impacts of any change in truck configuration must 

be studied carefully, and that direct consequences, such as pavement and bridge 

damage, must be remediated as part of any such change. In addition, the longstanding underpayment of heavier trucks must be taken into account when any configuration change is considered. Regarding the safety consequences of proposed 

changes to existing truck configurations, we leave that to public safety experts, 

Members of Congress and the Administration to carefully consider. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DEB FISCHER TO

DR. CHRISTOPHER B. LOFGREN

Question 1. As we enter into a new administration and a new Congress, how can 

we improve the regulatory process at agencies to move towards outcome, or performance-based regulations with better data? As you are aware, in the FAST Act, I authored measures to reform the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to ensure more participation and a stronger cost-benefit analysis. Are there specific 

changes you would hope to see across the DOT to improve the regulatory process? 

Answer. I would like to thank you for your leadership and dedication to ensuring 

that the regulatory process engages stakeholders and relies on quality data. At 

Schneider National, Inc. we depend on data every day to navigate a host of complex 

logistic, strategic and tactical challenges, make business decisions, and more importantly, ensure safety in our operations. 

From our experience I can confidently say that decisions (or regulations) rooted 

in data, are only as good as the data upon which they rely. Therefore, I would like 

to offer four key themes for you and the Committee to consider in your pursuit of 

better data to guide the regulatory process. 

• First, there should be increased transparency when data is presented to ensure 

it is clearly understood by stakeholders, lawmakers and regulators; 

• Second, stakeholders should be engaged earlier in the regulatory process since 

they have the best understanding of what data is available and what assumptions and behaviors need to be understood when using specific data elements; 

• Third, any data, research or cost-benefit analysis used by regulators should include an adequate (not selective) representation of the industry; and 

• Fourth, data consistency is critical. For example, using a standard crash report 

form that can be completed e by all states would allow for the gathering of critical data elements and provide for a better understanding of a rule’s impact and 

benefit. 

As for improving the overall regulatory process, I would like to emphasize my earlier point about the importance of early engagement of stakeholders either through 

advanced notice of proposed rulemakings or more use of the negotiated rulemaking 

process. 

Finally, I would like to encourage the Committee, Congress and regulators to explore opportunities to improve safety outside of the regulatory rulemaking process. 

For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation should work with the U.S. 

Treasury Department to reduce or eliminate the Federal excise tax on new tractor 

and trailer equipment, such as collision mitigation technology. I believe this effort 

could be accomplished within the regulatory process through administrative guidance and would incent carriers to invest in the newest equipment with the most advanced safety technologies, best fuel efficiency, and most up-to-date emissions systems. 

Question 2. As we enter into a new administration and a new Congress, how can 

we improve the regulatory process at agencies to move towards outcome, or performance-based regulations with better data? As you are aware, in the FAST Act, I authored measures to reform the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to ensure more participation and a stronger cost-benefit analysis. Are there specific 

changes you would hope to see across the DOT to improve the regulatory process? 

Answer. Please see my response to Question 1. 

Question 3. Many stakeholders in the trucking industry have applauded the 

FMCSA’s entry-level driver training rule, which is based on consensus recommendations from stakeholders and will increase safety. Would you please talk about the 

63 

positive aspects of this rulemaking process and how this process could be replicated 

in the future at FMCSA? 

Answer. While Schneider was not a member of the Committee that participated 

in the entry-level driver training rulemaking process, we did follow the rule closely 

and would recommend the process be replicated in the future by the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration and other regulatory agencies. 

Because of the benefits I noted in my response to Question 1, we support any rulemaking process in which input from the major stakeholders is gathered as early in 

the process as possible. While the use of a notice of proposed rulemaking also seeks 

early input from stakeholders, we believe the negotiated rulemaking process used 

in the entry-level driver training rulemaking allows for a greater level of dialogue 

and idea generation between stakeholders and regulators. 

Specifically, the face to face meetings allow for the feedback loop to be expedited 

to real-time, which is beneficial since the rulemaking process tends to be lengthy 

by nature. Additionally, we appreciate that the structure guiding the process ensures the negotiated rulemaking committee is fair and balanced in points of view, 

and that all parties are willing to negotiate in good faith to reach consensus. 

Finally, the process also allows for relationships to be formed between stakeholders and regulators, and for education to occur for all parties. Even if consensus 

is not reached through the process, value is still gained by the experience. 

As you look to expand the use of negotiated rulemaking, I would suggest considering the application of the process for pending rulemakings such as the Speed Limiter, Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Safety Fitness Determination rules. Although 

these rules are already occurring under the standard rulemaking process, we believe 

the industry and regulators would benefit greatly from applying the guiding structure and principles of the negotiated process. 

Question 4. One issue we have heard a lot about in the trucking industry is the 

driver shortage. In your opinion, what do you believe are the major contributing factors that have led to this shortage? How is your company seeking to address this 

challenge? 

Answer. A key contributing factor to the driver shortage is the aging nature of 

the industry’s workforce, which has resulted in more drivers retiring and leaving 

the industry. Additionally, we have identified a change in workforce demographics 

that also contributes to driver supply. Specifically, driving candidates now prefer to 

be home weekly, or even nightly, and are willing to work jobs that provide them 

with that opportunity even if it pays less. As a result, fewer driving candidates are 

willing to accept jobs that require them to be away for long periods of time. 

While some trucking companies may choose to combat the driver shortage by lowering their hiring standards, Schneider and other quality carriers are unwilling to 

compromise our commitment to protecting the motoring public and remain steadfast 

in our mission to find qualified drivers that meet training, safety and drug testing 

standards. This makes the driver shortage more challenging for companies like ours 

but we continue to be dedicated to our safety practices, such as Schneider’s hair follicle drug testing program, and pursue other options for recruiting drivers that meet 

our standards. 

At Schneider, we are addressing the driver shortage in numerous ways, including 

through the use of technology. Automated manual transmissions and safety technology, such as collision mitigation systems, make the truck easier and safer to 

drive. This makes our positions more attractive to the top flight professionals who 

understand that our investments make them safer. We are also continuing to improve our value proposition to existing and candidate drivers by increasing pay, 

changing the way we move freight to allow for more regional movements (which allows drivers to be home more frequently) and enhancing our overall benefits package. Finally, we offer tuition assistance to truck driving schools for new candidates 

entering the industry. 

Schneider also recognizes the value of separated military personnel and the trouble many of them have in finding good paying jobs when adjusting to civilian life. 

We have a Military Apprenticeship program through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in which new Schneider drivers can earn a monthly educational 

benefit from the VA in addition to their Schneider paycheck during their first year— 

up to $1,266 per month. Schneider further recognizes military experience and credits it toward Schneider driving experience to increase starting pay. Extended benefits and differential pay is also provided if Guard or Reserve personnel are deployed 

for up to 18 months and we offer guaranteed home time for weekend drill and annual military training—no time off is required. 

64 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

DR. CHRISTOPHER B. LOFGREN

Question 1. Issue: Trucking industry support for a rule mandating speed limiters— The faster large vehicles travel, the deadlier they can become. Large vehicles already take longer to stop than smaller passenger vehicles. And just a small increase 

in speed leads to an exponentially large increase in kinetic energy, which can cause 

far greater damage and destruction in a crash—especially to those traveling nearby 

in much smaller, lighter passenger vehicles. 

Crashes involving large vehicles kill around 4,000 people each year and injure 

more than 100,000. Speeding has been identified as a possible factor in as many as 

23 percent of these crashes. A vehicle with a functioning speed limiter is only half 

as likely to be involved in a crash as a vehicle without an operating device. 

Mr. Lofgren, your testimony notes the importance and potential of speed limiters. 

I have been very supportive of the use of speed limiters and want to see the finalization of a rule begun by President Obama to require these devices. 

What safety benefits can be realized through their use? At what speed do you set 

the devices your company uses? 

Answer. Schneider National Inc. has supported the use of speed limiting devices 

for decades and has utilized these devices within its fleet since they were first made 

available by manufacturers. It is well documented that there is a strict correlation 

between the speed of a truck and the severity of the injuries in a trucking accident; 

accordingly, the higher the speed of the truck, the more severe the injuries. Additionally, trucks traveling at a lower speed incur less in heavy vehicle fuel. These 

factors contributed greatly in Schneider’s decision to implement speed limiting devices and why our company continues to utilize this equipment. These devices currently have our trucks governed at 63 mph for solo drivers and 65 mph for team 

drivers (meaning that there is more than one driver present in the vehicle). 

Question 2. Should all trucks operating in the U.S. be equipped with this type of 

technology? 

Answer. Schneider supports speed limiters on those vehicles with a gross vehicle 

weight rating (GVWR) of more than 26,000 lbs. Schneider recommends not only requiring speed limiting devices for newly manufactured equipment but also requiring 

the technology for any vehicle currently in-use with a GVWR of more than 26,000 

lbs that is equipped with an electronically controlled engine. 

Question 3. You also have installed collision avoidance technology. Can you explain the importance of this technology? 

Answer. A collision mitigation system (CMS) is an active technology that uses a 

front bumper-mounted radar to detect slower moving or stopped vehicles ahead. 

These systems can determine when a potential crash may occur and assist the driver in quickly slowing down the truck. In some instances, the system works faster 

than the driver is able to recognize the situation and react. This is especially important because many motorists do not understand the size and weight of a tractor 

trailer and ‘‘cut in front’’ and slow down without an appreciation for the true stopping distance of a vehicle that is of much greater size than their own. Since beginning our initial deployment of CMS on newly purchased trucks in 2012, we have 

experienced a 69 percent reduction in rear-end accidents and a 95 percent reduction 

in the claims costs (proxy for accident severity) associated with these accidents. 

We believe the industry should be provided with an incentive to purchase this 

type of technology and suggest that Congress, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration work with the 

U.S. Treasury Department to reduce or eliminate the Federal excise tax on new 

tractor and trailer equipment. Doing so would incent carriers to invest in the newest 

equipment with the most advanced safety technologies, best fuel efficiency, and 

most up-to-date emissions systems. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MAGGIE HASSAN TO

DR. CHRISTOPHER B. LOFGREN

Question. One area that I know has repeatedly come before this Committee and 

the full Senate is the issue of increasing the size of trucks by allowing for a massive 

tractor-trailers, known as Twin 33s. While these larger trucks may drive decently 

on long stretches of highway in sparsely populated swaths of our country, I worry 

about how they would fare travelling through busy small and medium-sized towns 

and on winding mountainous roads like the ones in New Hampshire. I want to keep 

our truck drivers and travelers on the roads with them safe. Do you agree that the 

industry, state, and Federal governments must meticulously study the potential imVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:38 Jul 05, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\25999.TXT JACKIE
65 

pacts of these larger trucks—specifically on the types of communities I’ve described—before making decisions that could harm people in our communities? 

Answer. Schneider is familiar with the Twin 33 equipment, however it would not 

be part of our freight hauling model. For Schneider, safety is always our top priority. With any new endeavor Schneider pursues, we believe it is prudent to evaluate and ensure that allowable equipment (including size and length) is safe and 

compatible with existing infrastructure. We encourage Congress to make the same 

sort of evaluation for new types of equipment it considers allowing on our Nation’s 

infrastructure. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DEB FISCHER TO

TOM GURD

Question 1. As we enter into a new administration and a new Congress, how can 

we improve the regulatory process at agencies to move towards outcome, or performance-based regulations with better data? As you are aware, in the FAST Act, I authored measures to reform the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to ensure more participation and a stronger cost-benefit analysis. Are there specific 

changes you would hope to see across the DOT to improve the regulatory process? 

Answer. Safety is Dow’s top priority. Dow is one of the largest chemical shippers 

in North America. Our business model is based on the ability to ship large volumes, 

long distances over land by rail. Rail is the safest, most efficient way to transport 

our high volume raw materials and products. 

Dow supports continuous improvement in rail safety and security within a holistic 

risk management framework. This includes full consideration of operational and infrastructure improvements to prevent train accidents, along with tank car design. 

Advancements can only be achieved with further close collaboration amongst all industry stakeholders. Continuous improvement under this framework must improve 

safety to further mitigate risk to the public and the environment, without placing 

unnecessarily economic and operational burdens upon industry stakeholders. 

The DOT alone, not any other entity, is authorized to establish uniform national 

standards for the transportation of hazardous materials, including standards for 

tank cars. To this extent, Dow supports the joint shipper petition submitted to the 

DOT on August 12, 2016 (Petition Number P–1678). The petition asks DOT to clarify that while stakeholders may recommend changes to tank car standards for DOT 

consideration, no other entity should be permitted to impose its own de facto regulations on shippers and tank car owners. Any new regulations imposed on industry 

stakeholders can and must be developed through an appropriate Federal rulemaking process, and supported by a sound cost-benefit analysis. 

Dow supports improving the Federal Government’s use of risk assessment to 

prioritize actions with the greatest potential to advance safety, and ensuring that 

regulations are based on sound cost-benefit analysis. We call on DOT to implement 

Office of Management and Budget guidance in these areas, and specific directions 

in Executive Orders 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review and 13563 Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review. 

At the Surface Transportation Board (‘‘STB’’), it is necessary to improve the timeliness and the effectiveness of large rail rate case review procedures. Last year, the 

National Academy of Sciences’ Transportation Research Board (‘‘TRB’’) issued a report, Modernizing Freight Rail Regulation, developed by an independent panel of 

transportation experts and economists with input from a broad range of stakeholders. The TRB report concluded that the STB’s rate review procedures ‘‘lack a 

sound economic rationale and are unusable by most shippers.’’ The STB should fully 

consider TRB’s recommendations and work on the methods to resolve large rate case 

disputes. 

Question 2. Mr. Gurd, in your written testimony you mentioned the advanced security and safety initiatives that Dow is undertaking. Would you further elaborate 

on these emergency response programs and Dow’s coordination with DOT and local 

emergency responders? How can Congress and the administration help support 

these partnerships, particularly as it relates to relaying information and data and 

on the ground coordination with responders? 

Answer. As stated in my testimony, Dow has an extensive Risk Management Program, but we are also committed to ensuring communities are aware and prepared 

if an incident does occur. We support this commitment through TRANSCAER® and 

CHEMTREC®. 

TRANSCAER® (Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response) 

is a voluntary national outreach effort that focuses on assisting communities prepare for and respond to a possible hazardous material transportation incident. Since 

66 

its inception in1986, TRANSCAER® has trained hundreds of thousands of participants, free of charge. Hundreds of training events are offered annually. In 2015, 

over 50,000 participants were trained. Dow alone has trained almost 11,000 participants since 2007. We have received the TRANSCAER® National Achievement 

award in the last 8 consecutive years, which is given in recognition of extraordinary 

achievement by an individual person, individual company, individual organization, 

or a team (of individuals, companies, or organizations) in support of the initiative. 

TRANSCAER® fosters collaboration and partnerships between shippers, carriers, 

communities, emergency responders, and the DOT for effective, coordinated and 

timely emergency response. 

In addition to the DOT partnering with TRANSCAER®, it also develops the Emergency Response Guide (‘‘ERG’’) for publication every four years. The ERG is critical 

for emergency responders to initiate emergency response in the event of a hazardous 

material incident. 

Emergency responders also have access to a wide variety of experts through 

CHEMTREC® (Chemical Transportation Emergency Center) service. When an incident does take place, responders can contact CHEMTREC’s state-of-the-art, 24/7 

emergency center to determine the best way to handle a wide range of chemicals 

and other hazardous materials. 

Dow, and on behalf of the American Chemistry Council (‘‘ACC’’), appreciates your 

interest in further strengthening partnerships to support emergency response capabilities. While training programs such as TRANSCAER® are available, local emergency responders face a number of challenges that limit their ability to utilize these 

programs. Congress and the administration should look for ways to provide further 

support to communities, including: 

• Resources for travel, time away and backfilling positions to attend training; 

• Addressing technology constraints, such as computer equipment and high-speed 

Internet access, to facilitate more robust, interactive remote online training; and 

• Increased recognition and incentives for responders who attend the industrysponsored training. 

In addition, DOT could help facilitate the development of more robust standards 

for Emergency Response Information Providers (‘‘ERIPs’’) such as CHEMTREC®. 

We believe that elevating the expectations on ERIPs would help ensure that emergency responders receive reliable, accurate, timely information. 

Question 3. You mentioned Dow’s massive supply chain with hundreds of third 

party operators and providers. Would you elaborate about the impact or burden regulations can have on your supply chains? 

Answer. Dow shares the DOT mission ‘‘to protect people and the environment by 

advancing the safe transportation of energy and other hazardous materials that are 

essential to our daily lives.’’ However, unnecessary regulatory burdens can have a 

significant impact on our global supply chain. 

Dow supports the ACC submission to the Commerce Committee for its 

February 1 hearing, ‘‘A Growth Agenda: Reducing Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens.’’ ACC identified a number of regulatory actions by the DOT that add unnecessary regulatory burdens without advancing safety. We would like to take this opportunity to provide two additional significant actions that have arisen since that submission. 

Harmonization with the international regulatory bodies and Canada for cross-border shipments is vital to the U.S. economy and Dow’s position in the global marketplace. Dow applauds and supports the work underway under the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council. Some of this work has been completed specific to the 

safe transportation of hazardous materials, and is included in DOT’s rulemaking entitled Harmonization with International Standards (HM–215N). The final rule prepublication was published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2017, but then a 

week later it was withdrawn for review by the new administration. As of this response, it is still not published in the Federal Register. This rulemaking is critical 

for the uninterrupted, harmonized transportation of hazardous materials not only 

across the border, but by water and air around the world. 

In the rulemaking, DOT is introducing new regulations for polymerizing substances. These are materials which, without stabilization, are liable to undergo an 

exothermic reaction resulting in the formation of larger molecules or resulting in the 

formation of polymers under conditions normally encountered in transport. Dow 

ships a number of these materials, primarily Monomers. Monomers are vital to the 

American public, for applications such as water treatment, adhesives, paints, caulks 

and sealants, and paper coatings. While Dow supports the need for further regulation of these materials in the U.S. and around the world, in viewing the pre-publicaVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:38 Jul 05, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\25999.TXT JACKIE
67 

tion of the final rule, there are two specific regulations DOT is not harmonizing with 

the international regulatory bodies that will result in undue economic impact on 

U.S. shippers while not improving safety, as follows: 

§ 172.102(c)(1), Special Provision 387 

DOT will require a different temperature (50°C versus internationally required 

45°C) for these materials that when transported in a portable tank, such as an 

ISO container, and when chemical stabilization is employed, the level of stabilization is sufficient to prevent a dangerous polymerization. 

§ 173.124(a)(4)(i) 

DOT will require a UN Test Series E, or equivalent test method with the approval of the Associate Administrator, be performed on these materials when 

transported in certain packaging types, whereas the international bodies do not 

require such a test. 

Dow urges DOT to publish the HM–215N final rule as soon as possible, including 

fully harmonizing the aforementioned regulations to avert undue burden on U.S. 

shippers. 

Another rulemaking published by the DOT since December is an Advance Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking entitled Volatility of Unrefined Petroleum Products and 

Class 3 Materials (HM–251D). DOT is considering establishing vapor pressure limits for unrefined petroleum-based products and potentially all Class 3 flammable liquid hazardous materials for transportation by all modes. The comment period was 

extended until May 19, 2017. For the reasons to be outlined in our comment submission, as well as our industry member association submissions, namely the ACC and 

the Dangerous Goods Advisory Council, Dow believes establishing a vapor pressure 

limit to encompass all Class 3 flammable liquids by any mode of transportation 

would not improve the safe transportation of our chemicals and would cause undue 

economic and operational burdens. 

In closing, the U.S. needs sound policies and a comprehensive strategy for a robust transportation sector and investment in its infrastructure if we are to improve 

the global competitiveness of the U.S. manufacturing sector. These policies must 

keep upstream and downstream manufacturing businesses competitive to create the 

kind of long term job growth our company needs. For example, significant railroad 

consolidation has been allowed since Congress passed the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, 

achieving a desired result of well-capitalized, revenue adequate railroads. It is now 

time to establish a greater balance between competition and revenue adequacy in 

our Nation’s rail regulatory policy. A competitive transportation system is vital to 

American manufacturing growth that creates new investment and job opportunities. 

Competitive switching is one step that will help bring us closer to promoting competition for shippers in rail transportation, and promises to improve rail service, 

provide better routing options, and establish competitive rates, all of which are important for American manufacturers to be competitive in a global marketplace. 

Thank you once again for recognizing the chemical industry as a principal stakeholder in developing policies that can keep our economy moving. We welcome the 

opportunity to further collaborate with the Subcommittee, the DOT and all industry 

stakeholders to develop infrastructure and transportation policies that further drive 

investment and manufacturing growth in the U.S. We must ensure our Nation has 

a safe, secure, sustainable, and competitive network to deliver our products when 

and where they are needed not only within our borders but around the world. Please 

let me know if you should have any additional questions. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MAGGIE HASSAN TO

TOM GURD

Question. One area that I know has repeatedly come before this Committee and 

the full Senate is the issue of increasing the size of trucks by allowing for a massive 

tractor-trailers, known as Twin 33s. While these larger trucks may drive decently 

on long stretches of highway in sparsely populated swaths of our country, I worry 

about how they would fare travelling through busy small and medium-sized towns 

and on winding mountainous roads like the ones in New Hampshire. I want to keep 

our truck drivers and travelers on the roads with them safe. Do you agree that the 

industry, state, and Federal governments must meticulously study the potential impacts of these larger trucks—specifically on the types of communities I’ve described—before making decisions that could harm people in our communities? 

Answer. Safety is Dow’s top priority. Dow is one of the largest chemical shippers 

in North America. We support continuous improvement in transportation safety and 

68 

security to protect the American public and the environment. This includes full consideration of operational, infrastructure, technological, and sustainable advancements. Dow is committed to Responsible Care®, the chemical industry’s world-class 

environmental, health, safety, and security performance initiative. Our carriers, including our road carriers, demonstrate this same safety commitment through the 

Responsible Care® Partnership program. 

With any legislative or regulatory actions, Dow believes they must be data-driven 

and supported by a sound cost-benefit analysis. There appears to be data available 

in support of a safe and sustainable shift to the Twin 33. We referenced a study 

commissioned by Americans for Modern Transportation entitled ‘‘Twin 33 Foot 

Truck Trailers: Making U.S. Freight Transport Safer and More Efficient’’, which 

cites data published in the Federal Highway Administration’s 2015 study entitled 

a ‘‘Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study’’. 

Based on the Americans for Modern Transportation study, it appears there would 

be benefits to the U.S. freight system, economy and the American public. Dow understands a Twin 33 would supplant a Twin 28 currently utilized on our Nation’s 

highways, and would not supplant trucks currently traveling though busy small and 

medium-sized towns and winding mountainous roads like the ones in New Hampshire. 

Safety benefits include fewer trucks, fewer trips, better enforcement to ensure the 

safety of other trucks, improved high-speed dynamics compared to a Twin 28, and 

leading safety technology. Dow understands that mileage exposure is the single biggest factor driving year-to-year changes in crashes, injuries and fatalities associated 

with motor vehicle travel, including truck travel. Fewer trucks on our roads could 

also reduce effects on our transportation infrastructure. 

In 2016, Dow launched our 2025 Sustainability Goals. Sustainability benefits of 

the Twin 33 include better fuel efficiency and environmental benefits, saving 255.2 

million gallons of fuel, and reducing carbon and nitrous oxide emissions by nearly 

three million tons and one billions grams, respectively. These emissions reductions 

would be equivalent to taking 551,000 cars off our Nation’s roads. 

Operational and societal benefits include increasing volume capacity by 18.6 percent without a maximum weight increase, reduced traffic congestion, and alleviating 

the driver shortage while providing higher-quality and more stable jobs for drivers. 

These benefits would allow Dow to make our supply chain more efficient, while 

making transportation safer and more sustainable. 

Thank you once again for recognizing the chemical industry as a principal stakeholder in developing policies that can keep our economy moving. We must ensure 

our Nation has a safe, secure, and sustainable network to deliver our products when 

and where they are needed. Please let me know if you should have any additional 

questions. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DEB FISCHER TO

WICK MOORMAN

Question 1. Mr. Moorman, in your testimonies you each discussed reforms in the 

FAST Act that streamlined the environmental review process and removed some of 

the red tape on routine infrastructure and asset maintenance. Would you please 

elaborate on the types of challenges your railroads face when attempting to build 

or improve its infrastructure? Are there ways that Congress can improve on the 

work within the FAST Act? 

Answer. We appreciate the efforts of Congress, and specifically this Committee, 

to streamline the environmental review process, providing rail parity with other 

modes of transportation. While we have a multi-step process for building and improving infrastructure, our greatest challenge remains our access to direct Federal 

funding for critical infrastructure projects throughout our system that require dedicated funding to help move these processes along. In some cases, even with a 

streamlined process for environmental review, the long absence of Federal support 

for a project will allow the assessment to lapse and require us to restart permitting 

and reviews that expire. We continue to request additional predictable and dedicated funding for our critical infrastructure investments as I outlined in my testimony. 

Question 2. As we enter into a new administration and a new Congress, how can 

we improve the regulatory process at agencies to move towards outcome, or performance-based regulations with better data? As you are aware, in the FAST Act, I authored measures to reform the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to ensure more participation and a stronger cost-benefit analysis. Are there specific 

changes you would hope to see across the DOT to improve the regulatory process? 

69 

Answer. In general, we support improved regulatory processes and better data. 

However, each proposal much be carefully weighed for its potential benefit to improved safety of the passengers and workers in our rail system, based on new and 

proven technologies available to the rail industry, and the funding to support such 

changes to the regulations that guide our daily action. We are happy to work with 

Congress and FRA to identify potential improvements. Better data will always be 

a welcome addition and criteria for our decision making in identifying these improvements. 

Question 3. Mr. Moorman, I greatly appreciate the depth of private sector railroad 

experience you bring to Amtrak. Would you please talk about some of the positive 

reforms you are making at Amtrak’s corporate structure, operations, and business 

objectives? For example, in early January you took efforts to consolidate the leadership structure at Amtrak. 

Answer. It is vital for us to capitalize on the success of Amtrak over the past 10 

years. We have an opportunity to build an even more efficient and effective company 

that can facilitate, organize and operate best-in-class passenger rail services 

throughout the United States. To do so, we needed to be structured properly and 

I streamlined and improved our reporting structure to reflect that desired outcome. 

We have a new organizational structure for Amtrak that will enable us to create 

greater product and customer focus, along with strengthening accountability and decision making throughout our company. This new structure aligns with our focus 

to improve the way we do business, modernize and enhance the customer experience, and invest in our future. These changes are a necessary first step to driving 

the five key objectives that we believe are critical to our long-term success: 

• Building a world-class safety culture with a relentless focus on training, riskreduction, positive reinforcement and personal accountability; 

• Developing and consistently providing competitive products and services; 

• Creating the teams and processes necessary to serve and grow our customers 

across all business segments; 

• Gaining support for and delivering on investments that sustain, improve and 

grow our business; and 

• Harnessing innovation, technology and partnerships to enhance and accelerate 

our business. 

Æ