U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

34–789 PDF 2007

ROLE OF HUMAN FACTORS IN RAIL

ACCIDENTS

(110–18)

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 16, 2007 (San Antonio, TX)

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida, Chairwoman 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(ex officio) 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennylvania 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

LYNN A. WESTMORELND, Georgia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(ex officio) 

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS Page

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Berriozabal, Maria, Former San Antonio City Council Member ......................... 25

Chipkevich, Bob, Director of the Office of Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous 

Materials Investigations, National Transportation Safety Board .................... 3

Cothen, Jr., Grady C., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety, Standards, 

and Program Development, Federal Rail Administration ................................ 3

Fritz, Lance, Vice President-Southern Region, Union Pacific Railroad .............. 25

Hardberger, Phil, Mayor of the City of San Antonio, Texas ................................ 17

Velasquez, Ralph, Community Advocate Injured at the Macdona Accident ....... 25

Villarreal, Michael, State Representative .............................................................. 25

Wolff, Nelson, Bexar County Judge ....................................................................... 17

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Brown, Hon. Corrine, of Florida ............................................................................. 57

Gonzales, Hon. Charles A., of Texas ...................................................................... 61

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Berriozabal, Maria Antonietta ................................................................................ 70

Chipkevich, Bob ....................................................................................................... 73

Cothen, Jr., Grady C. .............................................................................................. 83

Fritz, Lance .............................................................................................................. 103

Hardberger, Phil ...................................................................................................... 107

Vegasquez, Ralph ..................................................................................................... 110

Villarreal, Michael ................................................................................................... 117

Wolff, Nelson W. ...................................................................................................... 120

vi


34789.001
vii


34789.002
viii


34789.003
ix


34789.004
x


34789.005
xi


34789.006
xii


34789.007
(1)

THE ROLE OF HUMAN FACTORS IN RAIL 

ACCIDENTS 

Friday, March 16, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS

San Antonio, TX. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in City 

of San Antonio City Council Chamber, Municipal Plaza Building, 

103 South Main Avenue, San Antonio, Texas, Corrine Brown, 

[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. BROWN. Will the subcommittee please come to order. Good 

morning. I’m Congresswoman Corrine Brown, and will the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Field 

Hearing on the Role of Human Factors in Rail Accidents, March 

16, 2007, officially come to order. 

I want to say good morning, and I want to welcome our distinguished panelists and guests in today’s hearing on the Role of 

Human Factors in Rail Accidents. I want to thank Congressman 

Gonzalez for inviting us, and for hosting us in this great city. 

Thank you. 

Congressman Gonzalez testified at one of a series of safety hearings that the subcommittee held this Congress. He made it clear 

that the people in San Antonio was extremely concerned about the 

large number of train accidents that have occurred in their community, and want to work with the Federal Railroad Administration 

and the National Transportation Board, and the railroads to provide solutions to the problems. 

Our subcommittee has held several hearings on safety and fatigue in the rail industry, and is in the process of developing legislation that will address training, fatigue, and other human factors, 

which constantly rank as one of the top two causes of all rail accidents each year, and accounts for approximately 40 percent of all 

rail accidents annually. 

Congress last passed legislation to re-authorize the FRA in 1994. 

That authorization expired in 1998. Since that time, the railroad 

industry have changed, economic growth, and an increase in international trade have led to record traffic levels. Unfortunately, that 

has put a lot of pressure on our rail system, and had a significant 

impact on work and public safety. 

According to the FRA, there were 2,835 train accidents in 2006, 

which resulted in six fatalities, and 172 injuries. Twelve percent of 

those accidents, or 342 train accidents, occurred in Texas, the highVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:29 Nov 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34789 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
2

est number of train accidents among all of the states. But I believe 

that working together with all the stakeholders, the federal government, the state, the railroad, the workers, and the local communities, we can improve safety and security in the rail industry. 

Again, I want to thank the Congressman from this area, and the 

City of San Antonio for hosting this important hearing on rail safety. I’m looking forward to everyone’s testimony today. 

Before I yield to Mr. Gonazalez for an opening statement, I ask 

unanimous consent for Mr. Gonzalez, and any other Member of the 

House, who wish to participate in today’s hearing to sit and ask 

questions of the witness. Without objection. So ordered. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and 

it’s an honor to welcome you here to San Antonio. I know that I 

speak for all the elected officials and the citizens in San Antonio, 

that you found that this was something that was meritorious, that 

brings the subcommittee that you chair to our wonderful city, to 

address a problem that obviously has come to the very forefront in 

the past few years. 

I would like to request permission at this time to submit my full 

written statement into the record. 

Ms. BROWN. Without objection. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, and I really would like 

just to move on with some of the testimony. I know that our colleague and dear friend, Congressman Ciro Rodriguez, who also represents part of San Antonio, and shares to the same degree that 

I do, the concern regarding rail safety, not just in San Antonio, but 

throughout the United States, so I welcome you, and I join you in 

this endeavor in seeking answers and remedies to those problems 

that we have, that have resulted in these accidents, not, again, just 

in San Antonio, but with some frequency in San Antonio, but the 

rest of the nation. And I yield back. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, and Congressman Rodriguez. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Chairwoman Brown, let me, first of all, thank 

you for coming to San Antonio, and I hope you have an opportunity 

to stay here a few days. I want to also thank you for, not only your 

leadership as Chairman of this committee, but I also want to thank 

you for your leadership, because I know that you are also on the 

Veterans Committee, and you played a very significant role there 

in terms of the struggles that we’ve had in terms of funding the 

VA. So I want to personally thank you, and the relationship that 

I had with you when we both sat together in that committee. 

I, also, just want to indicate to you that I sit on the Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on Transportation. And 

we’ve had, also, some hearings on rail, and there’s no doubt that 

there’s a need for us to re-examine, and see how we can participate, and how we can help in the process of preventing the multitude of accidents. And I think you’ve outlined a good 2,600 

throughout the country, and the fact that there’s a disproportional 

number here in this state. So, once again, I do want to thank you. 

And I, also, just want to indicate to you that my District runs 

for 700 miles through the border to El Paso. I have a meeting in 

approximately an hour and a half in Uvalde, so I’m going to be 

3

leaving, but I do want you to spend your money here. Okay? Thank 

you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. Now, before we begin, several of the people in the audience have asked that they have an opportunity after 

the hearing to make testimonies or comments. And I am amenable 

after the witnesses that we have invited, if the staff would have 

them to sign-up, but we’re going to keep with the rules of the 

House, and those rules are one minute. So you will get one minute, 

an opportunity to make your presentation, if you have some presentations or comments, and then you can follow-up with written 

comments. 

Okay. Without objections. 

Who is the staff person who’s going to get those names? Okay. 

Thank you. 

We are pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses this 

morning. Before I introduce them, I ask unanimous consent to 

allow 14 days for all members to revise and extend their remarks, 

and to permit the Subcommittee for additional statements and materials by members and witnesses. 

Without objection. So ordered. 

I want to welcome Mr. Cothen, who is the Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety, Standards, and Program Development for 

the Federal Railroad Administration. He has brought with him 

some experts from the FRA to help answer questions. Welcome. 

Next, we have Mr. Chipkevich, who is the Director of Office of 

Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Investigations at 

the National Transportation Safety Board. 

Let me remind the witnesses, they are under committee rules. 

They must limit their oral statements to five minutes, but the entire statement will appear in the record. I recognize Mr. Cothen. 

TESTIMONY OF GRADY C. COTHEN, JR., DEPUTY ASSOCIATE 

ADMINISTRATOR FOR SAFETY, STANDARDS, AND PROGRAM 

DEVELOPMENT, FEDERAL RAIL ADMINISTRATION; AND BOB 

CHIPKEVICH, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF RAILROADS, 

PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INVESTIGATIONS, 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

Mr. COTHEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and Congressman Gonzales, also Congressman Rodriguez. 

On behalf of Secretary Peters and Administrator Boardman, let 

me express the appreciation of the Department of Transportation 

for your invitation to participate in this Rail Subcommittee Field 

Hearing. 

Our thanks, as well, for your role in the introduction by request 

to the Department’s Rail Safety Re-authorization Bill, H.R. 1516. 

With me today are Bonnie Murphy, our Regional Administrator 

for Region 5, headquartered in Fort Worth, and Robert Castiglione, 

our Deputy Regional Administrator, and, by the way, proud son of 

San Antonio. They can help me answer any questions that you may 

have this morning. 

4

At the outset, let me note that despite the difficult experience 

that San Antonio, Bexar County, and nearby communities have 

had over the past several years, there is positive news that should 

bode well for the future, wherever we live. Specifically, based on 

preliminary numbers for 2006, last year’s train accident rate for 

the nation was at an all-time low. The total of train accidents was 

also down from 2005, nationally, and as you have noted, for the 

State of Texas, but we can do better. 

The theme of this hearing is Human Factors. As the Secretary’s 

National Rail Safety Action Plan emphasizes, over the past few 

years, human factors have been responsible for more train accidents than any other major category. And human factors also play 

a predominant role in employee casualties, and on-the-job incidents. So what are we doing? 

Very quickly, to summarize just the items that I can fit in. First, 

to ensure that rules are clear, and that everyone is accountable for 

compliance. FRA issued last fall a notice of proposed rule making 

on Railroad Operating Rules. This proposal would address three 

major areas of Operating Rules compliance, which are responsible 

together for one-half of all human factor train accidents, including 

handling of switches. It will also ensure that managers and supervisors are actively conducting, and that they’re learning from their 

Programs of Operational Testing, that evaluate rules compliance on 

the ground, and in the cabs, where the work is done. 

We’re currently seeking resolution of comments to the Railroad 

Safety Advisory Committee, will issue a final rule later this year. 

Second, we’re maintaining a clear focus on training. This has always been an FRA emphasis, but just last week, we concluded a 

series of meetings with Labor and Management regarding the Railroad’s training programs for remote control operators. The agreements we reached last week will result in a thorough review of the 

Railroad’s programs, to ensure that standards for practice and proficiency are sufficient, and that they’re applied in the field. 

Third, we’re working to build a positive safety culture in the railroad industry. Together with Labor and major railroads, FRA has 

launched the confidential Close Call Reporting Program, with an 

initial pilot in North Platt, Nebraska. And we’re working with 

three additional railroads to get pilots in place. 

DOT’s Rail Safety Re-authorization Bill proposes to build on this 

concept with a broader risk reduction program that would seek to 

identify areas of hazards before accidents occur, and encourage 

railroads to address them rapidly. 

Fourth, FRA’s moving beyond its pioneering efforts in control of 

alcohol and drugs of abuse to a broader concern for overall fitness 

to perform the duties of safety critical jobs. The Railroad Safety 

Advisory Committee has established a Working Group on Medical 

Standards for Safety Critical Railroad Employees, and that group 

is off to a strong start. But to be rested, we must have the opportunity to rest. Our Rail Safety Re-authorization Bill asks for regulatory authority over hours of service. After 100 years of checking 

some of the worst abuses, the Hours of Service Act needs to give 

way to science-based fatigue management. 

We have the tools we need to implement that authority, Madam 

Chairwoman, including a fatigue model newly validated with the 

5

help of Railroads and Labor, but we need to ensure that knowledge 

is applied. This is not an issue exclusively for collective bargaining, 

because communities are threatened by the accidents that can 

occur. 

Finally, we’re promoting the use of technology to re-engineer job 

requirements, and provide a safety net when humans err. Positive 

Train Control is a reality on high-speed passenger lines in the 

United States, but the road to affordable PTC from general freight 

system has been a very long one. 

In December of 2006, FRA approved the Product Safety Plan for 

the first freight railroad PTC system under a performance-regulation that we issued in March of 2005. The BNSF Electronic Train 

Management System is now approved for revenue service in its initial configuration, and the three other major freight railroads are 

working on their own versions. 

Working with FRA, BNSF has also taken a leadership role developing the Switch Position Monitoring System for non-signal territory. Just this week, FRA placed into clearance a proposed rule to 

facilitate introduction of electronically controlled pneumatic brakes. 

ECP brakes will make the locomotive engineer’s job much more 

reasonable by eliminating the risk of inadvertently depleting the 

train air line, which is used to command brake applications, and 

by giving the engineer a better tool for train handling. The nation 

will benefit by reducing fossil fuel use, and diesel emissions. 

Let me close with a local focus, because in the end, Madam 

Chairwoman, that’s where we all live, including FRA and participating state safety personnel, who endeavor to address these issues 

every working day. 

Beginning with the fatality in Remote Control Service in late 

2003, San Antonio, Bexar County, and surrounding communities 

experienced an usual number of severe events that brought us to 

this place and time. If there’s any organizing principle that might 

be assigned to these events, particularly in 2004, it was that supervisors and workers were stressed by heavy workloads, and long 

hours. And the railroad could not adjust fast enough to change circumstances. 

As Acting Associate Administrator for Safety, I personally responded to the Crystal Cold Storage Facility in November of 2004, 

where a fatality to a contractor in that private business had just 

occurred. 

Bonnie Murphy and I then conducted a very short, intensive negotiation with the Union Pacific with an agreement to address 

oversight of Operating Rules Compliance on the San Antonio service unit. We used similar agreements to handle similar issues on 

two other services units in the region. 

The lessons we learned in that process have flowed into the proposed rule that I’ve already described, so that we reduce the possibility of ever going down that road again. 

A great deal more has happened in San Antonio over the past 

several years. UP added staff and facilities, a local fatigue study 

funded by FRA heightened awareness among people here in San 

Antonio. Presently, UP and its employees in the San Antonio service unit are engaged in an innovative peer-to-peer observation proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:29 Nov 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34789 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
6

gram funded by FRA, and UP has already decided to extend it two 

other terminals. But we know more work needs to be done. 

The most recent accident of concern in this area occurred in October of 2006, and resulted in damage to two local residences. Our 

investigation showed that it was caused by excessive dynamic braking, that resulted from the failure to set up the locomotives properly, in accordance with UP’s special instructions, and failure to 

provide locomotive crews with information concerning the number 

of axles a dynamic breaking in effect, something we require by regulation. 

We’re processing enforcement actions, and the railroad has taken 

a number of steps to prevent a reoccurrence. In November, FRA inspectors and UP managers conducted the first of a series of joint 

operating testing audits in UP’s southern region, and they started 

right here in San Antonio. That effort is going to continue at least 

through September. 

Sometimes lost in the story is the number of times that railroads 

and their employees get it right. And the broad range of initiatives 

that we’re undertaking together to drive down risk associated with 

rail transportation, we do believe that with continued effort, we’ll 

see additional reduction in accidents, injuries, and we’re confident 

that progress will be evident here and across the nation. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Good morning, Chairwoman Brown, and Members of Congress. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 

Human Factors in Rail Accidents. 

Since 2001, the Safety Board has investigated 29 railroad accidents involving train collisions, and over-speed derailments. Most 

occurred after train crews failed to comply with train control signals, failed to follow Operating Rules in non-signaled or dark territories, or failed to comply with other specific Operating Rules, such 

as returning track switches to normal positions after completing 

their work. 

Our accident investigations have identified human performance 

failures related to fatigue, medical conditions, such as sleep apnea, 

and the use of cell phones. We’ve repeatedly concluded that technological solutions, such as Positive Train Control systems, have 

great potential to reduce the number of serious train accidents by 

providing safety redundant systems to protect against human performance failures. The objective of Positive Train Control is to prevent trail collisions and over-speed accidents by requiring automatic control systems to override mistakes by human operators. 

We are pleased that today several railroads are moving to develop Positive Train Control systems, and although we are encouraged with progress underway by some railroads, we note that Positive Train Control systems are needed across the entire country. 

FRA certification requirements for locomotive engineers focus on 

specific vision and hearing acuity standards, but do not provide 

guidance regarding medical conditions that should be considered in 

the course of an examination. We’ve recommended that the FRA 

develop a standard medical examination form that includes questions regarding sleep problems, and require that the form be used 

to determine the medical fitness of locomotive engineers, and other 

employees in safety-sensitive positions. 

7

In 2002, two trains collided head-on near Clarendon, Texas. The 

engineer of one train had used his cell phone for two personal calls 

the morning of the accident, one for 23 minutes, and the second 

call for 10 minutes. He was on the second call as he passed the location at which he should have stopped and waited for the arrival 

of another train. The Safety Board does not share the FRA’s confidence that the railroad industry has taken sufficient steps to prevent the use of cell phones for personal matters, when crew members should be attending to the operation of the train, and has recommended that the FRA promulgate appropriate regulations. 

Dark territory presents a unique problem for rail safety. In dark 

territory, there are no signals to warn trains as they approach each 

other, and the avoidance of collisions relies solely on dispatchers 

and train crews adhering to Operating Procedures. 

The Board has recommended that the FRA prohibit the use of 

after-arrival track warrants for train movements in dark territory 

not equipped with Positive Train Control System. 

In early 2005, a train encountered an improperly positioned 

switch in Graniteville, South Carolina. It went from the main line 

onto an industry track, where it struck a parked train head-on. The 

track was in dark territory, and nine people died from chlorine gas 

inhalation. 

Later that year, a train entered a siding in Shepherd, Texas, and 

struck a parked train head-on, killing a crew member. Again, the 

track was in dark territory. And, again, the previous crew failed to 

return the main track switch to the normal position after they had 

secured their train on the siding. 

Measures beyond additional Operating Rules, forms, or penalties 

are needed. The Safety Board has recommended that railroads install an automatically activated device that would compelling capture the attention of employees involved in switch operations, and 

clearly convey the status of the switch. In dark territory, and in the 

absence of switch position indicator lights or other automated systems, trains should be operated at speeds that will allow them to 

be safely stopped in advance of misaligned switches. 

Finally, because of the time that it will take to design and construct improved tank cars, the Safety Board believes that the most 

expedient and effective means to reduce public risk from highly 

poisonous gases in train accidents is for railroads to implement 

operational measures that will minimize the vulnerability of tank 

cars transporting these products. 

Madam Chairman, this completes my statement. I’ll be happy to 

answer any questions. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. I guess I want to go right to one of the 

questions pertaining to the cell phones. Why hasn’t the FRA adopted federal regulations that prohibit a locomotive engineer from 

using a cell phone while at the control of a moving train? 

Mr. COTHEN. Madam Chairwoman, we have discussed this issue 

in some depth at the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee, at the 

Full Committee, and with the Board. This is one of those things 

that I think we can all agree on, in principle. If we could get some 

of our friends out on the streets in Washington, D.C., and in San 

Antonio not to use their cell phones while they’re driving, we’d all 

be a lot safer. And the same things goes for a locomotive cab. 

8

One of the issues we have from a FRA standpoint is how do you 

enforce? And, as a practical matter, because train and engine crews 

are self-supervising, it’s very difficult to enforce that kind of requirement from a federal standpoint, except after-the-fact. And by 

then, needless to say, it’s too late. 

However, we’re not through in terms of working this issue with 

the Board. Our Railroad Safety Advisory Committee, Railroad Operating Rules Working Group, when it gets through with the rule 

that I talked to you about, is going on to Board recommendations 

on after-arrival orders, and cell phones. We’re going to talk about 

some other issues that we’ve got live with that group, as well. And 

we commit to the committee that we’re going to look at it thoroughly, and do what’s required. 

Ms. BROWN.Would you like to respond to that? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Thank you. Nothing specific, other than we do 

believe that there are means that can be found to enforce that requirement. And, certainly, as we’ve seen in that particular accident, it is a distraction to crews. It may inhibit one crew member 

from talking to another crew member, and not wanting to bring 

something up because they’re on the phone, and interrupting, and 

we think it’s an important issue. 

Ms. BROWN. My understanding is that mic in the center is also 

working at this time, so you can use the mic at the podium, or the 

hand mic. Okay. 

The FRA has told the NTSB that developing guidelines for local 

skill development, and that contribute to good situation awareness, 

is worthy of consideration. But says that it did not currently have 

funds available, and it will try to identify resources to undertake 

this work. Have you done that, and why don’t you ask for the funding in your re-authorization proposal? 

Mr. COTHEN. Madam Chairwoman, that comes out of Research 

and Development budget. My understanding, that the funds are 

currently obligated. We do believe it’s an important task. FRA has 

a simulator in Cambridge at the Volpe National Transportation 

System Center, provides a platform for doing this kind of program 

development, and we’re going forward. 

Ms. BROWN. Would you stay there. Just, in reviewing the 2006 

safety figures, it seemed that the accidents caused by track defect 

supplants accidents caused by human factors. Why did this occur, 

and what is the FRA doing to prevent accidents caused by track 

defects? 

Mr. COTHEN. It’s absolutely correct. In 2006, we actually saw a 

reversal, as a result of the numbers going down in the Human Factors category, and the track category is the predominant category, 

again. 

The Federal Railroad Administration has ordered a second, and 

a third track geometry vehicle. We’ve got delivery of that second 

vehicle, and the third is on its way, so that we can do track geometry evaluation across the core of the National Rail System on a 

more current basis. And, thereby, quality control the efforts of the 

railroads, themselves. We’re also, as always, working energetically 

on enforcement of the Track Safety Standards. 

This year, the Congress gave us, and we thank you, nine new positions for Rail Integrity Specialists under the President’s budget 

9

request, and we’re working now to fill those positions. And what 

we’ll do there is to build a more effective program to deal with broken rail derailments. That’s the category of main line track-caused 

accidents that’s going to be our biggest issue in the coming years. 

So we know we’ve got to get more traction there, and thank you 

for giving us the resources to do it. 

Ms. BROWN. Okay. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My first 

question would be to, is it Cothen? How do you pronounce the last 

name? 

Mr. COTHEN. It’s Cothen, just a short O. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Cothen. Mr. Cothen, of course, I was introduced 

to the whole regulatory scheme on railroads as a result of the accidents that have transpired in the past few years. 

One thing that I want to point out, is we do have a relatively 

new administrator. The individual we worked with in the past, 

when we had the more serious accidents, as opposed to the administrator we have today, and that is Mr. Boardman. Is that correct? 

Mr. COTHEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And how long has Mr. Boardman been the administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration? 

Mr. COTHEN. He joined us in the summer of 2005. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And I do want to say, and acknowledge from the 

outset, that he has been much more responsive, timely, and substantively, also, to some of our inquiries and requests. 

I’ve reviewed some materials that have been provided by the 

committee for background in my previous testimony in Washington, and it’s something that I always sensed was occurring when 

it came to the FRA in my previous experiences. And I’m not indicating that Mr. Boardman shares some of that particular history, 

but what I believe has been, basically, a culture within the FRA 

and the relationship with the railroads that I think did impact its 

ability to regulate in a manner that promoted safety. And this is 

what I’m going to allude to at this time. And I’m going to read from 

the information that was provided me some time ago. 

‘‘Central to the success of the Federal Rail Safety Program is the 

ability to understand the nature of rail-related accidents, and to 

analyze trends in railroad safety. To do this, the FRA relies heavily 

on information that is reported by the railroads following accidents 

and incidents.’’

I always felt that there was an over-dependency as far as the 

fact-finding duties performed by FRA, based on information provided by the railroads. That’s been a concern, and I will ask you 

a question on that in a minute. 

Further, railroad accident reports, ‘‘The FRA does not routinely 

review locomotive event recorder data, police reports, and other 

sources of information to determine the causes of the collisions, or 

the need for further investigation.’’

So my question goes to, do we still have that reliance base when 

you investigate, or decide to investigate accidents, based almost totally on information that is provided you by the railroads? 

Mr. COTHEN. I don’t think so, Congressman. We get a lot of help 

from our friends. Mr. Chipkevich and his colleagues at the National 

10

Transportation Safety Board provide an objective perspective on 

major accidents, as they occur. 

People on our staff, like the colleagues that I’ve introduced to you 

today, bring to us a railroad background. Try to sell them a line 

of goods, and you’re going to find yourself coming up short real 

quick, because they know how things operate out on the railroad. 

FRA does its own accident investigations. We do over 100 assigned investigations a year for major events, and the regions, 

themselves, elect to do additional investigations, at greater or lesser depth, as required by the circumstances. 

And, finally, we’ve got rail labor representatives in the hall 

today, and they’re not at all reluctant to pick up the phone and call 

us. They have my cell phone number, Joe Strang, who is our Associate Administrator, cell phone number. And if something is transpiring out on the property that’s seriously amiss, we find out 

about it pretty quick. 

Now, having said that, we’re about 500 people in the field, about 

400 inspectors with territories, and this is a national rail system 

that employs 235,000 people, operates over about 150,000 route 

miles. And we’ve got over 200,000 grade crossings, and it generates 

an awful lot of work. So we try to stay on top of it, and I think 

we do. 

You asked the question about grade crossing collisions, and 

there’s been a lot of public interest in that. And we work carefully 

with our office of Inspector General. They have actually been doing 

audits of our grade crossing program now continuously, in terms of 

having an open audit, I think it’s correct to say for over four years. 

The reports that they produce are worth reading. They’re now finalizing a report, again, on accident reporting in this area. And 

what we’ve been able, I think, to demonstrate to them as a result 

of audits we have done of the railroad’s own accident reporting systems; we go on the property, and we check the police records, and 

we check the Op Center records, and we compare that with what 

we got in, and so forth, is that, substantially, we’re getting the reports. 

Now having said that, having said that, it is always the case that 

any database is going to have imperfections in it. And when we sit 

down with the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee, for instance, 

with a batch of train accidents, go over them and say what does 

this mean in terms of what we should do for rule making, you’re 

going to have somebody from the same railroad that did the report 

saying that’s not right. There’s a detail wrong here, and we need 

to fix that, because it’s a massive effort, gathering up that kind of 

data. So I don’t want to mislead you on either side. I don’t want 

to tell you we know everything that’s happening everywhere, all 

the time, because that’s physically impossible. But I think we have, 

overall, a good handle on what’s transpiring in the railroad industry. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And there’s going to be another Inspector General 

report coming out regarding investigative practices by the FRA. 

Mr. COTHEN. Yes, there is. We’ve been talking to them about recommendations, and the last we saw of their draft recommendations, they look pretty good. 

11

Mr. GONZALEZ. And the reason, again - and this information, 

again, is based on previous reports by the IG. ‘‘The Inspector General also found that the FRA investigated few accidents. It investigates two-tenths of 1 percent of all accidents and incidents involving railroads, and recommended few findings of violations for critical safety defects identified through those inspections.’’ So I’m 

going—the jury is out on this new report, and I’ll wait to read that, 

with the assistance of the Chairwoman here. 

One last thing is just an observation. If you’ve identified cell 

phone use as the culprit in some of these accidents, and you’re saying enforcement would be difficult, have you already—it wasn’t 

clear to me, have you already established a rule, recommended a 

rule, promulgated a rule that simply says no cell phone use, period? I mean, we have laws in different states and cities that prohibit the use of cell phones while you’re driving. I mean, it’s an absolute prohibition. How it’s enforced is one thing, but I assure you 

that it definitely has some affect on the use of cell phones by drivers of automobiles. 

Mr. COTHEN. And I understand what you’re saying. What we’ve 

done is we’ve ascertained that the railroads, themselves, have established appropriate limitations on use of cell phones. And, you 

know, railroad employees are very often issued company cell 

phones, because railroad radio channels are so congested. You need 

to have multiple means of communication, in order to talk to the 

dispatcher, the trouble desk, whatever the issue may be. So the cell 

phones are going to be in the cab, and nobody is going to be inspecting people’s grip to see if the personal cell phone is in there. 

But I understand exactly what you’re saying about the notion of 

the moral as suasion attached to an official prohibition. And that’s 

precisely what we’ve got to look at, and make a decision on. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. You know, my suggestion is you simply get tied 

up, and there’s no tolerance, and no understanding or accommodation. I think it just has to be an absolute. I think you’re going to 

see some results. And, again, I just want the FRA to be more aggressive in its recommendations and rule making. But I do thank 

you for your participation here, and I look forward to working with 

you in the future. And I really appreciate your indulgence. Obviously, we’ve had these questions going for some time here in this 

area, and I would direct the questions to the second witness, and 

that is, is it Chipkevich? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Pretty close. Right? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. For the benefit of the audience, your relationship 

to the FRA, National Transportation Safety Board. We read about 

you all the time when there are accidents regarding airliners, and 

such, but what is your relationship? What service do you provide 

in a couple of sentences, so everybody understands. 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. NTSB is an independent agency, not associated 

with the FRA or the Department of Transportation, at all. And we 

report directly to the U.S. Congress, and do independent accident 

investigations. We don’t regulate the industry, so we look at what 

are factors that caused an accident, and what are factors that need 

to—or solutions that need to be made to prevent future accidents. 

12

Mr. GONZALEZ. Regarding recommendations, and I’ve always 

been very impressed by your staff, by the way, when we’ve had our 

inquiries and our discussions. There are many people in San Antonio, to be frank with you, were pretty disappointed with the findings regarding the Macdona accident, in which we had some residents die as a result of the chlorine spill and cloud, as well as the 

conductor on that train, because you found that it was human 

error, and such. And many others really thought it was something 

to do with infrastructure, signals, and so on. Nevertheless, we live 

with that, and that’s what this hearing about. Obviously, we’ve 

traced many of the causes of the accidents to fatigue and human 

factors. 

You have pointed out Positive Train Control. That’s something 

that you all have been advocating for some time. In your opinion, 

based on what you know, and the recommendations that you had 

made in the past to the Federal Railroad Administration, have 

your recommendations been adopted? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. With regard to Positive Train Control, that’s 

been on the NTSB’s Most Wanted list of safety improvements for 

17 years, and so it has been many years before there was any significant progress in this area. We’re finally seeing progress in this 

area, but not by all the railroads. 

Second, with regard to the acceptance of safety recommendations; 

overall, the acceptance rate across the nation, across all modes, is 

about 82 percent for the modal administrations. The FRA, overall, 

has been about 76 percent in the past, but in the recent last 10 

years, is also at about 82 percent acceptance rate, so it is comparable in the last 10-year period to the other modal administrations. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. We’re talking about technology that will assist us 

addressing the problems with human error. It will override human 

error. And a lot of the technology that is utilized today in the cars 

that we all drive home today, is something that is not in the railroad industry. 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Correct. We believe—we’ve got many accidents, 

as I noted today, 29 accidents that we looked at just since 2001, 

where we investigated collisions and over-speed accidents, where 

we believe that Positive Train Control would have done just what 

you said. It would have been a safety redundant system to stop the 

train prior to the accident. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I think both of the witnesses—one point of clarification, because my staff wanted to make sure. And I fully understand the cell phone use is essential for communication relating to 

work conditions, and instructions, and such. We’re talking about 

cell phone use that’s entirely different, that you alluded to by an 

engineer or conductor. That was personal use, and it’s obvious, 

again, how that plays into the accidents. 

But with that, Madam Chair, thank you very much. I yield back. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. Would you explain for all of us what do 

you mean by ‘‘Positive Train Control?’’ Because I have this car, and 

we jokingly say that I got my driver’s license from Sears a long 

time ago. But if I back up into a wall, or into another car, it starts 

making a noise, and so that’s, I guess, Positive Control. Is this—

13

can you kind of explain to us, as far as the industry, what does 

that mean? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. BROWN. Because you mentioned that this has been on your 

top list for the past 17 years. 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. That’s correct. Positive Train Control System is 

a system that, basically, a computer-integrated system with the 

train. As the train is proceeding down the track, there are signals 

which the engineer needs to comply with. And there’ll be an advance signal, or a stop signal, which will tell him how to operate 

the train. If the engineer fails to comply with the signal, for example, to slow a train from 50 miles an hour, to 30 miles an hour, 

be prepared to stop. 

The computer system will identify the failure to act and slow the 

train to the appropriate speed; and, therefore, automatically apply 

the brakes. And it will also sense ahead for a red or a stop signal, 

how far the distance is, compute the stopping distance, and then 

actually apply the brakes, if the crew has not slowed the train to 

a specific speed. 

Additionally, just for operating, if a crew member is operating 

above a specific speed, and exceeds a certain threshold, then the 

train will apply the brakes, and bring that train back down to the 

appropriate speed. 

Finally, I’ve been on a train being tested with a switch being left 

in the open position in dark territory, where that’s incorporated 

into the system. And if a train approaches that, the brakes will 

automatically apply again and stop the train. 

Ms. BROWN. I guess my question, or follow-up to that is that you 

indicated that some trains was adhering to this, and some was not. 

Can we get a list of the trains that are using this technology, and 

those that need to be dragged into the 21st century? Yes, sir? We 

can get that. Yes. 

Mr. Cothen, why hasn’t the FRA adopted federal regulations that 

prohibit a local engineer—well, we just talked about the cell 

phones. Okay. I think we’ve answered that one. What was his other 

question? 

You mentioned drugs and alcohol regulations. Are all railroad 

workers subject to drug and alcohol regulations? If not, why, and 

why are they not covered? 

Mr. COTHEN. Madam Chairwoman, we focused our attention on 

safety critical employees, pretty much as defined by statute under 

the Hours of Service Act, so these are folks who are operating 

trains, issuing authorities from a dispatching center, working on 

signal systems. And we found, over time, that that seems to be a 

good area of emphasis. However, we have also collected specimens 

from deceased employees who were involved in other events, and 

we have seen prevalence of drug use and other crafts. 

Ms. BROWN. Did you want to answer that question I asked about 

the tracks in more extensive, the Positive Train? You said you’re 

going to get us a list. 

Mr. COTHEN. Madam Chairwoman, we can certainly do that. And 

I think Mr. Chipkevich did a very good job of explaining. The railroads generally describe it as being an electronic system that consists of a locomotive segment, a wayside segment, and an office segVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:29 Nov 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34789 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
14

ment. And they’re all linked together, and when it works right, and 

it takes a good deal of effort to make it work right, the trains run 

on time, and they run safely. And a mistake that the engineer 

makes, or that the conductor makes, does not result in an unfortunate mishap. So it’s a very powerful technology. It can protect roadway workers within their authorities. It can keep trains from going 

over speed, and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe has got a production version of it for their Configuration One territories, which 

are territories that are dark single track, or dark traffic control. 

And I just got another email this week on Configuration Two, so 

I think we’re seeing very substantial movement. 

Ms. BROWN. In reviewing the material for this hearing, I guess 

I was a little distressed about the number of accidents that was 

caused by defective tracks. What are we doing as an industry to 

correct that, because many of the accidents, many of the loss of life, 

seem like could have been prevented if we had put in the technology that we’re talking about, or if the tracks was inspected, or 

just minor things that could be very disruptive to a community, or 

to the safety of the engineers, or the people that’s working for us. 

Mr. COTHEN. Madam Chairwoman, a great deal is being done. 

Frequent inspections are required, visual inspections, by the Federal Railroad Administration twice a week on most tonnage territories. We also require use of internal rail flaw detection technology, and railroads actually exceed our requirements on a regular 

basis in terms of checking the inside of the rail, using inductive or 

ultrasonic techniques. This is not destructive testing. And their car 

or rolling equipment mounted devices that check as they go along 

the track. 

We come back around with our automated track inspection vehicles, and we check for property track geometry. Our inspectors go 

out on the ground with railroad personnel, and we check. And I 

would say that, in general, we’ve got a big challenge here. 

The challenge is very heavy tonnage. And once you get something right, here comes another train, and it’s pounding, and there 

are issues. And the next thing you know, you’ve got a problem, so 

it’s a constant challenge. The railroads are trying to manage it, and 

we’re trying to watch them as closely as we can. 

One thing I think you know we need to get to an extent that we 

haven’t over the past few years, again, is rail integrity, and that’s 

our next area of focus at FRA. 

Ms. BROWN. Cars lining up, there is some discussion about hazardous material. Do you want to respond to that? 

Mr. COTHEN. The status of hazardous materials tank car work, 

Madam Chairwoman? 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. 

Mr. COTHEN. We have a very active team at the Volpe National 

Transportation System Center that is evaluating derailment forces, 

under what conditions will a car breach? They’re developing a 

model for a new approach to tank car safety. We have a cooperative 

relationship with Union Tank Car Dow Chemical, and Union Pacific Railroad to put together a package of proposals, engineering 

work and proposals, and our objective is to get that out this year. 

Technically speaking, and I’ve worked on tank car issues now 

since the 1970s, it is a very challenging area, because the potential 

15

forces in these accidents are very high, but we’re aggressively looking at it. We have also put out for comment a suggestion which 

plays off of some of the suggestions that the National Transportation Safety Board has made in its recommendations out of 

Graniteville, that maybe for a while for these most hazardous 

chemicals, and that would be chlorine and hydrous ammonia, and 

other toxic inhalation hazard materials, in dark territory maybe we 

need to train staff. And we have that proposal out in December for 

comment in the informal public comment process that we’re doing. 

Our third meeting will be coming up here in the next couple of 

weeks. 

Ms. BROWN. Okay. Mr. Chipkevich, would you answer those 

same questions, please? Particularly, about the defection, as far as 

the tracks is concerned. 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. We found in accidents that it’s important for 

the FRA inspectors to, when they’re doing track inspections, to 

really compare the deficiencies that are found to the railroad’s own 

track maintenance program. Under continuous loaded rail, they 

have a means of both installing the track, and how they’re supposed to maintain it. 

We made recommendations in the past, and FRA has been responsive on requirements that they are going to have on their track 

inspectors to have copies of the programs with them while they’re 

doing the inspections. And then we found that a Mississippi accident where there was a major Amtrak derailment, to make sure 

that there’s follow-up after the inspections to make sure that the 

repairs are made to tracks. 

We’ve also seen the need for improved ultrasound inspection of 

rail, looking at the interior of the rail following an accident. At 

Nodaway, Iowa, where there was an Amtrak train that had derailed, we found that the railroad had done ultrasound inspections, 

found a defect in the rail, cut out that piece of rail, put in a replaced piece of rail, and that replaced piece of rail had a defect in 

it, and failed under the load of the train. And so we’ve made recommendations that the replacement rail be ultrasound inspected 

before installed into the track, so there is some area that needs to 

be improved. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just real 

quick question, because I know you’ve been up here a long time. 

In reviewing your summary of your accident report and investigation of the June 28th, 2004 Macdona accident, in which we had 

fatalities. We had at least 50 people hospitalized, some very seriously. Conclusion 13 reads: ‘‘The Macdona, Texas accident is another in a long series of railroad accidents that could have been 

prevented had there been a Positive Train Control System in place 

at the accident location.’’ And you’ve touched on that. As a matter 

of fact, you described how it would have slowed the train down, 

and so on, and then maybe it wouldn’t have clipped that other 

train that led to that horrible accident. 

You may these findings and conclusions, but you also make recommendations, do you not? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Yes, sir. 

16

Mr. GONZALEZ. And you make recommendations to all parties. 

That’s going to be FRA, the Railroad Administration, as well as to 

the railroads, and so on. You made recommendations in this particular accident, did you not? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And of those, have they been complied or adopted? Is there anything you can—whether they’re adopted or not—

first of all, have they been adopted, and if not, to what extent can 

you do anything about that? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Yes, sir. The NTSB cannot require that its recommendations be adopted. And when they are not, and there’s not 

appropriate action, our means is to be able to report to the Congress on the progress of those recommendations, in particular, 

when they’re made to modal administrations. 

With regard to the Macdona accident, that is correct. When the 

engineer missed the signal and did not slow the train, a Positive 

Train Control would have slowed the train, and would have 

stopped the train before it reached its stop signal. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Have your recommendations been adopted? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Those have not been adopted, as of yet. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much. I yield back, Madam 

Chair. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. I have a question. How many recommendations 

did you come up with? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. We can provide you a list, for the record, of all 

the rail recommendations that have been made. There are currently about 45 recommendations open to the Federal Railroad Administration. 

Ms. BROWN. And as of the time of this hearing, none has been 

adopted? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. No, ma’am. Over a period of time, many have 

been adopted. And the acceptance rate, over the last 10 years 

where they have been completed and adopted, has been about 82 

percent. 

Ms. BROWN. Okay. Well, thank you very much for your testimony, both of you. And we will get you the additional questions in 

writing. 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. We’re going to break up the panel into Panel Two 

and Panel Three. And Judge Wolf and Mayor Hardberger will be 

on the second panel. 

Mr. Mayor, I want to tell you, I like your digs here. So you could 

come up. I know this is an unusual position for you to— 

Mr. HARDBERGER. Well, I’m very happy to have you in that spot, 

and we’re very glad to have you here. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. HARDBERGER. Would you like me to go ahead and give a few 

remarks here? 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, sir. I’m looking for the Judge. 

Mr. HARDBERGER. The Judge is right here, Judge Nelson Wolff. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, Judge. Would you mind coming up? 

17

TESTIMONY OF PHIL HARDBERGER, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF 

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS; NELSON WOLFF, BEXAR COUNTY 

JUDGE

Mr. HARDBERGER. I’ll take the lead, but I will tell you that Judge 

Wolff and myself have been working on this together. We’ve authored several letters, and made some recommendations together, 

so in many ways on this issue, we speak with one voice. 

First, let me thank you, though, for being here. And, Congressman Gonzalez, thank you so much. It’s an appropriate place for you 

to have these hearings, because we’ve had some bad experiences, 

and we could have had a lot worse experiences. And it doesn’t take 

a whole of imagination to get from what might have happened, to 

many hundreds of deaths. So it’s a very timely subject. 

San Antonio’s history is actually linked with our railroads. They 

helped make San Antonio what it was, and the reason that we 

grew as a city in the 17th, 18th century, early 19th century. Railroads were rivers of commerce that allowed San Antonio to flourish. 

Our city grew along these tracks, naturally attracted the house 

and the industry along the tracks. The irony, though, is today, 

those houses and those businesses are very much threatened and 

present a problem for our society, as well as the railroads. 

I would say that railroads today represent our greatest threat in 

terms of a catastrophic event. We have an emergency responder 

team, and, of course, we are ready and trained for things like hurricanes, or a terrorist attack. We plan for those, but the more likely 

thing that will happen is a major derailment of a train going 

through the middle of our city carrying hazardous material. In my 

own opinion, that is several times more likely to happen than a terrorist attack in San Antonio. 

Depending on what the train that’s derailed is carrying, chlorine, 

natural gas, or other chemicals, you really would not have—it’s not 

an exaggeration to say hundreds of people might die, and thousands might be injured. You actually have a person here in the audience, Ralph Velasquez, whose health is permanently injured because of the lasting damage done to his lungs, which has just about 

stopped his quality of life, and certainly will shorten his life. So 

these are very real things. 

October of last year, I got a call around 11 a.m. in a very populated part of our area, it’s called Five Points, houses all up and 

down those tracks. And just a few feet away, not much further 

than I am from you, Madam Chairwoman, 17 cars had derailed. 

Some of them had gone right straight through the houses. I’d never 

seen a derailment up close. It’s rather horrific. I mean, the utility 

poles are snapped off like matches. The pavement itself nearby is 

ripped up like you’d had a bulldozer got all of these twisted tracks, 

and the tie sticking straight up in the air, instead of being horizontal. I mean, you really can see the power that is there. The 

house is no protection whatsoever for a box car. I mean, it’ll go 

right straight through it, and never even slow down. 

Actually, nobody got hurt. They weren’t carrying any hazardous 

materials. It was actual paper products, and just so happened, the 

18

people weren’t in the houses at 11 a.m. They were out and about. 

But boy, that is a close one, really close, especially when you put 

that with our past experience with Macdona, where four people 

died, and many others were injured. That’s the one Mr. Velasquez 

was involved in. And then, of course, we’ve had another one where 

it went through a warehouse and killed somebody else. These are 

all fairly recent happenings. We’re not having to reach real far 

back in our memory for this. 

Judge Wolff and I went immediately to the scene of the one that 

happened in October. In fact, I think we were there within about 

30 minutes. It was still truly dust, and smoke, and everything else 

was still in the air. 

The cause of the derailment, Union Pacific later told us, was excessive braking force. And I guess in common language, they put 

the brakes on too hard. It ma have been the trains weren’t strung 

together as they should have. Certainly, though, it was human 

error, and that’s why you’re here. But I will tell you, what if they 

had been carrying bad chemicals, and somebody had hit the brakes 

too hard? 

I don’t think it’s enough that we can hope our luck holds out. The 

odds would be against it, for one thing. And the safety of our city 

and the seriousness of this issue require a lot of attention from our 

national leaders, Union Pacific, itself, National Transportation 

Safety Board, and certainly, the local leaders here. 

The truth is, most accidents, whether you’re talking about airplanes, cars, or trains, are probably, strictly speaking, a proximate 

cause, if not the proximate cause, is to do with human factors. It’s 

a condition of life, and we have to keep working on those. But the 

truth is, you will continue to have accidents caused by humans, for 

one reason or another. You just try to, as you were talking about, 

keep them off the phone and other things, go slow, keep the tracks 

in good condition. 

A derailment itself may be, of course, caused by the condition of 

the roadbed, and that, too, is a human factor, too. Deals with something hard, but somebody made a decision not to fix the roadbed. 

Trains traveling too fast, same thing, are human factors. And, actually, even allowing trains to carry highly hazardous material 

through crowded areas, I submit, is a human error. That’s an error 

in judgment. 

We, of course, as official policymakers and officials, we can, ourselves, be guilty of a human factor and human error, if we don’t 

regulate the trains and the cargo properly. And we don’t take heed 

of the now, at least three strong warnings we’ve had in a fairly 

short period of time. So I’m really glad you’re here, because it gives 

us a chance to be able to talk to somebody that’s important. 

And I will say, when we call Union Pacific, they have been absolutely courteous. They’re very quick to get back to you. They apologize sincerely, but that’s really not enough. That won’t quite get it, 

although, I appreciate the courtesy and the quick phone calls. 

I have a few recommendations, for what they are worth. We set 

some of these out, Judge Wolff and myself, in a joint letter that we 

sent the National Transportation Safety Board. We are seeking 

support from our current Texas legislature at this time, and at 

least one of our representatives, Mike Villarreal, is in the audience, 

19

to relocate the rail traffic out of highly populated areas. We’re asking the State of Texas to help us on that. 

We would also ask some federal help on that, as well. It’s expen- sive. It’s going to cost about $2 billion, and it will probably take 

about 10 years. Those are obstacles, big obstacles, but the quicker 

we work on the big obstacles, the more they become medium-size 

obstacles, and then small obstacles. And the size of this problem 

must not deter us from taking the necessary action. And it is necessary. This is not you could do it, it’s we must do it. 

We would also like the City of San Antonio to ask this committee 

to consider granting the local government authorities, the city and 

the county, a multi-jurisdictional rail district that would allow us 

to know and share manifests, to identify hazardous cargo, and do 

what we can to seek alternative routes from hazardous cargo going 

through heavily populated area until we get the tracks moved. 

Of course, that is the long-term goal, but the short-term goal is 

we’d like to know what’s coming through here, and when it’s coming through. And we don’t know that. I couldn’t tell you whether 

hazardous material came through here last night, or this is just 

about the time that the last accident happened three months ago. 

For all I know, there’s more coming through right now as we’re 

talking. And we would like to know about that. 

So we ask for your support in these requests, Chairwoman and 

Congressman Gonzalez, to do so and help us with this. I’m afraid 

it always does get down somewhat to money, as well as rule making. You will make our city a safer place, and I know that we all 

want to do that. I know that’s why Congressman Gonazalez was especially anxious to bring it here, which I appreciate. 

I know that you all are committed to this task, and I appreciate 

your commitment, and I ask you to do your best to translate some 

of that commitment in money. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. Are you going to be with us for a 

minute? 

Mr. HARDBERGER. Yes, I will. And we’ll hear what County Judge 

Wolff has to say. 

Mr. WOLFF. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Brown, for coming 

here to San Antonio today, and the great support that Congressman Gonzalez has given to this tremendous effort. 

On that June 28th, 2004 accident that happened in Macdona 

where people were killed, and some 50 people were injured from 60 

tons of chlorine gas that escaped, I went to that accident site. And 

I don’t think you could see a more horrifying element, when you 

see the fumes still coming out. The bulldozer people had to stop operations because it was such a dangerous situation. But they did 

react, and they did clean up. 

Very shortly after that, on November the 10th, 2004, the Crystal 

Cold Storage was crushed. An employee of a rental company was 

inside doing business and was killed. I went to that site, also. 

The National Transportation Board did investigate these and 

found human failures with that. During that period of time, I 

learned that freight trains were being parked in sidings with locomotives left running and unsecured, leaving them ready to accessibility, anybody who wanted to board and set the train in motion. 

I heard from employees who were left waiting hours for transporVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:29 Nov 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34789 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
20

tation back to their terminals following expiration of available 

hours of service. And employees also reported they were being 

called back to work on such a frequent basis, they could not get the 

proper rest. 

We went to Washington. We met with the Federal Rail Administration, we met with the National Transportation Board, we met 

with Congressmen, and we talked about exactly what they’re talking about with you today, some three years later. 

We talked about the need, and has been recommended for some 

17 years, of Positive Train Control. Nothing has been done in the 

last three years. We talked about hours of service, where an employee can work up to 432 hours a month, four times more than 

an airline pilot, twice as much as a person working in the shipping 

industry, and twice as much as a truck driver. Again, nothing has 

been done. 

We felt, after that trip, there was too cozy a relationship between 

the Federal Rail Administration and the railroad companies. I 

must say, since then I think that they have improved greatly on 

both sides. 

After the accidents, Union Pacific changed their local management people here. They hired more employees. They beefed up 

their training and safety operations, and the Federal Rail Administration assisted by sending more teams of inspectors to San Antonio. But on two of the biggest issues, they continue to talk, and 

they continue to do nothing, and we hope that this hearing will 

give the emphasis for them to move forward on the Positive Control, and limit the number of hours that a person can work. And, 

also, handle this limbo time when crews are waiting for transportation to their final release point, with neither time, nor duty for 

time off during that period of time. 

As Mayor Hardberger stated, a real major issue facing the state, 

the federal government, and local entities is to get the freight out 

of the major urban areas of San Antonio. Seventy percent of the 

freight that comes in San Antonio is pass-through freight, not destination. Freight is expected to double in the next 20 years, with 

twice as many trains on the existing tracks that we have today. It 

doesn’t take much to imagine the much greater hazard that we’re 

going to face in the future, so we hope you will be a partner, along 

with the state. They have a fund that they’re beginning to put in 

place, and hopefully will pass this session, some $200 million to 

begin a fund to relocate rail, but we will need federal funds in that, 

also. 

Locally, we’re getting close to finishing a rerouting program that 

would pull some of the traffic around the southeastern part of San 

Antonio, rather than going through. Union Pacific has done another good. They have created a multi-modal yard with a building 

outside of the urban area, which will reduce the number of trucks 

and trains coming into the inner city on the west side, so we have 

made headway. We think there’s a heck of a lot more to do, and 

we ask your assistance in helping us make that come about. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you so much, both of you. Your testimony is 

very targeted, and just very crucial. And I want to thank you. 

First of all, let me just ask for copies of the letters that you sent 

to Washington, and to NTSB, so we can make it an official part of 

21

the record. And second, the subcommittee have had several hearings on fatigue. And as we look toward re-authorization of the Federal Rail Safety Program, Judge, what do you think we should do 

to prevent fatigue, and what specifically should we be doing to address limbo time? 

Mr. WOLFF. Well, first of all, on the fatigue issue, I think a rule 

very much at least in line with the number of hours per month 

that someone can work. Perhaps the number dealing with shipboard personnel, and truck drivers, might be the proper way to 

look at it. That would be half of what they’re allowed to work 

today. 

And I know, I just heard the steps taken forward on Positive 

Train Control. I think the faster that you can implement that, and 

move that forward, would be a tremendous help. After all, it’s only 

been recommended for 17 years. Hopefully, this Congress with the 

change that’s come about, which I might add I’m delighted about 

that change, and I hope that he will be aggressive in pushing forward on this issue. 

With respect to the limbo time, while they’re waiting for transportation from their release points, somehow there has to be a better method, some planning of where they’re released from, to begin 

with. And if they’re going to have to be released in the middle of 

the countryside somewhere, then they ought, at least, be able to get 

credit for time still on duty. They ought not to be released there, 

to begin with. There needs to be some flexibility to get them in 

closer to the metropolitan area, and closer to where they’re going 

to be. But I don’t know that a rule can be promulgated in that 

limbo time, other than compensation. Ithink that the railroads 

have to work a little better in terms of planning of where this crew 

will be released. 

Ms. BROWN. I have a real follow-up question for you. The railroad, including Union Pacific, have proposed limiting their liability 

in train accidents involving hazardous material. They have proposed a cap in damages at $200 million. What do you think of this 

proposal? 

Mr. WOLFF. I hadn’t heard of that one. Doesn’t sound good. If it’s 

their fault, they ought to pay for it. 

Ms. BROWN. All right. All right. 

Mr. HARDBERGER. You know, you pay for the damage that you do. Maybe $200 million is enough, maybe it isn’t. Depends on how 

many people are injured and killed, and how much property is destroyed. I don’t think there should be any caps. The caps are what 

the damage is, and needs to be—you need to cut the cloth to fit the 

damages, not some arbitrary figure. 

Ms. BROWN. In the areas that occur in this area, do you know 

whether or not the people that was involved, have they been compensated for what happened to them, or is it still in litigation? 

Mr. HARDBERGER. I know that at least some of them have been 

compensated and the suits have been settled. I don’t know if it’s 

100 percent, but I believe most of them have, and that the litigation is at an end. 

Ms. BROWN. Let me just say one other thing, before I turn it over 

to my colleague for his questions or comments. In TEALU, we appropriated, authorized $350 million for just what you requested, 

22

partnership, relocation of tracks, and the President zeroed that out, 

or put no funding, or no recommendations in the budget for that 

kind of partnership. You may have a little bit more influence with 

him, since he’s from this area, and he’s going to be coming back 

here soon. 

Mr. WOLFF. Well, we will encourage him. Quite frankly, I don’t 

think that’s enough money, because we’re looking to the state for 

150-200 million dollar fund. 

The State of Texas, by the way, passed that. Again, another positive sign that Union Pacific is doing the right things, is that they 

have stepped up and said that they have signed an agreement with 

the governor to do a joint proposal to move these lines out of part 

of San Antonio, out of the Austin-San Antonio corridor. 

Ms. BROWN. How much is that going to cost, total? 

Mr. WOLFF. That’s probably going to be a billion dollars or more, 

just for this. But the $200 million, maybe closer to two billion, the 

$200 million leverages up to two billion in the ability to provide for 

relocated lines, so I would think that the—this is going to be a 

huge problem for you. 

I’ve got to know Matt Rhodes well, who is the Chairman and 

CEO of Burlington Northern, and I’ve got to know Jim Young very 

well. And I must say, Jim Young, President of Union Pacific, was 

right here on the ground, went to visit the people that were injured, and really stepped up and did the right thing. 

But bottom line is, this country is facing, somewhat, what President Eisenhower faced with respect to highways in the 1950s. Rail 

is growing at about 5 percent a year. As I say, it will double, and 

the rail infrastructure is not there to handle it. The rail infrastructure is in the wrong place. And if Congress would take a look at 

this, as they did at highways some 50, 60 years ago, I guess, now, 

I think it’s a major issue facing all of us. And as Mayor Hardberger 

said, if you are worried about a terrorist attack or something going 

wrong, a train moving through the heart of a city is the most dangerous threat that we could face, as Mayor Hardberger said, so we 

need to get them out of the urban areas. And we will significantly 

need your help to address this for every train that we can reroute 

out, and not have them on the highways, dangers on the highways. 

I think one train, 200 trucks or something like that, so it makes 

sense. It’s a good investment for safety, both on the highways and 

on the railways. 

Ms. BROWN. I agree with you 100 percent. I’m excited about the 

challenges that the railroad face, but before the 1950s, we were 

number one in the world, and now everybody is ahead of us, if you 

look at China, or you look at all these other countries. And, basically, the communities or the country that the infrastructure is not 

in place, then we’re going to be left behind, because we want to be 

able to move these goods and services throughout our country. And 

even though $1 billion sounds like a lot of money, we’re spending, 

I want to say, $15 billion every, what, five weeks in Iraq? 

Mr. WOLFF. Yes. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, so the taxpayers— 

Mr. WOLFF. I hope that you all will move aggressively on this. 

For transportation, also economic development, as the Chairwoman 

pointed out, it’s economic development, as well as safety. And it 

23

just has to be done, I think, and this Congress hopefully will be the 

one to step up and allocate the resources where they belong, and 

away from where they don’t belong. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you so much. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much. Now you know why I 

enjoy serving with Chairwoman Brown. We’re getting a little taste 

of her personality, and very strong-held convictions, which are 

quite admirable. 

I guess a couple of observations. You know, we have worked really close, and I’ve known the Mayor and the Judge for so many 

years. And it’s been frustrating on the federal level not being able 

to really provide you adequate answers or the funding. 

A couple of things that could easily be addressed, though, and I 

still don’t understand why they’re not. And, Mayor, you had indicated, you would really like to know what hazardous materials are 

coming through the city, and when. That information is not available, and I’m thinking of first responders. And I know that Nim 

Kidd is not going to be here today, and he probably could have 

shed some light on this. But even outside would be the normal 

course of business for the city, in the first responder mode, and, of 

course, with the threat of terrorism and such, they could take advantage of hazardous materials coming through a highly populated 

area; do you have any authority, or manner, or means to obtain 

that information, so that it can be coordinated? Or you can, actually, maybe try to reach agreements to have the materials transported during those periods of time when there’s less traffic, less 

population out there, and so on. 

Mr. HARDBERGER. We do not have the authority to make that 

happen. I think we would need some enabling legislation from the 

federal government that that material would be shared. Otherwise, 

we are merely asking the railroads to do that for us, and they have 

indicated that they want to do that. So I think we’ll probably need 

some help from you to be able to get that done. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. The issue of authority, of course, is a big one, and 

I guess I’ll kind of play the devil’s advocate on this thing. Not that 

we would—at the federal level, why not share some of the responsibility with the state and local authorities? I don’t know if that’s 

really going to happen.And let me just toss this out for consideration. 

Anticipating where I think the railroads would come on that, is 

that they really do like a federal scheme so that they wouldn’t 

have, let’s say, 50 different sets of regulations in 50 different states 

that they would be operating out of. On top of that, given local authorities some jurisdiction over some of these matters, could also 

complicate things, because you always hear that, that the regulatory scheme out there, especially when it’s distributed at the federal, and state, and local levels, really makes the cost of business 

- it drives it up, it makes it difficult and so on. 

How would you address that particular argument that might be 

advanced by the railroad industry? And that’s a question for both 

of you. 

Mr. WOLFF. Well, I think you guys are the guys that need to do 

this. The problem is they haven’t really stepped up and did it. And 

it needs to be uniform throughout the country. But I think what 

24

Mayor Hardberger was referring to was just information, so that 

if we knew something was coming through, when it was coming 

through, that we could respond, and be ready to respond to that. 

And as you so aptly stated, there may be a way to have that kind 

of freight coming through when there’s less congestion on the highways that may cause an accident. I know what you’re going to run 

into, I’ve already heard it. You’re going to run into National Security, about if they knew a train was coming, and they got that information, maybe they would do something to it, so I know you’re 

going to bump up against that, because that was one of the issues 

we raised, and that was one of the push-backs on it, regarding National Security. I don’t know, still might be. 

Ms. BROWN. Let me just say that this committee is working with 

Homeland Security in coming up with a safety bill that would include how we could work together to—because the first responders 

have a need to know, and so we’re working through these issues. 

And you can rest assured that we’re talking, and we’re going to 

come up with some recommendations, and some bill. Keeping in 

mind, we’ve only been in charge since January. And we’ve had 91 

Oversight Hearings since that time, so we’re going to do our part 

to not just talk about security, but walk that walk. 

And I want to thank both of you for your leadership, and for you 

comments. And we are looking forward to your statements and letters that you sent to the committee for the record. And we may 

have additional questions that we will forward to you. 

Any closing remarks, Mr. Mayor? 

Mr. HARDBERGER. No, but I want you to know that I do have the 

letters right now. And I also have my remarks, that I gave this 

morning reduced to writing. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. And thank you, Judge. 

Mr. WOLFF. Thank you very much. 

Ms. BROWN. I’m going to let Mr. Gonzalez introduce the next 

panel. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I appreciate it, Madam Chair. It is a privilege to. 

Ms. BROWN. I think you have it. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Oh, absolutely. And I’m going to start off—and he 

is on this particular panel. Is that correct? Okay. 

She may not be here as a witness, presently, and I think I may 

have seen another council member, but we have Sheila McNeil, 

who’s here, someone that we’re all very proud of in the capacity as 

City Council Member. I know Councilman Roland Gutierrez was 

here earlier, and I don’t know if he’s still here. And we have any 

other member of the City Council or Commissioner’s court that I—

oh, Councilwoman Herrera, good to see you. So we have two members that are here. 

Testifying today in the next panel, a good friend and one of the 

most—what I always consider one of the more imaginative, creative 

state legislators, and hardworking state legislators, State Representative Michael Villarreal. Mike, if you’ll come up and be positioned wherever staff finds you a place. 

Another good friend, community leader, former council member 

is Maria Berriozabal. And, Maria, if you would please come up. An 

acquaintance of many years, very prominent family who, unfortunately, had a very terrible experience, because he was one of the 

25

individuals out at Macdona who resided near the accident site, Mr. 

Ralph Velasquez. 

We also have, of course, representing the southern region for 

Union Pacific Railroad, Mr. Larry Fritz. And we appreciate Mr. 

Fritz being here today. 

Thank you, one and all. And I yield back to the Chairwoman. 

Ms. BROWN. We’re going to be opening with the State Representative, with his remarks. Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL VILLARREAL, STATE REPRESENTATIVE; MARIA BERRIOZABAL, FORMER SAN ANTONIO CITY 

COUNCIL MEMBER; RALPH VELASQUEZ, COMMUNITY ADVOCATE INJURED AT THE MACDONA ACCIDENT; LANCE FRITZ, 

VICE PRESIDENT-SOUTHERN REGION, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

Mr. VILLARREAL. Madam Chair Brown, thank you for giving me 

this opportunity. Congressman Gonzalez, thank you for bringing 

the subcommittee to our community. 

Though we’ve heard earlier that the number of accidents and incidents in the nation in regards to rail accidents have declined, 

that has not been our experience. That’s not what we are feeling 

here in the San Antonio community. 

I believe government’s first priority is to protect us. I fight to 

make sure, on the state level, I can do everything I can to make 

that happen. My constituents have asked that I take action. In 

doing so, I have discovered that I have very limited number of options. 

This problem, the nature of the problem, is a federal nature. 

However, I filed House Bill 1345. 

Which would require that the 87 schools in Bexar County that 

are located within 1,000 yards of a railroad track develop emergency response plans. This is not only for the 60,000 students that 

occupy these school buildings along the railroad tracks, and I 

brought a diagram to just show you. I’m happy to give you a smaller copy of this map. 

The red lines represent the railroad lines. The orange figures 

represent the number of school houses along railroad lines within 

1,000 yards. There are 87, totally 60,000 students. That’s larger 

than the San Antonio Independent School District. They’re counting on us to protect them.House Bill 1345 will require their schools 

to develop emergency response plans in case of train derailments. 

I’ve also authored House Current Resolution 91. 

Respectfully requesting that the federal government take appropriate steps to address our concerns with rail safety. 

The Mayor and the County Judge have done a good job in describing our recent history, accidents in ‘04 and ‘05, and most recently, in ‘06 with the 17-car derailment. I won’t cover that. I want 

to jump straight to my recommendations. 

Number one, steps must be taken to improve the predictability 

and regularity of engineers and conductor’s work schedules. Union 

Pacific, and most other railroads, use a work system in which an 

engineer or conductor have a set time for rest, but may be called 

26

in at any time during that period of rest. According to Union 

Pacific’s Director of Fatigue Management, this is their own person, 

such a work schedule results in ‘‘erratic, unpredictable shifts ’’. 

I’ve spoken to engineers and conductors, and what they tell me 

is even though they are required to have an eight-hour rest period, 

they can receive a phone call in the middle of that eight-hour period calling them back to work. That’s unacceptable. That’s not 

rest. 

Recommendation Two, data. The fox is guarding the henhouse. 

Today, railroad companies control the fact-finding, Congressman 

Gonzalez, that you referred to earlier. They control the data collection process. They also control the ability to classify, to interpret 

the data before reporting it to the federal government. That’s unacceptable. We need to change that. What-if data collection and classification was conducted by the government, not Union Pacific, or 

other rail carriers. 

There should be full disclosure of data collected by defect detectors. Also, the reporting of excess hours of service, of rule violations, and of all incidents, not just reportable incidents. This would 

empower not just the federal government, but it would empower 

us, at the state level, to act appropriately when we observe trends 

that are climbing toward, building toward a potential accident. 

The FRA and the NTSB should improve information sharing. 

You heard that earlier from the Mayor and the County Judge. If 

the federal government were to take control of the fact-finding, 

data collection process, I would ask that you empower us, at the 

state level, by sharing that information. 

Recommendation Three, the FRA must enforce current regulations more aggressively. You heard others talk about the Macdona 

incident in 2004 that claimed three lives, and injured up to 50 people. The National Transportation Safety Board report notes, and I’ll 

quote: ‘‘The Safety Board examined FRA inspection data for calendar years ‘03 and ‘04. No FRA violation reports were submitted 

during that period for non-compliance.’’ 

What that tells me is there was an accident, people died; yet, 

there is no official blame placed on the engineer, the railroad company. We need to do better about aggressively enforcing our current rules. 

Finally, I want to offer just a suggestion; and that is, the policy 

focus should be less on finger-pointing that often occurs after an accident, putting it on the shoulders of a sleepy engineer, or human 

error of a conductor. That seems to always follow an accident. I 

think what we should do, as policy makers, is to step back and 

identify what the root causes of these accidents are. 

My own mind gravitates towards how hard the conductors are 

being worked, and how little rest time they’re being given. That results, that systemic problem expresses itself in human error, and 

train derailment tragedies, as we have seen here in San Antonio. 

In conclusion, I thank you for refocusing attention on safety. I 

thank you for coming to our community, who have seen a rash of 

accidents. You have given the citizens of this town a feeling that 

our voice is being heard. I thank you for that. 

27

Mr. GONZALEZ. The Chairwoman has given me the additional 

privilege of introducing my local witnesses here. I would call at this 

time as the next witness, Maria Berriozabal. 

Ms. BERRIOZABAL. Good morning, Chairwoman Brown. We’re so 

glad that you came to our city today, and responded to the invitation of our Congressman Gonzalez. We’re very happy that you 

came, and thank you very much for inviting me to provide some 

comments. 

I am Maria Antonietta Berriozabal, and I come here as a resident of this city, trying to voice concerns of so many people who 

are very concerned about this issue in San Antonio. 

My particular neighborhood is sandwiched between two railroad 

lines. One of them is three blocks from my house, the other one is 

two blocks from my house. This neighborhood is about two miles 

and a half from City Hall, where we are here today. 

On the morning of October 17th, 2006, I got a call from my sister 

asking if I was being evacuated since there had been a train derailment near our house. I did not wait for much more information, 

and I ran out to see if I could see the wreckage from my porch. I 

could see nothing, but immediately thought of a friend who is 30 

yards from the railroad tracks, Mrs. Torralva. So I started to go out 

and see how I could help her, and others. But then it struck me 

that I had my own human error, my human factor. What if there 

was toxic chemical in the train? So I went back into the house, 

turned the TV on, and learned that there were no hazardous materials; however, two houses had been struck by a train. Later, I 

learned that the house of the Alvarez family. Mr. Martin Alvarez, 

his wife, and his daughter, were left homeless. 

In this story, there are several obvious points that I have pondered, even more closely every time I hear the whistle of the train 

at night, or during the day. The Union Pacific Railroad Lines, as 

they cross our city, are lined with hundreds of homes, businesses, 

many belonging to working-class people and poor people. Within a 

block of the derailment were located two publicly subsidized apartment complexes for the elderly, and handicapped individuals. One 

of these is a high-rise apartment where mostly elderly people live. 

Within half a mile are three schools, one junior college, our San 

Antonio Community College. 

A major threat for all of us, whether we live yards from the railroad tracks, or miles away, is the danger of the derailment of a 

train carrying hazardous cargo. Whether we are rich or poor, we 

are seconds away from a major disaster during the day or at night, 

and we are not ready for such an accident. Our city and county are 

very limited in the kind of investment that needs to be made to 

prepare a city this large for this disaster. 

As a community, we grieve the loss of Gene Hale, Lois Koerber, 

Heath Pape, Rob Whitworth of Macdona, Texas. For them, all these 

discussions were too late to save their lives. What happened to the 

Ralph Velasquez family of Macdona, can happen to any of us. And 

we resonate with the pain of the Alvarez, who lost their home, a 

home their father had built with his own hands. 

One major concern we have is for chemicals that are being transported in these trains. It was chlorine that killed the four people 

in Macdona, and did irreparable damage to the health of the 

28

Velasquez. A huge problem is that we do not even know which 

chemicals are being carried, and when they are crossing our neighborhoods. Are they during the day when people are home? Are they 

at night? 

Both the train collision that injured the Velasquez, and the derailment that uprooted the Alvarez, were caused by human error. 

We know that both of these accidents were caused or aggravated 

by train crew fatigue. It is simply irresponsible for railroad companies to schedule train crews in the erratic and unpredictable shifts 

they now use. 

The railroad companies knowingly put their crew members into 

a state of perpetual exhaustion, and then allow them to drive dangerous trains through highly populated areas. My neighbors and I 

worry about the callous disregard for human life that is reflected 

in these practices. And we worry about the indifference of government agencies who are supposed to be protecting us. 

We need the help of the federal government in several areas. 

Some of them are, in cases like the Alvarez and others like them, 

they should be compensated for all their losses, including the serious emotional disruption, and multiple economic consequences of 

the tragedy. Cities and counties should be reimbursed for costs incurred for emergency response in cases of train derailments, which 

would include community education on how to respond to train 

derailments, especially when toxic chemicals are involved. People 

should not be put in the situation that I was put in, to run and 

help my neighbors, when I could have been hurt, also. 

Union Pacific must address the condition of all its rails, bridges, 

rail crossings, and their infrastructure, in general. We who live 

right close to the railroad tracks know that there has been much 

deterioration in recent years. These are old tracks. Trains carrying 

hazardous materials must be rerouted away from our highly dense 

populations. And finally, and most important, all of our rail lines 

must be relocated from the midst of our cities. 

Our local and state officials are doing the best they can with very 

limited resources. We are grateful to them. But we trust that under 

the new leadership of this committee, Chairman Oberstar, Chairwoman Brown, Congressman Gonzalez, yourself, and the other 

committee members, that our pleas of so many years are going to 

be heard. And we are trusting in you that you are going to take 

care of the lives of our people, particularly those who live very close 

to the railroad tracks. And when they lose a house, they lose everything. 

Thank you very much for having me here today. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much for your testimony. And at 

this time we would call—the next witness would be Mr. Ralph 

Velasquez. 

Mr. VELASQUEZ. This is—I prepared a statement, because I was 

asked to. And there’s a lot that I said in here, and you all can read 

it. This is difficult. 

First, before we get into this, I want to thank you for coming to 

our city, and experiencing the caldo we call San Antonio. It’s a diversity of culture, and great visionaries. And you’ve experienced 

how we love this city, because we love our representatives. Our 

representatives, thank you, Charlie, thank you, Mike, are visionVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:29 Nov 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34789 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
29

aries, and they care. They were elected to represent, and they have 

excelled at every level. And you’ve experienced them, you’ve listened to them. They are passionate, but they are the best. And I 

think that from San Antonio, you will see solutions come out, because San Antonio has a brain-trust second to none in the city, and 

in the nation. We have experienced things that no other city should 

experience. We have got the best representatives, and for that I 

want to thank you. 

Charlie, I want to thank you for spearheading this investigation. 

You initiated the investigations at the highest levels. You brought 

this thing home, and for that, I thank you. 

For State Representative Mike Villarreal, I want to thank him 

very much from the bottom of my heart, for initiating the evacuation plans for schools. It was very visionary, very great, and very 

heart-felt. Thank you. 

Judge Nelson Wolff and the Mayor, I want to thank them for 

bringing all affiliated parties together, and finding the causes of 

this tragedy. 

City Councilwoman Delicia Herrera, she was there from the very 

beginning, and I want to thank her for having the vision to create 

a bridge between the railroads and the city to create the first regional training facility outside of Pueblo, Colorado, here in San Antonio. That way, the first responders and their families will have 

someone coming home after an accident. And for that, I want to 

thank you. We have great people here. 

But also, I’d like to thank many of the citizens of San Antonio, 

and those first responders. No one has thanked them today. These 

are young kids, a lot of them are young kids, and they were scared 

to death. I spoke to several of them, and thanked them personally. 

They had to be rescued from my front door. It was bad, and it was 

horrible. They’re still having nightmares, so imagine the nightmares that my children still have. 

But the primary reason for my testimony is to present an opinion 

on rail safety, and to offer suggestions that might provide venues 

to increasing public safety. But to begin with, I think that you need 

to hear from a survivor. And this is very difficult for me to talk 

about, so please bear with me. I wrote these things from the heart, 

and sometimes the heart can’t speak very well, so I might have to 

ad lib a little bit. Okay? 

Since there’s nothing that can be done to undo the incredible 

pain and continued suffering of those who have had -I thought I 

was kind of tough, you know. 

It was 4:48 in the morning, and I’ve skipped a lot. You all can 

read what I was going to say. It is 4:48 in the morning when my 

son, Ralph, woke me up and said, ‘‘Dad, there’s a strange noise outside.’’ And I got up and went out, and when you live out in the 

country, you live with your windows wide open, your doors open, 

and your ceiling fans on, and you’ve got a bunch of dogs. We’re no 

different. It’s a very safe place. It was my Xanadu. It was a place 

where my kids would go fishing along the river right next to us, 

and they built tree-houses, and they were just a bunch of Tom 

Sawyers and Huck Finns. They were great kids. But when somebody wakes you up and says there’s a strange noise, it’s best to investigate it, so I went outside, and I didn’t see nothing. I just heard 

30

the trains. And I came back inside, and my ex-wife, who came by 

to stay with my kids on the weekend, she came in a few minutes 

later, and she was making these gestures, going like this. And I 

asked her what’s wrong, and she didn’t say anything. And so I got 

up, and went to the kitchen, and I asked her if she had spilled 

some chlorine. And she said—I mean, she didn’t say anything. She 

was just going no, like that. And then I thought somebody was up 

to something, you know. 

You got out there, that’s not normal stuff, you know. So I went 

outside and the smell of chlorine was getting stronger, and stronger. It was dark outside, you know. And I went around the house, 

looked all around, didn’t see anything. And then I went up to my 

front gate, and I looked towards the railroad tracks. And I thought 

I saw like a bunch of ghosts or something. And then all of a sudden 

my tree line kind of disappeared, and this huge cloud, about 60, 70 

feet high, and like a donut, was real long, as far as I could see, 

came rolling pretty hard through the forest. And that’s when I 

started—I ran back to my house, and I yelled to my kids to cover 

up and get out. And we were going to go into my car that was 

parked right next door. 

By the time I hit the house, got into my house, the cloud was 

already hitting—just a few seconds later hit the house pretty hard. 

It was like a thud. And right after, that you couldn’t see a thing. 

The lights were on, and they became like a little red glow. You 

couldn’t see anything. And we got out, and we found our car, 

bumped into the car. And my kids got into the car, and everybody 

was scared. 

And I went to get my dogs, because it was the dogs that saved 

us. My dogs were yelping, and making all kinds of noises. And we 

couldn’t find them, because at that time, then it got pretty near 

zero where you couldn’t see anything. And the pain wasn’t immediate, it grew on you. 

After we started the car, I turned the lights on, you couldn’t see 

anything, so I put it on parking lights and drove through the back 

gate by my barn. And, unfortunately, someone—my neighbor had 

borrowed my barn, and he put bailing wire on the gate, and I 

couldn’t get out. And we cut our hands and everything just trying 

to open it, and we couldn’t do it. And at that time, it was already 

zero. We couldn’t see anything, so I backed the car up and rammed 

right through the gate, busted our windshield and everything. And 

we went out. We were going to go to the back end to break through 

onto Lackland. I was going to break through their gate. That would 

have alarmed people, brought somebody to our neighborhood. 

We didn’t make it that far. There was a divine intervention or 

something, something told me to stop, and I did. And I went outside, and ran in front of the car, and ended up in a sea of mud. 

If we had kept on going, we would have died right there. So I came 

back, and my kids helped guide me back, and we went across the 

cornfields and the sunflower fields, and everything. It was like 

seven foot tall. And that’s what kept us from sinking into the mud. 

We eventually got out of there. My daughter, when I got out the 

first time, my daughter, Nicky, said, ‘‘Daddy, don’t leave us. Don’t 

leave us.’’ It was at that time they were already starting to bleed, 

and I came back in with all mud and stuff, and came back in, and 

31

we went across country, and they were bleeding pretty much, 

coughing up a lot of blood, and that’s when Nicky said, ‘‘Daddy, are 

we going to die?’’ And like I’ve told folks, that’s one of the hardest 

things any father can hear from their children. And I vowed that 

that wouldn’t happen. And we made it, through the grace of God, 

and the Virgin Mary, we made it through. 

I’m not a very good Christian, but I’m a damned good Catholic, 

so we really got to get into—and I really believe in the Virgin 

Mary, because that was a woman’s voice I heard. It was a woman’s 

voice that told me to slow down, stop. It was woman’s voice that 

told me go this way. And that’s when I saw that, busted out, and 

we got out there. 

And when we crossed the last gully, the car was falling apart. 

It had gone through hell. And I saw this 18-wheeler coming up, 

and I knew where we were at, but we knew we had to go get our 

neighbors, so we went and got our neighbors, and got them out. 

But the things that we went through, it’s just very hard. 

People say, ‘‘Well, what did it feel like?’’ Well, you can only imagine a man on death row getting that cyanide cloud coming up, and 

knowing that if he’s going to breathe it, he’s going to die. Well, 

that’s the same thing we felt. Those chemicals burned us pretty 

much. It scarred us not only physically, but mentally, emotionally. 

It took its toll. It took it’s toll. My kids don’t sleep anymore, I don’t 

sleep anymore, or sleep not very much. And these are things that 

we’re going to have to live with the rest of our lives. And one of 

the reasons I’m here is how do we fix this? How do we just say no. 

I mean, we don’t want this to happen again. 

Well, when I got out of the hospital, I found out that my neighbors died, the ones you had mentioned, wonderful ladies. We had 

been helping them. My daughter had bought a bonnet for Ms. Hale, 

and was going to give it to her that Monday because we were helping them in their garden. And she had just finished her garden, 

finished her fence and things. But what was very, very difficult 

was to know that a young man died in my driveway, young Mr. 

Pape, a very courageous conductor. A very young man, 23-years 

old. 

And it’s taken me a long time as a father to accept that. As a 

father, all of us here who are fathers, would move any mountain 

to go save a child. And there’s a young boy, he died on my driveway. That’s been very, very difficult, and I could never forget that, 

because if had I known he was there, I would have moved everything in my power to get him, but I didn’t. 

So what do we do to avoid such tragedies in the future? I’m an 

ex-union organizer, so I don’t particularly like to blame Labor. I 

think it’s a dual thing, maybe bad planning and stuff. People don’t 

go on drugs just to go on drugs when they’ve got hard responsibilities. But they sometimes use those things just to keep their jobs; 

in other words, keep working. 

Maybe we should figure out ways of how to create a good, strong 

relationship between corporate and labor, because there’s enough 

blame to go around. But blaming doesn’t accomplish anything, it 

only alienates and stifles meaningful cooperation, and potential 

partnerships. 

32

There are some things that were said today that I disagree with, 

and I disagree with them very strongly, and said by my friends, 

who I respect and admire greatly, that we have that friendship because we can disagree. I disagree with the relocation of the tracks. 

I don’t feel that we need to pit the culturally affluent southside 

against the economically affluent northside. 

We tend to see rail lines predominantly in people of color neighborhoods. We predominantly see that. We cannot continue that. If 

we move them out, then they’re going to be moved out into rural, 

and you’re going to have people who have less voice being affected 

by this. You’re going to have people who rely on these spurs for the 

merchandise that are presently now small businesses. They’re 

going to have to shut down, because they won’t have to relocate. 

This relocation, in my opinion, only benefits speculators and developers, because that’s prime property downtown. And if we’re going 

to do that, if we’re going to go that way, then make sure the developers and speculators have zero access to that prime property, and 

make it into linear parks, so that the entire community can enjoy 

it, not just the affluent. 

But I just think that we’re brighter than that to move things. I 

think we can find solutions. One of them, I would think is, let’s 

theoretically deconstruct the rail system. Let’s partner with them. 

Let’s bring them into the fold, because, after all, they are part of 

our community, as well. 

Now people say, Ralph, you should be angrier than heck with 

them. I am. You know, I’m very angry. I’m very angry for the damage that was done to my family, that was done to my community, 

and to the friendships I lost, and to that young man who lost his 

life. I’m very angry, and I will be angry for the rest of my life about 

that, but that accomplishes nothing. That anger would be misplaced if we don’t look at it to find solutions. 

And so with that, I’m trying to bring some kind of suggestions 

that might be solutions. For example, concrete rail ties. I’m an exrailroader. Okay? Concrete rail ties would go a long ways, because 

the nature of wood is that it expands and contracts with the weather. And when you put something metal into it, it doesn’t naturally 

hold it. It’ll expand because of the traffic of the thing. The weight 

of the thing. If you use concrete ties, one, you’re going to benefit 

the environment because we stop cutting down trees. And two, we 

don’t have to use cancer-causing carcinogens preservatives, that 

eventually leach into our water table. 

Let’s think broader. Let’s think, if you use the concrete like they 

do in Europe and other places, they don’t have the derailments. 

They just have — okay. If we can avoid derailments because of materials, well, then let’s do that. If we’re going to do that in the high 

traffic areas, let’s put concrete ties in every metropolitan area. 

That way the chances of derailment are minimized. Plus, you’re 

going to create a new industry. You will create a new industry with 

the partnerships of the affiliated parties. You’ll create new economic development opportunities. 

Containers. Containers made before 1987, and that’s you guys 

numbers, suffer from extreme metal fatigue. Just like airplanes 

after 9/11, they all got x-rayed, they all got—well, a lot of the rail 

cars did, too. And they had stress, metal stress, metal fatigue, simVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:29 Nov 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34789 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
33

ply because of all the different kind of chemicals being carried in 

these things. They said well, you know, if it’s made before 1987, it 

should be taken out of service. 

Well, the one that derailed on our property was, I think, 1973 or 

1976, something like that. It’s not saying that the new containers 

are going to withstand puncturing. That’s not saying that, but it’s 

the alternative that we’d have to look at. 

Ms. BROWN. How much longer? 

Mr. VELASQUEZ. One more minute, or two. One more minute. 

Let’s go to the 911 upgrade. You heard the tapes. There was 

mask confusion. If we go with the 911 upgrade to include a border 

trace, a rail trace, that way the 911 operators will know exactly 

what is on that manifest, and they’ll know exactly what evacuation 

routes to use. That’s where we just wanted to—I made sure you 

put that in. 

Manufacturers of hazardous materials should be required to 

transport their products only on approved containers that meet or 

exceed all federal guidelines. 

And in closing, I want to thank my Congressman and our great 

elected body here, and to all those brave first responders. You are, 

indeed, a credit to our community. But please remember that the 

other side of tranquility is hell. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you very much for your testimony, all of you. 

I guess, I’m thinking that maybe, if it’s possible, maybe we could 

take about a five minute water break, and then we’ll come back to 

Mr. Fritz. You’ve got a lot to answer, and I want to give you a moment. Maybe we can get you some water. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. BROWN. Let’s get started because we have several people 

that need to testify and have to leave. Will you please take your 

seats. Once again, while they’re taking their seats, you all need to 

know that you all have a wonderful representative in Mr. Gonzalez, 

who was very emphatic about us holding this hearing here. And we 

had planned on doing a hearing here, and then going on to California. And when California dropped out, there was no dropping 

out of coming to San Antonio. I can tell you that. 

All right. Mr. Fritz, we’re going to let you give your opening remarks, and then we have questions. I understand that some of the 

panelists have to leave, but I have a couple of questions that we 

want to ask you before you leave. And any additional ones, we’ll 

just give it to you in writing, and you can respond. Mr. Fritz. 

Mr. FRITZ. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Congressman 

Gonzalez. Good morning. My name is Lance Fritz, and I am the 

Vice President of Union Pacific Railroad Southern Region, which 

includes our facilities and operations here in Texas. I’m pleased to 

be here today, and I thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

We recognize why this hearing is being held in San Antonio. All 

of us at Union Pacific regret the accidents that have occurred in 

San Antonio, and in Bexar County. We work very hard to prevent 

accidents of any kind on our railroad, and we have implemented 

numerous measures to help ensure a safe operating environment 

for our employees, and through the communities through which we 

operate. 

34

Having said that, I’ve been advised by our counsel not to discuss 

any specific incidents, as they may be subject to litigation. I’m here 

to tell you of the many positive things our employees are involved 

in, both here in San Antonio, and across our rail system. 

Our objective with these programs is to provide safe reliable rail 

service that supports this region’s growing transportation needs. 

Over the past several years, we have increased employee training 

and testing. Our managers provide more ride evaluations, and they 

review more black box downloads to ensure compliance with our 

Operating Rules. In addition, in San Antonio we employ a stateof-the-art train simulator, so our crews can take advantage of advances in computer-based training and evaluation. 

What we have learned from our intense reviews has led to several systemwide operating rules changes, including changes in locomotive cab communication rules to avoid distractions at critical 

times. I would add at this point, including the use of cell phones. 

Working with our union leaders in the San Antonio Service Unit, 

we’ve implemented a safety center to facilitate daily start of shift 

communications for all our employees. In addition, working with 

Labor and the FRA, we have implemented an employee-led peerto-peer process to reduce and eliminate human factor accidents in 

train operations. You’ve heard a little bit about that this morning 

from previous witnesses. 

We have invested heavily in San Antonio’s rail infrastructure to 

help provide a safe operating environment. In the last two years, 

we’ve invested $62 million in track and infrastructure in this area. 

This year we’re going to invest an additional $17 million. 

We’ve also supported job growth in the local area. We invested 

$26 million to support the new Toyota manufacturing facility. And 

you heard this morning, we’ve announced a new $100 million facility that’s an inter-modal facility. 

Increased emphasis on fatigue management, rules compliance, 

improved infrastructure, and operating process improvements have 

made our operations in San Antonio more predictable. This has led 

to fewer overtime hours, and fewer hours of service tie-ups. We’ve 

also added a substantial number of employees, with the addition of 

13 managers, and 166 agreement employees. 

As we’ve minimized variability in the operation, it has allowed 

our employees a more predictable, and a higher quality of work life. 

The activities are showing positive results. Since 2004, we’ve reduced the employee safety incident rate by over 25 percent, and reduced rail equipment incidents by over 23 percent. Here on the San 

Antonio Service Unit, the employee safety incident rate has been 

reduced by over 24 percent, and rail equipment incidents by over 

36 percent. We are proud of these gains, but clearly, more can be 

done, and will be done. Our goal is zero incidents. 

Madam Chairwoman, Congressman Gonzalez, let me conclude by 

saying that Union Pacific is committed to providing safe, reliable 

rail transportation, not only in San Antonio, but across our system, 

and we will continue to work towards that goal. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Fritz. The Mayor and the Judge 

mentioned the needs to ensure that the local communities and 

emergency responders receive timely information on the hazardous 

35

material going through the communities. What is Union Pacific 

doing to make sure that this happens? 

Mr. FRITZ. Union Pacific currently provides immediate response 

to the emergency responders when they request for the consist of 

a train that’s been involved in an incident, so we do provide that 

information currently, immediately upon request. 

Ms. BROWN. After an accident. 

Mr. FRITZ. At the request of an emergency responder. And I 

would presume that’s as a result of an incident. 

Ms. BROWN. Okay. So they don’t get that information prior to. 

Mr. FRITZ. They get information from us that includes the types 

of hazardous materials that are being transported through the community. And they also receive from us special training in how to 

handle those hazardous materials. 

Ms. BROWN. You mentioned that Union Pacific has employed a 

train simulator for San Antonio engineers and conductors. Do you 

provide the same training for all engineers and conductors in other 

states? 

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, we do. We have these simulators across our system. 

Ms. BROWN. And you mentioned that you’re spending $62 million, and an additional 17 in ‘07. But given the fact that 30 percent 

of the accidents in Texas is caused by defective tracks, what do we 

need to do? 

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, I’m glad you asked that question. We have numerous programs targeting track infrastructure, and the safe operating of track infrastructure. We use detector cars, as was mentioned earlier, in terms of trying to find rail defect. We use geometry cars. They try to find defects in the configuration of the track, 

the interaction between the rail and the ties. We use track inspectors, who are assigned particular main line territories, and they 

have defined responsibilities for inspecting those main line territories. 

We also design our maintenance of way, our programs for investing in track infrastructure and refurbishing it. We design those 

around the wear and tear that a particular main line is receiving 

from the type of traffic that is on it. All of those are targeting rail 

infrastructure to operate safely at the speed it is designed to operate. 

Ms. BROWN. Union Pacific is one of the trains or rail industry 

that have indicated that you want to put a cap on—I want to say 

$200 million on damages. Can you respond to that? One of the 

things that our Chairman, Chairman Oberstar likes to do with the 

committee is remind us how we got to this point with freight, and 

how you receive the public tracks, and how we actually gave it to 

the industry and why. And so, there is some responsibility as far 

as the community is concerned. I mean, that’s why you have to 

carry the hazardous material; but, in addition, you can talk about 

the new cars, the new generation of cars that will—I know the 

community—we think about the hazardous material, but we need 

the chlorine for the water in the community, or else we won’t have 

the clean water, so it’s kind of a catch-catch. But can you deal with 

that, please? 

36

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, Madam Chairwoman. I am not intimately familiar with what we are attempting to move through Congress, if you 

will, as an industry. What I can speak to is the fact that we haul 

hazardous materials because we have to. We are under a common 

carrier obligation to haul those commodities. We’d prefer not to. 

Having said that, given that we do haul them, we design our 

routes around the safest available route. They represent a very 

small fraction, particularly TIH, or Toxic Inhalants, represent a 

very small fraction of the commodities that we haul. 

When it comes to San Antonio, some of those do move through 

the community, and some relatively fair share of that is consumed 

locally, as you point out, for things like water purification. 

When it comes to the cars that are hauling hazardous materials, 

we are working, as you heard this morning, with Dow Chemical 

and Union Tank Car to design what we would consider the tank 

car of the future. And it is specifically being designed to handle 

some of the significant stresses that are found in a train incident, 

or derailment. 

Ms. BROWN. Okay. I’m going to turn it over to Mr. Gonzalez, and 

then we will ask questions to everybody else. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Madam Chair, I know that Representative 

Villarreal - do you need to be leaving in a minute, Michael? And 

Mr. Fritz, can you stay a little longer? Are you okay? 

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, I can. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Do you mind if we take State Representative 

Villarreal out of order right now? 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And finish with Mike, and then let him get to 

where he needs, because I know it’s family-related. 

Ms. BROWN. And she, also. Yes, she has family related. Okay. 

Would you just take your seat for a minute. 

Let me ask you, Mr. State Representative, one question. You 

mentioned the importance of clearing vegetation, like trees, bushes, 

and other along railways. Some states have laws on the books to 

do this. There is no minimum standards in clearing vegetation. Do 

you think that it should be particularly in a state that do not have 

laws in place? And maybe this is something that you can, as a 

State Representative, address. 

Mr. VILLARREAL. That was actually part of my comments, but 

thank you for bringing it to my attention. And the suggestion is 

that other states have laws that govern the clearing of trees and 

bushes near easements that support rail lines. 

Ms. BROWN. That’s correct. Also, can you get us information on, 

we were talking about a partnership between the state, local, and 

federal as far as the track relocation. I can see it’s going to be a 

source of discussion and hearing, but I’m just interested in knowing what is it that the state will be willing to—because as we move 

forward, we want to be able to have a package. And even though 

we authorized 350 and the President didn’t offer anything up, 350 

million is nothing in comparison to the needs of even this community, much less the entire country. And I wanted to—I was trying 

to find out from my staff how much have we provided for the Iraqis 

for transportation and safety, and just in this area. And I understand it’s over $1 billion so, I mean, you know, the people that acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:29 Nov 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34789 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
37

tually pay the bill, seem to me they should be able to sit at the 

table also. 

Mr. VILLARREAL. I agree wholeheartedly with you. And what we 

are looking at is a cost of $2 billion in debt acquisition to solve the 

rail relocation. And I believe it’s from Austin, around San Antonio. 

That’s just our segment. There are proposals to extend that bypass 

all the way further north around Dallas. But for our region of the 

state, the capital improvement cost is about $2 billion. And to issue 

that debt, we’re looking at, I believe, a figure of $200 million to 

capitalize that. 

And the last session, we meet once every two years, the last time 

we met we created a fund in order to issue debt and carry out 

these kind of projects. This year, our challenge is to put money into 

that fund. Any help that can come from the federal government 

would be greatly appreciated. If it’s a matching program, where 

you tell us, State of Texas, for every dollar you put up, we’ll match 

you a dollar, or even 50 cents, we would jump on that. And so I 

would encourage Congressman Gonzalez, and you, Madam Chair, 

to put forth those kind of ideas. I think they would be well received 

by our state government, because today, we don’t have that kind 

of partnership with federal government. We’re looking at it solely 

as a state and local investment that’s going to be carried just by 

the state and local taxpayers. We’d love to partner with the federal 

government. 

We believe that to really solve this problem, it’s going to require 

partnerships. The railroad carriers are not going away. We depend 

on each other. 

Ms. BROWN. And I think they should be at the table, also. I think 

it should be—all of us should be—the stakeholders would benefit 

from it, the citizens, so I think everybody should be at the table. 

Mr. VILLARREAL. I agree. In fact, I filed legislation applying a 

sales tax on railroad cargo. I’ve discovered that I can’t only apply 

a tax just on the rail lines, without including truckers. I think that 

can be fixed. I think it’s going to be a challenge to pass that, but 

I believe that that kind of solution makes sense, because as you 

heard earlier from Mr. Fritz, Texas is generating a lot of economic 

activity, not just for itself, but also for the railroad companies. And 

that’s why they’re making these investments. To tax them, and to 

dedicate that new money to infrastructure improvement seems, to 

me, to be a win-win on both sides. It brings forth better infrastructure that they can rely on, and also more public safety for our citizens. 

Ms. BROWN. All right. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mike, you pointed out 

that, I think, when the session started this year in Austin, you 

were pretty ambitious about your plan, which I really do commend 

you. And I think, basically, you had to scale back, but I still say 

what you’re doing here is so important, and it’s contingency planning. And I know you’re thinking in terms of being proactive, and 

ahead of it, and preventive in nature. But I wanted to read to you 

the problem that you faced just a couple of months ago, and this 

is from the materials that are prepared by our staff on the committee. 

38

‘‘A state may adopt or continue to enforce an additional or more 

stringent law, regulation, or order only in instances where the law, 

regulation, or order is necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety or security hazard.’’ But then this is the kicker. 

‘‘Is not incompatible with a law, regulation, or order of the United 

States Government, and does not unreasonably burden interstate 

commerce.’’ 

The pre-emption standard has been a concern among some states 

and localities that have tried to adopt regulations requiring trains 

to operate at lower speeds and railroads to re-route hazardous materials around heavily populated areas. And I think you pointed 

out, this is a federal issue. It is a federal problem. Like so many 

things, we fail to act, communities then attempt to move forward, 

and what happens, basically, you don’t have jurisdiction and such. 

And the immigration issue is a great one. Congress is frozen, it’s 

grid locked, you have communities moving, and I believe in the 

wrong direction; nevertheless, they’re moving. So we have something like that here, and I’d like to tell you that Maria’s observation that this is a new Congress, this is a new Chairwoman of this 

subcommittee. There’s a new Chairman of the big committee, and 

we’re going to be as aggressive as we can. 

There are limitations, no doubt, as to what we can pass. And I 

don’t want to get people’s hopes up on something on the scale of 

relocating rails, when it would be $2 billion or above, because every 

community is similarly situated. If we start multiplying that by the 

billions, it’s an incredible—but there are so many things in your 

suggestions that I think we can do to achieve tremendous safety, 

never to the degree that if we relocated something. 

Ralph points out, though, well, wait a minute. Where are you relocating it? Why are those people any less important than other 

people, and so on. It’s usually density in the number of people, I 

understand that. 

As far as monies, I’m not sure, and I think the Chairwoman is 

in a better position down the line to identify what would be a realistic federal contribution, Mike. And I don’t know, just because I 

know that every community in the United States is going to want 

some assistance with relocating. And I think some things can be 

relocated without great disruption, or tremendous cost. But I wanted to thank you for your suggestions today, which from the state 

level, making these recommendations to the federal level. And I 

will definitely—I know that the Chairwoman will make these 

known. They’re part of the record, and Chairman Oberstar has 

been a real champion on rail safety since he got there. And he’s 

been there quite a while, but if there’s anything else that you need 

from us, please always feel free. 

I know that you have some obligations with the family, and unless the Chairwoman has anything else, I just want to say thank 

you for all your work. 

Ms. BROWN. I want to thank you also, and we will follow-up with 

any additional questions and getting you some additional information on what other states are doing. 

Mr. VILLARREAL. Madam Chair, thank you for bringing our federal government to our community. 

Ms. BROWN. It’s your federal government. 

39

Maria, I had a couple of questions for you, because I understand 

that you have some family obligations, also. 

You mentioned that Alvarez, his family and young daughters, 

have been homeless since the October 17th, 2006 train accident. 

What have Union Pacific done to compensate the Alvarez family for 

their damage? 

Ms. BERRIOZABAL. My understanding, Madam Chairwoman, is, 

they do have an attorney, and they have been working on the 

issue. Their house was demolished by the city, and they’re in, I 

don’t want to say litigation, but they are working with their lawyers. 

My understanding is that right now Union Pacific will provide 

them the market value of their home, and to us in the community, 

their neighbors, we think that’s not enough. There’s been pain, 

there’s been suffering. They lost a home. There was a long history. 

It was very painful for me to see some events where the whole family gathered to say goodbye to their family home. There’s costs, intangible costs involved in these situations. But that is my understanding, that the Union Pacific will give them the market value 

of the house. 

Well, that’s good, but we feel that more needs to be done, not just 

for them, but other families. It’s not just a house that they lost. 

They lost lives, a lifetime of history, of memories. 

Ms. BROWN. I guess my question is, are these people still homeless? 

Ms. BERRIOZABAL. No. No, no. 

Ms. BROWN. Oh. 

Ms. BERRIOZABAL. I used that word, they lost their home. 

Ms. BROWN. Okay. 

Ms. BERRIOZABAL. But they have a place to stay right now. It’s 

temporary, but they have a place to stay. 

Ms. BROWN. What are some of the recommendations, that if you 

could get your top one, two, or three recommendations, what would 

they be? 

Ms. BERRIOZABAL. One thing that I would like to reinforce is 

what the Congressman was asking other people from Union Pacific. 

There’s got to be a way that we, as citizens, know what’s crossing 

our communities. I understand the whole Homeland Security situation, but it’s very scary. And I’ve been talking to people. What I 

did, I sent out a notice when the Congressman’s office advised me 

that I would, perhaps, be invited to be a witness. And I’m very conscious that I did it as a member of a community. It’s not just me 

coming, it’s my community, so I sent out a notice through my email 

asking people, tell me what I should say, so my little statement is 

a compilation of what people wrote, and said, ‘‘This is what we’re 

worried about.’’ And one of them is, we don’t know what’s going 

through our railroad tracks. We’re scared. And ever since the issue 

of Macdona, another one is the care of the railroad property. The 

city can’t go in there and clean it up. It’s not their’s. And the debris, sometimes the danger in flooding because of inappropriate 

care of the railroad. 

I was on the City Council for 10 years representing this area, 

and one of my biggest problems was trying to figure out how do you 

get a hold of this Union Pacific company that seems so far away 

40

from our daily life. I mean, who do you call? There’s an 800 number in the little boxes, but they’re not going to come and clean the 

debris. 

Checking the railroad ties regularly, seeing that they’re in proper 

shape, the lights. You know, you trust that when you’re coming to 

a railroad crossing and there’s a train coming, you trust that the 

light is going to work, and that the little arm is going to come 

down. Those things for us who are right here are inconvenienced 

every day because of it, we just want to make sure that they’re taking care of their property. 

Ms. BROWN. I agree with you. And, in fact, I went to one of the 

training simulators, and clearly, a lot of our citizens may feel that 

they can go around those railroad crossings. And let me tell you, 

when the engineers see it, if you’re on the tracks, it’s too late. They 

can’t stop, and so it’s very important that we educate the community, that you can’t, if the train is coming. I mean, just that little 

will prevent some accidents. 

Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Maria, I know that—I think Mike Villarreal had a Town Hall in 

the area regarding the accident and such. I know you’ve been very 

active, and that’s why you were immediately identified. And I appreciate that you were willing to testify, but also, to canvass the 

neighborhoods and find out what’s on their minds. 

When it comes to dealing with Union Pacific, I will tell you, 

we’ve had our differences of opinion and such. And maybe, because 

I’m a member of Congress, we get treated differently or something. 

They respond timely, I will tell you that. They may not go through 

all the recommendations and suggestions, and I think the Mayor 

and Nelson Wolff said that that has not been a problem. The communication is good. And I think there’s follow-through to the extent 

that there’s an agreement. 

What has been your experience, because I think they’re much 

more sensitive than ever before because of the accidents, and 

what’s transpired, and lessons learned. But have you, yourself, experienced some difficulty communicating with a representative, or 

maybe trying to assist the individuals whose home was—it was so 

damaged, it had to be demolished. 

Ms. BERRIOZABAL. We agree. We agree. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes. Have you—what has been your experience 

when you attempt to assist people in their dealings with Union Pacific? 

Ms. BERRIOZABAL. Well, that’s why I mentioned when I was on 

City Council. I have to say that like right now, until this issue 

came up, it’s something that you really don’t think about. Like I 

said, the first time we started thinking about it again is when this 

happened to the Ralph Velasquez family, because these are very 

close friends of our’s, of a lifetime. But I was referring to the time 

that I was on City Council, and we would have that problem. But, 

I guess, Congressman, the issue is that sometimes we don’t even—

it doesn’t even enter our mind that we can pick up a phone and 

call somebody about it. And, actually, entities like Union Pacific, 

with the tremendous power they have, should really have community relationships, community relations people that we—I work 

41

with my neighborhood association. In fact, I brought our neighborhood association president to be with me today. But just to have 

somebody that we can call, and can come to neighborhood meetings, that can do Town Hall meetings, instead of us calling them, 

for them to say here we are. Let us tell you how we work. Let us 

tell you about the cargo. Let us tell you why we have to cross your 

city with this cargo. Just some communication. 

Companies have community relations departments. Do they? I 

don’t know. So when you ask me that, like it doesn’t even enter my 

mind that I can pick up a phone and call them. That’s how far they 

seem from me. And I’m a person that pretty much can find answers 

when I need them, because people call me. To this day, I get a lot 

of calls from people just on all kinds of things. But I was very surprised when I sent out my little note on, does anybody have any 

suggestions for my little statement that I’m going to give. All these 

people writing and saying the hazardous cargo, the condition of the 

railroad by their neighborhood, and then the concern that some of 

the most vulnerable populations are the ones that live close to the 

railroad. A couple of them were from people from Park—you’ve 

very familiar with Park Apartments by San Pedro Park. It’s a highrise. People are on their little walkers. They were saying well, if 

there had been a toxic chemical there on Hickman, what would we 

have done? Well, I can’t tell them. They’re in walkers. Do we have 

a plan for that? And it’s not just the federal government. We, as 

the city, need to do that. 

And, Madam Chairwoman, I’ll be very honest to say that we really hold our local officials accountable, too. I mean, we’re not just 

demanding, or speaking out to our federal government because 

you’re here. We work with our local officials, and we’re very proud 

of what they have done. But we also need to do a better job locally 

of responding ourselves. What do we do? Do you run to help your 

friends, or do you run away? And how do you know what to do? 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you for your participation today. 

Ms. BERRIOZABAL. Well, thank you, because your coming here 

has done a lot. 

Ms. BROWN. I know Mr. Fritz heard what you said about the big 

company having community relations, and having someone that is 

working with the community and interfacing. I’m sure he has this 

team available, but we don’t know the number, and we don’t know 

who the person is, and so they probably don’t need a bonus, because the community needs to know who to contact. 

Ms. BERRIOZABAL. Thank you very, very much. 

Ms. BROWN. And I know you heard that. 

Ms. BERRIOZABAL. Yes. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Ms. BERRIOZABAL. You give us hope. We know you can’t do everything, but to be able to talk to somebody is very important. And 

I will give my report to my community on what happened today. 

Ms. BROWN. But one of the things I do think is important, that 

government should be personal and up close, and that’s why we’re 

here. 

Ms. BERRIOZABAL. And you’re here. And we thank you, and we 

recognize that. Thank you very much. 

Ms. BROWN. Okay. 

42

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. Ralph, I have a couple of more questions for you, 

and then we’ll go back to Mr. Fritz, before we open it up to the 

public. And my question to you is just very general. 

You are a former rail employee, and have knowledge of the industry, and one of the major causes of accident have been human 

factors. And I understand one of the crews had worked 22 hours 

without breaks, so can you give us some recommendations in that 

area? And any other closing comments that you would like to 

make. 

Mr. VELASQUEZ. Yes, ma’am. I think the regulations are already 

in place. We’ve got the Hogg Act, make them adhere to it. It’s just 

enforcement. I mean, the rules are already in place, just have them 

enforce it. There are many things that we can work together, if we 

just communicate. And if we agree to communicate, and we agree 

to do something, then if we don’t do it, then we need to be punished, or held accountable. But yes, you’ve got all kinds of already 

rules. And I understand business, and a lot of times the bottom 

line runs a lot of things, but corporate responsibility should never 

be negated at the expense of public safety. 

With that said, I think the corporate relations between them and 

the Labor unions could improve. Sometimes, Labor unions are pretty terco, terco meaning stubborn, but it works. You know, I mean, 

as long as they can communicate and work together, that’s important. 

Ms. BROWN. What we’re discussing, as we speak, as we move forward with the safety bill, and the question is whether or not Congress need to weigh-in, because Labor and Management don’t seem 

to be able to resolve this issue of limbo time and fatigue. Do you 

want to weigh-in on this? 

Mr. VELASQUEZ. I understand that. And in my opinion, it’s just 

simply bad planning. You know, you’ve got a critical path that 

you’ve got to follow, well, follow it. If you know you’re going to have 

a train crew waiting out in Uvalde somewhere, and they’re gong to 

stop right there, well, then you should already have the limo waiting for them, instead of having them just sit there for hours and 

hours. And then, you know, a lot of times they run back-to-back. 

Just follow the rules. You know, the rule says hey, you’ve got to 

have X amount—see, because one of the little things that they like 

to do is, if you—I think it’s 12 hours. I’m not exactly sure. I think 

it’s 12 hours, and so they clock off at 11:59, or 11:58, 11:57. Well, 

that’s kind of cheating a little bit, you know. Let’s just do it right. 

We were talking about the emergency 911 things. And you were 

talking about the manifest, and things like that. Well, we had—the 

Councilwoman Herrera had been talking about, was the fact that 

if we had a 911 upgrade to work with the railroads and the 911 

system to create—and it’s easy, with the technology we have today, 

if there is a derailment, just like there was at Hickman, I happened to go, and they never broke the lines. You’re supposed to 

break the line so the emergency systems can go through. The lines 

were still stuck for hours, and so somebody has to go way around 

to get, in case there was an emergency. But there were rules already in place, you have to break them. They didn’t do that. 

43

But on a 911 upgrade, to include a border or a rail trace, that 

would identify it to the dispatcher, and the dispatcher would automatically know what is on the manifest, and he or she could relay 

that to the first responders. And the first responders, with the 

proper training from the railroads and the chemical companies, 

know how to respond. That’s why they created, or they’re in the 

process of negotiating creating the first regional training facility 

outside of Pueblo, Colorado, here in San Antonio. And that’s going 

to go to benefit not only the firefighters and the first responders 

in San Antonio, but that’s also going to benefit all the volunteer 

fire departments. These mom and pop communities, who don’t have 

the money to send them to Colorado, and they could train them 

here. And that’s what I mean by partnerships. You’ve got corporate 

and community partnerships to create a better safety system. 

Ms. BROWN. All right. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And, Ralph, 

thank you for sharing what I know is a really emotional experience, that will continue to be an emotional one for you and your 

family. So special thanks to you. 

And I don’t want to violate any agreements or anything that you 

may have, because I don’t know of them, but I do know some general, like the general nature of some negotiations that you had 

with Union Pacific as a result of your claim on your behalf and 

your family. And, of course, there’s the monetary part, which we 

discussed about caps, and all that. I’m going to leave that alone. 

But my understanding is that there are aspects of your negotiations with Union Pacific that were not monetary in nature, but 

rather maybe corrective action, or policies, or procedures on the 

part of the railroad regarding safety practices, and such. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. VELASQUEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And I guess what I’m trying to get at is, I just 

think that somewhere there’s room for the communication. There’s 

room to reach some sort of agreement, and then legislation takes 

over. You know what I’m saying? 

Mr. VELASQUEZ. Yes. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And I think you’ve been alluding to that. We’ve 

got rules, we can just go ahead and enforce them. But, also, there’s 

things they can do, outside the rule making process and so on; like 

Maria was saying, it’s about community relations and things like 

that. 

In your opinion, and the extensive negotiations I would imagine 

during the course of your litigation with Union Pacific, how would 

you characterize their cooperation, and how receptive they have 

been to your recommendations made by you and your attorneys? 

Mr. VELASQUEZ. I would like to commend them. They said that 

this was the first time in their history that anyone has ever negotiated for a community benefits package, and that’s what we did. 

We didn’t go for ourselves. You know, there was something there, 

but the primary thing was the community benefits package, because we didn’t want to see this happen again. We didn’t want to 

see it happen to our neighbors or community, or anyone else. And 

that was very, very strong. And I commend the railroad for being 

very receptive. I know it caught them off-guard, because no one has 

44

ever asked them for something like that. And it was very unusual, 

to say the least, but then we’re an unusual family. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Second that. Second that. All right. Thank you 

very much, Ralph. 

Mr. VELASQUEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. VELASQUEZ. Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Fritz, I want to go back before—and I just want you to reiterate for me what sort of technology would help prevent train accidents. Can you just go over that once more? 

Mr. FRITZ. What types of technology help prevent train accidents? 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. 

Mr. FRITZ. Well, they’re numerous. 

Ms. BROWN. For example, would you suggest railroads to implement some form of Positive Train Control? We’ve talked about that. 

We talked about the human factor, we talked about fatigue. 

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. BROWN. I just want you to just go over it, since you are representing the industry here today. 

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, ma’am. I will start with Positive Train Control. 

Union Pacific is on record that we are aggressively pursuing Positive Train Control. We are in the process of developing the technology for two tests on our system. We anticipate running those 

tests in the near to medium term future. 

I would tell you that from what I heard in the testimony today, 

it sounded like that technology is already readily available, and can 

be pulled off the shelf. I assure that is not the case, otherwise, we’d 

have it implemented. It is more complex than that. Complexity is 

around how to control a train of different weight cars, different 

lengths, over different types of terrain in a manner that doesn’t 

shut the railroad down, from the standpoint of being able to stay 

fluid. So that is a very complex issue to be addressed. 

The BNSF has proven a prototype system. I know that they will 

continue to develop that system, and we are also developing a system along the lines. 

To address your question from the standpoint of all the things 

that railroads do to prevent train accidents, let me break that up 

into track-related, or infrastructure-related activities, employee-related activities, and then let’s say just systems and processes. 

From the standpoint of track, it has been mentioned today already that we employ technology in the form of ultrasonic testing 

and detector cars; also, technology in the form of geometry cars. We 

also use algorithmic technology to determine where we should be 

investing our dollars. 

I’d like to mention, we spend about 20 percent of our revenue 

every year on investing in the railroad. The vast majority of that 

goes towards maintaining the infrastructure that we’ve got right 

now. That’s a phenomenal number. Last year it was $2.8 billion. 

We target that investment so that it’s spent at the right spot, so 

that it does prevent rail accidents. 

Concrete ties were mentioned today. We are implementing concrete ties on our highest density, heavy haul portions of our railVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:29 Nov 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34789 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
45

road. We’re implementing those in a prudent but rapid fashion. We 

also happen to use composite ties in areas where wood ties tend to 

degrade relatively quickly. I use those, to the extent they’re available, I use them extensively in the south. So, on the track side, we 

design our systems, we employ technology, all with a design of running at design track speed, and doing so safely. 

As regards our employees and human factor derailments, it was 

mentioned today that Labor and Management need to work better 

together. I fully agree. We’re driving those conversations and that 

cooperation. Here on San Antonio, on the San Antonio Service 

Unit, there’s a program that we call the Cab Red Zone Program, 

CAB, an it is targeting safe operating behavior in a peer-to-peer observation in the cab of a locomotive. It’s unique in the rail industry. 

We are getting, what we would consider, positive results from it. 

It is showing up in statistics on the service unit from the standpoint of reduction in human factor derailments, and human factor 

incidents. And that was created jointly between Labor, Management, and the FRA. The FRA is maintaining a position in that program. 

We also use technology as regards making sure that our train 

crews are trained to operate safely and effectively. We use, as you 

heard, train simulators, so that conductors and engineers know the 

territory they’re running on, know how to run on it safely. We go 

through extensive rules classes before any new hire has the ability 

to actually operate a piece of rail equipment. If they were to actually get into the seat of the locomotive, as the engineer of the locomotive, we take them through another series of extensive months 

of training prior to being able to operate the locomotive as an engineer. 

And then as regards our systems, we implement rail signaling, 

signalization on our main lines, where we can, as is prudent in 

terms of investment. We’re doing that so that at some point in the 

future, and I’d prefer in the near future, our main lines are signalized. That takes away the dark territory discussion, and it’s also 

in our railroad’s best interest. That gives us derailment detection 

or broken rail detection, which—I meant broken rail detection, 

which is very important to us. Because at the end of the day, 

Madam Chairwoman, my employees here in San Antonio, are citizens. They’re interested community members. We do not want to 

have incidents in this community. We do everything in our power 

to improve our safety record, and our safety policies and procedures, so we avoid them. I mentioned, our ultimate goal is zero incidents. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. I guess I do have a couple of other follow-up questions. The incident that we’ve been talking about with 

the 22 hours, and the fact is that you said you’re going to have zero 

tolerance. I guess I’m interested in what provisions are you putting 

in place so that that limbo time is correct? I mean, I’ve heard a lot 

of discussion from the industry about it. We’ve had a hearing in 

Washington on it. I don’t think you were there, but the question 

is, that takes planning and coordination. I understand that there 

are going to be some emergency times, some train is going to break 

down, and you need the authority to be able to deal with emergencies, but it should not be day-to-day operations. I mean, it’s just 

46

not for the safety of the industry to have your people out somewhere in the middle of nowhere for five hours. 

Mr. FRITZ. Madam Chairwoman, I would agree with you. We are 

aggressively reducing limbo time, at least the portion that is within 

our control. You did mention that limbo time will happen, periodically. A great example is when we suffer a snow storm or an ice 

storm, which we have at the beginning of this winter, earlier in the 

year. And when that happens, the safest path is to keep the crew 

on the train until we can figure out a way to safely get them tied 

up at their destination. 

But having said that, regarding the limbo time that is a failure, 

if you will, a cost of quality, we are working with our van companies; that is, the companies that provide transportation. We are 

working on our own systems so that, to Mr. Velasquez’ point, we 

plan better, further in the future for where a train is going to tie 

up, and being able to get that crew off that train, and get them to 

their official tie-up destination as expeditiously as possible. Because, again, it’s in our best interest to have rested crews, and 

crews with positive work attitudes. 

Ms. BROWN. One other thing. We, in the last couple of Congress’, 

you all were getting, I think it was 4-1/2 cent deficit spending, and 

you’ve given it back to the industry. And we’re looking at additional ways that we can support industry, but can you tell us how 

much, maybe you can’t, but maybe you can put it in writing, how 

much have you received, and how has that investment gone into 

the infrastructure of your railroad? 

Mr. FRITZ. Madam Chairwoman, if I understand what you’re asking, you’re asking how much money have we received? 

Ms. BROWN. Of the gasoline tax. We were taxing you 4-1/2 cents. 

Mr. FRITZ. Right. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, 4.3 cents, and we’ve done away with that. 

Mr. FRITZ. Yes. 

Ms. BROWN. And with the understanding that the industry was 

putting it back into the infrastructure of the railroads. And, I 

guess, my question is, how much have you received, and how much 

has gone into—reinvested into your railroad? 

Mr. FRITZ. I’ll have to get back with you on that. My understanding of the 4-1/2 cent tax that we were paying was a deficit 

reduction tax. 

Ms. BROWN. That’s correct. 

Mr. FRITZ. And my understanding is that we received virtually 

none, if any. But I will have to verify that, and get back to you in 

writing. 

Ms. BROWN. No, I know that you’ve received, because we’re no 

longer doing it, so you have received. But why don’t you just check 

with your staff. 

Mr. FRITZ. I will. 

Ms. BROWN. Okay. 

Mr. FRITZ. We are no longer being taxed that tax. 

Ms. BROWN. That’s correct. 

Mr. FRITZ. That is correct. 

Ms. BROWN. So the question is, how much money have you received from that tax, that we no longer doing it? 

47

Mr. FRITZ. Oh, I’m sorry. I apologize. So you’re asking the question, with the tax relief. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. 

Mr. FRITZ. That has provided cash flow. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. 

Mr. FRITZ. How much was that? I can’t give you an exact figure. 

Ms. BROWN. And how are you investing it? 

Mr. FRITZ. I will tell you that all of our cash flow is being either 

invested in the railroad and infrastructure. And I mentioned we invest at about a 20 percent of revenue level. Last year was a $2.8 

billion spend, this year’s game plan is a $3.2 billion spend. It either 

goes into the infrastructure investment. It pays employees, or it 

goes to a return for our shareholders. But I will get you an exact 

figure of what that dollar figure is in terms of relief of that tax. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. 

Fritz, a couple of things. The first observation, and as full disclosure, I am not a formal member of the Committee on Transportation, so, obviously, I not a formal member of the subcommittee. 

It’s just my privilege to participate, so I don’t speak for any of the 

members. 

My own impression of it, though, as a member of Congress, we 

appreciate the necessity many times for uniformity when you’re 

dealing in interstate commerce. And if you’re in transportation, if 

you’re in the rail, we understand that, and so we recognize that 

states and localities would like to do many things on their own, but 

that could very well complicate matters. And as you noticed, I was 

very frank with my state legislator, and my Mayor, and my County 

Judge, that that may complicate things. We may never be able to 

have that kind of authority vested, other than the federal government. But the federal government has to do right by the localities 

and the states, so that’s first understanding. And I want you to 

know that. 

The other is, railroads are indispensable. We really need you. 

This economy needs you. We turn the lights on here today because 

we have, in all respects, a coal-fired plant over here, and that—if 

Wyoming coal wasn’t being delivered as it is by rail, we’d have a 

lot of problems on our hands. 

I think someone alluded to Toyota, a brand new plant out there. 

Well, how do you think the finished product gets distributed, so we 

understand the need. And I think we have to have this partnership. And there is no reason why there shouldn’t be some sort of 

meeting of the minds. 

The thing that has troubled me for some time has been this fatigue factor. And I think we had Mr. Cothen here, and I may be 

wrong, Madam Chair, as to where we are in this whole debate. And 

my materials are a couple of months old, but they were prepared 

by staff, and they’re excellent, by the way, whoever put all this together. See if I can try to get a handle on this fatigue so that when 

I report to my local officials and such, I say we’re doing something 

on not just identifying the main cause of the accidents, especially 

in San Antonio, which resulted in fatalities. 

‘‘The Department of Transportation, on numerous occasions, has 

formally submitted legislation to reform the Hours of Service law, 

48

supplemented with fatigue management requirements, or authorize 

the FRA to prescribe regulations on fatigue in light of current scientific knowledge. Currently, the statute contains no substantive 

rule making authority over duty hours. The FRA’s lack of regulatory authority over duty hours, unique to FRA, among all the 

safety regulatory agencies in the department, precludes FRA from 

making use of almost a century of scientific learning on the issue 

of sleep/wake cycles, and fatigue induced performance failures.’’

Do you think we need to be making changes? I know that Mr. 

Cothen had alluded to, we’re making some progress. And I don’t 

know if that’s a matter of just suggestions, recommendations, a 

meeting of the minds, and such, but do we finally have to do something legislatively? Like I said, I’m not speaking for the committee. 

They may be way ahead on this thing, and they could probably inform me now or later on it, but what is the position of Union Pacific as far as rule making authority vested in the FRA, to come 

in and simply tell you, as the employer, and then, of course, the 

employee that may be represented by the unions. Do you all have 

a position on that? 

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir. We would prefer to be able to work this out 

with our unions. Clearly, as stated already, that would be the best 

overall outcome, and we’re working very hard to do that. 

Absent the ability to create a more conducive work/rest cycle that 

would satisfy all parties, both Labor and Management and the railroad industry, we believe that the responsibility should reside with 

Congress and the Rail Safety Act for Hours of Service legislation. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. But to specifically address it, as I just read this 

portion from the report that was provided me, does it appear that 

we need to do more to vest some sort of additional authority, to get 

into the specifics. If the parties can’t work it out, and to be honest 

with you, I think, Madam Chairwoman, they probably have the 

best of all worlds, because if you have the employer, let’s just say 

that’s corporate America or whatever, and you have those members 

of Congress that obviously would be on your side. And then you 

have the unions on the other, and you have other members of Congress, and both of you all are saying the same thing, it’s let us 

work it out, let us work it out. But the truth may be that it hasn’t 

been worked out. And I guess I’m just trying to figure out—I know 

that your position is, we’re going to continue working on it. There’ll 

be recommendations. But somewhere along the way, if it’s not 

worked out, do we simply say we’re going to vest that authority in 

the FRA, like we do other regulatory agencies, and they go forward. 

My last observation is, I know that you say the technology may 

not be there, or whatever. I just find it almost impossible to believe 

that Positive Train Control technology hasn’t reached a state where 

some of it would have been adopted, maybe in its very primitive, 

and its expensive form. And it’s not as simple as the Volvo commercial, where they’re driving and it tells the driver that there’s a motorcyclist to the right in that blind spot, or the driver who’s fumbling with something and comes to another stationary object, and 

it warns him. But surely, there’s something out there for railroads, 

and there has to be some aggressive adoption. 

49

Again, I’ve been informed today that it appears that we have 

some technology that’s reached that point, but I think you all definitely have to be much more aggressive. 

My last observation is going to be on the public relations. You 

heard Maria Berriozabal, that the neighbors worry and such, and 

it is about public relations. And I know that you all have endeavored to do more here in San Antonio, for all the obvious reasons. 

But truly, take it from members of Congress, politicians, elected officials, people just want to know they’re being heard, and the questions have to be answered. And sometimes it’s simply saying, you 

know what, we messed up. Our employee was at fault, applied too 

much pressure, or whatever it is, on the brake and created the accident. 

You want to know what hazardous materials are coming through 

here. Well, we can’t give you specifics for some reasons, but we’ll 

tell you, it’s minimal, or it doesn’t even come through this area, to 

be honest with you. But these are small things, but you hear the 

citizens asking for that, that would go a long way. 

Those are just my own suggestions and recommendations. I will 

definitely follow this issue closely, just because of the accident history in this city, but I surely will defer to the expertise that will 

be demonstrated by Chairman Oberstar and Chairwoman Brown. 

And I yield back. Thank you so much. 

Ms. BROWN. I personally want to thank you for coming. I know 

you’ve heard the comments of the committee, and comments from 

the citizens. And I know that you will govern yourself accordingly. 

The current law—and thank you very much. 

Mr. FRITZ. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, again. I want to thank you for being 

here today, and for your testimony. And you need to know that as 

Chair, the railroads—I just didn’t happen to get this committee. 

I’ve been involved in transportation for over 25 years, and been on 

this committee for 15 years. And when I was born, I used to tell 

people the Silver Meteor ran through my house, and my brother 

has worked with the industry for over 30 years. And I think the 

industry is very important to the community. And for years, it’s 

been operating in the red, and now it’s in the black. And I tell people all the time, we’re not competing with Georgia and Alabama, 

we’re competing with the Chinese and other countries, and so we 

need to stay on top of it, and we need to work together. And the 

key, in my position, is that I want to always be fair, but I think 

there are some things that the industry can work out without Congress telling them to work out. 

If we look at the Fatigue law, it’s over 100 years old, and so, I 

mean, modern technology and people’s goodwill, you all can solve 

this, and we don’t have to. But it’s in your hands, and we’re looking 

forward to leadership from people like you, Mr. Fritz. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony, and 

members for their questions. Again, the members of the subcommittee have additional questions for the witness, and we’ll ask 

you to respond in writing. 

The hearing record will be held over for 14 days. And with that, 

we have 14 people from the community that would like to make 

testimony, or comments. And I’m going to turn it over to Mr. GonVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:29 Nov 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34789 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
50

zalez to take their testimony. I’m going to be right here. And I 

know this doesn’t sound like very much, but in Congress, every 

morning we have one minute that we can come and make our comments, our remarks, and then you can extend and give additional 

comments in writing. So now this is your chance. We have several 

people, and I’m going to turn it over to Mr. Gonzalez to chair this 

portion of the hearing. Have them come up. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. If you will come up and take the podium there, 

and use that microphone. And the Chairwoman has indicated it is 

one minute; but, of course, we’ll entertain something beyond that 

at a later date. I’m going to go by the order that I have here, so 

if it’s, I didn’t take this down. Glenn Sellars. Glenn. 

Mr. SELLARS. Thank you for this meeting, Congressman. I’ve 

been working with Stephanie, and a lot of the things I’m going to 

say, you have already in your possession. I never did get a definitive answer on the cell phone, but I do have it for you now. 

On the Union Pacific policy, cell phones are to be used for company use only, but a dispatcher will call a dispatcher on a train 

and say, ‘‘Do you have a cell phone? Please call me.’’ And the dispatcher will relay sensitive safety matters by cell phone to the conductor. That’s number one. 

Fatigue. Fatigue, well, first let me tell you about myself. I’ve 

been with the railroad since 1966. I got 1.7 million miles as an engineer. I never had a derailment. I never had a personal injury 

with my crew members. I know railroad back and forth, and the 

Union Pacific, I wish you would ask the Vice President here; the 

employees must stay marked up or available 91 percent of the 

time. That’s nine out of ten days they have to be available, but why 

is there 100 people laid off, furloughed here in San Antonio right 

now? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Glenn, I’m going to have to hold you to that one 

minute. Actually, I’ve gone to a minute and a half. 

Mr. SELLARS. Sir? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I have to hold you to that one minute, because 

that is the Chairwoman’s order. 

Mr. SELLARS. Is my minute already up? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Oh, believe me, one minute—members of Congress, if we can do one minutes in the morning in Congress, we figure just anybody can do one minutes. But we’ll follow-up. And you 

know Stephanie will take your name right now, and we do want 

the benefit of what you’re telling us today based on your experience, so if you’ll just—and, of course, you know Stephanie. But if 

I don’t cut this—because the Chairwoman, we’re going to have to 

have another meeting, and then we’re due over at the Editorial 

Board, so I apologize. 

Mr. SELLARS. I appreciate the Congressman holding this meeting, but, Congressman, please let me say one final thing. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SELLARS. Make it a federal law, make it a federal law, remote controls cannot be used while using hazardous material. 

Please make that a federal law. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Definitely we take that under advisement. And I 

think there’s some action on that. It’s Laura or Lara Cushing. 

51

Ms. CUSHING. Good afternoon. My name is Lara Cushing I’m 

with the Southwest Worker’s Union. We’re a grassroots community-based organization representing 2,500 families in San Antonio 

that are concerned about economic and environmental justice. 

San Antonio is crisscrossed by train traffic, and 70 percent of 

that is merely passing through the city on its way to somewhere 

else. The low-income communities of color that we organize on San 

Antonio’s southside are boxed in by tracks, and could be trapped 

without an escape route were an accident to occur. There are over 

140 train crossings without over or under passes, and 162 hospitals 

or schools within a mile of tracks. 

In seven short months in 2004, 21 derailments occurred in Bexar 

County, five lives were lost, and dozens were injured. However, in 

the two and a half years since then, we still don’t have even a basic 

emergency notification system, or evacuation plan for the city. Instead, we’ve seen more accidents, including the one last fall that 

Ms. Berriozabal spoke about. 

Southwest Worker’s Union feels that no amount of measures to 

reduce human factors in accidents will be adequate to protect our 

health and safety. As long as hazardous material is carted through 

our communities, there are going to be accidents, and there will be 

deaths. 

Union Pacific’s profits rose by over 50 percent last year. Now is 

the time for Union Pacific and federal regulators to invest in a just 

relocation of train traffic away from where people live, work, and 

play, and a conversion of the current tracks to a commuter light 

rail system. Until then, we need an emergency notification system, 

and an immediate moratorium on transport of hazardous waste 

through San Antonio. Thank you. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Ms. Cushing. Next we 

have Igenio Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you for your patience. And, again, I remind you that you have about one minute. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Chair and Committee Members, my 

name is Igenio Rodriguez. I’m a retired firefighter of the City of 

San Antonio, and also have a compilation title, Fire and Hazardous 

Materials containment over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. 

Because of property rights, this issue requires multi-agency cooperation. I respectfully request that prior to implementing any 

recommendation, that it be reviewed by local, state, and federal 

emergency personnel, and others. Please consider studying, or suggesting the possibility of a prudent standard related to buffer 

zones, occupancy types, density, land use, sensitive environmental 

protections, serious consideration for response time, natural or 

manmade terrain or hazards involved that can affect communication, safety, evacuation, and containment. A benefit analysis should 

be done regarding trucks versus trains, consumer cost, and 

warehousing. 

I commend you for having come to us, and for having the courage 

and diligence to bring this forth to us, and for being proactive, 

versus reactive. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Rodriguez. 

Ms. BROWN. I want to thank you for making sure that we open 

it up to the public. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Harry Sandgill. 

52

Mr. SANDGILL. I’ll try to use one minute for Rail Labor. I’m a law 

professor, and 30 years of pro bono experience in rail safety matters. I have a creative solution. I take up the UP on their offer. 

Let’s do something about not carrying hazmat through cities. Let’s 

do something that hasn’t been done for years. Let’s go back to the 

STB, the successor to the ICC, go for a red flag or an embargo on 

ultra-hazardous materials, go together with rail labor, corporations, 

cities, local governments, and say the FRA is not doing it safely. 

We can’t guarantee safety, and until we get it right, let’s not carry 

this stuff. Let’s just do this, and we’ll do this for an interim period 

until we’ve gotten better safety protection across the board. 

This isn’t hard. We should just go do it. I know that’s not the 

human factors issue. This is possible. We ought to go down that 

path before. 

AAR members tried this in the Rail Classification cases, and the 

only reason they lost was despite the fact that they had the only 

testimony from Dr. Cards and Dr. Gregory, there was no opposition 

by the shippers at all. The ICC, the forerunner of STB, said look, 

the FRA says it’s safe. We have no choice but to say you’re still 

going to carry it. But if we all agreed it’s not safe, and got the FRA 

to help us build the statistical case for why it’s not safe yet, we can 

protect San Antonio, we can protect Minott, which has been blown 

up already, Scotts Bluff, which has been blown up twice, and protect against something else that no one has talked about, which is 

this. 

Three different federal circuits have held that railroads when 

they’re negligent are not responsible in money damages for the 

damages they created to cities. That happened in Scotts Bluff, and 

in Minott, and the Baltimore Fire Tunnel. I think this committee 

knows about this, so this is a good creative step, we ought to take 

this path. Thanks very much. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SANDGILL. I’m going to be in Washington working with staff 

next week. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Appreciate it. Mary Ozuna. 

Ms. OZUNA. Hi, Mary Ozuna. I’m a member of South Central 

Community Planning Team in the city. I’m also the county precinct 

chair for 10-03, which is the area between the two railroad trails 

on South Alamo, and South Florez. I would like to look at this as 

a proactive. This has happened for many years. My cousin was in 

an accident 30 years ago, same area by Brackenridge High School, 

and survived. The person in front of her did not. But I’m also on 

the zoning—I get all the zoning notices from the city because I’m 

on the Community Plan. 

I offer—I thought the gentleman was over here, to someone from 

the railroad to be in our committee. The South Central Planning 

Committee is from South Alamo Street, which is a new city building, and it goes all the way to Toyota, right before it, on Military 

Drive. We get all zoning issues. I continuously ask if the Union Pacific has been invited, and I’m told generally no. 

I also would like to—I’d love to have somebody on the team. I 

also would like to suggest that zoning, city, state, whatever, needs 

to be looked at. There are individuals when I go to meetings who 

53

are just starting off with condos. That was mentioned earlier, and 

they’re right by the tracks. That is ridiculous. 

I’m a product of a person that was in the railroad, came in 1800s 

here, so I’m not against them, but I think we need to work together. And I think that some other issues can be done. I agree 

with Mr. Velasquez, who actually is a friend of mine, didn’t realize 

he was going to say he’s against moving the tracks. I don’t think 

that’s the answer. 

Taxpayers also do not want to pay more money for those ideas. 

I think in the modern-day time, we have a lot of opportunities that 

are available, and we just need to use our individual minds and 

work on it. Thank you very much for coming. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. OZUNA. Thanks, Charlie. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Betty Edward. Betty. 

Ms. EDWARD. Well, I’m going to talk about something entirely 

different. I am a Senior Advocate for seniors in San Antonio. I run 

a senior center, and the trains go right by our senior center. And 

I know that we’re not ready when we have the next train wreck, 

and incident, and event in San Antonio. I know seniors are not 

ready, but my recommendation is a little bit different. 

The train and the railroads are the history of our country. They 

were here before we were here, and we built next to them. I would 

like to see something, and I don’t know who can do it, whether it 

starts with Charlie, or whether it starts with Mike Villarreal, or 

where it starts, state, local, city, that we not build anything else 

next to the railroad tracks in our city, county, or state until all of 

these things that we talked about today, these safety issues, are 

put into place, or at least part of them, in order to prevent what 

will happen. 

On the day of October 17th, I was en route to a zoning meeting 

here in San Antonio to change the zoning on a piece of property 

right next to the railroad track in the neighborhood that I represent. The zoning was changed. We talked to the developer. We 

tried to get him to give the property back and not build there. We 

haven’t made any headway with him, at all. He’s going to build. 

They are going to bring families in. The families will bring children. The children love the trains. We know what’s going to happen. 

At Dora Street, San Pedro and Dora, we’ve had—I’ve witnessed, 

personally, one death, two others have occurred there, because one 

person took their life on the railroad track, believe it or not, 46 

years old, a homeless lady. One child wandered to the railroad 

track, two years old, was killed. And one young lady going to college was killed because she had her radio on, air condition on, she 

couldn’t hear the train. 

Now we do have the railroad guards there now because of Mike 

Villarreal, and the railroad, of course, put them in, and we appreciate that. But I think that we need better guards at our tracks. 

We needs guards that will close completely so people will not attempt to go around them. They can’t hear the train. And I’ll tell 

you, if I hear the train, I know I better not cross that track. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Betty, the time is up. 

54

Ms. EDWARD. I know my time is, too. Okay. Thank you very 

much. Thank you for coming. Thank you, Chairperson Brown. We 

appreciate it. We hope something results from this meeting. Thank 

you. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Brad Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Congressman Gonzalez, thank you very much. And 

thank you for insisting that your committee be here. And I did 

speak with Chairwoman Brown earlier. I think she and I see eyeto-eye regarding this. I am here today. I’m a political candidate 

more than once, but today my opponent spoke earlier, Mr. 

Hardberger. And so thank all of you that tried to get more attention to this. 

Obviously, not enough has been done, in my opinion. I honestly 

thought that Big Brother was already watching the transport of 

hazardous materials here. In other words, that one hand knew 

what the other hand was doing. I can promise you that this will 

be an issue. 

In my campaign, I’m calling for however many billions of dollars, 

90 or 100 billion, since we’ve heard that that much is going to the 

Iraq war on a short-term basis, why can’t we invest here the same 

amount of money. Our government can certainly borrow eight trillion dollars, so I don’t think $100 billion is too much to ask to come 

and take care of many, many safety factors, starting here with the 

railroad and transportation. And thank you for your time. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sam Parks. 

Mr. PARKS. My name is Sam Parks. I’m a commercial airline 

pilot, about to be forced into mandatory retirement in another year 

and a half. If you all want to do something about that, but that’s 

another story. 

Ms. BROWN. I signed onto that bill to extend it. 

Mr. PARKS. I beg your pardon? 

Ms. BROWN. I signed onto the bill to extend it from what, 62 to 

65 years. 

Mr. PARKS. Bless your heart. I’ll give you a hug later. 

Ms. BROWN. All right. 

Mr. PARKS. I took an active interest in the railroads after 18 

years of driving around a block crossing out in southwest Bexar 

County. On a website called ‘‘My Rulebook.com,’’ I downloaded 

their GCOR, General Code of Operating Rules. I also found out 

what state laws were applicable to blocked crossings, and after 

some $2,000 in fines, we finally got their attention. 

I also got tired of calling an 800 number, where I was talking 

to Kansas or Omaha, or someplace, and not a specific individual. 

In the last six months, I ran across an individual that’s present 

here today named Travis Behnke, and that gentleman can make 

things happen, and I appreciate that. 

There’s a lack of professionalism in the part of the operating 

crews. The conductor is in charge of the train, but the engineer is 

operating. The conductor is the youngest member of the crew, and 

there’s an intimidation factor there. When the conductor says we 

shouldn’t be doing this, and he says oh, no, we’re going to do that 

anyway. And it’s like a captain and a first officer relationship, 

where the first officer is in charge of the train, but the captain is 

operating it. 

55

I also have a problem with this dark territory. It’s inexcusable 

to me that on the shift technology today with GPS tracking, that 

trains cannot be tracked exactly like all airborne aircraft over the 

air space today. Eighteen wheelers, companies track eighteen 

wheelers to the very mile as to what their location is. 

Laptop computers on each train with broad band or wireless access, the engineers could have a screen to give them situational 

awareness in their cab, much like we have on an airliner, which 

call it Terminal Collision Avoidance System, where we see every 

other airplane that’s around us. We have a Situational Awareness. 

These engineers and operators of these trains have no idea where 

they are unless they knock down a switch. 

I mean, it’s like the railroad is being dragged kicking and 

screaming into the 21st century. It’s like they’re still operating 

with two dixie cups and a string for a telephone. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sam, I’ve got to go ahead and call you on the 

time. 

Mr. PARKS. All right. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much. I think you’ve brought out 

some very interesting facts. Charlotte Cable. 

Ms. CABLE. Thank you so much for having us today. And you 

have come to the home state of Jessie Jones, whose visionary rail 

policies helped bring the U.S. out of the Great Depression. So our 

rail system is still the backbone of U.S. transport, and growing 

commuter systems. 

We do not want to regulate the rails out of business. There is a 

limit, however, which taxpayers will begin questioning, and then 

resisting federal funding for rail projects. After the films of the 

January 7th Louisville disaster, those tolerance limits have been 

raised. 

We do not envy your challenge to properly regulate the self-sustaining, safe U.S. rail system, but we must ask you to please do 

so to protect your constituents living in cities, counties, and states 

without the local authority to regulate that system that is both a 

great benefit, and great hazard to our welfare. 

So thank you for bringing this to San Antonio to hear our 

thoughts, and welcome to San Antonio. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Ms. Cable. Nettie Hinton. 

Ms. HINTON. I’m Nettie Hinton, and I live at 509 Burlison Street, 

and that’s the east downtown neighborhood, which is a historic district in San Antonio, Dignowity Hills. We are home to what had 

been the historic roundhouse, the first train station. We have now 

the intermodal yard, the east yards where a UP employee has died 

in the yards because of a safety mishap. We also are the home of 

the engineer repair facility for Union Pacific. 

We were there before the railroads came, because they came in 

1877, and we were founded long before that as a community. We 

have lived since that time with health and safety issues from the 

railroad, including the rail cars blocking three major arterials in 

our community, Pine Street, Hackberry Street, and LeMar Street, 

as they’re waiting to get into the yards. 

We understood that that meant that police, fire, and EMS would 

not be able to have access to our community, nor to the Bowden 

Elementary School, and the Ella Austin Community Center, beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:29 Nov 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34789 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
56

cause of the location of the railroad. But we are now living with 

an additional fear factor, and it comes because we know that the 

benzene, and the chlorine, and the acids are passing through our 

community. And we know of the deaths that have resulted because 

of the derailments. And we are asking that you do something about 

those toxic materials running through that main line. They have 

to be relocated. 

We are going to host, hopefully, Texas A&M playing Ohio State 

on March 24th at the regionals at the Alamo Dome. I would hate 

for a tragedy to occur during March Madness, or, for that matter, 

during the month of April when our families are on Broadway 

watching the Battle of Flowers and Fiesta Flambeau, but that’s exactly what can happen in my community in San Antonio because 

of the main line. Thank you. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Ms. Hinton. I yield back 

to the Chairwoman. 

Ms. BROWN. I want to thank you. I want to thank all of the witnesses for your testimony, and we will take it back, and take it 

under advisement. Thank you, Congressman, for inviting us to 

come here, and unless there’s further business, this subcommittee 

will stand adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

57


34789.008
58


34789.009
59


34789.010
60


34789.011
61


34789.012
62


34789.013
63


34789.014
64


34789.015
65


34789.016
66


34789.017
67


34789.018
68


34789.019
69


34789.020
70


34789.021
71


34789.022
72


34789.023
73


34789.024
74


34789.025
75


34789.026
76


34789.027
77


34789.028
78


34789.029
79


34789.030
80


34789.031
81


34789.032
82


34789.033
83


34789.034
84


34789.035
85


34789.036
86


34789.037
87


34789.038
88


34789.039
89


34789.040
90


34789.041
91


34789.042
92


34789.043
93


34789.044
94


34789.045
95


34789.046
96


34789.047
97


34789.048
98


34789.049
99


34789.050
100


34789.051
101


34789.052
102


34789.053
103


34789.054
104


34789.055
105


34789.056
106


34789.057
107


34789.058
108


34789.059
109


34789.060
110


34789.061
111


34789.062
112


34789.063
113


34789.064
114


34789.065
115


34789.066
116


34789.067
117


34789.068
118


34789.069
119


34789.070
120


34789.071
121


34789.072
122

Æ


34789.073