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

81–678 PDF 2014

NATIONAL RAIL POLICY: EXAMINING GOALS, 

OBJECTIVES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

(113–28) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 27, 2013 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York, Vice Chair 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... v 

TESTIMONY 

Hon. Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration ........... 4 

Michael P. Melaniphy, President, American Public Transportation Association ........................................................................................................................ 4 

Edward R. Hamberger, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association 

of American Railroads ......................................................................................... 4 

Michael P. Lewis, Director, Rhode Island Department of Transportation, on 

behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials ................................................................................................................. 4 

John P. Tolman, Vice President and National Legislative Representative, 

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen ....................................... 4 

PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE 

RECORD SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Joseph C. Szabo: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Answers to questions from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Jeff Denham, of California .............................................................. 57 

Hon. Corrine Brown, of Florida ................................................................ 64 

Michael P. Melaniphy: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69 

Answers to questions from Hon. Jeff Denham, of California; includes 

supplemental material .................................................................................. 79 

Edward R. Hamberger: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 112 

Answers to questions from Hon. Jeff Denham, of California; includes 

supplemental material .................................................................................. 133 

Michael P. Lewis: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 175 

Answers to questions from Hon. Jeff Denham, of California ........................ 187 

John P. Tolman: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 193 

Answers to questions from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Jeff Denham, of California .............................................................. 199 

Hon. Corrine Brown, of Florida ................................................................ 200 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, responses to requests for information from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Daniel Lipinski, of Illinois, regarding the number of active formal 

RRIF applications currently in process ....................................................... 20 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, of California, regarding the status of the 

2-year State grade crossing plans that were mandated for the 10 States 

with the most grade crossing accidents in the 2008 RSIA ........................ 23 

Hon. John L. Mica, of Florida, regarding Amtrak’s nonrail annual revenue and the number of RRIF loans given since the inception of the 

program .......................................................................................................... 32 

Hon. John L. Mica, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

submission of chart with information detailing Amtrak’s long-distance 

transportation costs per passenger and Auto Train losses ............................... 36 

Page

IV 

Edward R. Hamberger, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association 

of American Railroads, submission of the following: 

Association of American Railroads, PTC Implementation: The Railroad 

Industry Cannot Install PTC on the Entire Nationwide Network by 

the 2015 Deadline—May 2013 update ........................................................ 136 

Response to request for information from Hon. Jeff Denham, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, regarding positive train 

control (PTC) implementation timeline ....................................................... 41 

v 


Insert offset folio 1 here 81678.001

Ilrnmmtttee nn Wntnapnrtatinn unll1Jllfruatructllre 

JIBs. lflnuae of 1!1epreatntutiuta 

lJ1ill ~~Ul!ttr 

<lll!atrman 

3IliIaaljingtun. ilQ! ~n515 Nick ;JJ. i!!aJrall. 3BJ 

i!!anltin!! :OOIemher 

Christopber P. Bert'l'"am, StaltOirecl()l' James It Zoill, Oi"mocra.tStaftDlroctor 

June 20,2013 

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 

Members, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Staff, Subcommittee on Railroads,. Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Subcommittee Hearing on "National Rail Policy: Examining Goals, Objectives, 

and Responsibilities" 

PURPOSE 

The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials will meet on 

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building to receive 

testimony from major stakeholders on developing the nation's rail policy for the next 

reauthorization. At this hearing, the Subcommittee will hear from the Federal Railroad 

Administration, the American Public Transportation Association, the Association of American 

Railroads, the American Association of State Highway and Transporation Officials, and the 

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen. 

BACKGROUND 

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of2008 (PRIIA) (P.L. 110-432) 

expires on September 30,2013. PRIIA was the first reauthorization of intercity passenger rail 

activities since the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, and its major provisions 

focused on Federal support for intercity passenger rail, improving Amtrak's financial position, 

and improving intercity passenger rail perfonnance. While some of these provisions have had a 

positive impact on intercity rail services, others have fallen short of their intended goals. TIle 

overriding goals of the next rail reauthorization will be to build upon PRIIA's successes and to 

make revisions to the provisions that did not fulfill their intent. The hearing's witnesses will 

inform the committee on the policies and refonns they believe are important to include in the 

next rail bill. 

Federal Support for Passenger Rail 
vi 


Insert offset folio 2 here 81678.002

Amtrak Capital, Debt, and Operating Grants: PRIIA authorized a total of $9.8 billion for 

Fiscal Year 2009 through Fiscal Year 2013, including $2.9 billion in operating grants and $6.7 

billion in capital and debt service funding. However, actual annual appropriations for Amtrak 

from 2009 through 2013 were significantly lower -- $7.3 billion. Amtrak was also required to 

provide a five-year financial plan and an annual budget that detailed projected revenues and 

expenditures, projected ridership, estimates of debt, and labor productivity statistics .. 

New Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Programs. PRIIA auiliorized two new grant programs for 

ilie costs of intercity passenger rail capital investments, including the capital costs of intercity 

passenger rail facilities, infrastructure, and equipment. Capital projects are broadly defined to 

include typical activities in support of acquiring, constructing, or improving rail structures and 

equipment. The $8 billion included in ilie Recovery Act for High Speed Rail projects was 

provided under these new authorities. Because the grant programs were structured within a 

primarily safety-oriented agency, grantees have raised concerns about project delivery process. 

Further, given the broad underlying PRIIA language, the Recovery Act funding was spread 

throughout the country, and mixed projects that were focused on incremental upgrades along 

wiili green-field high speed rail projects. These competing needs resulted in an unfocused 

program that satisfied few. 

Furthermore, prior to PRIIA, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) was primarily a 

safety agency. In PRIIA and ilie Recovery Act, FRA was given grant making authority. While 

FRA was required to distribute funding expeditiously, it did not have regulations in place to 

guide stakeholders on envirorunental review, only a Federal Register notice from May 1999. 

Stakeholders have expressed concerns with the lack of guidance and dissimilarity with other 

modal administrations witllin Department of Transportation. Last Congress project streamlining 

provisions were proposed for rail that were similar to iliose p.roposed for highways and transit 

programs. 

P RIIA Financing Improvements 

A major goal of PRIIA was to improve ilie financial condition of Amtrak and create rnore 

investment in passenger rail through partnerships with states and the private sector. These 

provisions could be the foundation for further financial reforms to passenger rail. 

Improved Financial Accounting: Section 203 required the Amtrak Board to implement a 

modem financial accounting and reporting system wiiliin three years of enactment. The 

Department of Transportation Inspector General (IG) reviewed the system and found in a March 

23 report that Amtrak is better able to capture its fll1anciai performance by route, line of 

business, and major activity, as PRIIA requires. However, the IG also found that since Amtrak 

customized the system rather than using an off-ilie-shelf system, the system is more complex and 

costly to maintain, raising concerns regarding its long-term utility. The IG also found that 

Amtrak's heavy reliance on cost allocation reduces the precision ofperfornlance reporting. 

While many companies use cost allocation to an extent, Amtrak allocates (rather ilian assigns) 80 

percent of its costs because it does not collect sufficiently detailed cost data. For example, 

Amtrak does not measure and record each train journey's fuel consumption, but rather relies on a 

fonnula that estimates ajoumey's fuel consumption. 
vii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 81678.003

Debt Restructuring: Section 205 ofPRIIA authorized the Secretary of the Treasury, in 

consultation with DOT and Amtrak, to make agreements to restructure Amtrak's debt, including 

the purchase ofleases. Following enactment, the U.S. Treasury agreed to fund the exercise of the 

Early Buyout Options in the Amtrak leases that were eligible for exercise in Fiscal Year 2011, 

Fiscal Year 2012, and Fiscal Year 2013. The Treasury did buyout these leases creating a 

"savings" to Amtrak of$160 million in future interest charges. . 

State-Supported Routes. Section 209 of PRIIA required Amtrak to work with the States to 

develop and implement a single, nationwide standardized methodology for establishing and 

allocating the operating and capital costs of providing intercity rail service on corridors less than 

750 miles in length. This section recognized that over time a patchwork of arrangements had 

developed between Amtrak and the States. Some States were contributing funding for additional 

rail service, while others were not. Amtrak and the States have agreed to a common 

methodology, and beginning on October 1,2013, most will be required to start contributing 

additional funding to maintain those services. Amtrak has estimated that this will improve its 

bottom line by approximately $85 million, contingent on all States agreeing to the amounts. 

Once in place, approximately 88 percent of the cost of State-Supported Routes will be offset by 

revenue and State payments. 

Northeast Corridor: Section 212 ofPRIIA, among other things, established a Northeast 

Corridor (NEC) Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission (Commission) because of 

the unique structure and complexity of the NEC. One of the Commission's tasks is the creation 

of a standardized framework for allocating costs between commuter and intercity trains to-ensure 

that all corridor users pay their fair share for their use of the infrastructure. For the majority of 

the NEC, commuter railroads will be required to pay access fees to Amtrak, to maintain the NEC 

infrastructure. While the development of the formula was to be completed within two years, the 

Commission is still working with the States and Amtrak to finalize the cost methodology, and 

significant issues have been raised by the States concerning governance changes they would like 

to see before paying new access fees. 

Intercity Passenger Rail PerfOrmance and Enhanced Reforms 

Rail Passenger Service Metrics: PRIIA required FRA and Amtrak to develop metrics for 

measuring the performance of intercity passenger train service. Furthermore, PRIIA charged the 

Surface Transportation Board (STB) with resolving disputes between Amtrak and the freight 

railroads regarding poor performance, and to determine whether the failure to achieve minimum 

standards are due to causes that could reasonably be addressed by the host freight railroad. Ifthe 

STB determines such failure is attributable to the host railroad, it could award damages to be 

paid by the freight railroad to Amtrak. Cun-ently pending before the STB is a proceeding brought 

by Amtrak against Canadian National that would be tile first enforcement action under tile new 

metrics and standards. 

Long Distance Routes: PRIIA emphasized tllat Amtrak's long-distance routes are part ofthe US 

intercity passenger rail network The Act required Amtrak to evaluate the perfol1nance of each 

long distance route, develop individual improvement plans, and FRA was authorized to hold 

back funds if Amtrak was not making reasonable progress in implementing the improvement 
viii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 81678.004

plans. Section 208 of PRIIA required FRA to contract out with an independent entity for the 

development of objective methodologies for Amtrak to use in determining what routes and 

services it should providing, including the elimination of existing routes. To date, FRA has not 

complied with this provision. The committee will inquire about how FRA implemented these 

provisions. 

Enhanced State Involvement: PRIIA tasks States with developing State rail plans to establish 

priorities and implementation strategies to enhance passenger and freight rail service and serve 

as the basis for Federal grants. 

Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee: PRHA required the creation of a 

Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee to design, develop specifications for, and 

procure 8tandardized next-generation rail passenger equipment. This committee developed the 

specifications for roughly $800 million in locomotive and rolling stock procurements funded by 

the Recovery Act. 

Historic Preservation and Section 4(1) Streamlining: Section 407 ofPRIIA required the FRA 

to issue a report on streamlining compliance with Section 4(1) of title 49 and section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act for federally funded railroad projects. FRA issued this report 

in March 2013, and recognized that there is no consistent approach to addressing eligibility of 

railroad corridors for historic preservation purposes. Furthermore, FRA noted that streamlining 

mechanisms addressing Section 4(1) compliance processes for railroad resources could benefit 

Section 106 analyses and the parties improving railroad infrastructure. FRA recommended a 

number of administrative and legislative measures that would help streamline the processes for 

railroad projects, including enacting an exemption similar to that provided for the Interstate 

Highway System, redefining the terms "use" and "historic site" under Section 4(f) to exclude 

most railroad facilities, exempting certain categories of railroad projects from review, and 

providing guidance on how to evaluate railroad properties for historic preservation. 

Safety Provisions 

Safety, Generally: The Rail Safety Improvement Act of2008 (RSIA), the companion to PRHA, 

reauthorized the Federal Railroad Administration's passenger and freight rail oversight activities. 

Since enactment of RSIA, significant improvements in safety have been realized. 2012 was the 

safest year on record. Train accidents (excluding grade crossing incidents) have decreased 

significantly from 2,482 accidents with 27 fatalities and 323 injuries in 2008 to 1,718 train 

accidents with 9 fatalities and 285 injuries in 2012. Human factors and track defects remain the 

main causes of those accidents. Grade crossing incidents have also decreased; from 2,429 

incidents with 290 fatalities and 990 injuries in 2008 to 1,958 incidents with 233 fatalities and 

929 injuries in 2012. Grade crossing and trespassing incidents account for 95 percent of all rail 

fatalities. 

Positive Train Control: Section 104 ofRSIA requires Class I, commuter, and intercity 

passenger railroads to install positive. train control (PTC) on all tracks where toxic-by-inhalation 

hazardous materials and passengers are transported by December 31, 2015. In 2012, Class I 

railroads operated over almost J 62,000 miles of track, 60,000 miles of which potentially requires 
ix 


Insert offset folio 5 here 81678.005

the installation of PTC under the law. The intercity passenger and commuter railroads account 

for an additional estimated 8,400 miles of track required to be equipped with PTC. 

Most railroads have reported to the Committee that they will not be able to meet the 2015 

deadline due to technological difficulties, lack of spectrum and radio, difficulties with FRA's 

interpretation of the law, and financial constraints. FRA estimates the total cost for 

implementation in excess oUI 0 billion. 

In December 2010, the U.S. Govel11ment Accountability Office (GAO) published a report 

expressing concerns about the ability of the freight and passenger railroads to meet the December 

31,2015 deadline. In August 2012, as mandated by RSIA, the FRA issued a report to Congress 

on the status of implementation, which stated that partial deployment ofPTC couid only be 

achieved by the deadline, and even that was "dependent upon the successful resolution of known 

and emergent issues." 

FRA has recommended that Congress consider legislation allowing the FRA to extend 

the mandate for PTC installation on specified line segments and to allow FRA to approve the use 

of altel11ative technologies in lieu ofPTC on specified line segments, and to allow FRA to 

approve provisional certification of PTC under controlled conditions before final system 

certification is complete. Meanwhile, other stakeholders have requested that Congress consider 

an extension of the mandate to December 31, 2018 with the ability of FRA to authorize an 

additional extension of two-years on a case-by-case basis. 

Major Issues fOr Upcoming Reauthorization 

Some of the major policy issues the Conunittee will discuss at the hearing include: 

• What reforms to Amtrak's structure could be undertaken to provide more transparency 

into its operations, both for its customers and for the federal taxpayer? 

• What govel11ance structures can be put in place between Amtrak, commuter railroads, 

freight railroads, the states, and the federal government to focus investment on the 

Northeast Corridor? 

• How can the next bill build on the progress to strengthen the federal-state partnership for 

state-supported routes? 

• What options exist to improve the financial performance on Amtrak's long distance 

services? 

~ How can innovative finance, private sector funding, and the Railroad Rehabilitation and 

Improvement Financing (RRIF) loan program be leveraged to accelerate important 

capital projects? 

• What policies can be implemented to encourage private-sector participation in the 

provision of passenger raU services, including food and beverage service? 
x 


Insert offset folio 6 here 81678.006

• What policies can be put in place to accelerate project delivery. to cut down on delays 

and get projects done? 

• What legislative changes to the Positive Train Control mandate should the Committee 

consider? 

INVITED WITNESSES 

Hon. Joseph Szabo 

Administrator 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Mr. Michael P. Melaniphy 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

American Public Transportation Association 

Mr. Edward Hamberger 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

Association of American Railroads 

Mr. Mike Lewis 

Director 

Rhode Island Department of Transportation 

on behalf of American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials 

Mr. John P. Tolman 

Vice President & National Legislative Representative 

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen 
(1) 

NATIONAL RAIL POLICY: EXAMINING GOALS, 

OBJECTIVES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Denham (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. DENHAM. The subcommittee will come to order. 

First, let me welcome our witnesses and thank them for their 

testimony today. We invited you because each of you represents a 

key stakeholder group involved in our Nation’s rail industry. As 

you all know, Chairman Shuster and I are committed to rail reauthorization this year. I state that at every hearing because I want 

everybody to know that it is coming very, very soon, and we are 

going to need all of you involved and helping to get something that 

makes sense, especially in today’s fiscal challenges. 

We have traveled across the country now. We will continue to 

visit different States in the Nation, local and Federal officials, and 

we are discussing the last reauthorization bill and how it has affected the railroad industry. We have heard suggestions on how we 

can improve our laws so rail transport can expand in a safe and 

efficient manner. It is clear that the current rail authorization has 

helped improve passenger and freight rail service in this country. 

For example, PRIIA, sections 209 and 212 have moved the ball forward with regard to Amtrak’s State-supported routes in Northeast 

Corridor operations. These lines of business have increased revenue 

and eliminated much of the need for any Federal operating subsidy. 

Our goal is to build on the PRIIA successes and tackle the challenges that remain for freight and passenger rail. Hopefully, this 

hearing will inform the committee of what steps need to be taken 

to reach that goal. As I stated earlier this year, we need to be pragmatic and transparent, and we will need all parties to participate 

in order to deliver the best bipartisan product to the House floor. 

As seen by this week’s House and Senate appropriation marks, 

we need to operate within realistic budget constraints, and I think 

we all agree reforms are necessary to ensure and leverage every 

dollar we do have efficiently. 

There is no division between the different services Amtrak provides. We need to put a structure in place to allow Congress’ inVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:10 Mar 18, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\RR\6-27-1~1\81678.TXT JEAN
2 

vestment to strengthen passenger rail. We need to prioritize our investment. We need a reliable source of funding to invest in existing 

infrastructure in places like California, the Midwest and the Northeast Corridor within existing resources. This means we might have 

to take a hard look at the pie-in-the-sky visions, such as FRA’s 

multibillion-dollar unrealistic budget. We should invest in projects 

that will increase safety, increase reliability and reduce trip times 

without breaking the bank. 

Ideally Prop 1(a) in California should be invested in realistic 

local projects instead of a project that has no realistic business 

plan, no proven ridership and exploding costs. For instance, in 

California, we have got the California State Rail Plan, which lists 

27 capital investment projects for ACE. We have 36 for the San 

Joaquin line and 42 for the Capitol Corridor. Each will benefit existing ridership. 

Taxpayers entrust in this body their hard-earned dollars, and we 

must be sure those dollars finds their way back in the form of tangible benefits. Throughout my travels I have heard recurring questions that I want to address with today’s witnesses. How do we 

focus our limited resources on investments that make sense in 

places like my home State of California? How do we improve governance on the Northeast Corridor to ensure stakeholders have an 

equal seat at the decisionmaking table? How do we leverage private sector investment and innovative financing to enhance our 

ability to invest in infrastructure projects? These issues are just an 

example of the difficult task we must tackle together in the next 

few months. 

Again, I want to thank all of our witnesses this morning. I would 

now like to recognize Ranking Member Corrine Brown from Florida, for 5 minutes to make any opening statement she may have. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As we meet this morning, the House Appropriation Committee is 

considering a bill that will cut funds for Amtrak 2014, provide just 

$950 million for the railroads, including $350 million for operational grants and $600 million for capital and debt service. 

Federal funds of $950 million will not give us a better railroad. 

We know this from experience. What it will do is put Amtrak workers out of jobs, cancel replacement and overhaul of railcars and locomotives and derail service we demanded from Amtrak with the 

2008 bill. 

I think that if we are going to focus on national rail policy, we 

ought to be discussing the impact of the constant cutting of Federal 

support for Amtrak while demanding more and more reforms. The 

two issues go hand in hand. How can Amtrak improve long-distance routes without funding? How can we expect Amtrak to reduce trip time when we fail to make the infrastructure investments 

that are needed to implement these reductions? 

Indeed, this committee, on a bipartisan basis, authorized a total 

of $9.8 billion for Amtrak in fiscal 2009 through 2013; however, annual appropriations for Amtrak since 2008 has been significantly 

lowered, about $2.5 billion less than what we authorized. Just take 

a look at that chart. 

Where is the chart? 

3 

Now, 5 years later, some Members claim that Amtrak has not 

done enough. Well, I truly believe you get what you pay for. Other 

countries have learned that a long time ago. China, Japan, France 

and the U.K. are all investing billions in their passenger rail service. We constantly talk about wanting what they have when it 

comes to passenger rail, but then we are not willing to finance it. 

We look for other people to finance it, other people who have time 

and again told this committee that the Federal Government needs 

to step up to the plate. 

We did this for highway and aviation. From 1947 to 1970, when 

Amtrak was created, the Federal Government spent $11.3 billion 

on aviation. At the same time, we spent $52.4 billion for the development of an Interstate Highway System. While most of the money 

came from user fees, at least $8 billion was from general funds. 

Today annual Federal spending on highway construction exceeds 

$42 billion. We have not spent that much on improving passenger 

rail in 43 years. We have glossed over the fact that funding does 

not come from user fees. In fact, since 2008, a total of $52.3 billion 

in general funds have been transferred to the Highway Trust Fund 

to keep it solvent. 

I know that the chairman plans to hold a hearing on financing, 

but again, I think if we are going to talk about national rail policy, 

we need to also talk about the hole we are digging ourselves into 

by failing to adequately invest in Amtrak. 

Now let me briefly turn to long distance. There has been a lot 

of talk in the press about eliminating long-distance routes. I 

strongly oppose that. These routes literally connect our east coast 

to our west coast. They are what make Amtrak a national railroad. 

Without the long-distance train, over 4 million people in 23 States 

and 223 communities will lose all passenger rail service. Let me repeat that: 4 million people in 23 States and 223 communities would 

lose all passenger rail service. 

Finally, a critical component of our reauthorization bill includes 

reauthorizing our Nation’s rail safety program. Although rail accidents are down, the National Transportation Safety Board has 

been called in to investigate 11 rail accidents that have occurred 

since June 2012. We must keep this in mind as we work on our 

bill to take advantage of the opportunities we have before us to 

eliminate what we need to do to make this, a very safe industry, 

even safer. 

With that, I want to thank all of our participants, and I am looking forward to hearing from the panelists today. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Again, I would like to thank our witnesses today. Our panel will 

include the Honorable Joseph Szabo, Administrator from the Federal Railroad Administration; Michael Melaniphy, president and 

CEO of American Public Transportation Association; Ed Hamberger, president and CEO of the Association of American Railroads; Mike Lewis, director of Rhode Island Department of Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials; and Mr. John Tolman, vice president 

and national legislative representative for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen. 

4 

I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Since your testimony has been made part of the record, the subcommittee would request your oral testimony be limited to 5 minutes. 

Mr. Szabo, you may proceed. Thank you for joining us. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JOSEPH C. SZABO, ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION; MICHAEL P. 

MELANIPHY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, PRESIDENT 

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS; MICHAEL P. LEWIS, DIRECTOR, RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF 

THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND 

TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS; AND JOHN P. TOLMAN, VICE 

PRESIDENT AND NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND 

TRAINMEN 

Mr. SZABO. Thank you, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member 

Brown and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. 

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act and the 

Rail Safety Improvement Act, both passed in 2008, were bipartisan 

game-changing pieces of legislation. 2012 was the safest year in 

railroading history. Amtrak’s on-time performance, its ridership 

and its revenues are now at all-time highs, and the freight rail industry has never been stronger. 

Today, 6,000 corridor miles are being improved, 40 stations are 

being upgraded, hundreds of new passenger cars and locomotives 

are being procured, and States are competing—or completing more 

than 100 different environmental, engineering and planning 

projects, but we still have a long way to go to make up for decades 

of underinvestment in rail and be ready for the challenges ahead. 

Soon America’s transportation network will need to move 100 

million additional people and 4 billion more tons of freight annually, and it will need to do it safely, reliably and efficiently. 

Our airports and highways are stretched to their limits. Congestion costs our economy more than $120 billion per year. Rail is the 

clear mode of opportunity. It is extremely safe, cost-effective and 

the least oil-reliant, most environmentally friendly mode to move 

people and freight. 

Citizens are showing us the way. Recent studies by U.S. PIRG 

and the Frontier Group have painted a clear picture of American’s 

shifting travel habits. In 2011, the average American drove 6 percent fewer miles than in 2004. In just 10 years, Amtrak’s ridership 

is up more than 40 percent and growing faster than any other 

mode of travel. 

Population growth, mobility challenges, shifting travel patterns, 

these are the reasons why it is essential for us to work together 

to provide rail with the sustained source of funding that will put 

it on par with other modes. 

5 

The 5-year, $40 billion rail reauthorization proposed in our fiscal 

year 2014 budget builds on the core principles of our previous authorizations. And we propose to fund our budget with a new rail 

account within the transportation trust fund. 

Our vision is for a National High-Performance Rail System that 

builds on today’s progress, enhancing the Nation’s rail system by 

addressing safety concerns, by providing funding for passenger and 

freight rail improvements and by promoting strong planning. 

Our vision is a state of good repair for Amtrak, improving safety, 

efficiency and reliability. With your support, we can develop new 

passenger rail services and substantially upgrade existing corridors, and we can fund freight rail projects critical to our Nation’s 

economic competitiveness, including ones to improve safety by 

eliminating or upgrading public highway rail grade crossings. We 

envision a world-leading domestic rail industry, and we will manage our investments through a transparent process. 

Four years ago, when we started our high-speed and intercity 

passenger rail program, FRA evaluated nearly 500 applications 

submitted by 39 States, the District of Columbia and Amtrak. The 

applications requested more than seven times the available funding, illustrating the enormous pent-up demand. And in the past 4 

years, the pipeline of rail projects has only grown stronger. 

Making large-scale investments on a year-to-year basis is both 

difficult and inefficient. No rail system in the world has ever been 

successfully planned and developed in this fashion. Funding predictability is a necessity to empower our partners, the States, local 

governments and the private sector so they can plan for and invest 

in the rail network our economy needs and our people deserve. 

So now is the time for a new bipartisan game-changing vision for 

American rail, and we look forward to working with you to make 

it happen. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Szabo. 

Mr. Melaniphy. 

Mr. MELANIPHY. Good morning, Chairman Denham, Congresswoman Brown, members of the subcommittee. We thank you for 

this opportunity to testify on our priorities for rail policy in this 

country. I have to believe that the Nation needs an integrated network of passenger rail services, including high-speed rail, where 

appropriate, that connects with the existing Amtrak system and 

with commuter rail, transit operations and other intermodal connections. 

Travelers should be able to make seamless connections between 

modes, between major metropolitan regions linked by rail service. 

As the Nation’s population swells by nearly 150 million people by 

2050, we need to make investments in our transportation infrastructure, including intercity passenger rail, which provides transportation choices and achieves national goals. 

We support dedicated revenues for such a program, other than 

those currently supporting the Highway Trust Fund. We also support a streamlined NEPA review process for projects. Moreover, 

both private and public sector participation should be considered in 

the development of new rail service and the planning, construction 

and financing of new rail infrastructure. 

6 

We recognize the current fiscal pressures that the Nation faces 

and the challenges for Congress in providing fiscal resources and 

setting priorities within the Federal budget. However, we believe 

the investments in infrastructure, including passenger rail, are 

among the highest value investments the Nation can make. These 

investments will provide benefits to the Nation for hundreds of 

years. We know this committee recognizes the importance of transportation investment to the Nation’s economic competitiveness and 

prosperity. 

Expansion and improvement of the our current intercity passenger rail system will require a commitment of Federal, State, 

local and private resources, a combination of funding and financing 

strategies that will not only pay for projects, but also speed their 

planning, design and construction. APTA recommends an authorization of $50 billion over 6 years 

to facilitate the development of high-speed intercity passenger rail 

funded by a dedicated and indexed Federal revenue source and 

complemented by the use of public-private partnerships. 

With regard to rail safety, APTA is unequivocally committed to 

safety, with passenger and employee safety being the number one 

priority for our Nation’s commuter railroads. Since its inception, 

APTA has been an advocate for safety improvements, and we are 

always working to make our industry safer. APTA’s standards program and safety audit program are examples of the ways the industry promotes safety, and I have described both in my written 

testimony. 

With regard to positive train control, APTA has consistently supported the concept of PTC, provided that proven technology, resources and radio spectrum, where available, a position that predates the Rail Safety Improvement Act. 

APTA is working with its member railroads to meet the law’s requirements that all of the Nation’s commuter railroads have federally approved systems to help protect against accidents. We want 

to work with this committee on how to get PTC systems installed 

on commuter railroads in an optimized fashion. Some commuter 

railroads already have collision avoidance systems, some of which 

have been in place for years, but there is still no off-the-shelf technology which is capable of achieving all of the law’s safety objectives today. Key components of PTC systems, such as back office 

software, upgrades and revisions, roadway worker protection, are 

still in the development stage. It requires newly designed of radios 

and large amounts of radio spectrum to deliver information to 

trains and achieve interoperability between carriers. And it requires testing in the actual commuter rail operating environment. 

And above all, implementation costs are challenging, especially for 

publicly operated commuter railroads trying to deal with hundreds 

of state-of-good-repair projects unrelated to PTC, many of which 

also impact directly on the safety of operations. 

Implementation costs for commuter railroads exceed $2 billion, 

not including operating and spectrum costs. This is on top of many 

costs the railroads are incurring on the east coast as they deal with 

the issues of repair and rehabilitation related to Hurricane Sandy. 

We have told Congress for several years that we are concerned 

about the ability to implement PTC on all of the Nation’s commuter 

7 

railroads by the 2015 deadline, and we sought Federal funding to 

help commuter railroads pay for the costs of PTC implementation. 

We have also asked the FCC and Congress to provide radio spectrum without cost on the basis of public safety. And given all these 

challenges, we recommended the deadline for implementation be 

extended from 2015 to 2018 to allow for complete and orderly system integration. 

APTA appreciates the opportunity to testify today. We will be 

happy to try and answer any questions that you may have. Thank 

you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Hamberger. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Brown and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss reauthorization of PRIIA. 

All of us want passenger railroads that are safe, efficient and responsive to the transportation needs of the country. At the same 

time, America cannot prosper in an increasingly competitive global 

marketplace without a best-in-the-world freight rail system. We 

think our Nation can have both: a safe and effective passenger rail 

service and a safe, productive world best freight rail system. 

Freight railroads want passenger railroads to succeed. We work 

cooperatively with passenger and commuter railroads to help make 

this happen, and we support Government efforts to grow passenger 

rail in ways that complement freight rail growth. 

As Mr. Szabo has said on more than one occasion, yes, America 

deserves a world-class passenger rail system, but not if it comes at 

the expense of what is already the world’s best freight rail system. 

As I have said more than once before, our Nation’s freight railroads are overwhelmingly privately owned and operate almost exclusively on infrastructure that they own, build, maintain and pay 

for themselves. In fact, this year alone, $25 billion private capital 

will go back into the infrastructure. That’s 40 cents on every dollar, 

to grow, maintain and expand our infrastructure. 

But I draw your attention to the fact it is not that way for passenger rail either here or anywhere else in the world. I respectfully 

suggest that once you as policymakers agree on the nature and 

scope of passenger railroading in this country, you must be willing 

to commit public funds on a long-term basis commensurate with 

that determination. Moreover, Amtrak cannot plan, build and 

maintain adequate infrastructure that provides optimal transportation mobility and connectivity when there is so much uncertainty 

regarding what its capital and operating funding will be from one 

year to the next. 

Having said that, the establishment and management of schedules and on-time performance between Amtrak and the host freight 

railroads should be undertaken jointly by those parties on a contractual basis. It should be governed by private, bilateral contracts 

and the facts and circumstances of particular routes, not by onesize-fits-all legislative mandates. 

As you take a look at reauthorization of PRIIA, we have five 

principles that we think could help guide your considerations. 

First, safety has to take priority over anything else. Under certain 

conditions, passenger rail can operate on freight rail tracks at more 

than 79 miles an hour. In general, however, we believe that more 

8 

than 79 miles an hour requires a separate track. Where there is 

a separate track for passenger rail, we think it should be far 

enough away so that if there is an accident, that it does not foul 

the adjacent track, having even more tragic consequences. 

Second, capacity issues must be properly addressed. Additional 

passenger train operations should both preserve the ability to operate freight trains as needed today and the opportunity to expand 

further freight service as our customers require in the future. 

Third, if passenger trains use freight railroad assets and property, it is reasonable for the freight railroad to expect full and fair 

compensation. 

Fourth, freight railroads must be adequately protected from liability that would not have resulted but for the added presence of 

the passenger rail service. 

Finally, there can be no one-size-fits-all approach. Each project 

involving passenger rail in general or high-speed rail projects in 

particular has its own unique challenges and circumstances and 

should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. 

In my final minute, I would just like to draw your attention to 

my written testimony, where we go into great detail, as Mr. 

Melaniphy just has, on the challenges of implementing positive 

train control. We join APTA in calling for an extension of the deadline. Our proposal is for at least a 3-year extension plus an additional 2 years at the Secretary’s discretion because of the unknown 

challenges that are out there. 

And let me make it very clear. We are not looking for a repeal of this mandate. We are committed. We have spent over $3 billion 

already. We have thousands of employees working on it. There are 

challenges as we try to develop the technology, as we try to develop 

the new radios, as we try to develop and install the equipment on 

22,000 locomotives, and over 60,000 miles of track. Much of it will 

be installed by 2015, but not all. 

We want to work with this committee to see if we can work 

through an extension that allows this to be done, but you have our 

commitment that we are committed to doing it and we will get it 

done. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Hamberger. 

Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. LEWIS. Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Brown and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to 

participate in today’s hearing. My name is Mike Lewis. I am the 

director of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation, but 

today I am testifying on behalf of AASHTO, as its current president. I also serve as a member of the Northeast Corridor Commission. 

AASHTO’s position on national rail policy has evolved through 

many years of State experience with delivering passenger rail service and working with and supporting large and small freight railroads. Dating back to AASHTO’s 2002 Freight Rail Bottom Line 

Report, we have highlighted public-private partnerships as a model 

for investment in freight rail projects. 

Rail must be a part of a balance of transportation—a balanced 

mix of transportation alternatives available to our Nation’s freight 

trippers and the traveling public. Making increased levels of investVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:10 Mar 18, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\RR\6-27-1~1\81678.TXT JEAN
9 

ment and realizing the public benefits of a strong freight rail system will require partnerships among the railroads, the States and 

the Federal Government. The Heartland Corridor and the National 

Gateway Corridor are major intermodal connector projects resulting from shifting patterns of freight demand. These and similar 

projects make it clear that we must constantly adapt to changing 

global economics and logistics and that rail is an essential element 

of our overall national transportation system. 

Continued Federal investment is essential. Without it, the resulting—an increased reliance on the highway system would greatly increase highway congestion and maintenance costs, driving up overall costs of goods movements in the U.S. 

The recently formed National Freight Advisory Committee will 

provide a forum for integrating freight within all modes. Two 

AASHTO board members have been selected to serve on the committee, Secretary Ann Schneider of Illinois and Mike Tooley of the 

Montana DOT. 

Having spent my career in transportation first in Massachusetts 

and now in Rhode Island, I am most familiar with rail service in 

the Northeast. Demand on the NEC is at record levels. The NEC, 

however, cannot continue to accommodate rising demand, due to 

infrastructure that is highly congested and in need of repair. With 

more than 2,000 trains per day and major segments at or near capacity, operating the NEC leaves little room for error, as we saw 

with recent closures of parts of the corridor due to the commuter 

rail accident in Connecticut and as recently as Tuesday with the 

derailment of Amtrak construction equipment in Rhode Island. 

By bringing key stakeholders to the table, the NEC Commission 

is making a difference. For the first time, all the stakeholders are 

joining together to develop a corridorwide 5-year capital program. 

The fundamental tenet of the capital program is that funds generated by increased State and Amtrak financial contributions will 

not supplant existing Federal funding, but be used to leverage 

higher levels of overall Federal and State investment. The NEC 

Commission is a model for collaboration that can be used on other 

corridors across the U.S. 

The States have been providing funding assistance to Amtrak 

outside the Northeast Corridor as well. In 2013, 15 States either 

partially or completely supported Amtrak service. Under the provisions of PRIIA section 209, all short-distance Amtrak corridors 

must become State-supported routes and States must pay the proportional costs associated with their respective corridor. 

States continue to work cooperatively with Amtrak and are now 

in the process of contract negotiations looking at the list of items 

provided under the 209 pricing policy to determine the best use of 

State resources. 

So what should be included? National rail policy must be just 

that: a national policy. As AASHTO policy states, a robust national 

rail transportation network that moves both passenger and freight 

effectively and efficiently across international borders, State lines 

and within regional and State boundaries is essential to this Nation’s continued growth and vitality. 

Safety continues to be our first priority. We must look at corridor-specific measures that will reduce fatalities and injuries and 

10 

allow States the flexibility to use new technology, combine resources and partner with the private sector in innovative approaches that will lead to zero deaths, including those at rail-highway grade crossings. 

As called for PRIIA, a national rail plan should be the vision for 

both freight and passenger. To implement this plan, Congress must 

provide a long-term, stable funding for intercity passenger rail. 

Federal investment for intercity passenger rail in the Northeast 

Corridor and State corridors and improving the national network 

of intercity passenger rail, including long-distance trains, should 

follow a model similar to that proposed by the FRA, which consolidates rail programs to focus on existing passenger service state of 

good repair and expand and improve passenger and freight networks in order to accommodate growing demand. 

In addition, the MAP–21 project delivery streamlining measures 

should be extended to rail projects, both freight and passenger. The 

amount of time that it takes for a rail project to move from planning to actual construction could be reduced by half, saving millions in construction costs. 

The journey to defining and executing a national rail policy will 

be a long one, but today is a good day to start. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the committee and 

will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. Tolman. 

Mr. TOLMAN. Good morning, Chairman Denham and Ranking 

Member Brown, members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today. On behalf of the 37,000 active 

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen members and 

over 70,000 rail conference members, I want to thank the committee. 

The BLET supports the concept of a unified national plan for our 

Nation’s passenger and freight railroads. It is consistent with our 

desire for long-term planning and financing of rail. It is also imperative that any national rail policy would protect the interests of the 

men and women who work in the railroad industry today. 

In order for our Nation to meet the economic and environmental 

challenges that we face, we must continue to invest in the infrastructure and to develop and plan for new means to get goods and 

people from place to place in the most fuel-efficient means possible. 

Rail clearly is the best means of doing this. 

On the passenger side, Amtrak and the intercity commuter railroads and their employees have the knowledge, skills and abilities 

to develop, implement and grow passenger rail systems throughout 

this country. They have done great work and continue to set record 

riderships across the country. Passenger rail is a great example of 

the old quote in the ‘‘Field of Dreams’’: ‘‘If you build it, they will 

come.’’ 

On the Amtrak side, this cycle of underfunding must end. They 

desperately need long-term funding and predictability. Most troubling currently of all labor is the recent proposed House appropriations budget for fiscal year 2014. The bill would cut the FRA by 

40 percent. 

11 

On the freight side and for its professional skilled railroad employees, intermodal freight transportation is the way of the future, 

with goods moving from ship to truck to train on a seamless network. 

To continue this, we need to ensure that we continue to invest 

in our infrastructure. Unfortunately, the House Appropriations 

spending leaves TIGER grants out entirely; it also tries to cut this 

year’s awards in half by rescinding $237 million before the DOT 

can get the already awarded grants out the door. 

Railroads have improved their fuel efficiency by 23 percent in the 

last two decades. As stated by Ed Hamberger, the freight side in 

the industry is investing billions annually in its infrastructure and 

is well positioned to handle any additional freight that comes its 

way, but we must also ensure that continued investments are not 

only to expand the capacity but also to improve safety. 

Along these lines of safety, PTC will save lives, and the BLET 

strongly supports the implementation of PTC on our Nation’s railroads. This technology will prevent the most egregious and catastrophic accidents throughout our Nation. All too often, cost-benefit 

analysis is used as the sole objection against moving ahead on rail 

safety projects. If we could rewind the time and freeze the movement before any fatal accident, such as Macdona, Texas, or 

Graniteville, South Carolina, occurred and talk to the train crew or 

talk to the residents, who among us would like to explain to them 

that they would die of an accident not from the accident itself, but 

from the smoke or hazardous materials inhalation because the congressionally mandated emergency escape apparatus—breathing apparatus and switch points indicators failed a cost-benefit analysis. 

Let’s work together to implement feasible protective safety opportunities for the public and for its employees. As Ed Hamberger testified last week in front of the Senate, and he stated, job safety is 

the number one issue for the industry. So let’s walk the walk and 

talk the talk and get things done together. A national rail policy 

must take all factors into account, including connectivity to provide 

service nationwide. Now is the time to stimulate the economy and 

to invest in jobs, the number one issue in the last national election, 

jobs. 

Through the creation of good passenger rail system throughout 

the Nation, for every $1 billion invested in high-speed rail or rail 

passenger, it could create 47,000 jobs, based on a DOT study and 

a Federal Transit Administration study. 

The workers currently employed by our Nation’s railroads are 

among the highly skilled employees in the world. They are entitled 

to a safe work environment, and any comprehensive rail plan 

should not interfere with their ability to keep and expand their 

work. 

In conclusion, we would like to reinforce the need for Amtrak 

long-term funding and continued need for cooperation between the 

freight railroads and labor to provide a stimulus to our industry, 

to the economy, and we need to do this while making critical 

strides to enhance safety. 

Once again, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Tolman. 

12 

Thank you all of our witnesses. As always, we will be doing the 

5-minute rule. We will plan on at least two rounds of questioning, 

with such a large panel. 

I am going to start things off with Mr. Szabo. 

We have gone round and round a couple times on budgets. I 

imagine that we will go round and round several more times on it, 

especially with the House Appropriations Committee recently making their plans known, but I want to get a realistic view from a 

committee standpoint on what our priorities for PRIIA reauthorization are; what are realistic projects we can actually accomplish, 

given a bipartisan effort between the two Houses? You start with 

your budget at $2.7 billion. The Senate budget is current funding, 

which is $1.45 billion, and then the House now at $.95 billion. 

Best-case scenario, I think, is current funding. I mean, that is 

the Senate’s starting point and the House is lower, I imagine we 

are going to ultimately get somewhere in between there. Going 

much higher, without some new funding source, which I would be 

encouraged to hear any efficiencies or new funding sources that the 

administration is looking at, but best case right now today looks 

like would be that $1.4 billion or the current level of funding. 

What are some of the top programmatic reforms that you think 

will ensure the most efficient use of those Federal dollars? 

Mr. SZABO. Well, I think if you take a look at our budget submission, it really clearly spells that out. Our mission is to ensure the 

safe, reliable and efficient movement of people and goods. 

When you start taking a look at the state of our transportation 

network today, the congestion costs in loss of productivity that our 

transportation network is already facing, and then when you take 

a look at the decades of underinvestment in rail, combine that with 

the efficiencies that rail can generate in moving people and goods, 

the enhanced productivity, the enhanced safety, the improved environmental sustainability that the rail offers, we believe that our 

budget proposal is not only realistic, but certainly appropriate, that 

it is time that we truly put rail on parity with the other transportation modes, that we no longer treat it like a forgotten stepchild. 

And because of these decades of underinvestment, there is clearly 

this need to advance the vision forward of real commitment of dollars and a reliable and sustainable funding pool out of a rail account in the trust fund. 

Mr. DENHAM. Outside of the whole budget debate, because that 

debate is going to continue to go on, assuming we have extra 

money, we are going to need to put significant infrastructure repairs, not only some that safety repairs that should have been done 

decades ago, but certainly areas that we can create greater efficiencies, but in the PRIIA bill itself, we are looking for reforms that 

help us to create greater efficiencies or greater use of taxpayer dollars. Do you think State-supported routes is working well and 

would you propose doing that in other areas? Are there other types 

of reforms that you need to be looking at? 

Mr. SZABO. You know, I think if you take a look at our budget 

proposal, one of our key changes there is the fact that we start 

breaking Amtrak down into the business lines, which allows us 

greater transparency. We call for the preparation of a 5-year plan 

according to each business line, which will allow us at FRA to be 

13 

much more aggressive in overseeing their implementation of each 

of those business lines, and looking for continuous improvement in 

financial viability. 

We do have to start the discussion by acknowledging the fact 

that Amtrak’s financial performance last year was the best in its 

42-year history and has, in fact, improved each of the last 4 years. 

But we also have to say that that is not good enough and that we 

need to continue to drive that continuous improvement in their financial stability and reducing the support on Federal tax dollars. 

Mr. DENHAM. In your testimony, you state that reorganizing Amtrak grants structure will not work at the current levels. Amtrak’s 

already putting together business lines. If it is working now, why 

would that not be something that could work at current levels? 

Mr. SZABO. We really did our due diligence in putting together 

the plan to understand what it is really going to take to ensure 

that safety, efficiency and reliability of each of those business lines, 

and we absolutely believe that each of those business lines are important to meeting the transportation needs of the traveling public. 

And to go at any level less than that, particularly, particularly the 

level that the House came out with would negatively affect safety, 

it would negatively affect reliability and the efficiency of the network, and would likely increase costs for the States under section 

209 as well as increase costs for the commuters under section 212. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I realize, again, we are going to have 

this ongoing debate on budget, but we have to be able to figure out 

something in realistic reforms, and that is why I will continue to 

answer this question about business lines. It is working. Amtrak 

is working on business lines today under current budget scenarios. 

We want to take all of the good things that are happening today 

under the previous PRIIA bill and, regardless of where we end up 

on this budget debate, make sure we have got a good package to 

move forward that continues to improve efficiencies and safety 

throughout. 

I am out of time. Ms. Brown. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to also thank you for the field trips that we have 

had. The one that we took up to the Northeast Corridor was extremely educational for everybody on the committee. 

And one of the things with Sandy, what happened, Mr. Lewis, 

with the tunnels, what is it that we need to do to make sure that 

these natural disasters, that we harden those situations? 

Mr. LEWIS. Short of raising the level of the continent—— 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LEWIS [continuing]. We have—first of all, we have to recognize, as you have, the vulnerability of the existing infrastructure 

that we have and to be able to address through a series of 

prioritization of projects, how do we protect that infrastructure and 

its exposure? 

I mean, we all recognize, just taking the NEC, Northeast Corridor, for example, the numbers of trips, over 2,000 train trips a 

day on the corridor, and the numbers of people that are served by 

that, as well as freight, the value to the Nation’s economy of those 

trips, they are absolutely vital that we protect those interests. 

14 

So in our planning and prioritization of infrastructure improvements, we need to take into account these more recent risks that 

we have in front of us. 

Ms. BROWN. Some of my colleagues want to require that the 

States pay for long-distance service. What is your opinion on that? 

Mr. LEWIS. As I said in my testimony, I think there is a role for 

all parties. The States certainly have a role to play; the Federal 

Government is a necessary component of that. The States have 

stepped up, as they are under 209 and under PRIIA and under 212, 

for greater investment. 

We do need to be sure, if the States are going to step up, and 

all of you know how difficult State budgets are and the challenges 

in front of many States, and if we are going to go and sell increased 

investment to our State legislators, we need to be able to show 

them where that money is going and the value it brings to that 

State. So I think that is a challenge we have, but I think there is 

a willingness on the part of the States that we are partners in this 

challenge. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. Szabo, would you answer that question. And also what is 

your opinion of the House proposed funding level for Amtrak? 

Mr. SZABO. No. I find the House proposed level both concerning 

and a bit perplexing. At a time when passenger rail, when Amtrak 

is the fastest growing transportation mode in the Nation, as vehicle 

miles driven by Americans continue to decline, and it has been on 

a downward trend over the past decade, that we wouldn’t be making the investments that are necessary to truly make intercity passenger rail a viable part of a balanced transportation network. 

And as I said in the answer to my previous question to the 

Chair, it really is time that we take a look at how we enhance productivity, how we eliminate the cost of congestion, make sure that 

we allow States to plan out and build transportation that will allow 

people and goods to use the mode that is most efficient for a journey. And for too long, rail has been, particularly passenger rail, the 

forgotten mode. 

Ms. BROWN. It is clear that the House is behind the American 

people, because the ridership is up about, what, 40 percent? 

Mr. Hamberger, my last question. With respect to the PTC and 

the spectrum issue, what can Congress do to assist you all, because 

I understand there are some challenges there? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you for that question. With respect to 

spectrum, the freight railroads were able to get out quickly and 

procure enough spectrum. I think the question on spectrum is really more for APTA and Mr. Melaniphy. But while you have raised 

the FCC, let me just put on your radar an issue that has just bubbled up in May of this year. The Federal Communications Commission has advised us to stop installing any more antennas. We have 

about 22,000 more radio antennas to install, over 95 percent of 

which will be located on our right-of-way. The FCC is now requesting that we perform an environmental assessment on each of those 

22,000 antennas. 

We have had some meetings with them. They understand that 

such reviews might take a few years and add even further to the 

delay. We are having meetings with them at the commissioner 

15 

level on down, and we hope, with the good assistance of Mr. Szabo 

and his staff, to come to a more streamlined solution over at the 

FCC. If that doesn’t happen, we might be back asking for some relief of that. 

But having taken Mr. Melaniphy’s time, let me turn the spectrum issue over to him. 

Mr. MELANIPHY. No. We just—we want to reiterate that spectrum is a critical piece. And this is a safety issue here, and it is 

very important that the public agencies have access to spectrum. 

So that we appreciate the opportunity to work with Mr. Hamberger’s members on access to spectrum and leasing spectrum 

where it is available, but it is critical that we have access to that 

spectrum, and that we are recommending that it be given at no 

cost to the public sector operators so they can provide this safety 

service to their members. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Barletta. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Szabo, you talked a lot about the underinvestment of the 

Government, of the Federal Government. I would like to talk about 

the RRIF program, something that is very interesting to me. Being 

a former businessman and understanding how important it is to 

make the capital investments back into the industry, I thought this 

is a great program. 

Now, the RRIF program has been on the books since 2000, it has 

an authorization of $35 billion for investment in rail infrastructure, 

which we all agree is critical. Yet as I understand it, the Federal 

Rail Administration has only approved $1.7 billion in loans since 

2000. Why is the RRIF program so underutilized when our rail infrastructure needs such investment? 

Mr. SZABO. Yeah. I think as we start talking through greater 

specifics for reauthorization, this is an area that we would like to 

have some additional conversation with the committee on how we 

do make RRIF more useable for the industry, in particular the 

short lines. To a great extent over the past decade, through some 

statutory change, the program has kind of lost its initial focus on 

trying to make sure that capital dollars are available for these 

smaller short line railroads that are so capitally starved. And there 

is no question that short lines have a more difficult time getting 

through the process to be deemed eligible for a loan. The Class I’s 

can get through. They have got all their financials in order. You 

know, it is relatively routine process for them. For the mom and 

pops, it is more of a struggle. 

So a couple of things that we are doing now as well as one thing 

that we have proposed in our budget, to help mom and pops get 

through the RRIF process more expeditiously and to better understand what it is, we started forming some joint partnerships with 

States. And the State of Ohio, their development commission was 

actually the first that we were able to partner with to where they 

take the leadership in becoming the RRIF experts for all of the 

short lines in the State of Ohio in providing that early upfront 

16 

guidance to them and helping them through the process much more 

quickly. 

Mr. BARLETTA. What is the average time from start to finish for 

the loans that you have completed? 

Mr. SZABO. We are required that once an application is complete, 

to have it through the process in 90 days, and we meet that goal. 

The challenge has always been getting all of the information in up 

front to make that application complete. And so with programs like 

the one that we have put together in Ohio, we are going to enhance 

the applicant’s ability to have a full application, to understand everything that is needed of them, and get it through the process that 

much more quickly. 

But also going back to our budget, you will notice that we talk 

about the need for grants for freight rail infrastructure improvements, and short lines would clearly be eligible here. What we have 

found is that so often, there are short lines that are desperate for 

capital, but they cannot qualify for a loan. And we believe, in these 

cases, particularly for safety enhancements, bridges, track improvements, that grants would be a more appropriate tool. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Deputy Secretary Porcari pledged to improve the 

RRIF program. What was it that he was trying to accomplish? I 

mean, he admitted that it needed to be improved. 

Mr. SZABO. Yep. 

Mr. BARLETTA. So I don’t put the focus all on the short lines or 

the rail industry. I think there is a problem in the program in it 

being administered and I think there is—people have admitted 

that. So this has been 13 years, $35 billion authorized, but only 

$1.7 billion actually utilized. What was it that he was trying to accomplish? 

Mr. SZABO. Actually, what we have accomplished, going out and 

working with the States now is going to dramatically reduce the 

time to get a loan through the process and make sure that better 

information is provided up front, which will allow us to start that 

90-day clock sooner and make sure that we continue to hit our 90- 

day deadline for all of those applications, but I think there are 

other things that can be done. And, again, as we get into reauthorization, some conversations that we might be able to have on how 

we might be able to better simplify the process for those mom and 

pops to get that capital in their hands. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Quick question, Mr. Melaniphy. Do you think 

there have been any improvements to the RRIF program since the 

deputy secretary pledged to improve it in 2011? 

Mr. MELANIPHY. First I think the key here is that, unlike the 

TIFIA program, there are no funds appropriated for the credit subsidy of the RRIF loans and each loan applicant must pay the credit 

subsidy cost to their own loan, and while they can pledge capital 

against the program, it adds to the cost of the overall project. 

I think we need to look at how the TIFIA program is structured 

and look to see if there are ways to align the RRIF program to be 

more in alignment how the TIFIA program is structured without 

respect to buying down the risk of the project. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

17 

And thank the panelists for being here. 

You know, ridership along the Northeast Corridor is strong, is 

growing. We obviously face urgent need on investment of the infrastructure. In the past few years, all we seem to talk about is how 

to privatize this, yet we are performing rather well instead of talking about investments that they need. 

Can the panelists provide me with their perspective on how 

privatizing the Northeast Corridor will affect both the cost of riders 

and the level of service that they will be provided, and whether or 

not the privatization will affect the kind of long-term investment 

in infrastructure that the Northeast Corridor will require in the 

next 20 or 30 years? Can somebody take a shot at that? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. You can start. The questions move to the right. 

Mr. SZABO. We can either start with Mike and finish with me or 

vice versa. 

Mr. LEWIS. You take it. 

Mr. SZABO. The most important thing we can do for the future 

of the Northeast Corridor is to allow the good work of the Northeast Corridor Commission to continue moving forward, as well as 

making investments that we are proposing in our budget proposal 

and ensure the certainty, the predictability and reliability of funding to make those necessary state-of-good-repair improvements as 

well as investing in the corridor for the next generation of service. 

This is clearly one the best markets in the world, and with the 

limited resources, some remarkable things have been done. Over 

the past 15 years, a majority of passengers flew between New York 

and DC, and since the introduction of the Acela service, that has 

been completely turned around to where it is pushing close to, I 

think, 80 percent now that are traveling by train—— 

Mr. SIRES. One—— 

Mr. SZABO. Yeah. And then just 20 percent that are shared by 

all of the airlines put together. But when you start talking about 

what role privatization has, there certainly is likely going to be an 

opportunity for private capital in the corridor, but I really think 

that the Commission is the one that needs to be able to determine 

what is the appropriate role and when that role takes place to ensure the capital comes into the corridor. 

Mr. SIRES. Would you care to speculate how it will affect the 

price for the customers and investment in infrastructure? 

Mr. SZABO. Well, we don’t advocate the privatization of the service. To go back to what I said, I think there may be the opportunity 

for private capital into the infrastructure, but ultimately it is about 

the safe, efficient reliability of the service for the passengers for the 

costs that they have to pay. And, we believe that the approach that 

is taken today with appropriate investment is the approach that 

needs to continue. 

Mr. SIRES. You know, I know the question was raised before 

about natural disasters. I had a firsthand look at what happened 

with Sandy. You talk about predictability. There is really no predictability when it comes to, how do you deal with, when you do 

capital budgets, and then all of a sudden, you get hit with a storm 

like Sandy, that throws your capital budget all out of whack? 

Mr. SZABO. Well, I think the biggest thing that we have to ensure moving forward, and this is not just from a rail standpoint, 

18 

but from all of our infrastructure, is that we are now designing resiliency as well as potential recovery into the design of all transportation projects. 

In my mind, there is just no question that weather patterns are 

going to continue to become more and more uncertain and more 

and more severe, and so we have to have redundancy as well as 

resiliency built into our transportation network. 

Mr. SIRES. Because I know the ports by me, Port of Newark, obviously, they are looking at the same thing. But, you know, if the 

ports don’t work or they are shut down or you are shut down, you 

know, 80 percent of the merchandise that comes from those ports 

is consumer to region, and you can’t move it. You know, people— 

you know, it is just—I don’t know how we can be predictable on 

anything like that. 

Mr. SZABO. Yeah. One of the first calls that I made after Sandy 

hit was to Ed Hamberger, just to better understand how we could 

divert freight and keep freight flowing to those ports that weren’t 

affected and understanding what rail infrastructure had not been 

harmed and how we try and keep those goods flowing. 

Mr. SIRES. Yeah. The port was shut down for just about a 

week—— 

Mr. SZABO. Yeah. 

Mr. SIRES [continuing]. Basically, so no matter how many railroad cars he brings down, you are not going to get—thank you very 

much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Webster. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this panel 

together. 

I have a question of Mr. Lewis. You mentioned having a national 

freight policy. And we can’t do earmarks, OK, so that would be the 

easiest way to do it. So now we can’t do that. So does AASHTO 

have any sort of recommendations how we can maintain the States’ 

flexibility, which we give a lot of flexibility in much of the planning 

from, you know, highways and other means of transportation? We 

give you lots of flexibility. And yet with this, if we are going to do 

something regionally, we might be squeezing down on that flexibility. So my thought is, do you have any recommendations? 

Mr. LEWIS. Sure. Congressman, I think it is a great question. I 

think, first of all, we can’t talk about a national policy unless we 

are all talking collectively with all modes. And I think the Northeast Corridor Commission that Mr. Szabo talked to, it is a good 

model; smaller scale, but it is all of the States in the Northeast 

Corridor getting together, recognizing that working together, each 

of their interests are being served, that working with the freight 

railroads, working with USDOT, working with Amtrak, we have a 

common interest. There are different areas, each one of us have our 

own concerns, but there is a common interest, and it doesn’t work 

unless we are all working on those common interests. 

I think on a Federal level, we at AASHTO do espouse greatest 

flexibility for decisionmaking of transportation of States, but we all 

recognize that we all work as an overall system. The Interstate 

Highway System only works because there is connectivity, so that 

19 

you can take goods that come in from the Port of Long Beach and 

they can drive across Wyoming and end up in Providence, Rhode 

Island. That is the system, that is how the system works. 

We view the freight policy needs to be the same. It needs to incorporate the ports, it needs to incorporate inland waterways, it 

needs to incorporate the highways and railroad. It is all part of the 

system, and I think that is what we are supporting. 

Mr. WEBSTER. OK. So should that be formalized in that, OK, 

they have—what they have done is somewhat voluntary. Should we 

formalize that as Federal policy? I mean, we require metropolitan 

planning organizations to build from a local-up plan. Should we engage ourselves in doing some sort of requirement for regional compacts of some sort—— 

Mr. LEWIS. Requirements, I am not sure. On behalf of 

AASHTO—— 

Mr. WEBSTER [continuing]. Versus voluntary. I mean, but voluntary is a little risky. 

Mr. LEWIS. But voluntary, it is—going to the NEC Commission, 

the Commission is requirement, the outcome is not. We have to voluntarily work together to get a result. 

I think that there is an opportunity. I think there is a recognition across the country that we need to work as systems, as a system. I think the States recognize that. The States recognize that 

there is interdependency. And so I am loathe to say I am supporting requirements in that vein, but I wouldn’t rule it out if we 

don’t reach success. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Somebody else want to—— 

Mr. SZABO. Congressman, if I may add. Again, if you go back and 

look at our proposal, one of the key things we talk about in there 

is enhancing regional planning for passenger and freight rail 

projects, and that, in essence, we would like to see some kind of 

duplication of the Northeast Corridor Commission in other key regions, understanding that whether we are talking about moving 

people or goods, in most cases it doesn’t stop at the State lines and 

that it needs to be looked at regionally. 

Mr. WEBSTER. So do you think, though, that should be a more 

formal request by us through legislation or is that something that 

could be done voluntarily? 

Mr. SZABO. It is kind of hard. I think we have to talk about that 

a little bit. I think it needs to be strongly encouraged. I am not 

sure it is appropriate to mandate it. As Director Lewis said, the 

NEC works—— 

Mr. WEBSTER. Let me ask you this, what if we funded those that 

decided to do it? 

Mr. SZABO. Yeah. And I think those are the parts of the way that 

you encourage it. Good planning has to be the foundation of everything that we do. And so, yes, to be eligible for funding, having a 

regional entity that is doing the appropriate planning and coordinating the project I think would be appropriate. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to start by following up on Mr. Barletta’s questions about 

RRIF because I think RRIF could be of much greater value if we 

20 

are able to get more of that money out to the railroads. A couple 

of things I would like to ask Mr. Szabo, do you know how many 

active formal applications are currently being worked on? 

Mr. SZABO. I can get you that for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

Nine RRIF applications are currently in process. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. OK. And you are saying that once everything is in, 

that it is meeting the 90 days? 

Mr. SZABO. That is correct. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. So I wanted to ask, how much of a role does OMB 

play here? Does the role of OMB lead to any delays in this process? 

Mr. SZABO. It is a complex process. I mean, obviously there is the 

work and due diligence my staff has to do. And then there is a 

process through OST. And then there is a process with OMB for 

ultimate approval. And obviously, all of them are trying to ensure 

that we do not place the Federal taxpayers in a position of any 

undue risk and to make sure that it is a loan that can reach the 

determination of repayability, which is statutorily required. And so 

it is a multiple step process. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, I am looking forward to having a discussion 

about what we can do, especially legislatively here to make the program more functional, get more of that money out the door, more 

of those loans out the door. And I certainly do like the idea of a 

grant program, although you know, as we all know, how difficult 

that is these days. 

Mr. SZABO. And what, Congressman, I would offer is that in 

some of these cases, we see these apps come in from some of these 

small railroads, and they desperately need the money, and yet they 

can’t qualify for the loan. So if we don’t find them way to get them 

capital, we run the risk of losing that service. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I would 100 percent agree with you on that. It is 

something that we need to be working on further. 

I want to move on to Mr. Hamberger. We were sitting here less 

than 24 hours ago in these same places. At that point, you were 

testifying for the Panel on 21st-Century Freight Transportation. 

And we talked about at the time the CREATE program in northeast Illinois and how important it is to the freight network of the 

country. I am not sure how many times we have sat in these seats 

and have talked about CREATE. But I am very happy that CREATE has been moving forward, although not as quickly as any of 

us would like to see. But $1.2 billion has been committed to the 

program that contains about 70 projects. 

What I have been more concerned about, recently, the bigger 

projects are not getting done. And these are projects that really impact two of the things that we are talking about here, passenger 

rail and safety. The rail flyovers are—you know, one of them, Englewood flyover, has received funding. It is in the process of construction now. So rail flyovers really help for passenger rail, especially freight also. But I want to focus more on a safety aspect, 

which is the highway-rail grade separations. We have made tremendous progress on the rail corridor but only two of the 25 grade 

21 

separations are complete. There are three or four others that have 

the funding, but that is not too far along with the 25. 

So I want to ask, because these are important for safety, obviously, how high of a priority are these projects for the railroads? 

And how do we move better, more quickly in getting these projects 

done? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I am not sure I have an answer to the second 

part. The first part is a very high priority. We have committed in 

a letter from me to Illinois DOT Secretary Ann Schneider additional funding for all of the grade crossings consistent with State 

and Federal law that are part of CREATE. We have also committed 

additional money for the 75th Street CIP. So we see these as high 

priorities. We want to continue to work with the city and the State. 

And I go back to Mr. Webster’s question about planning. This is a 

very great example of voluntary planning among a variety of parties—the Federal Government, the State, the city of Chicago, and 

the private sector. So it is working on a voluntary basis. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, I would just like to add, I appreciate that, 

but I would certainly like to see my constituents and the people— 

the area would like to see more committed to those grade separations, and we can continue to talk about that. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, as you know, Congressman, all of those 

projects have been put on a chart and are planned in cooperative 

fashion with Secretary Schneider and her staff, the Commissioner 

of Chicago, and the freight railroads and Amtrak and Metra. So we 

appreciate knowing you are there. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to thank all of you for being here today. You represent 

a great industry and one where, in my house, we still run Lionel 

trains for 60 years. And also, Mr. Tolman, I appreciate your comment about jobs. I am from the private sector. I am from Texas. 

And I am all about jobs and business. So thank you for those comments. 

What I would like to ask—I guess Mr. Hamberger touched on it 

earlier—Mr. Szabo, and we talked about, in 2008, Congress enacted 

the posit train control mandate, which it is an unfunded mandate 

that makes freight railroads and passenger railroads comply, such 

as that in my district, Austin’s Capital Metro system. It sounds to 

me, from what I have heard and seen, that nobody but possibly 

BNSF will achieve implementation of this on an on-time basis. And 

in Austin, the commuter rail system was started entirely with private funding just a few years ago. And the cost to deploy this technology is going to be about one-third of the cost to build the entire 

line. 

So my concerns are that unfunded mandates discourage both private and local infrastructure investment. And I understand there 

has been efforts to delay the implementation. We have heard about 

this today from some of the others, up to 2018. And my question 

is, would you support that? And is it realistic? Is 2018 a realistic 

date? 

Mr. SZABO. Our goal is to ensure that PTC is implemented as 

timely as possible while understanding the complexities of that 

timely implementation. The report that we provided to Congress 

22 

last year clearly indicates that the industry will achieve partial deployment by the congressionally mandated deadline of December 

2015. But that full deployment is virtually impossible for most of 

the carriers. 

The approach that FRA recommended in our report to you—ultimately this decision belongs to Congress—but we think that there 

has to be a balance between ensuring that due diligence is maintained to implement as timely as possible while also recognizing 

those very real technological and programmatic challenges that 

most carriers are facing. That is why we recommend, rather than 

a blanket extension, that you grant to us authority to work with 

each carrier to amend their implementation plan. So, on a case-bycase basis, we can understand both the due diligence that that particular railroad has made in their good-faith effort as well as the 

legitimacy of all of those challenges that are out there, and then 

customize an implementation plan for each railroad. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. All right. 

I guess the next question I have will be to you, Mr. Hamberger. 

You talked about safety concerns with attempting on the implementation of PTC by 2015. On the safety concerns, is 2018 achievable? Does that give us enough time? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. We believe, by 2018, we will be substantially— 

85 to 90 percent implemented. We say that with a 70-percent degree of confidence because there are still some unknowns. The 

major challenge right now is the back office software which will 

allow the dispatch centers of each of the railroads to talk to everybody else’s dispatch center and everybody else’s locomotive, as locomotives traverse over other rails. We have to make sure that we 

are interoperable with all APTA members, with Amtrak. And that 

back office software has not yet been delivered. We hope to see it 

some time this summer, test it in the labs, and then get it out on 

the road for testing hopefully by the end of this year. 

You may find this hard to believe, but not all software that is 

first written is 100 percent reliable. So we are concerned—and I 

would draw your attention to the GAO, which submitted testimony 

to the Senate Commerce Committee last week. They drew the Senate Commerce Committee’s attention to the fact that we are striving so much to meet that 2015 deadline that they are concerned 

that some of this may be deployed without adequate testing. They 

believe that could be a safety issue. We think that, unlike the Administrator, there needs to be some certainty; there needs to be an 

extension of the deadline by at least 3 years; and in that regard, 

we also believe that there needs to be some regulatory forbearance 

until the entire system is certified as up and safe. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you for your testimony. I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Szabo, in the 2008 rail safety bill, there was a requirement 

that the 10 States with the most grade crossing accidents develop 

and submit their 2-year department or agency action plans for reducing the accidents. Do we have a status of that? And how is your 

agency monitoring the implementation of the plans? 

Mr. SZABO. We will give you a full status report for the record. 

But let me say this, we continue to execute that. We think it is 

23 

very important. Some of the States have had their plans submitted 

and approved. Others have submitted and were still working with 

them on approval. But if you take a look at the safety risk that is 

out there, while we have seen continuous improvement in the rail 

industry over the past decade, a better than 40-percent reduction 

in accidents and injuries for the industry as a whole, grade crossing safety and pedestrian safety continues to be a vexing challenge. 

There have been improvements, but we have got a lot more work 

to do. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And I understand. But certainly we would like 

to see what States are supporting. And I would like for this committee to get a copy of those replies from the States and what 

States are moving up the line to get it implemented. 

Mr. SZABO. We will get you a full and complete status report on 

that for the record. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, for the record, a copy of the action plan of the 2008 requirements, the report for the States that 

have the highest accident rates to this committee and what is happening with the action plan. And he has that. 

Mr. DENHAM. We would ask that that be submitted for the 

record. 

Mr. SZABO. Yes, Mr. Chair. 

[The information follows:] 

Nine of ten States have completed action plans for grade 

crossing safety. Alabama is in the process of completing 

their plan, in conjunction with our staff. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

And then there is an issue of the safety. As you know, we have 

had the Alameda Corridor-East through my former district that 

has—well, 54 grade crossings and only about 20 have been separated or half of them are separated. One of my cities requested the 

quiet zone at a great expense. Other communities are looking at 

that and are wanting it implemented, but they cannot bear the 

cost. Do we have any idea of how we are going to be able to help 

those communities be able to protect the residents? And partly, 

some of them are concerned with the rail horns going right 

through. As you know, California is separated by streets, the cities, 

so that some of these rail crossings go right through either commercial, industrial, city halls, et cetera. 

And then some of the communities who have some of those safety 

concerns are worried about their children if the quiet zone is established, and they don’t have a warning for crossing pedestrians. 

Mr. SZABO. Yes, Congresswoman. Let me start by saying I understand this firsthand. As the former mayor of a community that had 

five railroads slicing through it, including two major freight rail 

yards—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Downtown. 

Mr. SZABO [continuing]. Through the entire community. So if you 

take a look at what we have proposed in our budget submission, 

we explicitly set aside a pot of money for what we call community 

mitigation. 

24 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. And that includes some of the raising 

of the medians and it includes quad gates and all of that. 

Mr. SZABO. Absolutely. Absolutely. So it would help communities 

construct their quiet zones. More importantly, it would really help 

with the sealing of corridors. The safest grade crossing is one that 

doesn’t exist at all. So how do we work with communities to better 

design the closing of crossings with the strategic placement of overpasses and underpasses that are going to enhance rail safety, vehicle safety, and pedestrian safety. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How should we address this issue in the next 

railroad safety bill then? 

Mr. SZABO. I am sorry? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How should we address this in our next railroad safety bill? 

Mr. SZABO. Approve our budget proposal. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Which includes the funding? 

Mr. SZABO. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is there any chance to be able consider helping communities that cannot afford quad gates or—— 

Mr. SZABO. This would be a pot of money that they would be eligible to apply for under competitive grants. So it is all about the 

public benefits that would be achieved and the safety that would 

be advanced. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Then the other question, California has 

three of the top five busiest State-supported service roads in the 

country, the Surfliner, the Capitol Corridor, and the San Joaquin 

Corridor. And section 209 requires the State to pay for the losses. 

Although California and other States don’t like the provision, they 

have accepted it. But a letter from Amtrak recently—and as far 

back as April—indicated that they would have to pay more, $40 

million to be exact. 

Do you see this new guidance as a problem to discontinue Statesupported passenger service routes? And what is the assessment, 

and concerns, and a resolution? 

Mr. SZABO. We need to make sure that the States and Amtrak 

end up in a good place, that there is full transparency of the numbers, a clear understanding of the services that the States are purchasing. And that is why we have now taken leadership to help 

mediate those discussions between the States and Amtrak. In fact, 

we were with David Kutrosky, who runs one of your operations up 

in California, this week. The feedback David gave to me was actually very positive on the progress he believes that is being made. 

But there are issues that we have to help the parties work through. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Dr. Bucshon. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I am going to comment on the overall Federal budget. 

Again, we are at a hearing talking about discretionary spending 

being pinched. And the elephant in the room is that this Congress, 

this Government is not addressing the entire pie of Federal spending. We all know it. And as our mandatory spending continues to 

drive our national debt, we are going to continue to see discreVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:10 Mar 18, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\RR\6-27-1~1\81678.TXT JEAN
25 

tionary spending programs tightened to the point where we have 

issues like we are talking about today. I wanted to make that clear. 

Mr. Hamberger, so I was interested in your comments about your 

tower construction. On one hand, the Government, the Congress 

has mandated PTC, but then you made a comment about how, on 

the other hand, an agency of Government has stopped tower construction. That is going to significantly slow the process, is it not? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. We have determined and have advised the FCC 

that if we can get this worked out here in 2013, we think it will 

not slow us down any further. But some of these approvals and environmental assessments in the past have taken 2 or 3 years just 

for one tower. There are resource issues at the FCC. We are hitting 

them with 22,000 applications. So we are looking and working with 

them, again with the support of DOT and FRA, to try to come up 

with some way to handle them in a more batched group, if you will. 

And what we are trying to get across is that for those that are on 

our rights of way—and that is about 95 percent; these are just 

poles going up on our rights of way—maybe there should be some 

sort of a categorical exclusion for those. We have not yet gotten 

buy-in on that but we are working on it. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Do you have any idea why the FCC—is this something new? I mean, they all of a sudden came out and said, we 

need this review and—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. No. They have regulations in place which we, 

over the years, have been abiding by in a more informal fashion. 

That is to say, the railroad would go out, hire a consultant, who 

would come back and say, there are some issues here that you need 

to deal with. The major challenge is the State Historical Preservation Office and Native American tribes. If there are issues that 

need to be brought to those entities, we go to them and work 

through possible mitigation measures. With this big program, the 

FCC seems to think that maybe there should be a more formal role 

for them which will, again, we think slow things down. They understand the issue. They are working with us. But I did want to 

get this on your radar in case we need to come back to you for assistance. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Well, I mean, this is only just my opinion. I mean, 

it may go along with the major speech that the President gave and 

the overall view I think of these issues as it relates to this current 

administration. 

The other question I have for you is—I mean, it is very important to have the interaction between Amtrak and the infrastructure 

of your members. The Amtrak on-time train situation and how if 

there are issues related to that, how that works and how that gets 

resolved in general. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. In the past, the individual freight host railroads and Amtrak negotiated contracts that included both penalties 

and incentives for on-time performance. And the major focus is 

freight train interference in achieving on-time performance. There 

are a lot of reasons an Amtrak train may not be on time. And Mr. 

Sires talked eloquently about scheduling a railroad when you have 

Hurricane Sandy coming your way. There are a lot of issues, including Amtrak’s own locomotives perhaps not performing up to 

standard. 

26 

There are a lot of reasons for on-time performance not to be at 

100 percent. Our focus is on delays caused by freight train interference. 

So we have negotiated—I say ‘‘we’’—the individual railroads— 

have negotiated contracts with Amtrak. We think that is the way 

it should be. Under the 2008 PRIIA Act, Congress dictated that 

there should be a role for Government to mandate an 85-percent 

on-time performance, that the FRA and Amtrak should promulgate 

such regulations, and that the STB should enforce them. We have 

challenged the constitutionality of the regulations put out by Amtrak and FRA. That litigation was heard earlier this year and we 

expect a decision on that case very soon. Should we not win that 

litigation, we will probably be back here asking you to change that 

legislation to, again, put it back in the category of bilateral discussions between Amtrak and the freight railroads. We think that is 

a much better way to go. One of the big issues we have is, what 

is the database for determining the cause of the Amtrak delay? 

Right now, it depends upon conductor delay reports. The conductor 

is back with the passengers punching tickets. It is hard for he or 

she to know exactly the cause for a delay. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Hamberger. 

Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Tolman, you have referenced several safety 

features and procedures in your testimony that were once under 

fire because of costs and political considerations. Now that we are 

living under sequestration, are there any policies or safety measures that you feel are particularly at risk of this particular of indiscriminate cost-cutting? 

Mr. TOLMAN. Off the top of my head, nothing in particular. But 

I would like to comment—everybody has been speaking about PTC. 

I have a lot of heartburn with PTC being pushed back 3 more years 

after a 7-year process from 2008 to present not to implement PTC. 

And now they want to go into a 10-year—you know, an additional 

3 years when we all know that the National Transportation Safety 

Board recommended PTC to be implemented as early as the late 

1970s. I mean, come on, we knew this was coming. We need to respond in a more practical manner to address the safety issues. It 

is very troubling for our members to, once again, not to see this 

being implemented. 

And the big, big question that I have: Amtrak has been sorely 

underfunded for so many years, yet they have had to form a PTC 

in the Northeast Corridor since 1996. It behooves us to figure this 

one out. 

And the other one is, why can one Class I railroad implement 

PTC by the 2015 deadline and the rest of the freight railroads 

can’t? And where are they in the process? It troubles me, Congressman. Thank you for the question. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

Mr. Szabo, we all know that the American rail industry was once 

a world leader in innovation and efficiency. Clearly, our claim on 

that title has been lost as a result of decades of failure to invest 

in essential rail infrastructure. In terms of planning for the reauthorization of PRIIA, what role should the Federal Government 

27 

play in bringing us back to the forefront of this industry? And what 

can this committee do to support those goals? 

Mr. SZABO. I think if you take a look at our budget proposal, you 

will see there is a very heavy element in there for research and development. And our goal is to once again make ourselves the world 

leader in exporting both intellectual property and talent as well as 

actual rail supply goods. As we take a look at the role we believe 

rail has to play in meeting our Nation’s transportation challenges, 

we know we need to grow this expertise just to achieve that here 

at home. But again, we want to be a world leader. 

And, Congressman, if I may, I do want to come back and talk 

about on-time performance just for a second. I think it is very important to note that since PRIIA in 2008 and the statute that required the establishment of those metrics and standards, that ontime performance has improved each year. And this past year was 

the best that it ever has been. 

As an old conductor, I know that the conductor has full knowledge of what is going on with his train. You have got the radio in 

your ear. You are hearing all transmissions from the dispatcher. 

You know what is going out there on that railroad. Certainly, there 

may be the opportunity to improve data. We think that is an important goal and, in fact, are working with the industry as well as 

Washington State on a pilot project to do that. Our goal is to make 

sure that this is not about placing blame but is about doing good 

root cause analysis to understand whatever is causing a particular 

delay and then coming up with fixes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And last question, Mr. Szabo. 

Can you comment on the status of the national rail plan? And 

can you specifically address how uncertainty in funding for rail 

may impede the development of the national rail plan? 

Mr. SZABO. We continue to provide a series of rail planning documents kind of working off a list that holistically taken together 

would generate a national rail plan. And I think it is important to 

note that it is not one document. It is never going to be one document. It will continue to be a series of documents that will continue 

to evolve as our Nation’s transportation needs also evolve. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Hanna. 

Mr. HANNA. Mr. Szabo, it is not hard to imagine that you can 

approve things in 90 days when something—when actually the 

clock almost never starts ticking because it is so difficult to get to 

that 90-day point. And it is easy to understand that grants are 

easier than loans that are backed by security. It is easy to give 

money away. And I am sure there are plenty of people who will 

take it. 

But as a practical matter, these are private companies that arguably supply a public good. And in this environment, it is going to 

be increasingly difficult to justify an out and out grant, even 

though it is nice to talk about. And the fact that these companies 

have to pay such enormous amounts of money relative to their cash 

flow and their worth to get to these loans, I mean, you know so 

much more about this than any of us because you have dealt with 

it directly. What are those things that cause the RRIF loan not to 

be used? Why would you expect someone to pay a lot of upfront 

28 

money for a loan that may never happen? And why not clean up 

that process rather than do anything else first? Because it sounds 

like, you know, we have got money to loan, but we have made a 

process that is a catch-22. So, with all due respect, what would you 

do if you were that bank? 

Mr. SZABO. Yeah. I think we need to really do all of the above. 

As I said before, there are certain short lines that provide important service but are never going to be able to qualify for a loan. So 

in those cases where there are clear public benefits, I do believe the 

grants are important. 

The second thing that we can do—and we are doing now—is to 

help applicants better understand up front what is going to be required of them so we can make sure we have that complete application much more quickly and get them through the process that 

much more quickly. 

But third, I think as we get into reauthorization, we do have to 

have a conversation on those things statutorily that we might be 

able to do to help in particular the small railroads, the short lines 

get through the process. I know Mr. Melaniphy from APTA had 

some suggestions talking about some of the ways that TIFIA 

works, and perhaps we need to explore some of the approaches in 

TIFIA and see if it may apply to RRIF, particularly if we are talking about small loans. 

The big boys can get through the process. The Class I’s can get 

through. We put Kansas City Southern through on a loan in record 

time. But they are the ones that less need the program. They have 

other financing options that work for them. The challenge really is 

meeting the needs of the small Class II’s and Class III’s. 

Mr. HANNA. So, just directly then, is it in any way realistic this 

whole RRIF program? And is there anything about it that is workable in the real world? And is it in any way practical to charge 

somebody hundreds of thousands of dollars potentially for a loan 

they may never see? 

Mr. SZABO. There are those that have used the program and used 

it well and gotten through the process in a timely manner. I am 

talking about Class II’s now. A couple of railroads up in Iowa that 

have used the program several times. Again, they understand what 

the process is, what it takes to get through it, and they have been 

able to use it successfully. They are happy borrowers, and they 

come back. So I think part of our goal is to make sure that we can 

get all the mom and pops to that place, so at least if they qualify 

for a loan, they can expeditiously get through the process. 

Mr. HANNA. What are the creditworthiness standards that you 

use? Because it sounds like most of these companies are not capable of doing this without this type of law. So isn’t that also a catch22? What have you seen in—— 

Mr. SZABO. It is a challenge. But certainly you expect me—you 

expect me to make sure that when I make a loan that there is the 

statutorily required finding of repayability. And the last thing I 

want to do is be the Administrator sitting here in front of this committee talking about defaults. So we have to balance every day on 

these loans trying to get capital to the railroads that need them 

while also protecting the taxpayers of America. 

29 

Mr. HANNA. So that basically we have established a system of 

loans that doesn’t work to a bureaucracy that has a responsibility 

that, by meeting it, it almost guarantees that the system fails. Is 

it fair to say then that a lot of these smaller railroads are just 

never going to be viable in the sense that they meet these loans, 

but yet we need to have a bigger conversation about the overall 

public good of what they do to decide whether or not we are—— 

Mr. SZABO. No. I think the record shows that there are several 

short line railroads that can and do, in fact, use this program, use 

it successfully, and are very, very pleased with the results. Now, 

certainly, there is another pool that have challenges. So we need 

to take a look at how we help them with all of those challenges. 

I believe that there are many more short lines that we can help 

successfully get through the program in a timely manner. But 

there are also those that we have identified that are never going 

to achieve that repayability requirement. And so if the service is 

deemed to have sufficient public benefits, grants are appropriate. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Ms. Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to just shift gears a little bit and address this question to Mr. Hamberger, since you do freight rail, but also, Mr. 

Lewis, your insight into this I am sure would be valuable. 

We are hearing a lot about inland ports and how they are opening up opportunities for economic development by bringing all 

modes of transportation together. I think it worked well in Dallas. 

Well, I represent Las Vegas. And that seems to me an area that 

has potential for developing into an inland port. We have the six 

busiest airports in the country and a lot of people in seats coming 

for tourism. But there is a lot of space to haul other things underneath as well. I–11 has been designated as an interstate highway. 

We have got to get it funded, but that is moving forward with cooperation from Arizona. So I wonder how you see this development 

of inland ports fitting in kind of with the future of railroads, what 

benefits you see might be coming for railroads as well as for communities, and what we might be able to do to kind of facilitate that 

process? 

Mr. LEWIS. Congresswoman, let me take a first stab at that. I 

think that one of the things that a discussion around a national 

freight policy is going to reveal, the opportunities for inland ports 

and others. Where does it make the most sense to use the infrastructure that we have and that we can enhance in a most costeffective way so that we are not overly relying on one system, one 

mode over another? But I think that provides a dialogue at a national level among all modes to be able to decide where it makes 

sense and where it doesn’t because we all know how scarce the resources are and are going to be. We need to put it where it makes 

most sense. 

Ms. TITUS. What can we be doing now to move that process forward? 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, I think first is to engage all of us with the national freight dialogue. And I think we just had a meeting of the 

Secretary’s committee this week just to kick it off. And I think that 

30 

is a great opportunity along with the work that the committee does 

as well. So I think that is a venue to begin that dialogue. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I would agree with that. I am not sure I understand in my own mind the intricacies of what an inland port designation means. But if I could expand it to just address, for example, intermodal yards. One of the things that we discussed yesterday in Mr. Duncan’s committee is the length of time it takes to get 

through the environmental regulatory process. And I think you are 

aware of the 8-year travails of one of our members in trying to get 

a near-dock intermodal yard in southern California. It has been 8 

years and $50 million in legal and environmental studies. And they 

are now in court for probably another couple years. That is a pretty 

egregious example. But that kind of thing happens around the 

country as you try to put in an intermodal yard which takes advantage of each mode’s strengths. So that kind of streamlining of environmental permitting that occurred in MAP–21, we would like to 

see continued in the next rail bill as well. 

Ms. TITUS. Well, we are anticipating an expansion on the Panama Canal, more goods coming in from Asia. The ports in California are getting filled up. They are going to need someplace to go 

kind of as a starting point, and Las Vegas would be well suited for 

that. 

Mr. Szabo, would you—— 

Mr. SZABO. If you go back and take a look at our budget submission, part of what we are talking about there is community mitigation. And it is helping the railroads and the communities have the 

tools that they need. You know, as freight rail’s role grows, as we 

try to site these intermodal centers that there are dollars that can 

be provided to mitigate the negative impacts, whether it is noise, 

whether it is traffic flow, allow for the construction of overpasses, 

underpasses and you know those things that would just allow the 

intermodal centers to live in harmony with the community. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And a couple of questions. Starting out with Mr. Szabo, as we rewrite PRIIA, we had some provisions in there for developing highspeed rail that need to be updated. I had an opportunity to work 

in authoring that. One of the things that I am interested in is 

opening competition for passenger rail. Do you favor that? 

Mr. SZABO. I think the key is, for the public or for the private 

sector to take a look at investing, there needs to be certainty. Obviously the private sector is motivated by profit motivation and that 

is fair. It makes our—— 

Mr. MICA. You don’t have a problem with opening—— 

Mr. SZABO. We believe that there are absolutely opportunities for 

privatized operations. 

Mr. MICA [continuing]. Long distance, high speed? 

Mr. SZABO. Not necessarily for long distance, sir. No. I think that 

is a whole different animal. 

Mr. MICA. It is not an animal. It is a dog, and it is costing us 

lots of money. 

You are aware of the increasing losses. Every one of the three 

major long-distance service routes increased their loss from the last 

31 

recorded year to the previous recorded year, you are aware of all 

of those increased losses in long-distance service? 

Mr. SZABO. I am aware of the fact that Amtrak’s financials are 

the strongest that they have ever been last year. 

Mr. MICA. It has nothing to do with long-distance service. And 

we are still dumping a billion and a half dollars into it. And 

through the Disney Fantasyland map, they will tell you that they 

are making money maybe on the Northeast Corridor. The best returns are on the State partnerships. Is that not correct? 

Mr. SZABO. Those returns are on the Northeast Corridor. The 

best returns are on the Northeast Corridor followed by State corridor service. 

Mr. MICA. The Northeast Corridor is a joke in the world of international high-speed rail service. You are aware of the speed from 

here to New York City, the average speed of Acela? 

Mr. SZABO. I am aware of how our project is continuing to improve that speed and reliability. 

Mr. MICA. Eighty-three miles an hour is a dog. And then from 

New York City to Boston, you are aware of the speed, is it not 68 

miles an hour on average? 

Mr. SZABO. I am aware of how our projects continue to improve 

the speed and reliability of service. 

Mr. MICA. Even I think by our statute, I think we define around 

110 miles an hour. The world is about 120. But most high-speed 

trains an are going 140 to 150 miles an hour, average speed; is that 

correct? 

Mr. SZABO. Yeah, 186 miles per hour is pretty much the international standard. But our good work through the NEC—— 

Mr. MICA. Most of the trains travelling in Europe and the trains 

that are built today in Asia are going 140 miles an hour on average 

on the major routes, 120 to 140. I will even give you that. It is 68 

miles an hour. We don’t even begin to realize the potential of it. 

So, please, don’t tell me that the Northeast Corridor is a success. 

And again, most of the capital money we are dumping into it. The 

only track that we own, really the only substantial track that we 

own is the Northeast Corridor. And I just was made aware of your 

return on nonrail revenue is about $100 million a year, is that 

right, for the Northeast Corridor? The right of way using the return—— 

Mr. SZABO. Are you talking about Amtrak’s return? 

Mr. MICA. Yes. 

Mr. SZABO. We will provide you an answer for the record. 

Mr. MICA. I will tell you, it is about $100 million. I was told by 

the private sector that they could get a 10 to 12 times better return 

if you could give that up. So, in our national policy, we should be 

looking at turning some of that over to the private sector. 

How many RRIF loans have been given so far—well, we will say 

last year? 

Mr. SZABO. We will provide it for the record, Congressman. 

Mr. MICA. Half a dozen? A dozen? 

Mr. SZABO. We will provide it for the record. 

Mr. MICA. How many RRIF—the joke was, there have been more 

FRA Administrators at one point than there were RRIF loans. 

32 

Mr. SZABO. No. That is far from the truth. I am number 12. And 

there have certainly been a lot more RRIF loans than that. I would 

say the number is close to 40. 

[The information follows:] 

Thirty-three RRIF loans have been given in the history of 

the program. Two were given in 2012. 

Nine RRIF applications are currently in process. 

Amtrak has told FRA that its nonrail revenue in FY 2013 

was $584.4 million. 

Mr. MICA. RRIF, which we tried to do in the transportation bill 

with the rail section. And that needs to be done. Obviously—Mr. 

Hamberger, your folks aren’t interested so much, and they just 

want the Government basically out of their business, has been my 

take in talking to your executives. The big lines don’t necessarily 

use RRIF. And the small lines I heard you give some grants to because they don’t qualify. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I believe KCS is the only Class I that I am 

aware of that has a RRIF loan. 

Mr. MICA. Well, we need to look at that in the future. 

Are we going to go a second round? I am ready. 

Mr. DENHAM. Absolutely. Thank you. 

Mr. Szabo, going back to the PTC discussion, Ms. Brown and I 

have been going back and forth on our discussions on what we feel 

is a suitable extension or philosophy thereof. But you bring up a 

new point on a case-by-case basis. Certainly, Ms. Brown and I, 

after traveling the United States, we have been putting together a 

pretty good idea of some of the challenges with PTC. I think we 

would like the authority to do it on a case-by-case basis. Is that 

something FRA would support, giving this panel the authority to 

do that on a case-by-case basis? 

Mr. SZABO. This panel? You know, Congressman, I would question the wisdom of allowing it to become a political decision. I believe that it is best vested with those safety experts that clearly 

can understand—— 

Mr. DENHAM. So the Administration wouldn’t look at issues like 

this from a political standpoint? 

Mr. SZABO. Oh, no. Absolutely not. This is about understanding 

the due diligence, the legitimacy of the effort that has been made 

to date while also taking a look at those complexities, those very 

real challenges that are out there working together with the carrier 

to come up with an implementation plan. It is a document that is 

already out there. So it is just a matter of amending the implementation plans that exist today. 

Mr. DENHAM. On a case-by-case basis, FRA would like to have 

that authority to be able to pick winners and losers out there within freight railroads or even with different metro or commuter rails. 

Mr. SZABO. It certainly isn’t about winners or losers. It is about 

ensuring—no. It is about ensuring public safety. 

Mr. DENHAM. Well, there are some that are closer to completion 

than others. 

Mr. SZABO. That is correct. 

33 

Mr. DENHAM. But those that are closer to completion, if they implement in 2015 or 2016 and others are allowed to do it in 2018 

or 2019, there is certainly a competitive advantage or disadvantage 

depending on what side of the issue you are on. So rather than 

going to a blanket extension in a bipartisan way, if we gave that 

authority to FRA to pick on a case-by-case of basis, you would then 

be picking winners and losers, would you not? 

Mr. SZABO. No. We would be assessing very real facts. And those 

facts would be—— 

Mr. DENHAM. It is a real fact though that if one freight rail—we 

will use freight as an example—if one freight rail is able to take 

the burden of extra cost early and every other freight rail is then 

able to do it with a 3-year, 4-year, 5-year extension, whatever FRA 

decides is fair, I guess, you would be picking winners and losers. 

Mr. SZABO. We would be assessing the facts. And nobody gets a 

free ride out of this. In fact, what we are talking about is ensuring 

full accountability. And to make sure that good-faith effort is being 

met and then assessing the legitimacy of the challenges that are 

out there, and many of them are real. And they are actually somewhat different from property to property. So this really allows us 

to make sure it is implemented as timely as possible to start 

achieving those safety benefits for the public as soon as is practical. 

Mr. DENHAM. So if you had a freight rail that was ready to implement quicker than the rest of the industry, would they reap 

some type of benefit under your case-by-case scenario? 

Mr. SZABO. Well, they certainly get the safety benefits much 

more quickly, but then the questions that we would have to comfortably have answered through the amendment process would be 

the legitimacy of the effort of the other carriers to date and making 

sure that it is well documented, it is clearly understood, and that 

there is no free ride for anybody. The challenge, Congressman—listen, ultimately, we execute whatever you legislate. But the challenge to a blanket extension is, are we going to be sitting here 3 

years from now facing the same challenge that the people feel they 

got a little bit you know of a breather here and so the intensity of 

the effort lets up? That is the risk. And so there is a lot to balance 

here. 

Mr. DENHAM. If FRA was put in charge of PTC, what would happen on the other side of the spectrum for some of the commuter 

rails that would not be prepared to enter into something like this? 

We were just in Chicago, for example. Now Chicago is having its 

own challenges financially with furloughs. And this may not be an 

area that they are prepared—I am not trying to speak for them— 

but may not be prepared on their highest priority level to fund this 

huge expense. Do you fund it for them? Do you bail them out? Do 

you shut them down? What would be your future outlook on a caseby-case basis? 

Mr. SZABO. Two things. Shame on anybody if it hasn’t been their 

highest priority since the deadline that the Congress has established has been very, very clear, since PRIIA was established in 

2008. So it has been very, very clear to everybody that the deadline 

is December 31, 2018. 

34 

Mr. DENHAM. So if somebody doesn’t have the money, if they 

don’t have it as a priority, if they are looking at their city or county 

or a State in a bankruptcy-type issue, do you shut them down? 

Mr. SZABO. First off, if you take a look at our budget submission, 

we are willing to help fund the cost of PTC implementation for the 

commuter railroads as well as Amtrak. We believe that there are 

sufficient public safety benefits to warrant public funding. 

Mr. DENHAM. Not freight rail. Not the private. 

Mr. SZABO. Not private sector. That is correct. That is correct. 

Obviously, if there is a case where somebody is failing to meet the 

deadline, we have to do due diligence to determine the facts. And 

based on those facts, it allows us to determine whether we use discretionary enforcement or whether we have to take an enforcement 

action. But the facts lead us there. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. This is an important topic I am going 

to come back to. I know you have got quite a bit to add to this, 

Mr. Hamberger. 

But let me recognize Mr. Mica first for a second round. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

OK. Let’s go back. Mr. Hamberger, how fast does the average 

freight train travel in the United States? I heard it was only 20- 

some miles or something. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. That is what we have on the Web site. The way 

that it is calculated, it includes movements through terminals as 

well. But over the line, the maximum speed on a Class V track is 

79 miles an hour. 

Mr. MICA. Yeah. But the average speed of most freight is pretty 

slow because it goes through urban corridors. Most of those corridors were developed some time ago. One of the smartest things 

Florida ever did was some rail relocation. I think the PRIIA bill 

should have—well, first of all to get more vehicles and also 

trucks—trucks do the most damage to our highways—off the road 

and onto rail, that makes sense for us as an investment, it makes 

sense for moving heavy commodities, whatever it is or items. 

But the rail relocation in Florida is the kind of model that we 

need to do. Get the freight rail out of the urban corridor. So, Mr. 

Chairman Denham and others, I think a major rail relocation effort 

is going to be something I would like to see us push. And that can 

be done. It was done so wisely. We are using now that urban corridor. It is going to be converted to passenger, primarily. And the 

speed I am told will double or triple. It will take more trucks off 

of Interstate 95, Interstate 75 and Interstate 4 in the next 50 years 

and probably save us money and, again, reshuffle the deck as far 

as transportation. Has anyone talked about that today? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. No, sir. You are the first. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Well, I am talking about it. I want to see your 

proposals from your association on how we do that and how that 

is done. We need to get you out of those urban corridors where it 

makes sense and re-use those. So that is one thing. Mr. Szabo is 

living in another era. Again, staff—where is the staff? I want them 

to distribute. Come on. Don’t take your time. I have a limited 

amount of time. 

These are the top three money-losing routes or long-distance 

routes. They all lost more money year to year. It is getting worse 

35 

than rather than better. And you told me you wouldn’t want to put 

that up for private competition; is that right? 

Mr. SZABO. First off, Congressman, if I may, take a look at our 

budget proposal. We are in fact proposing dollars for rail line relocation. We agree with you that it is an important priority. 

Under our proposal and by breaking it down into business lines, 

we believe that through the preparation of 5-year plans and our aggressive monitoring of these 5-year plans that—— 

Mr. MICA. Long-distance service, when you put it up—— 

Mr. SZABO [continuing]. We continue to achieve efficiencies for 

long-distance service. 

Mr. MICA. It is getting worse. And I just got news of the chef conclaves that they are holding, preparing gourmet meals. 

Mr. SZABO. The volunteers? You are talking about the volunteers? 

Mr. MICA. They are volunteers. But it still adds costs, and I am 

trying to get that. We will investigate that on my other subcommittee. Very soon, you will see that. But I am telling you that 

the losses are getting worse rather than better. Even in addition 

to the top three long distance, Auto Train is $122 a passenger loss, 

and that has increased. That is in my district. That has got to stop. 

That actually was run as a private sector money-making proposition. I talked to the guy that set it up. They had two crashes. And 

liability killed them, and that is when you took it over. But it 

needs to go back to the private sector. I would like to see a recommendation from you as to how we can help with liability for passenger service so that—— 

And he shook his head, the record will reflect, in a positive manner. 

So here for the record, too, Mr. Chairman, I submit all these 

money losers, including the one to my Auto Train to my route. 

[The information follows:] 

36 


Insert offset folio 7 here 81678.007

long Distance Transportation Costs Per Passenger 

Route Names California Zephyr Southwest Chief Su nset Lim ited East 

Chicago to San Chicago to Los New Orleans to Los 

Route Francisco (Emeryville) Angeles Angeles 

Loss Per Passenger $165.80 $177.50 $375.10 (20ll) 

Loss Per Passenger $182.40 $183.40 $404.00 (2012) 

Amtrak Price $250.00 $324.00 $201.00 (Reserved Coach Seat) 

Travel Time (Train) 52 hr, 10 min 43 hr, 15 min 46 hr, 35 mins 

Flight Route Virgin America ORD- United ORO-LAX Delta MSY-LAX 

SFO Nonstop Nonstop Nonstop 

Flight Cost $196.90 $191.90 $239.90 

Travel Time (Air) 4h40m 4h 18m 4h9m 

Greyhound Bus Price $228.00 $229.00 $214.00 (Standard Fare) 

Travel Time (Bus) 50 hrs, OM 46 hrs, 35M 45 hrs, 5M 

Departure Date July 26, 2013 July 26, 2013 July 27, 2013 

Auto Train losses 

Route 

Loss per Passenger Loss per Passenger 

(2011) (20l2) 

Auto Train Lorton, VA to $108.90 $122.60 Sanford, FL 
37 

Mr. MICA. I guess tax credits would be one of the things that 

could help you the most for investment, Mr. Hamberger and your 

folks. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. At one point, as you know, Chairman Mica, we 

were pushing that very aggressively. More recently, it appears both 

in the administration and in Congress that there is a desire to 

broaden the base and lower the rate. So we have signed on to the 

concept of broadening the base and lowering the rate. We are one 

of the highest effective taxpaying industries in the country. 

Mr. MICA. But that would help you—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. We believe that lower rates would be very helpful. 

Mr. MICA [continuing]. Not need to rely on Government programs. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Last, Mr. Tolman, you represent the hard workers— 

and there are a great many people who are employed in Amtrak 

and freight rail. It is my understanding that people at Amtrak, 

there are many positions for which they are paid less, their benefits are less than the private sector. Do you represent both? And 

is that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 

Mr. TOLMAN. There is a variety of different wages throughout the 

industry. 

Mr. MICA. But the brothers and sisters in passenger rail under 

Amtrak, I am told, in many instances are paid less for comparable 

positions in freight rail. 

Mr. TOLMAN. In some freight railroads, yes, that is absolutely 

true. In some areas, that is untrue. 

Mr. MICA. That is unfair to them. And we privatized freight rail 

way back in 1970 when we started to do something with Amtrak. 

And we have left it to a monopoly that is a Soviet-style train operation. And it is a national joke and disgrace. It costs the taxpayers 

a fortune, which has to stop. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Hamberger, back on PTC. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. DENHAM. Well, first of all, let me ask you, case-by-case basis, 

do you think the House and Senate ought to just give authority to 

the FRA on a case-by-case basis, seeing as how this Obama administration is not very political in dealing with various items like 

this? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I think the 

fewer safety mandates Congress gets involved in, the better. Our 

view with respect to the system—a 3-year extension versus a caseby-case basis—you put your finger right on it. It would not be a 

railroad-by-railroad basis. It almost would have to be evaluated on 

a corridor-by-corridor, city-by-city basis. I don’t understand how it 

could be done if, for example, a freight railroad is equipped, but a 

Metra train isn’t; or one freight railroad is equipped and a short 

line railroad working in the Chicago zone is not. Because of the 

interoperability issues, it has to be a blanket extension so that everybody can get there. 

38 

Let me make two related points. Number one, I do not for a moment impugn the professionalism of the FRA. They are dedicated, 

highly trained professionals interested in safety. At the same time, 

I think this would be an incredible resource demand on them. Each 

of our railroads will have some PTC up and running. It would almost have to be corridor by corridor, and I think it would just be 

impossible to do from a practical standpoint. 

Secondly, I agree with Mr. Tolman’s statement that there needs 

to be transparency, and that is why we presented last Wednesday 

to the Senate Commerce Committee the update of our progress report. I did not attach it to this testimony, because we were more 

focused on PRIIA. But let me submit that for the record. 

[The progress report, entitled ‘‘PTC Implementation: The Railroad Industry Cannot Install PTC on the Entire Nationwide Network by the 2015 Deadline—May 2013 Update,’’ also appends the 

Association of American Railroads response to a question for the 

record and can be found on page 136.] 

Mr. HAMBERGER. It details railroad by railroad what each has 

done in terms of progress in a variety of areas and what still needs 

to be done. 

And the last point I would like to make, and I tried to head this 

off in my opening statement, Mr. Chairman, but I am sick and 

tired of people saying: ‘‘we need to keep the pedal to the metal,’’ 

or ‘‘we have to make sure that the railroads don’t walk away from 

this,’’ or ‘‘they are going to be back here in 3 years asking for another extension.’’ 

We are committed to this. We are not asking for the deadline to 

be repealed. We are going to get it done. The sooner it gets done, 

the sooner we can begin to reap the safety benefits, and begin to 

see whether or not there are business benefits. So we don’t need 

anybody putting their boot on our throat. We are committed to getting it done. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Hamberger, it is my understanding that some 

of the freight rails are further ahead than others—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM [continuing]. As well as some of the commuter 

lines, some of them are further ahead than others. From a freight 

perspective, would the freight rails be supportive or opposed to 

doing a—assuming we did some type of extension, whether that is 

a 1-year, 2-year, 3-year or more extension, if this body, working 

with the Senate, agreed to some type of extension, would freight 

rails be able to give an updated timeline—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM [continuing]. On where we were? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, sir. And that is why we submitted this. 

And, again, I apologize for not putting it on as an attachment to 

this, but I will be glad to submit it. It is very detailed, getting 

down to the number of locomotives, for example. 

Mr. DENHAM. Would that—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Wayside interface units, railroad by railroad. It 

does not include the commuter trains represented by APTA. 

APTA, I think you did yours last year. I don’t know if you have 

updated it for 2013. 

39 

Mr. DENHAM. And would that not also ensure that if we had a 

timeline and you could see transparency—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM [continuing]. On a—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I would be glad to be back here every 6 months, 

every quarter, every year, whatever—however many times you 

want me here—— 

Mr. DENHAM. So that would ensure that—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER [continuing]. To talk about it, that is right. 

Mr. DENHAM [continuing]. You wouldn’t need another extension 

beyond—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. That is right. 

Mr. DENHAM [continuing]. Every 2 or 3 years, whatever the extension would be—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM [continuing]. Necessary. 

Mr. Melaniphy, in your testimony, you mentioned that there is 

a critical state-of-good-repair backlog of over $80 billion. The PTC 

mandate is forcing a choice between critical safety, maintenance 

projects and PTC. 

Can you provide some examples of the choices your members are 

going to have to make or are making today dealing with safety upgrades versus PTC? 

Mr. MELANIPHY. Mr. Chairman, as you are aware—— 

Mr. DENHAM. As well, what type of extension do you think that 

we ought to see in PTC? 

Mr. MELANIPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you are aware, 

our members remain committed to safety on all levels. And while 

PTC is an important component of the safety infrastructure, it is 

not the only component of the safety infrastructure. We must invest in our rail bed, in our signaling, all the systems that go along 

with making the rail system safe. 

As you may have seen in a Wall Street Journal article, SEPTA 

in Philadelphia had to make a choice in its safety systems and is 

going to have to close one of their bridges because they can’t afford 

to replace the bridge and balancing the costs of all the safety systems they have to implement. Those are some of the choices they 

have to make. 

We are seeing that across the Nation. And the unknown costs for 

things like spectrum availability and radio system availability and 

testing, it is going to take some times and some funds to do that. 

So there are tough choices they have to make each and every day, 

and that is why we have asked for 80 percent support on the cost 

of the PTC implementation and free access to the spectrum needed 

for those public sector entities for the safety component. 

And APTA’s position with respect to extension is that we would 

support a full 3-year extension for the commuter railroads, not in 

any way letting off on moving forward with the railroads that are 

in a position to move forward more quickly, to implement more 

quickly. We support that. We continue to support that and we support that position all the way along. We have railroads that are 

further along than others. We want to see all of them implemented 

as quickly as they can, safety systems that enhance the safety and 

meet the spirit and intent of the law. 

40 

Mr. DENHAM. Let me ask each of you, starting with Mr. Szabo: 

We all want to get PTC done. We want to have the safest rail in 

the world. It is important, but it is also important to get it done 

right and in the process, not only not pick winners and losers, but 

making sure that regionally—I mean, our job here is making sure 

we have got a rail system that is the top in the world. We need 

to make sure we can do that regionally as well, and so one of the 

things that I would ask each of you is on a timeline, not just specifically to freight or to APTA, but also from a regional perspective, 

because this is going to be a regional issue. There are certain rails 

that are ready and certain that aren’t. The region doesn’t get it 

done. So, Mr. Szabo, starting with you first, how would we put together a timeline based on a regional ability, which would conform 

not only to commuter rails but the freight rails? 

Mr. SZABO. That is part of the reason why we have proposed revisiting each individual implementation plan, to be able to take 

into account those differences that do, in fact, exist from region to 

region. I think Ed hit it on the mark that, you know, there is going 

to be different challenges in each region based on spectrum availability. And that is more of a regional issue, at least for the commuters. 

Mr. DENHAM. But FRA is well aware of the spectrum issues and 

the variety of different issues—— 

Mr. SZABO. Right. 

Mr. DENHAM [continuing]. That we have by region. 

Mr. SZABO. Right. 

Mr. DENHAM. Would you put together a timeline? 

Mr. SZABO. On a region-by-region basis? 

Mr. DENHAM. Or even the capabilities of each region so that—— 

Mr. SZABO. I mean, certainly, if I dedicate staff resources to it, 

you know, we can better determine the challenges in each given region. Now, what I would question, though, is whether that is, in 

fact, the best use of my limited resources for my PTC team, whether we should, in fact, continue to dedicate those resources towards 

implementation versus research and writing a report. 

Can we? Yes. I am not sure it is the best approach, but if you 

want that information, certainly we will attempt to make it available. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Melaniphy? 

Mr. MELANIPHY. Were a report to be put in place to have regional discussions, our members would be more than happy to participate in that process and provide the information available. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Hamberger? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. In fact, I have got to give FRA kudos here. We 

are working with them to try to change the implementation plan 

requirements from a railroad-by-railroad implementation plan. So 

much of the railroad traffic is interlined and involves commuter 

traffic as well. Statute and regulations now require a railroad-byrailroad implementation plan. But we are working with the FRA 

to try to put together the kind of information that I think you are 

seeking—what is the rollout going to be in different areas around 

the country? That is, will the interchange partners be ready together? 

41 

For example, if one railroad—say Norfolk Southern—is going to 

be lit up in Cincinnati, and CSX, their interchange partner, is not, 

well, it doesn’t do much good, does it? There needs to be a lot more 

coordination. As this gets rolled out and working with FRA staff, 

we are trying to figure out how that will proceed, but that is an 

ongoing discussion regarding the implementation plan. Right, Joe? 

So we will have some taste of that outlook, if you will. I don’t 

know how detailed it will be, but I think we can get some information back to you in the not-too-distant future. 

[The information follows:] 

FRA required that each railroad submit a PTC implementation plan by April 16, 2010. The implementation plans 

contained the railroads’ initial views on their sequence for 

rolling out PTC. 

Since that time, it has become evident that the railroads 

need to revisit their plans for making PTC operational. A 

key consideration is that from the perspective of both safety and operational efficiency, it makes sense to roll PTC 

out first in less complex areas so that system ‘‘bugs’’ can 

be addressed in areas where any problems that develop 

will pose a comparatively lesser risk of adverse safety and 

operational consequences. Less complex areas are those 

where there are comparatively smaller amounts of railroad 

traffic and fewer railroads operating. 

The railroads will work with FRA on revised implementation plans that provide for PTC to be implemented in areas 

of less complexity first. Furthermore, the railroads will coordinate their approach to implementation to ensure that 

the individual implementation plans assign the same priority to each region. 

Mr. DENHAM. We would ask you for that information. In fact, 

this committee will ask a formal request after this hearing of each 

of you to be able to establish the greatest need as well as timeline 

throughout the Nation regionally. 

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, I would just add from the States’ perspective, we would be willing to participate in any way we can to 

help facilitate that discussion on a State-by-State or regional basis 

as well. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Tolman. 

Mr. TOLMAN. And, Mr. Chairman, we, too, believe that your comments about a timeline is absolutely necessary in order to—if this 

extension is granted, that is absolutely imperative. If it wasn’t for 

Congress, I don’t think we would be sitting here even discussing 

PTC. And I applaud Congress in 2008 for pushing this forward. 

And it absolutely needs a timeline, and I would say 60 to 90 days, 

personally. 

Mr. DENHAM. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. TOLMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Lewis, could you please give us some examples from your 

members of issues you all have with FRA environmental reviews? 

And Mr. Melaniphy, I would ask you to follow up after. 

42 

Mr. LEWIS. I think from the States’ perspective, we, again, work 

very closely with FRA and the rest USDOT modes. 

I think that one of the areas that a sister mode has implemented 

and works very well and we would like to see spread across the 

other modes is Federal Highway Every Day Counts initiative. It is 

a way of getting all agencies together to work on expediting project 

delivery. And I think that there are some lessons to be learned 

from that, from other modes, but I think part of it is a resource 

issue, I think, within the agency, but I think that, clearly, Mr. 

Szabo is there at the table when he needs to be. And the willingness is there. I think there is a resource issue that is maybe slowing down the process. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Melaniphy. 

Mr. MELANIPHY. Mr. Chairman, I want to tag on some of the 

things that Secretary Lewis touched on, and that has to do with 

if there was a commonality of DOT rules across all of DOT, it 

would make limitations more easy to adopt. 

As we look at multimodal facilities, intermodal facilities with 

multiple modes, multiple funding sources, one of the challenges 

with our different regulations from different sub-areas within DOT, 

if there was a commonality among the rulemaking, it would make 

it easier for us to create a common set of CE’s and establish a joint 

FTA–FHWA set of rules for NEPA approvals would certainly simplify and expedite product delivery for all service transportation 

projects and minimize duplicative and mode-specific requirements. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I just have one final question. 

Do you have anything to add, Mr. Szabo? 

Mr. SZABO. No. Just that to summarize, say we are all for it. And 

certainly we think that not only—there are some good things that 

have been done with the categorical exclusions that we have created over the past year, but some good things in MAP–21 that can 

serve a little bit as a pattern. But as we get into reauthorization, 

those things that would expedite project delivery, ensure strong 

planning on the forefront, we are all for. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Szabo, you said something earlier: 

We execute what you legislate. What about 208, section 208 from 

the last PRIIA bill? That was—— 

Mr. SZABO. Historical preservation? Yeah. Report is completed 

and posted on the Internet. 

Ms. DENHAM. FRA contract with a qualified independent entity 

to develop objective methodologies for Amtrak route decisions. 

Mr. SZABO. Yeah. 

Mr. DENHAM. FRA requested funding in 2010. We have had 

four—— 

Mr. SZABO. Right. 

Mr. DENHAM [continuing]. Budgets since then. 

Mr. SZABO. We requested the funding, and we have written Congress three times indicating that funding has not been made available. We have got Volpe prepared to move forward. We have been 

prepared to move forward since 2010. If you would supply the requested funding, we believe that we can generate a document that 

would provide good value to all of us to make sure we are making 

market-based decisions as we grow our rail network. 

Mr. DENHAM. So you do want to do the study? 

43 

Mr. SZABO. Absolutely. 

Mr. DENHAM. And why haven’t you requested funding over the 

last 4 years? 

Mr. SZABO. We have written Congress three times now indicating 

that funding has not been available, and it was a formal part of 

our 2010 budget request. We have since rewritten and reported to 

Congress the fact that the funds are not available. We think it is 

one more tool that can be helpful in doing good planning and ensuring we are making market-based decisions. 

Mr. DENHAM. So you couldn’t do it with existing resources? 

Mr. SZABO. That is correct. 

Mr. DENHAM. But yet you—— 

Mr. SZABO. We have asked the resources be provided. 

Mr. DENHAM [continuing]. Took it out of the 2011 budget. 

Mr. SZABO. I am sorry? 

Mr. DENHAM. But you took it out of the 2011 budget, the request 

for funding. 

Mr. SZABO. We made the request in 2010. You didn’t fund it. 

Like I say, we have written three times. We have written Congress 

three times indicating that the funding has not been made available. We have got Volpe engaged and ready to go. Provide the 

money, we will start on the report. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I will follow up with that, because I am 

not sure I am getting the response that I am looking for. 

Ms. Brown. 

Ms. BROWN. I can tell you that I am not getting the responses 

that I am looking for, either, from my colleagues. 

Mr. Szabo, I mean, and I want all you to answer this question, 

because we are having a serious debate in Congress about 

privatizing or contracting out the services of Amtrak, and some 

people are under the illusion that if we privatize it, they are going 

to run faster. They can’t run faster on the existing tracks. Contractor services. So can you respond to that? And I definitely want 

Mr. Hamberger to respond to it, because you all have the freight 

lines and the private-owned freight lines. What are your views 

about it? So I would like for everyone to respond to it, starting with 

you, Mr. Szabo. 

Mr. SZABO. Yeah. The key, whether you are talking about private 

or the public sector, the key to success is going to be a predictable 

and sustainable source of funding to make the capital investments 

that are going to be necessary to ensure that safe, reliable and efficient service. And without that certainty and that predictability, 

the private sector will never consider coming in. The private sector 

requires absolute certainty. If there is, you know, one—the private 

sector is absolutely risk-averse, so whether we are talking about 

improving service through the private sector or through our existing public sector, where it is done for the public good, there has to 

be a dedicated, sustainable source of funding. 

Ms. BROWN. And that is true with rail, but that is also true with 

aviation. It is also true with highways. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SZABO. Absolutely. 

Mr. MELANIPHY. Ms. Brown, certainly long-term funding is absolutely critical, no question about that. We also must look at competition, as soon as we substitute private sector for competition. If 

44 

we look at in the large basis and as we talk about how we compete 

these services, sometimes the private sector and sometimes the 

public sector is better positioned based on the risk availability, and 

under the enabling legislation, Amtrak enjoys some benefits with 

respect to identification of its State partners, who are not available 

in the private sector. So we ask that you look at all of the pieces 

that enable for a level playing field and how a risk is balanced for 

public and private. And there are times when the public sector has 

also shown that it is able to provide an equal level of service at a 

good cost if all the pieces are put in place. So that is what you look 

at on a competition basis as opposed to just saying just private sector. It is all about balance. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Hamberger. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Obviously, there is a role for the private sector. 

As you so well know in your own State, All Aboard Florida is a totally private passenger service that hopefully will be opening in the 

next year or two from Miami to Orlando. 

With respect to the Amtrak intercity long-distance trains, we 

have a 40-year partnership with them, and we support continuing 

that partnership. 

Ms. BROWN. Uh-huh. But when you look at All Aboard, it is a 

private—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. That is correct. 

Ms. BROWN. It is also working with public and with other stakeholders. Nothing is completely private. 

Yes, sir, Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. LEWIS. I think in response to your question, under PRIIA 

209 and the progress that has been made to date with the State 

support on short-distance routes, I think that provides an opportunity on specific areas for the States to privatize where it makes 

sense. And the States have to evaluate that on a case-by-case basis. 

Where is the market there? Is there a market available in the private sector? And then when is it most cost-effective for them to do 

so? But I think this is an opportunity to enhance that review. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Tolman. 

Mr. TOLMAN. Thank you. As we all know, there is no rail passenger system in the world that makes money. And I don’t think 

that is going to change, and I don’t see the private—the return on 

investment when you have to build a new tunnel through New 

York City to increase the speeds or whatever it may be. The Government has to stay in the business of the rail passenger system. 

There is no question in my mind that it has to stay in there. 

There are many, many—there are many studies that have been 

done in Europe of the failures of privatization of rail passenger systems that we all could learn from and should have learned from. 

And I just absolutely disagree with that. It is certainly not the way 

to go, in my eyes. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. I do want to say that the Senate has just confirmed 

the new Secretary of Transportation, so we have a new Secretary 

of Transportation. And I am looking forward to working with him, 

but clearly, if we are going to move forward, as far as this committee is concerned, that will mean working together on a very bipartisan basis, and it will not be top down. We need to talk with 

45 

you all, the stakeholders, and we need to work together to make 

sure we can move forward together. 

So I am looking forward to working with the chairman. I am excited about the hearings that we have had, because we have been 

getting very important feedback that is very important for Members that have not been on this committee like I have for 21 years 

and understand the nature of what we have had but this has broken down in the last couple of years because of some leadership 

problems that we have had on this committee. 

This committee has always been bipartisan, always, and we have 

always worked together. I don’t care who the chairman was or who 

the President of the United States was, we have always understood 

that for every billion dollars we invested, we generated 44,000 to 

47,000 permanent jobs, and I am hoping that we can continue to 

move forward. 

And I want to thank you all for your presentation. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Brown. 

And thank you to all of our witnesses this morning. As we continue to work in a bipartisan fashion to get this PRIIA reauthorization bill done, each of these different hearings have been very insightful and helpful. We will follow up with a number of different 

questions, and we certainly appreciate the discussion about PTC 

this morning. 

And as we have traveled around the Nation, we will continue to 

do that, it has been very obvious to us that the Northeast Corridor 

has its challenges with some of the safety upgrades and the 

amount of money that is spent on infrastructure there, as well as 

most recently in Chicago, we would like to see higher speed rail 

there, but we have got to fix the challenges with Chicago as well. 

And then in my home State of California, looking at high-speed 

rail, we certainly need private investors there to be able to get that 

project moving forward and hopefully eventually someday completed. 

So we will continue to travel, because as we have seen, whether 

it is PTC or improving infrastructure, each region is different, they 

have their own different challenges. They have their own different 

freight issues, as well as commuter issues, and it is our job to work 

in a bipartisan fashion to help to solve some of those issues as we 

move forward with the PRIIA reauthorization and PTC and a number of other issues. 

So we thank you for your responses this morning. We will follow 

up again with a number of other questions. 

At this time, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the 

record of today’s hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided the answers to those questions that will be 

submitted to them in writing, and unanimous consent that the 

record remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and 

information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in 

the record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I would like to thank our witnesses again for their testimony. 

And if there are no other Members that have anything to add or 

questions, the committee will stand adjourned. 

46 

[Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

47 


Insert offset folio 8 here 81678.008

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF 

THE HONORABLE JOSEPH C. SZABO, 

ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENT A TIVES 

June 27, 2013 

Chainnan Denham, Ranking Member Brown, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of Secretary LaHood to discuss the 

Administration's ideas for the next phase of rail policy and investment programs. The Federal 

Railroad Administration's (FRA) mission is to enable the safe, reliable, and efficient movement 

of people and goods for a strong America, now and in the future. In this testimony, I will provide 

an overview ofFRA's priorities for fulfilling that mission moving forward, summarize our recent 

accomplishments, and describe the details behind our preliminary reauthorization proposals. 

BUILDING ON PRIIA AND RSIA 

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of2008 (PRIIA) and the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of2008 (RSIA) were bipartisan, game-changing pieces oflegislation. This 

Committee did important work in a collaborative and forward-thinking way that has had farreaching effects in the rail industry. The rail industry has changed dramatically since these two 

landmark acts were passed with broad bipartisan support in 2008. Calendar year 2012 was the 

safest for the rail industry on record. It also saw record ridership, reliability, and financial 

perfonnance for Amtrak all across its network. The freight rail industry has never been stronger. 

Historic levels of public and private investment have been made in passenger rail equipment, 

corridor upgrades, freight capacity, and safety improvements. Dozens of planning studies, 

environmental reviews, and engineering analyses are underway, creating a strong pipeline for 

future projects. 

To date, FRA has obligated more than $10 billion in grant funding provided by Congress for the 

High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program through the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of2009 and annual appropriations for FY 2009 and 2010. Interest in this 

program is strong: 39 States, the District of Columbia, and Amtrak have submitted more than 

$75 billion worth of applications-well in excess of the available funding. 

This portfolio of investments is having a substantial impact on the Nation's rail system: six 

thousand corridor miles are being improved, 30 stations are being upgraded, and hundreds of 

new passenger cars and locomotives are being procured. These projects will improve the 

1 
48 


Insert offset folio 9 here 81678.009

customer experience by reducing trip times, improving reliability, adding additional frequencies, 

and making stations and equipment more comfortable and accessible. 

Good Federal policymaking contributed greatly to these accomplishments, and FRA is proud of 

the job we have done implementing the policies laid out by Congress. These achievements do 

not mean we can declare victory-much more needs to be done to rebalance the Nation's 

transportation system after decades of serious Federal underinvestment in rail. With those two 

authorizations from 2008 expiring, it is time to make forward-thinking, bipartisan rail policy 

again. 

The Administration's FY 2014 budget lays out a comprehensive multi-year reauthorization 

blueprint for moving forward. The fundamental goal of this proposal is to take a more 

coordinated approach to enhancing the Nation's rail system-an integrated strategy that addresses 

safety and passenger and freight service improvements. This new approach better reflects the 

complex reality of how rail works in the United States-most track is privately-owned and carries 

a mix of passenger and freight trains; safety is improved through regulations and inspections, but 

also through capital investments; rail congestion chokepoints often hinder the efficient 

movement of intercity, commuter, and freight trains. 

This budget proposal, while in many ways transformational, is rooted in ideas and solutions that 

have received extensive discussion and debate in recent years. It builds on the core principles of 

PRIIA and RSIA, while reflecting "on-the-ground" experiences of recent years. It is based on 

the evolving needs of rail stakeholders, and acknowledges that demographic, economic, and 

environmental changes will continue boosting the market demand for rail for decades to come. 

The proposal sets five key priorities: 

1. Enhancing America's world-class rail safety. 

2. Modernizing our rail infrastructure. 

3. Meeting the growing market demand. 

4. Promoting innovation. 

5. Ensuring transparency and accountability. 

PRIORITY #1: ENHANCING AMERICA'S WORLD-CLASS RAIL SAFETY 

2012 was the safest year on record, but FRA is committed to continuously improving rail safety. 

That commitment produces results, which is why, since 2003: 

• Total train accidents have declined by 43 percent. 

• Total derailments have declined by 41 percent. 

• Total highway-rail grade crossing accidents have declined by 34 percent. 

2 
49 


Insert offset folio 10 here 81678.010

Statistical Accident Reductions since 21l1l3: 
50 


Insert offset folio 11 here 81678.011

Policies contributing to this priority include: 

• Successfully implementing PTC- RSIA mandates that PTC be implemented across a 

significant portion of the Nation's rail network by December 31,2015. With limited 

exceptions and exclusions, PTC is required to be installed and implemented on Class I 

railroad main lines (i.e., lines with over 5 million gross tons annually) over which any 

poisonous- or toxic-inhalation hazard commodities are transported; and, on any railroad's 

main lines over which regularly scheduled intercity passenger or commuter operations 

are operated. 

o In all, approximately 70,000 miles of track and 20,000 .Iocomotives will have to 

be equipped with interoperable PTC technology. While some railroads will meet 

the deadline, many are likely to be challenged by technological and programmatic 

barriers. 

o In a report to Congress last year, FRA detailed obstacles faced by the industry, 

and FRA outlined mitigation strategies for Congressional consideration, including 

the extension of the PTC implementation deadline and alternative methods of 

mitigating the risks prevented by PTC systems. 

o FRA's report also highlighted radio frequency spectrum challenges that could 

impact timely PTC system implementation. In addition, the railroads must secure 

licensing approval from the Federal Communications Commission to install the 

approximately 22,000 antennas necessary to implement PTC. 

• Establisbing science-based regulations for hours of service--In 2011, FRA issued 

fatigue-science-based hours of service regulations for passenger train employees under 

new authority granted by RSIA. FRA and railroad safety would benefit from the same 

enhanced authority to regulate the hours of service of other employees including train 

employees, signal employees, and dispatching service employees. FRA would like to 

evaluate the benefits and costs of applying fatigue-science-based hours of service 

regulations to these additional employee classes. 

• Analyzing highway-rail grade crossing issues and opportnnities-FRA would 

welcome the opportunity to work with Congress to establish an appropriate framework 

for addressing grade crossing issues related to blocked crossings and commercial motor 

vehicle accidents and incidents at crossings. 

• Harmonizing railroad operating rules-FRA plans to evaluate the benefits and costs of 

harmonizing certain railroad operating rules. Each railroad has its own set of operating 

rules that may differ significantly from one division to another and from one railroad to 

another. Many operating crew employees are required to leam multiple different 

operating rules in order to operate safely in a single tour of duty. Harmonizing these 

rules will likely reduce unnecessary confusion and create a safer working environment. 

• Improving protection of Risk Reduction Program and System Safety Program 

analyses with respect to property damage claims-For a risk reduction program to be 

effective, FRA must have confidence that railroads are conducting robust analyses to 

accurately identify risks present. FRA will continue to work to balance the interests of 

4 
51 


Insert offset folio 12 here 81678.012

safety and the public interest with respect to the litigation protection afforded the 

railroads in conducting these analyses. 

• Modernizing statutory requirements-FRA would also like to modernize certain 

existing statutory requirements to better reflect current and future innovations and 

technologies. For instance, statutory requirements related to the movement of defective 

equipment could be updated to provide greater flexibility to FRA in handling such 

issues. Similarly, existing statutory language related to locomotives could be revised to 

account for modem locomotive and locomotive tender design and allow FRA to more 

readily tackle the safety issues related to the industry's recently expressed desire to 

achieve fuel efficiencies through use of liquefied natural gas-powered locomotives. 

• Encouraging nse of noise mitigation technologies-Current Environmental Protection 

Agency rules for railroad noise emissions do not consider the use of noise mitigation 

technologies when applying the requirement. Alternative rules may allow higher train 

speeds while encouraging railroads to reduce the impact of noise emissions on 

communities surrounding rail operations. 

• Expanding FRA-sponsored research, development, and technology-To date, FRA's 

research has centered on core rail safety issues such as hours of service and train control 

systems. The President's vision for rail includes expanding passenger service across the 

Nation and increasing train speed. While developing a modem rail system, FRA must 

continue to ensure that rail remains an extremely safe mode of 

transportation. Consequently, FRA must undertake a new line of research that solves the 

technical and associated issues necessary for implementing a comprehensive highperformance rail system. FRA proposes a new Research Development and Technology 

Program, funded at $55 million in FY 2014. Through this program, FRA will make 

upgrades to the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado that will allow 

new rail equipment to be tested. This will result in stronger safety standards and early 

identification of reliability issues, saving maintenance costs over the long run, developing 

a domestic workforce for rail initiatives, and ensuring better passenger service. 

• Nationwide rollout ofC3RS FRA is implementing a voluntary, Confidential Close Call 

Reporting System program (C3

RS) for railroads and their employees to report close calls 

without receiving disciplinary action. The FY 2014 Budget proposes expanding the 

C3

RS from a limited pilot project to a nation-wide rollout. Experience at C3RS pilot sites 

has contributed, we believe, to a nearly 70-percent reduction in certain accidents at one of 

the most mature pilot sites. Reductions in accidents come from a proactive culture of 

safety that uses real data far beyond that which can be pulled from accident investigations 

on a reactive basis. Effective safety oversight is helped by having accurate data. The 

magnitude of the information provided from proactive programs like C3

RS in comparison 

to traditional data from accidents and injuries is illustrated below: 

5 
52 


Insert offset folio 13 here 81678.013

PRIORITY #2: MODERNIZING OUR RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE 

Past generations of Americans invested heavily in building the infrastructure we rely on today. 

Most segments of the Northeast Conidor (NEC or Conidor) were built more than a ceutury ago, 

for example. Maintaining and model11izing these assets will lower long-term costs and result in a 

safer, more reliable rail system. 

Policies contributing to this priority 

.. Fully funding Amtrak- This is not the time to cut back on our responsibilities to invest 

in America's rail infrastructure. Demand for passenger rail across the United States 

continues to rise, as evidenced by Amtrak canying a record 31.2 million passengers in 

FY2012. These record ridership levels are in of decades of under investment in the 

Nation's rail system, which has resulted in a of needed maintenance and repairs 

on the Northeast Con-idol' that is $6 billion. Addressing this backlog 

critical to maintaining and current passenger rail services. 

Amtrak's long-distance routes continue to a vital role in our Nation's 

network, providing a transportation alternative to both urban and 

.. access to the Railroad Rehabilitation and Imnrov'~mellt 

program-The FY 2014 Budget does not 

However, as FRA looks forward to reauthorization, agency is ""!fJ1\)'111'14 progran] 

ways to project and administration, as well as to integrate the 

program the goals and ofthc National Rail System 

6 
53 


Insert offset folio 14 here 81678.014

(NHPRS) program. FRA is working to ensure that all financial assistance programs (both 

grants and loans) work together in a cohesive and comprehensive manner to improve the 

Nation's passenger and freight rail networks through an integrated investment portfolio. 

FRA is ensuring a wider range of borrowers can more readily take advantage of the RRlF 

program by reviewing eligibility requirements, application processes, administrative 

provisions, technical assistance, or other program elements. 

• Replacing the nation's obsolete eqnipment-Many of the rail cars and locomotives in 

service across the country are operating at or past their useful lives, leading to higher 

maintenance costs and reduced performance levels. FRA and Amtrak have started to 

replace this aging equipment through HSIPR grants and RRlF loans, however, a 

significant need still remains. New rolling stock will not only lower operating and 

maintenance costs, but also result in better reliability, improved passenger comfort and 

amenities, and ultimately better position rail services for long-term economic success. 

• Ensuring all Americans can access rail stations and trains-FRA would like to study 

the feasibility, including the benefits and costs, of standardizing passenger station 

platform heights to better enable level-boarding platforms. Access to transportation is a 

civil right, and FRA is committed to seeing that fulfilled on the nation's railways. 

• 

PRIORITY #3: MEETING THE GROWING MARKET DEMAND 

With 100 million more Americans expected by 2050, the national transportation system must be 

prepared to handle substantial increases in the movement of people and goods. Given the 

existing capacity constraints on other modes, rail will play an increasingly vital role in balancing 

America's transportation system, resulting in public benefits such as reduced reliance on foreign 

oil, reduced air pollution, increased safety, and additional travel options. 

Policies contributing to this priority include: 

• Establishing a dedicated funding source for Federal rail investments-An 

overarching issue that runs across all of these priorities is the need for sustained and longterm funding, similar to enacted legislation currently in place for highways, transit, and 

aviation. It is difficult and inefficient to make large-scale infrastructure investments on a 

year-to-year basis. Every other rail system in the world has been planned and developed 

through a predictable multi-year funding program. The Administration is proposing to 

offset the cost of the program described below from the savings generated by capping the 

Overseas Contingency Operations activities; however, beyond the five-year 

reauthorization window, we look forward to working with Congress to identify other 

solutions to this important challenge. 

• Taking an integrated approach to passenger and freight rail improvements-Rail 

is a unique mode that operates on unique infrastructure, and rail investments and 

policies must be considered holistically. FRA is constantly looking for ways to 

improve the safety, reliability, and efficiency of both passenger and freight rail through 

7 
54 


Insert offset folio 15 here 81678.015

good data and science, including innovative R&D and planning to accommodate all 

forms of rail development. FRA seeks to address major chokepoints and congestion 

issues that reduce freight and passenger train reliability on shared-use infrastructure 

through its Congestion Mitigation program. The Freight Capacity program would 

improve the competitiveness of the Nation's intermodal freight rail by upgrading 

facilities and adding capacity. The program would also address the needs of local 

communities, through funding for mitigation of the local safety, environmental, and 

noise impacts generated by the presence of rail, and for rail line relocation and grade 

crossing improvement activities. 

• Creating a governance framework for the NEC that can efficiently meet current and 

future market needs for intercity, commuter, and freight trausportation- The NEC 

is one of the most important transportation assets in the nation, carrying more than 250 

million people per year and an average of 50 freight trains per day. As the backbone to 

the highest concentration of population and economic activity in the country, there is 

naturally a large number of stakeholders with a vested interest in the future of the 

corridor, including the States, Amtrak, local commuter authorities, freight railroads, local 

governments, business, and others. Through the NEC Infrastructure and Operations 

Advisory Commission established under PRIIA, FRA has worked with these varied 

stakeholders to develop an inclusive planning process to establish the framework for 

future investment in the Corridor. Moving forward, FRA will continue working with all 

stakeholders to develop policy ideas for addressing NEC governance issues. 

• Creating a governance framework for efficiently managing the Nation's rail 

equipment-With FRA's participation, the Next Generation Equipment Committee has 

developed and approved specifications for single- and bi-level passenger cars, diesel 

locomotives, train sets, and diesel multiple units. In tum, these specifications have been 

or will be used in several procurements by States and Amtrak that will result in increased 

interoperability and lower unit costs. FRA is committed to continuing to explore options 

to pool equipment in order to improve flexibility and performance of passenger rail 

services, further lower costs, and ultimately stimulate domestic manufacturing and supply 

industries. 

• Creating a governance framework for development of multi-State rail networksThe Administration's goal for a modem rail system that connects communities within 

America's "megaregions" will inevitably require corridors to cross several State 

boundaries. Development and implementation of these corridors can be a challenge due 

to the number of State and local jurisdictions involved in the process. FRA' in 

consultation with key stakeholders, is exploring various institutional options for 

efficiently planning and coordinating the implementation of multi-State 

corridors. Additionally, FRA will encourage groups of States to develop unified plans 

for rail networks that connect and integrate their regions. 

8 
55 


Insert offset folio 16 here 81678.016

PRIORITY #4: PROMOTING INNOVATION 

FRA's vision is for the domestic rail industry to be again world-leading. We want U.S. 

companies to develop patents for state-of-the-art rail technology, to supply rail operators 

throughout the world, and to employ the best engineers and railway workers. The United States 

should be exporting intellectual capital and rail products, not importing them. 

Policies contributing to this priority include: 

• Investing in America's workforce-The RD&T program in FRA's FY 2014 budget 

proposal goes beyond the safety benefits delivered by FRA's existing R&D program. It 

prepares the Nation for high-perfonnance rail by developing new technologies and 

testing facilities. It also seeks to ensure growth in the railroad industry is supplied 

through domestic sources and jobs, strengthens collaboration with universities and others 

working on research projects, and helps address the future demands for an educated and 

qualified railroad workforce. 

• Investing in America's rail technology-Research and development of high-speed rail 

equipment, as well as state-of-the-art inspection and safety techniques can build a 

knowledge base in America for the rail industry for generations to come. The PRlIA 

Section 305 Next Generation Equipment Committee has been doing excellent work to 

grow the manufacturing base in the United States for technologically advanced rolling 

stock. The California High-Speed Rail Authority and Amtrak announced a joint highspeed rail equipment procurement that will follow the pooled purchasing model to 

improve interoperability and increase purchasing power to make taxpayer dollars go as 

far as possible on rolling stock purchases. 

• Strengthening "Buy America" provisions-FRA seeks to strengthen the "Buy 

America" requirements in current law by ensuring uniform applicability to all ofFRA's 

financial assistance programs. 

PRIORITY #5: ENSURING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

Accomplishing the priorities described above can only occur if these programs are managed 

through a transparent process that makes it clear what public benefits and service 

improvements the American people are "buying" with their investments. The roles and 

responsibilities of the Federal government, States, Amtrak, freight railroads, and other 

stakeholders must be clear and based on sound public policy. 

Policies contributing to this priority include: 

• Organizing financial support for existing passenger rail services by "business 

lines"-This structure improves transparency and accountability for taxpayer 

investments in rail. This is a new strategy that aligns costs, revenues, and Federal grants 

9 
56 


Insert offset folio 17 here 81678.017

to business lines to better ensure that our investments are advancing the Nation's goals 

and objectives for rail services 

o FRA does not support changing the current grant structure under the baseline 

funding levels. This new system only works under the higher funding levels 

proposed in FRA's FY2014 budget proposal. 

• Clarifying roles and responsibilities- Accomplishing the priorities envisioned under 

this proposal can only occur if these programs are managed through a transparent process 

that clearly illustrates the benefits that the American people are buying with their 

investments. The Administration's proposal establishes clear and specific roles for the 

Federal government, states, Amtrak, freight railroads, and other stakeholders to help 

ensure the long-term success of the National High Performance Rail System. 

CONCLUSION 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to begin a dialogue on the future of rail in 

America. The President's FY 2014 budget and reauthorization proposal chart a bold new course 

for transportation infrastructure investment in the United States. We look forward to working 

with Congress to put people back to work building a balanced transportation system that is safe, 

reliable, efficient, and able to meet the growing demand and changing travel habits of America's 

population. I will be happy to respond to your questions. 

### 

10 
57 


Insert offset folio 18 here 81678.018

Questions for the Record from a Hearing before the 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

6/27/13 

"National Rail Policy: Examining Goals, Objectives, and Responsibilities" 

DENHAM 

The Honorable Joseph C. Szabo 

Administrator - Federal Railroad Administration 

United States Department of Transportation 

1. During the June 27th hearing, Chairman Denham requested information from each 

witness concerning a timeline for implementing Positive Train Control (PTC) by 

region, as the railroad system is an integrated network, operated by different 

corporations. Please provide information to the Committee concerning the 

progress, the challenges and obstacles, and overall timeIine for implementing PTC, 

by region. 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)'s August 2012 Report to Congress "Positive 

Train Control: Implementation Status, Issues, and Impacts" summarized the major 

technical and programmatic challenges and obstacles associated with PTC 

implementation that FRA had identified so far. As you know, FRA's report listed the 

following seven types of technical obstacles to complete PTC implementation: (I) lack 

of necessary radio frequency spectrum; (2) lack of necessary radios; (3) lack of necessary 

design specifications; (4) lack of neccssary back office servers (which contain the 

mechanism that enables interoperability of PTC systems between different railroads) and 

lack of necessary dispatch systems; (5) need for verification of track databases with 

accuracy more precise than that needed in a non-PTC environment; (6) need for 

engineering related to the installation ofPTC system components; and (7) need for proof 

of the reliability and availability of installed PTC systems in order both to provide the 

desired level of safety and to minimize any adverse impact on the railroad's operations. 

In addition, FRA's report noted two types of programmatic issues: (I) issues related to 

budgeting and contracting (e.g., the tightening of publie-sector budgets and the need to 

eomply with procurement regulations) and (2) issues related to an insufficient supply of 

qualified personnel and essential PTC system components, since railroads subject to the 

PTC mandate are all competing for a limited set of these resourccs. 

Subsequently, the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) June 2013 report on PTC 

implementation cited "the numerous, interrelated challenges caused by the breadth and 

complexity of PTC," including a major additional challenge involving antennas/towers 

that need to be installed. GAO pointed to the need for system integration and field 

1 
58 


Insert offset folio 19 here 81678.019

testing of PTC components, "many of which are first-generation technologies being 

designed and developcd[,]" underscored its concern about the adequacy of FRA resources 

related to oversight ofPTC implementation, and highlighted that some key PTC 

components are still in development. Perhaps most important, GAO stressed that the 

installation of PTC components "is a time- and resource-consuming process" and gave 

the example of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) request that railroads 

halt their construction of PTC-related antennas "to ensure proper installation procedures 

were being followed including consulting with either the tribal or state historical 

authorities prior to ... installation." 

I'd like to focus on the antennas/towers issue, the most recently identified major obstacle 

to full PTC implementation. As background, PTC systems are a safety technology based 

on the Global Positioning System (GPS) and require an extensive communications 

network to operate. This nationwide PTC-related communications nctwork requires the 

installation of approximately 22,000 antennas/towers. The Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

and the National Historic Preservation Act bcfore construction of any of the 22,000 

antennas/towers may proceed, and in the past FCC has processed only 2,000-3,000 

applications for such approval per year. The review and approval process under those 

laws has the potential to delay railroads' compliance with the December 31,2015, 

statutory deadline. The FCC is working with the railroads to try to expedite the approval 

process. FRA is assisting the FCC in an advisory capacity. 

FRA's assessment of the status ofPTC implementation is in Tables 1,2, and 3. Table 1 

identifies railroads required to implement PTC. Table 2 identifies FRA assessment of 

regional railroads' progress. Table 3 identifies FRA assessment of Class I railroads' 

progress. 

The reporting marks of Table 1 are used to identify the railroads in Tables 2 and 3. In 

Tables 2 and 3, the columns marked "PTC miles to be equipped," and "PTC miles 

equipped," "Locomotives to be equipped," and "Locomotives equipped" are selfexplanatory. The column marked "Field test request Filed" indicates if the railroad in 

question has made a filing under 49 CFR 236.1035 to begin field-testing with FRA 

oversight. The column marked "Field testing started" indicates if the railroad has 

actually begun testing after having submitted a 49 CFR 236.1035 formal filing to test and 

received FRA approval. The mileage totals reflect track miles. In some cases, for 

example, there may be a subdivision of 150 miles that has 2 main lines, each of which 

would require PTC installation, which equates to 300 miles. 

In Table 3, for Amtrak, the field test request is under a waiver, and not the requirements 

of 49 CFR 236.1035. For CSX Transportation, Inc. and for Norfolk Southern 

Corporation railroads, the testing is Verifications and Validation (V & V) of the track 

database information. 

This data does not reflect expenses associated with "pre-requisite work" (signal system 

upgrades, radio spectrum procurement, communication backbone upgrades, and 

2 
59 


Insert offset folio 20 here 81678.020

installation of other wayside equipment, and design of the PTC system). These expenses 

are business sensitive, and the data may possibly be available to you directly from the 

individual railroads, the Association of American Railroads, the American Public 

Transportation Association, and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad 

Association as appropriate. In addition, Class I railroads' R-J reports to the Surface 

Transportation Board (STB) may contain some data on PTC costs. STB has required that 

such costs be included in future R-I report submissions. 

Table 1: Railroads Required to Install PTC, and their Reporting Marks 

Railroads Required to Install PTC 

Alaska Railroad (ARR) 

Amtrak (ATK) 

Belt Railway Company of Chicago (BRC) 

BNSF Railway Co. (BNSF) 

Canadian National Railway (CN) 

Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) 

Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (CMTY) 

Central Florida Rail Corridor (CFRC) 

Conrail Shared Assets Corporation (CRSH) 

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) 

Dcnton County Transportation Authority (DCTA) 

The Kansas City Southern Railway Co.(KCS) 

Kansas City Terminal Railway (KCT) 

Long Island Rail Road (LI) 

MARC Train Service (MACZ) 

Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBT A) 

Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co. (MNCW) 

Na~hvi1le Regional Transportation Authority (NRTX) 

New Jersey Transit Rail Operations (NlTR) 

New Mexico Rail Runner Express (NMRX) 

3 
60 


Insert offset folio 21 here 81678.021

Norfolk Southern Corporation railroads (NS) 

North County Transit District (SDNX) 

Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Rail Corp. 

(NIRC) 

Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District 

(NICD) 

Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCMZ) 

Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) 

Portland & Western Railroad (PNWR) 

Regional Transit District Commuter (RTDC) 

Sounder Commuter Rail (SCR) 

South Florida Regional Transportation Authority 

(SFRV) 

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 

(SEPA) 

Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCAX) 

Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis (TRRA) 

Trinity Railway Express (TRE) 

Union Pacific Railroad Co. (UP) 

Utah Transit Authority FrontRunner Commuter Rail 

(UFRC) 

Virginia Railway Express (VREX) 

4 
61 


Insert offset folio 22 here 81678.022

Table 2: FRA Progress Assessment--Regional Railroads 

Passenger/C Field Test 

FRA ommuter Request Filed Field Testing PTe Miles to PTe Miles locomotives to locomotives 

Region Railroads (YIN) 5tarted (YIN) be equipped Equipped be Equipped Equipped 

1 CR5H N N 11 0 76 0 

1 LlRR N N 508 0 589 0 

1 MBTA N N 553 0 170 142 

1 MNCW N N 703 0 375 12 

1 NJT N N 573 0 501 0 

1 PATH Y N 37 0 220 96 

Totals 2385 0 1931 250 

2 MARC N N 3.2 0 53 10 

2 5EPTA N N 215 0 331 0 

2 VRE N N 0 0 41 0 

Totals 218.2 0 425 10 

3 CFRC N N 61.35 0 23 0 

3 5FRC N N 71.2 0 45 0 

3 NRTX N N 32.4 0 6 0 

Totals 164.95 0 74 0 

4 BRC N N 6 0 5 0 

4 NICD N N 90.3 0 73 0 

4 NIRC Y Y 421.2 0 513 184 

Totals 517.5 0 591 184 

5 CMTY N N 32 0 6 0 

5 DCTA N N 23.2 0 11 0 

5 TRE N N 33.8 0 17 0 

5 NMRX N N 109.8 0 18 0 

Totals 198.8 0 52 0 

6 RTD N N 40.2 0 50 0 

6 KCT N N 25.69 0 6 0 

6 TRRA N N 13.12 0 17 0 

Totals 79.01 0 73 0 

7 PCMZ N N 56.6 0 67 0 

7 5CAX Y Y 227.9 0 109 56 

7 5DNX N N 60.3 0 71 0 

7 UFRC N N 38.6 0 56 0 

Totals 383.4 0 303 56 

8 Alaska N N 476 0 0 

8 PNWR N N 15.3 0 33 

8 Sounder N N 9.4 0 29 0 

Totals 500.7 0 116 33 

Grand 

Totals 4447.56 0 3565 533 

5 
62 


Insert offset folio 23 here 81678.023

Ciass 1 

Railroads 

BNSf 

UP 

CP 

eN 

Amtrak 

CSXT 

KCS 

NS 

Totals 

Table 3: FRA Progress Assessment--Class I Railroads 

fletdTest Locomotives Field Testing PTC Miles to be PTC Miles Locomotives Request to be 

Filed !y/N) 

Started (YIN} equipped Equipped Equipped Equipped 

y Y 15,451 1124 2,000 917 

Y N 21,150 0 6,000 2449 

Y Y 2,736 0 563 163 

N N 3,720 0 1,000 58 

Yes (Waiver 

not 1035) Y 1433 625 422 183 

Y Yes (V&V oniy) 16293 0 3600 311 

N N 1975 0 467 143 

Y Yes (V&v only) 12.815 0 3411 1383 

75,573 1749 17,463 6112 

2. Does FRA believe there are any remaining efficiencies to be realized in the cnrrent 

long-distance ronte system'! If so, please describe efforts Amtrak could take to 

reduce losses, given the existing network and resources. 

Amtrak created and is currently implementing a Performance Improvement Plan for each 

long-distance route, as required by Section 210 of the Passenger Rail Investment and 

Improvement Act of2008 (PRIlA). Incremental improvements have already been made 

and additional efficiencies are expected with the implementation of pending initiatives 

(targeting enhanced reliability, customer service, connectivity, and financial performance 

One such initiative is the introduction of 130 new passenger rail cars to the single level 

long-distance fleet-six routes that operate on the Northeast Corridor (NEC)-between 

the end of2013 and 2015 at a cost of$298.1M. Amtrak forecasts that these new dining, 

baggage, sleeping, and combination baggage/dormitory cars will improve financial and 

on-time performance by adding revenue capacity, alleviating maintenance burdens, and 

reducing trip time. 

Specifically, new dining and baggage cars will replace the mechanically-unreliable and 

expensive Heritage series equipment, which are the oldest cars in Amtrak's fleet. The 

new railcars will also allow these trains to operate at a higher speed on the NEC than the 

speed-restricted Heritage cars, reducing travel time improving on time pert()rmance. 

New sleeping and combination baggage/dormitory cars will add as much as double the 

current revenue-sleeping car capacity on the Cardinal. Crescent, Lake Shore Limited, 

Silver Meteor and Silver Star routes with minimal staffing changes. 

Furthermore, FRA increased its Amtrak oversight efforts in fiscal year (FY) 2013 by 

6 
63 


Insert offset folio 24 here 81678.024

hiring a Long-Distance Passenger Train Oversight Manager. FRA believes that increased 

oversight coupled with continued implementation of Amtrak's Performance Improvement 

Plans will result in greater efficiencies and reduced losses for the current long-distance 

system. However, while these efforts are important steps towards achieving better 

financial performance on these routes, FRA believes that more work needs to be done. 

3. What provisions or policies does FRA recommend we undertake to better 

incentivize public-private partnerships for intercity passenger rail capital projects? 

FRA believes (and as mentioned elsewhere in this document) that while the private sector 

and State and local governments have a significant role to play in funding passenger rail 

improvements, those entities will make far more substantial investments if they have a 

reliable and predictable Federal partner. Sustainable Federal support is critical to 

generating and sustaining the confidence necessary for all parties to continue investing in 

America's rail industry. 

While FRA has funded investment projects that have independent utility to maximize the 

federal dollar, FRA has strongly supported projects that are able to attract additional 

investment to complcment the federal funding. As one example, HSIPR funding totaling 

$38.4 million was awarded to thc Downeaster Portland North Project, enabling 

Downeaster service to Brunswick. Maine. In short order, this initial investment attracted 

private investment of more than $30 million for a complex that ineludes a train station, 

restaurants, retail shops, office space, medical center, plus a 52 room inn. By 2030 this 

total project is estimated to bring in $7.2 billion in new development in total, creating 

10,000 new jobs, and generating $75 million in annual tax revenues. 

4. What role ean passenger and commuter rail fees have in helping fund infrastructure 

projects? 

The President's FY 2014 budget proposes a bold new course for transportation 

infrastructure investment in the United States that will improve the safety, reliability, and 

efficiency of both passenger and freight rail. 

The Budget recommends creating a new Rail Account in a new Transportation Trust fund 

to provide a dedicated and on-going funding source for FRA's infrastructure investment 

programs. It would be funded from the savings generated by capping the Overseas 

Contingency Operations activities. 

The Administration looks forward to working with Congress to reauthorize FRA's 

programs and to exploring options for securing long-term, dedicated funding for rail, a 

practice which has served other transportation modes well. 

7 
64 


Insert offset folio 25 here 81678.025

5. The Administration issued a report on streamlining the 106 and section 4(1) 

processes; could you identify which suggestions for legislative changcs you believc 

would realizc thc most benefit for streamlining those processes. 

A proposed legislative option for effective streamlining would modify the definitions of 

"use" and "historic site" for railroads in Section 4(1), as follows: 

• The term "use" shall not apply for rail-transportation use of existing or former 

railroad or rail-transit property. 

• The term "historic site" shall not include railroad and rail transit lines or corridors 

that were historically used f<lr transportation of goods or passengers. 

DOT would no longer need to apply Section 4(1) to most facilities used by railroads for 

transportation when making rail transportation improvements, but would not atlect the 

original intent of Section 4(1) to avoid conversion of non-railroad historic sites to 

transportation use. In addition, Section 106 would continue to apply, except where 

otherwise exempted, thereby protecting eligible railroad historic sites. While FHW A and 

FTA would need to amend their Section 4(1) regulation, the measure could be 

implemented immediately by other operating administrations including FRA. 

BROWN 

1. What are the Administration's views on the House Appropriations Committeeapproved Amtrak funding levels? 

The Administration views these funding levels as wholly inadequate for meeting the 

needs of the Nation's passenger rail system. These funding levels do not: 

• provide enough capital funds to keep up with basic maintenance requirements, 

and do not address any of the substantial backlog of repair and replacement needs 

on aging or obsolete assets throughout the system; 

• allow for any progress towards achievement of compliance with the Americans 

with Disabilities Act at intcrcity passenger rail stations; 

• provide any operating margin to accommodate unanticipated events, such as a 

natural disaster, that could negatively impact ridership or revenue; or 

• allow Amtrak to exercise early buy-out options on equipment leases, which would 

save taxpayers $107.5 million in future years. 

These funding levels will have a tangible impact on the reliability and efficiency of 

passenger rail operations throughout the Nation. In particular, the 12 million Amtrak and 

235 million commuter rail passengers who rely on the vital Northeast Corridor will 

experience reduced service quality. Additionally, as part of the implementation of 

Section 209 of PRIIA, States will now be assuming a greater tinancial burden in 

supporting the Nation's rail system. Dramatically reducing Federal support at this time 

would indicate that the States do not have a reliable and dependable partner. Dependable 

8 
65 


Insert offset folio 26 here 81678.026

Federal support is critical to generating and sustaining the confidence necessary for States 

to continue investing in America's rail industry. 

These cuts are also bad economics. Less reliable service will in turn lead to lower 

ridership and higher costs, harming the future financial performance of the system. 

Additionally, these funding levels will require Amtrak to focus solely on urgent 

maintenance repairs, which is far less efficient and economical than making systematic 

upgrades through a sustained multi-year maintenance program. Furthermore, without 

funding to replace aging infrastructure and equipment, Amtrak will be forced to maintain 

those assets until funding is available for full replacement, leading to unnecessary capital 

costs in the interim. 

Passenger rail ridership is higher than ever, after a solid decade of strong growth trends. 

Now is the time to be improving the network, so that rail can continue filling an important 

role in the Nation's overall transportation system. 

2. You mention that Congress should restructurc Amtrak's authorizations into 

business lines - Northeast Corridor, state-supported routes, and long distance, but 

in the same sentence statc this should NOT be done if we are working under 

current funding levels. Why'! 

FRA's FY 2014 budget request provides the full funding needed to effectively deliver 

passenger rail services in each business line, plus additional funding to clear the 

substantial backlog of infrastructure repair and equipment replacement needs. At this 

funding level, managers within each business line would have the necessary flexibility 

and accountability to make investment decisions based on long-term planning and 

strategic service objectives. 

However, current funding levels arc not sufficient to fully meet the needs of each 

business line, requiring Amtrak to make trade-offs and essentially fund the most critical 

needs each year. If Amtrak was locked-into business line-based appropriations at current 

funding levels, managers would not have suflicient t1exibility to make these decisions, or 

to adequately respond to natural disasters or other unanticipated events which may 

disproportionately affect certain business lines over others. 

3. You stated that historic levels of public and private investment have been made 

over the last several years in passenger rail equipment, corridor upgrades, freight 

capacity, and safety improvements. What do you think the proper role of the 

federal government is when it comes to funding passenger rail? 

Every successful rail system in the world has been developed through a sustained funding 

commitment from the national or federal government of the country involved. Likewise, 

America's world-class highway, aviation, maritime, and other transportation systems 

were all developed through substantial Federal funding over many decades. Safe, 

reliable, and efficient transportation is the backbone of our national economy, and thus it 

is imperative that the Federal Government continue to playa key role in building and 

9 
66 


Insert offset folio 27 here 81678.027

improving our infrastructure. 

While the private sector and State and local governments also have a significant role to 

play in funding passenger rail improvements, those entities will only make investments if 

they have a reliable and predictable Federal partner. Sustainable Federal support is 

critical to generating and sustaining the confidence necessary for all parties to continue 

investing in America's rail industry. 

4. FRA issued a report in August 2012 which highlights a number ofissues that need 

to be addressed for the successful implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC). 

For example, you state that the availability of spectrum continues to be an issue. 

What are FRA's recommendations for extending the PTC implementation deadline? 

As I discussed in answer to Chairman Denham's earlier question, the myriad technical 

and programmatic challenges and obstacles associated with PTC implementation that 

FRA described in its August 2012 Report to Congress, "Positive Train Control: 

Implementation Status, Issues, and Impacts," still persist. Concerns about spectrum 

availability remain particularly acute for passenger rail systems, including commuter rail 

systems. Since that report, one major additional challenge has arisen. 

PTC systems are communications-based and require an extensive communications 

network to operate. This network requires the installation of approximately 22,000 

antennas/towers. The FCC must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 and the National Historic Preservation Act before antenna/tower construction may 

proceed, and in the past FCC has processed only 2,000-3,000 applications for such 

approval each year. The review and approval proccss under those laws has the potential 

to delay the railroad's compliance with the December 31, 2015, statutory deadline. The 

FCC is working with the railroads to try to expedite the approval process. FRA is 

assisting the FCC in an advisory capacity. 

The extent to which these challenges affect individual railroads varies greatly among 

railroads. Because of this disparity in impact among the ditTerent railroads, FRA believes 

extensions on a case-by-case basis that reflects each individual railroad's technical and 

programmatic challenges would be more appropriate than a blanket extension of the 

deadline for all railroads beyond 2015. 

5. You state that Congress should consider providing the Secretary with the authority 

to allow railroads to implement alternative methods of mitigating the risks 

prevented by PTC systems. What do you mean by this, and would these alternative 

methods be applicable to just routes where toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials 

are transported or are you also suggesting this would be appropriate for passenger 

routes as well? 

Alternative technologies do not implement the full functionality or provide thc same level 

of risk mitigation as PTC systems that comply with the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 

10 
67 


Insert offset folio 28 here 81678.028

2008 (RSIA) and should only be used on appropriate low-risk lines. However, these 

alternative technologies, when coupled with certain railroad operating rules and used on 

already low-risk rail lines, can result in signiticantly more cost-effective improvements in 

safety than PTC. It should be noted that FRA estimates that PTC has costs about 20 

greater than its benefits. The money that is spent on PTC could be spent on safety 

improvements elsewhere, so there is an opportunity cost to spending on PTC 

To illustrate what I mean by an alternative protection strategy that would provide some of 

the functionality of an RSIA-compliant PTC system, an example would be a cab signal 

system with automatic train control, together with operating rules, such as temporal 

separation between train operations and the establishment of roadway work zones. In this 

example, the cab signal system provides the locomotive crew an onboard indication of 

route conditions ahead in nearly real time that does not require visibility of any wayside 

signals by the crcwmembers before an appropriate response may be taken. A cab signal 

system with automatic train stop functions provides an onboard audible alarm when any 

condition ahead becomes more restrictive (when the cab signal downgrades to a more 

restrictive indication) and enforces a full service brake application of the train's air brake 

system bringing the train to a stop if that change is not "acknowledged" by the crew 

within not more than eight seconds. A cab signal system with automatic train control 

functions provides essentially the same as automatic train stop with additional audible 

warning and enforcement of speed limitations. 

Cab signal and automatic train control equipment has been available since the 1930s and 

is a proven technology. Its installation has been a Federal requirement for any line where 

trains operate faster than 79 miles per hour. Since freight trains do not operate at these 

speeds, removal of the systems occurred over time when passenger traftic ceased in the 

1950s. The systems subsequently fell into disrepair during the years before the passage 

of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, where rail's portion of intercity freight had dropped to 

35 percent (from 75 percent in the I 920s), and 40 percent of the freight rails were owned 

by bankrupt companies. 

The application of the authority to approve the use of alternative technologies on low-risk 

lines would be appropriate to both passenger routes as well as freight track over which 

toxic by inhalation (T1H) material is moved. . 

6. What does FRA need in a reauthorization bill to ensure the work you are doing 

under NEe FUTURE continues? 

FRA believes that regional, multi-State planning conducted in consideration of the overall 

surface transportation program is critical to the successful improvement and development 

of the Nation's rail system. Nearly all current or potential passenger and freight rail 

corridors cross multiple States, and the performance of any individual route is based in 

large part on how that route fits within a broader regional network. FRA would like 

Congress to establish standards and provide incentives for the development of multi-State 

rail plans like NEC FUTURE, as well as to create a grant program to fund these activities, 

similar to the planning program proposed in FRA's FY 2014 budget request. 

11 
68 


Insert offset folio 29 here 81678.029

Continuation ofNEC FUTURE, specifically, is dependent on additional Federal funding. 

Work currently under contract covers activities through August 2013, and FRA is 

currently working on scope and budget that will support activities through February 2013. 

The additional funding needed to complete NEC FUTURE is $21 million. It is critical to 

keep the momentum going on this important and historic project. Thousands of peoplefrom the public to local elected officials to business leaders-are engaged in this effort, 

and it is imperative we keep it moving forward without delay. 

12 
69 


Insert offset folio 30 here 81678.030

TESTIMONY OF 

MICHAEL P. MELANIPHY 

PRESIDENT 

AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION 

BEFORETm~ 

HOUSE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

ON 

"NATIONAL RAIL POLICY: EXAMINING GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND 

RESPONSIBILITIES" 

SUBMITTED BY 

American Public Transportation Association 

1666 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20006 

Tel: (202) 496-4800 

Fax: (202) 496-4324 

June 27, 2013 

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) is a nonprofit, international 

association of nearly 1,500 public and private member organizations, including transit systems 

and commuter, intercity and high-speed rail operators; planning, design, construction, and 

finance firms; product and service providers; academic institutions; transit associations and 

state departments of transportation. APT A members serve the public interest by providing 

safe, efficient. and economical public transportation services and products. More than ninety 

percent of the people using public transportation in the United States and Canada are served by 

APTA member systems. 
70 


Insert offset folio 31 here 81678.031

INTRODUCTION 

Chairman Denham, Congresswoman Brown, and members of the Railroads, Pipelines, 

and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, on behalf of the American Public Transportation 

Association (APTA) and its more than I,SOO member organizations, I thank you for this 

opportunity to testify on the development of the next passenger rail authorization bill. My namc 

is Michael Melaniphy, and I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of the American 

Public Transportation Association. We understand that the committee intends to focus on 

legislation to replace the expiring Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) and 

we are also submitting our views as they relate to the requirements to implement positive train 

control (PTC) on the nation's commuter railroads under the Rail Safety Act. 

APT A believes that the nation needs an integrated network of passenger rail services, 

including high-speed rail where appropriate, that connects with the existing Amtrak system, and 

with commuter rail and transit operations. Such a system should be part of a multi-modal, interconnected national transportation system that enables the nation's air, rail, bus, ferry and 

highway systems to function more efficiently. Travelers using this system should be able to 

make seamless connections between modes and between major metropolitan regions linked by 

rail service. As our popnlation and these regions grow, we will need more intercity passenger 

rail, including high-speed service, as an alternative to both the air and highway systems, which in 

some places are already operating at close to capacity. As the nation's population swells by 

nearly 150 million people between 2000 and 20S0 we need to make investments m our 

transportation infrastructure that provide transportation choices and serve national goals. 

Rail, both passenger and freight, offers unique opportunities and benefits that warrant a 

strong federal commitment to fimd and implement policies that will allow for expansion. Rail is 

energy efficient and environmentally beneficial. The permanency of rail corridors has the power 

to focus economic activity and development. Rail's contributions to more efficient mobility not 

only enhance the productivity of the regions it serves, but also our nation's economic 

competitiveness. 

ABOUT APTA 

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) is a nonprofit international 

association of more than I,SOO public and private member organizations, engaged in the areas of 

bus, paratransit, light rail, commuter rail, subways, waterborne services, and intercity and highspeed passenger rail. This includes: transit systems; planning, design, construction, and finance 

firms; product and service providers; academic institutions; transit associations and statc 

departments of transportation. APT A members serve the public interest by providing safe, 

efficient and economical transit services and products. More than 90 percent of the people using 

public transportation in the United States and Canada ride APT A member systems. 

PRINCIPLES ON HIGH-SPEED AND INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL 

To meet the rapidly expanding needs of an ever-growing and highly mobile population, 

the United States must develop a fully integrated multimodal high-speed and intercity passenger 

2 
71 


Insert offset folio 32 here 81678.032

rail system. It is more important than ever for the U.S. to invest in its infrastructure as the 

efficient movement of people and goods is essential for sustained economic growth and 

recovery. Investing in intercity and high-speed rail projects will produce new passenger rail 

networks that will create hundreds of thousands of private sector, construction and 

manufacturing jobs as well as stimulate domestic business growth that will generate additional 

jobs in related consumer-driven industries. According to a study done by Glen Weisbrod for 

APTA, expenditures for high-speed rail construction are estimated to support 24,000 jobs for 

each billion dollars of investment. 

In support of this vision, APTA's Legislative Committee recently adopted principles for a 

federal high-speed and intercity passenger rail (HSIPR) policy. These call for new dedicated 

revenue sources other than those currently supporting the Highway Trust Fund, a streamlined 

National Environmental Protection Act (NEP A) review process, and an efficient combination of 

private and public sector leadership in the development of new rail service. APTA's 

recommendations call for significant private sector participation in the planning, construction, 

and financing of new rail infrastructure. Such projects should be financed through a combination 

of federal, state, local, regional and private funding. 

We fully recognize the current fiscal pressures that our country faces and the challenges 

that creates for Congress in identifying and allocating financial resources and setting priorities 

across the federal budget. We do not make these funding recommendations lightly. However, 

we also believe that investments in infrastructure, including passenger rail, are among the highest 

value investments the nation can make. We know this committee recognizes the importance that 

transportation investment holds for our nation's economic competitiveness and prosperity, and 

whether we talk of high-speed rail, higher speed rail, high performance rail, or other intercity 

passenger rail, APT A and its members believe that these investments will produce tremendous 

economic, environmental and mobility benefits. 

Expansion and improvement of our current intercity passenger rail system will require a 

commitment of federal, state, local and private resources ~- a combination of funding AND 

financing strategies that will not only pay for projects, but also speed their planning, design and 

construction. APT A recommends an authorization of $50 billion over six years to facilitate the 

development of a HSIPR system. There should be a dedicated and indexed federal revenue 

source for planning, design and construction of these projects, other than the current motor fuels 

excise taxes that fund the Highway Trust Fund. We also suggest that, to attract greater private 

capital, deliver projects more quickly, and ensure shared risk, the use of public private 

partnerships, along with a full breadth of finance, tax, and revenue approaches, should be 

promoted. Programs such as the Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) 

program should be streamlined with application decision time periods reduced and flexibility 

encouraged through deferred debt payments and subsidized interest rates and/or credit risk 

premiums. Finally, APT A believes intercity passenger rail projects and other public 

transportation projects that reduce air pollution emissions in areas designated as air-quality nOIlattainment areas should be eligible for funding from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

(CMAQ) program beyond any limitation of years whenever such benefits can be sho','il1 to 

increase over time as ridership grows. 

3 
72 


Insert offset folio 33 here 81678.033

Corridors and Projects 

The national programs for high-speed and intercity passenger rail should be based on 

defined and agreed-to passenger rail corridors that will meet specified criteria and increase the 

speed, utilization and e1nciency of passenger rail transportation to achieve travel time reductions 

and increased frequency of servicc. Projects should be allocated sut1icient funds drawn from a 

dedicated and predictable federal funding source so that they can be completed on a reasonable 

schedule. The program should also include the Northeast Corridor and recognize the costs of 

bringing the Northeast Corridor into a state of good repair and to assure capacity for growth. 

Projects, travel time reduction and frequcncy improvement objectives should be defined at the 

statc and local level, but should be consistent with national goals and objectives. The planning 

process should determine the type of project currently most appropriate for the particular region 

and market while the map should be the result of a consultative process with federal, state and 

local governments. State rail plans should address state level funding issues, service integration 

issues, short and long-term sustainability, and shall establish the terms of private sector 

involvement consistent with the National Rail Plan. 

Reduce Barriers, Restrain Costs, And Streamline Project Delivery 

While funding and financing options arc ccrtainly key, we also urge the committee to 

ensure that barriers to project planning and development, and to the operation of services are 

controlled if not reduced. Issues such as liability insurance, operator licensing, project approvals 

and environmental reviews should be limited to what is necessary and applied in the most 

flexible and least restrictive manner where they are required. 

If we truly want the nation's population ccnters connected by an efficient and effective 

passenger rail network, then we must work together to ensure that the planning, environmental, 

procurement and grant processes are streamlined and manageable. Regulatory requirements that 

do not have essential operational, environmental and safety purposes should be avoided 

whenever possible to ensure that projects can advance in the fastest manner and with the lowest 

cost. A commitment to this approach would provide encouragement to states, transportation 

authorities and private financing partners. 

The federal grants review process should be kept simple, while work in pre-approved 

corridors should proceed with minimal grant review. Accountability should be enforced through 

selt~certitication and post-delivery reviews, rather than through a burdensome process that holds 

up projects by requiring extensive documentation up-front. However, the U.S. DOT should 

provide initial reviews and screening as to whether applications or applicants comply with 

express requirements of grant statutes bef(lre grants are released. 

Given the significant project acceleration and environmental streamlining provisions for 

transit and highway projects in MAP-2 L corresponding changes to environmental approval 

processes also may be needed for rail projects, so that they would not be comparatively 

disadvantaged. We believe DOT should pursue common or standardized rules on NEPA and 

categorical exclusions across all modes for the eflicient administration of provisions of the 

4 
73 


Insert offset folio 34 here 81678.034

National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and such rules should be consistent with the 

streamlining provisions of MAP-21. Permits and review should be expedited, with reviews 

coordinated in a concurrent manner and not handled sequentially. While FRA has made progress 

with expanded categorical exclusions, an expanded system of categorical exclusions should be 

developed and widely applied. Furthermore, efforts similar to the proccss for waiving nonstatutory requirements when needed to cxpedite projects should be established for HSIPR 

projects, as it currently exists for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) projects under the 

SEP-15 program, should be pursued to accelerate agency decision making and approvals. 

Competition, Insurance and Licensing 

APTA also supports federal policies that facilitate competition among operators. The 

tederal and state supported HSIPR program should be designed to encourage open, strong and 

fair competition among competing pre-qualified operating and rail service companies. To ensure 

fair competition, all competing companies must comply with all federal railroad laws. APT A 

membership is incredibly diverse and the roster of those interested in high-speed and intercity 

rail ranges from Amtrak to AIPRO to Labor to small, mid-size and large cities, states, transit 

authorities and private sector organizations. This diversity of interest makes a case tor policies 

that ensure options for project and service sponsors. 

For commuter rail operations, as well as potential new passenger rail services, APTA 

continues to recommend against unnecessarily costly minimum levels of liability insurance for 

all passenger rail operators, or any requirement that those operators be specially certified by the 

Surface Transportation Board (STB) before providing passenger rail transportation. Risk 

profiles of individual passenger railroads are unique and based on a combination of factors and 

should not be subject to a uniform liability for every agency and operator, large and small. 

Congress dealt with this issue in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (ARAA, P.L. 

105-134) by setting a liability cap of$200 million per accident. 

The existing $200 million cap on liability should apply to all claims against high-speed 

and intercity rail operators, sponsoring agencies, host railroads, and commuter railroads and 

should apply consistently regardless of the operating entity or its contractor. Without such 

statutory limits, the cost of obtaining insurance and the cost of rail passenger operations will 

become prohibitively costly. Currently, state and regional passenger railroad service sponsors 

enter into agreements with passenger rail operators through detailed contracts which take into 

account qualifications and legal requirements, and additional requirements will unnecessarily 

increase costs for public passenger railroads. 

Further, granting broad new authority to the STB to set up licensing requirements as 

deemed appropriate would create unneeded regulatory hurdles to entry into the passenger rail 

market. The safety of passenger railroad operations is already well regulated by the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA), which requires operators to comply with specific safety 

standards. 

5 
74 


Insert offset folio 35 here 81678.035

RAIL SAFETY 

First and foremost, APTA is unequivocally committcd to safety: passenger and employee 

safety is the number one priority on our nation's commuter railroads. Since its inception, APTA 

has been a vocal advocate and active instigator for safety improvements. In the mid-1990's, 

APTA developed the Passenger Rail Equipment Safety Standards (PRESS) program to develop 

safety standards for commuter rail cars. More recently, our commitment to safety was heralded 

by the rail industry regulator, Federal Railroad Administrator (FRA) Joe Szabo, who announced 

safety statistics citing that 2012 was the safest year in railroad industry history. With that said, 

we arc always working to make our industry safer. 

APT A consistently supported thc concept of positive train control (PTC) long before thc 

Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) of 2008, provided that proven technology, resources and 

radio spectrum necessary were available to put PTC into practice. We are working with our 

member railroads to meet the law's requirements that all of the nation's commuter railroads have 

federally approved systems that help protect against accidents. We urge the committee to focus 

on how to best install these still developing systems on an enormous and complicated network of 

interconnected railroads in a way that maximizes all of an operator's safety considerations while 

efficiently moving toward implemcntation. Commuter systems provide important transportation 

in and around many of our metropolitan regions, and demand for service and ridership continues 

to grow. 

Commuter rail safety has improved in recent years, but we continue to strive tor 

improved safety. Commuter rail ridership has grown by 42 percent since 1990, going from just 

under 328 million trips then to more than 466 million trips in 2012, and safety on the nation's 

commuter systems has improved. Over the past 10 years, fatalities have declined from just 

above 0.9 per 100 million passenger miles to 0.5 per 100 million miles in 2011. While 

commuter rail operators will always seek to improve and enhance saiety, it is clear that travel by 

commuter railroad is among the safest modes of travel in the U.S. 

Culture of Safety 

While we address in this testimony a very significant element of the RSIA in the 

requirement to implement PTC, it is important that we make clear that PTC is but one element of 

an overall integrated approach to system safety. An etTective safety culture is more important 

than anyone specific procedure or technology. It begins with the commitment of the 

organization and senior leadership. working in collaboration with employees and labor in 

adopting common safety goals and expectations. It involves recognition that responsibility for 

safety lies at all levels and with all stafl~ One way our commuter rail agencies demonstrate their 

commitment is by having a comprehensive safety plan in place. It includes having sound 

policies and procedures, training, maintenance practices that include asset management and state 

of good repair considerations, data tracking jc.)r monitoring trends in operational, equipment, and 

infrastructure performance. and systems in place for auditing and assessing that performance. 

The transit and commuter rail industries have been leading on satety improvements over a 20 

plus year evolution during which a great deal of attention and effort has been directed toward 

6 
75 


Insert offset folio 36 here 81678.036

development of standardized systems and approaches to the delivery of safe service and work 

environments. 

As an example, all commuter rail agencies have developed Safety Management Program 

Plans, the framework of which was based upon APTA's Safety Audit Program. The APT A 

Safety Audit program is a voluntary, comprehensive program developed over a decade ago when 

a number of North American rail transit systems requested APT A to develop and implement a 

standardized format for rail system safety and to provide an auditing service that would enable a 

transit system to determine the degree to which the standardized elements for rail transit system 

safety were being addressed. By way of the adaptation of existing industry best practices and 

system safety standards from the aerospace industry, the APT A Rail Safety Audit Program was 

inaugurated in 1989. This program was subsequently adopted in 1996 by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation Federal Transit Administration as the base guideline for its federal state safety 

oversight requirements. 

Currently there are dozens of rail transit systems and bus transit systems participating in 

APT A safety audit programs. These systems include mass transit/subway systems, light rail 

systems, automated guide-ways, heavy rail commuter systems, and bus transit operations across 

North America and Asia. Modal programs have been developed that are specific to urban rail, 

commuter rail, and bus safety management processes, The benefits derived from participation in 

the APT A Safety Management Program include: 

• Adoption of safety management practices that have been established as an industry 

standard; 

• Building and enhancing safety management processes for service delivery and 

workplace safety; 

• Providing a tool for demonstrating transit system diligence for safety; and 

• Providing a mechanism for continual improvement of system safety 

An effective safety program implementation includes policies and procedures on: Facilities 

Maintenance and Inspection; Vehicle Maintenance, Inspection and Repair; Rules and Procedures 

Review; Training and Certification; Emergency Planning and Response; Workplace Safety 

Program; Passenger and Public Safety: Rail Corridor Operational Study: and Environmental 

Management Programs. These are just a portion of the lengthy list of considerations with which 

our agencies are involved in ensuring a safe system. 

Additionally, industry developed standards (such as PRESS and others) are contributing 

greatly to ongoing safety improvement. APT A has written over 270 standards and recommended 

practices, 71 of which address particular safety needs for mainline rail equipment, and over III 

for rail transit alone. Standards help improve the safety of public transportation systems by 

addressing vehicle crash worthiness, passenger door systems, emergency lighting and evacuation, 

and new standards to improve the safety of vehicle interiors including seat attachment strength 

and safer workstation tables. APTA has initiated new efforts within its standards body to 

improve current standards on vehicle design atTecting derailments and has initiation new studies 

to better understand the potential for derailments at slow operating speed. Standards also define 

safe operating practices, inspection and maintenance of equipment, train control maintenance 

7 
76 


Insert offset folio 37 here 81678.037

requirements, electrical propulsion system design, catenary electrical distribution wire 

maintenance, and wheel and axle assembly procedures among many other areas of a general 

nature including cybcr and physical security, railcar procurement, tunnel ventilation, and 

sustainability. 

Finally, APTA partners with the FRA, AAR and labor in developing rules to help design, 

build and operate safe transportation systems. In this regard, APT A is very active as an industry 

representative within the Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC). Recently FRA and industry 

have collaborated on the development of language for new safety rules particular to high speed 

rail equipment. Thc public transportation industry and especially our commuter rail agencies 

will continue to maintain a strong emphasis on safety. 

Positive Train Control 

As the members of this committee know, the Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) of 

2008 mandated that PTC tcchnology be implemented on passenger railroad and ccrtain freight 

railroads by December 31, 20 IS, and it authorized funding of $250 million over five years to 

assist with implementation. As defined in the statute, a positive control system is a "system 

designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, over speed derailments, incursions into established 

work zone limits, and the movement of a train through a switch left in the wrong position." 

When the RSIA was drafted in 2008, there was no otT the shelf technology capable of achieving 

these safety objectives for all railroads as is still the case today. Yet many commuter railroads 

have long made use of collision avoidance systems that would have protected against accidents 

that have occurred in recent years. Since the enactment of RSIA, APT A and its commuter rail 

members across the country have aggressively pursued the funding and technology necessary to 

implement this safety mandate by the current statutory deadline. However, challenges beyond 

our control have presented obstacles to implementation. 

The initial conservative estimate for PTC implementation on commuter railroads was 

more than $2 billion, with more than 4,000 locomotives and passenger cars with control cabs and 

8,500 track miles to be equipped. Since this initial estimate, as commuter railroads have begun 

their contracting and technology acquisitions, the estimated costs of implementation have risen 

well beyond the initial $2 billion estimate. These estimates do not include costs related to the 

acquisition and operation of the radio spectrum necessary to meet the interoperability 

requirements set forth under RSIA and they do not include costs associated with operating PTC 

systems. 

To date, Congress has only appropriated $50 million of the total authorized amount. At a 

time when critical State of Good Repair backlogs are creeping above nearly $80 BILLION on 

our nation's public transportation systems, commuter railroads are being forced to choose 

between performing critical system safety maintcnancc projects and implementing PTC by 2015. 

Insufficient funding is a significant impediment to implementation for publicly funded railroads. 

Key components of PTC systems are still in the developmental phase, such as software 

upgrades and revisions, and roadway worker protcction. Absent these essential elements, full 

implemcntation by 2015 will be impeded, even for those railroads that have secured the 

8 
77 


Insert offset folio 38 here 81678.038

necessary funding. Moreover. the inability of most commuter railroads to acquire necessary 

radio spectrum is also impeding full implementation by 2015. The FCC has not responded to 

APTA's requests to make available spectrum available as a public safety imperative and insisted 

that the necessary bandwidth can be purchased on the open market. One railroad purchased 

spectrum only to have it now held up while the courts decide who owns the rights to sell the 

spectrum. 

In 20 II, after several years of working towards implementation and complying in good 

faith with FRA reporting requirements on PTC implementation plans, the APT A Commuter Rail 

CEOs committee concluded that the industry would not be able to fully implement interoperable 

PTC systems on all commuter railroads by the current deadline. Thus, APT A approved a policy 

position recommcnding that the deadline for PTC implementation be extended to December 31, 

2018. APTA's position also states that extending the deadline shall not inhibit efforts to 

implement PTC on some commuter railroads prior to the existing deadline and in fact urges 

Congress to prioritize funding for those efforts. The hope was that lessons learned from early 

implcmenters would serve to facilitate and expedite implementation for other commuter 

railroads. Other APTA positions adopted in 2011 included recommendations that Congress 

appropriate federal ftmding to cover 80 percent of PTC implementation costs for commuter 

railroads and direct the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to provide radio spectrum, 

without cost, required for PTC implementation by publicly funded commuter railroads. 

I should note that representatives from commuter rail systems across the nation and 

APTA staff have conducted numerous meetings with Members of Congress and staff from 

congressional committees of jurisdiction to explain APTA's views and the challenges faced 

trying to implement PTe. While we have always expressed a commitment to implement PTC 

technologies, industry experience indicated that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to 

implement PTC on all of the nation's commuter railroads by the 2015 deadline. We believe we 

acted responsibly by coming to Congress well before the deadline, rather than waiting for the 

deadline to become imminent. 

Further, in January 2012, APTA shared a report with Congress which documented the 

technical challenges of implementing PTe. This report, which was written jointly with the 

Association of American Railroads (AAR), also outlined the technical challenges that freight 

railroads are experiencing in their effort to implement PTC and reached the shared conclusion 

that implementing a fully interoperable PTC network was not achievable by December 31,2015. 

CONCLUSION 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today on national rail policy, including 

passenger rail and rail safety. 

We look forward to working with the committee as it drafts legislation to succeed the 

Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act. We hope to work with this committee to 

develop a federal program that works with state and local governments, and the private sector to 

develop a national system of intercity passenger rail corridors, including high-speed rail, that 

9 
78 


Insert offset folio 39 here 81678.039

connect the nation's growing population centers. We finnly believe that such a system would 

enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of all of the modal clements of our existing 

transportation systcm and bettcr prepare the country to compete in the international economy as 

our population soars. 

We also want to reiterate the industry's commitment to advancing the safety of our riders, 

employees and communities. We urge this subcommittee to continue its work to assist 

commuter railroads as they work to implement PTC by extending the implementation deadline to 

2018, authorizing at least 80 percent of the more than $2 billion in implementation costs. and 

working with the FCC to establish a set aside for PTC spectrum purposes. 

On behalf of APIA and its members we look forward to continuing to work with this 

Committee on this and many other common issues that face public transportation agencies. 

10 
79 


Insert offset folio 40 here 81678.040

Responses of the American Public Transportation Association (APT A) 

to the 

Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee 

on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Hearing on "National Rail Policy: Examining (;oaI5, Objectives, and Responsibilities" 

June 27, 2013 

Questions for the Record 

Questions from Rep. Denham: 

During the June 27th hearing, Chairman Denham requested information from each witness 

concerning a timeline for implementing Positive Train Control (PTe) by region, as the railroad 

system is an integrated network, operated by different corporations. Please provide 

information to the Committee concerning the progress, the challenges and obstacles, and 

overall timeline for implementing PTC, by region. 

APT A Response: While there may be a rationale for refocusing the approach to implementation of 

Positive Train Control (PTC) on Class [ railroads in a regional manner, the implementation of PTC 

on each of the nation's commuter railroads is currently being considered and undertaken on a 

local/regional basis. As many commuter railroads already have PTC implementation plans which are 

dependent upon the decisions and progress of their host railroads, any change to the approach of the 

host railroads would have implications for the commuter railroads. Those commuter railroads that 

are not dependent upon a host railroad would be unaffected (or minimally affected) by a change 

toward regional implementation. 

APT A has surveyed its member commuter rail agencies numerous times over the last several years 

asking for information on implementation plans, costs, needs, and obstacles. Attached with this 

response is our latest survey response which details the costs, spectrum needs. and specific issues and 

challenges each of the commuter rail agencies is facing as they work in good faith to implement the 

PTC mandate. 

How important is the Northeast Corridor to America's commuter railroads, and how can we 

have them better partner with Amtrak financially and programmatically to tackle the growing 

backlog of capital needs? 

APT A Response: Eight commuter railroads operate within the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and its 

connected service area, and for those eight agencies and their states, the relationship with Amtrak is 

very important. Decisions over operations, and infrastructure capacity and improvements should be 

made with all parties involved having input into what will meet the service requirements of their 

riders and communities, as should the connected operations of local transit services. NEC states and 

commuter rail agencies are active partners in the process being undertaken by the Northeast Corridor 

Infrastructure Advisory and Operations Commission. 

Today, throughout the NEe, there is already good coordination on operational and infrastructure 

based decisions, although local and state interests vary. Many infrastructure investments are already 

collaboratively planned and financed. APT A member agencies and their states have long provided 

significant capital investment into stations and right-ol:way throughout the NEC region, including 

those areas that provide rail connectivity to the main line of the NEe. In some cases, the commuter 

rail agency or state is the primary owner offacilities that are shared with Amtrak. States such as 
80 


Insert offset folio 41 here 81678.041

Connecticut, New York and Massachusetts own portions of the corridor, with other states owning 

significant portions of the connected rail corridors. 

APTA is interested in the direction the Northeast Corridor Commission takes and will look forward 

to the results of its work in the future. 

What are some of the MAP-21 or other streamlining provisions for FHWA and/or FTA that 

would be most valuable for your members if applied to the FRA? Are there other specific 

streamlining provisions you would like to see applied to rail projects that are not inMAP-21? 

APT A Response: APT A's PRIIA legislative principles call for (I) common standards for NEPA 

approvals across all US DOT agencies, (2) streamlined approval measures for rail projects that are 

consistent with MAP-21 's project acceleration provisions for highway and transit projects, and 

(3) development of an expanded system of categorical exclusions (CEs) for projects that do not have 

a significant effect on the human environment. 

• Common Rules DOT-Wide: With the demand for multi-modal projects increasing, and with 

project sponsors often relying on funding from multiple federal sources, creating a common set 

of CEs and establishing joint FT AlFHW A/FRA rules for NEPA approvals would simplify and 

expedite project delivery for all surface transportation projects and minimize duplicative, modespecific requirements. There may be limited cases where modal necessities may validate 

differences, but those differences should be limited and readily justified. There may also be 

certain circumstances where the current FRA approach is preferable to that utilized by FHW A 

and FTA, and may be recommended as the approach for the other agencies. For example, the 

Tiered EIS clearance approach of the FRA (general clearance on mode and alignment, with more 

specific environmental clearance on specifics to follow) may be preferable to the FT A and 

FHW A approaches. However, generally speaking, standardization across modes is ultimately 

preferable. 

• Expanded CEs: We welcome FRA's seven newly adopted CEs, understanding that some of these 

seven were modeled after CEs currently available for projects funded by FHWA and FTA. But 

we believe FRA can do more to ensure parity among rail, transit, and highway project CEs. 

Specifically, FRA should consider adopting categorical exclusions like those in the FT A's 

regulations that broaden agencies' ability to acquire or preserve rights-of-way prior to completion 

of environmental reviews, where such acquisitions would not prejudice NEPA decisions. A 

categorical exclusion under one modal agency is likely to be equally appropriate for the other, 

given the nature of categorical exclusions. 

• Given the significant project acceleration and environmental streamlining provisions for transit 

and highway projects in MAP-21, corresponding changes to environmental approval processes 

also may be needed for rail projects, so that they would not be comparatively disadvantaged. 

The Subtitle C provisions of Title I ofMAP-21 should be applied consistently to passenger rail 

projects. These provisions apply to highway or public transit projects, but, despite "multimodal" 

language and intent, they do not apply to projects receiving grants and oversight through the 

FRA. For instance, Section 1308 which reduces the time period for claims to be brought against 

projects from 180 days to 150 days does not similarly apply to rail projects. In fact, it is our 

understanding that no limitation currently applies to rail projects. 
81 


Insert offset folio 42 here 81678.042

• Accelerated Decisionmaking: Traditionally, a record of decision (ROD) on a project cannot be 

issued until 30 days after the issuance of a !inal environmental impact statement (FElS). One 

improvement MAP-21 made to speed decisionmaking in environmental reviews of transit and 

highway projects was to require the use of a single document -- comprising both the final 

environmental impact statement and the record of decision -- as the !inal NEPA document. Rail 

projects should also be included in this straightforward approach to removing procedural hurdles 

without compromising environmental safeguards. 

• Finally, a process for waiving non-statutory requirements when needed to expedite projects 

should be established for HSIPR projects, as it currently exists for Federal Highway 

Administration (FI IW A) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) projects under the FHWA 

SEP-15 program. Permits and review shall be treated in an expedited manner, with reviews 

coordinated in a concurrent manner and not handled sequentially. 

APT A is interested in continuing to work with the Committee on specific recommendations to 

encourage expedited project reviews. 

What policies would APT A like to see in the next rail bill to encourage private sector 

participation in the planning, construction, and financing of passenger rail infrastructure? 

APT A Response: The private sector is currently fully engaged in the planning, design and 

construction of major capital infrastructure projects throughout the country. APTA supports efforts 

to encourage expanded utilization of private sector financial capital in the development of future 

intcrcity passenger rail, and all infrastructure projects. Private capital that may be sitting on the 

sidelines right now still looks for the public funding in order to be certain ofthe commitment and to 

ensure the control of risk in their investment. 

Federal funding will attract private investment: A reliable, dedicated federal funding source for 

passenger rail is essential not only to maintaining and improving to our national passenger mil 

network and but also to catalyzing private sector participation in the delivery and !inancing of 

major capital rail projects. P3s are premised upon private sector participants receiving a 

reasonable return on investment in exchange for assumption of certain public sector project risks. 

Reestablish tax credit bonds: The strong success of infrastructure tax credit bonds in FY s 2009 

and 20 I 0 proved there is great private sector appetite for investment in infrastructure. The 

creation of a limited-volume tax credit bond for surface transportation projects could attract 

significant private sector investment, while reducing state and local issuers' borrowing costs, as 

issuers would be responsible for repayment of the principal while the federal government would 

cover the interest portion of the bonds, in the form of annual tax credits to bondholders (not a 

direct Federal payment to issuers). 

• Promote value capture: Rail projects generate signi!icant economic bene !it to surrounding 

communities in the form of increased property values; partnering with private sector businesses 

to boost transit-oriented development at rail stations generate revenues that benefit both public 

and private sector participants. We are exploring opportunities to take full advantage of value 

capture as an additional revenue source at the local level. including reexamining rules governing 

right-of-way acquisition and use. 
82 


Insert offset folio 43 here 81678.043

APTA would also like to make additional recommendations regarding reform of the RRIF program. 

We have attached these recommendations separately following the responses to these QFRs. 

With regard to liability insurance levels, how do you respond to those who claim that since the 

cap for an accident is $200 million, each commuter railroad should carry that much iusurance? 

APTA Response: Within an affirmative context of safety, the existing $200 million cap on liability 

as established in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 should apply to all claims 

against high-speed and intercity rail operators, sponsoring agencies, host railroads, and commuter 

railroads and should apply consistently regardless of the operating entity or its contractor. Without 

such statutory limits, the cost of obtaining insurance and the cost of rail passenger operations will 

become prohibitively costly. Ideally, clarity over the application of the statutory cap should 

discourage host railroads from requiring liability coverage in excess of the cap. New and existing 

high speed and intercity passenger rail programs and projects should be unencumbered by new, 

additional requirements for operator licensing or insurance. Currently, state and regional passenger 

railroad service sponsors enter into agreements with passenger rail operators through detailed 

contracts which take into account qualifications and legal requirements, and additional requirements 

will unnecessarily increase costs for public passenger railroads. 

In current practice, shared use agreements and the related insurance requirements are determined on a 

case-by-case basis. In some cases, those agreements are already committing commuter rail agencies 

to meet higher cost insurance requirements. However, Federal law should not force the application 

of a high insurance standard through a one-size fits all approach. In some cases, state law may 

establish a lower limit than the $200 million, as is the case in Pennsylvania. 

Further the scope of services does have an impact on risk exposure. Amtrak, for instance, has a $200 

million insurance cap when providing nationwide service. This cannot compare, and should not be 

applied in the same manner to smaller commuter rail operations such as the 29 mile Rail Runner 

Express in New Mexico or the 32 mile Music City Star in Nashville, TN. 

In recent years, several commuter rail systems have faced challenges in renewing liability coverage, 

finding it difficult or impossible to obtain insurance in the domestic markets, forcing them to go 

overseas for coverage, where they paid more for less coverage. Difficulty in procuring liability 

insurance may also impede emerging high-speed and intercity passenger service, as increased 

liability limits will ultimately affect their operations. With such a great public need, we must work 

together to ensure that our commuter trains can continue to run and keep our country moving. 

High insurance requirements threaten to preclude the continued growth of additional commuter rail 

services throughout the country. Limits on insurance are important to keep costs down and provide 

assurance to states and regional entities that may be interested in establishing new service. Any 

move to apply a higher limit will have the unintended consequence of raising costs for all commuter 

railroads without recognizing the impact on the riders who will pay higher ticket costs or the 

taxpayers who finance commuter rail in America. 

Many of the issues facing commuter rail agencies and their liability insurance requirements were 

covered in a 2009 GAO report on the subject. While costs and specific agreements have changed 

since this report was produced, the issues and concerns remain the same. 
83 


Insert offset folio 44 here 81678.044

Improvements to the RRIF Credit Assistance Program 

1. Streamline and reform US DOT's application process and improve program management: 

Increase transparency in the application process by requiring an annual report to Congress, 

detailing where each applicant is in the approval process and describing the risk-scoring 

methodology on all loan applications, and the assessed credit risk premium and funding 

source(s) used to pay such premium on each approved loan. 

• Consistent with the TIFIA program, authorize DOT to establish, collect, and spend fees assessed 

on borrowers for DOT's administrative costs of providing and servicing RRIF credit assistance, 

not simply for application evaluation as currently permitted under 45 USC §823(k). 

Alternatively, set aside a portion of any RRIF program authorization to cover these 

administrative costs. 

Establish a time period, after submission of an application, during which DOT must determine 

whether an application is complete. 

2. Revise RRIF's credit risk premium provisions to be consistent with the Federal Credit Reform Act 

(FCRA): 

Repeal the provision rebating credit risk premiums after repayment of cohort of RRIF loans (45 

USC §822(f){4)); structure funding of credit risk premium and loan disbursements consistent 

with FCRA (e.g., like TIFIA). 

3. Remove barriers to Federal funding of credit risk premiums, once RRIF program is consistent with 

FCRA: 

Cease the annual THUD Appropriations Act limitation on the use of Federal funds for RRIF 

program credit risk premiums. 

Consistent with the TIFIA program, make the subsidy cost of Federal credit assistance under the 

RRIF program an eligible use ofTlGER program funds. 

• For a project receiving credit assistance under RRIF that would also meet the project eligibility 

definition at 23 USC §601{a)(12) for credit assistance under TIFIA" make the subsidy cost of the 

RRIF project an eligible use of the funds authorized for the subsidy cost of TIFIA projects. 

4. Authorize Federal funding for credit risk premium of RRIF program. 

A $50 million annual authorization would support at least $3 billion in RRIF loans over six years. 

Over the past 11 years since the program made its first loan, DOT has executed 33 loans worth 

$1.7 billion, with an average loan size of $52 million. 

I Projects meeting the eligibility standards of both the RRIF (45 USC 822(b)(I» and TIFIA (23 USC 601(a)(12» 

credit programs include intercity passenger rail, Amtrak, and certain intermodal freight rail transfer facilities. 
84 


Insert offset folio 45 here 81678.045

APTA Member Survey 

Commuter Railroad PTC Compliance 

June, 2013 
85 


Insert offset folio 46 here 81678.046

Contents 

Purpose ............................................................................................................................................ 3 

Question Set ......................................................................................................... '" ........................ 3 

Denton County Transportation Authority (OCT A) ........................................................................ 4 

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) ................................................................................................ 5 

Trinity Railway Express (TRE) ...................................................................................................... 5 

New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (NYMT A) ...................................................... 7 

Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) ....................................................................................................... 9 

MTA Metro-North Railroad (Metro-North) ................................................................................. II 

New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJT) ......................................................................................... 13 

Northstar Commuter Railroad (Northstar) .................................................................................... 14 

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) ................................................... 15 

Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) .......................................................................... 16 

Alaska Railroad Corporation (AKRR) .......................................................................................... 17 

Illinois Regional Transportation Authority (Metra) ..................................................................... 18 

Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) .................................................... 21 

Nashville Regional Transportation Authority (Nashville) ............................................................ 22 

Utah Transit Authority (Utah) ...................................................................................................... 23 

North County Transit District (NCTD) ......................................................................................... 24 

Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Mctrolink) ............................................................ 25 

Commuter Rail Spectrum Needs .................................................................................................. 26 

List of Polled Agencies ................................................................................................................. 28 

2 
86 


Insert offset folio 47 here 81678.047

Purpose 

In response to inquiries from Congress on industry progress toward and challenges in achieving 

implementation of Positive Train Control on the nation's commuter rail systems, APTA surveyed 

its members in May of 2013. Survey responses were provided between May and June of 2013. 

Additional information on PTC spectrum was collected in a separate inquiry. 

Question Set 

1. What is your currently projected completion date? 

2. What is your currently projected total price tag for PTC implementation? 

3. In round numbers, how much has your agency invested thus far, and what have been 

the sources of those funds? 

4. If you are not on target to meet the December 2015, what specifically stands in your 

way? What do you have, what do you need, and/or what stands in the way of acquiring 

the needed: 

a. Dollars 

b. Spectrum 

c. Integrator 

d. Vendors 

e. Other 

5. Are you experiencing any NEW, unforeseen challenges we should call to the attention of 

FRA and Capitol Hill? What have been the consequences to your implementation 

timeline and budget? 

6. Please quantify in dollars your SOGR needs. 

3 
87 


Insert offset folio 48 here 81678.048

Denton County Transportation Authority (OCTAl Lewisville, TX 

1. Based on our analysis of the full process of procurement, implementation and testing, 

DCTA is at least 9 months behind due to technical issues/challenges. 

2. Left Blank 

3. Left Blank 

4. 

a. Left Blank 

b. Spectrum acquisition is a key challenge. Spectrum available for purchase in our 

area will require significant waivers from the FCC, additional interoperability 

testing and certifications, and the owners are embroiled in many legal issues. 

Discussion has begun on leasing spectrum. 

c. The procurement of a system of this nature does not lend itself to a partial 

implementation. The contract needs to be under a full design- build-integrate 

model. For an agency to have any reasonable assurance of a successful system, 

the contractor must be able to make promises they can keep without the luxury 

of pointing fingers at the "other guys" on the job. Too many unknowns are 

present for this to be true. 

d. Left Blank 

e. A key unknown is the manufacturing capability of the industry and the ability of 

DCTA to gain a place in the process queue to gauge a date of equipment 

availability. There is an effective monopoly on many key elements. This will limit 

the ability to see improvements in the technology to avoid the potentially 

dramatic restrictions on operations and material availability. Everyone, to 

include the FRA and the Class I's, are in "discovery learning" mode. We are all 

being positioned to make the same mistakes at the same time with no benefits 

from the lessons learned. It is our fear that new regulatory requirements and 

barriers we do not even know of will restrict our ability to meet a time certain 

for operation. 

5. Left Blank 

6. Left Blank 

4 
88 


Insert offset folio 49 here 81678.049

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) Dallas, TX 

Trinity Railway Express (TRE) Fort Worth/Dallas, TX 

1. September 30, 2016 

2. Between $34,800,000.00 and $44,800,000.00 depending on service plans under review. 

3. $1,000,000. 

4. 

a. Federal funding on hand is: $12,500,000.00 Additional Federal Funding Required 

is between $16,000,000 to $24,000,000 depending on service plans. 

b. DART ITRE has tried to purchase spectrum without success. DART is on its third 

attempt to negotiate for spectrum to support the three commuter railroads in 

North Texas (TRE, DCTA, and the future TexRail, Fort Worth 1's future commuter 

rail service). The first two attempts were unsuccessful because the license 

holders were not capable of executing a transaction due, in one case to 

bankruptcy proceedings and in the other case the license was held by a company 

that could not authorize and sign an agreement due to internal business issues. 

Few options remain to purchase spectrum on the open market without paying a 

significant premium over what we believe the value is to the three transit 

authorities. DART ITRE is evaluating lease options but believe there are risks 

involved with leasing including long-term pricing and lack of options for 

equipment vendors is forcing a sole source scenario. 

c. There are three commuter railroads in North Texas (TRE, DCTA, and the future 

TexRail, Fort Worth 1's future commuter rail service) , we have formed an 

alliance to address PTC as a fully integrated and shared solution. A new cost 

estimate, schedule and technical feasibility study have been completed and are 

under review by the commuter rail alliance partners. A regional specification is 

being developed for an Integrator to design and install a regional solution. We 

anticipate the specification development and award process to completed in 

early 2014 and follow on design, install, integration and testing process to 

complete in 2016. lack of proven integrators in sufficient technical depth and 

quantity to afford competition and ensure scalability increases technical, project 

and financial risk. Concerns whether Integrators will be able to scale and deliver 

against multiple projects and clients. 

d. lack of technical readiness, lack software readiness, lack of equipment 

availability, lack of competition and lack of equipment maturity are significant 

barriers to expedite completion of the project. 

e. By working together to implement PTC as a regional solution, there is significant 

opportunity to achieve economies of scale, to optimize a technology solution 

that is interoperable and cost effective. However, time is needed to coordinate, 

plan, design, build, implement and commission a regional solution. As a result of 

these issues and as an unfunded mandate, PTC will divert funds from other state 

of good repair programs causing deferment of capital programs needed to 

maintain existing and critical assets. 

5 
89 


Insert offset folio 50 here 81678.050

5. As mentioned above, DART has spent over 2 years trying to purchase spectrum and 

even obtained board approve to purchase spectrum but have not been able to purchase 

a license. Considering radio spectrum is a vital technology, and many barriers exist, the 

FRA and Congress should consider collaborating with the FCC to make spectrum 

available to commuter railroads. The current process is not working, is very expensive 

and time consuming and has not yielded results. The alternative is to lease spectrum 

from PTC 220 llC and purchase radios from Meteorcomm which are both entities that 

are owned and managed by the Class 1 railroads. This currently represents a sole 

source requirement and the cost of the technology is high and there is no guaranty that 

the technology is going to work or will be well supported. 

6. The TRE has recently completed a state of good repair assessment which calls for 

approximately $14 million annually to maintain the agencies existing capital assets in a 

state of good repair or $280,000,000 over 20 years. This is exclusive of SOGR for PTC 

once implemented. 

6 
90 


Insert offset folio 51 here 81678.051

New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (NYMTA) New York City, NY 

1. We are not on target to meet the December 2015 deadline for a variety of reasons. 

2. We estimate it will cost the NY MTA $800 - $1 billion to install PTe. 

3. To date, we have budgeted nearly $500 million for PTe installation, but we do not have 

enough funding for full installation at this time. 

4. 

a. left Blank 

b. First, we do not have all of the spectrum required for a PTe operation. The NY 

MTA needs spectrum for 13 counties. We have purchased spectrum for 9 of 

these 13 counties. We still do not own spectrum in 4 counties in which MetroNorth operates. We are in negotiations with a potential vendor for the 

remaining 4 counties, but this is not a done deal by any means. We are 

concerned that a technical review may show that we have significant additional 

interference issues with license holders in adjoining counties resulting in the 

need to return to the market to purchase additional license rights in at least two 

counties. long story short, we do not have all of the spectrum that we need for 

a successful PTe operation and we have received no assistance from the Fee. 

PTe 220 has been of no use for the MTA. 

c. We still need to bring on a system integrator and develop a system that works in 

conjunction with our existing cab signal with automatic train stop system, as well 

as being interoperable with Amtrak. We are moving forward but there a number 

of complicating factors, many of which are beyond the control of the MTA in 

meeting the December 2015 deadline. Other challenges include the limited 

market place/availability for PTe components, the magnitude of the PTe effort 

from development, prototyping, reliability and functional testing to final 

configuration and system-wide retrofits and installations (while providing 

reliable levels of OTP and service availability). 

d. left Blank 

e. last fall, Superstorm Sandy caused unprecedented damage to the MTA. 

Hundreds of millions of corrosive saltwater flooded our system. For the second 

time in its 108 year history, the MTA, which serves as the lifeblood of the 

nation's largest regional economy, completely shut down. left in Sandy's wake 

were eight subway tunnels and vehicular tunnels flooded with corrosive salt 

water; twelve subway stations with major damage or completely destroyed; an 

entire bridge and rail line serving the Rockaways in Queens is gone; fifteen miles 

of damages or destroyed signaling; and rail yards and maintenance shops underwater and damaged. Most of our system is back up and running but we're now 

seeing another reality - a fragile system that's safe but extremely vulnerable. 

The MTA estimates $4.755 dollars in immediate repair and restoration needs left 

in Sandy's destructive wake, and billions more in mitigation project needs to 

protect the system from future flooding. Sandy will certainly have any impact in 

our ability to meet the December 2015 deadline. 

We're in strong support of FRA's language calling for the use of alternative risk 

7 
91 


Insert offset folio 52 here 81678.052

mitigation technologies (which should include, but not limited to Cab Signaling 

with Automatic Train Stop Technology) in lieu of a PTC system on specified line 

segments. 

5. left blank 

6. Left blank 

8 
92 


Insert offset folio 53 here 81678.053

Long Island Rail Road (LlRR) Jamaica, NY 

1. While our latest Implementation Date estimate is 12-31-18, the LlRR and MNR PTC 

Systems Integrator solicitation process is ongoing with many unknowns until a 

contractor is selected and the procurement is completed. 

As described in the PTClP, lIRR is basing its design on Amtrak's Type Approved ACSES II, 

PTC system. 

Under the compressed implementation timeframe, use of ACSES II provides lIRR with 

the best possibility of providing the requisite PTC functionality within the 

implementation deadline. However, the ACSES II system is currently being revised to 

meet the requirements of high-density commuter operations. The high traffic volumes, 

close headways and reliability demands of commuter service with low tolerance for 

delay, complex track configurations with close switching areas, precision stop 

enforcement necessary for operations and multiple-unit rail vehicle configurations 

continue to be of concern to the LlRR and currently present unknown risks. 

The PTC data radio system needed to handle the demands of commuter rail operation 

and integration of ACSES require significant development and testing for use in 

commuter rail operation. Many of the onboard, wayside, back office and 

communication subsystems have not been fully developed and tested for the demands 

of high-density commuter operation. Many risks and challenges faced by LlRR in 

implementing a complete PTC system, which, coupled with the enormity of the 

undertaking, render meeting the December 2015 Implementation deadline unrealistic, 

despite LlRR's continuing due diligence and best efforts. In this regard, lIRR is situated 

similarly as many other commuter and freight railroads, who have stated publically that 

the December 2015 date cannot be met. 

The critical path for lIRR's PTC Program includes successful implementation of a pilot 

program consisting of two segments, one cab signal segment and an ABS/CMB segment. 

The pilot program will provide a full functional test and validation of all PTC system 

wayside, office and onboard hardware and software. FRA Certification of the lIRR PTC 

pilot and approval of the PTC Safety Plan is also critical to moving forward with full 

implementation of the PTC system. Considering the research and development required 

to implement the necessary functionality to utilize ACSES II in lIRR's complex system 

and address interoperability, the pilot program is expected to be a lengthy and difficult 

challenge. Interoperability itself poses a significant challenge, as no national standards 

have been developed -leaving each and every railroad property to negotiate a path to 

interoperability on its own. To meet the contemplated December 31, 2018 

implementation Date, LlRR/MNR will likely have to incur additional risk related to 

modifying our Specification to allow the System Integrator/Supplier to deliver certain 

components prior to completion of the pilot testing. 

2. $400M. This estimate does not include monetary contingencies related to a risk 

assessment, which indicated up to 50% additional costs. 

3. Approximately $30M . Federal/State/local funding. 

4. 

a. left Blank 

9 
93 


Insert offset folio 54 here 81678.054

b. Left Blank 

c. It has been a major challenge to produce a preliminary design of an 

interoperable ASCES /I compliant system such that LlRR, in conjunction with 

MNR, could proceed with an RFP for a System Integrator. The density and 

complexity of the LlRR and MNR systems outstrip most if not all other railroads 

in this country. Moving forward, adapting ASCES " systems to our operations will 

pose challenges and create the potential for unanticipated difficulties as LlRR 

and MNR select a Systems Integrator and begin final design and implementation. 

Vendor and industry resources are stretched to the limit, and vendor 

interactions are hamstrung by proprietary roadblocks. Our jOint effort with MNR 

to obtain usable radio spectrum, still ongoing, has raised further obstacles and 

created delay. Despite these numerous challenges, LlRR and MNR expect to 

award a contract for the Systems Integrator in the summer of 2013. 

d. Left Blank 

e. In addition, the significant scope of installations, both wayside and on-board, 

coupled with limited labor resources and the demands on those same resources 

posed by other critical projects, constrains the ability of URR to fully implement 

its PTC system by the 2015 deadline. Significantly, Super Storm Sandy inflicted 

major damage to parts of the LlRR wayside signal system infrastructure including 

the Long Beach Branch, and West Side Storage Yard and other parts of the 

system. LlRR will be replacing infrastructure in these areas including signal, and 

substation and other components over the next several years. The manpower 

needed for this work will reduce the personnel available for PTC work. This 

further impacts the railroad's ability to meet the PTC deadline. 

Combining technology risks, pilot program testing, interoperability and spectrum 

issues, Super Storm Sandy and other labor and resource challenges (as well as 

the scarcity of funding), notwithstanding LlRR's continuing due diligence and 

best efforts, full PTC Implementation will not likely be achieved until significantly 

after the current December 2015 deadline. URR supports extending the deadline 

for commuter railroads to December 31, 2018. 

5. We support legislative efforts granting the FRA the authority to approve on a case by 

case basis additional extensions ofthe PTC deadline. 

6. The SOGR dollars (percentages) below represent the total SOGR Infrastructure 

investments made or planned during each capital program. Rolling stock and other 

Administrative costs are not included in the Total Infrastructure investments. 

Capital Program SOGR Funding 

2005-2009 $1.3B (80%) 

2010 - 2014 $794M (44%) 

201S - 2019 (unconstrained SOGR need) $1.2B (55%) 

10 
94 


Insert offset folio 55 here 81678.055

MTA Metro-North Railroad (Metro-North) New York City, NY 

1. Latest Implementation Date estimate is 12-31-18. 

2. $409M. This estimate does not include monetary contingencies related to a risk 

assessment, which indicated up to 50% additional costs. 

3. Approximately $40M . Federal/State/Local funding. 

4. As described in the PTClP, Metro-North is basing its design on Amtrak's Type Approved 

ACSES II, PTC system. Under the compressed implementation timeframe, use of ACSES 

II provides Metro-North with the best possibility of providing the requisite PTC 

functionality within the implementation deadline. However, the ACSES II system is 

currently being revised to meet the requirements of high-density commuter operations. 

The high traffic volumes, close headways and reliability demands of commuter service 

with low tolerance for delay, complex track configurations with close switching areas, 

precision stop enforcement necessary for operations and multiple-unit rail vehicle 

configurations continue to be of concern to Metro-North and currently present 

unknown risks. 

The PTC data radio system needed to handle the demands of commuter rail operation 

and integration of ACSES require significant development and testing for use in 

commuter rail operation. Many of the on board, wayside, back office and 

communication subsystems have not been fully developed and tested for the demands 

of high density commuter operation. 

Many risks and challenges faced by Metro-North in implementing a complete PTC 

system, which, coupled with the enormity of the undertaking, render meeting the 

December 2015 Implementation deadline unrealistic, despite Metro-North's continuing 

due diligence and best efforts. In this regard, Metro-North is situated similarly as many 

other commuter and freight railroads, who have stated publically that the December 

2015 date cannot be met. 

a. left Blank 

b. left Blank (Referenced in 4(e) as an issue, but not specified) 

c. The LlRR and MNR PTC Systems Integrator solicitation process is ongoing with 

many unknowns until a contractor is selected and the procurement is 

completed. It has been a major challenge to produce a preliminary design of an 

interoperable ASCES II compliant system such that both MTA railroads could 

proceed with an RFP for a System Integrator. The density and complexity of the 

lIRR and MNR systems outstrip most if not all other railroads in this country. 

Moving forward, adapting ASCES II systems to our operations will pose 

challenges and create the potential for unanticipated difficulties as LlRR and 

MNR select a Systems Integrator and begin final design and implementation. 

Interoperability itself poses a significant challenge, as no national standards have 

been developed -leaving each and every railroad property to negotiate a path 

to interoperability on its own. To meet the contemplated December 31,2018 

Implementation Date, lIRR/MNR will likely have to incur additional risk related 

to modifying our Specification to allow the System Integrator/Supplier to deliver 

certain components prior to completion of the pilot testing. 

11 
95 


Insert offset folio 56 here 81678.056

d. Vendor and industry resources are stretched to the limit, and vendor 

interactions are hamstrung by proprietary roadblocks. Our joint effort with the 

lIRR to obtain usable radio spectrum, still ongoing, has raised further obstacles 

and created delay. Despite these numerous challenges, URR and MNR expect to 

award a contract for the Systems Integrator in the summer of 2013. 

e. Combining technology risks, pilot program testing, interoperability and spectrum 

issues, Super Storm Sandy and other labor and resource challenges (as well as 

the scarcity of funding), notwithstanding Metro-North's continuing due diligence 

and best efforts, full PTC Implementation will not likely be achieved until 

significantly after the current December 2015 deadline. Metro-North supports 

extending the deadline for commuter railroads to December 31,2018. In 

addition to this extension, we support legislative efforts granting the FRA the 

authority to approve on a case by case basis additional extensions of the PTC 

deadline. 

The critical path for Metro-North's PTC Program includes successful 

implementation of a pilot program consisting of two segments on the New 

Haven Line and on the Hudson Line. The pilot program will provide a full 

functional test and validation of all PTC system wayside, office and onboard 

hardware and software. FRA Certification of the PTC pilot and approval of the 

PTC Safety Plan is also critical to moving forward with full implementation of the 

PTC system. Considering the research and development required to implement 

the necessary functionality to utilize ACSES II in Metro-North's complex system 

and address interoperability, the pilot program is expected to be a lengthy and 

difficult challenge. 

In addition, the significant scope of installations, both wayside and on-board, 

coupled with limited labor resources and the demands on those same resources 

posed by other critical projects, constrains the ability of Metro-North to fully 

implement its PTC system by the 2015 deadline. Significantly, Super Storm Sandy 

inflicted major to parts of the Metro-North wayside signal system infrastructure 

along the Hudson Line. The manpower needed to replace these damaged 

systems will reduce the personnel available for PTe work. This further impacts 

the railroad's ability to meet the PTC deadline. 

5. Left Blank 

6. SOGR and Normal Replacement - $412 million for 2010-2014; estimated $225 million in 

2015-2019 (not funded yet). 

12 
96 


Insert offset folio 57 here 81678.057

New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJT) Newark. NJ 

1. Projected completion date is 2016. 

2. Projected Capital for PTC is $225,000,000; anticipate annual additional operating cost of 

$2.5 million. 

3. $24 million spent to date; all state funded. 

4. Left blank 

a. Left blank 

b. Left blank 

c. Left blank 

d. Left blank 

e. Have not yet acquired spectrum. Also, our costs are $225M not $255M as 

indicated on your form. One unforeseen issue is Super Storm Sandy - NJ Transit 

has $400M in damage to rolling stock and infrastructure and another $1 billion in 

projects to harden the system in case of another storm of that magnitude; this 

may cause NJT to re-prioritize capital dollars once it is determined how much of 

these needs will be covered by insurance, FTA and FEMA. 

5. Left blank 

6. If not for PTC we would have additional capital available to do things to enhance the 

quality of service delivered or to consider service expansion. 

13 
97 


Insert offset folio 58 here 81678.058

Northstar Commuter Railroad (Northstar) Minneapolis, MN 

Northstar will be utilizing BNSF's system. We are awaiting their implementation on the 

corridor. They have delayed the implementation (originally scheduled 2012 now 2014). 

1. Mid 2014 

2. $2million 

3. $450,000 (sO%Federal - Northstar FFGA and 50% local) 

4. Left blank 

a. Left blank 

b. Left blank 

c. Left blank 

d. Left blank 

e. Left blank 

5. Left blank 

6. None 

14 
98 


Insert offset folio 59 here 81678.059

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) Philadelphia, PA 

1. 12/31/15. 

2. $150 Million for ATC and $150 Million for ACSES = $300 Million. 

3. $130 Million of State and Federal funds. 

4. Freight Interoperability on one six mile shared corridor that we have with CSX remains a 

problem. CSX is the owner and SEPTA the tenant. A $39 Million separation project 

requires funding that SEPTA does not have in order to resolve this dilemma. 

a. left blank 

b. left blank 

c. left blank 

d. left blank 

e. left blank 

5. Are you experiencing any NEW, unforeseen challenges we should call to the attention of 

FRA and Capitol Hill? What have been the consequences to your implementation 

time line and budget? Things have otherwise gone somewhat smoothly for SEPTA but 

the lack of federal funding for PTC work has greatly hurt our overall Capital Program. 

6. We have a $5 Billion backlog of SOGR. 

15 
99 


Insert offset folio 60 here 81678.060

Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) Denver, CO 

RTD has a commuter rail project and future system in the final phases of design and early stages 

of construction, with opening planned in 2016. Denver Transit Partners is the DBFOM 

contractor and within the team, which has completed signal design to roughly a 60% level, is 

Wabtec/Xorail who are responsible for PTe design, integration, and implementation. We 

currently have no PTe delays on the project schedule and have no new challenges, in fact we 

recently convened a new IETMS Working Group (which APTA's Lou S. attended in Denver) to 

improve coordination within the subset of those agencies using IETMS. RTD does not have a 

spectrum issue as we will use 700MHZ band from RTD's inventory (also part of a state 

emergency system) and any future radio needs would be ancillary and localized. We have no 

updates from the SOGR survey but share industry concerns about sufficient component 

supplies and testing timeframes. As versus other agencies, we are fortunate that Xorail has 

recently opened a development/lab facility in Englewood (near Denver) which allows for 

convenient local product and office test reviews. 

16 
100 


Insert offset folio 61 here 81678.061

Alaska Railroad Corporation (AKRR) Anchorage, AK 

1. Left Blank 

2. Left Blank 

3. Left Blank 

4. 

a. Lack of funding 

b. 220 MHz frequency - negotiating with PTC 220, LLC but AKRR does not have the 

insurance required to lease from them. We are negotiating with the PTC220, LLC 

but have made little progress since AKRR lacks the required insurance required 

by PTC220 LLC. First difficulty is the insurance requirement for PTC220 LLC. 

c. 

d. Lack of experienced contractors in implementation of the I-ETMS solution. The 

contractors are needed from the wayside to the office and locomotives. This 

system has an impact on all areas of a railroad operations and maintenance. ITC 

I-ETMS requirements continue to evolve that have delayed the software and 

hardware solution from Wabtec for both the back office and the locomotive. 

e. AKRR is attempting to work with the State of Alaska first responders to seek 

frequencies is this reserved range similar to the final ruling last month for the 

State of Maine. This is a long process that if Congress could say that railroad 

safety is included in public safety would open up in many state some frequency 

needed for PTC. 

5. Nothing new or unforeseen but continue to see delays from Wabtec the prime 

contractor from I-ETMS that have continued to delay our project implementation. 

6. Left Blank 

17 
101 


Insert offset folio 62 here 81678.062

Illinois Regional Transportation Authority (Metra) Chicago, Il 

1. left Blank 

2. left Blank 

3. left Blank 

4. 

a. One impediment to meeting the 2015 deadline is the slow start we got due to 

the lack of funding in the early years. We did not have funds to hire enough 

signal design consulting firms to complete the project designs and write the 

specifications for equipment to keep on schedule. Most of that work is now 

completed, but it will take many months to publicly bid and award the contracts. 

A related factor to being behind schedule was not having adequate "in-house" 

signal engineers to manage the project, including reviewing the consulting 

engineer's design. 

Another major factor is competing priorities for funding. 

b. Metra has prepared an IFB to acquire frequency spectrum, but has not released 

it while it investigates its options relative to the consortium known as PTC-220, 

lLe. The process put in place by the federal government makes it very difficult 

for a property such as Metra to obtain 220 Mhz frequency spectrum. To date, 

the FCC has refused to provide commuter rail properties the 220 Mhz frequency 

spectrum they hold and want to auction. To date, Congress has not developed 

legislation that would force the FCC to provide that spectrum to the commuter 

rail properties. Frequency spectrum is not as simple as just purchasing spectrum 

on the open market and dropping it into the bucket for use in the Chicago 

terminal region. Given the complexities of the terminal, there must be earful 

coordination with a number of freight properties that all converge in this region. 

The result is the high potential that Metra will have to work through the freight 

railroad consortium known as PTC-220, LLC in order to obtain coverage for both 

its own property and its share of the properties Metra runs on. Again, the result 

could be the inability for Metra to control its costs in this area and unknown 

licensing and maintenance costs perpetually into the future. Healthy 

competition is usually the only way to help ensure cost containment. In 2011, 

PTC-220, llC hired Transportation Technology Center, Inc., better known as TICI, 

to conduct a "Spectrum Demand" study for the Chicago area. The study was 

designed to be conducted in 2 phases. Phase 1 would determine the number of 

220 Mhz channels necessary to operate PTe. Phase 2 would determine base 

station quantities, locations, frequency channel assignments and detailed design 

parameters for the base station network. Phase 1 took into consideration both 

the freight's and Metra's operating schedules to determine the demand of the 

region. The results of Phase 1 showed that 19 channels of 220 Mhz frequency 

spectrum would be required for PTC to operate in the Chicago area. Phase 2 of 

the study is currently being conducted and is expected to be completed by the 

end of 2013. 

Currently, PTC-220, LlC owns 14 channels of 220 Mhz in the Chicago area. With 

18 
102 


Insert offset folio 63 here 81678.063

the results from TICI requiring 19 channels of frequency spectrum to operate 

PTC, an additional 5 channels of frequency spectrum need to be acquired. 

Ideally, Metra would like to provide its share of the remaining 5 channels in an 

effort to contro! up front capital costs and on-going maintenance costs. The 

challenge is for Congress to mandate to the FCC to release those channels to 

Metra in a timely fashion that will help ensure no further disruption in the 

delivery of PTC. 

Metra is exploring 3 options to acquire 220 Mhz frequency spectrum: 

Metra is currently negotiating the terms of a Non-Disclosure Agreement with 

PTC-220, llC in order to begin discussions regarding the leasing of frequency 

spectrum. In addition, Metra is also considering the possibility of becoming a 

member of PTC-220 llC. The benefits of Metra joining PTC-220, lLC will be 

determined once the NDA is executed. 

Metra has identified frequency spectrum in the 220 Mhz band that is available 

for purchase in the Chicago market. At this time, Metra has not entered into the 

procurement process, but has retained legal counsel with PTC experience to 

assist in the bid for spectrum, if Metra decides to purchase the spectrum. 

Metra remains hopeful that in 2013 Congress will act in time and compel the FCC 

to release 220 Mhz frequency spectrum to the commuter railroads across the 

nation, and at no cost to the publically owned commuter railroad properties. 

Metra believes an additional 5 channels of frequency spectrum will be required 

to successfully operate PTC in Chicago. Whether the remaining 5 channels of 

frequency spectrum are acquired by PTC-220, llC or by Metra, entering into a 

leasing agreement with PTC-220, LLC is most likely unavoidable. But if Metra 

decides to purchase the additional 5 channels of frequency spectrum, doing so 

will at least provide some bargaining leverage when negotiating for Metra's 

share of the coverage in the six-county region of Illinois served by Metra. 

c. left Blank 

d. Left Blank 

e. left Blank 

5. PTC is an unfunded mandate that is adding enormous pressure to an already 

complicated funding outlook for state of good repair. The federal government originally 

dedicated $50 million nationwide for PTe and then subsequently pulled that funding 

back. 

One new and unforeseen challenge is the "Buy America" clause. Many of the electrical 

components are not made in the US, but are assembled here. The federal government 

seems to be taking a more restrictive stance on this issue and it is becoming impossible 

to meet "Buy America". Also, the development of the I-HMS System is still not fully 

developed and appears to have many challenges ahead. 

19 
103 


Insert offset folio 64 here 81678.064

The process put in place by the federal government has resulted in only one single 

company having the ability to provide key radios and software. Not only should this 

approach be further investigated but the results of such a sole source mandate include a 

lack of healthy competition and the inability of Metra to control costs. We are also 

concerned about the potential that the single source company cannot keep up with the 

demand for equipment as all passenger and freight railroads across the nation attempt 

to meet the same deadline. 

Metra has increasing concerns about this new untested technology and the potential of 

system failures. The federal government should commission a study on the potential 

impacts of PTe system failure. Metra runs 700 weekday trains providing 300,000 trips 

per day on eleven fines. A Metra train consist may have as many as 1,500 people 

aboard and our peak hour headways are as tight as ten minutes. If a PTe failure were to 

occur on a train that is in-route to a terminal or loaded with passengers and ready to 

depart a terminal, the outcome would be severe. First, some of our terminals are not 

large enough to handle this overflow of disrupted customers. Second, in the peak hour, 

the next train is likely fully loaded and unable to accommodate very many, if any, of the 

passengers that are inconvenienced by the PTe disruption. 

6. Over the next ten years, Metra projects a shortfall in state of good repair funding in 

excess of $7 billion. This shortfall recognizes and includes the underfunded need to buy 

new locomotives, or at the very minimum, funds to rehabilitate locomotives that should 

otherwise be retired. Metra is a good fiduciary of the public trust in that we work 

strategically to extend the life of our passenger cars to fifty or more years of life. While 

a new passenger car can cost upwards of $2.8 million/car, Metra rehabilitates some of 

its passenger cars on the property for about $700K/car. However, funding shortfalls are 

restricting the number of cars we can rehabilitate on an annual basis, resulting in the 

agency falling further and further behind. Another major capital investment category is 

bridge replacements. Metra operates on over 800 bridges across the six-county service 

region and must maintain and inspect 377 of those bridges and must co-fund repairs 

and replacements of other bridges on territory we operate on but do not own. Finally, 

463 bridges on our system are 102 years old or older. 

20 
104 


Insert offset folio 65 here 81678.065

Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) Chesterton, IN 

1. 2018 

2. $35-$40m - for reference, NICTD's total operating budget is $43m 

3. $lm, all local funds 

4. All of the above. 

a. We have not identified a long term funding source for PTC, but we are meeting 

with the RRIF office at FRA to discuss that as a resource. 

b. We are totally dependent on freight rail buildout for communication and 

spectrum. 

c. Left Blank 

d. Left Blank 

e. Until the Chicago terminal is equipped with an interoperable system we cannot 

move forward. 

5. Left Blank 

6. $548m from now until 2022, this number includes PTC 

21 
105 


Insert offset folio 66 here 81678.066

Nashville Regional Transportation Authority (Nashville) Nashville, TN 

1. With the lack of funding options, we are currently 27 months behind the 

implementation schedule originally submitted. I would estimate our new completion 

date to be approximately Spring, 2016. 

2. We have not had the funding to hire a consultant to begin the process to study the cost. 

I have obtained cost information from other comparable rail systems and estimate our 

cost to be approximately $20,000,000 based on that information. 

3. To date, there has been minimal investment in PTe for our system in cash; however, we 

have spent countless administrative labor hours studying this problem. 

4. 

a. Just last month, we secured funding to begin implementation of PTe. Over FY 

13, FY 14 and FY 15, we have $8,800,000 set aside for PTe. We still need to 

come up with the balance of approximately $11,200,000. 

b. Have not started research on purchase of spectrum. 

c. Do not know ifthis is a problem at this point. 

d. This does not appear to be a problem. 

e. 

5. No unforeseen challenges; just the funding issue. Before this year, the RTA of Middle 

Tennessee has had virtually no discretionary capital money. This year we became 

eligible for some Fixed Guideway capital money. Plans for capital replacement, 

expansion, and maintenance programs will be deferred, as the money is redirected to 

the PTe project. 

6. We have an unfunded deficit of approximately $11,200,000. 

22 
106 


Insert offset folio 67 here 81678.067

Utah Transit Authority (Utah) Salt Lake City, UT 

1. December 31, 2015 

2. $25,000,000 

3. $8,000,000 All local funds, from sales tax receipts 

4. Left Blank 

a. Left Blank 

b. Left Blank 

c. Left Blank 

d. Left Blank 

e. Left Blank 

5. Our challenges continue to be the use of equipment and technology that is not used on 

our system or any system as of now. 

6. $117,000,000 for 2014 

23 
107 


Insert offset folio 68 here 81678.068

North County Transit District (NCTD) Oceanside, CA 

1. NCTD is scheduled to complete our PTC project by the federally mandated deadline of 

12/31/2015. 

2. $87,292,969 

3. NCTD's PTC project is fully funded. We have secured a combination of Federal, State and 

local funding. Expended to date: $20,592,158 

4. NCTD is on target to meet the December 15 deadline 

a. Left Blank 

b. Temporary spectrum has been acquired to support propagation studies. 

Permanent spectrum is presently awaiting assignment by PTC220 LLC as they are 

working our global spectrum assignments and time slot assignments. The NCTD 

PTC design will require 220M Hz spectrum. The only obstacle is the wait for 

PTC220 LLC to complete the global spectrum aSSignments and time slot 

assignments. 

c. Left Blank 

d. Left Blank 

e. Left Blank 

5. Elements of the back office applications remain under development and have the 

potential to impact both time line and budget. 

6. Left Blank 

24 
108 


Insert offset folio 69 here 81678.069

Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) los Angeles, eA 

1. We are striving to have PTe on our San Gabriel subdivision (the San Bernardino line) by 

September 2013. This line will be in revenue demonstration meaning that PTe will be 

fully functioning on the line but it will not be certified by the FRA. We anticipate that 

the FRA can take up to 180 days for certification. We anticipate that the rest of the lines 

will be in place by the first quarter of 2014 and certified by the second quarter of 2014. 

2. The PTe program budget is $210 million. At this time, we believe we can absorb the 

additional costs associated with challenges by drawing down our remaining contingency 

and finding other savings on the project. Unfortunately, that would leave no 

contingency for future unforeseen costs or potential delays associated with a prolonged 

FRA certification process or contract close-out. 

3. Through April 2013, Metrolink has expended approximately $130 million of its $210 

million PTe program budget. The program is funded by 40 separate grant allocations. 

The funding source is split roughly 11% local, 73% state, and 16% federal. A summary 

list of the grants is attached below. 

4. Not Applicable 

5. left blank 

6. SOGR funding requirements for the Metrolink system are estimated to average $72M 

per year over the next 5 years. This includes track, structures, signal and 

communication systems, system safety, rolling stock, fare collection systems, vehicles 

and facilities. Metrolink's proposed Rehabilitation budget for FY 2013-14 is $34M. PTe 

SOGR, including eAD and communication system rehabilitation is estimated to be 

approximately $5M per year. 

25 
109 


Insert offset folio 70 here 81678.070

State 

AK 

CA 

CA 

CA 

CA 

CT 

FL 

IL 

IN 

MA 

I 

MD 

ME 

MN 

NJ 

NM 

NY 

Commuter Rail Spectrum Needs 

(reflects changes from 2010 TCRP Report) 

July 31,2013 

Anticipated Spectrum 

AGENCY Needs (in kHz) (2010 

Commuter Rail Agency (short) TCRP quick study) 

Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) 

Anchorage, AK AKRR 425 

Southern California Regional Rail 

Authority (Metrolink) Los Angeles, CA SCRRA 500 

Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 

(PCJPB) San Francisco-Oakland, CA PCJPB 325 

North County Transit District (NCTD) 

Oceanside San Diego, CA NCTO 325 

Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) 

Stockton, CA ACE 350 

Connecticut Department of 

Transportation (COOT) (East shore line) 

Hartford, CT COOT 300 

South Florida Regional Transportation 

Authority (TRI-Rail) Pompano 

Beach/Miami, FL SFRTA 325 

Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter 

Railroad Corporation (Metra) Chicago, IL METRA 600 

Northern Indiana Commuter 

Transportation District (NICTD) Chicago, 

IL-Chesterton, IN NICTO 350 

Massachusetts Bay Transportation 

Authority (MBTA) Boston, MA MBTA 475 

Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) 

[Brunswick and Camden lines Only] 

Baltimore, MD MARC 475 

Northern New England Passenger Rail 

Authority (NNEPRA) Portland Boston, 

MA-NH-RI NNEPRA 350 

Metro Transit Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN Northstar 275 

New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ 

TRANSIT) Newark, NJ NJT 500 

Rio Metro Regional Transit District (RTD) 

(NM Rail Runner Express) Albuquerque, NM 

NM RailRunner 375 

MTA Long Island Rail Road (MTA LlRR) 

Jamaica New York LlRR 475 

---

Actual 

Spectrum 

Needs (in kHz) 

200 

700-1000' 

175 

325 

150 

Sharing 

C5X/Amtrak 

500 

475 --

26 
110 


Insert offset folio 71 here 81678.071

Metro-North Commuter Railroad 

Company (MTA-MNCR) New York New 

NY York MNR 550 550 

Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation 

OR District of Oregon (TriMet) Portland, OR TriMet 250 0" 

Southeastern Pennsylvania 

Transportation Authority (SEPTA) 

PA Philadelphia, PA SEPTA 450 450 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation (PENNDOT) Harrisburg, 

PA PA PENNDOT 575 

Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) 

TN Nashville, TN Nashville 250 unknown 

Trinity Railway Express (TRE) Dallas-Fort 

TX Worth-Arlington, TX TRE 275 225-250 

Fort Worth Transportation Authority Ft Worth T-

(The T) (Planned Cottonbelt line) Fort Rex (new 

TX Worth Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX project) 225-250 

Denton County Transit Authority (DCTA) 

TX Denton, TX Denton Co 250 100-150 

TX Capital Metro Austin, TX CapMetro 250 0" 

Utah Transit Authority (UTA) Salt lake 

UT City, UT UTA 300 0" 

Virginia Railway Express (VRE) 

VA Alexandria, VA VRE 325 225 

Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Sound 

WA Authority (ST) Seattle, WA Transit 425 unknown 

NOTE: Missing data indicates no change anticipated from 2010 Report. CDOT, PENN DOT and NNEPRA were 

not surveyed by APTA. 

NOTE #2: NY MTA has been unable to acquire spectrum in 4 of the 9 counties in which it 

operates . 

• Metrolink spectrum estimates include needs anticipated up to 10 years from 

implementation . 

•• These agencies have a spectrum requirement of 0 kHz because they are currently pursuing a nonimodel. 

27 
111 


Insert offset folio 72 here 81678.072

Alaska Railroad Corporation 

Altamont Commuter Express 

List of Polled Agencies 

Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority 

Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority 

Connecticut Department of Transportation 

Dallas Area Rapid Transit 

Denton County Transportation Authority 

Fort Worth Transportation Authority 

Maryland Transit Administration 

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 

Metro Transit 

Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company, ( MTA Metro-North 

Railroad) 

MTA Long Island Rail Road 

New Jersey Transit Corporation 

North County Transit District 

Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra Rail) 

Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District 

Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority 

Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 

Regional Transportation Authority 

Rio Metro Regional Transit District 

Riverside County Transportation Commission 

South Florida Regional Transportation Authority 

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 

Southern California Regional Rail Authority dba: Metrolink 

Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority, dba: MTA Staten 

Island Railway 

Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon 

Utah Transit Authority 

Virginia Railway Express 

Winston-Salem Transit Authority Trans-Aid of Forsyth County 

Anchorage AK 

Stockton CA 

Austin TX 

Seattle WA 

Newington CT 

Dallas TX 

Lewisville TX 

Fort Worth TX 

Baltimore MD 

Boston MA 

Minneapolis MN 

New York NY 

Jamaica NY 

Newark NY 

Oceanside CA 

Chicago IL 

Chesterton IL 

Portland MA 

San Carlos CA 

Harrisburg PA 

Nashville TN 

Albuquerque NM 

Riverside CA 

Pompano Beach FL 

Philadelphia PA 

Los Angeles CA 

Staten Island NY 

Portland OR 

Salt lake City UT 

Alexandria DC 

Winston-Salem NC 

28 
112 


Insert offset folio 73 here 81678.073

TESTIMONY OF 

EDWARD R. HAMBERGER 

PRESIDENT & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS 

BEFORE THE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

HEARING ON RAIL POLICY AND THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE 

PASSENGER RAIL INVESTMENT AND IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2008 

JUNE 27, 2013 

Association of American Railroads 

425 Third Street, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20024 

202-639-2100 
113 


Insert offset folio 74 here 81678.074

Introduction 

On behalf of the members of the Association of American Railroads, thank you for the 

opportunity to discuss issues surrounding the reauthorization of the Passenger Rail Investment 

and Improvement Act of2008 (PRIIA). AAR freight railroad members, which include the seven 

large U.S. Class I railroads as well as approximately 170 U.S. short line and regional railroads, 

account for the vast majority of freight railroad mileage, employees, and traffic in Canada, 

Mexico, and the United States. Amtrak and several commuter railroads are also members of the 

AAR. The AAR is presenting this testimony on behalf of its freight railroad members only. 

Passenger railroading plays a key role in alleviating highway and airport congestion, 

decreasing dependence on foreign oil, reducing pollution, and enhancing mobility and safety. 

All of us want passenger railroads that are safe, efficient, and responsive to the transportation 

needs of our country. 

Meanwhile, America is connected by the most efficient, affordable, and environmentally 

responsible freight rail system in the world. Whenever Americans grow something, eat 

something, export something, import something, make something, turn on a light, or get dressed, 

it's likely that freight railroads were involved somewhere along the line. Looking ahead, 

America cannot prosper in an increasingly competitive global marketplace without a best-in-theworld freight rail system. 

We think our nation can have both safe, effective passenger railroading and a safe, 

productive, world-best freight rail system. Freight railroads want passenger railroads to succeed, 

they work cooperatively with passenger railroads to help make this happen, and they support 

government efforts to grow passenger rail in ways that eomplement freight rail growth. The 

reauthorization ofPRIIA presents an opportunity for policymakers to help achieve this goal. 

Association of American Railroads Page J of20 
114 


Insert offset folio 75 here 81678.075

Freight Railroads Are the Transportation Backbone of America 

America's freight railroads and their 140,000-mile 

network serve nearly every industrial, wholesale, retail, 

and resource-based sector of our economy. in fact, 

carry just about everything. 

U.S. railroads carry more coal than other 

commodity. Historically, coal has gellCrltted much 

morc electricity than any other fuel more than 

70 percent of coal is delivered to plants 

railroads also carry enormous amounts of corn, 

soybeans, and other grains; fertilizers, plastic resins, 

sand, and crushed stone to build our h;n,hu,~,,"' 

feed, canned goods, corn syrup, 

products; steel and other metal products; crude 

petroleum products; newsprint, paperboard, 

auto parts; iron ore for wind 

industrial and llluch, much 

Rail intermodal transport 

shipping containcrs and truck trailers on 

railroad flatcars has grown tremendously 

over the past 25 years. Today, just 

find on a retailer's shelves may 

have traveled on an intermodal train. 

But 

North America's Raii Network 

vast array of other chemicals; cement, 

build our hOllles; animal 

beer, and countless other food 

gases, and many other 

paper products; and 

H"'''''~;'''. machinery and other 

Increasing anlOunts of industrial goods are t""""'M'''~~ interrnodal trains as well. 

Association qf American 
115 


Insert offset folio 76 here 81678.076

Given the volume of rail freight (close to two billion tons and 30 million carloads in a 

typical year) and the long distances that freight moves by rail (nearly 1,000 miles, on average), 

it's hard to overstate freight railroads' role in our economy. The rail share of freight ton-miles is 

about 40 percent, more than any other transportation mode. But freight rail's contribution to our 

nation extends far beyond that: 

• Thanks to competitive rail rates - 44 percent lower, on average, in 2012 than in 1980' 

and the lowest among major industrialized countries - freight railroads save consumers 

billions of dollars every year, making U.S. goods more competitive here and abroad and 

improving our standard of living. 

• Railroads are, on average, four times more fuel efficient than trucks. That means that 

moving freight by rail helps our environment by reducing energy consumption, pollution, 

and greenhouse gases. 

• Because a single train can carry the freight of several hundred trucks - enough to 

replace a 12-mile long convoy of trucks on the highways - railroads cut highway 

gridlock and reduce the high costs of highway construction and maintenance. 

• America's freight railroads are privately owned and operate almost exclusively on 

infrastructure that they own, build, maintain, and pay for themselves. When railroads 

reinvest in their networks - which they've been doing in record amounts in recent years 

it means taxpayers don't have to. 

• Railroads are safe and getting safer: 2012 was the safest year in history for railroads, 

breaking the record set in 2011, which in tum broke the record set in 2010. 

• America's freight railroads sustain 1.2 million jobs, including 180,000 high-paying jobs 

in the freight rail industry itself. Millions of other Americans work in industries that are 

more competitive in the global economy thanks to the affordability and productivity of 

America's freight railroads.2 

For all these reasons, I respectfully suggest that it is in the public interest to enact policies 

that result in more freight moving by rail. 

I As measured by inflation-adjusted revenue per ton-mile. 

2 For much more background on the U.S. freight rail industry, see my March 5,2013 testimony to the Subcommittee 

on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 

Association of American Railroads Page 3 of20 
116 


Insert offset folio 77 here 81678.077

Preparing For Tomorrow Today 

Railroads are proud of their contributions to our nation, but we can't just sit still. In the 

years ahead, America's demand for safe, affordable, and environmentally responsible freight 

transportation will grow. Recent forecasts 

reported by the Federal Highway 

Administration found that total U.S. freight 

shipments will rise from an estimated 17.6 

billion tons in 2011 to 28.5 billion tons in 

2040 - a 62 percent increase. Railroads 

are the best way to meet that demand. 

Demand For Freight Transportation To Rise Sharply 

(billions of tons transported in U.S.) 

2011 ••• 1111 •••• 

2020p ••••••••••• 

2000p ............ .. 

p. projected Source: FHWAOffice of Freight Management and 

Operalklns. Freight Analysis Frameworl\ versIon 3.4 

No one, and certainly not railroads, disputes that motor carriers are absolutely 

indispensable to our economy and quality of life, and will remain so long into the future. That 

said, because of the enormous cost involved in building new highways, as well as environmental 

and land use concerns, it is highly unlikely that sufficient highway capacity can be built to 

handle expected future growth in freight transportation demand. 

The United States has the world's most highly developed highway network, built and 

maintained at enormous public cost over the years. According to data from the FHWA, in 2011 

alone, states disbursed $94 billion just on capital outlays and maintenance for highways.3 

Adding in other expenses such as administration and planning, law enforcement, interest, and 

grants to local governments brings total disbursements for highways to $150 billion in 2011. 

Even this huge level of spending, however, is widely considered inadequate to meet present-day, 

much less future, needs. 

3 Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2011, Table SF-2. 

Association of American Railroads Page 4 0/20 
117 


Insert offset folio 78 here 81678.078

Fortunately, freight rail in general, and intermodal rail specifically, represents a viable 

and socially beneficial complement to highway freight movement. Today, rail intermodal takes 

millions of trucks off our highways each year, and its potential to playa much larger role in the 

future is enormous, both in traditional transcontinental markets and in new short- and middledistance lanes. In the context of ports, railroads offer tremendous potential in safely and 

efficiently moving freight to and from port facilities, thereby greatly enhancing overall 

transportation productivity. In addition, a significant portion of the merchandise that railroads 

transport in their carload business (in addition to intermodal containers or trailers) is directly 

truck competitive. Shippers choose to move this freight on railroads because they find that the 

value railroads offer, in terms of cost and service, is superior. Railroads recognize that they will 

have to continue to work hard to earn this business, which is why they are constantly searching 

for ways to further improve productivity, reduce costs for their customers, and enhance their 

service offerings. 

This does not mean that we should stop building highways or that we should no longer 

recognize the importance oftrucks and highways in meeting our nation's transportation needs, 

but it does mean that policymakers should be doubly aware of the role railroads play, and can 

play, in meeting freight transportation demand. As manufacturing has become more global and 

as supply chains have become longer and more complex, the railroads' intermodal service has 

come to playa critical role in making the supply chains of a wide variety of shippers efficient. 

First Mile-Last Mile Improvements 

One ofthe main reasons why the United States has the world's most efficient total freight 

transportation system is the willingness and ability of firms associated with various modes to 

work together in ways that benefit their customers and the economy. That said, where freight is 

Association of American Railroads Page 5 of20 
118 


Insert offset folio 79 here 81678.079

handed off from one mode to another --for example, at ports from ships to railroads or from 

ships to trucks, or from railroads to trucks at intermodal terminals - freight movements are 

highly vulnerable to disruptions. Policymakers can help by implementing programs that improve 

these "first mile" and "last mile" intermodal connections. This would lead to especially large 

increases in efficiency and fluidity and forge a stronger, more effective total transportation 

package. 

Railroads are gratified that the current administration and legislators in both parties and 

in both houses of Congress have shown a strong commitment to multi-modalism. That's 

evidenced, for example, in the evaluation and selection process for TIGER grants. To date, 

several dozen projects that have received TIGER grant funding have been associated in one way 

or another with freight railroads, and many of those projects are aimed at improving 

transportation performance by more effectively integrating different transportation modes. 

Some intermodal connection infrastructure projects that are of national and regional 

significance in terms of freight movement could be too costly for a local government or state to 

fund. Consequently, federal funding awarded through a competitive discretionary grant process, 

like the TIGER program, has been an appropriate approach for these needs. 

Attention to first- and last-mile connections is a critical element of both local and state 

freight planning and policy as well. At the local level, for example, land use planning has been 

largely inadequate in appropriately accommodating the needs of freight. Freight movementwhether in rail yards, intermodal facilities, ports, or regional distribution - must be sufficiently 

taken into account when planning land uses such as residential developments, schools, and 

recreational areas. 

Association of American Railroads Page 60f20 
119 


Insert offset folio 80 here 81678.080

Passenger Rail to Enhance Mobility 

OUf nation's nrrvalelv-ovvnE,a freight railroads are already partners with passenger 

railroads all across the country. 

Approximately 93 percent of Amtrak's Passenger Railroading in the United States 

VAAl''''''''] 21 ,300-mile system 

consists of tracks owned and 

maintained by freight railroads, and 

more than 60 percent of the miles 

traveled by Amtrak trains are on tracks 

owned by freight railroads. Freight 

railroads also furnish other essential 

services to Amtrak, train 

dispatchi:ng, emergency repairs, station maintenance, and, in some cases, police protection and 

communications capabilities. In addition, hundreds of millions of commuter trips each year 

occur on commuter rail systems that operate at least partially over tracks or 

freight railroads, and most of the mgn-spee:u and 

development nationwide will utilize Iremnlt-C>Wfleo facilities. 

passenger rail projects under 

Reshaping the nation's passenger transportation system with expanded rail choices entails 

significant challenges. There has been a great deal of discussion in recent years -- and a great 

deal of disagreement - on how to deal with these challenges. I respectfully suggest, however, 

that there should be no disagreement that America's economic health and global competitiveness 

would suffer 

freight railroads. 

if the expansion ofpa~;selng,:rrail service were to 

Association of American Railroads 

our nation's 

Page 70f20 
120 


Insert offset folio 81 here 81678.081

Thus, for passenger rail expansion to succeed, all parties - policymakers, railroads, and 

others - must understand that America's economic health and global competitiveness would 

suffer greatly if the integration of freight service with expanding passenger service is not planned 

and implemented to ensure the ongoing success of both services. To paraphrase Transportation 

Secretary Ray LaHood, we should not try to create a world-class high-speed rail system at the 

expense of our world-class freight rail system. 

Through their ownership of the vast majority of the rights-of-way over which expanded 

intercity passenger rail would take place, freight railroads provide the foundation for passenger 

rail. That's why great care must be taken to ensure there will be a regulatory and legal 

framework that protects the business needs and responsibilities of all parties. 

In that regard, freight railroads strongly support existing federal guidelines that stipulate 

that states receiving federal grants for intercity and high-speed rail projects must have written 

agreements up front with host freight railroads. The issues addressed such as safety, capacity, 

compensation, and liability - help to ensure that all parties are on the same page, protect all 

parties' interests, and avoid unpleasant surprises later. 

Principles to Guide the Expansion of Passenger Rail 

As noted at the outset, freight railroads agree that passenger railroading can playa key 

role in alleviating highway and airport congestion, decreasing dependence on foreign oil, 

reducing pollution, and enhancing mobility and safety. At the same time, however, the ultimate 

success of passenger rail in this country, and including especially high-speed rail, will depend on 

the willingness of policymakers to address, in a serious and realistic fashion, the numerous 

financial, legal, and operational issues associated with passenger rail. We believe these 

challenges can be more easily met iffive key principles are followed. 

Association oJ American Railroads Page 80J20 
121 


Insert offset folio 82 here 81678.082

One, safety comes first. Railroads are an extremely safe way to move both people and 

freight, and everyone involved in railroading wants to keep it that way. That's why safety has to 

come first when it comes to passenger trains sharing track or rights-of-way with freight trains. 

Under certain conditions (case-by-case evaluations are always necessary), passenger trains 

operating at speeds over 79 miles per hour may be able to safely share tracks with freight trains. 

Where separate passenger tracks are required, AAR believes safety would be enhanced if these 

separate tracks were sufficiently far apart to minimize the likelihood that a derailment on one 

track could foul an adjacent track and lead to a collision involving a freight and passenger train. 

Second, capacity issues must be properly addressed. As noted above, over the coming 

decades, population and economic growth will mean sharply higher demand for freight 

transportation, and railroads are the best way to meet this demand. But if passenger rail impedes 

freight rail and forces freight that otherwise would move by rail onto the highway, many of the 

primary reasons for having passenger rail in the first place - enhanced mobility, reduced 

congestion, and environmental benefits - would be compromised. 

On many corridors, current or expected freight traffic levels usually mean there is no 

spare capacity for passenger trains. In these cases, new capacity will be needed before passenger 

trains can operate. New infrastructure built for passenger trains should fully preserve both the 

ability to operate freight trains as needed and the opportunity to expand further freight service as 

the need arises in the future, including the ability of the freight railroad to access new customers 

along the right-of-way. In other words, passenger rail projects cannot "box in" the freight 

railroad so that new freight customers cannot access the freight railroad. This would limit the 

ability of the freight railroad to grow and subvert good public policy by potentially forcing this 

business to go by truck over roads. 

Association of American Railroads Page 90f20 
122 


Insert offset folio 83 here 81678.083

Third, if passenger trains use freight railroad assets and property, it is reasonable for the 

host freight railroad to expectfull andfair compensation. Simply put, freight railroads should 

not be expected to subsidize passenger rail any more than firms that provide locomotives, fuel, or 

food for dining cars. Tracks on which passenger trains operate, particularly high-speed trains, 

must meet different standards requiring significantly higher and more expensive maintenance 

than tracks on which freight trains operate. Host freight railroads should be fully compensated 

for these and any other added costs involved.4 Moreover, railroads should not be subject to any 

new local, state, or federal tax liability as a result of a passenger rail project. 

Fourth, freight railroads must be adequately protected from liability that would not have 

resulted but for the added presence of passenger rail service. It is almost inevitable that some 

accidents will occur on railroads, despite railroads' best efforts to prevent them. An accident 

involving passenger trains - which are generally far lighter than freight trains, often travel at 

much higher speeds, and, most importantly, have passengers on board - is far more likely to 

involve significant casualties than an accident involving only freight trains. Passenger 

operations also bring more people onto railroad property, resulting in a corresponding increase in 

risk. These potentially ruinous risks make freight railroads extremely reluctant to allow 

passenger trains on their tracks without adequate protection from liability. 

Finally, there can be no one-size-jits-all approach. Each project involving passenger rail 

on freight-owned tracks in general, and high-speed rail projects in particular, has its own unique 

challenges and circumstances. Freight railroads currently and will continue to do their best to 

• By statute, access fees that Amtrak pays to operate over the freight railroads' tracks are only required to cover the 

"incremental" costs associated with Amtrak's operations - that is, the additional costs that arise solely because of 

Amtrak's presence. Amtrak is not required to contribute to the freight railroads' fixed costs or to the shared costs 

for which Amtrak operations have a responsibility. Consequently, Amtrak's "track rental fee" is low and is, for all 

intents and purposes, an indirect subsidy paid by freight railroads to Amtrak. This means that the current structure 

by which Amtrak "rents" freight tracks should not necessarily serve as a guidepost for the future. 

Association of American Railroads Page 10 of20 
123 


Insert offset folio 84 here 81678.084

work with policymakers and passenger rail operators to overcome these challenges. For this to 

agreements must be tailored to the needs and conditions of each which 

is why each project must be evaluated on a "n',,,-Ihv·,,n',,, basis. 

Features of PRIIA Reauthorization 

As this committee and others in Congress address the reauthorization ofPRIlA, I 

urge you to the following 

Funding tor passenger rail is, of course, 

a critical and often controversial issue. 

railroads should not be to fimd 

passenger rail service or suffer effects 

on their own operations because 

in mind. 

rail. Nor should freight railroads be to pay for infrastructure investments that do not 

benefit them or that they do not wan!. That said, as this committee and others debate the 

reauthorization ofPRUA and related the future of Amtrak, we hope you agree 

that once poHcymakers agree on the nature and scope in this country, 

they must be willing to commit 

determination, 

fimds on a long-term basis commensurate with that 

It is not reasonable to expect Amtrak to be able to build, and maintain 

infrastructure that provides transportafion mobility and when there is so 

much uncertainty what its and will be from one year to the 

next. railroads agree with Amtrak CEO 

nrf>rli('t~h,lp and needed levels offederal 

Association of American Railroads 

Boardman when he said, 

support, Amtrak and our state partners 

Page JJ 0[20 
124 


Insert offset folio 85 here 81678.085

can better deliver a future of improved reliability, enhanced capacity, more service, increased 

speeds and reduced trip times on the Northeast Corridor and other passenger rail corridors 

around the country, including the development of new ones."s 

On-Time Performance Metrics 

Since passage of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (RPSA), which created Amtrak, 

Amtrak and freight railroads have worked together to establish and implement the rules and 

procedures governing the complex interactions between the parties. Most of these rules and 

procedures are spelled out in formal operating agreements negotiated between Amtrak and the 

freight railroads that host Amtrak trains.6 These operating agreements, which are periodically 

renegotiated, are the products of decades of real-world experience regarding what works well 

and what does not. The freight railroads and Amtrak are in a far better position than anyone else 

to determine, working together, what these operating agreements should contain and how they 

should be structured. 

For example, one area of concern typically covered by these operating agreements is ontime performance and other service quality standards. The agreements typically include clauses 

that provide incentives and penalties to freight railroads to help ensure that Amtrak trains 

operating on freight railroads' tracks reach certain specified on-time targets. 

This is a tremendously complex issue for many reasons. When Amtrak was created in 

1971, freight railroads had significantexcess capacity. Since then, freight carriers have shed 

much of their excess capacity, and traffic growth has consumed much of what remained. Today, 

5 Amtrak press release, May I, 2013. 

6 Some of the basic features of the freight railroad-Amtrak relationship are defined by the RPSA itself. For example, 

the RPSA explicitly orders freight railroads to grant preference to Amtrak trains over their own trains and all other 

customers and grants Amtrak the power to force freight railroads to convey property to it if the property is necessary 

for intercity rail passenger transportation. See also footnote four above on Amtrak payments to freight railroads. 

Association of American Railroads Page 120f20 
125 


Insert offset folio 86 here 81678.086

many segments of the U.S. freight rail system are capacity constrained, such that when an 

Amtrak delay occurs, substantial freight traffic means that Amtrak trains are often less able to 

recover lost time. Exacerbating the situation is the fact that a number of Amtrak routes coexist 

with freight operations not only on single-track corridors, but also on heavily-used, capacityconstrained double-track corridors. This issue will not be going away any time soon: as noted 

earlier, the long-term forecast is for much higher freight transportation demand. Demand for 

passenger rail is expected to grow as well. 

Day-to-day realities of the rail network come into play too. For example, from time to 

time railroads reduce allowable operating speed for safety reasons when it is warranted by the 

condition of the tracks. Although these "slow orders" can cause delays for trains of all types, 

safety must take precedence over everything else. Similarly, railroads must devote sufficient 

time to needed track and signal maintenance. This often produces unavoidable delays in the 

short term for freight and passenger trains, but improves service reliability - and enhances 

safety - in the long term. 

Obviously, Amtrak wants its trains to run on time. Freight railroads understand this and 

work closely with Amtrak to help make this happen. The key point, though, is that the 

establishment and measurement of schedules and on-time performance metrics should be 

undertaken jointly by host freight railroads and Amtrak and governed by private bilateral 

contracts and the facts and circumstances of particular routes, not by one-size-fits-all legislative 

mandates. The railroads involved are in the best position to have a clear understanding of the 

cause of the delays that occur on a particular rail system and how they can be reduced going 

forward. This kind of shared contract-based responsibility has worked well in the past, enabling 

Amtrak and freight railroads to better address problems and improve service, which, after all, is 

Association 0/ American Railroads Page 13 0/20 
126 


Insert offset folio 87 here 81678.087

the ultimate goal. That's also why railroads oppose legislative provisions that penalize 

fi'eight railroads for Amtrak delays. Penalties antagonism and mistrust into what should be 

a 

PRIIA contains a provision that the FRA and Amtrak to jointly develop metTics 

and standards to measure the and service quality passenger trains. 

Freight railroads viewed this de.leg:atJ(m of rule making to Amtrak as contrary to the 

Constitution and have "VC'b"C IC'~""~' intervention. A decision on this case is soon. 

De:pendi.ng on the outcome, the status of the on-time standards n"""pl,~~p.rl under PRl!A will be 

affected and may need to be revised by Congress. It would be best modified the 

PRlIA metrics and standards to give precedence to the np._I'A_'~'>M'P standards 

contained in the "m'>r~j;n" agreements nellotiiate:d betvveen Amtrak and the nnrtir.lllHr host freight 

railroad. 

Section 130 Program 

Under the federal "Section 130" program, $220 million in federal funds are divided 

among the states eaeh year for installing new active warning devices, 

and improving crossing surfaces. Several years ago, 

FRA noted that the Section 130 program "has helped prevent 

over 10,500 fatalities and 51,000 nonfatal injuries." Those 

figures are surely much higher now. 

Without a Ou(lge!rary set-aside like the Section 130 

program, erossing needs would fare poorly in 

competition with more traditional needs such as 

highway construetion and maintenance. Indeed, one ofthe 

Association of American Railroads 

existing devices, 

Page 14 0/20 
127 


Insert offset folio 88 here 81678.088

primary reasons the Section 130 program was created in the first place was that highway safety 

and especially grade crossing safety - traditionally received low funding priority. The 

surface transportation bill signed into law on July 6,2012 continues dedicated funding for this 

important program for two more years and means more injuries averted and more lives saved. 

Railroads urge yO:u to retain dedicated funding for the Section 130 program when you 

reauthorize MAP-21. 

In addition, because the safest grade crossing is the one that no longer exists, we 

recommend that Congress consider measures that would provide incentives for grade crossing 

closures. One approach may be to give latitude to the U.S. Department of Transportation to give 

preferential consideration to state passenger rail grant applications that include detailed goals and 

plans for grade crossing closures within passenger rail corridors. The goals could be based on 

FRA's 2009 "Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for High-Speed Passenger Rail," which 

notes that "[g]ood planning that consolidates crossings and substitutes grade separations for atgrade crossings will significantly enhance mobility and contribute to livable communities.',7 

Another approach would be to ensure that state rail plans include elements focusing on grade 

crossings and plans for closures. 

Amtrak Should Be the Entity That Provides Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

Due to concerns about Amtrak's finances and other factors, some have proposed that 

Amtrak should be replaced by other passenger rail operators on all or part of Amtrak's current 

routes and on any new passenger rail routes that may develop. Freight railroads do not support 

these proposals. Freight railroads would oppose the transfer or franchise of Amtrak's right of 

7 Federal Railroad Administration, "Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for High-Speed Passenger Rail," 

Version J.O, November 2009, p. 2. 

Association of American Railroads Page 15 of20 
128 


Insert offset folio 89 here 81678.089

access, preferential access rates, and operating priority to any new non-Amtrak passenger 

operators. 

Why? First, the terms and conditions under which Amtrak uses freight-owned tracks 

were originally negotiated 40 years ago under circumstances that are vastly different from today. 

Amtrak has historically enjoyed federal financial support and has proven itself to be a safe and 

professional operator over four decades. Should Amtrak services be picked up by others, it is 

unclear what the circumstances would be. For example, private entities may have different 

degrees of financial backing; public authorities mayor may not enjoy the full faith and credit of 

their sponsoring states; some prospective passenger rail operators may be less committed to 

safety and sound operating standards than Amtrak; and serious labor issues could arise. Clearly, 

the status quo would be altered in respects that are impossible to know beforehand, creating huge 

uncertainties that, frankly, freight railroads do not need. They would rather concentrate on 

helping the economy grow by meeting the freight transportation needs of their customers. 

Moreover, proposals to force freight railroads to grant other passenger carriers access to 

their tracks under preferential terms and conditions ignores the fundamental fact that freight 

railroads' rights-of-way are private, not public. In the absence of voluntary agreement, freight 

railroads should not be forced to allow passenger operators to use their assets any more than any 

other private business should be forced to allow another company to use its assets without its 

consent or at non-compensatory rates. Indeed, forcing freight railroads to convey mandatory 

access to non-Amtrak passenger operators would create serious constitutional issues. 

Second, simply put, Amtrak and freight railroads have "grown up" together. Certainly, 

there have been struggles along the way, as there are in any complex relationship, but the 

relationship works. 

Association of American Railroads Page 16of2(J 
129 


Insert offset folio 90 here 81678.090

Finally, for decades prior to Amtrak's creation, our nation's railroads learned the hard 

way how difficult it is to recover the full costs of passenger railroading. Although Amtrak was 

created as a for-profit entity, experience has shown that this is not achievable. No 

comprehensive passenger system in the world operates today without significant government 

assistance, and the fact that Amtrak requires public support should not be seen as a primary 

reason for seeking alternative passenger rail providers. 

Positive Train Control 

The term "positive train control" (PTC) describes technologies designed to automatically 

stop or slow a train before certain accidents caused by human error occur. The Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA) requires passenger railroads and U.S. Class I freight railroads 

to install PTC by the end of2015 on main lines used to transport passengers or toxic inhalation 

materials (TIH). Specifically, PTC as mandated by Congress must be designed to prevent trainto-train collisions; derailments caused by excessive speed; unauthorized incursions by trains onto 

sections oftrack where maintenance activities are taking place; and the movement of a train 

through a track switch left in the wrong position. 

Although PTC was mandated by the RSIA, rather than PRIIA, the issue is of such central 

concern to the freight and passenger rail industries that I would be remiss ifI did not take an 

opportunity to raise it. 

Positive train control is an unprecedented technological challenge. A properly 

functioning, fully interoperable PTC system must be able to determine the precise location, 

direction, and speed of trains; warn train operators of potential problems; and take immediate 

action if the operator does not respond to the warning provided by the PTC system. For 

example, if a train operator fails to begin stopping a train before a stop signal or slowing down 

Association of American Railroads Page 17 of20 
130 


Insert offset folio 91 here 81678.091

for a speed-restricted area, the PTC system would apply the brakes automatically before the train 

passed the stop signal or entered the speed-restricted area. 

Such a system requires highly complex technologies able to analyze and incorporate the 

huge number of variables that affect train operations. A simple example: the length of time it 

takes to stop a train depends on train speed, terrain, the weight and length of the train, the 

number and distribution oflocomotives and loaded and empty freight cars on the train, and other 

factors. A PTC system must be able to take all of these factors into account automatically, 

reliably, and accurately to safely stop the train. 

Freight railroads have enlisted massive resources to meet the PTC mandate. They've 

retained more than 2,200 additional signal system personnel to implement PTC, and to date have 

collectively spent approximately $3 billion of their own funds on PTC development and 

deployment. Class I freight railroads expect to spend an additional $5 billion before 

development and installation is complete. Currently, the estimated total cost to freight railroads 

for PTC development and deployment is around $8 billion, with hundreds of millions of 

additional dollars needed each year after that to maintain the system. 

Despite railroads' best efforts, due to PTC's complexity and the enonnity of the 

implementation task and the fact that much of the technology PTC requires simply did not 

exist when the PTC mandate was passed and has been required to be developed from scratchmuch technological work remains to be done. 

Railroads also face non-technological barriers to timely PTC implementation. One such 

challenge that railroads are struggling to overcome right now involves regulatory barriers to the 

construction of antenna structures. As part ofPTC implementation, railroads must install tens of 

Association of American Railroads Page 18 of20 
131 


Insert offset folio 92 here 81678.092

thousands of new antenna structures nationwide to transmit PTC signals. The vast majority of 

these antenna structures are small and are to be located along railroad rights-of-way. 

However, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) maintains that all PTC 

antenna structures, regardless of their size or location on the right-of-way, are subject to the 

National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA). The FCC's current interpretation ofits rules implementing these acts would subject 

every PTC antenna structure to a separate, time-consuming environmental evaluation process. 

The FCC's current approval process is unworkable for a deployment on the scale ofPTC in the 

timefrarne mandated by the RSIA and FRA's rules. The railroad industry, the FRA, and the FCC 

are working to find a solution that will avoid the need for antenna-by-antenna reviews, but for 

now the installation of antenna structures is on hold. Unless that changes, the timeline for 

ultimate deployment ofPTC will be delayed significantly. 

Important PTC regulatory issues are unresolved as well. Current regulations pertaining 

to PTC implementation impose operational restrictions so severe that the fluidity of the rail 

network would be drastically impaired. It is important to resolve these issues, and the AAR 

appreciates that the FRA is considering them in a current rulemaking proceeding. 

In addition to the challenges presented by both the FCC and FRA issues, another critical 

variable to the successful implementation of a nationwide PTC network is the question of the 

proper operation ofthe system. Does the system work, for both passenger and freight railroads? 

To effectively answer this question, railroads will need adequate time to ensure that PTC works 

as intended and that the systems are communicating accurately. The industry can achieve the 

objectives of the mandate if they have an implementation schedule that allows the technology to 

Association of American Railroads Page 190f20 
132 


Insert offset folio 93 here 81678.093

be developed as well as tested and proven so the safety and operational efficiency of the nation's 

rail system are not put at risk. 

In that regard, the current PTC implementation deadline mandated by the RSIA should be 

extended by at least three years from December 31, 2015, to December 31, 2018. Given the 

unprecedented nature ofPTC and the uncertainties both known and unknown flexibility 

beyond December of20 18 should also be addressed, with the authority for that flexibility 

residing with the Secretary of the Department of Transportation. Additionally, in order to ensure 

that railroads can operate safely and efficiently with the PTC system, the imposition ofPTCrelated operational requirements and associated penalties should be deferred until all PTC 

systems are fully integrated and testing has been completed. Congress should also ensure that 

PTC funding is available for publicly owned passenger rail systems. 

Conclusion 

To reiterate, freight railroads want passenger railroads to succeed, they work cooperatively with passenger railroads to help make this happen, and they support government efforts to 

grow passenger rail in ways that make economic sense and that complement freight rail growth. 

At the same time, America's economic health and global competitiveness depends on 

having a healthy freight rail system. Expanding passenger rail on corridors owned by freight 

railroads will require a partnership between freight and passenger railroads that strikes the right 

balance and protects the business needs and responsibilities of both parties. Freight railroads are 

committed to working with government officials, passenger rail stakeholders, and others to 

ensure a winning result for all parties involved. 

Association 0/ American Railroads Page 200/20 
133 


Insert offset folio 94 here 81678.094

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

"National Rail Policy: Examining Goals, Objectives and Responsibilities 

June 27, 2013 

Questions for the Record -- Questions from Rep. Denham 

1. During the June 27th hearing, Chairman Denham requested information from each witness 

concerning a timeline for implementing Positive Train Control (PTC) by region, as the railroad 

system is an integrated network, operated by different corporations. Please provide 

information to the Committee concerning the progress, the challenges and obstacles, and 

overall timeline for implementing PTC, by region. 

Answer: FRA required that each railroad submit a PTe implementation plan by April 16, 

2010. The implementation plans contained the railroads' initial views on their sequence for 

rolling out PTe. 

Since that time, it has become evident that the railroads need to revisit their plans for making 

PTe operational. A key consideration is that from the perspective of both safety and 

operational efficiency, it makes sense to roll PTe out first in less complex areas so that system 

"bugs" can be addressed in areas where any problems that develop will pose a comparatively 

lesser risk of adverse safety and operational consequences. Less complex areas are those 

where there are comparatively smaller amounts of railroad traffic and fewer railroads 

operating. 

The railroads will work with FRA on revised implementation plans that provide for PTe to be 

implemented in areas of less complexity first. Furthermore, the railroads will coordinate their 

approach to implementation to ensure that the individual implementation plans assign the 

same priority to each region. 

Separately, I am attaching as information a recent AAR report entitled PTe Implementation: 

The Railroad Industry eannot Install PTe on the Entire Nationwide Network by the 2015 

Deadline. The report outlines the significant PTe challenges and obstacles facing the railroad 

industry. The report provides details on PTe components, the integration and testing 

challenges, the certification process and the interoperability and phasing in challenges for AAR 

member railroads. 

2. Aside from federal funding for discretionary grants, what types of policies would help 

implement "first mile" and "last mile" improvements? 

Answer: Policymakers can help improve the movement of freight by taking steps to shorten 

the time it takes for reviews of rail expansion projects in ways that do not adversely affect the 

quality of those reviews. A number of major rail intermodal terminal projects that yield 

tremendous gains for the overall logistical system, for example, have been and continue to be 
134 


Insert offset folio 95 here 81678.095

unduly delayed. Just one of the many examples involves an intermodal terminal BNSF Railway 

has been trying to build for years near the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. This facility 

would eliminate millions of truck miles annually from local freeways in Southern California, 

while utilizing state-of-the-art environmentally friendly technology such as all-electric cranes, 

ultra-low emissions switching locomotives, and low-emission yard equipment. It would be one 

of the "greenest" such facilities in the world, yet the project has been subjected to years and 

years of environmental reviews and delays. 

Moreover, intermodal connections and attention to "last mile" connections are critical 

elements of both state and national freight planning and policy. At the local level, for example, 

land use planning has been inadequate in appropriately accommodating the needs of freight 

carriers in all modes. Freight movement - whether in yards, intermodal facilities, ports, and 

other locales - must be sufficiently taken into account when planning land uses such as 

residential developments, schools, and recreation. Encroachment on railroad right of way, for 

example, can pose serious safety hazards. Given that local governments most often control 

land use planning, there remains an important role at both the national, state and local level to 

more effectively address freight planning so that "first mile" and "last mile" connections 

enhance, rather than impede, the fluid movement of freight and minimize the impact of freight 

on local communities. 

3. Your written testimony mentions concern with expanded passenger service taking future 

freight capacity. What are some suggestions on how we could protect freight interests while 

expanding service? How do we allow for current use of excess capacity, while preserving that 

capacity for future freight use? 

Answer: Reshaping the nation's transportation system with expanded rail choices will bring 

significant challenges. One of the key challenges flows from the fact that in many cases intercity 

passenger rail will share a right-of-way with freight railroads which serve a broad range of 

customers whose livelihoods and market competitiveness are tied to timely and efficient rail 

service. Layering additional or expanded intercity passenger rail service or velocity on the 

freight network can work in many instances if appropriate accommodations for current freight 

volume and future growth are made. 

Pursuant to operating agreements with Amtrak, freight railroads currently provide the majority 

of the right of way and infrastructure necessary to accommodate more than 315 Amtrak 

passenger trains per day over 43 routes, carrying an average of 78,500 passengers per day. 

Indeed, 71 percent of the miles traveled by Amtrak trains are on tracks owned by host 

railroads. 

Access to freight rights-of-way cannot compromise service to present or future freight rail 

customers. Advancing high speed or passenger rail at the expense of freight rail's ability to 

handle growing freight volumes would be counterproductive public policy, as degradation of 

current or future freight service would exacerbate highway congestion, reduce fuel efficiencies, 

reduce U.S. competitiveness and increase greenhouse gas emissions if freight rail were 
135 


Insert offset folio 96 here 81678.096

rendered an unattractive transportation alternative to customers. Service to railroad freight 

customers must be protected and cannot be compromised by high speed or passenger rail 

route schedules, curfews, or other restrictions that would affect the quality, capacity or 

reliability of freight service. New infrastructure construction must fully preserve both the ability 

to operate freight trains as needed and the opportunity to expand future freight service. New 

infrastructure design must fully protect the host railroad's ability to serve existing customers, 

both freight and passenger, and locate future new freight customers on and adjacent to its 

lines. 

AAR's member railroads have and are negotiating accommodations for passenger and 

commuter rail service in many areas of the country. To avoid conflicts with existing and future 

freight rail customers, additional infrastructure, such as additional track, is often a prerequisite. 

While excess capacity may currently exist in some locations, it is impossible for the railroads to 

predict where future demand and growth in the nation's economy will occur. For example, the 

growth in crude oil transport by rail could not have been foreseen just five years ago. As a 

consequence, freight railroads are wary of wholesale transfers of their rights of way for 

commuter or passenger rail service when these are services that would not feasibly be reduced 

or eliminated in the future. 

4. You say in your statement that you would like to see Amtrak remain as the sole passenger 

rail provider for the nation. How does this coexist with the recent desire to enhance 

competition in intercity passenger rail? 

Answer: Due to concerns about Amtrak's finances and other factors, some have proposed that 

Amtrak should be replaced by other passenger rail operators on all or part of Amtrak's current 

routes and on any new passenger rail routes that may develop. Freight railroads do not support 

these proposals. Freight railroads would oppose the transfer or franchise of Amtrak's right of 

access, preferential access rates, and operating priority to any new non-Amtrak passenger 

operators. 
136 


Insert offset folio 97 here 81678.097

PTC Implementation: 

The Railroad Industry Cannot Install PTC on the 

Entire Nationwide Network by the 2015 Deadline 

May 2013 Update 

Association of American Railroads 
137 


Insert offset folio 98 here 81678.098

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. Introduction and Executive Summary ............................................................... 1 

II. PTC Components ................................................................................................ 3 

A. Locomotives ....................................................................................................... 3 

B. Wayside Technology .......................................................................................... 4 

C. Switches ............................................................................................................. 5 

D. Communications ................................................................................................ 5 

E. PTC Back Office ................................................................................................ 6 

1. Back Office Server .......................................................................................... 6 

2. Geographical Information System (GIS) ........................................................ 6 

3. Dispatch ........................................................................................................... 7 

III. The Integration Challenge and Testing .......................................................... 7 

IV. The Certification Process Could Take Considerable Time ........................... 8 

V. Interoperability: The Current Implementation Schedules Could 

Adversely Affect the Reliability and Effectiveness of PTC ................................. 9 

A. Phasing in PTC ................................................................................................. 9 

B. Interoperability Standards ................................................................................ 9 

VI. Rolling Out PTC ................................................................................................ 9 

VII. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 10 
138 


Insert offset folio 99 here 81678.099

PTC Implementation: 

The Railroad Industry Cannot Install PTC on the 

Entire Nationwide Network by the 2015 Deadline 

May 2013 Update 

1. Introduction and Executive Summary 

On January 18, 2012, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) submitted a status 

paper to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) titled "PTC Implementation: The Railroad 

Industry Cannot Install PTC on the Entire Nationwide Network by the 2015 Deadline" ("ISP," 

Attachment A). The ISP discussed the challenges faced in developing an interoperable PTC 

system and provided detailed data showing the progress that had been made.! The ISP 

concluded by stating that a nationwide, interoperable PTC network cannot be completed by the 

December 31,2015, statutory deadline. 

On February 10,2012, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) filed a 

companion paper with FRA, concurring with AAR that a nationwide interoperable PTC network 

is not achievable by December 31, 2015. In addition, in August 2012 FRA issued a report to 

Congress titled, "Positive Train Control Implementation Status, Issues, and Impacts." In this 

report, FRA reached a similar conclusion, stating, "[b ]ased on the results of this report, FRA 

believes that the majority of railroads will not be able to complete PTC implementation by the 

2015 deadline." 

This paper updates the ISP and the tables that were attached to the ISP. 2 While enormous 

challenges remain in regard to developing a nationwide interoperable PTC system, there were 

many positive developments during 2012. These include: 

• the first Oeographical Information System (OIS) subdivision validations with FRA; 

the development and manufacture of220 MHz radios; 

significant progress with locomotive installations; 

• improvements in the availability of Wayside Interface Units (WIUs); 

radio frequency propagation studies of Chicago, Kansas City, Los Angeles, New Orleans, 

New York, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Toledo, and other congested metropolitan areas have 

been completed or are in progress; 

I This paper is based on information provided by the following eight railroads, which have to illstall PTC on routes 

over which TIH or passengers, or both TIH and passengers, are transported: the Alaska Railroad (ARR), BNSF 

Railway (BNSF), Canadian National (CN), Canadian Pacific (CP), CSX Transportation (CSX), Kansas City 

Southern (KCS), Norfolk Southern (NS), and Union Pacitic (UP). passengers, or both TlH and passengers, are 

transported: the Alaska Railroad (ARR), BNSF Railway (BNSF), Canadian National (CN), Canadian Pacific (CP), 

CSX Transportation (CSX), Kansas City Southern (KCS), Norfolk Southern (NS), and Union Pacific (UP). 

, This 2013 Update is intended to be read in conjunction with and as a supplement to the ISP. Attachment B updates 

the information in the various tables that were included in the ISP. 
139 


Insert offset folio 100 here 81678.100

• FRA's modification of its regulations that permits railroads to base PTC installation on 

projected traffic in 2015; 

• progress on the PTC Safety Plan that must be submitted to FRA before a PTC system can 

be certified; and 

• FRA's recognition that activation ofPTC should proceed from less complex to more 

complex areas. 

Despite the positive developments in 2012 and the railroads spending approximately $2.8 

billion to date to install PTC, the year confirmed and increased our understanding of the 

challenges that remain to completing a nationwide, interoperable PTC system. The most 

significant are: 

• Wayside implementation continues to be constrained by the limited number offlrms that 

provide signal design services. The signal system must still be individually redesigned 

and replaced at more than 7,000 locations before PTC wayside technology can be 

installed at those locations. Approximately 26,000 WIUs remain to be installed. This 

work must be accomplished without compromising signal system safety or the ability of 

the railroads to efficiently move the nation's freight. Based on current experience and 

available resources, it is likely that wayside design and installation will extend into 2018. 

The track database, including critical features such as the presence of signals and 

switches, must be validated. The railroads must ensure that what is displayed to the train 

crew via the track database and onboard system reflects what is shown by railroad 

signals. It is a lime-consuming and labor-intensive process. 

• There is limited expertise available to accelerate design and development. The railroads 

have been developing expertise as they build the onboard, wayside, and back oftlce 

segments. 

• Core software delivery dates continue to slip, particularly in connection with the Back 

Office Server (BOS) for I-ETMS. The railroads do not expect the final release of core 

software, which is necessary before the PTC system can be lab and field tested, certified, 

and used in revenue service, until mid-20 14. 

• Full system testing will likely continue into 2015, as will the need to address issues with 

PTC components and software identified by the testing. 

Over 75 percent of the industry'S cmployees must receive PTe training. From the 

perspective of the employee retaining the material and understanding its relevance, the 

optimal lime to train an employee is when PTC is rolled out on the employee's territory. 

• Once testing is complete, the limited number of FRA personnel available to work on PTC 

must still review each railroad's individual Safety Plan and certify the PTC system. 

While the provisional certification concept advanced by FRA could reduce the delay 

associated with certification, even a provisional certification will require time and review 

byFRA. 
140 


Insert offset folio 101 here 81678.101

• Portions of the PTC regulation are still not final, with potential changes that could impact 

the scope of the implementation effort. 

• As the potential for failure of individual components became clear, systems have been 

designed with more redundancy, thus lengthening the design process. 

• PTC cannot be rolled out on an entire railroad all at once. Implementation of PTC must 

occur in phases and location by location, starting with less complex areas and proceeding 

to the more operationally complex areas, incorporating lessons learned at each step. 

It is abundantly clear that the railroad industry cannot install interoperable PTC on the 

entire nationwide network by the December 31, 2015, deadline. 

II. PTC Components 

A. Locomotives 

Approximately 22,000 locomotives, which constitute most of the Class I railroads' 

locomotive fleet, must be equipped with PTC technology3 The ISP identified several reasons 

why equipping locomotives with PTC technology is taking longer than projected in the railroads' 

original implementation plans.4 However, several of those challenges were resolved or became 

less of a concern in 2012: 

• vendor supply chain issues and capacity have improved and available hardware (but 

not software) components are generally being delivered on time; 

• production of the 220MHz locomotive radio began in 2012; and 

• hardware design changes necessary to support thc messaging system on some 

railroads were completed. 

These positive developments aided the railroads in making significant progress on their 

"double touch" strategy for equipping locomotives in 20125 Over 3,000 locomotives were 

equipped or partially equipped in 2012; over 6,000 locomotives have been equipped or partially 

equipped to date. While the good news is that the number of equipped or partially equipped 

locomotives continued to climb in 2012, most of these locomotives were only partially equipped 

and will have to be cycled back through a shop to complete installation and perform PTC 

commissioning tests. 

A significant development hurdle remains with the development of the onboard software 

that runs on the Train Management Computer (TMC) for the railroads using I-ETMS. The 

complexity of the software, combined with the many interfaces with other components of the 

J All the estimates in this paper are premised on the PTe regulations in existence on Aprill, 2013. The industry has 

requested amendments to those regulations that would reduce certain estimates, including the number of 

locomotives that would need to be equipped with PTe 

'ISP at4. 

5 "Double touch" refers to shopping locomotives twice to equip them with PTe, partially inst,dling PTe equipment 

at the first shopping. 

3 
141 


Insert offset folio 102 here 81678.102

PTC system, has resulted in mUltiple reviews of the design. The delivery date for this critical 

software component slipped several times over the course of 20 12 and at the present time there is 

no delivery date for the tinal version of the onboard software. Nevertheless, sufficient progress 

has been made so that railroads plan to begin fully equipping locomotives with all necessary 

PTC equipment in 2013 rather than continuing to employ the double touch strategy. 

While much work remains to be done in regard to equipping locomotives, the industry plans 

to have approximately Y. of the locomotives required to be equipped with PTC technology fully 

equipped by December 31, 2015.6 

B. Wayside Technology 

For the reasons described in the ISP, tens of thousands of miles of existing signal system 

infrastructure still need to be replaced. As discussed previously, each of the approximately 

12,300 replacement projects is complicated and lengthy, requiring individual analysis and design 

and signal rcplacements or upgrades before the WIU's can be installed at these locations.7 

Qualified signal personnel are needed for design, installation, and validation, both in the 

lab and in the field. The limited number of qualified signal design firms and personnel available 

to the railroad industry continues to constrain how quickly railroads can complete the design, 

upgrade, installation, and testing required for PTC signal projects. The railroads have hired over 

2,200 signal personnel specifically for PTC8 However, the great majority of these new hires 

provide assistance only with the installation of PTC at wayside locations, not with the more 

complicated analysis and design work that is typically handled by established signal design 

firms. Personnel hired for installation work are, of course, limited to performing work at 

locations where designs have been completed. Product availability has improved, although it 

continues to be a concern along with the extensive lab and field testing required for these 

products. 

Despite these factors, railroads made considerable progress with installation of wayside 

technology in 2012. Over 7,000 WIU's were installed in 2012, bringing the total installed to 

approximately 9,700. That leaves approximately 26,000 WIU's of the approximately 36,000 total 

WIU's needed remaining to be installed.9 Similarly, approximately 3,700 signal replacement 

projects were completed in 2012, bringing the total completed to over 5,000. However, that still 

leaves over 7,000 of the approximately 12,300 PTC signal replacement projects identified by the 

industry to be completed. 10 The sheer volume and complexity of this safety-critical work, which 

impacts the functioning of railroad signal systems as well as PTC, is one of the most significant 

.reasons that the railroad industry cannot meet the 2015 deadline. This work is expected to 

extend into 2018. 

" See Table I in Attachment B. 

7 ISP at 6. 

, See Table 2 in Attachment R 9 Tables 3 and 4 in Attachment B. 

See Table 5 in Attachment B. 

4 
142 


Insert offset folio 103 here 81678.103

Most of the work involved in upgrading switches in non-signaled territory remains. In 

analyzing the technology required for switches, railroads have determined that these will be 

mostly turnkey solutions currently under development by several suppliers. In 2012, 227 

switches were equipped with power, bringing the total so equipped to 436; 236 were equipped 

with WIU's, bringing the total so equipped to 361; and 36 were equipped with switch monitors, 

bringing the total so equipped to 148. Over 4,400 switches still need to be equipped with power 

and WIUs, and approximately 3,400 switch position monitors still need to be installed. J 1 

D. Communications 

As explained in the ISP, all PTC wayside locations and all PTC-enabled locomotives 

must be equipped with a complex, interoperable, wireless communications infrastructure. 12 

Railroads have created a private radio frequency network capable of transmitting and receiving 

the data necessary [0 support an interoperable PTC network using spectrum in the 220 MHz band 

as the interoperability communications standard. To date, the seven Class I railroads havc 

invested approximately $40 million in acquiring and managing 220 MHz spectrum< 

Production quantities ofPTC radios were first available in May 2012. Since then, 

railroads have been procuring and installing them. In parallel, railroads have undertaken 

numerous associated activities, including coverage analyses, site selection, antennae installation, 

and upgrading power supplies< 

One of the key challenges that has emerged is deploying a national 220 MHz 

communications network for PTC that includes adequate coordination between railroads to avoid 

interference< Various tools are being developed to help mitigate interference, but this will 

continue to be a substantial task. 

Some additional complexities associated with the design and implementation of the 

communications system became apparent in 2012< Complete signal wayside design and GIS 

data and train movement data are all necessary to properly design the radio network; each of 

these data elements must be taken into account to ensure there is adequate capacity to handle all 

the data< In addition, as new users roll out their PTC systems in locations where other railroads 

are already testing or using PTC, railroads will likely have to re-engineer their radio networks to 

address potential interference and ensure the additional demand for data can be met. Another 

issue that has emerged is the potential for delays associated with the Federal Communications 

Commission's environmental rules, including the separate completion of the environmental and 

historic preservation processes for each orthe over 20,000 antenna structures required for PTe. 

" Sec Table 6 in Attachment B< 

"(SPat 8< 

5 
143 


Insert offset folio 104 here 81678.104

Four railroads have invested approximately $180 million to date in the development and 

installation of220 MHz radios for base stations, wayside locations, and locomotives, each of 

which requires a distinct type of radio. Still, over 3,800 base station radios, over 31,000 wayside 

radios, and over 21,000 locomotive radios need to be manufactured and installedU 

Finally, in 2012 railroads studied spectrum needs in congested metropolitan areas and 

confirmed that railroads will need to acquire additional spectrum in Chicago. Other areas being 

studied include Kansas City, New York, Toledo, St. Louis, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and New 

Orleans. The adequacy of coverage in congested metropolitan areas will not be fully known 

until the PTC system is implemented and operational in those arcas. 

E. PTC Back Office 

The pace of development of the Back Office Segment and PTC-related back office 

systems remains challenged by design complexity, availability of supplier resources, and 

scalability of the solution. Insofar as the I-ETMS BOS is concerned, the railroads and their 

contractors continued development in 2012, but a "final" version is not expected to be available 

until mid-20l4. 

The need to test thoroughly the PTC back office systems, including the BOS, and address 

issues and defects identified during the testing process also significantly impact the pace of 

development. Lab testing of the related technologies and systems will generally find some 

defects, as was the case with the initial software release for the BOS, requiring subsequent 

revisions of the technologies or systems that fix the defects. Unavailability of the final 

production version of the BOS is one of the critical factors preventing the railroads from 

installing PTC on the entire nationwide network by the current 2015 implementation date. 

1. Back Office Server 

For the over one dozen railroads implementing the I-ETMS BOS, the software version 

that includes essential requirements for vital overlay PTC system certification is now scheduled 

to be ready for testing in mid-2014. A production version of the BOS software will be 

unavailable until after the required lab testing, likely late 2014 at the earliest. While the railroads 

are considering all possible strategies to expedite this schedule, at this time there is no apparent 

alternative strategy or approach that would significantly accelerate the delivery date. As with the 

software for the locomotive, the complexity of the BOS software combined with the many 

interfaces with other components of the PTC system has required detailed design and analysis to 

ensure proper operation. 

11 See Table 7 in Attachment B. 

6 
144 


Insert offset folio 105 here 81678.105

2. Geolill!phical Informfltign $Y~11l!l11Q.llil 

The railroads made substantial progress with respect to the GIS component ofPTC 

systems in 2012. The industry developed a common approach to validation and verification of 

the data to ensure all essential data elements are captured. A common approach facilitates 

review by FRA and also provides non-Class I railroads a template they can use. Over 13,000 

track miles were GIS mapped in 2012, bringing the total miles GIS mapped to approximately 

80,000; approximately 15,800 track miles were data processed in 2012, bringing this total to over 

41,000; and over 6,000 track miles of GIS data were converted to PTC subdivision files in 2012, 

bringing the total of converted track miles to over 9,000. However, much work remains to be 

done. Over 17,000 track miles remain to bc GIS mapped; almost 56,000 miles remain to be data 

processed; and almost 88,000 miles remain to be converted to the PTC subdivision files needed 

for the locomotive's PTC system. l4 Furthermore, substantial work remains to be done to develop 

and implement sustainable processes to document and update the GIS coordinates every time one 

of the over 470,000 critical PTC assets are moved by more than 1 foot. 

3. Dispatch 

The dispatch system must interact with the PTC system via a common interoperable 

interface with the BOS. For some railroads, the enhancements needed for the dispatch system 

are extensive and have taken considerable analysis and effort to design, code, and test. 

Additionally, changes made to the BOS require an analysis of the effect on the interface of the 

dispatch system with the PTC system. At least four railroads will not have a PTC-capablc 

dispatch system until 2014. 15 

III. The Integration and Testing Challenge 

The challenges and risks associated with integrating and testing the many components of 

PTC have not diminished. Many of the 20 plus PTC components have been tested by thc 

supplier and some "nearest neighbor" testing of interfacing components has started with 

preliminary releases of software during 2012. However, cnd-to-end testing ofthe final system 

of interoperable software, with all known hazards mitigated, is still one to two years away. 

Railroads have been nimble in adjusting to the testing challenge. As component releases 

are delayed due to the complexity of the design or the need to fix defects, the interaction of those 

components can quickly get out of sync on the release cycle timeline. Nevertheless, railroads 

have revised test plans and real igned resources to conduct nearest neighbor testing with 

intermediate versions of software as software delivery schedules have slipped. They have taken 

advantage of opportunities to test releases of software and hardware to ferret out defects and 

issues early in the release continuum, when more extensive integration testing is not yet possible. 

To keep the schedule moving forward to the extent possible, railroads have undertaken 

14 See Table 8 in Attachmenl B. 

" See Table 9 in Attachment B. 

7 
145 


Insert offset folio 106 here 81678.106

preliminary testing using software written to interim versions of "interface control documents" 

(ICDs) and written translators to bridge the gap between the different ICDs. 16 In some cases 

these stop-gap assemblages of software have been tested in the field with a hi-rail vehicle. 

Railroad testing has identified more than 600 software defects to date, nnderscoring the 

importance of thorough testing to ensure the integrity of the PTC system. While these efforts 

successfully identified potential defects, only true end-to-end testing with final software will 

determine whether the integration of all the PTC components is effective. Based on current 

schedules, this will not begin until late 2014. At that time any additional defects discovered will 

have to be analyzed and remediated, further delaying the time at which widespread PTC 

implementation can proceed. 

IV. The Certification Process Could Take Considerable Time 

AAR remains concerned that the ccrtification process could take a considerable amount 

of time and that FRA will not have the resources to review and certify PTC systems 

expeditiously. As FRA acknowledged in its August 2012 Report to Congress, FRA will need at 

least 6 to 9 months to review PTC Safety Plans, and approximately 38 railroads will need 

certification. I? In an attempt to expedite final review, in 2012 the Class I railroads' Joint Rail 

Safety Team (JSRT) developed a format and common portions of a PTC Safety Plan and 

submitted drafts for FRA review and comment. In addition, in 2012 FRA and the JRST began 

holding quarterly meetings to facilitate communications between the parties, discuss FRA's 

concerns about implementation, and clarify FRA's interpretation of the PTC regulations. The 

meetings continue to foster a good working relationship between tbe industry and FRA. 

However, while this joint effort of the railroads and FRA is helpful, each railroad will have a 

nnique PTC safety plan that FAA will need to review and approve. Furthermore, while railroads 

have been and will continue partial installation of PTC equipment prior to certification, the time 

required for FRA certification is one of the critical elements impacting the date by which the 

PTC mandate can be implemented. IS 

As FRA also noted in its Report to Congress, the shortage of qualified people extends to 

FRA. FRA noted that its PTC staff consists of 10 PTC specialists and 1 supervisor, who are 

responsible for monitoring PTC system installation and testing nationwide and for the technical 

review and approval of all documentation associated with the statutotily-required PTC system 

16 ICDs contain the format for how systems communicate with each other. 

17 FRA Report to Congress. p. 41. Based upon the nearly 18 months that it took for FRA to approve the PTC 

Development Plan, a less complex document, the approval period could take even longer than estimated by FRA. 

IS FRA in its August 2012 Report to Congress suggested a legislative change that would pennit FRA to 

provisionally certify PTC systems. Once provisionally certified. a railroad could operate its PTC system pending 

final review. While a constructive suggestion that could assist in evaluating PTC systems in operation, this change 

would not alter the fact that the railroads cannot install PTC on the entire nationwide network by the 2015 deadline. 

Even provisional certification will require a review and approval process for FRA !t is difficult to imagine that 

process will take less than 6 months. 

8 
146 


Insert offset folio 107 here 81678.107

certification. 19 Railroads will be submitting PTC Safety Plans, amendments to their PTC filings, 

and other related documents. FRA, as do the railroads, faces the challenge of key personnel 

retiring as well as other resource constraints that impact the agency's ability to review, comment, 

and approve the required documentation. As FRA noted in its Report to Congress, the industry 

remains concerned that the continued shortage ofFRA resources could delay the implementation 

of an interoperable PTC system. 

V. Interoperability: The Current Implementation Schedules Could 

Adversely Affect the Reliability and Effectiveness of PTC 

A. Phasing in PTC 

Attachment B to the ISP discussed problems that could arise from implementation 

schedules under which PTC is deployed first in locations presenting complex interopcrability 

issues. The railroads suggested a phased approach to PTC under which PTC will be 

implemented in less operationally complex areas first, which is a departure from current 

implementation plans. FRA has indicated that it agrees with this gcneral approach. 

Accordingly, the railroads intend to update the implementation schedules in their respective PTC 

Implementation Plans to take these complex interoperability issues into account. 

The PTC Reliability Study recently provided by AAR to FRA raises significant concerns 

over the reliability of the fully assembled PTC system. The Study underscores the need for a 

phased approach for implementation that will allow the railroads to assess the PTC system in 

operation so that failures, while they will occur, can be reduced to the extent possible and the 

efficiency of the railroad network maintained to the greatest extent feasible. The time needed to 

phase in PTC is another reason why the industry cannot meet the current 2015 deadline to 

implement PTC on the entire nationwide network. 

Ensuring the interoperability ofPTC requires numerous interoperability standards. AAR 

and its member railroads made considerable progress towards developing those standards in 

2012. Attachment C describes the status of the interoperability standards required for PTe. Of 

the 34 standards being developed, 18 have been finalized. Drafts of 12 more have been 

published for public comment. 

In 2012 it became clear that the railroads also need to adopt industry standards for the 

ongoing use and operation of PTC. These standards are necessary in order for the railroads 

operating a PTC system to ensure that updates to PTC hardware and software are acceptable. In 

the absence of such standards, there is no assurance that upgraded PTC components and software 

will be compatible with and continue to work with other components of the PTC system or that 

interoperability will be maintained. 

19 FRA Report to Congress, p. 41. 

9 
147 


Insert offset folio 108 here 81678.108

VI. Rolling Out PTC 

As noted above and in th~ ISP, PTC cannot be rolled out on an entire railroad system at 

the same time. It must be implemented in phases and location by location, typically on a 

subdivision basis. 

Furthermore, as also stated in the ISP, training employees remains a daunting task that 

places practical limits on the speed with which PTC can be safely and effectively rolled out 

across a railroad system. While training courses and materials continue to be developed, the 

railroads recognize that this training must occur in a phased approach. Employees on each 

subdivision will have to receive significant training immediately prior to activation ofPTC on 

the subdivision where they work. On the Class I railroads alone, approximately 68,000 

engineers and conductors, 7,200 signal employees, 2,500 dispatchers, and thousands of others, 

including mechanics, electricians, and supervisors, will havc to be trained on PTC. Delays in 

designing and installing PTC affect the pace of training railroad employees. 

VII. Conclusion 

The railroad industry has invested a tremendous amount of lime, effort and money to 

complete a nationwide interoperable PTC-system as quickly as possible. As of the end of 20 12, 

the railroads had invested approximately $2.8 billion (up from $1.6 billion at the end of2011) 

and had also devoted millions of man-hours to the development of PTC.2o However, as 

demonstrated above, the railroads will not be able to implement PTC on the entire nationwide 

network by December 31, 2015. 

Because of all the uncertainties associated with the development and installation of PTC, 

it is impossible to set forth a precise timcline for completion of a nationwide, interoperable PTC 

network. Factors that affect a railroad's timeline for completion of PTC on its system, include 

variations in geography; type and age of the railroad's wayside signaling infrastructure (legacy 

relay technology must be converted to solid state technology); the density of train operations; the 

number ofrml-to-rail interlockings; the number of connections with other railroads; and the 

number of operating environments (with different combinations of these factors) that must be 

addressed. In addition, until a railroad tests and installs its PTC system, it is impossible to know 

what other difficulties will be encountered and how they might affect progress in completing the 

railroad's PTC network. As discussed previously, the critical software for the back office server 

for I-ETMS will not be fully tested and ready to be installed until late 2014 at the earliest. 

Finally, the scope of the PTC nctwork will impact a railroad's ultimate completion date. 

Taking into account the above factors, the eight railroads providing data for this paper 

anticipate that by December 31, 2018, all PTC hardware will be installed and PTC will be in 

operation on most of the mandated PTC routes. (The date by which PTC will be in operation on 

20 See Table 10 in Attachment B. 

10 
148 


Insert offset folio 109 here 81678.109

all ofa railroad's mandated PTe routes will vary by railroad.) The industry continues to seek 

ways to speed progress while maintaining safe operations in order to achieve complete 

deployment as soon as possible. Thus, while current projections show that a portion of the PTe 

network will not be completed by the end of 20 18, that certainly could change. 

Keeping in mind the uncertainty in projecting a completion date, Table 11 shows the 

railroads' current expectations regarding future annual PTe expenditures and annual installations 

of wayside interface units, base station radios, and PTe equipment on locomotives, as well as the 

number of employees they expect will be trained. (Table 11 is premised on the PTe network 

required by the current regulations.) Table 11 also shows by year the extent to which the 

railroads will have installed PTe on the routes that will have PTe capability. The year "2018 

and beyond" column includes data for what the railroads currently project will remain to be done 

in and beyond 2018. The eight railroads anticipate they will have spent $8 billion by the end of 

2018 on PTe. 

This paper shows that the railroad industry has done its utmost to install a nationwide, 

interoperable PTe network. However, much work remains to be done. While substantial 

progress toward completing the network will have been made by the end of 20 15, the entire 

project will not be complete by that date. 

11 
149 


Insert offset folio 110 here 81678.110

PTC Implementation: 

The Railroad Industry Cannot Install PTe on the 

Entire 1"ationwide Network by the 2015 Deadline 

Association of American Railroads 

January 18,2012 

Attachment A 
150 


Insert offset folio 111 here 81678.111

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. Introduction and Executive Summary ............................................................... 1 

II. PTC Components ................................................................................................ 3 

A. Locomotives ....................................................................................................... 3 

B. Wayside Technology .......................................................................................... 5 

C. Switches ............................................................................................................. 7 

D. Communications ................................................................................................ 8 

E. PTC Back Office ................................................................................................ 9 

1. Back Office Server ........................................................................................ 1 0 

2. Geographical Information System (GIS) ...................................................... 10 

3. Dispatch ......................................................................................................... 11 

III. The Integration Challenge .............................................................................. 12 

IV. The Certification Process Could Take Considerable Time ......................... 14 

V. Interoperability: The Current Implementation Schedules Could ............... 14 

Adversely Affect the Reliability and Effectiveness of PTC ............................... 14 

A. Phasing in PTC ............................................................................................... 14 

B. Interoperability Standards .............................................................................. 15 

VI. Rolling Out PTC .............................................................................................. 15 

VB. The Railroads' Tremendous Investment in PTC ........................................ 16 

VIlt Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 16 
151 


Insert offset folio 112 here 81678.112

PTC Implementation: 

The Railroad Industry Cannot Install PTC on the Entire 

Nationwide Network by the 2015 Deadline 

I. Introduction and Executive Summary 

The Rail Safety Improvement Act of2008 (RSIA) requires passenger 

railroads and Class I railroads to install positive train control (PTC) on main lines 

used to transport passengers or toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials (TIH) by 

December 31, 2015. The PTC mandate presents the railroad industry with a 

challenge of unprecedented scope. The nation's railroads are spending billions of 

dollars on the development and acquisition ofPTC technology to fulfill the 

Congressional mandate. PTC technology will have to be installed on more than 

60,000 miles of right-of-way, the precise number depending on the revisions to 

FRA's final rule governing the scope ofPTC. 

This paper discusses the enormity of the task facing the industry as it seeks 

to comply with the RSIA mandate for a nationwide interoperable PTC network and 

the impossibility of accomplishing the task by December 31, 2015. I The work that 

must be undertaken includes: 

• installing approximately 38,000 wayside interface units (WIUs) that 

provide the mechanism for the transmission of information from wayside 

signals and switches to locomotives and the "back office;" 

• installing PTC technology on approximatelyl8,000 locomotives; 

• installing PTC technology on approximately 4,900 switches in nonsignaled territory; 

• completing over 12,000 signal replacement projects; 

• mapping over 60,000 miles of right-of-way and 476,000 assets; 

I This paper is based on information provided by the following eight railroads, 

which have to install PTC on routes over which TIH or passengers, or both TIH 

and passengers, are transported: the Alaska Railroad (ARR), BNSF Railway 

(BNSF), Canadian National (CN), Canadian Pacific (CP), CSX Transportation 

(CSX), Kansas City Southern (KCS), Norfolk Southern (NS), and Union Pacific 

(UP). 
152 


Insert offset folio 113 here 81678.113

• the development, production, and deployment of a radio specifically 

designed for PTC at approximately 4,100 base stations, 37,000 wayside 

locations, and on 18,000 locomotives; 

• developing back office systems; and 

• upgrading dispatching software to incorporate the data and precision 

required for PTC systems. 

Since enactment of the RSIA and promulgation of the PTC regulations, the 

railroad industry has devoted enormous resources in an unprecedented effort to 

develop PTC systems and address myriad interoperability issues. However, much 

of the work to implement PTC remains to be done. For example, less than 10 

percent ofthe WIUs have been installed, work on switches in non-signaled 

territory has been completed for less than 10 percent of the switches that need 

upgrading, only about 10 percent of signal projects have been completed, 220 MHz 

radios are not yet in production, and, leaving aside the unavailability of the radios, 

PTC equipment has been partially installed on only 15 percent of the locomotives 

that will need PTC equipment. While greater progress has been made in some 

other areas, such as the mapping element of the PTC-related GIS initiative, in no 

case is the industry elose to completing the work that must be done for the 

nationwide PTC network, as measured on the basis of percentage of work 

completed. 

Significant hurdles must be surmounted in completing the design, 

production, and installation of the more than 20 major components that underlie 

the nationwide PTC network. Essential software and hardware for many 

components arc still under development and testing of these components must be 

performed after the software and hardware are available. FRA must review each 

railroad's PTC safety plan and certify the railroads' PTC systems after the 

development and testing of the components are complete, and then PTC 

installation must be completed. The task is made particularly complex by the need 

to ensure that individual railroad systems are fully interoperable and the many 

potential failure points and failure modes in PTC systems (across multiple 

interoperating railroads) are identified, isolated, and corrected. The 

interoperability concern has been magnified by current plans for phasing in PTC, 

which instead of providing for the implementation ofPTC in less complex areas 
153 


Insert offset folio 114 here 81678.114

first to reduce operational risk, actually provide for PTC to be installed first in the 

areas most complex from the perspective of interoperability. 

The current deadline and sequencing schedules unnecessarily create 

potential operational risks. Rushing dcvclopment and installation and foregoing a 

logical plan for sequencing the implementation ofPTC also increases the 

likelihood of instances occurring where PTC will fail to function reliably. 

One item impacting the time it will take to complete installation of PTC on 

the nationwide network is the geographic scope of the PTC mandate. FRA took a 

significant step when it published a notice of proposed rulemaking providing for 

2015 traffic patterns to be used to determine the geographic scope, as provided for 

in the RSIA, instead of2008 traffic patterns. In addition, recognizing the need for 

additional modifications to the geographic scope, FRA has announced it will be 

initiating a rulemaking proceeding that could further reduce the geographic scope 

of the PTC mandate. Leaving aside technical obstacles to developing PTC, it is 

unlikely any freight railroad could meet the December 31,2015, dcadline without 

significant changes to the current geographic scope ofPTC deployment. However, 

regardless of the ultimate geographical scope of the PTC mandate, the technical 

hurdles are such that a nationwide, interoperable PTC network cannot be 

complcted by the December 31, 2015 deadline. 

II. PTC Components 

A. Locomotives 

Approximately 18,000 locomotives, or approximately 75 percent of the 

industry's active road locomotive fleet, must be equipped with PTC technology. 

More specifically, these locomotives must bc cquipped with: 

• a Train Management Computer (TMC) with fully functional PTC 

software; 

• an interoperable 220 MHz radio designed specifically for PTC; 

• a Communications Management Unit or Onboard Network (OBN); 

• antennae arrays capable of receiving the full range ofPTC data 

transmissions, e.g., via radio, cellular, WIFI, and GPS; and 

• two computer displays, one of which must be interactive. 
154 


Insert offset folio 115 here 81678.115

Additionally, every TMC must be interfaced with the locomotive's onboard 

systems to supply the TMC with critical information such as brake pipe pressure, 

hom status, and speed from the axle alternator. 

The wiring, cabling, welding, cutting, and connecting oflocomotive 

components required for PTC is made particularly complex by the variety of 

locomotive models. The largest railroads have 15 to 20 different models of 

locomotives on which PTC equipment will need to be installed, some of which 

have been in service for several decades. The age and variety of the locomotive 

fleet contribute significant additional time, complexity and costs to the effort to 

install PTC equipment on locomotives. A unique PTC design is required for each 

unique locomotive configuration. 

For a number of reasons, equipping locomotives with PTC technology is 

taking longer than projected in the railroads' original implementation plans: 

• as should be expected with a program of this magnitude and complexity, 

vendor supply chain and quality control issues have arisen with respect to 

both hardware and software; 

• some equipment suppliers do not have the capacity to satisfy overall 

industry demand in a timely fashion, resulting in delivery delays; 

• to facilitate the transmission ofPTC messages to and from the 

locomotive, on some railroads the TMC required a design change for a 

processor to support the messaging system that has not yet been delivered in 

a stable, functional form; 

• onboard software, which runs on the TMC, has not yet been delivered 

with full fimctionality; 

• an initial version of 220MHz radio software was just made available in 

the fourth quarter of 20 11 production radios are not expected to be 

available until May/June of2012; and 

• the delivery dates for the Communications Management equipment, 

manufactured by several suppliers, have slipped. 

The delay in equipping locomotives has forced railroads to go to a "double 

touch" strategy for equipping locomotives with PTC technology. Railroads take 

locomotives out of revenue service to make modifications required for the 

installation of brackets, wiring, and cabling, which will ultimately support the on-
155 


Insert offset folio 116 here 81678.116

board PTC components when they become available. At the same time, the 

railroads install any components that are available. The railroads will have to reshop these same locomotives in the future - again taking them out of revenue 

service to install the remaining on-board PTC components. 

Of the approximately 18,000 locomotives the railroads are planning to equip 

with PTC technology, only about 2,600 have been partially equipped and a 

substantial amount of work remains to be done on those locomotives. Insofar as 

equipping locomotives is concerned, most of the work remains to be done. Table I 

in Attachment A shows the status of the installation ofPTC equipment on 

locomotives for each railroad. 

B. Wayside Technology 

Wayside signal systems interface with PTC through wayside interface units 

(WIUs) installed at each wayside signaling location. WIUs translate the signal 

logic into PTC information. There are currently two types of WI Us under 

development by railroad signaling suppliers, "integrated" and "standalone" 

configurations. The integrated WIU will be applied to newer, microprocessorbased signal systems. Where integrated WI Us are used, the existing signal 

system's processor hardware and software must be upgraded. Standalone WIUs 

will be applied to older, non-microprocessor-based signal systems (and some older 

microprocessor-based systems as well). The installation of standalone WTUs is 

more complex than integrated WIUs because separate WIU hardware and software 

must be installed, along with hardware interfaces to the existing signal system, and 

the entire location must be "recommissioned." Note that it will be impractical 

from a lifecycle perspective to apply standalone WIUs to some older signal 

systems. For these systems, reliability concerns and the high cost of design, 

installation, and maintenance will drive the railroads to replace the underlying 

signal system and use an upgraded signal system combined with integrated WIUs. 

Every location that requires PTC will need some or all of the work listed 

below: 

• install and position PTC radio and GPS antennas at wayside locations 

and base radio sites; 

• cable work; 
156 


Insert offset folio 117 here 81678.117

• replace or upgrade battery power; 

• install lightning & surge protection; 

• replace track circuits where necessary; 

• replace signals where necessary; 

• replace bungalows where new ones are required due to PTe equipment 

size constraints; 

• perform in-service tests as applicable that can include running through 

every available combination of routes to insure signal indication accuracy; 

and 

• update configuration management as applicable. 

Product availability has been a problem as suppliers strive to develop 

interoperable equipment and undertake the safety-critical development and testing 

required for signaling equipment. Furthermore, railroads subject the equipment to 

extensive lab and field testing. While one supplier has WIUs available, WIUs 

from other suppliers are not yet ready for produetion in large quantities. 

For the reasons described above, tens of thousands of miles of existing 

signal system infrastructure will need to be replaced, at a cost of approximately $1 

billion. Each replacement project is complicated and lengthy. At each signal 

location the following steps must be performed: a) a physical survey must be 

conducted to determine what PTe solution will be needed; b) the signal system 

must be completely redesigned; c) new signal bungalows must be fabricated and 

put in place; d) new wiring from the bungalow to each track circuit, switch, and 

signal mast must be installed; and e) the communications infrastructure must be 

installed. Moreover, during the process of changing to a new signal system, 

installing WIUs, and testing every affected route, railroad operations are 

interrupted. 

Another significant issue is the limited number of qualified personnel 

available for signal work. The PTe signal projects require a substantial amount of 

work in a limited period of time. Historically, railroads are staffed for a fairly 

stable amount of signal work from one year to the next. The PTe work 

dramatically increases the workload for signal personnel, resulting in a tripling, 

quadrupling, or an even greater increase in the number oflocations where signal 

work is required. The limited number of qualified signal personnel available to the 

(, 
157 


Insert offset folio 118 here 81678.118

railroad industry constrains how quickly railroads can complete the design, 

installation, and testing work required for PTC signal projects, as well as adversely 

impacting projects to increase railroad capacity (and the increase in demand for 

signal personnel combined with the limited number available has resulted in a 

tremendous increase in signal engineering and installation costs). While the 

railroads are actively hiring new employees and retaining contractors and training 

them in railroad signaling systems and PTC requirements, it typically takes 18 to 

24 months for an individual to receive the training and gain the experience 

necessary to handle the complexities of PTC. The industry has already hired more 

than 2,000 additional signal personnel specifically for PTC, as illustrated in Table 

2 in Attachment A, and is planning to hire hundreds more. Of course, hundreds of 

existing employees who previously handled other signal work are now also 

working on PTC. 

Of the approximately 38,000 WIUs that must be installed for PTC, only 

about 3,300 have been installed to date. As is the case with equipping 

locomotives, most of the work with respect to installing WIUs remains to be 

accomplished. Similarly, only a small number ofthe signal replacement projects 

that must be done have been completed. Of the approximately 12,200 PTC signal 

replacement projects, only about 1,200 have been completed. Tables 3, 4, and 5 in 

Attachment A show the status ofWIU installation and signal replacement projccts 

for each railroad. 

C. Switches 

In non-signaled territory, every switch will require an upgrade to become 

PTC-capable. For the most part, these upgrades will require: a) the provisioning of 

utility or localized power (e.g. generators, solar panels, etc.) to the location, given 

that many switches in non-signaled territory are "hand throw" or "spring" 

switches; b) the installation of a switch position monitor; c) the installation of a 

WIU; and d) the installation and configuration of communication systems. 

Providing power to a switch location requires trenching along the right of way and 

burying cable. 

Most of the work involved in upgrading switches lies ahead. Of the 

approximately 4,900 switches that need to be equipped with power and WIUs, only 

about 200 have been equipped with power and 100 with WIUs. Furthermore, 

7 
158 


Insert offset folio 119 here 81678.119

switch position monitors have been installed at only about 100 of the 

approximately 3,700 locations that need them. Table 6 in Attachment A shows the 

status of each railroad's progress in non-signaled territory. 

D. Communications 

All PTC wayside locations and all PTC-enabled locomotives must be 

equipped with a complex, interoperable wireless communications infrastructure, 

largely through a combination of communications media. More specifically, the 

railroads will utilize Wide Area Nctworks for voice and data communications for 

wayside and field operations (leased & private circuits, fiber, and microwave 

systems). Many railroads will require upgrades to their Wide Area Networks to 

increase capacity, enhance reliability, provide redundancy, and support current 

digital communications protocols (e.g., Intcrnet Protocol). The specific 

communications technology deployed at a particular location will depend on the 

railroad's communications network. The infrastructure required for each 

communications path is different, as is the availability and maturity of the 

components of each infrastructure type. 

Railroads were forced to create a private radio frequency network capable of 

transmitting and receiving the data necessary to support an interoperable PTC 

network because of the need for greater coverage and reliability than provided by 

the cellular networks in the U.S. The industry adopted 220 MHz as the 

interoperability communications standard. To date, the seven Class I railroads 

have invested approximately $40 million in acquiring and managing 220 MHz 

spectrum. The railroads might need to invest even more to acquire additional 

spectrum to ensure adequate coverage in certain congcsted metropolitan areas and 

have commenced radio frequency propagation studies in Los Angeles and Chicago 

to determine if their holdings are sufficient to support PTC in the more heavily 

trafficked and populated areas. In addition, because no 220 MHz radio existed, the 

freight railroad industry again took the initiative, this time to commission the 

design of a 220 MHz radio through a railroad-owned company, Meteorcomm, 

LLC. To date, approximately $140 million has been invested in the development 

of three distinct radios, for base stations, wayside locations, and locomotives. If 

field testing of the radios is successful, production radios for field deployment 

should begin to be available in May 2012. 
159 


Insert offset folio 120 here 81678.120

The development work for PTC communications will not be finished once 

radios are available for deployment. This 220 MHz data radio network will require 

significant radio frequency planning and coordination to ensure sufficient coverage 

has been provided without interference. It is likely that areas of high PTC traffic 

congestion will result in very complex frequency coordination and necessitate the 

sharing of railroad communication infrastructure. This type of effort has never 

been undertaken on the scale and timeline required to support interoperable PTC. 

The deployment status for base stations, wayside locations, and locomotive 

communications is shown in Table 7 in Attachment A. As Table 7 shows, only a 

small number of220 MHz radios have been installed for testing purposes. 

E. PTC Back Office 

The numerous technologies and systems which comprise or support 

the PTC Back Office Segment are another complex aspect ofPTC. The Back 

Office Segment is responsible for several core PTC functions, including: 

• providing the PTC interface to and from existing transportation 

information technology systems, such as crew, locomotive, and dispatch 

systems, which are different at each railroad; and 

• providing a centralized source ofPTC-enabling information for the 

locomotive equipment and WIUs. 

The Back Office Server (BOS) performs the functions of the Back Office 

Segment. There are also a number of back office systems which provide inputs 

into the Office Segment. Two major data inputs are from the railroads' existing 

dispatch systems and their Geographic Information Systems (GIS), which are 

being developed or enhanced for PTC. 

The pace of development of the Back Office Segment and PTC-related back 

office systems is affected by available resources. Railroad-specific back office 

technology is developed by a very small number of companies. Railroads spent 

fairly consistent amounts with these firms prior to PTC, affecting these firms' 

ability to ramp up their efforts in support of the railroad industry. Furthermore, the 

number of technology professionals who have intimate knowledge of railroad 

operations is very small. The limited resources available affect the timing of work 

on design, development, coding, integration, and testing. In addition, because each 
160 


Insert offset folio 121 here 81678.121

railroad's transportation information technology system is unique, the details and 

scope of the back office development required for PTe differ for each railroad, 

minimizing the ability to apply the work done for one railroad to another railroad's 

PTe system. 

The limited resources available together with the statutory deadline of 

December 31, 2015, have forced the railroads to develop PTe technology in a less 

efficient way than would otherwise be the case. Systems design, development, and 

testing that normally would be undertaken sequentially must happen in parallel, 

which results in more defects in the development process than would be the case if 

time permitted a more efficient, sequential development process. Furthermore, 

because of the limited resources available to the railroads, the substantial resources 

required for planning, designing, and testing PTe components means that fewer 

resources are available for other service and safety technology projects. 

The need to thoroughly test the PTe back office systems, including the 

BOS, and address problems identified during the testing process, also significantly 

impacts the pace of their development. Lab testing of the related technologies and 

systems will generally find some defects, as was the case with the initial software 

release for the BOS, requiring the railroads to wait for a subsequent version of the 

technology or system that fixes the defects. 

1. lla,~;k Office Server 

Most railroads do not have final BOS software available. For example, the 

"final" version of the BOS software that will be used by a number of railroads is 

not scheduled to be delivered until late 2012. At that time, the railroads will need 

to lab test the software. Thus, a production version of this critical BOS software 

will likely not be available until the first quarter of 20 13, at the earliest. 

2. Geographical Information Svstel1l(GIS) 

With respect to GIS, the accuracy of the information required for PTe is 

significantly more precise than what is required to run a safe and efficient railroad 

in a non-PTe environment. Field assets that are critical to PTe - and there are 

approximately 500,000 of these - must be geo-located to a horizontal precision of 

less than 2.2 meters (~7 feet) and a vertical precision of 0.8 meters (~2 feet) to 

provide the accuracy necessary to safeJy warn or stop a locomotive. Furthermore, 

11) 
161 


Insert offset folio 122 here 81678.122

it is not just the PTC routes that must be mapped. Yards, industry, and other 

connecting track also must be mapped to account for entry onto and exit from PTC 

track. Over 63,000 miles of right-of-way will be mapped, perhaps considerably 

more depending on the outcome of the PTC rulemaking proceedings. In essence, 

PTC is requiring each railroad to undertake a complete, highly-precise physical 

survey of the track and wayside infrastructure in a fashion not seen since the 1917 

federal government survey of railroads. 

After mapping is completed, additional data from multiple railroad systems 

must be incorporated into a PTC data model for use onboard the locomotive in a 

"subdivision file." These data points include all track classes, clearance points, 

quiet zones, and bit assignments for wayside communications. There are over 200 

attributes that must be included. Railroads must verify and validate the accuracy 

of the GIS data and the way the onboard system interprets the data. Every mile 

must be traversed prior to "turning on" PTC to make sure the rail network is 

represented accurately. Furthermore, any time a critical PTC asset along any of 

the over 60,000 miles ofPTC territory is subsequently moved more than 1 foot, 

which could be for operating or safety reasons, new GPS coordinates must be 

acquired and the data translated into inforn1ation for PTC purposes. 

The status of the GIS/GPS efforts required to support PTC is shown in Table 

8 in Attachment A 

3. Dispatch 

Railroad dispatch systems, most of which have been upgraded in the last 10 

years, are milepost-based and generally require a precision of one-tenth of a mile 

to operate trains safely. The level of precision required for PTC requires some 

dispatch systems to be rewritten or perhaps even completely re-architected to 

convey movement authority information to PTC with significantly greater 

precision, e.g., to the ten-thousandth of a mile. Railroads arc working with their 

dispatch system developers to incorporate this precision and other enhancements 

required for PTC. Table 9 in Attachment A shows the dates by which railroads 

expect their dispatch systems will be PTe capable. Most railroads will not have 

PTC-capable dispatch systems until the end of2012 or the beginning of2013. 

11 
162 


Insert offset folio 123 here 81678.123

III. The Integration Challenge 

PTC is a system of systems. While the RSIA and FRA regulations set forth 

PTe's core functions, there are myriad requirements for system components that 

comprise the total PTC system. The development of these components requires 

hundreds of subject matter experts to create and document component 

requirements, develop the components, and test them. At every juncture of the 

process, integration issues must be analyzed and potential or actual detects or risks 

mitigated. That must be done by the railroads. While suppliers primarily 

undertake the development ofPTC components, it is up to the railroad to integrate 

the components and integrate the components with the railroad's existing 

technology systems. From a timing perspective, PTC components will not be 

ready until the suppliers are finished with their testing and the railroads complete 

their integration testing. 

More specifically, PTC systems are comprised of more than 20 components, 

including the: 

• Back office server; 

• Train management computer; 

• Interoperable electronic train management system software; 

• Authentication systems to verify users; 

• Track database of over 200 characteristics of track and trackside 

assets; 

• Interface and enhancements to the dispatch system; 

• Security application for message integrity; 

• Interoperable train control messaging system; 

• 220 MHz data radio for base station communication; 

• 220 MHz data radio for locomotive communication; 

• 220 MHz data radio for switch and signal communication; 

• Communication switching network for interoperable back office 

communication; 

• Computer display units for onboard the locomotive; 

• Locomotive messaging system to route messages off the locomotive; 

• GPS sensors onboard the locomotive; 

12 
163 


Insert offset folio 124 here 81678.124

• Crash hardened memory module onboard the locomotive; 

• Onboard network devices for communications; 

• Switch position monitors; and 

• Integrated and stand-alone WIUs. 

While some of these components existed in some form prior to PTC, none were 

designed or tested for positive train control or to work in concert with so many 

other components in this system of systems. Furthermore, many of these 

components are first-generation technologies being conceived, designed, and 

developed for PTC. All of these components must function correctly and reliably, 

or the entire PTC system will fail. In the case of the first-generation technologies, 

the likelihood of problems arising is significantly higher than with proven system 

components. 

The safe integration of these many components is verified by the railroads' 

through testing. Every major railroad has a "PTC lab" where testing of the system 

is conducted, as well as designated "pilot territories" where field testing occurs. 

Multiple phases of testing must take place before PTC systems are ready to 

be put through the rigors of real operations. Simulators have been developed to 

create mock operational environments for testing. Each system component is 

connected to other components for integration testing. The process is iterative, 

with components being added to the test until the entire system is assembled in the 

lab environment to verify system functionality. 

At any point during testing, defects in the components or their interface with 

other components can be revealed. When that occurs, research must be conducted 

to determine the cause, the software or hardware must be modified, and new 

testing must take place. Each defect potentially impacts the schedule for 

implementing PTC, depending on the functionality and complexity of the issue. 

Defects found during field testing can be particularly problematic, causing 

significant "rework" and delays. Finding a defect places in jeopardy all of the 

previous work done on individual components and their integration. 

The variety of suppliers, the timing of development of the individual 

components, the interpretation of designs and standards, the enhancement of 

j; 
164 


Insert offset folio 125 here 81678.125

legacy systems, the dependencies between modules, and interfaces all add 

complexity, risk, and time to the implementation ofPTC. It is only when the 

development of all components is complete and the components are brought 

together to be tested, that is, validated and verified (V & V) to meet the 

requirements, that the PTC system can be submitted for FRA approval and run as a 

PTC System. Validation and verification is expected to take at least 12 to 18 

months to complete. 

IV. The Certification Process Could Take Considerable Time 

Section 236.1015 requires that FRA grant a railroad a "PTC System 

Certitication" before a railroad can place a PTC system in service. To obtain 

certification, railroads must submit detailed "PTC Safety Plans" containing 

complete PTC system designs. That means that all the technical hurdles described 

in this paper must be surmounted before FRA will grant certification. AAR is 

concerned that FRA will not have the resources to expeditiously review and certify 

PTC systems. Approximately 40 railroads will need certification. While railroads 

have been and will continue to partially install PTC equipment prior to 

certification, any delays in certification will impact the timing of completing 

installation. The timing ofFRA certification clearly will impact the date by which 

the PTC mandate can be implemented. 

FRA and the industry have good reason to be concerned about the adequacy 

ofFRA resources and the timing ofFRA approval ofPTC systems. The process 

for FRA approval ofPTC Development Plans took nearly 18 months and 

discussions are still ongoing concerning conditions FRA sought to impose. The 

PTC Safety Plans will be significantly more complex and voluminous than the 

Development Plans. Moreover, FRA might seek changes in the Safety Plans, 

including design, hardware, or software changes, making timely approval even 

more problematic. 

V. Intcroperability: The Currcnt Implementation Schedules Could 

Adversely Affect the Reliability and Effectiveness of PTC 

A. Phasing in PTC 

Attachment B discusses the reliability and effectiveness problems that could 

arise from implementation schedules under which PTC is deployed tirst in 
165 


Insert offset folio 126 here 81678.126

locations presenting complex interoperability issues. Implementation ofPTC in 

operationally complex areas such as Chicago and the Northeast Conidor, where 

multiple railroads operate and rail traffic levels are very high, is potentially more 

difficult and presents a greater risk of problems arising than in other areas. 

Furthermore, deploying PTC in areas of greater risk before areas of lesser risk runs 

counter to deployment strategies in most technology development programs. To 

minimize risk in areas with a comparatively high risk of inter operability problems, 

Attachment B discusses a phased approach to PTC under which PTC will be 

implemented in less operationally eomplex areas first, which is a departure from 

current implementation schedules. 

A phased approach addressing interoperability issues potentially impacts the 

timing of PTC implementation. A properly phased approach is inconsistent with 

the December 31, 2015, deadline. Assuming all other technical problems with the 

2015 deadline did not exist, the railroads could ignore the benefits of phasing from 

the perspective of the complexity of interoperability and seek to install PTC as 

rapidly as possible in all areas at once in order to meet the 2015 deadline. 

However, to do so would potentially increase operational risk. It would be in the 

public interest to give the railroads more time to implement PTC in a manner that 

minimizes overall risk. 

B. InteroperabUitv Standards 

Ensuring the interoperability ofPTC requires numerous interoperability 

standards. AAR and its member railroads have devoted considerable effort 

towards developing those standards. Attachment C describes the status of each of 

the interoperability standards required for PTe. 

VI. Rolling Out PTC 

Once the technical issues are resolved, FRA certifies the PTC systems, and 

PTC equipment is installed, the railroads will roll out PTe. This is not a simple 

matter. Most railroads will roll out PTC on a subdivision basis. On each PTC 

subdivision a number of milestones will occur prior to commissioning PTC, 

including the installation ofWIUs, equipping locomotives, training employees, 

ensuring the accuracy of the track information, and installing and testing of 

communications infrastructure. Revenue service demonstrations will take place on 

is 
166 


Insert offset folio 127 here 81678.127

all routes and every potential signal display will have to be tested. Only at that 

point will PTC be ready. 

The time it will take to train employees should not be underestimated. On 

the Class I railroads alone, approximately 60,000 engineers and conductors, 6,500 

signal employees, 2,400 dispatchers, and thousands of others, including mechanics, 

electricians, and supervisors, will have to be trained on PTC. That cannot happen 

overnight. 

VII. The Railroads' Tremendous Investment in PTC 

The railroads have already invested approximately $1.5 billion and spent 

millions of man-hours on the development ofPTC and will be spending billions 

more - FRA estimates the industry's installation costs will amount to $5.5 billion. 

Without going into the opportunity cost of this diversion of capital and human 

resources to PTC, the railroad industry has already devoted enormous resources to 

the effort to meet the government's PTC deadline. Table 10 in Attachment A 

shows the individual railroad investment levels in PTC through 2011. 

VIII. Conclusion 

In December 2010 the United States Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) published a report expressing concerns about the ability of the railroad 

industry to meet the 2015 RSIA deadline (and concerns about PTC diverting 

funding from other critical needs).2 GAO recognized the industry was embarking 

on the development and installation of unproven technologies, with much work to 

be done. GAO's fears have proven to be well founded. Despite the railroads 

having spent approximately $ [.5 billion to develop and install PTC, the December 

31, 2015, deadline for implementation of a nationwide interoperable PTC network 

is not achievable. 

2 GAO, "RAIL SAFETY: Federal Railroad Administration Should Report on Risks 

to the Successful Implementation of Mandated Safety Technology 

htt~www.Qao.Qov/assetsn20/~J4033.pdf 

16 
167 


Insert offset folio 128 here 81678.128

Attachment B 

PTC Datal 

Table 1. Equipping Locomotives with PTC 

Table 2. Railroad Signal Personnel Hired or Retained Due to PTC 

4 

820 

32 ~~~-·-------------·~--t .~ 

35 

494 

36 

300 

539 

2260 

I The data in this Attachment is based on estimates as of December 31, 2012, 

current PTC implementation plans on file with FRA (including amendments to 

plans that have been approved by FRA), and the regulations in existence on 

December 31, 2012. 
168 


Insert offset folio 129 here 81678.129

depl()ye~d to date 

# integrated WIUs 

remaining to be 

Lgeploye~_. 

: # locations remaining 0 

: t()J.l~r:"plllc~~ 

Table 3. Integrated WIU Installation 

54 

Table 4. Stand-alone WIU Installation 

Table 5. Signal Replacement Projects 

2490 89 

1475 45 2945 

2 
169 


Insert offset folio 130 here 81678.130

locations 

needing 

switch 

position 

monitors 

Table 6. Switches in Non-Signal PTe Territory 

60 971 

209 

o 227 470 963 118 
170 


Insert offset folio 131 here 81678.131

Table 7. Communications Deployment 

remaining to 

be equipped 

54 21797 
171 


Insert offset folio 132 here 81678.132

Table 8. Status ofPTC GIS Projects 

*The calculation of assets to be mapped includes the following: integer mileposts; 

signals; crossings; switches; interlockings/control point locations; pennanent speed 

restrictions; the beginning and ending limits of track detection circuits in nonsignaled territory; clearance point locations for every switch location installed on 

the main and siding tracks; and inside switches equipped with switch circuit 

controllers. 
172 


Insert offset folio 133 here 81678.133

Table 9. Status of PTC Dispatch System Projects 

Table 10. PTC Investment 

Railroad 

i ARR 34,000,000 

739,694,000 

6 

Insert offset folio 134 here 81678.134

Table 11. PTe Timeline Based on PTe Regulations as of 12/31/2012 

Railroad Class Is 

Component Thru 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 and beyond* 

Locomotives Partially Equipped 6,031 4,242 1,365 678 650 314 77 Locomotives fully Equipped 224 987 6,948 7,425 4,425 1,509 448 

Percent Complete 1% 6% 37% 71% 91% 98% 100% 

Wayside Interface Units installed 9,726 5,300 4,950 5,837 4,210 3,988 2,048 

Percent Complete 27% 42% 55% 72% 83% 94% 100% 

Base Station Radios Installed 403 976 1,285 1,267 222 52 34 Percent Complete 10% 33% 63% 93% 98% 99% 100% PTC Route Miles Implemented 207 1,085 8,320 15,516 11,983 12,760 12,341 

. Percent Complete 0% 2% 15% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Trained 5,724 4,013 10,930 28,692 16,520 13,276 17,545 

Percent Complete 6% 10% 21% 51% 68% 82% 100% 

PTC Spending ($M) 2,770 1,377 1,403 1,221 572 393 241 

Cumulative Spending I$M) 2,770 4,147 5,549 6,771 7,343 7,736 .. 

*The year 2018 and beyond column includes data for what the railroads currently project will remain to be done in and beyond 2

Because of all the uncertainties associated with the development and installation of PTC, it is impossible to set forth a precise 

completion date. The railroads currently project that by the end of 2018, all hardware will be installed and PTC will be in operati

approximately 90 percent of the mandated PTe routes, by mileage. The industry continues to seek ways to speed progress while 

maintaining safe operations in order to achieve complete deployment as soon as possible. 

Assumptions: 

1 confidence factor in accomplishing the above metrics. 

2 - No FRA accomodation on yard movements in PTe territory. The spreadsheet only reflects the cost of equipping yard 

locomotives. The spreadsheet does not reflect the potential cost of operational impacts such as reduced operational efficien

and potential expenses that will be associated with resolving technical issues such as overloaded communications systems an

the potential impossibility of accommodating PTe equipment on remote control locomotives. 

3 Costs represent capital expenses only, no operating or maintenance expenses. 

Insert offset folio 135 here 81678.135

ITC Sourced Specifications Total Started 

Interface Control Documents 

Requirements Specifications 14 14 

2 2, 

Database Definitions 2 2, 

Protocol Specifications 3 3 Recommended Practices 1 1 

Test Plans 1 1 Test Reports 0 0 

Total Specifications 31 31 

Delivered to 

AAR and 

Published for 

Comment 

12 

2 

4 

3 

1 

1 

0 

Revised and 

Sent to 

9 

2-

0 

1 

0 

8 

2. 

2 

2, 

0 

1 

0 

,., 

ATTACHMEN
175 


Insert offset folio 136 here 81678.136

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF 

STATE HIGHWAY AND 

TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

AASH 0 THE VOICE OF TRAN5POR ATION 

TESTIMONY OF 

THE HONORABLE MICHAEL P. LEWIS 

DIRECTOR 

RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

ON BEHALF OF 

THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND 

TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

REGARDING 

NATIONAL RAIL POLICY: EXAMINING GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND 

RESPONSIBILITIES 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 27, 2D13 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials+444 North Capitol 

Street. N.W., Suite 249, Washington, D.C. 20001+202-624-5800 
176 


Insert offset folio 137 here 81678.137

Thank you Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Brown and distinguished Members ofthe 

Committee for inviting me to participate in today's hearing on National Rail Policy: Examining 

Goals, Objectives and Responsibilities. My name is Mike Lewis and I'm the Director of the 

Rhode Island Department of Transportation, Today I am testifying on behalf of the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials where I serve as President. I am also 

a member of the Northeast Corridor Commission. 

AASHTO is the national association representing transportation departments in the 50 States, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. It represents all five passenger and freight transportation 

modes: air, highways, public transportation, rail, and water. Its primary goal is to foster the 

development, operation, and maintenance of an integrated national transportation system. 

It could be said that AASHTO's member states have been working to participate in a hearing 

such as this for more than a decade. For some years, AASHTO has urged Congress "to enact a 

National Rail policy which outlines the importance to the country of their being a national rail 

network capable of moving passengers and freight effectively and efficiently." AASHTO's 

position on rail policy has evolved through many years of State experience with delivering 

passenger rail service and working with and supporting large and small freight railroads. 

To put AASHTO's views on this subject into context, I will summarize where we think we are 

now with freight and passenger rail, describe the work of AASHTO and its member States 

leading up to this point, and suggest where we should go from here. In the process I will offer 

AASHTO's views on national rail policy issues. 

BACKGROUND 

AASHTO's standing policy declares that: 

"A robust national rail transportation network that moves both passengers and freight 

effectively and efficiently across international borders, across state lines, and within 

regional and state boundaries is essential to this nation's continued economic growth and 

vitality. 

"A strong rail system would reduce highway congestion and airport capacity needs. It 

would improve America's competitiveness in world markets and it would contribute to 

the achievement of important public benefits such as: conserving energy, reducing 

greenhouse emissions, and providing transportation options for our citizens." 

AASHTO's rail policy is based on the long-experience of the States with both freight and 

passenger rail, supported by the analyses contained in a series of reports issued between 2002 

and 2013: 

2002 AASHTO Freight Rail Bottom Line Report 

• 2002 AASHTO Intercity Passenger Rail Transportation Report 

2008 Update to the 2002 Intercity Passenger Rail Transportation Report 

2009 State Rail Planning Best Practices 

• Intercity Passenger Rail: Achieving the Vision--2009 
177 


Insert offset folio 138 here 81678.138

• 2010 Unlocking Freight: Transportation Reboot 

• 20ll-States Ramping Up Action on Passenger Rail 

• 2012-Passenger Rail Moves Ahead: Meeting the Needs ofthe 21" Centnry 

• 2013 Update of State Rail Planning Best Practices (forthcoming) 

• 2013 Update of Freight Rail Bottom Line Report (forthcoming) 

The analyses carried out for these reports supports the proposition that rail must be part of the 

balanced mix of transportation alternatives available to our nation's freight shippers and 

travelers. 

The AASHTO Freight Rail Bottom Line Report, issued in 2002, calculated the 

consequences of investing or not investing in freight rail infrastructure and service for the 

economy in general and specifically for shippers, consumers, the traveling public, the 

environment and the highway system. It concluded that without strong investment in 

freight rail the resulting shift to roads would greatly increase highway maintenance costs 

and ultimately the overall costs of goods movement in the U.S. economy. 

The report observed that: 

"Many states have already taken steps consistent with a public policy-driven 

approach, by investing directly in their rail systems, and by forming publicprivate partnerships to implement specific projects. But making increased levels 

of investment and realizing the public benefits of a strong freight-rail system at a 

national level will require a new partnership among the railroads, the states, and 

the federal government." 

A number of projects referenced in AASHTO Freight Rail Bottom Line Report involve 

both Class I railroads and short-line and regional railroads, including the Alameda 

Corridor and Alameda East, the Washington State "Grain Train" and "Fruit Express," the 

Sheffield Flyover, and "double-stack clearance from Columbus to Norfolk." 

The 2002 AASHTO Intercity Passenger Rail Report presented for the first time a 

complete picture of the passenger rail corridors then in service or in a serious planning 

process. It provided confirmation of need and performance that gave a boost to the 

passage ofPRIIA. 

An updated 2008 Intercity Passenger Rail Report was released prior to the passage of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the creation of the High Speed and 

Intercity Passenger Rail Program by the Federal Railroad Administration. Subsequent 

federal funding announcements have yielded applications from 39 states, the District of 

Columbia and Amtrak requesting more than seven times the amount of funding available. 

The State Rail Planning Best Practices was issued shortly after the passage of PRIIA 

which required state rail plans including both passenger and freight as a condition for the 

receipt of federal passenger rail grants. Despite the fact that the requirement has been 

2 
178 


Insert offset folio 139 here 81678.139

waived for all grants to date, today, 43 states have current rail plans or are in the 

process Qfupdating them. AASHTO's members believe that freight rail and passenger 

rail cannot be addressed separately. What is needed is world class rail and freight rail not 

one or the other. 

The 2009 AASHTO report Unlocking Freight: Transportation Reboot reported on the 

role of freight rail in the context of the nation's multimodal freight transportation system. 

Since 2002, substantial private investment, along with significant public participation, 

has strengthened the foundation of the freight rail system. Projects such as those 

referenced above have updated and adapted the system to function within the demands of 

the current national and global economies. 

These reports for both freight and passenger rail describe early and significant activity by 

states and the need for a strong federal partner and substantial federal investment. 

In January 2013 the Northeast Corridor Commission released its report, Critical Infrastructure 

Needs on the Northeast Corridor. This report serves as an informational resource that describes 

the improvements needed to reduce delays, achieve a state-of-good-repair, and build capacity for 

growth on the NEC. 

Demand for rail service in the NEC is at record levels. The NEC, however, cannot continue to 

accommodate rising demand due to infrastructure that is highly congested and in need of repair. 

Hundreds of its bridges and tunnels are now over a century old; major portions of its electrical 

power supply system date from the 19308 or earlier; and signal systems rely on decades-old 

installations. With more than 2,000 trains per day and major segments at or near capacity, 

operating the NEC leaves little room for error, while capacity chokepoints preclude the increases 

in service necessary to accommodate growing demand. 

The projects were identified tlrrough a consensus-based process by the NEC Commission's 

members, which include representatives from the NEC States, u.S. DOT, and Amtrak. The 

report recognizes that additional investment is necessary to renew and enhance the NEC as a 

world-class, high-performance rail corridor supporting the economic development and 

international competitiveness of the region and the nation with job creation, improved reliability 

of existing services, and a foundation for future mobility and economic growth. 

WHERE WE ARE TODAY 

Freight. Without strong investment in freight rail the resulting shift to roads will greatly 

increase highway maintenance costs and ultimately the overall costs of goods movement in the 

us. economy. 

Of the projects referenced in the AASHTO 2002 Freight Rail Bottom Line Report, most were 

completed and succeeded, some not. Regardless of project outcome, the development process 

significantly contributed to the "new partnership among railroads, the States, and the federal 

government," which was called for in the report. And this partnership has evolved well beyond 

3 
179 


Insert offset folio 140 here 81678.140

where it was in 2002. The public benefit analysis used for the first time in the AASHTO Freight 

Rail Bottom Line Report has become the standard for analyzing pUblic/private rail projects such 

as the Heartland Corridor (the double-stack clearance project described in the report), the 

National Gateway Corridor, and CREATE, all of which have apportioned shares of investment 

among the federal government, State governments and industry based on analyses of private and 

public benefits. 

A 21 st century transportation system requires adjusting the disconnection resulting from the 

development of ports, rail, highways, and airports at different times. CREATE includes a large 

component of highway-rail, rail-rail, and rail-transit crossings. The Alameda Corridor, the 

grandfather of big public-private freight projects, is a grade separation and Alameda East is a 

series of crossings improvements. The Heartland and National Gateway projects are in part 

major intermodal connector projects responding to shifting patterns of international and domestic 

demand. These and similar projects are largely a function of adapting to the ever-changing 

global economics and logistics. 

In the area of freight transportation, two of AASHTO's Board Members have been selected to 

serve on the National Freight Advisory Committee, which had its first meeting on June 25. They 

are Anne Schneider, Secretary, Illinois DOT, and Mike Tooley, Director of the Montana DOT. 

Schneider is also the Chair of AASHTO's Standing Committee on Rail Transportation. The 

Advisory Committee is clearly a place to work on integrating rail with the other modes. 

Another rail freight related area in which States have been especially active is short line rail 

financing. The short lines provide the essential connective tissue in the freight rail system and 

are frequently at the center of State and local economic development strategies. Today tllere are 

active short line financing programs in twenty States. One recent financing example comes from 

Connecticut. Last month Governor Patrick Malloy announced an $8 million Connecticut 

investment in four of their regional railroads: 

"hnproving our freight rail infrastructure is a critical component of strengthening 

Connecticut's economy. Upgrades to tracks and crossings for rail freight certainly 

improve our overall transit system, but also create good jobs and a strong system for 

future commerce. These improvements will allow more freight to be moved safely at 

higher speeds, while at ilie same time ease highway gridlock and reduce air pollution." 

State Supported Passenger Rail Corridors. For many years preceding the passage of Passenger 

Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P RJIA), a number of States developed and 

delivered passenger rail services without federal capital and operating assistance. With the 

enactment of PRJIA, the number of States seeking and supporting intercity passenger rail service 

has grown to at least thirty seven. 

In fiscal year 2013, fifteen States either partially or completely supported Amtrak service on 74 

of ilie total 110 corridor routes defined in PRIIA Section 209. Under the provisions of PRIIA 

Section 209, all short-distance Amtrak corridor services must become State-supported routes and 

States must pay the proportional costs associated with their respective corridor route. The States 

and Amtrak developed a single, nationwide standardized methodology for establishing and 

4 
180 


Insert offset folio 141 here 81678.141

allocating the operating and capital costs incurred and calculated by Amtrak -- on Amtrak of 

routes "of no more than 750 miles between endpoints" . The implementation of the new cost 

accounting methodology is scheduled for the beginning of fiscal year 2014 and States are 

currently in individual contract negotiations with Amtrak to provide funding for the remaining 

corridors. 

The agreed upon cost methodology that Amtrak will use will compute: 

• Operating expenses for routes using a formulation that defines direct route costs and 

associated additives, and 

• Capital charges for the use of Amtrak-owned assets. 

The Amtrak Performance Tracking (APT) system, Amtrak's recently-implemented cost 

accounting system, which is linked to Amtrak's financial and operating systems, provides the 

cost basis that the States and Amtrak used to evaluate options for assigning service area route 

costs. 

The Federal Railroad Administration met with the States and Amtrak to address the issue of 

transition assistance to the States during the phase in of the new methodologies for route and 

capital costs. Because the States and Amtrak have been negotiating over the methodology, 

States did not receive the fiscal year 2014 expenditure forecast until April, 2013. Therefore, the 

States have been using June, 2012 budget planning documents from Amtrak in working with 

their legislatures and govemors to develop funding strategies to cover increased costs. The 

FRA's proposal to assist States with transition assistance is providing financial support to the 

States while they work to put funding mechanisms in place. 

Many railroad costs, both costs directly related to the services provided and those shared among 

services, by their nature are incurred through jointly used crews, crew bases (locations where 

train crews report for work), support teams/facilities, maintenance facilities, and stations. 

Therefore, cost allocation methods and procedures are needed to fair! y apportion these costs. 

The Amtrak Performance Tracking (APT) system will provide the basis for allocating "to each 

route the costs incurred only for the benefit ofthat route and a proportionate share, based upon 

factors that reasonably reflect relative use, of costs incurred for the common benefit of more than 

one route". 

In some cases, Amtrak and the States may agree to use supplemental financial data to adjust the 

results of the APT system, including, for example, local methodologies for measuring fuel 

consumption, which are not available nationally. Pursuant to part (b) of Section 209, if changes 

to Amtrak's financial systems result in a material change to the results of the APT system, 

Amtrak will work with its State partners to update this policy in a manner consistent with the 

intent of Section 209. 

Northeast Corridor - PRIIA Section 212. The Northeast Corridor Commission was authorized 

in P RJIA in recognition of the inherent challenges of coordinating, financing, and implementing 

major system improvements that cross multiple jurisdictions. 

The Northeast Corridor Commission is comprised of members from each ofthe Northeast 

Corridor States, Amtrak, and the U.S. Department of Transportation and includes non-voting 

representatives from freight railroads, commuter railroads, and States with connecting corridors. 

5 
181 


Insert offset folio 142 here 81678.142

The expectation is that by coming together to take collective responsibility for the Northeast 

Corridor (NEC), these disparate stakeholders will achieve a level of success that far exceeds the 

potential reach of any individual organization. 

Realizing a bolder vision for the future requires unprecedented collaboration. Comprehensive 

planning is difficult for a system that spans eight States and the District of Columbia, supports 

nine passenger rail operators, including four of the five largest commuter rail services in North 

America, serves four freight railroads, and has four separate infrastructure owners. It is a 

challenge to ensure that near-term capital projects align with long-term infrastructure and service 

plans. A key charge for the Commission is to work with its members to develop strategies for 

coordinated action. 

By bringing the key stakeholders to the table, the Commission is making a difference in the 

governance of the Northeast Corridor. For the first time, all of the stakeholders are joining 

together in an attempt to develop a Corridor-wide five-year capital program. This is part of a 

desire among the Corridor's owners and operators to take shared responsibility for the Corridor 

and to share in decision-making. The NEC intends to have a draft five-year program that is 

agreed to by all of the Corridor's owners and operators this fall. 

The five-year program will inform the cost allocation process that the Commission is currently 

undertaking. A major responsibility of the Northeast Corridor Commission is the development 

of a standardized formula to allocate costs, revenues, and compensation among NEC owners and 

operators that ensures each service takes the full financial responsibility for its use of NEC 

infrastructure and related facilities. The statute also requires that there is no cross-subsidization 

between commuter, intercity, and freight transportation. 

Fundamental to reaching agreement and implementing a new approach to corridor maintenance 

and development is that funds generated by increased State and Amtrak financial contributions 

do not replace Federal funding, but remain in the Corridor to leverage higher levels of overall 

federal and State investment. 

Section 305 Next Generation of Corridor Equipment Pool Committee (NGEC Committee). 

AASHTO supports reauthorizing the NGEC Committee at the fiscal year 2008 authorized level of 

$5 million and supports the continued eligibility of rolling stock and locomotive equipment as 

eligible capital expenses. 

A key component ofPRIIA was a directive to Amtrak to establish the Next Generation Corridor 

Equipment Pool Committee (NGEC) " ... to design, develop specifications for, and procure 

standardized next-generation corridor equipment." 

The NGEC Executive Board held its initial organizational meeting in January 2010. The Board is 

comprised of representatives from eleven (11) States, Amtrak, and the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA). Subcommittees have been established to carry out specific 

responsibilities, including a technical subcommittee that has benefitted from the participation of 

hundreds of private sector experts from dozens of equipment manufacturers, supplier companies 

6 
182 


Insert offset folio 143 here 81678.143

and railroad operating companies and agencies. AASHTO was retained to provide support 

services. 

PRllA requires that equipment purchased with federal funds comply with specifications 

developed by the NGEC Committee. In addition to developing standardized specifications, the 

NGEC Committee is ensuring that equipment consistent with these specifications is procured. 

In a remarkably short time since January 2010, the NGEC has developed, adopted, and 

promulgated five specifications for next generation rail equipment. A ground-breaking multistate procurement has been completed and another is underway. The specifications (with date of 

approval) are for: 

• Bi-level cars (7/31/2010) 

• Single-level cars (2/1512011) 

• Single-level trainsets (311612011) 

• Diesel-electric locomotives (7/2/20 11) 

• Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) (9/4/2012) 

• A specification for dual-mode locomotives is currently under development. 

In 2012, the California Department of Transportation served as the lead State and the Illinois 

Department of Transportation participated on behalf of itself and Missouri, Michigan and Iowa. 

This historic procurement effort required unprecedented cooperation among the States, their 

counsels, and procurement officers to reconcile differences among the States and make a group 

purchase possible. Amtrak provided technical expertise and the FRA provided substantial 

support and coordination throughout the process. A similar effort is currently underway, led by 

the Illinois DOT, for the procurement of diesel-electric locomotives. 

The Committee's achievements can be described in terms of the specifications it has developed 

and the current and future procurements it is supporting. However, the benefits produced are 

broader, deeper, and more far-reaching. States and the federal government will spend less on 

passenger rail equipment and Amtrak, its funding partners and other passenger rail operators will 

have lower operating and maintenance costs. The U.S.-based rail equipment manufacturing and 

supply industry will increase their output and employ more workers. Ultimately, and most 

importantly, the traveling public will get more and better equipment to satisfy its demand for rail 

travel as part of the nation's multimodal passenger mobility system. 

WHERE DO WE GO? 

By 2050 the population of the United States will increase by 100 million and we will need to 

move 4 billion more tons of freight per year. It is inconceivable that the nation will be able to 

satisfY the future demand for personal and goods mobility without an expanded, efficient and 

integrated rail system. To get there from here a strong state/federal partnership will be central, 

as it is for the ongoing development and preservation of the highway system. 

7 
183 


Insert offset folio 144 here 81678.144

Federal Role. AASHTO believes that there is a Federal investment role for intercity passenger 

rail in the Northeast Corridor, in State Supported Corridors, and in improving intercity passenger 

rail service, including long distance trains. Congress has the opportunity to describe this role 

more clearly but such clarification should not have the effect of jeopardizing current services. 

For example, current intercity passenger trains serving distances over 500 miles should remain a 

Federal priority. 

There is a federal role in the maintaining the "backbone" for supporting the continued operations 

of the various business lines for intercity passenger rail including the safety and security of such 

business lines. 

National Rail Policy. National rail policy, must be just that a national policy. As called for in 

the 2008 legislation, AASHTO supports the development of a National Rail Plan that should be a 

vision for both freight and passenger. This vision should be part of a larger vision for a national 

transportation network and incorporate planning tools and maps to be illustrative of 

infrastructure needs. 

Intercity Passenger Rail Funding. Congress and the Administration provide for long term 

stable funding for intercity passenger rail with dedicated, guaranteed funding similar to the 

Highway Trust Fund with firewalls, guaranteed levels of spending and contract authority. 

Rail Financing Tools. Financing must be an important piece of the national rail policy and 

should include the full range of financing techniques from grants to tax incentives and including 

improvements in TIFIA and RRIF. 

National High-Performance Rail System. AASHTO supports the FRA's proposal for a new, 

coordinated approach to rail investments entitled the National High-Performance Rail System 

(NHPRS). The NHPRS would replace and consolidate existing rail programs including the 

Amtrak grants and capital assistance for intercity passenger rail with a focus on current 

passenger rail service and a separate category focused on expanding and improving the 

passenger and freight rail networks to accommodate growing travel demand. 

Expedited Project Delivery. AASHTO supports application of the MAP-2l project delivery 

streamlining measures to rail projects both freight and passenger. The reduction in the amount of 

time that it takes for a rail project to move from planning to actual construction could be reduced 

in half and thus save countless millions in escalating construction costs. Agencies ofthe 

US DOT should accept lead federal agency responsibilities on state transportation projects of the 

type that would typically fall under the purview of their specific USDOT agency, even when the 

project does not appear as fully funded in the TIP with part ofthe funding passing through that 

USDOT agency at the time of the environmental document. 

Appropriate environmental documentation for transportation projects is typically determined by 

the known or anticipated source of the project funds. For those projects that anticipate use of 

federal funds, a federal environmental document (CE, EA or EIS) is generally prepared. In many 

cases, application for federal funding sources requires a completed federal environmental 

document. 

A federal environmental document requires the cooperation of a federal lead agency. The 

difficulty for state transportation agencies is that the actual funding may not be available to 

8 
184 


Insert offset folio 145 here 81678.145

construct the project at the early stages of project planning when the environmental document 

must be performed. Because the future federal funding has not been committed, the federal 

transportation agencies do not want to commit to be the lead federal agency on a project where 

the project does not appear as fully funded in the TIP. This reticence is understandable because 

of the resource requirements associated with being the lead federal agency on any transportation 

related environmental document. 

Safety. Safety continues to be a top priority for the State departments oftransportation. We must 

continue to do everything in our power to eliminate traffic fatalities and traffic injuries. We 

must look at corridor specific measures that will reduce fatalities and injuries and allow States 

the flexibility to use new technology, combining of resources and to partner with the private 

sector in innovative approaches that will lead toward zero deaths, including those at rail highway 

grade crossings. 

AASHTO urges Congress to reauthorize Operation Lifesaver funding in the new rail safety bill 

so that their important lifesaving work can continue. 

Operation Lifesaver (OL) is the national nonprofit rail safety education organization whose 

mission is to end collisions, injuries and deaths at highway-rail grade crossings and on rail 

property. OL offers free rail safety education programs in the 50 States, and its trained volunteers 

across the U.S. reached more than 2.7 million people last year through presentations at schools, 

trucking companies, school bus districts, police departments, and special events like safety trains, 

community and state fairs, and enforcement activities targeting drivers near rail crossings. 

Section 206 of the 2008 Rail Safety Improvement Act authorizes Federal Railroad 

Administration funding for OL, which supports the lion's share ofOL's safety education 

programs. These education tools include e-Learning training for professional drivers and school 

bus drivers and in-person rail safety instruction for law enforcement and other first responders. 

OL works with State DOT's, the railroads, transit agencies, and U.S. DOT to target high-risk 

railroad crossings and rail corridors and focus safety education messages to the those geographic 

areas and audiences. OL safety messages are reaching new and expanded audiences through both 

traditional and social media. Over its 40-year existence, OL has helped reduce the number of rail 

crossing collisions by 83 percent, from a 1972 high of roughly 12,000 annual incidents to 

approximately 1,953 incidents in 2012. However, trespassing on railroad rights-of-way is on the 

rise, and every year since 1997, more people have been killed while trespassing on tracks than 

from vehicle-train collisions at railroad crossings. 

Research. AASHTO and its members support the reauthorization of the National Cooperative 

Rail Research Program (NCRRP). 

This program was established in PRIIA and the NCRRP conducts applied research on problems 

important to freight, intercity and commuter rail operators. AASHTO and its members 

participate in the NCRRP through selection of research proposals. Research is necessary to 

solve common operating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, 

and to introduce innovations into the rail industry. The NCRRP carries out applied research on 

problems that are shared by freight, intercity passenger, and commuter rail operating agencies 

and are not being adequately addressed by existing federal research programs. The NCRRP 

undertakes research and other technical activities in a variety of rail subject areas, including 

9 
185 


Insert offset folio 146 here 81678.146

design, construction, maintenance, operations, safety, security, policy, planning, human 

resources, and administration. 

The primary participants in the NCRRP are (1) an independent governing board, the NCRRP 

Oversight Committee (ROC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation with representation from freight, intercity passenger, and commuter rail operating 

agencies, other stakeholders, and relevant industry organizations such as the Association of 

American Railroads (AAR), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO), the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), and the National 

Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) as vital links to the rail community; (2) the 

Transportation Research Board of the National Academies as program manager and secretariat 

for the governing board; and (3) the FRA as program sponsor. The NCRRP benefits from the 

cooperation and participation of rail professionals, equipment and service suppliers, other rail 

users, and research organizations. Each of these participants has different interests and 

responsibilities, and each is an integral part ofthis cooperative research effort. 

The governing board for the NCRRP was named by US DOT in early 2012 and met in May 2012 

to select initial research projects using its one year of program funding. Projects selected include 

the following: 

• Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes 

• Intercity Passenger Rail Service and Development Guide 

• Intercity Passenger Rail in the Context of Dynamic Travel Markets 

• Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad industry 

• Alternative Financing Approaches for Passenger and Freight Rail Projects 

• Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail 

Programs 

• Legal Aspects of Rail Programs 

Work is underway on these initially-selected research topics. Continuation ofthe NCRRP will 

be contingent on the PRIAA reauthorization process and subsequent annual funding decisions. 

In addition to continuing the NCRRP the Congress should reinstate the National Cooperative 

Freight Research Program. This program was authorized in SAFETEA-LU but not continued in 

MAP-21. It has produced a substantial body of work that has provided useful intelligence for 

practitioners on both the public and private sides of freight transportation, including rail. It is 

unfortunate and probably inadvertent that in MAP-21, which has substantial freight 

transportation provisions that the research program intended to inform policy and practice in this 

area was not continued. It should be reauthorized. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Today, we are discussing national rail policy at a time in history when all of the nation's 

transportation systems have matured. Highway, rail, maritime, and air-passenger and 

10 
186 


Insert offset folio 147 here 81678.147

freight-have developed from different points in time, independently and with little effort in the 

public sector to coordinate and integrate. Just last week AASHTO issued the AASHTO Maritime 

Freight Transportation Bottom Line Report. One theme of that report is the need to understand 

the connections and interrelationships among the modes of transportation to maximize the 

performance of each and of the system as a whole. Another theme is the mix of ownership and 

authority. Maritime has a very complicated arrangement of public and private and federal, state, 

and local responsibilities. Highway infrastructure is public with the most heavily-used portion of 

the system owned and managed by states with substantial support from the federal government. 

Freight rail is a private sector enterprise with public regulation and some public investment. 

Passenger rail is a publicly-funded service operating on shared infrastructure, most of which is 

owned by private freight rail companies. 

It is clear that as we move forward towards a national rail policy we should be clear about the 

objectives, as AASHTO policy puts it: 

"A robust national rail transportation network that moves both passenger and freight effectively 

and efficiently across international borders across state lines, and within regional and state lines, 

and within regional and state boundaries is essential to this national's continued growth and 

vitality .... A national rail transportation policy is needed." 

To achieve the objectives, however, we must be flexible with respect to organization and 

process. Progress toward these objectives will be incremental. It will require unprecedented 

coordination between the public and private sectors and between the federal government and 

state governments. It will involve integration of modes of transportation beyond anything we 

ha ve seen in the past. 

It will be a long journey, but today is a good day to start. 

11 
187 


Insert offset folio 148 here 81678.148

August 1,2013 

The Honorable Jeff Denham 

MICHAEL P. LEW!S. PRESIDENT 

D!RECrOR, RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BUD WRIGHT. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET NW, SUITE 249, WASHINGTON, DC 

20001 

(202) 624-5800 FAX: (202) 624-5806 • 

Chainnan, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chainnan Denham: 

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on 

Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials on June 27, 2013 concerning "National Rail 

Policy: Examining Goals, Objectives. and Responsibilities." It was an honor to present my oral 

testimony and provide written testimony for the record on behalf of the American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 

As requested, I have attached my responses to additional questions for written response for the 

record and I have also provided an electronic version of this response to Erin Sulla of your 

Committee staff. 

fyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Mic ael . Lewis 

Director, Rhode Island Department of Transportation 

President. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 
188 


Insert offset folio 149 here 81678.149

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Hearing on "National Rail Policy: Examining Goals, Objectives, and Responsibilities" 

June 27, 2013 

Questions for the Record 

Ouestions from Rep. Denham: 

During the .June 27th hearing, Chairman Denham requested information from each witness 

concerning a timeline for implementing Positive Train Control (PTC) by region, as the 

railroad system is an integrated network, operated by different corporations. Please 

provide information to the Committee concerning the progress, the challenges and 

obstacles, and overall timeline for implementing PTC, by region. 

Safety is a top priority for the state departments of transportation. However, we do not have a 

direct role in establishing a timeline for the implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC). We 

understand that technology, environmental review and other factors may make implementation 

vary from region to region and recognize the importance ofinteroperability. We will continue to 

work with the railroads, FRA and passenger rail operators to ensure federally mandated timelines 

are met. 

In your testimony, you state that comprehensive planning on the Northeast Corridor is 

difficult, given its length and the number of States and operators involved. What policies 

do the States believe would be helpful to improve governance and decision-making among 

NEC stakeholders? 

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) established the premise 

for the Northeast Corridor that a partnership among the stakeholders to address rail service 

planning and infrastructure investment will more effectively meet the current and future mobility 

needs of the public, enable operational efliciencies and spur economic growth rather than each 

stakeholder acting individually. The states support policies that further this vision. 

Ongoing discussions for developing a standardized methodology for cost-sharing on the 

Northeast Corridor have raised the issue of governance. There is the expectation that in paying 

fully-allocated costs to infrastructure owners, operating agencies will have a greater role in joint 

capital planning as well as decision-making on network priorities, such as scheduling and 

dispatching. States along with other stakeholders are engaged in a collaborative effort to develop 

a corridor-wide five-year infrastructure investment program. While much work lies ahead in this 

process, this is an important step forward in enhancing future intercity, commuter and freight 

operations in the Northeast Corridor. 

Does AASHTO believe that the PRIIA Section 209 process will help improve services along 

Amtrak's State Supported Routes by ensuring that States have a larger stake in their 

operations? 
189 


Insert offset folio 150 here 81678.150

PRIIA Section 209 will help improve services along Amtrak's State Supported routes because it 

will provide States with an opportunity to tailor their services to meet the needs of their riders 

and budgets of their States. The PRIAA 209 Pricing Policy and Methodology has been 

developed to provide States with a menu of services which can be purchased from Amtrak - or 

another vendor such as rolling stock, equipment maintenance, advertising, call 

center/reservation support and food service. PRIIA 209 States have the ability to determine 

schedules and consist size, establish performance standards, set ticket prices, etc. and customize 

their routes so that it enhances the customer experience, improves mobility, and contributes to 

the bottom line. 

If so, wouldn't such a model be beneficial for the long distance routes as well? 

The complexity and logistics associated with the operation of Long Distance Trains does not 

lend itself to this level of involvement nor does it provide States an opportunity to customize the 

route to meet the needs of its riders. For instanee, a State would not have the ability to determine 

schedule of a train which may pass though their state in the middle of the night. A state could 

not purchase its own equipment, nor could it choose to contract food service to a 3rd 

party. While it is important that States and Amtrak maintain communication regarding Long 

Distance Routes, and work together to maximize the public benefit, it would be difficult for 

states to contribute to an operation over which it would have very little influence. 

What are some of the MAP-21 or other streamlining provisions for FHW A and/or FT A 

that would be most valuable for your members if applied to the FRA? Are there other 

specific streamlining provisions you would like to see applied to rail projects that are not in 

MAP-21? 

Delegation of FRA Categorical Exclusion Authority to the States and Adoption of Additional 

Categorical Exclusions 

SAFETEA-LU Section 6004 created a program that authorizes USDOT to delegate its 

responsibilities for projects that qualify for categorical exclusions (CEs) under NEPA to State 

DOTs. Alaska, Utah and California have been delegated CE authority and have indicated that 

the delegation is effective at delivering faster environmental reviews. FRA should have the 

authority to delegate its CE responsibilities to the states. In addition, FRA should adopt the 

general process language and appropriate CEs within the FHW NFTA regulations (23 CFR Part 

771) to provide more consistency in environmental reviews for multi modal projects. 

Increased use of Programmatic Agreements 

SATETEA-LU Section 6002 authorized the use of programmatic approaches to meeting 

environmental review requirements. MAP-21 Sections 1305 and 1318 provide further 

encouragement for the use of programmatic approaches. FRA should be afforded the same 

authorization and encouragement to develop and use programmatic agreements. In addition, 

FRA should recognize and accept in their environmental reviews, the agreements that other DOT 

modal administrations have developed with environmental resource agencies. 

Statute of Limitations 

SAFETEA-LU created a 180-day statute of limitations for challenges to federal approvals of 

highway and transit projects. MAP-21 Section 1308 further reduced this time (0150 days. 
190 


Insert offset folio 151 here 81678.151

Issuing the notice in the Federal Register is discretionary. If a notice is not issued, the NEPA 

approval or decision remains subject to the general six-year statute of limitations f'Or civil aetions 

against federal agencies. Since 2005, FHWA and FTA have issued hundreds of SOL notices. 

State DOTs consider this a valuable streamlining tool because it provides certainty after the 

environmental process has been completed. The 150 day statute of limitations f'Or projects should 

be established for FRA projects. 

Using the Transportation Planning Process to Support NEPA Reviews 

In addition to making changes to the NEPA process itself: MAP-21 also sought to expedite 

project delivery through changes in statewide and metropolitan transportation planning. 

Integrated Planning 

Section 1310 of MAP-21 provides new authority to expedite environmental reviews by 

allowing the NEP A proeess to adopt analyses and decisions made by States and MPOs 

during the transportation planning process. Prior to MAP-21, this authority existed in the 

transportation planning regulations (23 CFR Part 450). As the MAP-21 process is more 

complex and cumbersome than the proeess outlined in existing regulation, FRA should be 

provided the statutory authority to carry forward planning decisions into NEP A with the 

flexibilities that exist in the planning regulations. 

Programmatic Mitigation Plans 

Section 1311 ofMAP-21 allows States and MPOs to develop "programmatic mitigation 

plans" as part of the statewide or metropolitan transportation planning process. This 

authority should be provided to FRA. In addition, this language should go beyond what is 

provided in MAP-21 to ensure that programmatic mitigation plans - if developed - are 

actually considered and used during the permitting stage of project development. 

Early Coordination 

Section 1320 of MAP-2 1 requires the USDOT and other Federal agencies, at the request of a 

State or local planning agency, to provide technical assistance on accomplishing early 

coordination activities. This early planning authority should be required ofFRA. 

Consistent Environmental Review Processes 

Section 6002 ofSAFETEA-LU created a new set of procedures for expediting the environmental 

review process f'Or projects that require an environmental impact statement (E1S). MAP-21 

Section 1305 made refinements to the SAFETEA-LU process and reduced unnecessary 

procedural requirements to assist in achieving the full streamlining potential of this section. This 

environmental review process should be expanded to include FRA projects. 

Condensed Final EIS; Combining Final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) 

Section 1319 of MAP-21 streamlines the preparation of an EIS in two ways. First, it allows a 

"condensed" format to be used for the Final EIS, if the comments on the Draft E1S are found to 

be "minor," Second, it directs U.S. DOT to issue the Final E1S and ROD as a single document, to 

the maximum extent practicable, with certain exceptions. State DOTs have already started 

successfully using these streamlining measures. These streamlining authorities should be 

provided to FRA. 

Activities Allowed Prior to NEPA Completion 
191 


Insert offset folio 152 here 81678.152

Section 1302 of MAP-21 broadens States' ability to acquire right-of-way prior to completion of 

the NEPA process, using both Federal and non-Federal funds. This authority should be provided 

toFRA. 

Could you give an example of a situation where the federal lead agency has been reluctant 

to commit to being the lead agency for environmental review of a project? 

Texas Example: Lone Star Rail District has been advancing an important and needed passenger 

rail project since 2003 that addresses critical issues of mobility, transportation capacity, freight 

movement expcdition, air quality, and safety in the nationally significant and growing 1-35 trade 

corridor between the Austin and San Antonio metropolitan regions. The agency has followed a 

standard project development process, using Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines to 

study feasibility, and then to develop a Locally Preferred Alternative that was adopted by the 

agency's governing board and by the policy boards of the Austin and San Antonio metropolitan 

planning organizations. It was subsequently determined that due to the large scope of the project 

(both geographically - encompassing two metropolitan regions, and practically - involving both a 

passenger rail and freight rail component), it would have been inappropriate and 

counterproductive to engage in the full FTA New Starts process. 

The decision was made instead, since the service development plan envisions both regional and 

intercity passenger rail service operated on existing freight rail lines, to approach the Federal 

Railroad Administration to commit to be the federal lead ageney on the environmental review of 

the project. Despite a well-defined project, a clear nced, loeal support, and support from TxDOT 

(the project is included in the state's Rail Plan, and was endorsed by letter and in several 

presentations to FRA by TxDOT's Rail Director), FRA declined three times in the span of two 

years to step up into the role of federal lead agency. This led to project delays, additional 

expense, and credibility issues which threatened to seriously harm or kill the project. 

In the end, through discussions with the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHW A) stepped forward to lead the federal environmental review effort, thanks 

largely to Administrator Mendez's leadership and in recognition of the project's suitability for the 

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TlFIA) and Projects of National and 

Regional Significance (PNRS) programs. 

Ohio DOT Example: The Oasis Line as part of the Eastern Corridor Program in Cincinnati, 

OIL The Oasis line was identified in a Tiered ElS that FHW A was the lead agency for. Out of 

the Tiered EIS, the individual projects of this region were identified and each project established 

separate purpose and need, funding, etc. So, the vast majority of projects out of this program 

were highway, bus, etc., so they were all picked up by FHW A. The Oasis line is a light rail 

project and we coordinated with FTA. However, because that project wasn't part ofFTA's new 

starts program, the FTA chose not to participate. So, we merged thc line in with a highway 

project as the two lines were expected to be part of the same footprint and FHWA took the lead. 

As the NEPA studies were developed, we found out the footprint wouldn't be the same for both 

the highway and light rail, so FHWA backed out of leading the light rail project. So, we 

approached FTA to be lead and thus far, they still don't want it since it's not thm their New 

Starts. So, how do you pursue a light rail project and try to get it going without a federal lead? 
192 


Insert offset folio 153 here 81678.153

With regard to the section 209 process, where states are picking up the tab for their state 

supported route costs, are there any new statutory authorities states would like going 

forward? Do you need better or more detailed billing requirements from Amtrak, and if 

so, what types of detail would you like to see? 

We would like Congress to authorize the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to establish a 

PRIIA 209 State Corridor Advisory Commission (consisting of States, Amtrak and FRA) to 

review or modify, cost methodologies. contracts, performance standards, reporting requirements 

and accounting principles and other issues associated with the pricing and operation ofPRIIA 

209 State Corridor Routes and to mediate associated disputes which may occur between States 

and Amtrak in the delivery of service or negotiation of contract and pricing terms. 

Second, AASHTO supports the designate of a full-voting representative of State Supported 

Services to serve on the Amtrak Board of Directors. This member of the Board could be 

nominated by the S4PR Coalition and/or AASHTO for consideration. State-supported services 

are a growing part of Amtrak's business and will soon represent over $500 M in annual revenue 

(state-payments and retained ticket revenue). Formal representation on the Board would help 

ensure states interests are not only protected, but also promoted. 

Third, it would be beneficial for transparency and consistent application of the methodology, to 

establish an independent audit for Amtrak to assure that costs attributed to Route Cost categories, 

which are subsequently allocated or charged to States, only include items directly associated with 

the operation of routes and do not contain costs which are either backbone costs, and therefore 

not attributable to States, or are overhead costs which are included in additive rates. 

And finally, we would like to see language that would include a revision to policy stating that 

"at no time shall a state's or states' payment to Amtrak for a particular route cost or additive -

exceed the full route loss as reported in Amtrak's APT system for that item." 
193 


Insert offset folio 154 here 81678.154

Testimony of John Tolman 

Vice President and National Legislative 

Representative 

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and 

Trainmen 

Before the House Committee on Transportation 

& Infrastructure Hearing on National Rail 

Policy: Examining Goals, Objectives, and 

Responsibilities 

June 27, 2013 
194 


Insert offset folio 155 here 81678.155

Good morning, Chainnan Denham, Ranking Member Brown, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is John Tolman and I am Vice President and National Legislative 

Representative for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, which is a Division 

of the Teamsters Rail Conference. 

On behalf of more than 37,000 active BLET members and over 70,000 Rail Conference 

members, I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity to discuss a comprehensive national 

rail policy, and how this issue impacts the men and women working on our nation's railroads. 

The need for a National Rail Policy ("NRP") has long been established in order to focus 

passenger and freight rail investment and provide clarity to states and regions about the growth 

of our nation's railroads. This need was identified and codified by Congress in the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of2008 ("RSIA"). Section 307(b)(j)(2) of the Act directed the Administrator 

of the Federal Railroad Administration to "develop a long-range national rail plan consistent 

with approved State rail plans and the rail needs of the Nation as detennined by the Secretary in 

order to promote an integrated, cohesive, efficient, and optimized national rail system for the 

movement of goods and people." A preliminary plan was delivered to Congress a year after the 

enactment of that legislation. A progress report on the Plan was submitted to Congress in 

September 2010. 

The BLET along with many other organizations - commented on the preliminary plan. In 

our comments, the BLET expressed, and continues to articulate, our support of the concept of a 

unified national plan for our nation's passenger and freight railroads, as it is consistent with our 

desire for long-tenn planning and financing of rail, and passenger rail in particular. Freight and 

passenger rail are the answer for many of our nation's transportation problems. Rail is energy 

efficient, relieves highway congestion, and provides t1exible and viable alternatives as our 

population continues to grow. It also is imperative that any National Rail Policy or Plan would 

protect the interests of the men and women who work on America's railroads. 

In order for our nation to meet the economic and environmental challenges that we face, we must 

continue to invest in infrastructure and continue to develop and plan for new means to get goods 

and people from place to place, while doing it in the most fuel efficient means possible. Rail is 

clearly the best means of doing this. 

In Amtrak, the nation has a national passenger rail service provider, which has been working to 

integrate its operations with those of the freight railroads for more than 40 years. Amtrak, and its 

employees, have the knowledge, skills and abilities to develop, implement and grow passenger 

rail in Ibis country. Now is the time to provide a long-tenn funding solution for Amtrak and our 

national passenger rail system. The cycle of nickel and diming the system shortchanges the 

public's need for high quality transportation and our economy's need to move people to and 

from work. 

Amtrak and other intercity and commuter railroads have done great work and continue to set 

ridership records. This is all while Amtrak is underfunded. In spite of this, they continue to make 

great strides in passenger rail. They have moved ahead with providing a version of positive train 

2 
195 


Insert offset folio 156 here 81678.156

control that will help protect their employees and the public -- some of which has been in place 

since 1996. 

Troubling is the recently proposed House Appropriations budget for fiscal year 2014. This will 

also affect ridership on Amtrak and commuter rails by forcing delays in completing equipment 

maintenance by cutting work hours. As reported by Congressional Quarter~v, Amtrak President 

and CEO Joseph Boardman stated that the House's proposal "was not thought out at alL" He also 

added, "It doesn't pay for any of the equipment that's on order and we fall further behind on the 

Northeast Corridor." Clearly, the House's proposal is a step in the wrong direction that cuts into 

bone and harms more than it helps. 

Further, the bill would cut the Federal Railroad Administration's budget by $468 million dollars, 

or about 40%. It would impair FRA's ability to enforce safety laws and hire congressionally 

mandated inspectors. This is an unacceptable level of funding for the agency that oversees rail 

safety. 

On the freight side, intermodal freight transportation is the way of the future, with goods moving 

from ship to truck to train, on a seamless network, and to do this we need to ensure that our 

nation's infrastructure is well planned to allow for these transfers. Unfortunately, the House 2014 

spending plan leaves TIGER out entirely, and also tries to cut this year's award pool in halfby 

rescinding $237 million before the DOT can get the already-awarded 2013 grants out the door. 

This program has helped meet the need for infrastructure upgrades around the country and has 

always had more demand than available funding affords upgrades which our nation will need 

in coming years, as traffic congestion on our nation's highways is expected to grow 

exponentially over the next 30-40 years. This will necessitate even more use of rail as we move 

forward. Additional freight will come to rail from our over-crowded highways, and at the same 

time, our railroads must be prepared to provide new services and handle multi-modal 

containerized shipments. 

In this century, the cost of fuel is expected to increase from the near record levels that we have 

seen in recent years, and railroads are poised to meet this challenge. Railroads have improved 

their fuel efficiency by 23 percent between 1990 and 2007. Eaeh ton of freight transported via 

rail can move more than 450 miles per gallon of fuel consumed. 

While the freight side of the industry is investing billions annually in its infrastructure and is well 

positioned to handle any additional freight that comes its way, we must also ensure these 

continued investments are made not only to expand capacity but also to improve safety. 

The preliminary National Rail Plan points out the benefits from the implementation of positive 

train control ("PTC"), which is currently required to be installed by 2015 on all Class I mainline 

track where certain hazardous materials are transported and on mainline track over which 

intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation is regularly provided. PTC will save lives, 

and the BLET strongly supports the implementation of PTC on our nation's railroads. 

The NRP Progress report issued in 20 I 0 acknowledges that there is a "concomitant need for 

transporting more freight and improving safety." The BLET agrees wholeheartedly that safety 

3 
196 


Insert offset folio 157 here 81678.157

and efficiency are factors that form an essential bond. At a forum on February 27, 2012, at the 

National Transportation Safety Board, the NTSB asked, "Is PTC on Track?" The question was 

answered by a majority of Class I Railroads with the exception of BNSF - and the answer 

was "No." It was astonishing that the railroads said directly to the NTSB, which is charged with 

investigating transportation accidents, that they were not going to comply with the legal deadline 

mandated in the RSIA. They have had over seven years to work on this, and now they come to 

Congress begging for an extension, yet this issue has been on the NTSB most wanted list since 

the early 1970's. Again, this is unacceptable. This technology will prevent the most egregious 

and catastrophic accidents where HAZMAT or passenger trains are involved protecting the 

public and railroad employees, and needs to move forward. 

Too often, cost benefit analysis is used as the sole objection against moving ahead on a project. 

Forgotten is the most vital cost of doing business that of providing a safe workplace for 

employees who perform the work that provides for business growth and the industry's multibillion dollar profits. To argue otherwise is to state that a train is worth more than a person's life. 

Labor's voice is included in the debate not because we are scientists, lawyers or economists, 

although we count those professions among our ranks, but because we are the practitioners who 

are reporting what occurs from the field for our own, our employers' and the public's safety 

benefits. Perceived costs are calculated by forecasted assumptions. The resulting picture will be 

different depending on the assumptions of time and discounting practices that are inserted into 

the equation by a certain statistician. 

Actual costs are borne in the field in blood and limbs. Ifwe could rewind time and freeze frame 

the moment before any fatal accident such as Macdona, Texas in 2004 or Graniteville, NC, in 

2005 - occurred and talk to that train crew, who among us would like to explain to the train 

crew and town residents that they would die in the accident, not from the accident itself but from 

smoke or hazardous materials inhalation because the Congressionally-mandated emergency 

escape breathing apparatus ("EEBA") failed a cost benefit analysis? We understand how 

ridiculous the point would be no matter how academically sound an economic analysis it was. 

These are just two of the many accidents leading up to the Rail Safety Improvement Act's 

passage in 2008 mandating EEBA. 

Most of the safety improvements we ask for are feasible to provide. PTe, although expensive in 

the near term, will only get more expensive the longer the carriers procrastinate on its 

implementation. The values and benefits of that person's lost life are not being captured. Those 

are the lessons that the unfortunate individuals who gave their lives teach us - the livingabout safeguarding life. We understand it is not part of rail carrier's corporate charter to do what 

is morally right. But when it comes to safeguarding people against loss of life and injuries, we, as 

employees, expect our employers to do what is morally correct anyway. Let's not waste the 

opportunity to learn the lessons that the lost lives in our industry have presented to us. Let's not 

fail to strive for reducing the lives lost year after year; let's work to implement simple, 

inexpensive preventive and escape opportunities for the public and the employees. As Ed 

Hamburger from the AAR testified last week in the Senate, "Job Safety is the number I issue." 

Let's walk the talk and get things done together. 

4 
197 


Insert offset folio 158 here 81678.158

The safety benefits we enjoy today - from automatic couplers to fire extinguishers - could all 

fail cost benefit analysis depending on the assumptions made when doing the math; yet safety 

laws recognize their utility because the need for curbing and limiting the severity of accidents 

and injuries is so high. We do not argue over the water bill when our house is on fire. We cannot 

choose to worship one form of economic and statistical analysis while simultaneously ignoring 

medical science related to fatigue analysis. 

The cost of fighting implementation and compliance with safety laws needs to be computed in 

any economic analysis. The cost of inaction needs to be figured. Competing costs between 

stakeholders and market failures need to be examined. The railroads have been noted with 

distinction as one of the best places to seek post-military employment. Not unlike our country's 

servicemen and women, railroad workers are everyday heroes who help our nation function. 

They work and give their time at all hours of the day and night and get injured and give their 

lives. Why not give them all the safety advantages that arc available to make railroad 

catastrophes a rare thing relegated to history? In other words, let's treat our returned vets and 

their coworkers who place their lives on the line for the American economy - as well as we 

treated them when their lives were on the line for the nation. 

When examining the human factors in an accident, we need to include not just decisions by train 

crews, but also decisions by management and assumptions that are used as tools to prevent the 

advancement of safety. When talking about railroad safety, arguments overstating cost and 

understating benefits have proven themselves to sometimes be points that are technically correct 

and functionally useless when it comes to implementing PTC and fatigue mitigation. They are 

moot points and footnotes to substantive discussions about safety. We have seen the Class I rail 

carriers literally move mountains to install tracks after derailments, yet PTC is too difficult for 

them and requires a time frame with no end. Scheduling trains to provide predictability for 

employees, to provide a mere to-hour call in advance of when a person needs to return to work 

cannot be too difficult for the industry to achieve. We simply don't believe these things cannot 

be achieved because we have seen these things accomplished before by railroads with far fewer 

resources and less cash on hand. 

In addition to ensuring safety, one of the keys in any national rail policy is the need for a 

symbiotic relationship between freight rail and passenger rail. The interconnectivity of the 

nation's freight and passenger rail systems must be maintained due to the way the system has 

developed over the past 150 years with passenger and freight rail sharing corridors and rights of 

way. 

With America's continued population growth, passenger rail is in a good position to respond to 

our nation's mobility needs by taking cars off the roads and passengers out of our nation's 

airports. Many critics of passenger rail seem to believe that its future is limited. However, this is 

short sighted. If the Interstate Highway System had been built only in regions where travel 

demand was greatest and incomes were the highest, it would not have generated the same level 

of connectivity and economic benefits for the entire nation as it has. A national policy must take 

all factors into account, including connectivity and the ability to provide service nationwide. 

Amtrak was created to provide a National Rail Passenger System, not just to meet the demand 

and needs on the NEe. Now is not the time to nickel and dime the system; now is the time to 

5 
198 


Insert offset folio 159 here 81678.159

stimulate the economy and invest in jobs through the creation of a good rail passenger system 

throughout thc nation. For every $1 billion invested, such a program could create 47,000 goodpaying, middle class jobs. 

The workers currently employed by our nation's railroads are among the most highly trained and 

skilled employees in the world. They are entitled to a safe work environment and any 

comprehensive rail policy should not interfere with their ability to keep and expand tbeir work. 

Congress must require the jobs generated by a national rail policy be safeguarded for railroad 

workers, and ensure these workers are protected by federal laws relating to railroad workers, 

including tbe Railway Labor Act, Railroad Retirement Act and tbe Federal Employers Liability 

Act. The industry also shonld be required to implement tbe mandates included in the RSIA that 

still remain unfinished, including Positive Train Control, emergency escape breathing apparatus, 

fatigue, and risk reduction, to name only five of the nine mandates that are unfulfilled. 

In conclusion, we would like to reinforce the need for Amtrak's long-term funding and the 

continued need for cooperation between freight railroads and labor to provide stimulus to our 

industry and tbe economy, and the need to do all tbis while making the critical strides to enhance 

rail safety. Once again, I thank Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Brown and the 

Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to address you today. 

6 
199 


Insert offset folio 160 here 81678.160

Responses of John Tolman, Vice President & National Legislative Representative of 

the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen to Questions for the 

Record from the Hearing on "National Rail Policy: Examining Goals, Objectives, and 

Responsibilities" 

Questions from Rep. Denham: 

During the June 17th hearing, Chairman Denham requested information from 

each witness concerning a timeline for implementing Positive Train Control 

(PTC) by region, as the railroad system is an integrated network, operated by 

different corporations. Please provide information to the Committee 

concerning the progress, the challenges and the obstacles, and overall 

timeline for implementing PTC, by region. 

Thank you for your question regarding Positive Train Control ("PTC"). As Vice 

President and National Legislative Representative, I am not in a position to 

comment on the different carriers' specific timetables for implementation of PTC. 

What I can say is that the Class 1 Freight Railroads have made it clear that they need 

more time to implement the requirements of the law. The Rail Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 ("RSIA") mandated a December 31, 2015, deadline. This is true of all the 

Class 1 Railroads save Burlington Northern Santa Fe ("BNSF"). BNSF has said they 

plan to meet the deadline. Amtrak also says it will meet the deadline. BNSF and 

Amtrak have been working on PTC and providing the necessary resources to take it 

from design to reality. The part that gives us pause is the unnecessary collisions that 

are PTC preventable that will happen not just between now and the RSIA deadline, 

but also between the deadline and any extension that Congress allows the railroads 

to have. PTC had its forerunners in the 1920's. The National Transportation Safety 

Board ("NTSB") first recommended PTC's predecessor of an advanced train control 

system in 1970. In 1990, the NTSB said PTC was the number one thing it wanted in a 

list of safety improvements. The railroads were given seven more years by the RSIA 

to implement PTC. Having the will to meet a seven-year timetable has been a big 

challenge for the Class 1 Carriers who will not meet the deadline. As late as the fall 

of 2011, one Class 1 Railroad CEO stated that it would be "a terrible waste of 

money," and amount to "token savings." We adamantly disagree because the 

employee and public deaths prevented by the technology are nearly priceless 

because of their vast worth. It is hard to imagine that this particular CEO was fully 

behind implementing PTC in late 2011, when it is clear that he thought it was a 

waste of money. 

In any case, we believe that a corporation who has been diligently trying to meet the 

deadline and falls just short should be given the necessary time to implement vs. 

having them abandon the work and resources they have already committed. 

However, railroads continue to hedge on the implementing regulations for PTC and 

are seeking a myriad of exceptions for scenarios of en route failure, yard movements 

and tonnage thresholds for PTC. The carriers have also listed interoperability, 

technical issues with back office servers, and infrastructure problems of installing 
200 


Insert offset folio 161 here 81678.161

communication towers and radio spectrum interagency issues with the Federal 

Communications Commission ("FCC"). While we understand that these issues are 

obstacles that have no cheap and easy fix, the law did mandate them to be done and 

in a timely manner to achieve the safety that has been missing in the industry. We 

are fearful that any relaxing of the deadline will simply mean more foot dragging 

and legislative and judicial moves designed to out-maneuver the law. This simply 

delays much needed safety protections for our members and the public. 

Questions from Rep. Corrine Brown: 

Given sequestration, are there any policies or safety measures that you feel 

are at risk as a result of cost cutting? 

There are three main areas impacted with regard to Sequestration and Cost-Cutting 

policies and safety measures: 

1) Amtrak and FRA funding are always a concern. While the FRA safety account 

was funded at the levels they requested in the recent omnibus bill, Amtrak's 

capital and operating levels were lower than the combined amount in their 

request. Amtrak has operated on a shoestring since its founding in 1971, and 

has operated with a superb safety record. However, they face the need for 

greater capital expenditures in coming years in order to maintain that level 

of safety. 

2) Railroad Retirement: A 9.2% cut to unemployment and sickness benefits. 

This was an unintended consequence of the sequester as no one believed it 

would actually take effect. When it did, the extra weeks of unemployment 

insurance provided by President Obama's Stimulus Package were cut. 

However, these cuts ended up applying to the regular 39 weeks allotted for 

Railroad Retirement eligible workers only due to the Budget Control Act. 

Only benefits over and above the regular allotment of 39 weeks (as part of 

the Stimulus) were cut for everyone else on unemployment. 

You mentioned the issue of predictability of work scheduling. Can you talk 

about some of your concerns about what is going on in the field and what 

Congress can do to address it? 

This is an excellent question. Railroaders work mostly in unpredictable work shifts 

that are initiated by being "on call." Railroaders mostly work without schedules. 

Saying that their "schedules are unpredictable," half misses the point because they 

have no schedule in the first instance. Also being on call makes sleep cycles very 

disrupted due to being penalized for missing a call. 

We believe Congress can act by making technical corrections to the hours of service 

by providing a lO-hour call to duty. This gives the employee a chance to get some 

rest and know when he or she will have to report for work This is not a silver bullet, 

but will enable employees to gauge their rest before they go to work according to 
201 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 162 here 81678.162

their individual needs. Fatigue is a problem of great significance in the railroad 

industry and has led Congress to act in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. 

Unfortunately, many of the Act's provisions regarding fatigue have gone 

unimplemented due to carrier opposition to change in calling practices and 

attempts to apply medical science to the problem of fatigue have been resisted by 

the Class 1 rail carriers.