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

65–481 PDF 2011

FEDERAL REGULATORY OVERREACH IN THE 

RAILROAD INDUSTRY: IMPLEMENTING THE 

RAIL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT 

(112–18) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 17, 2011 

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 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

TOM REED, New York 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

TOM REED, New York, Vice Chair 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

TESTIMONY 

Gallegly, Hon. Elton, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ..................................................................................................................... 3 

Giulietti, Joseph J., Executive Director, South Florida Regional Transportation Authority .................................................................................................... 3 

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

of American Railroads ......................................................................................... 3 

Manion, Mark D., Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, 

Norfolk Southern Railway ................................................................................... 3 

Pierce, Dennis R., National President, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 

and Trainmen ....................................................................................................... 3 

Souser, Mackenzie, of Camarillo, California ......................................................... 3 

Strang, Jo, Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer, 

Federal Railroad Administration ........................................................................ 3 

Victor, Paul, President, Anacostia & Pacific Railroad Company, Inc. ................ 3 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Reed, Hon. Tom, of New York ................................................................................ 56 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Gallegly, Hon. Elton ................................................................................................ 57 

Giulietti, Joseph J. .................................................................................................. 60 

Hamberger, Edward R. and Manion, Mark D., joint statement .......................... 85 

Pierce, Dennis R. ..................................................................................................... 112 

Souser, Mackenzie ................................................................................................... 124 

Strang, Jo ................................................................................................................. 128

Victor, Paul .............................................................................................................. 149 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Casey, Joseph M., General Manager, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, written statement ................................................................... 24 

Dooley, Cal, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Chemistry 

Council, March 16, 2011, letter to Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania ...................................................... 14 

Fenton, John E., Chief Executive Officer, Southern California Regional Rail 

Authority (Metrolink), written statement .......................................................... 16 

Giulietti, Joseph J., Executive Director, South Florida Regional Transportation Authority: 

Responses to questions from Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Florida ................................................................. 68 

Responses to questions from Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania ............................................................. 72 

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

of American Railroads, responses to questions from Hon. Corrine Brown, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida .................................. 107 

Joseph, Mark L., Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Veolia Transportation, Inc., March 16, 2011, letter to Hon. John L. Mica, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, and Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania .................................. 20 

Pierce, Dennis R., National President, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 

and Trainmen, responses to questions from Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ............................................ 118 

Page

VI 

Strang, Jo, Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer, 

Federal Railroad Administration: 

Supplementary remarks ......................................................................................39, 40 

Response to request for information from Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ................................................... 51 

Responses to questions from Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Florida ................................................................. 138 

Responses to questions from Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania ............................................................. 146 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Joseph, Mark L., Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Veolia Transportation, Inc., March 24, 2011, letter to Hon. John L. Mica, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, and Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania .................................. 153 

West, Ford B., President, The Fertilizer Institute, March 25, 2011, letter 

to Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania ................................................................................................................. 158 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 65481.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 65481.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 65481.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 65481.004
xi 


Insert offset folio 5 here 65481.005
(1) 

FEDERAL REGULATORY OVERREACH IN THE 

RAILROAD INDUSTRY: IMPLEMENTING THE 

RAIL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT 

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES

AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Shuster (Chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The hearing will come to order. I thank everybody 

for coming here today. And this is going to—the opening of this 

committee hearing is going to be a little bit disjointed. There is 

some razzle-dazzle. We are going to have votes here approximately 

at 10:15. And we would like our friend from California and his 

guest to make sure that they get through their testimony before we 

have to head off to vote. 

So, again, good morning. Welcome, everybody, to the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials hearing on regulatory overreach in the railroad industry, and the implementation of the Rail Safety Improvement Act. We are specifically—we will be focusing on the Federal Railroad Administration’s 

final rule implementing the requirements for freight and passenger 

railroads to install positive train control, or PTC, system by December 31, 2015. And so, I am looking forward to hearing everybody’s 

testimony today. 

And with that I will yield to the chairman of the full committee, 

Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

convening this hearing this morning of the rail subcommittee. This 

is a very important hearing, and people—I think it is very important that we put also a human face on some of the issues that challenge the Congress and the Administration. 

I was requested by Mr. Gallegly to have a witness, and he chose 

this morning’s first witness. And I think, again, that it is very important that the Congress try, when we enact laws, when the Administration enacts regulations, that we do so in a responsible 

fashion to all parties. And we will hear more about that from both 

his comments and the comments of his witness today. 

2 

So, again, I thank you for convening this. I look forward to hearing from them, and yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, I thank the gentleman, and I yield for the 

opening statement the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 

Rahall, from West Virginia. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you very much, Chairman Shuster. I appreciate your having these hearings, the first hearing the committee 

has held to oversee implementation of the Rail Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008, which reauthorized FRA and mandated several significant rail safety initiatives, including those relating to the positive 

train control technologies. 

I have concerns with how the FRA is implementing the PTC 

mandate, and whether the mandate can actually be implemented 

by the deadline provided in the legislation. We all want a safe system, but it has to be done right, and not rushed. 

The FRA’s final rule, in many ways, appears to go beyond the 

legislative mandate. For example, the FRA told the freight railroads they would have to implement PTC on rail lines where 

hazmat was transported in 2008, even though the railroads may 

not use those lines to transport hazmat in 2015. Nothing in the law 

mentions 2008; the only date is the deadline. 

With respect to the deadline, the law required the railroads to 

submit their implementation plans for PTC within 18 months of 

enactment. In these plans, the railroads are required to provide information about the extent to which they will implement PTC, provide a schedule for progressive implementation, and prioritize implementation on the basis of risk. Those plans have been submitted. 

But according to GAO, while Amtrak has installed PTC on about 

250 miles of track, and 2 freight railroads have piloted PTC systems, other railroads have not yet begun implementation, largely 

because they are awaiting FRA standards of how the differing PTC 

systems must be interoperable. 

Further, although railroads have worked with suppliers to develop PTC systems, some components are not yet available, and the 

software needed to test and operate those components remain 

under development. Once they are developed, then they need to go 

through the testing in the field to make sure the system operates 

safely. 

On top of that, the financial situation for commuter railroads is 

tenuous. These railroads depended on funding from the Federal 

Government and States that are already suffering significant physical restraints which make it difficult for them to cover the $2 billion in PTC costs or, worst case scenario, those railroads could start 

diverting funding from other critical areas such as maintenance, 

which could lead to other accidents, something I am sure the authors of the legislation did not envision. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding these hearings, 

and welcome the witnesses. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank the gentleman. And with that, again, we 

are joined by colleague Elton Gallegly from California’s 24th District, and Ms. Mackenzie Souser from Camarillo, California. Congressman Gallegly represents the Simi Valley of north Los Angeles, 

which includes Chatsworth where, on September 12, 2008, the 

3 

tragic train accident resulted in 25 fatalities, and 135 other individuals were injured. 

My thoughts and prayers certainly went with the victims and 

their families—in particular, Mackenzie, who is the daughter of 

Doyle Souser, who was killed in that tragic accident. And we are 

going to begin with Congressman Gallegly and Mackenzie. And 

then after that we will see what we—if we have votes or not, and 

we will come back after the vote. 

So Mr. Gallegly, proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. ELTON GALLEGLY, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; MACKENZIE SOUSER OF CAMARILLO, CALIFORNIA; JO STRANG, 

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RAILROAD SAFETY/CHIEF 

SAFETY OFFICER, FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION; 

MARK D. MANION, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

OPERATING OFFICER, NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY; EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS; JOSEPH 

J. GIULIETTI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; PAUL VICTOR, 

PRESIDENT, ANACOSTIA & PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, 

INC.; AND DENNIS R. PIERCE, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND TRAINMEN 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Chairman Shuster. I want 

to thank Chairman Mica and my good friend, Ranking Member 

Nick Rahall, for inviting me to testify this morning at this hearing. 

I also greatly appreciate the fact that you invited one of my constituents, Mackenzie Souser, who will be here to testify as well 

today. 

Mr. Chairman, on September 12, 2008, a Metrolink commuter 

train and a Union Pacific freight train collided near Chatsworth, 

California, resulting in 25 deaths and more than 150 injuries, 135- 

plus serious-to-critical injuries, many of which were very catastrophic and will be lifelong injuries. This was the worst train accident in California history. I use the word ‘‘accident’’ lightly, because many of us do not believe it was an accident, that it was 

something that clearly should have been prevented. 

Although there is going to be litigation relating to this matter, 

an extensive investigation conducted by the NTSB, depositions 

taken as part of the case and interviews with Veolia employees, 

found that the operator of Metrolink system, Veolia Transportation, 

a French company, had a culture of ignoring risk and accepting 

rule-breakings from the locomotive engineer who was driving the 

train. 

Here are some of the relevant facts related to the Chatsworth 

Metrolink tragedy. Robert Sanchez, the engineer who was driving 

the train at the time of the accident, had already been cited in 

2006 for having his cell phone on while operating in a train. This 

violation of written rules put Veolia on notice regarding Sanchez’s 

cell phone usage while he was on duty. 

And only one month before the collision, the conductor on Mr. 

Sanchez’s train saw Mr. Sanchez using his cell phone, and reVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:37 Oct 28, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\RR\3-17-1~1\65481.TXT JEAN
4 

minded him it was a violation of the rules. The conductor reported 

his violation to the supervisor. However, no formal or informal action was taken against Mr. Sanchez to stop his cell phone usage. 

On the very day of the crash, just before the afternoon train runs 

began, the same conductor called another conductor, asking his advice about stopping Mr. Sanchez from his dangerous texting conduct since Veolia management had done nothing to stop it. The 

other conductor advised him to ask a union official the next day to 

intercede with Veolia’s management. 

Despite this knowledge of cell phone use by Mr. Sanchez in the 

weeks leading up to the crash, Mr. Sanchez sent as many as 180 

text messages every day he was on duty. Most of these text messages were sent by Mr. Sanchez while he was operating the train. 

The poster that we have over here illustrates the number of text 

messages just the week preceding this tragedy. In fact, on the day 

of the crash, Mr. Sanchez had already sent a total of 43 text messages. And on the afternoon of the shift, 13 were sent prior to the 

crash. And, if you notice, there were fewer text messages on the 

day of the crash than there had been earlier in the week, only because the crash stopped the text messages definitely. 

Twenty-two seconds later, in a blind curve, without any warning, 

the Metrolink train hit a freight train traveling 40 miles per hour 

head on, derailing the lead locomotives and jamming the Metrolink 

locomotive backwards into most of the first passenger car. In an instant, close to 200 people were killed or severely injured. 

Mr. Chairman, I refuse, as I said, to call what happened on September 12, 2008, an accident. It is a tragedy, but it was not an accident. It should have never happened. For the victims and many 

families, this tragedy on September the 12th has been compounded 

by a Federal law that limits damages relating to all claims arising 

from a passenger railroad accident to be capped at $200 million. 

The Federal cap on all damages, which was included in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 states that ‘‘the aggregate allowable awards to all passengers against all defendants for 

all claims’’ arising from a single accident cannot exceed $200 million. That was 15 years ago, and there was no indexing for the cost 

of living. And, of course, we all know that health care costs have 

increased significantly in the past 15 years. 

Mr. Chairman, the Chatsworth tragedy was devastating to 180 

families in my congressional district. For this reason, I have called 

on the executives of Veolia to step up and at least cover the real 

damages—not the punitive damages, but the real damages—caused 

by this tragedy. 

Veolia, a French company, is the largest transportation company 

in the world. They operate rail systems that are subsidized by the 

taxpayers of this country, and they operate throughout the United 

States. Both public transportation entities and the American public 

at large count on Veolia to operate safe transportation systems and 

act like responsible corporate citizens. And they have not done 

that. 

I, therefore, call on Veolia to take responsibility for the devastation they have caused, and do the right thing by the people of this 

country, who have lost so much through no fault of their own, only 

5 

counting on public transportation to get them home safely from 

work. 

Again, I thank you very much for allowing me to testify today, 

and I would yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. And now we will recognize 

Miss Souser. Can I call you Mackenzie? OK. I know you have probably got some butterflies in your stomach. That is a good thing. 

That is a good thing. But first thing, make sure you turn the mic 

on, pull it up close to you. It is going to be a breeze for you. 

I can tell you that there is only one person in the room that has 

got more nerves going on in their stomach than you, and that is 

your mother. I have been watching her over there. So just take 

your time, do not be rushed. You are going to probably hear some 

bells go off in the middle of your speech, and do not panic. 

Ms. SOUSER. OK. 

Mr. SHUSTER. It is not going to be a fire alarm. 

Ms. SOUSER. OK. 

Mr. SHUSTER. There you go. 

Ms. SOUSER. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. But again, just take your time, take a deep breath, 

and go ahead and proceed whenever you are ready. 

Ms. SOUSER. My name is Mackenzie Souser, and I am from 

Camarillo, California. And I just wanted to thank you for inviting 

me here today. 

My dad, Doyle Souser, an executive at a manufacturing company, 

left work on the afternoon of Friday, September 12th, and boarded 

the Metrolink 111 train to come home from work. He usually took 

the later train, but was coming home early to cook a barbeque dinner for a struggling family in our community. I was excited, because my 13th birthday party was scheduled for the next day. 

My dad always helped with all the details of our family events. 

After dinner on Friday, we were going to finish the rest of the preparations for my party. Instead, on that Friday afternoon, my dad’s 

train, which was filled with passengers, collided head-on, at full 

speed, with a freight train on a bend in Chatsworth in Los Angeles 

County. The 80-mile-per-hour force caused the Metrolink locomotive to completely enter the first passenger car and ignite into 

flames. Twenty-four hours later, we learned that my dad was 

riding in the front of the first car, and was one of the 24 passengers killed. 

The Chatsworth Metrolink collision was the worst ever in California’s history. In addition to all the people who died, more than 

135 others were injured, many seriously and permanently. The survivors of the crash, which not only include those who were injured, 

but those of us who are trying to make it each day without someone we depended on, do not refer to this event as an ‘‘accident.’’ It 

really was not just an accident. 

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, the collision was caused when the engineer of the Metrolink train, Robert 

Sanchez, ran through a red signal while using his personal cell 

phone to send text messages. The NTSB also determined that the 

engineer, an employee of Veolia Transportation and Connex, sent 

and received 43 text messages and made 3 phone calls while on 

duty on the day of the crash. 

6 

Two days before the collision, the Veolia engineer sent or received 125 text messages during the time he was responsible for 

operating the train. He would regularly send and receive an average of 180 text messages each day. Many of the texts were sent to 

teenage boys he was communicating with. The engineer had recently invited a teenager for a ride-along in the cabin with him, 

and allowed him to have contact with the controls. The engineer 

had been planning on letting the same teenager actually drive the 

train on the evening of the collision. 

Within a few minutes and a few text messages, my life was 

changed, my family’s life was changed, and over 160 other families’ 

lives were changed drastically by this avoidable disaster. I am telling you this because I would never want anyone to go through the 

same traumatic losses I have for the past 21⁄2 years. I am simply 

not a normal teenager any more without my dad. The best part of 

every day was when my dad came home from work and our family 

would have dinner together. I struggle every day with the fact that 

my dad, who was the sole breadwinner for our family, is not coming home ever again. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Take your time. 

Ms. SOUSER. Sorry. 

Mr. SHUSTER. It is all right. Take your time. Want some water? 

Ms. SOUSER. Sorry. My dad was my best friend, and a strong 

Christian influence, who helped me become a responsible young 

adult. I miss spending time with him and talking about cars and 

watching cooking TV shows, going to movies, playing in our backyard, and discussing many other things. I miss joining him at work 

for father-daughter day, which he would let me do when I wanted 

to spend the day with him. 

I remember observing the great relationship my mom and dad 

shared. It was a wonderful example of a beautiful marriage. I hope 

some day to find a husband that will treat me like my dad treated 

my mom. 

My loss is not only physical, but it is also emotional. My dad was 

also my brother Zach’s best friend. It is so hard to watch my brother trying to grow up without his best buddy and male role model. 

Others my age get to worry about normal teenage concerns while 

I worry about my mom, our family finances, and our future, and 

how my brother and I will go to college. I worry about what we 

would do if someone broke into our home during the night, or if 

there was ever a fire. And it is hard knowing that my dad will not 

be there to walk my older sister, Kelsey, or me down the aisle 

when we get married, or be here for us ever again. 

As a teenager, I am very familiar with the popularity of text 

messaging. Every teenager I meet should know that driving and 

texting do not mix. My mom and I relied on the pilot of the plane 

that brought us here today to do his job very carefully. In the same 

way, my dad and all the other passengers relied on the Veolia engineer to pay attention to the signals, and drive the train according 

to all the important safety rules. Those rules said no cell phones 

and no unauthorized people in the driver’s seat. 

The engineer’s supervisors knew that he was using his cell phone 

while on duty. It is so hard for me to understand why they did not 

immediately investigate and put a stop to this. We learned that the 

7 

engineer had been reprimanded recently before the collision. But 

then we learned that what he got in trouble for had nothing to do 

with text messaging or allowing kids to ride with him. It had to 

do with not bringing a train into one of the stations on time. This 

means that the company was concerned about profits, and not 

about major safety issues and the hundreds and hundreds of safety 

violations that were going on. 

The truth is that the engineer’s company took such a big gamble 

with my dad’s and all the other passengers’ lives. This was wrong. 

It is also wrong that in these unbelievable circumstances Veolia is 

relying on the Federal law that limits how much it has to reimburse all of the survivors for their injuries. 

My dad always taught me to accept full responsibility under any 

circumstances where I ever hurt someone. He never said, ‘‘Well, 

Mackenzie, just try to make things 30 percent or 50 percent better.’’ My dad knew that being 100 percent responsible was not only 

fair to the person I hurt, he also knew that if I had to be fully responsible for any harm I caused, I would be more careful about my 

actions in the future. 

My family is so grateful to Congressman Gallegly for trying to 

fix this problem with legislation that would increase the damages 

cap. Congressman Gallegly has provided several opportunities for 

the survivors to meet one another, share our stories and suffering, 

and honor our loved ones. 

My family will appear before the judge soon, and tell him about 

all of our losses. We have been trying to make it for 21⁄2 years without my dad’s support. And we have a long road ahead. If there is 

no change in the law, or Veolia does not offer additional funds, the 

judge will have to determine some fair way to reduce each award 

so everyone’s case fits inside the limit. I can only imagine how difficult this will be. 

Thank you for doing anything in the meantime to hold those who 

refuse to follow or enforce important safety rules 100 percent responsible for the harm they may cause. And also, thank you for 

helping honor my dad, Doyle Souser, and all of the others whose 

lives were taken or forever damaged by this tragedy. [Applause.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mackenzie. You did a great 

job, and your dad would be very, very proud of you today. 

Ms. SOUSER. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I understand there might be a couple of questions 

from Members. The gentlelady from California. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is certainly—young lady, that took a lot of courage. And thank you for 

being so honest and so forthright. 

There is a couple of things that I have. One of them is indicating 

in the chart—and this is to Mr. Gallegly—is on the chart. And can 

you specifically say what it said about the engineer’s phone usage 

while he was actually driving the train? 

By the way, what time was the accident, what time of day? 

Ms. SOUSER. 4:42. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. 4:42? Any idea what time this individual 

started his shift? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I’m sorry? 

8 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, because if it only went to that portion, 

then the rest of it would have been more messages. 

[Chart.] 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The shift started about 3:30, when Mr. Sanchez 

boarded the train, and the train was on its way from the western 

San Fernando Valley into Ventura County, with the first stop in 

Simi Valley. But if you look at this chart, these are the days that 

Mr. Sanchez was on duty. And by the way, we can go back and 

show charts like this for weeks before that Veolia was aware of. 

But just on the week preceding the tragedy, you can see—this 

was the day that he worked. Seventy percent of the time that he 

was texting was when he was operating the train. These were 2 

days that he was not working. These were the only text messages 

he made. Blue indicates the number of text messages, which were, 

like, 10 and 10. But the day he was on the train on the previous 

Friday, 43 text messages. On Monday about 55. On Tuesday—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So what does it say, Mr. Gallegly, about the 

man’s usage of the cell phone? What are you indicating? What does 

that say? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I am sorry? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. What does it say? What is it really—where 

you are pointing out to, what is the bottom line? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. What I am pointing out to is the bottom line is 

the number of text messages that were made on these days. This 

line here is both the morning and afternoon shift, when he was 

driving the train. So you can tell that, clearly, two-thirds to 75 percent of all the text messages that he was making was during the 

process of time while he was operating the train, not when he was 

at home or away on a day off. 

And on Wednesday of the week 2 days preceding the crash, there 

were 184 text messages made, and about 130 of those text messages were made while he was actually operating the train. And we 

move to Friday, prior to 4:42, the time of the collision. He had 

made almost 100 text messages that day, with over 45 during the 

course of the time that he was driving the train. His shift would 

have lasted, I believe, until 8:35 that night, or at least another 4 

hours, which would have probably indicated why there were fewer 

text messages on the day of the crash. It is because he only operated the train up until the collision time. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. And if the actual damages, such 

as those medical expenses we have heard about, we saw from the 

tragedy, exceed the $200 million cap, who will pay for the medical 

bills? What options do the victims have? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Obviously, some of the victims have certain insurance. But all of the insurances have limitations or caps. But obviously, when those caps run out, it is going to be the taxpayers and 

public hospitals and so on that are going to be paying this. 

And I might mention that of those 135 people that were seriously 

and critically injured, we have several that already have doctor 

bills over $1 million, have not received anything to date. And, in 

addition to that, many of these folks are going to require health 

care the rest of their natural life, many of whom are in their 

twenties and thirties, and will never be able to work another day. 

9 

We did have one person that had just graduated from medical 

school and was ready to start being a doctor. She had half of her 

brain removed and was scarred permanently for life. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. I have always believed that the 

States should be allowed to regulate railroads in their areas where 

the Federal Government has not acted. We have tried that before. 

As long as it does not hurt interstate commerce. And we are still 

battling on that issue. But as you discuss in your statement, the cap is $200 million. 

However, Veolia could go beyond the cap and fully compensate all 

victims of the disaster. Do you know whether they have insurance 

coverage that could compensate the victims, and what amount the 

insurance is? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. My understanding is that they have, at the time 

of the crash, approximately $700 million in insurance for an accident like this. When I asked them about the issue of $200 million, 

they felt that $200 million would more than adequately cover any 

potential tragedy. And I asked them if that was the case, why did 

they have $700 million worth of insurance. And I still am waiting 

for the answer to that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I recognize Mr. Mica for a question. 

Mr. MICA. Well, just a couple of things. While, first of all, someone was not paying attention to the performance of the engineer in 

this case, and that is a shortcoming of our safety program, that 

needs to be corrected. We did put some provisions after this crash 

in for positive train control. I am concerned now that we may be 

spreading some of that money too thin. It needs to be where we 

have the greatest risk, and trying to make certain that we get in 

place that control as soon as possible, that technology as soon as 

possible where, again, there is a risk. 

What concerns me is—and I think you alluded to it—is the—one, 

the adequacy of the level of liability responsibility. And then, did 

you tell me that a foreign entity—there was some questions as to 

their responsibility in making payments? And does that need to be 

corrected under current law, Mr. Gallegly? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I clearly believe that it does. I think that this was 

a—probably an unintended consequence of the 1997 bill. You know, 

sometimes we do not understand problems that are created—not 

intentionally, but they are. 

And clearly, the fact that when you have the number of people 

that were critically injured and the number of people that perished, 

the numbers—seems like—$200 million seems like a lot of money. 

But when you start adding it up, when you have to start, as Mackenzie alluded to, the judge’s task in deciding who is going to get 

what, knowing clearly, clearly, there will not be the money to take 

care of the victims—— 

Mr. MICA. But did the foreign entity—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Well, the foreign entity here, of course, was—— 

Mr. MICA. Not—they were not required to be liable? And did they 

have coverage? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Well, the issue is that I believe that was an unintended consequence. They are, since they were operating a public 

transit system that was covered, they are arguing that, as a result 

10 

of that legislation, their liability is capped at $200 million, even 

though they had multiples of that type of coverage because, obviously, you do not go out and buy $600 million or $700 million 

worth of insurance, unless you think potentially you may have a 

need for it. 

Mr. MICA. So there is a question, again, in clarifying the loss of— 

when you have an instance like this, that if you do have a set cap, 

and then, say, a responsibility above that, that we need to better 

define, again, those terms. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. And, clearly, I do not know how that is going to 

affect retroactively to the previous tragedy, but clearly we need to 

fix this in the future. 

We do not have to look too far to see what happened down in the 

Gulf with the BP tragedy. And there were limits of liability there. 

But—and I am not here to defend BP under any set of circumstances, but they did step up to the plate and offer and have 

paid many multiples of what their actual legal limits were. And I 

would hope that Veolia, in this case, for the victims that we have— 

not only for the victims, but for the American taxpayers as well, 

because that is where, ultimately, the burden is going to lie, at the 

feet of the American taxpayers, for an incident that clearly, clearly 

was the responsibility of the company that is foreign-based. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. There is under 3 minutes to vote. The gentleman 

from New Jersey has a brief question, I believe, and then we are 

going to recess. 

Mr. SIRES. I just wonder if, after this accident, have you noticed 

that the company has taken any steps to make sure this does not 

happen, to monitor these engineers to make sure that they—that 

nobody else is doing anything similar to this? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Well, you know, of course they lost the contract 

with Metrolink and it was not renewed. 

As it relates—we have changed some of the regulations and so 

on and so forth. But the thing that I think is most disturbing is 

that the leaders of Veolia have said that their hearts and prayers 

are with the victims. However, their pocketbooks so far have not 

been. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. And I thank the gentleman 

from California for being here today, and thank the Sousers. Thank 

you for being here. 

We are going to stand in recess for approximately 15 minutes. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the chairman. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. Come to order. I do not think we are going to be 

interrupted by votes again. We are going to be good to go. So, 

smooth sailing. 

Again, thank everybody for coming today to our hearing on positive train control. I appreciate all of the witnesses for being here 

today, and look forward to hearing your testimony. That certainly 

was powerful testimony that we heard from Miss Mackenzie and, 

of course, what happened in California, which, I believe, is right— 

it was avoidable, and we have got to do more to make sure those 

types of things do not happen. 

11 

And of course I think we have already taken some action in personal responsibility by people who are operating trains, planes, 

automobiles, whatever, heavy equipment. That is where safety 

starts, first and foremost, with the individual. So we got to make 

sure we keep that in mind. 

Throughout our government, I am deeply concerned with the regulatory overreach that we have seen. I believe it cripples the economy. It stifles job creation, and ties our Nation up with red tape. 

I applaud President Obama for his recent comments on reducing 

the regulatory burden—for calling for a government-wide review of 

burdensome regulations. 

However, it seems like, at every turn, another agency is moving 

forward with new cumbersome expensive rulemakings. There is a 

significant disconnect between what—the President’s words and 

the actions of his administration. 

Positive train control is an example of regulatory overreach that 

I would like to focus on here today. PTC describes technology designed to automatically stop or slow a train before certain accidents 

caused by human error. Section 104 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act mandated that Class I railroad carriers and inner-city 

passenger rail and commuter rail entities must implement PTC 

systems by December 31, 2015. 

In January 2010, the FRA published its final rule to implement 

the PTC mandate. The rule has raised great concern and strong objections, specifically because the FRA regulations appear to have 

gone beyond the scope of the Rail Safety Improvement Act and the 

PTC mandate. 

FRA’s own cost benefit analysis of the final rule implementing 

PTC states that an immediate regulatory mandate for PTC could 

not be justified, based upon the normal cost benefit principles, relying on direct safety benefits. The safety benefits of PTC systems 

were relatively small, in comparison to the large capital maintenance costs. The FRA estimated a cost benefit ratio of 15:1 for installation of PTC system when it issued its notice of proposed rulemaking, and an even higher cost benefit ratio of 22:1 in its final 

rule. 

The 20-year costs are estimated to be a whopping $13.2 billion. 

Notably, the PTC rule has been targeted by the Obama administration’s regulatory review task force. Earlier this year at an Energy 

and Commerce Committee hearing, Cass Sunstein the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, made 

note of this same point. 

When asked to identify an example of a regulation that benefits 

had not justified the cost, Sunstein highlighted positive train control. And I quote, ‘‘The only big one that comes to mind is positive 

train control. The monetarizable benefits were lower than the 

monetarized costs. There are not a lot like that.’’ So it is the poster 

child of a regulation that has been mandated that does not have 

a benefit, or does have a very, very small benefit to cost—cost benefit ratio. 

Another issue is the base year used for PTC route determination. 

In its final rule, the FRA orders railroads to install PTC on rail 

lines that carry toxic inhalation, or TIH materials, in 2008. Yet 

12 

nothing in the Rail Safety Improvement Act calls for using 2008 as 

the base year. Only 2015 is mentioned in the statute. 

Using 2008 as the base year makes little sense, because the TIH 

traffic patterns in 2015 will be vastly different than they were in 

2008. If left unchanged, the 2008 baseline year will mean railroads 

will have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to deploy PTC 

on thousands of miles of rail lines on which neither passengers nor 

TIH materials will be moved in 2015. 

Commuter rails also have serious concern regarding the PTC 

mandate, particularly given the dire financial straits that many of 

these public agencies face during our current economic recession. 

The additional $2 billion price tag for implementation of PTC on 

commuter rail systems is out of reach for almost all commuter rail 

agencies. Commuter rails argue that PTC mandate would have the 

unintended consequences of degrading safety by requiring the deferral of needed state-of-good repair projects in order to fund initial 

phases of PTC. 

Finally, although short line and regional railroads are not explicitly required to install PTC equipment on their lines, under the 

Rail Safety Improvement Act the PTC mandate affects them in the 

case of interchanges of freight between short lines and Class I’s 

that take place on Class I track. In many cases, such interchanges 

will occur on sections of track that are PTC-equipped. There has 

not been a cost analysis of the impact of PTC requirements in the 

short line and regional railroads. But industry representatives estimate as many as 140 smaller railroads will be required to upgrade 

their equipment to be PTC-compatible. 

Again, I look forward to hearing from all our witnesses today. 

And with that, I would like to yield to the ranking member for her 

opening statement. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am pleased to be 

at this subcommittee meeting to see how the Federal Railroad Administration is implementing the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 

2008. Rail safety is an extremely important issue that affects the 

lives of many. 

When I was chair of the subcommittee in 2007, rail safety was 

my top priority, and we tackled that issue first. We started out 

with 2 days of hearing, and then followed up with additional hearings, including one field hearing, over the course of several months 

before developing legislation. We invited all of the interested parties to participate in the discussion: the FRA, the railroad labor, 

safety groups, and families involved in rail accidents, and the National Transportation Safety Board. 

I asked that the National Transportation Safety Board be invited 

to this hearing, but the request was denied. However, I discussed 

that with Mr. Mica, and he indicated to me that at the end of this 

month we are going to have a series of hearings, and we will have 

an opportunity to invite participants that was not able to participate in this hearing and other hearings that we have had throughout the country. 

So, I am looking forward to getting some of the other stakeholders to the table so we can have these in-depth discussions. And 

those hearings—I do not know whether we have scheduled those 

dates, but I understand, Mr. Shuster, it is going to be at the end 

13 

of the month we are going to have 2 days of hearings here in Washington. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Yes. The last week of March? Yes, the last week. 

Ms. BROWN. The last week in March we are going to have 2 days 

of hearings. So we will get an opportunity to invite some of our 

other stakeholders who we have not been able to get before the 

committee. Because I think it is very important that we get all of 

the stakeholders in the room, and be able to discuss how we move 

forward. 

Prior to the Rail Safety Improvement Act, our Nation’s rail safety 

program had not been authorized in over a decade. As a result, we 

did a lot of good things to help improve rail safety. We reformed 

hours of service standard for rail workers to allow them to rest between work shifts. We required that one railroad that still had 

camp cars to retrofit them or replace them, and we are still waiting 

on an update on that. We required more training for workers and 

ensured that injured workers have access to prompt medical attention. We improved track and crossing, and we required installation 

of positive train control on main lines where passengers and certain hazardous materials was transported. 

I support the PTC requirements in law. But I do have some 

major concerns with how FRA is implementing it. With that said, 

I think that the committee needs to be careful about weakening 

rail safety. Serious accidents, injuries, and fatalities continue to 

occur. In fact, human error remains one of the leading causes of 

rail incidents. And, according to the Government Accounting Office, 

the number of fatalities have spiked over the years as a result of 

specific incidents, including one in South Carolina, another in 

North Dakota, several in Texas, and, of course, the tragic accident 

that occurred in California. I would hate for another tragedy to 

occur like this one in California. 

As the economy grows in high-speed, and intercity passenger 

rails are developed in this country, we have to stay focused on improving safety, and we all really have to work together. 

Before I close, I have a question for—I think I have already 

asked the question about when we was going to have the hearing. 

And I want to thank again the chairman for having this hearing. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentlelady from Florida. And your 

question, to be very specific, surface transportation reauthorization 

stakeholders hearings on March 30th and 31st, and Member hearings will be the first week of April. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent for testimony 

to be placed in the record from the American Chemistry Council, 

from Metrolink, and from Veolia. 

[No response.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

14 


Insert offset folio 6 here 65481.006
15 


Insert offset folio 7 here 65481.007
16 


Insert offset folio 8 here 65481.008
17 


Insert offset folio 9 here 65481.009
18 


Insert offset folio 10 here 65481.010
19 


Insert offset folio 11 here 65481.011
20 


Insert offset folio 12 here 65481.012
21 


Insert offset folio 13 here 65481.013
22 


Insert offset folio 14 here 65481.014
23 

Mr. SHUSTER. Now we will turn to our witnesses. I will introduce 

all of you across the board, and then I will let you go one at a time, 

obviously. 

First, Jo Strang, who is the associate administrator, office of 

safety, Federal Highway Administration; Mark Manion, who is the 

executive vice president and chief operating officer of Norfolk 

Southern, accompanied by Ed Hamberger from the Association of 

American Railroads; Joseph Giulietti, the executive director of the 

South Florida Regional Transportation Authority; Paul Victor, the 

president of the Anacostia and Pacific Railroad Company; and Dennis Pierce, the national president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive 

Engineers and Trainmen. Again, thank all of you for being here. 

And before I recognize our first witness, Mr. Meehan would like to 

make a comment. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Yes. Mr. Chairman, for the record, may I ask as 

well—you asked for unanimous consent to submit statements, and 

I would like to ask if I could have a statement submitted by the 

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority on the same 

issue of PTC. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

24 


Insert offset folio 15 here 65481.015
25 


Insert offset folio 16 here 65481.016
26 


Insert offset folio 17 here 65481.017
27 


Insert offset folio 18 here 65481.018
28 


Insert offset folio 19 here 65481.019
29 


Insert offset folio 20 here 65481.020
30 

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. And with that, Ms. Strang, you may 

proceed. And I ask you to all adhere to the 5-minute timeframe. I 

have been enforcing it. I know there has been a special request by 

Mr. Manion and Mr. Hamberger to show a 1-minute tape. As long 

as it is just 1 minute—got it. 

So, adhere to 5 minutes, please. 

Ms. STRANG. OK, thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Brown, and members of the subcommittee. I am honored to appear before you today on behalf of 

Secretary LaHood and Administrator Szabo to discuss the implementation of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, commonly 

referred to as RSIA. 

RSIA is the most sweeping piece of safety legislation ever passed 

by Congress, requiring more than 40 final rules, guidance documents, model laws, reports, and studies. By requiring the installation of positive train control (PTC) systems, it addresses the risks 

of carrying certain toxic chemicals and also prevents collisions involving passenger trains, such as the one that was one of the worst 

passenger train collisions in recent history in California. 

FRA has been working hard to implement RSIA, and I am 

pleased to report that FRA has issued final rules for PTC, bridge 

inspection, State-specific action plans, and updates to hours of service recordkeeping and reporting regulations. We have issued five 

notices of proposed rulemaking and one advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. We have also completed seven reports to Congress, as 

well as the model State law for sight distance at passive crossings. 

The most complex requirement, in terms of technical complexity 

and breadth of undertaking, is PTC. PTC is designed to prevent 

four types of catastrophic events: train-to-train collisions; overspeed 

derailments; movement over misaligned switches; and incursions 

into roadway work zones. 

RSIA requires the installation of PTC on intercity passenger and 

commuter routes and on routes over which certain toxic materials 

are carried. The deadline for installation, as set by the statute, is 

December 31, 2015. By early 2010, FRA had published the final 

regulations necessary to provide guidance to railroads required to 

install PTC. 

We undertook a number of efforts to reduce the cost through the 

Railroad Safety Advisory Committee process, and provided in the 

final rules several exceptions and exclusions, such as passenger 

yard and terminal exceptions, limited passenger operations, some 

exclusions for Class II and III railroads—both for locomotives operating on the host railroad’s PTC territory and for Class II and III 

railroad lines carrying limited amounts of passenger and freight 

traffic. 

Total PTC route miles, without any exceptions, would have been 

82,000, and the total actually being implemented by approval of 

those allowances that we have received by request so far will be 

around 73,000 route miles, thus providing significant cost savings 

to the industry. 

FRA and the AAR have reached a settlement agreement to hold 

AAR’s lawsuit challenging portions of the PTC rule in abeyance 

while FRA issues two notices of proposed rulemaking. The first 

31 

would propose eliminating the two tests that would potentially require PTC to be installed on track segments not specifically required to be equipped by Congress. The other will address other 

PTC concerns that are not involved in the litigation. 

The two NPRMs will allow FRA to solicit the input of stakeholders and the general public in making decisions on whether 

safety can be better served by amendments to the rule. This approach is consistent with the President’s recently issued Executive 

Order 13563, requiring agencies to review their significant regulations and ensure that the safety benefits justify the costs imposed 

by the rules. 

FRA has worked tirelessly to implement the requirements of the 

Act, and will diligently complete the remainder of the rulemakings, 

reports, and guidance documents required by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. I thank you for your time. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. You came in way under the 

1 minute. Mr. Hamberger can utilize that time. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. With that, Mr. Manion, please proceed. 

Mr. MANION. Thank you, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member 

Brown, and other Members of the Committee, for the opportunity 

to discuss the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 on behalf of 

Norfolk Southern and other members of the Association of American Railroads. 

For Norfolk Southern and America’s other freight and passenger 

railroads, safe operations are an imperative. From 1980 to 2010, 

the U.S. train accident rate has improved 77 percent, and the 

grade crossing collision rate has improved 81 percent. 2010 was the 

American railroad industry’s safest year ever. Our employees are 

remarkably safe, too. In that time period, the employee injury rate 

has been reduced 82 percent. It is safer to work for us than it is 

to work in a grocery story. We demonstrate that safety is the right 

thing to do, and safety is good business. 

The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 addresses a range of 

provisions. One of those involves positive train control, or PTC, 

technologies designed to automatically slow or stop a train before 

certain accidents caused by human error. While PTC is the most 

expensive and far-reaching mandate in railroad history, let me 

make it clear we are not seeking changes in the PTC mandate for 

passenger trains. 

However, there are problematic issues with regard to PTC deployment. One such problematic requirement centers on the complexity of PTC systems required to comply with a 2015 deadline. 

As the GAO has indicated, implementing PTC without the full benefit of solid sound engineering principles and practices commonly 

used in development of technology of similar complexity and scope 

has the potential of significantly slowing the rail network, and may 

not produce expected safety benefits due to reliability issues. 

A second issue centers on costs. According to FRA’s own esti- mates, PTC will cost railroads up to $13.2 billion to install and 

maintain over 20 years. But it will return only $1 in safety benefits 

for every $20 spent. Yes, you heard correctly. This is money that 

could otherwise be invested in the economic recovery and in safe, 

environmentally friendly and fuel-efficient railroad infrastructure. 

32 

A third concern relates to PTC effectiveness. Only 4 percent of 

mainline accidents over the last 7 years might have been prevented 

by PTC. By contrast, track and equipment-caused accidents accounted for 60 percent. It would be more effective to focus our resources on reducing those track and equipment-caused accidents. 

Railroads are aware that some of the accidents that PTC systems 

are designed to prevent can be serious, with significant injuries 

and loss of life. However, there are less costly and less complicated 

technologies and operating practices that can provide greater overall safety improvements for railroad operations. 

A fourth issue is that FRA is requiring PTC installation based 

on 2008 traffic levels, even though 2015 is the deadline that is 

cited in the statute. This is not logical. Freight movement patterns 

are dynamic. They change, based on customer demand and other 

factors. By our calculation, we will have to spend more than $500 

million to deploy PTC on more than 10,000 miles of track where 

it will not even be required by the time 2015 arrives. 

While we have agreed to hold the litigation over the 2008 baseline issue and second display in abeyance, the industry awaits final 

action over the issues to be addressed in the new rulemaking proceedings. 

My last perspective involves the so-called business benefits, supposedly totaling billions of dollars, to be achieved through PTC. 

Those benefits simply will not happen. PTC will not allow us to run 

more trains, reduce delays, save fuel, or improve fleet utilization. 

And it should not be touted as being able to do so. Fortunately, we 

already have systems that do those things. 

To conclude, the railroad industry is safe and getting safer. We 

are fully dedicated and engaged in meeting the requirements and 

deadlines placed upon us, and in working with FRA, Congress, and 

all safety stakeholders to ensure the best outcomes. We are, however, concerned that the final rules implementing the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 do not support continuation of the beneficial long-term safety trend. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

And, without objection, AAR has a 1-minute? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We talk in our written testimony about alternative risk reduction strategies for TIHonly lines, not for passenger lines. And I have, literally, a 1-minute 

clip of some of those technologies to give the subcommittee an idea 

of what we are working on, in partnership with the FRA, at the 

Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado. And if I 

have any luck, it will work right now. 

[Video shown.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you for that. And with that, Mr. Giulietti, 

you may proceed. I pronounced it correctly? 

Mr. GIULIETTI. Yes, you did. Thank you, Chairman. 

Good morning, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Brown, and 

members of the Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee. My name is Joe Giulietti, and I am appearing before 

you today on behalf of the American Public Transportation Association, APTA, and more than 1,500 organizations, as well as the 

South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, where I serve as 

the executive director and oversee the Tri-Rail commuter railroad. 

33 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today to discuss the Rail 

Safety Improvement Act, and offer insights to the very important 

matters related to the implementation of positive train control, or 

PTC. A copy of my full testimony has been submitted to the subcommittee. I will summarize my testimony, and will be pleased to 

answer any questions you may have. 

First, let me take a moment to tell you about my background and 

why I was asked by my colleagues to speak with you this morning 

on behalf of our industry on this very important subject. I am in 

my 40th year in this industry, and I have had a wide range of experience in both passenger and freight railroad operations. 

I started as a brakeman, worked in both passenger and freight 

railroad operations. I have worked as a locomotive engineer, a railroad foreman or a transportation manager. I have worked for Penn 

Central, Amtrak, Conrail, Metro North Commuter Railroad in New 

York, and now Tri-Rail. I have worked in New Haven, Boston, New 

York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, and Florida. And I have worked 

closely during my career with the Federal Railroad Administration, 

the Federal Transit Administration, as well as the National Transportation Safety Board. 

Additionally, I taught the engineers school, trained engineers 

and conductors, and worked as a manager of operating rules, where 

I co-authored at least two operating rulebooks, qualified train dispatchers, and served as a superintendent of the New Haven and 

Harlem lines into New York. 

Currently, I am the co-chair on the commuter and intercity rail 

legislative subcommittee. I am the immediate past chair of all commuter rail CEOs at APTA and the vice chair for commuter and 

intercity rail. 

The main message I want to leave with you today is that the 

commuter rail CEOs across the country are committed to the goal 

of installing positive train control, PTC, for our systems as soon as 

possible. We all believe that PTC will add an additional layer of 

safety to our systems that will greatly enhance the level of safety. 

We are committed to PTC being operational at all systems as 

quickly as possible. 

But I am here to report to you we have encountered obstacles 

that will have to be addressed to ensure the success in this endeavor. And if we are to have success, it has become apparent that we 

will need more time than has been allowed under the law. 

Ensuring that the system will work, currently there is no system 

market-ready that meets this mandate for commuter rail. There 

are indeed PTC systems that have been developed and will likely 

be deployed on freight lines, but none have been fully vetted in a 

commuter rail environment. And because the lead time necessary 

to purchase and install and test even well-known existing signal 

systems can be a multi-year process, we are concerned that the 

PTC technology we know of is untested in the commuter rail environment. 

As you may have heard, our colleagues with Metrolink Commuter Rail system in Los Angeles are committed to having their 

PTC operational as early as 2012. We applaud their efforts in Los 

Angeles. As an industry, we all have a stake in their success. We 

are closely monitoring their progress and experience, because their 

34 

success will determine whether a system can be manufactured that 

will meet our industry needs. 

We need your help with spectrum, the new technology that requires that radio frequency be utilized to ensure the safety of operations. To date, no spectrum has been set aside by the FCC for this 

safety-critical operation. 

Some of our systems have utilized—or have unfulfilled applications to the FCC, while others are desperately trying to negotiate 

bandwidth, when we do not know for sure we can achieve the spectrum necessary to ensure the integration of this system. Please 

have the FCC make bandwidth available to this industry for this 

system. 

And, three, we need additional Federal funding assistance. We 

need additional targeted funding arrangements from the Department of Transportation that provides sufficient resources to afford 

this safety-critical system, and allocate our resources to it. We also 

fully support sending immediate available funding to Los Angeles 

to ensure Metrolink and North County Transit District’s success, so 

that we can learn and hopefully model our systems around what 

they learn. 

Research funding from the Federal Government has already provided $20 million to a software company that is developing the 

radio system to make this technology work. That company has been 

purchased by four of the Class I railroads in their efforts to ensure 

that they can get the system implemented. 

We support their efforts at compliance. We ask you to ensure 

that they make this technology available to our systems for public 

purpose. Not only are we striving with the freight railroads to 

jointly meet this standard, but we also operate over each other’s 

trackage. And therefore, we are together in this. And all technological advances must be fully available. 

We are in tough financial times, and we recognize that commuter 

railroads, like so many other public transportation agencies, have 

tough choices and challenges to keep them viable. 

Again, let me reiterate that we begin first with ensuring safety 

to the best of our collective abilities, and the introduction of PTC 

will significantly increase our industry’s safety and operations. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Giulietti. 

And with that, Mr. Paul Victor, please proceed. 

Mr. VICTOR. Good morning. I am Paul Victor, president of the 

New York and Atlantic Railway, a 250-mile short line that operates 

freight service over the Long Island Railroad. We carry approximately 22,000 carloads annually, including 350 cars a year of 

hazmat LPG gas. This means we take approximately 180,000 oneway truck trips off the highways of New York City and Long Island, annually. 

New York and Atlantic is one of five short lines owned by Anacostia Rail Holdings. And of these, four railroads would be required 

to install PTC. Because the New York and Atlantic Railway operates over one of the busiest passenger corridors in the country, I 

have been heavily involved in the positive train control issue, and 

our railroad is heavily impacted by this mandate. 

35 

I am also appearing here on behalf of the American Short Line 

and Regional Rail Association, which represents the Nation’s 550 

Class II and Class III railroads. As you know, short line railroads 

are not, in practice, required to install PTC. However, the PTC 

mandate, due to the integrated network of North American rail operations, joint facility matters including track rights interchange 

and reciprocal switching, blur the line of the short line exemption. 

In addition, short line operations and routes that are shared with 

passenger and/or commuter services will also require short lines to 

come on stream with PTC-equipped locomotives. 

PTC will be costly. Looking just at Anacostia Rail Holdings, the 

company I work for, we own or lease 36 locomotives on the 4 railroads that will require PTC. Twenty-seven will need to be 

equipped. The estimated cost is currently estimated at $2.2 million. 

This cost includes both equipping eight units with an Amtrak-compatible system, as well as 19 units to be equipped with a GPSbased nationwide system. 

This cost equals about 92 percent of the combined annual capital 

expenditure budget, literally. We must reallocate our dollars for installation of PTC in lieu of almost all other infrastructure and 

equipment improvements. Ultimately, we would end up with PTCequipped locomotives, but a less safe railroad network to run them 

on. 

I have worked in the railroad industry my entire adult life, and 

understand that even a single injury or fatality is something to be 

avoided. But surely it is reasonable for public policymakers to balance the need for action and the cost of that action. PTC will be 

an enormous financial burden on our small businesses with very 

little impact on the safety of our railroad operations. Indeed, it is 

likely to have an adverse impact on our short line safety. Implementing the PTC mandate will take millions of dollars away from 

short line track and bridge rehabilitation that does more to improve railroad safety than any other expenditure we can make. 

Short line railroads tend to serve light-density customers with a 

cost benefit ratio of adding new services, often a very close call. 

One of the key factors in making that call is the cost of installing 

and/or maintaining the so-called switch into the customer’s facility. 

This is the equivalent of connecting a house to the electrical grid. 

In this case, the electrical meter has become the controversial and 

needed switch to connect the potential shipper to the network. 

Future switch installation costs will be much higher in PTC territory. This added cost could drive potential customers away from 

rail by changing their tipping point. Where will the traffic go then? 

It will end up on our already overcrowded highway system. 

PTC will impact all new shippers and receivers, large and small, 

to the extent that it will drive traffic from rail to truck, it will increase the truck traffic and the highway congestion associated with 

that traffic. 

I know that the PTC mandate will remain. I am not here to suggest that New York and Atlantic be exempt from that mandate. We 

operate in a highly dense passenger corridor, and we want to do 

so safely, and want to utilize every available tool to do so. We understand the valuable of PTC. One, it is prudently developed and 

installed. I am suggesting that the Federal Government has imVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:37 Oct 28, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\RR\3-17-1~1\65481.TXT JEAN
36 

posed an enormously expensive mandate that cannot be afforded by 

most short lines, and will dramatically reduce the short line’s ability to invest in other more directly beneficial safety improvements. 

Presumably, the government believes this mandate is in the public interest. And, if that is the case, I would hope that the government will provide public monies to help pay for the cost. 

I appreciate the opportunity to present these thoughts, and will 

welcome any questions. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Victor. 

And now, Mr. Dennis Pierce. 

Mr. PIERCE. Good morning, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member 

Brown, and other committee members. My name is Dennis Pierce, 

I am national president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen organization. I am also president of the Teamsters Rail Conference. I appreciate the opportunity to address the 

subcommittee today on behalf of the BLET and the Teamster Rail 

Conference, and with the endorsements of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and the United Transportation Union. 

The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 was a comprehensive, 

wide-ranging, far-reaching piece of legislation, and it was the first 

rail safety act in 14 years. When Congress felt compelled to act in 

the aftermath of the Chatsworth tragedy, stakeholders were still 

fine-tuning the bill. BLET, UTU, and AAR were still discussing adjustments to the hours of service, but none of those adjustments 

were adopted. Thus, the bill that Congress passed contains some 

flaws that have since come to light. 

FRA was given a massive but imperfect bill that included an extraordinary number of statutory mandates with short deadlines. 

The agency’s resources and personnel were not increased sufficiently to fulfill the tasks that were assigned. The Railroad Safety 

Advisory Committee, which has shepherded nearly every significant safety rulemaking for the past 15 years has been working nonstop for almost 21⁄2 years handling RSI mandates. So we do disagree with the criticism of how FRA has handled PTC implementation. 

I understand the industry and FRA appear to have settled their 

dispute over the 2008 baseline and in-cab display screen aspects of 

the PTC final rule. So there is no need for me to address those 

issues at this time, except to remind the subcommittee that the 

NTSB supported the baseline language. 

I do also want to address the industry’s complaints about PTC 

cost. We have repeatedly appeared before Congress concerning the 

dangers of non-signaled dark territory and inexpensive technologies 

like switch position detectors that are readily available to address 

the risk. Because Congress didn’t order it, the railroads chose not 

to widely install it. And that choice is one factor that led us to 

PTC. 

Over the past 19 years, some 70 BLET members were killed in 

the line of duty. And PTC could have prevented nearly 50 of those 

deaths. To me there is no such thing as Federal regulatory overreach when it comes to returning our members safely to their families. It is appalling to me that profits would be placed ahead of our 

members’ lives. 

37 

While I am here I also want to talk about the hot-button issue 

for operating crews, and that is hours of service. Tremendous work 

has been done building a scientific foundation for the passenger 

and commuter rail hours of service regulations. But this service, 

because it is scheduled, the studies showed there is significantly 

less risk of fatigue and the regulations will be less strict, less costly, and more effective than the laws governing freight operations. 

Similar studies have shown a much lower risk of fatigue on scheduled freight service as well, and a number of waivers have been 

granted by FRA for relief from the 6-days-worked/48-hours-off provision of the law, so long as no overnight hours are worked. We are 

drafting technical corrections for you to consider, and one will be 

to make scheduled freight assignments subject to the passenger/ 

commuter rail regulations. 

Most importantly, the law is not combating fatigue to the degree 

Congress intended in unscheduled freight service. Train line-ups 

are as unreliable as ever, and we believe it is time to move to a 

10-hour call. 

Further, the AAR agreed with us and the UTU 21⁄2 years ago, 

that 8 hours off duty was sufficient at the away-from-home terminal, and it is time to put that understanding in the law. 

Finally, because it is not based on science, the 6-days-worked/48- 

hours-off provision is not mitigating fatigue in unscheduled railroad service. The law allows the railroads to create a situation 

where employees who are truly fatigued do not qualify for 48 hours 

off. Conversely, the application of the law requires others who are 

not fatigued to take 48 hours off. 

All of these subjects will be addressed in our technical corrections that we will be submitting soon. Thank you, Chairman. 

Thank you, Ms. Brown. I will be happy to answer any questions 

the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Pierce. I appreciate that. Now we 

will go to our questions. I am going to start. I am going to probably 

do two rounds, because I have got a number of questions. So I will 

take 5 minutes and then yield to the ranking member and the 

other members. 

The first question I have to the FRA is, what is plan B? I mean 

if we cannot meet this—if the cost is a tremendous burden—and 

I am going to ask you a question about the abeyance that—the 

court challenge. But are you going through a process to figure out 

what plan B is? 

Ms. STRANG. Yes. While we cannot get into the specifics, because 

the court case is only in abeyance and it has not been dismissed, 

we plan on issuing two notices of proposed rulemaking. 

The first notice would revisit the issue of the two tests that were 

not required by Congress. So it would essentially take out the residual risk analysis and the other analysis so that those burdens 

would not necessarily be placed on the industry. But we would 

want to get the advice and comments of the public, and make sure 

that the public agrees that those are, you know, wise choices to 

make. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And it would be—the court challenge, the abeyance, my understanding—I think there is four issues. I just want 

to read off the four issues. My understanding of what the abeyance 

38 

says—and tell me if I understand it correctly—that it addresses the 

new proposed rules during the abeyance, and the 2008 to the 2015 

PTC baseline map issue, de minimis or limited train operations, 

switch movements on main lines in rail yards and on non-PTCequipped locomotives, and failures of the PTC-equipped locomotives 

en route. Those four things that—— 

Ms. STRANG. Right. Essentially, there are two notices. The first 

notice would look at the routing issue, and the second notice would 

deal with the other items that are not part of the litigation. But 

we expect that we will receive a petition for rulemaking from the 

AAR that will outline all of their issues that they would like us to 

reconsider. 

Mr. SHUSTER. When you say the ‘‘routing,’’ is that the map? 

Ms. STRANG. That would essentially be the route map issue, yes. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. And again, the President stands up almost 

weekly now and says that we are going to reduce regulations. I 

talked with Mr. Szabo a couple weeks ago. And the question I have 

to across the Administration is, do you guys get that message? 

I mean, do you hear what he is saying? Because, again, it is all 

across the Administration that the President stands up one day, 

and then you get the Secretary of Transportation, FRA, you got 

other agencies, EPA, coming with new rules and regulations that 

are, you know, a tremendous burden on business and, in this case, 

do not have the cost benefit analysis and, I might add—and I am 

going to go through a line of questioning later—that is going to 

take away from and possibly make it less safe out there, because 

we are not spending the money on various things. 

So, again, has it been clear, the message coming from the President, to Secretary LaHood and Mr. Szabo? 

Ms. STRANG. Yes. In fact, we had a public meeting March 14th, 

where the AAR and other organizations presented us with views on 

how we should do a retrospective look-back into all of the regulations, and they presented a list of regulations that they would like 

us to revisit. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. Thank you. They did not start the clock, so 

I do not know if I violated the 5-minute rule. So with that I will 

yield to the ranking member, and I am going to come around for 

a second round of questions. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, thank you. Before I get started with my 

questions, I have a little housekeeping that I need to get in order. 

Norfolk Southern, I have a question to you. It is pertaining to 

Carolina, the intercity passenger rail. There are some problems, or 

some rumors, which—I do not like rumors—that you all are holding up the agreement for North Carolina because of Illinois. And 

I want to know—I want a win with this intercity passenger rail, 

and I want to know when you all are going to sign it. But the FRA 

administrator agreed to have a meeting yesterday in Illinois. It was 

canceled. I was told that by the end of yesterday that I would get 

a call, letting me know when it is going to be rescheduled. 

I know most of you all do not know what I am talking about, but 

those two do know. And can you all answer my questions? 

Mr. MANION. Congresswoman Brown, I would be pleased to. First 

of all, as far as the canceling of that meeting, I do not believe we 

had anything to do with that. We are ready, willing, and able to 

39 

discuss the project in North Carolina. It has got a lot of good public 

benefit to it. The project in Illinois, specifically at Englewood, outside of Chicago, has got a lot of benefit to it, from a public standpoint and from a rail standpoint—— 

Ms. BROWN. And I toured it. I know exactly what you are talking 

about. 

Mr. MANION. Absolutely. And so we are ready to negotiate, and 

we would like to conclude both of those deals, both of those 

projects, and we will be present at the next meeting, as scheduled. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. I need a win. Yes, ma’am? 

Ms. STRANG. I am sorry, I am not authorized to—— 

Ms. BROWN. Can you take a message back? 

Ms. STRANG. I absolutely will. 

Ms. BROWN. All right, all right. I want an answer today. I was 

told that I would get the answer by yesterday when the meeting 

was going to be rescheduled. I need that answer today. And my 

flight leaves at 8:00, so that gives you all day long. From FRA— 

you all are the ones that are supposedly scheduling the meeting. 

You understand what I am saying. 

Ms. STRANG. Yes, I do. 

Ms. BROWN. And no one is confused. Let me go on to the questioning. 

Ms. STRANG. Sure. 

[Following are supplementary remarks submitted by Ms. Strang 

after the hearing:] 

FRA worked collaboratively with the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the North Carolina Railroad, 

and Amtrak to develop an agreement with the Norfolk 

Southern Railway (NS) facilitating the construction of improvements on the Piedmont corridor between Raleigh and 

Charlotte, supported by $520 million in funds from the 

American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009. This 

process concluded on March 21, 2011, after months of negotiation to reach an agreement that protected both the 

passenger rail investments and preserved the capacity for 

freight operations on the corridor. FRA continues to work 

with NS and the State of Illinois to develop a similar 

agreement to facilitate a $133 million project in Chicago to 

construct a railroad-to-railroad overpass between Metra 

commuter tracks and the shared NS and Amtrak corridor. 

Ms. BROWN. I guess I am going to start with—I am concerned 

about the loan program, and why is it that we authorize it, we 

funded it, you have awarded funds—this is FRA—but no one has 

received any of those funds, and there are programs that need the 

funds so they can implement the safety controls on those particular 

lines. 

Ms. STRANG. For the RRIF loan program? 

Ms. BROWN. No, ma’am, not the RRIF loan. 

Ms. STRANG. Oh, the technology—— 

Ms. BROWN. The grants. 

Ms. STRANG. OK. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. 

40 

Ms. STRANG. We have awarded the $50 million in technology 

grants that we had for 2010. We do not have a future grant program envisioned for 2011. It was rescinded in the House version of 

the appropriations. We do have a request for it in our 2012 budget 

request. 

Ms. BROWN. I understand. But no one has received any of the 

funds. 

Ms. STRANG. The money has all been obligated. 

Ms. BROWN. It has been obligated? 

Ms. STRANG. Yes, it has. And, in fact, several of the grant recipients are here. 

Ms. BROWN. Right, but they have not gotten the money. It is just 

like the money is in the bank, but it—— 

Ms. STRANG. It has been obligated. So I can try to find out where 

the hold-up is. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. 

Ms. STRANG. I do know that some of the grant recipients have 

received their funds. But I will check and make sure that I get 

back to you. 

Ms. BROWN. And let us be clear. Because the House passed something does not mean that the Senate is going to take it up, or the 

President. But it does not mean that the President is going to sign 

it. 

Ms. STRANG. I understand. 

[Following are supplementary remarks submitted by Ms. Strang 

after the hearing:] 

Of the $50 million that FRA received in fiscal year 2010 

for railroad safety technology grants, FRA has obligated 

approximately $49.3 million to date. Approximately 

$87,000 was not awarded. All FRA grants are awarded on 

a reimbursable basis. This means that once FRA has obligated funds for the grantee, the grantee has the ability to 

spend against those funds immediately. It is the responsibility of the grantee to submit evidence to FRA of its 

spending (i.e., invoices) for review. Once FRA determines 

that the costs are appropriate and in line with the grant 

agreement, FRA will approve the funding, and the accounting system will issue an electronic payment directly 

into the grantee’s specified account. 

Ms. BROWN. All right. And I want another round, because I did 

not get a chance to ask my questions. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. We will definitely give you another round. 

Ms. BROWN. All right. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And I will tack on that 30 seconds you saved. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. No one on my side. So, Mrs. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

both for your tireless efforts on the Rail Safety Improvement Act. 

Critical in my district. We have 160 trains a day going through 

my district now, and 14,000 containers going through my—many of 

them carrying hazardous material. And they transport $400 billion 

of trade through the rest of the Nation. So, to me, it is critical, because it is going to increase. And I will have 1 train every 10 minVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:37 Oct 28, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\RR\3-17-1~1\65481.TXT JEAN
41 

utes going through my whole district. So you understand why I 

have great interest in the safety aspect of this. 

The Rail Safety Act did not solve my State regulatory issues, but 

that is another issue for another time. But the views and estimates 

drafted by the Majority, as has been pointed out, were approved by 

this committee yesterday, but opposed the proposed increase in 

funding and staffing for FRA included in the President’s budget. 

What impact would this have on the safety program? 

And then the second question to the Administration is, can FRA 

shift personnel to accomplish if the cuts remain? 

Ms. STRANG. I am sorry, ma’am, I am not sure I understand your 

question. Is the question about our 2012 budget request? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. No, this is about—— 

Ms. STRANG. 2011? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO [continuing]. Estimates drafted. We approved, 

this committee approved cuts to the specific area of assistance that 

we have been talking about, the—— 

Ms. STRANG. Right. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And also the 2010 leftover will also be removed. 

Ms. STRANG. OK. The 2010 grant program has been fully obligated, so there is no leftover to be removed. 

On the 2011 request for the grant program, FRA will not have 

a negative consequence of the grant program being removed, in 

terms of our personnel. If our funding level remains adequate so 

that we can continue to support the development of positive train 

control, which is a resource-intensive effort—it requires a lot of 

technical expertise and the ability to test and certify the positive 

train control systems, so that we know that they are safe. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, we can go to that later. But there is another question that I have for some of the railroad folks. And I 

looked at the charts that Mr. Gallegly earlier, in regard to the use 

of texting, et cetera. 

But in California, if I remember correctly, several years ago I got 

into the issue with the California Public Utilities Commission that 

they were not being given the report on accidents in the yard. So, 

in other words, it was only accidents that were outside of the yard, 

the locomotive yards. And to me, that would skew the number of 

accidents, because those accidents are also reportable, or should be 

reportable, to be able to have a better feeling as to where we can 

begin to work with the Administration and the railroads in addressing those issues. 

Mr. MANION. Congresswoman Napolitano, I presume you are referring to accidents that are caused by some kind of electronic cell 

phone usage, or something like that? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. No, no, no. I am talking about any accidents, 

any accidents within the rail yard. The California Public Utilities 

Commission, up to a couple years ago, had no idea how many of 

them were in the yard, whether it is human error, infrastructure, 

whatever. 

Mr. MANION. Yes. We report according to the dollar threshold of 

the accident. 

Now, the fact of the matter is that, just by the nature of it, accidents within yards are frequently less expensive than accidents out 

42 

on the main line. But we report equally, whether it is a yard accident or whether it is a main line accident. We report those to the 

FRA, according to the threshold. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Do you report those to the State entities, also? 

Mr. MANION. That is correct. Where we are required to do so, we 

would—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. As of when, sir? 

Mr. MANION. Pardon me? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. As of when? Has it been a standing order, regulation? 

Mr. MANION. This is—there has been—as far as our reporting 

procedures go, I am not familiar with any change. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would like to ask Mr. Pierce if he has any 

comment on this. 

Mr. PIERCE. On the reporting itself, or—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PIERCE. As far as we know, the reporting are dollar threshold-based, and they are equal on the main line and in the yard—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Hamberger? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I would just offer that whatever is reported to 

the FRA is public. So there is no hiding the ball here. I do not 

know what the requirement is in California. And Mr. Manion here 

operates out of Norfolk, Virginia. So—but whatever is reported to 

the FRA is public, and I am sure is—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would go a second 

round, please. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. 

Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome. You know, 

I represent a district that has a lot of lines and a lot of everything, 

trucks—so I am a big proponent of putting a lot of the merchandise 

on rail, so we can get the trucks off the road. And I have been a 

proponent for many years. 

And I am very interested in the safety, especially when it comes 

to commuter rail. You know, we have had a number of accidents 

in my district. And I was just wondering, Mr. Manion, and you 

made a statement before that this has been the safest year on 

record, in terms of rail. Can you give me a—what do you give that 

credit to? What do you attribute it to? 

Mr. MANION. You know, I credit it to a number of things. One 

is we have—the rail industry in general has a relentless pursuit of 

reducing injuries and reducing accidents. And it is something that 

is ingrained in the culture of the industry. So, from the standpoint 

of training and education with our employees, that is where we 

spend a tremendous amount of time. 

And then, in addition to that, there is a lot of emphasis placed 

on improved technology, which also helps with regard to reducing 

accidents and injuries. 

Mr. SIRES. Has that suffered because of the downturn in the 

economy? You know, have you made any cutbacks or anything on 

that, you know—— 

Mr. MANION. With respect to 2010, we thankfully saw some very 

nice improved volumes. And 2010’s performance was the result of 

just continued emphasis on reducing accidents and injuries. 

43 

Mr. SIRES. Can somebody tell me if PTC is used in other countries? You know, how effective is it in other countries? 

Mr. VICTOR. Yes, I can. It has been in effect in Panama since 

about 2005. And in 2007, representatives of the FRA went to Panama to take a look at that system. That is the only one that is 

PTC-based. 

Mr. SIRES. I rode the AVE Train in Spain from Madrid to Barcelona. And they told me they had these monitors on—they actually took us to the cockpit, and they actually had these monitors 

on the rail, in the middle, which works with the computer, I guess, 

in the cockpit. And if a train is coming toward the train, it automatically slows this train down. Is that what—you know, the technology, is that something similar? 

Mr. VICTOR. It would be similar. That is a transponder-based 

technology. The one in Panama is GPS-based. 

Mr. SIRES. There are sensors in the track. 

Mr. VICTOR. Yes. The transponder one is track-based. The one in 

Panama is GPS-based. Together with track sensors, a critical— 

parts. 

Mr. SIRES. OK. Mr. Manion? 

Mr. MANION. Congressman Sires, if I might add to that, in Europe, as you say, they do use technology that involves transponders. Specifically it is something that they refer to as close-gap 

wireless communications. And in their environment, where the 

shorter, lighter, faster, shorter distance trains—that is the technology that works for them. 

When we are looking at employing PTC on thousands of miles, 

perhaps as much as 75,000 miles of tracks, that is not feasible to 

use that same type of technology. It is not going to work in the 

U.S. environment. One of the primary reasons it is not going to 

work is because you have got all of these individual little components scattered through your railroad track. And anything that 

goes through there, including our maintenance gangs, our production work, are going to damage those components, those transponders, and all those pieces of equipment that are scattered out 

along the railroad track. 

So, in our case, what we are having to do—and this is one of the 

big challenges for employing PTC throughout the U.S.—we have to 

use wireless communication instead of transponders. Employing 

wireless communication over the size network we have got, and 

doing it in an interoperable way, where railroads have to be able 

to communicate with other railroads, where we have to be able to 

communicate with not only our own dispatching centers, but other 

railroads’ dispatching centers, that type of widespread wireless 

communication has never been accomplished in this country or successfully in Europe. So this is one of the big challenges we have. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you very much. I also want to thank you— 

without a question, without a complaint, you respond pretty good. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Sorry about that. I am having a rough day. I got 

a cold, if nobody has noticed, so—but I bumped the gavel, I did not 

gavel you down. 

My question is—we will go to the second round of questions, it 

sounds like everybody wants a second crack. 

44 

Ms. BROWN. A third—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. We may get that, too, Ms. Brown. 

To the extent that the mandate to implement PTC—how has that 

diverted—and this is to Mr. Manion, Mr. Giulietti, and Mr. Victor—has it diverted you away from other safety technologies that 

could be implemented that we could see a cost benefit that is going 

to save—because the focus here is we certainly want to be as safe 

as possible. But if we are mandating $13 billion, what is it going 

to take away from? And can you be specific about that in—start 

with you Mr. Manion. 

Mr. MANION. Well, when we are looking at $13-give-or-take billion, we feel like we could spend less money more wisely in other 

ways. And the fact is there are a—there is a myriad of technologies 

out there that we would like to continue to pursue, or further develop. You saw evidence of some of this on the video that we looked 

at with TTCI. 

There are things we can do on the rail car side, for example, as 

far as improving design of rail equipment, specifically tank cars. 

There is all sorts of detector technologies, detectors, for example, 

that find problems with rail wheels, problems with the axels, problems with the trucks that are centered under the cars. There is all 

kinds of track-related issues that we have to work on. And we have 

testing equipment, we have geometry cars. We do all those things. 

But we can intensify those efforts with more spending. 

One of the really significant areas that the railroad industry has 

is finding flaws in rail before they become accidents or incidents. 

Rail, broken rails, are a significant thing, and have been for years. 

And we do all sorts of testing in order to find problems before they 

occur. But we need more development. We need to put more into 

rail testing, in order to get further ahead of that. 

And the fact of the matter is, Congressman Shuster, if you take 

these issues that involve track-related accidents, and issues that 

involve car, rail car-related accidents, all that comprises 60 percent 

of the accidents we have; 60 percent are related to those 2 things. 

That is where we would like to focus the dollars we spend. As troublesome and problematic as the PTC-related accidents can be, they 

only represent 4 percent of the accidents that take place. 

Mr. SHUSTER. So you can save lives and damage to—— 

Mr. MANION. That is correct. The fact is those 60 percent of accidents, they result in a lot of damage and injury and worse. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Giulietti? 

Mr. GIULIETTI. Thank you, Chairman. I would like to answer it 

in two ways. One, because of the fact of the funding and the situation that we are in, waiting for an extension, several of our properties have had to lock down their capital budgets and change what 

was already in capital programs to go forward. 

Some quick examples, Northern Indiana, who was supposed to go 

into changing out their base rail to 100-pound rail, they have got 

25 miles they cannot go ahead with. Metro North cannot do a 

change shed, they are looking at renovations of their electrical substations that cannot be done if they have to go and dedicate the 

funds now. Long Island Railroad has tracks and bridge upgrades 

that were supposed to be done that are being deferred. We have 

the same thing going on with APTA, and their state of good repair. 

45 

And for some of us, the situation and the request for the 2018 

extension is because they already have cab signals in place, and 

they have a safety network that is in place, where others of us are 

not in that same situation, and that is why we are all behind the 

PTC, but you can understand, in order to accomplish this, what has 

to be done or deferred in order to meet that. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. Mr. Victor? 

Mr. VICTOR. Within the short line world we have and stand together with our friends at APTA, where we operate over commuter 

lines. And, really, we are absolutely in a parallel universe. And our 

ability to pay, considering the size of our operations is equally difficult for us to contemplate, as I stated before, with 92 percent of 

our capital budget for PTC for a year. 

More broadly speaking, for the short line industry as a whole, it 

becomes equally burdensome, considering the density levels and 

sizes of our operations, typically, across the U.S. rail network. So 

we certainly have the same concerns and issues that the commuter 

agencies will have, as well as companies of our size trying to cope 

with this in lieu of more critical investments in equipment and infrastructure. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. My 5 minutes have expired, so I will 

yield to the—— 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. We are probably going to go a third round. I am 

pretty sure of—— 

Ms. BROWN. OK. I am going to start with Mr. Manion, but then 

I will go to Mr. Pierce. But this question is for the entire panel. 

There are hundreds of FRA-reported incidents on the major railroad lines since 2010, many of which were trains that passed stop 

signals. Any one of them could result in serious accidents. Now, 

when we had the accident in California and South Carolina, the 

House and the Senate both dealt with PTC. We pulled together a 

bill. All of you all came together and supported it. Now it seems 

like you have a change in heart. 

What would you do differently, or what would you do equally, 

that would protect the passengers, workers, and the public from 

human failures? What would you do? Because you all had the opportunity to come to the table prior to us passing the bill. We 

passed this bill with your support, and now, you know just like everything else, you know, we want to change. 

Mr. MANION. Well, Congresswoman Brown, you know, we equally 

are concerned about the devastating accidents that can happen as 

a result of passing red signals. And as I stated in my opening comments, our position is that we are not opposed to PTC with respect 

to our lines that have got passenger train—— 

Ms. BROWN. You are talking about the technology, though. You 

said that the technology is not there, and there are other things 

that you could do, other technology—— 

Mr. MANION. That is right, that is right. And a couple of 

those—— 

Ms. BROWN. That would be equal to? 

Mr. MANION. Yes. A couple of those things are this. We can operate in a manner where we provide what we will call temporal separation, where we keep a safety buffer zone ahead of and behind the 

46 

passenger trains being operated. And, in fact, on Norfolk Southern 

we employ some of that now, where we have what we call—separated by signals, we keep a full block ahead and a full block behind 

passenger trains on some of our lines, not all of our lines. 

In addition to that, the other technologies that I was speaking 

to earlier with regard to approving technology, as far as the railroad track itself and the rail, and the technologies that detect problems with the equipment, those are some of the most significant 

things we can do to prevent accidents. 

So, the reality of it is those accidents caused by going by red signals are a smaller portion of the accidents taking place. And while 

we want to work on those also, we want to work on the 60 percent 

piece that are the bigger part of the accidents taking place. And if 

I may, just very quickly, we work very hard on reducing the number of incidents that take place where trains go by a red signal. 

That is through education. That is training. That is getting our 

people to focus and be alert. 

And I can say—and I say this with some pride—speaking for 

Norfolk Southern, because I am obviously most familiar with our 

statistics, we have dramatically reduced those number of incidents. 

Over the last 4 years we reduced our incidents by about one-half. 

And we were the industry leader at that point. So we take it extremely seriously. Thank you for your question. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Pierce? 

Mr. PIERCE. [No response.] 

Ms. BROWN. Did you get the question? 

Mr. PIERCE. I am not sure which part of it you are pointing at 

me. 

Ms. BROWN. Do you think that other things, other than the—that 

can be implemented, other than the PTC, that would have safety 

equivalent? 

Mr. PIERCE. OK. There are open switchpoint technologies available in non-signaled dark territory that we have been advocating 

for years. The accident at Graniteville would have been avoided 

with such technology. 

When it comes to the actual violations, we are equally concerned 

whenever a violation occurs. As you said, any time an authority or 

red signal violation occurs, it is that close to an accident. Remedial 

training, when it gets into operator error or involvement of the employees, we advocate for that. But many times the employee is just 

terminated, and a new employee is hired. So there is no learning 

experience from the event. 

So there are steps that we would like to take to try to make improvements in those safety numbers. But PTC is the one that 

would prevent people from leaving their authority and having these 

accidents, in our opinion. 

Ms. BROWN. So, when you try to negotiate or discuss some of 

those things that the workers would recommend, what happens? 

Mr. PIERCE. It varies, railroad by railroad, as to how those are 

greeted. Each railroad handles that side of it differently. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Hamberger, aren’t you the center of the railroad? 

[Laughter.] 

47 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I happen to be sitting at the center of the desk 

here, but I would not call myself the center of the railroad. I am 

not quite sure what you are—— 

Ms. BROWN. Well, I am trying to say what can we do, working 

together, all stakeholders, we all—I hope all of the goals are the 

same. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, ma’am. Yes. I would like to correct a 

misimpression that I think you may have. We are not here asking 

for changes in the regulation—in the statute. We are here talking 

about the lawsuit that we filed, and that has now been held in 

abeyance because of the agreement for new regulations with the 

FRA. We believe that the FRA went beyond the statute, and that 

was our concern. 

We are also drawing attention here today, as you take a look at 

new legislation, that you might want to take a look at not just 

PTC-preventable accidents, but when you look at the entire risk 

profile, using an accidental release of a TIH tank car, for example, 

there are other ways that you can reduce that risk profile in a 

much more predictable way, and a much safer way, and reduce 

that profile more than you can with PTC. 

And that is what we are just drawing to your attention today. 

It is something you might want to take a look at, as you take a 

look at this new bill. Should we take a look at not just PTC, but 

instead of that, take a look at how we can reduce the risk of an 

accidental release from a TIH tank car, and take a look at the 

whole panoply of technologies that are out there, and not mandate 

just—say it has to be PTC. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Go ahead. 

Ms. BROWN. Just 30 more seconds. What I am saying—I hear 

what you are saying, but are you hearing what I am saying? Because when you all discuss it, then all of the players should be in 

the room. Because I think the workers can give you some recommendations that it would be equivalent, it would be safety 

across the board. And I think it makes sense. 

I want the railroads to make money. But, most important, I want 

it to be safe for our communities. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Manion, go ahead—— 

Mr. MANION. Congresswoman Brown, I would just add that one 

of the great things about this is that we work closely with our employees in the BLE and the UTU, our conductors and our locomotive engineers. 

One case in point, not to drag it out, we have what is called stop 

signal committees. And they are all over the railroad. And this is 

management and the labor organizations working together in order 

to find ways to reduce the number of accidents that result from violating those stop signals. It is very much a team effort. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Manion. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. We are going to do a third round, I think—— 

Ms. BROWN. OK, thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER [continuing]. I have a couple more questions. Mrs. 

Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am glad to 

hear that, because I know a few years ago in the hearing with state 

48 

senators and the assembly and myself, it was indicated to us that 

the training given employees was a CD and a booklet. And hopefully things have changed since then. And I am hoping that this 

is—translates to a better safety process within the industry. 

Chairman Young was in the office recently, and I need to thank 

them, because they have invested in a lot of infrastructure in the 

Alameda Corridor east, which was long overdue, since it is going 

to have an increase in traffic to bring those goods to the rest of the 

Nation. The new rails, the long, long, long, long rail and the new 

cross ties apparently made quite a bit of difference. However, there 

is not enough being invested by railroads in the great separation 

cost. 

And that, to me, is a great issue, because this would help the ontime delivery to the rest of the Nation. I am hoping that we begin 

to look at how do we increase that participation, not just 3 percent, 

but hopefully more than that, and the other 2 percent in kind. That 

would be helpful, especially since the Class I railroads had been 

able to garner $12.1 billion in revenues, and they are doing well. 

Hopefully they can invest some of that into the new system that 

we are talking about. 

There is a lot of issues that come to mind. The cracked wheel on 

your video was reminding me of the hairline crack in the joints 

with the epoxy that caused a derailment in my city of Whittier a 

few years back. And that, I believe, went to a safer process of welding those rails, rather than just providing the epoxy. 

And to our young lady, Ms. Strang, yesterday the Administration’s proposal of $223 million—this is on page 19 of the cost estimates provided to this committee—$223 million for the FRA safety 

and operations, representing an increase of personnel to do all of 

the above of regional safety inspectors, headquarters, and regulatory safety staff, et cetera, et cetera. Committee strongly opposed 

out-of-control growth in government and bureaucracies and rejected 

the proposal. So you need to acquaint yourself that this is now part 

of what is being proposed for this current bill. 

So, to any of you, what can help us translate to our constituency—because that is who we need to protect—that the railroads 

are not just interested in making money, but are interested in providing safety processes, including worker safety of the employees? 

How do we translate that to telling our constituency? Go for it. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, I am going to defer to Mr. Manion to go 

into a little bit more detail about the culture of this industry, and 

of his company. But you mentioned $12 billion, and let me correct 

you. That is not the revenue of the industry. That is the capital expenditure this industry is putting back into its infrastructure. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Oh, good. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. And that is almost—about 20 percent of every 

revenue dollar goes back into capital expenditures, another 20 percent back into maintenance. And I did not have a chance to answer 

Mr. Sires’s question about why is the accident rate going down. 

The accident rate is going down in no small part because the rail 

is better, the engine—locomotives are better, the signaling systems 

are better. And that is because we have not been sitting on the 

sideline, but we have, in fact, been doing what the President has 

49 

asked corporate America to do, get back in the game, creating 

American jobs, and that is what we have been doing. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for the correction. You are right. 

It was my fault, I misquoted it. 

And so, how—when was the last time you invested in such an 

amount? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. That is a record amount, as far as percentages. 

For the past decade it has been about 17 percent of all revenue 

back into CAPEX. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Good. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. About 20 percent back into maintenance. Last 

year, and in 2009, in the depths of the recession, the top 3 years 

on record prior to 2011 were 2008, 2009, and 2010, in the middle 

of a recession. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And is there any estimate on how some of the 

investment of the $12.1 billion might be into the area of the—this 

process we are talking about? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I have indeed had a chance to go through the 

announcements by the individual railroads. And the number that 

springs to mind is that $960 million of the 2011 capital expenditures would be for positive train control. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. And just to clarify, is 17 percent— 

what you have been averaging, you are almost 20 percent this 

year—is that the highest of any industry? In the utilities we invest 

quite a bit of the revenue, but I do not think it is as high as yours. 

Is that accurate? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. That is our read, yes, sir. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The highest—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. It is five times higher than the average manufacturing industry—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. 

Mr. HAMBERGER [continuing]. In the country. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. Other problems that I think we have 

talked a little bit about here today with PTC, one is the spectrum 

issue. It is my understanding that the Class I’s have purchased a 

big chunk of spectrum already. Is that—you can answer that in 

just a second. 

But the spectrum—Mr. Giulietti, you can talk a little bit about 

that, but I want to also point out to you that this committee does 

not determine what is going to happen with the spectrum, it is the 

Energy and Commerce Committee. We would be happy to take that 

away from them, but I think Fred Upton might have something to 

say about that. 

But could you talk a little bit about the spectrum issue? 

And then the next thing I want to follow up with is the interoperability. What is happening there? What are the problems 

with—would you talk—I guess spectrum and interoperability probably go sort of hand in hand. 

But, Mr. Giulietti, why don’t you start with the spectrum? 

Mr. GIULIETTI. The spectrum issue actually comes down to— 

there is two concerns with it. One is that it is not readily available. 

There is many of our systems, particularly in the dense populated 

areas, that cannot get this spectrum. There is—some of our sysVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:37 Oct 28, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\RR\3-17-1~1\65481.TXT JEAN
50 

tems have had applications for over a year with the FCC, waiting 

for some spectrum. 

And we are also in a terrible position because—and that is why 

the request for the FCC—had they made available some of the 

spectrum that might be in the safety network, we would be able 

to go and move forward, particularly from a public purpose, because this, even though not put in from another committee, this is 

a safety mandate. And we truly wanted to push that message forward, that as a safety mandate, we would hope there would be support with the FCC to make access to the safety network and spectrum, so that we could all be there. 

In terms of the interoperability, a system like mine is going to 

be totally dependent on a freight railroad like CSX, and what they 

are able to procure, and to be able to make it work together. So 

that is why, when I say to you that we are hand in hand with this, 

though the freight railroads have had success in some areas, they 

also are dealing with the same issues of trying to get that spectrum, particularly in areas where the spectrum is already grabbed. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And are you working—is APTA working with the 

Energy and Commerce Committee? I do not know what your—— 

Mr. GIULIETTI. The answer would be yes, we have our petitions 

in, and there is a letter that is already in. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. Mr. Manion, can you talk about that 

spectrum issue? And is it accurate, that Class I’s have purchased 

a chunk and they have what they need? 

Mr. MANION. Congressman Shuster, yes, I would be glad to. The 

four Class I’s, the four major Class I’s, originally purchased spectrum, 220 megahertz spectrum, and it remains to be seen how 

much additional spectrum needs to be purchased. We are more 

than willing to share what we have. And we all recognize that, in 

the end, we all need—we need to have enough for everyone to operate, obviously those, in addition to the four Class I’s. 

So, as we move along—and this is one of the things that makes 

it necessary that we really be guarded about the timeline it takes 

to get all this done. How much spectrum is really going to be needed? And then, from an interoperable standpoint, how do we develop 

all that is necessary? How do we make sure that we have got all 

our technology in order to ensure that the interoperability actually 

works? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. 

Mr. MANION. We have got some great plans and ideas, but this 

is something that has not been done. So it puts this very much in 

question, as far as the timeline goes. 

Mr. SHUSTER. So we were wrong in the cost, we do not know how 

much spectrum we need, and the interoperability, we are not sure 

if it is even going to work when we put it together? 

Mr. MANION. I could not state it better. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Victor, question for you on the cost. Has anybody done a study on what it would cost the short lines to implement this? And I know not all of them necessarily have to do it. 

But has there ever been a study who would have to do it, what 

kind of cost? 

You made a remark that was 92 percent of your capital investment would have to go toward PTC. 

51 

Mr. VICTOR. Yes, 92 percent relates to the 4 roads in our group. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I am sorry, the what? 

Mr. VICTOR. Relates to the four railroads owned by Anacostia 

Rail Holdings in order to be PTC-compliant. And that estimate is 

based on two component parts: one, kind of the broader, freightbased system, which is GPS-based; and the other, to be compatible 

with the northeast corridor, since New York and Atlantic operates 

adjacent to what is northeast corridor territory. And we have a 

cost, really, for just arming locomotives. So in our cost is not the 

fixed network, it is just arming locomotives. 

Generally speaking, the figure outside of the northeast corridor is somewhere around $40,000 to $60,000 per unit. And, in addition, 

if you are going to install it on physical segments of short lines on 

top of that, you will have the cost associated with each physical 

point you would have to wire in. And by the time you get through, 

right now the CAPEX history of PTC expenditures for all short 

lines is roughly zero. I mean, in terms of cash out. 

But yet, the short lines, as an industry, across the board, excluding PTC, I just received a note that, industry wide, our CAPEX is 

running about 30 percent of gross revenue. So, we are heavily reinvesting in our properties, to make sure—and, again, getting back 

on focus, we have all the physical issues that have been discussed. 

But at the end of the day, going forward, in, really, in step with 

a lot of concerns is we need to go forward, but ultimately there has 

to be a source of funding to pay for it. 

Mr. SHUSTER. All right. Thank you. Ms. Brown? 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. Ms. Strang, you indicated earlier that 

we obligated all of the grant money program. Perhaps you need to 

go back and visit with the agency, because my understanding that 

only a half of it has been awarded, and no one has received the 

funds. And so we need an update. 

And I want to put it in the record, because I think this is very 

important. I mean we are talking—people are talking about calling 

money back, and we really need the money out in the fields, doing 

what we intended—for it to happen. 

Ms. STRANG. Yes, ma’am. I will get back to you for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

De-obligation of the grant funds would have a significant 

adverse impact on the resolution of known technical issues 

that have already been identified. As I indicated earlier, 

since the grant funds are only actually paid out as reimbursements in response to submitted invoices for grant 

work accomplished, there will be funds that were awarded, 

but not actually provided to the grantee. Loss of these 

funds would automatically preclude completion of the 

grant tasks, leaving critical technical issues unresolved. 

Since the grant projects were specifically chosen to address 

PTC technical issues shared by multiple railroads, the failure to complete the grant projects will affect the ability of 

multiple railroads to implement PTC in a timely manner, 

as well as further increase the overall PTC system implementation costs as individual railroads undertake independent and duplicative efforts to resolve the technical 

issues. 

52 

Ms. BROWN. OK. Let me move on. The RRIF loan program. Commuter railroads claim that—and this is probably with the RRIF 

loan program, I know that we had a hearing recently on it—and 

has any commuter or short line railroads approached FRA about 

applying for the loan program for the purpose of the PTC? 

Ms. STRANG. Yes. We have had pre-application discussions with 

four railroads, with Canadian Pacific, with Denton County, and we 

had some discussions with New York Metropolitan Transit Authority. However, they have recently decided that they did not want to 

pursue a loan for PTC. They were going to pursue it for the East 

Side Access project. 

Ms. BROWN. Can you give us a status of the retrofit of replacement camp cars? 

Ms. STRANG. Yes. We have issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that covers all of the retrofit issues on camp cars, so—including addressing issues such as drinking water, showers, toilets, 

sleeping rooms, placement of the cars so that they are not in noisy 

environments or dangerous environments, where people could be 

exposed to hazardous materials releases or other such things. 

The comment period closed on March 4th, and we will be issuing 

a final rule as quickly as we can. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Manion, do you want to respond to that? Because I think your railroad is the only one that still has camp cars. 

Mr. MANION. Congresswoman Brown, we still do have camp cars. 

In fact—— 

Ms. BROWN. And I understand the staff visited the very nice 

ones. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MANION. Well, and we appreciate you recognizing that. We 

have gone to a lot of expense to retrofit our camp cars. They have 

essentially all been rebuilt, with the exception of a handful. We 

have got almost 300 active units now, and where they were 8-person occupancy cars, they are now 4-person. 

And what we find is that our employees, for the most part—and 

we even take surveys on this type of thing—our employees prefer 

to stay in the cars, because it takes—it cuts down on a lot of what 

they would otherwise be traveling long distances to get to hotels 

when they are out on the road, and out in the middle of nowhere 

in many cases. So they work very successfully for us. We do not 

use them exclusively, but we do use them to a large degree. 

Ms. BROWN. OK. Mr. Pierce, do you want to respond to that? 

Mr. PIERCE. I would probably have to defer to my maintenance 

brothers, but the version that I get from them would vary from Mr. 

Manion’s comments slightly. And I am not sure they are that wild 

about the camp cars. 

Ms. BROWN. OK. Mr. Giulietti, I heard yesterday from Metrolink 

and Metro about your testimony here. They are concerned that you 

are taking the position of delaying the PTC. You want to respond 

to that? 

Mr. GIULIETTI. Yes, I would. We have 27 commuter rail properties, and they are all in various stages of trying to implement as 

many of the safety networks available. What has happened is we 

sat down, as a commuter rail industry, and we have been talking 

this. And that is why I think you heard in my testimony that we 

53 

are extremely supportive of the Metrolink, and would like to see 

any available Federal funds move there, because they are trying to 

not only meet the mandate, but to be more aggressive than that 

and get it in by 2012. 

We need them to be successful. Their success—because what we 

are afraid of is we do not want to be caught in a position of investing in unproved technology. We want them to prove that the technology will work. And that is why we are asking for a little bit of 

relief in time. We truly appreciate the position they are in. They 

are afraid that asking, as an industry, is going to take us out of 

the PTC request. As you have heard here, there is not a freight 

railroad or, for that matter, a public railroad that is asking for any 

relief from going forward with the PTC. It is a matter of trying to 

rationalize it and wait for the technology to get there. 

So, I would like to say that I understand their concern. We have 

listened to their concern. We are on the phone with them. We have 

tried to craft it out so that we are extremely supportive of them. 

But understand that we also have an industry issue, in that we 

cannot afford right now to make investments that might not go the 

right way. 

Ms. BROWN. My understanding they have received a grant but 

just have not gotten it yet for safety, to implement the program. 

Mr. GIULIETTI. I am being advised that that was State money, 

it was not Federal money that they had gotten to go forward. 

Ms. BROWN. OK. 

Mr. GIULIETTI. I do not know the answer, beyond that. 

Ms. BROWN. OK. Well, thank you very much. I think this has 

been a great hearing. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I have a couple more questions. Mr. Pierce, I wanted to get your opinion on PTC, and what is BLET’s position on 

PTC, and should we go forward, should we delay it? What are your 

thoughts? 

Mr. PIERCE. Thank you, Chairman. We have been advocating 

some form of positive train control for decades. Technology that 

would save a life—we heard a very compelling testimony from the 

child of one of the decedents in the Chatsworth accident, and it 

kind of puts this whole thing into context for me, that any time you 

can save a life—and technology could do that—we have to advocate 

that we get the technology. So, sooner than later is what we have 

been asking for. 

I have actually ridden the ETMS technology on BNSF. I think 

it is a very good product. I think it will prevent what we have discussed earlier with the exceeding the authority red signal violations. And in doing so, I think it will dramatically make it almost 

avoidable, would be the good word, as far as collisions that we are 

out here actually trying to stop. 

So, we are in favor of it. I know that there are discussions with 

FRA and the carriers on the when and the how—the how fast and 

who pays for it. We have been advocating it for years, and we are 

going to continue to. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, and I think everybody that sat here is not 

saying do not do it, they are saying let’s do it in a reasonable way 

that we do not take away from other safety issues. 

54 

Because, I mean, do you agree with what they had said about 

some of the safety in the rail—making sure that we are replacing 

rail, so it is not broken and cracked, and things like that? I mean, 

doesn’t that have an impact on—a significant impact on safety, 

where you are concerned? 

Mr. PIERCE. There are many aspects of the safety program, and 

it is obvious that it is all a finance issue. And I understand the 

prioritization of where they put the money. But at the same time, 

the dramatic outcome of the catastrophic event of a collision like 

Chatsworth I think kind of drives it toward having a higher priority, in our opinion. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. Question on a different subject—well, 

I guess the same subject, but—the de minimis exception for TIH 

traffic. What does AAR believe is a meaningful exception on that? 

Ed—or Mr. Hamberger or Mr. Manion? 

Mr. MANION. Well, the de minimis exception is something that 

we would like to see put in place, and we have had conversations 

with FRA about that. And, you know, it will be good if we can get 

to the point where allowance is made so that the various portions 

of the railroad that have much lighter density of TIH traffic will 

be accepted from the PTC requirement. 

But the larger issue is that that still represents, even if we get 

those kind of exceptions, even if we get the change on the map to 

a more extended period of time, that still only reduces the amount 

of PTC and the amount of cost by a relatively small amount, 20 

percent perhaps. So, in our estimation, there is a lot that needs to 

be done beyond that to take a more rational look at the scope of 

PTC that is put out. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. And to be fair, Mr. Chairman, the FRA did 

have a de minimis provision, both for passenger and for TIH—they 

did not call it de minimis for passenger—limited operations. And 

there were some restrictions in the rule with respect to TIH that 

we have been talking with the FRA about, and we will be addressing that in our petition, which I am told will be ready in about 3 

weeks. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Three weeks. Mr. Giulietti, I see you shaking your 

head. You want to comment on that exception? I know it is not—— 

Mr. GIULIETTI. Several of the passenger systems met with the 

AAR and the freight railroads. We understand their position on 

this. We have been very supportive of it. We understand that there 

needed to be an upgrading of that map, so that it indeed took that 

into consideration. 

The focus has been on where the passenger systems are, and 

that is why I wanted to say that, yes, I can say that we are very 

supportive on that issue, because it does require—or it does put it 

in a position that they can focus on those areas where the passenger side of it is much more the pressing need. 

Mr. SHUSTER. All right. Thank you very much. And I would ask 

that Mr. Manion and Mr. Giulietti and Mr. Victor—that is a good 

Irish name, isn’t it, Giulietti, it is fitting on Saint Patrick’s Day—— 

Mr. GIULIETTI. My mother’s name is Moran. I would have worn 

a green tie, but you know—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. I would ask that the three representing—Mr. 

Manion, Mr. Giulietti, and Mr. Victor, if you could, supply to the 

55 

committee a detailed safety implementation—things that you are— 

that you believe would add safety to the railroad, to your operations. As we talked a little bit about before, the more detail I get, 

the more specifics—I prefer to have specifics, because you know, 

talking about broad safety issues does not usually cut it around 

here. 

The other thing is safety projects that are being delayed because 

of PTC. You know, not something that 5 years ago you delayed, but 

something that you specifically said, ‘‘Look, we are not going forward with this, because we have got to put money in the bank to 

make sure we are prepared, as we move forward,’’ I would appreciate if you could, in the next week or so, provide that to the committee. 

And, Ms. Strang, I would urge you to listen to what the President is saying. We are going to reduce regulation, regulation that 

is—does not have a cost benefit, that is stopping companies—railroads, in this case—from spending money on things that would 

have an impact on safety and moving forward. I would encourage 

you to heed the President’s word. Every time he says it, I perk up 

and listen to him. And then I wait for another regulatory agency 

to come forward with some type of regulation that is going to cost 

money and jobs and stop this economy from moving forward. 

And, Ms. Strang, I will give you the final word if you want to 

respond to me. 

Ms. STRANG. I would be delighted to. We are very committed to 

reviewing our regulations and being consistent with the President’s 

Executive order. We have had very good discussions with the AAR, 

and believe that we can find a way forward that is acceptable, both 

to the public and to the railroads, and is consistent with safety. 

So, we will be working hard on our notices of proposed rulemaking and awaiting a petition. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I would just like you remind you that Mr. Sunstein 

made this the poster child—— 

Ms. STRANG. We are very well aware. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. Just wanted to remind you. All right. Again, 

I thank everybody for coming today and participating. I thought I 

lost my gavel again, but thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

56 


Insert offset folio 21 here 65481.021
57 


Insert offset folio 22 here 65481.022
58 


Insert offset folio 23 here 65481.023
59 


Insert offset folio 24 here 65481.024
60 


Insert offset folio 25 here 65481.025
61 


Insert offset folio 26 here 65481.026
62 


Insert offset folio 27 here 65481.027
63 


Insert offset folio 28 here 65481.028
64 


Insert offset folio 29 here 65481.029
65 


Insert offset folio 30 here 65481.030
66 


Insert offset folio 31 here 65481.031
67 


Insert offset folio 32 here 65481.032
68 


Insert offset folio 33 here 65481.033
69 


Insert offset folio 34 here 65481.034
70 


Insert offset folio 35 here 65481.035
71 


Insert offset folio 36 here 65481.036
72 


Insert offset folio 37 here 65481.037
73 


Insert offset folio 38 here 65481.038
74 


Insert offset folio 39 here 65481.039
75 


Insert offset folio 40 here 65481.040
76 


Insert offset folio 41 here 65481.041
77 


Insert offset folio 42 here 65481.042
78 


Insert offset folio 43 here 65481.043
79 


Insert offset folio 44 here 65481.044
80 


Insert offset folio 45 here 65481.045
81 


Insert offset folio 46 here 65481.046
82 


Insert offset folio 47 here 65481.047
83 


Insert offset folio 48 here 65481.048
84 


Insert offset folio 49 here 65481.049
85 


Insert offset folio 50 here 65481.050
86 


Insert offset folio 51 here 65481.051
87 


Insert offset folio 52 here 65481.052
88 


Insert offset folio 53 here 65481.053
89 


Insert offset folio 54 here 65481.054
90 


Insert offset folio 55 here 65481.055
91 


Insert offset folio 56 here 65481.056
92 


Insert offset folio 57 here 65481.057
93 


Insert offset folio 58 here 65481.058
94 


Insert offset folio 59 here 65481.059
95 


Insert offset folio 60 here 65481.060
96 


Insert offset folio 61 here 65481.061
97 


Insert offset folio 62 here 65481.062
98 


Insert offset folio 63 here 65481.063
99 


Insert offset folio 64 here 65481.064
100 


Insert offset folio 65 here 65481.065
101 


Insert offset folio 66 here 65481.066
102 


Insert offset folio 67 here 65481.067
103 


Insert offset folio 68 here 65481.068
104 


Insert offset folio 69 here 65481.069
105 


Insert offset folio 70 here 65481.070
106 


Insert offset folio 71 here 65481.071
107 


Insert offset folio 72 here 65481.072
108 


Insert offset folio 73 here 65481.073
109 


Insert offset folio 74 here 65481.074
110 


Insert offset folio 75 here 65481.075
111 


Insert offset folio 76 here 65481.076
112 


Insert offset folio 77 here 65481.077
113 


Insert offset folio 78 here 65481.078
114 


Insert offset folio 79 here 65481.079
115 


Insert offset folio 80 here 65481.080
116 


Insert offset folio 81 here 65481.081
117 


Insert offset folio 82 here 65481.082
118 


Insert offset folio 83 here 65481.083
119 


Insert offset folio 84 here 65481.084
120 


Insert offset folio 85 here 65481.085
121 


Insert offset folio 86 here 65481.086
122 


Insert offset folio 87 here 65481.087
123 


Insert offset folio 88 here 65481.088
124 


Insert offset folio 89 here 65481.089
125 


Insert offset folio 90 here 65481.090
126 


Insert offset folio 91 here 65481.091
127 


Insert offset folio 92 here 65481.092
128 


Insert offset folio 93 here 65481.093
129 


Insert offset folio 94 here 65481.094
130 


Insert offset folio 95 here 65481.095
131 


Insert offset folio 96 here 65481.096
132 


Insert offset folio 97 here 65481.097
133 


Insert offset folio 98 here 65481.098
134 


Insert offset folio 99 here 65481.099
135 


Insert offset folio 100 here 65481.100
136 


Insert offset folio 101 here 65481.101
137 


Insert offset folio 102 here 65481.102
138 


Insert offset folio 103 here 65481.103
139 


Insert offset folio 104 here 65481.104
140 


Insert offset folio 105 here 65481.105
141 


Insert offset folio 106 here 65481.106
142 


Insert offset folio 107 here 65481.107
143 


Insert offset folio 108 here 65481.108
144 


Insert offset folio 109 here 65481.109
145 


Insert offset folio 110 here 65481.110
146 


Insert offset folio 111 here 65481.111
147 


Insert offset folio 112 here 65481.112
148 


Insert offset folio 113 here 65481.113
149 


Insert offset folio 114 here 65481.114
150 


Insert offset folio 115 here 65481.115
151 


Insert offset folio 116 here 65481.116
152 


Insert offset folio 117 here 65481.117
153 


Insert offset folio 118 here 65481.118
154 


Insert offset folio 119 here 65481.119
155 


Insert offset folio 120 here 65481.120
156 


Insert offset folio 121 here 65481.121
157 


Insert offset folio 122 here 65481.122
158 


Insert offset folio 123 here 65481.123
159 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 124 here 65481.124