Positive Train Control: Most Passenger Railroads Expect to Request an Extension and Substantial Work Remains Beyond 2018
Released: 2018-10-03T00:00:00

Letter

Background

PTC systems are required by law to prevent certain types of accidents or incidents. In particular, a PTC system must be designed to prevent train- to-train collisions, derailments due to excessive speed, incursions into work zone limits, and the movement of a train through a switch left in the wrong position. While railroads may implement any PTC system that meets these requirements, the majority of passenger railroads are implementing one of four types of systems. PTC’s intended safety benefits can be fully achieved nationwide when all required railroads have successfully installed PTC components, tested that these components work together and the systems function as designed, and are interoperable with other host and tenant railroads’ PTC systems that share track. Interoperability means the locomotives of any host railroad and tenant railroad operating over the same track segment will communicate with and respond to the PTC system, allowing uninterrupted movements over property boundaries. Interoperability is critical to PTC functioning properly given the complexity of the rail network in the United States. In much of the country, Class I freight railroads function as hosts for Amtrak and commuter railroads. For example, one of the seven major Class I freight railroads reports that 24 tenant railroads operate over its PTC-equipped tracks, including freight, Amtrak, and commuter railroads. A notable exception to this is the Northeast Corridor, which runs from Washington, D.C., to Boston, Massachusetts, which Amtrak predominantly owns and over which six freight and seven commuter railroads operate as tenants.

PTC implementation involves multiple stages to achieve full implementation, including planning and system development, equipment installation and testing, system certification, and full deployment, including interoperability. Each railroad must develop an FRA-approved PTC implementation plan that includes project schedules and milestones for certain activities, such as equipment installation. The equipment installation stage involves many components, including communication systems; hardware on locomotives and along the side of the track (called “wayside equipment”); and software in centralized office locations as well as onboard the train and along the track. Each railroad is required to report quarterly and annually to FRA on its PTC implementation status relative to its implementation plan. A railroad can also revise its implementation plan to reflect changes to the project, which then must be reviewed and approved by FRA.

In addition, railroads must demonstrate that the PTC systems are deployed safely and meet functional requirements through multiple stages of testing. Before initiating testing on the general rail system, railroads must submit a formal test request for FRA approval that includes, among other things, the specific test procedures, dates and locations for testing, and the effect the tests will have on current operations. The multiple stages of PTC testing include:

Laboratory testing: locomotive and wayside equipment testing in a lab environment to verify that individual components function as designed.

Field testing: includes several different tests of individual components and the overall system, such as testing of each locomotive type to verify that it meets functional requirements and field integration testing—a key implementation milestone to verify that each PTC component is integrated and functioning safely as designed.

Revenue service demonstration (RSD): an advanced form of field testing in which the railroad operates PTC-equipped trains in regular service under specific conditions. RSD is intended to validate the performance of the PTC system as a whole and to test the system under normal, real-world operations.

Interoperability testing: host and tenant railroads that operate on the same track must work together to test interoperability to ensure each railroad can operate seamlessly across property boundaries. Almost all of the 40 railroads currently required to implement PTC must demonstrate interoperability with at least one other railroad’s PTC system.

Using results from field and RSD testing, combined with other information, host railroads must then submit a safety plan to FRA for approval. We have previously reported that these safety plans are about 5,000 pages in length. Once FRA approves a safety plan, the railroad receives PTC system certification, which is required for full implementation, and is authorized to operate the PTC system in revenue service. According to FRA officials, the FRA may impose conditions to the PTC safety plan approval as necessary to ensure safety, resulting in a conditional certification.

Railroads may receive a maximum 2-year extension from FRA past the December 31, 2018, deadline if they meet six criteria set forth in statute. Specifically, railroads must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of FRA, that they have: (1) installed all PTC system hardware consistent with the total amounts identified in the railroad’s implementation plan; (2) acquired all necessary spectrum consistent with the implementation plan; (3) completed required employee training; (4) included in a revised implementation plan an alternative schedule and sequence for implementing the PTC system as soon as practicable but no later than December 31, 2020; (5) certified to FRA that they will be in full compliance with PTC statutory requirements by the date provided in the alternative schedule and sequence; and (6) for Class I railroads and Amtrak, initiated RSD or implemented a PTC system on more than 50 percent of the track they own or control that is required to have PTC. For commuter and Class II and III railroads, the sixth statutory criterion is to have either initiated RSD on at least one territory required to have operations governed by a PTC system or “met any other criteria established by the Secretary,” which FRA refers to as “substitute” criteria.

FRA is responsible for overseeing railroads’ implementation of PTC, and the agency monitors progress and provides direct assistance to railroads implementing PTC. For example, FRA officials provide technical assistance to railroads, address questions, and review railroad-submitted documentation. FRA has a PTC Staff Director, designated PTC specialists in the eight FRA regions, and additional engineers and test monitors responsible for overseeing technical and engineering aspects of implementation and reviewing railroads’ submissions and requests, as well as programmatic support staff. In anticipation of the upcoming implementation deadline, in May 2017, FRA began to send notification letters to railroads it determined were at risk of both not meeting the December 31, 2018, implementation deadline and not completing the requirements necessary to qualify for an extension. FRA identified “at- risk” railroads by comparing a railroad’s hardware installation status to the total hardware required for PTC implementation, according to the railroad’s implementation plan. FRA has increased the “at-risk” threshold percentage over time as the deadline approaches. (See Table 1).

FRA has additional oversight tools, which include use of its general civil penalty enforcement authority for failure to meet certain statutory PTC requirements. FRA has used this authority in 2017 and 2018 to assess civil penalties, primarily against passenger railroads that failed to comply with the equipment installation milestones, the spectrum acquisition milestones, or both, that the railroads had established in their implementation plans for the end of 2016 and 2017.

As part of our body of work on PTC, we found that railroads face numerous PTC implementation challenges and made recommendations to FRA to improve its oversight of implementation. Specifically, in 2013 and 2015 we found that many railroads were struggling to make progress due to a number of complex and interrelated challenges, such as developing system components and identifying and correcting issues discovered during testing. For example, we found in March 2018 that FRA had not systematically communicated information or used a risk-based approach to help commuter railroads prepare for the 2018 deadline or to qualify for an extension. We also found that many railroads were concerned about FRA’s ability to review submitted documentation in a timely manner, particularly given the length of some required documentation such as safety plans and FRA’s limited resources for document review. In March 2018, we recommended FRA identify and adopt a method for systematically communicating information to railroads and use a risk-based approach to prioritize its resources and workload.

FRA agreed with our recommendations. Most recently, in September 2018, we testified on the status of railroads’ implementation of PTC.

Many Passenger Railroads Remain in Early Stages of PTC Implementation and FRA Has Clarified Extension Requirements Passenger Railroads Continue to Install and to Test PTC Systems, and Report Previously Identified Implementation Challenges

As of June 30, 2018, many passenger railroads reported that they remain in the equipment installation and field-testing stages, which are early stages of PTC implementation. However, since we testified in March 2018, railroads have made progress on equipment installation. Based on our analysis of the 40 railroads’ reported status as of June 30, 2018, about half of the railroads have completed equipment installation, and many others are nearing completion of this stage. Specifically, 20 of the 29 passenger railroads reported being more than 90 percent complete with locomotive equipment installation. Nearly two-thirds of passenger railroads that must install wayside equipment reported being more than 90 percent complete. One-third of passenger railroads are among those designated by FRA as at-risk of both not meeting the end of 2018 implementation deadline and not completing the requirements necessary to qualify for an extension. Specifically, in August 2018, FRA identified nine railroads—all commuter railroads—as at-risk, fewer than the 12 railroads FRA had previously designated as at-risk in its June 2018 letters to railroads.

Since we reported in March 2018, Amtrak reported that it has initiated both field testing and RSD, but most commuter railroads reported slower progress with testing, especially with RSD. For example:

Laboratory and initial field testing: 19 of 28 commuter railroads reported having initiated this testing as of June 30, 2018; this number represents six more commuter railroads than the 13 we previously reported as having initiated field testing as of September 30, 2017.

RSD testing: Eight of 28 commuter railroads reported initiating RSD testing as of June 30, 2018; this number represents two more commuter railroads than the six we previously reported as having entered RSD testing as of September 30, 2017. As noted earlier, unless a commuter railroad receives approval for using substitute criteria, the railroad must initiate RSD, a final stage of PTC testing, on at least one territory by December 31, 2018, to qualify for an extension.

Passenger railroad representatives reported that they continued to face many of the same challenges we have previously identified, including limited industry-wide availability of vendors and expertise and software defects. For example, in response to our questionnaire, 12 of 29 passenger railroads reported challenges with PTC vendors and contractors. One passenger railroad noted that because its contractor manages PTC projects across the country with the same deadline and requirements, it can be difficult for all railroads to get the resources they need from their contractor. We previously reported that there are a limited number of vendors available to design PTC systems, provide software and hardware, and conduct testing. For example, we reported in 2015 that, according to railroad industry representatives, there were two vendors for the onboard train management computer and three vendors for the wayside equipment. One small passenger railroad recently testified that, because a single manufacturer was providing PTC equipment and software to many railroads across the country, it had to wait over a year for PTC equipment to be delivered and installed. We also previously reported that railroads face software challenges, and noted that railroads had concerns with the number of defects identified during software testing, since these take time to address. In response to our questionnaire, nine passenger railroads reported encountering challenges related to maturity of the PTC software systems, such as working through software bugs or defects during testing.

As passenger railroads work to complete PTC implementation activities, some have made service or schedule adjustments to accommodate the need to install equipment or perform testing. Moreover, several passenger railroads told us that as PTC implementation schedules become more compressed, avoiding effects on passengers becomes more difficult. We identified 10 passenger railroads that have made changes to their operations due, in part, to PTC implementation, including the six largest commuter railroads in the country, which collectively reported over 400 million passenger trips in 2017. These changes had effects such as reduced service or longer travel times. For example, one of the largest passenger railroads in the country reduced service on certain routes and eliminated some express trains to accommodate schedules enabling them to complete PTC equipment installation prior to the December 2018 deadline. Another large passenger railroad has shutdown weekend service—providing bus service to transport passengers between stations—for PTC testing. Several passenger railroads had to reduce service for equipment or track installation or testing, resulting in fewer locomotives or less track available for service.

FRA Has Recently Clarified Extension Requirements

In June, July, and August 2018, FRA held three PTC symposiums that were attended by representatives from all 40 railroads and that focused on the extension process and substitute criteria, PTC testing, and safety plans, respectively. FRA’s June 2018 symposium covered information consistent with our March 2018 recommendation that the agency adopt a method for systematically communicating information related to the requirements and process for an extension to railroads. Specifically, FRA presented information on the procedures for requesting and obtaining FRA’s approval for an extension to implement PTC beyond the December 2018 deadline including FRA’s review process. FRA also clarified that for commuter railroads, initiating field testing was one approach that could potentially qualify as substitute criteria, rather than initiating RSD.

Representatives we interviewed from the passenger railroads that participated in the symposiums found them to be helpful, and some passenger railroads reported that the information presented led them to adjust their approach to meeting the December 2018 deadline. For example, one passenger railroad representative we spoke to said that until the symposium, he was unaware that using field testing as substitute criteria was a potential option. Some passenger railroads we met with also told us they are re-evaluating what activities and documentation need to be revised and submitted to FRA before the December 2018 deadline based on the information presented at the symposiums. For example, representatives from one passenger railroad we met with said that FRA officials encouraged them to update their PTC implementation plan right away with current equipment installation totals, to ensure consistency across all required documentation by the end of 2018. A couple of passenger railroads noted that the information presented at the symposiums clarified many questions and would have been beneficial to know a year or two earlier in the implementation process.

In addition, in recent months FRA has continued to provide assistance to railroads and has taken a series of steps to better prepare railroads for the 2018 deadline. These steps include meeting regularly with individual railroads and developing approaches intended to help many railroads meet the requirements necessary for a deadline extension. For example, representatives from one commuter railroad said agency officials have been willing to share lessons learned, clarify requirements, and review draft documentation to provide informal feedback.

Passenger Railroads and FRA Are Working toward Extensions, Leaving Substantial Work to Be Completed Beyond 2018 Most Passenger Railroads Anticipate Needing an Extension, and Many Plan to Start RSD Testing Beyond 2018

Almost three-quarters of passenger railroads (21 of 29) reported to us that they plan to apply for an extension. Five passenger railroads reported to us that they planned to submit their extension request by the end of September 2018, but as of September 21, 2018, only one had submitted the request and required documentation. However, FRA officials noted that with the exception of possibly one or two railroads, they anticipate that all passenger and freight railroads will likely need an extension, and that railroads must submit their requests by the end of the year to be considered in compliance with PTC requirements. A railroad must demonstrate that it has met all of the statutory criteria necessary to qualify before, or when, it formally requests an extension. And as previously discussed, many railroads remain in the early stages of PTC implementation. Of the eight passenger railroads that anticipate reaching full implementation by December 31, 2018, six are already operating under conditionally certified safety plans; one has submitted its safety plan for review; one plans to submit its safety plan to FRA in fall 2018 for certification. FRA officials stated that it is unclear whether the passenger railroads that have obtained conditional PTC System Certification will have achieved full implementation on all route miles by December 31, 2018.

Of the 21 passenger railroads that intend to apply for an extension, more than half—all commuters—reported that they plan to use substitute criteria to qualify. Moreover, two-thirds of the commuter railroads (8 of 12) that plan to use substitute criteria intend to apply to use their initiation of field integration or functional testing as substitute criteria, and many of these will apply to begin field testing on only a portion of their track.

Figure 1 depicts the stage of PTC implementation that passenger railroads at least expect to reach by December 31, 2018, in order to be in compliance with the deadline, based on railroads’ responses to our July- August 2018 questionnaire.

Although FRA has recently made clear that it is authorized to grant extensions based on initiating field testing or other FRA-approved substitute criteria, this approach defers time-intensive RSD testing into 2019 and beyond. For example, one commuter railroad we met with has applied for, and was granted approval by FRA to use, the initiation of field testing on a 16.5-mile segment of track as substitute criteria to qualify for an extension. That railroad must ultimately implement PTC over 321 miles of track that it owns and operates over, meaning that it will need to complete field testing, RSD, and interoperability testing on the remaining 95 percent of its track and achieve system certification prior to the 2020 deadline. In March 2018, we testified that FRA officials told us that moving from the start of field testing to the start of RSD can take between 1 and 3 years, and has averaged about 2 years for those railroads that have completed that stage. We also reported that FRA officials believe that most railroads underestimate the amount of time needed for testing. FRA officials told us that they do not consider railroads that are approved for an extension under substitute criteria to be necessarily at a higher risk of not completing PTC implementation by 2020. However, in light of these time estimates and the unknown challenges that railroads may face during testing, railroads that are in the early field-testing stage moving into 2019 could face challenges completing PTC implementation by the extended December 2020 deadline.

Railroads further behind in PTC implementation may need to apply for an extension due to factors such as compressed implementation schedules, as well as the time needed for FRA approvals. For example, representatives from one commuter railroad said that they hope to reach RSD before the December 31, 2018, deadline, but that it would be difficult to meet the extension requirements, apply for, and receive an extension given the volume of paperwork FRA will be receiving at the end of the year. Instead, the railroad plans to submit an extension request using substitute criteria consisting of field testing in order to be in compliance at the end of the year. Such an approach involves first applying for and receiving approval for substitute criteria and then formally requesting an extension and submitting supporting documentation to FRA before the end of the year. Entering RSD prior to the deadline could be difficult given that FRA officials told us they have advised railroads to allow at least a month for FRA’s review of test requests, which must be approved prior to initiating field testing and RSD.

Some passenger railroads also reported challenges regarding host and tenant responsibilities, including coordination and interoperability—which are likely to continue beyond 2018. Some passenger railroads told us that coordinating with host or tenant railroads that are in different implementation stages as the 2018 deadline approaches poses several challenges. For example, a few passenger railroads told us that they are unable to conduct interoperability testing because their host or tenant railroad has not yet reached that stage of implementation. Additionally, officials from Amtrak—which interoperates with 21 other railroads—noted that the host-tenant relationship can be complicated and requires a high level of coordination to resolve issues between railroads. Amtrak officials also told us they were conducting risk assessments to determine whether and how to continue service in situations where their host or tenant railroad has not completed PTC implementation or met the requirements necessary for an extension. While few passenger railroads have reached the interoperability stage, one railroad association stated that interoperability is, and will continue to be, a substantial challenge for metropolitan areas with dense and complex rail networks with several host-tenant relationships. For example, according to one passenger railroad, 14 different freight and passenger railroads will need to interoperate in the Chicago area.

FRA’s Substantial Workload Remains a Concern

FRA’s already substantial workload is expected to increase as railroads continue to submit documentation necessary for extensions and continue PTC implementation activities. FRA is focused on ensuring railroads are in compliance by the December 2018 deadline—whether via an extension or by completing implementation. While FRA officials report that they anticipate almost all railroads will likely request an extension, only one passenger railroad had submitted an application for an extension as of September 21, 2018. FRA will need to review and approve all related documentation associated with each extension request and make a determination within 90 days, meaning if a railroad were to submit its extension request on December 31, 2018, FRA would have until the end of March 2019 to approve or deny the railroad’s extension request. In addition to extension requests and supporting documentation, many passenger railroads will also be submitting to FRA: requests for substitute criteria, test requests to initiate field testing or RSD, revisions to PTC implementation plans, and PTC safety plans. Some of these documents can be lengthy and require back and forth between FRA and railroads before approval. For example, we previously reported that PTC safety plans are about 5,000 pages in length and take between 6 and 12 months for FRA to review.

To help manage the forthcoming influx of documentation, FRA officials have offered to review draft documentation, such as substitute criteria requests and test requests, and have advised railroads to take FRA’s review times into account prior to submitting required documentation. FRA officials told us that in trying to manage their workload, they initially told railroads they did not have time to review draft submittals. However, they found that taking the time to conduct draft reviews ultimately led to higher quality formal submittals and accelerated the overall review process. In addition, FRA officials said that their goal is to not delay any railroad that is ready to move into testing, and that they advised railroads to build 30 to 45 days for test request reviews into their project schedules.

Despite these efforts, some passenger railroads remain concerned about the agency’s ability to manage the PTC workload in the coming months and beyond 2018. For example, seven of 29 passenger railroads identified FRA’s resources and review times as a challenge leading up to the December 2018 deadline. In addition, three passenger railroads reported that they would complete all the requirements for full PTC implementation by the December 31, 2018, deadline, but planned to apply for an extension due to concerns that FRA would not be able to review and certify their safety plans to enable them to reach full implementation prior to the deadline. Based on similar concerns, in March 2018, we recommended FRA develop an approach to prioritize the allocation of resources to address areas of greatest risk as railroads work to complete PTC implementation. FRA has acknowledged the railroads’ concern given the surge of submissions requiring FRA approval in 2018 and has reported the agency is reallocating existing expertise and expanding the PTC workforce through training, expanding contracts with existing support contractors, and initiating one additional contract to provide technical support. For example, FRA officials told us that they reallocated resources to shift PTC specialists’ responsibilities to focus exclusively on testing-related activities because their involvement is critical for the testing stage. Taking steps to prioritize limited resources will only increase in importance as the amount of documentation needing FRA review continues to grow in 2019 and 2020, as railroads move through testing and submit complex and lengthy safety plans.

Although FRA has taken steps to provide key extension information to railroads and to help ensure railroads’ compliance with PTC deadlines, uncertainty remains, particularly in regard to FRA’s enforcement strategy if railroads are noncompliant with the PTC implementation requirements, such as if railroads were to fail to apply for an extension by the deadline. Representatives from all railroads implementing PTC with whom we met told us that FRA’s planned enforcement approach for any railroad that fails to meet the requirements for an extension beyond 2018 is unclear. FRA officials told us they have shared the range of applicable civil penalties with railroads for years, but that any policy decision about how potential fines will be levied for non-compliant railroads has not yet been made. In addition, it is also unclear how the agency would approach enforcement for railroads that have a host or tenant operating on their tracks that has not completed implementation or met the requirements necessary for an extension. Ten of the 13 passenger railroads we met with told us they do not currently have or see a need to develop contingency plans. For example, representatives from one passenger railroad said they did not have a contingency plan because FRA has made clear they are committed to helping railroads comply with the 2018 deadline. FRA officials said that the goal of enforcement is to help bring all railroads into compliance and that they would look at the specific circumstances for any host-tenant issues before assessing a fine.

In conclusion, almost all passenger railroads will likely request an extension beyond 2018, which will require FRA approval. Many commuter railroads plan to request substitute criteria which may result in those railroads remaining in the early stages of PTC implementation at the start of 2019. However, given that only one passenger railroad has submitted an extension request, it is unlikely we will know how many railroads will be granted an extension by the December 31, 2018 deadline. While few passenger railroads had developed contingency plans when we met with them, as December nears and schedules become further compressed, additional railroads may have to make service or schedule adjustments to help them reach compliance with the deadline. Although FRA has reported taking some actions in response to our March 2018 recommendation that they better prioritize resources, FRA resources and review times remain a significant concern—both for near-term efforts such as extension requests and for the safety plans that need to be reviewed and certified prior to the end of 2020. These issues—combined with the ongoing implementation, testing, and interoperability challenges that a number of railroads reported to us—raise questions as to the extent FRA and the nation's passenger railroads are poised for full PTC implementation by December 31, 2020.

Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please contact Susan Fleming, Director, Physical Infrastructure at (202) 512- 2834 or FlemingS@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony are Susan Zimmerman (Assistant Director); Katherine Blair; Greg Hanna; Delwen Jones; Emily Larson; Joanie Lofgren; SaraAnn Moessbauer; Maria Wallace; and Crystal Wesco.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.