Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics Public Policy Today 2024062

employees will be trained. 29% of commuter railroads will be installed by the end of 2015. and full implementations is predict jekted by 2020. they will finalize enforcement for those railroads that will miss the deadline. as for any regulatory enforcement posture our goal is to bring railroad news compliance as quickly and safely as possible. starting on january 1st, fra will impose penalties on railroads that have not implemented ptc and fines will be based on penalty guidelines which establish different penalties based on violations and will be assessed per violation, per day. the total amount of penalty each railroad faces depends on the amount of penalty progress the railroad has made and fra is planning for what will come after the january 1st deadline. in both 2014 and 2015 the department and fra asked congress to provide fra with additional authorities that would address the safety gap that will exist on many railroads between january 1, 2016, and each railroad full ptc implementation. that would provide fra with the ability to review approve and require interim seven-day forecast measures for individual railroads that may fail to meet the deadline. the interim safety requirements would raise the bar on safety if they fail to meet the deadline about could not extend the deadline n. conclusion i want to extend my thanks and consideration to this committee for focusing on implementation as quickly as possible and we look forward to working with you and answering your questions. thank you. >> thank you ms. feinberg. mr. matthias. you may proceed. >> thank you. thank you chairman denham and ranking member capu anna and distinct wish members of the sub-committee, thank you for inviting me to testify here today. >> can i ask you to pull your microphone closer. >> promoting the safety of life and property through the use of wiring and communication is a top priority. as the communication agency, the fcc helps freight and passenger railroads. we also manage the statutorily required historic preservations and environmental reviews of the poles and antennas and associated infrastructure used to support ptc systems. because the fcc was given to no mandate to set aside for purposes, we are working closely with the railroad since 2008 to identify the secondary market. the fcc has worked swiftly to identify kmt spectrum nationwide and amtrak's acquisition of spectrum and waivers to better enable and test ptc deployment. to be clear the commission plays no role in designing or assessing the railroad's test of ptc technology. the railroads are responsible for ptc design and deployment. the country's major freights have led the way in securing spectrum for ptc through private transations they acquired the commercial 220 to 220 megahurst spectrum band months before the act became law. the railroads quickly focused on utilizing the spectrum when the ptc was established. when they did the railroads drove other railroads, including amtrak and commuter railroads to around the 220 megahursts band for their operations as well. for most of the countries this strategy appears to have been successful. the fcc has facilitated and continued to successful spectrum leased on secondary markets and have more transmitter power for example to facilitate the spectrum for ptc purposes. spectrum acquisition in the investigate corridor differs because actrack and the freights are deploying two different ptc systems that were not from the outset engineers to be compatible in the same spectrum band so unlike in the market such like in chicago that tell us that 11 different railroads can share the same single ptc system in the investigate corridor the choice to deploy two smims requires two blocks of spectrum far enough apart to avoid interference. we will continue to work with amtrak and the commute rails that use ffc spectrum and these systems. federal environmental and historic please everybodiation law requires the fcc to see undertakes throughing potential undertaking to tribal nations. to facilitate this process in may 2014 the historic preservation issued stream line rules for future ptc pole deployments under the streamlined approach the majority of proposed rules are exempt from historic preservation rules and the kpigs has the capacity to receive 1400 exempt and nonexempt pole applications from the freight railroads every two weeks. by the middle of june the freight railroads could submit 40 thoi poles for review and they have only submitted 8300 poles for 21% of the total capacity. going forward, issues in the investigate corridor remain complex and pose significant challenges. we stand ready to work with amtrak, the commuter and the freight rails there and across the country to help them meet the evolving deployment needs. we appreciate the sub-committees leadership on this issue and ensure the successful deploy of the ptc systems and we wish to work collaboratively with congress and our railroad partners to getting the job done. i look federal to answering any questions. thank you. >> now miss brown to introduce our next witness, mr. longo. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'm pleased to introduce mr. frank leg row, and you can correct that name, frank, when it is your time, who will testify for csx railroad, located in my home town of jacksonville, florida. he has worked for csx since 2000, focusing on technology and has taken the lead for the class 1 positive train control initiative. csx is an employer that plays a strong roll in the jacksonville community, and the company and the ceo michael ward has been a long advocate for veterans in florida and throughout the united states. let me just say that i'm very proud of the wounded warrior program to give the first $1 million and they have received two yore years in a row from the president for over 33% of their employees are veterans. so with that i want to welcome frank and the other panelists and thank you for joining us today. >> thank you, member brown. and mr. chairman mr. ram, members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to be here. i'm frank len egg row, vp of service design at csx and since the passage the ptc mandate i have been the project owner the csx. i chair the committee tasked with ptc operability across 60,000 miles of railroad. given the recent amtrak tragedy and remembering those impacted by ptc preventible accidents i believe four issues are presented for resolution by this kmiety. number one why are railroads unable to meet ptc by 2015. number two why are a few able to meet 2015 and the remainder could. no and number three, what happened if an extension is not passed and foub foub four what is next. a turn key system did not exist in 2008 and had to be create and that task tips. as one of the many railroads working on ptc every day let me reflect briefly on accountable. i'm ultimately responsible for ptc at csx and unfor the nartly it will not be completed by the deadline. this is not the result of lack of will or commitment. to the contrary. csx has ensured executive support. we are hundreds of millions of dollars over budget but csx has never hesitated to complete with the required capital. congress shares in this responsibility. the 2015 deadline was not grounded in fact. it was a political compromise received after chatsworth. the house advocated for 2012, 2014 and 2018. the compromise half-way between the extremes gave us 2015. a political date, not an achievable date. the industry has thousands working on ptc, the fra has about a dozen. the rule was published in 2014 with hundreds of pages of regulations, six years after the mandate. fra is required documents and fault analysis for a safe and reliable system and require time and effort on both sides. no one anticipated the regulatory requirements relating to ptc tourers. when they realized they would have to clear towers they required a moratorium for the to youers and the results and review process is working. they have approved the tower and the swap and the border agreement and while even is in agreement, we must work on speed, especially with the radio interference in the northeast. lastly given the complexity of the task our supply partners have yet to hit a major deadline or deliver software free from defects. in the beginning i think we all believed it was farther along. [ inaudible ] -- in 2012. i'm reminded not to den grate their great work but to show the challenges for ptc in great wark horde by the railroads and great leadership like darrell maxi and deeth holt. there are two keys where some will make 2015 and the others will not. the first is scale. some are similar in side. 100 to 150 angels and 100 to 300 miles of railroad. csx involves 11,000 miles of railroad, about 25 times larger. more engines and more miles means more time. the second is the state of the legacy infrastructure. ptc does not interface with legacy and patch systems. we are required to replace 7500 miles of wayside signals and spatially map 21,000 rail miles and dispatch one-10,000ths of a mile. when we are finished, it will no longer but our grandfather's railroad. is it illegal to common irrespective of our obligation. and similarly we are allowing passengers to run on our lines. which law should we violate? if we cannot transport by rail, the out come is not good for the american people or the american economy. if we continue to haul the commodity or the passengers, we will run the risk of regulatory enforcement and liability and questionable insurance coverage and untenable situation for csx and the employees and shareholders. the question is how to fashion the extension that recognizes the enormity of ptc, rewards railroads that will reach 2015 and holds those accountable and legal center for shippers and passengers and railroads alike. we look forward to forging that path ahead. thank you. >> thank you. mr. len egg row. mr. senno. we've met several times but if i've butchered your name as i have twice already please let us know. >> okay thank you. thank you mr. dunham and members of the sub-committee. i would also like to thank congress penski and we appreciate your championship for transportation. i'm doneorsino. executive direct yore ceo of metro and the chair of the rail chitty. i was lucky enough early in my career to be a card carrying engineer that i was proud of. i operate trains every single day. it is annee normous responsibility that i didn't take lightly as no engineer does. a few years ago i was appointed executive direct to have ceo of metro and i took those experiences with me early in my career to my position now. let me be clear safety is paramount at metro and to that end we are committed at implementing ptc but let me be clear on another item, it is not without challenges. metro is one of the largest commuter rainfall systems in the country. last we're we provided 83.4 million passenger trips and serve customers to chicago. we operate 11 lines with 241 stations and four of the lines are operated by the u.p. and the b.n., chicago's regions is the nation's busiest rail hub and most complex with six of the seven rail hubs working. coordination must include all of the railroads. the b.n. and u.p. were further along with ptc installation than us so we put equipment on trains operating on the b.n. and the u.p. so we could be complaint when they were. those lines once operational will be ptc complaint covering 50% of the passengers. the b.n. equipment instillation will be complete september of 2015 with the u.p. following closely behind it in the second quarter of 2016. we have also made significant progress on metro own lines. to date we hired a system integration team and awarded contract to engineer firms to design signal upgrading work and continue to hire the necessary staff clueing field instillation crews. and even though we've made progress, the challenges are remaining. the spectrum availability in chicago, it is undetermined in we have enough spectrum for ptc in the region. we won't know that answer until the spectrum study completed. validation is part of the testing process to test the reliability and accurate -- accuracy of kpat must take place. and we must review and review the railroad plans. given the complexity of the system. metro's cost are approximately $350 million. afta estimated $3.5 billion for all commuter railroads. we receive approximately $350 billion for funds, used for other safety related critical infrastructure projects such as bridges, tracks and rolling stock. metro has allocated $133 million for the past three years por ptc between our state and federal partners. metro approved a $2.4 billion modernization which includes $125 billion for borrowing and the balance comes from federal and state partner which is uncertain at this time. there is also a significant operational and maintenance cost that these are estimated will be $15 million annually for metro. given these substantial challenges it is no surprise that no commuter rainfall system has fully implemented ptc to date. metro is estimated 2019 for you will implementation. metro and afta are asking congress to provide the authority to grant individual waivers for the deadline as long as the agencies show a good-faith effort as determined by the fra. metro is also asking for funding from congress. on that note i would like to thank representatives lipin ski and quigley for introducing hr 1405 which reauthorized the ptc program which is $200 million annually for the next five years. even though ptc will not be fully implemented by the deadline, metro however, has taken significant steps to provide safeguards for passengers for example we have reviewed the fra 2015 all three safety vises and in the process of notifications through the gps systems an will knowfy the conduct where the speed is reduces more than 15 miles per hour and will remind the engineer of the restriction. and we will also introduced the rs close call reports. before closing, i wanted to bring to the committee's attention recently a question was raised at the astra rail conference with regard to the commuter rail ability to operate past the ptc deadline as it related to insurance liability. the commuter railroads are investigating this matter. it is metro's commitment along with the rest of the commuter rail industry to implement kpat as expeditiously as possible with that said, we ask congress to grant the fra authority to provide waivers with the funding and the implementation of ptc. and i thank you for inviting me and would be happy to answer any questions. >> mr. currio. you may proceed. >> thank you. good morning chairman dunham and ranking member capuana and members of the committee. my name is russell kerwin for the southern california regional rail authorize metro link ptc. i appreciate the ability to testify today to update on the most significant metro link is making to increase the safety of our passengers. ptc. i'm proud to report that as of june 14th, metro link has fully implemented ptc rsd across the entire 341 mile network of metro link owned lines. in addition to the major accomplishment we'll submit our ptc safety plan to the fra next week on june 30th seeing certification by the end of the year in accordance with the rail safety improvement act of 2008. metro link operating through six counties in southern california carrying over 43,000 week day riders. we're also the dispatching hub for about 350 trains that traverse metro link property on a daily basis, including training from bnst, u.p. union pacific and amtrak. metro link ptc program is a over lay system based upon the electronic train management system aka eitc software. it was completed over the past six years which included ptc on board system installed and tested on all 109 locomotives an cab cars, all antennas and way side devices and installed and communicational and robust communication tested and hard expanded and constructed and put into service under the project. in addition to the network of owned lines, we're also working closely with our railroad partners partners bnsf, u.n., and north transit county to make sure ptc is achieved throughout the region. we've been fortunate to have tremendous support from the local freight partners and we appreciate the many challenges to implementing ptc. most of which have also impacted our program. they include the prolonged nationwide development of this inoperable technology and the need for on going software upgrades, development of our back office server and dispatching systems, relentless testing, impacts to operations challenges in acquiring spectrum and funding constraints. in regard to spectrum metro link has been working with the fcc to secure approval of the spectrum that we entered into purchase agreement for in 2010. currently metro link is trying to follow the same procedures in which the fcc wireless telekmupgss recently granted amtrak communication. metro link has executed a five year lease of spectrum for 20 llc to enable us to meet the near termt needs however to long-term needs we are attempting to acquire our own spectrum. our current ptc program costs the agency $216.4 million. to put that in context it is roughly equivalent to metro links entire annual operating budget of $221 million. the majority of the ptc funding, about 85%, came from state and local sources. the investment in our ptc program has been significant for the agency however it was the priority of the metro link board and the funding partners to implement this life saving technology. moving forward the agency will continue to prioritize funding as we transfer into others to operate and maintain ptc will increase the budget costs. metro link is proud to be leading the industry on cps implementation despite the challenges we have maintaining our focus on advancing our ptc program. i would like to thank you chairman dunham and the ranking member for the opportunity to testify and share our experience. i'll close my remarks by saying at me row link we continue to believe that our safety is foundational our investment in ptc and other safety technology are evidence of this unyielding commitment to the safety of our passengers. thank you. >> thank you, mr. kerwin. our first round of questioning is five minutes. i would ask members to keep their questions to find minutes. i'll start things off this morning first of all with mostly sunny feinberg. again, let me thank you for your response. last committee meeting we did something somewhat out of the ordinary and asked you for a quick response with some of the questions that this committee had on the amtrak crash. i think that those issues are important to resolve and understand quickly and this committee thanks for your rapid response getting those answers back out to the committee member this is morning. but i did want to continue on in an exchange you and i had several times now. i pressed fra on if positive train control is such a big priority, why are you not using california high-speed rail dollars to up dade not only the corridor but the connecting routes in california. and california obviously where ptc was started, it is a big concern for those that ride the rail in california, it is a big concern for those that live by rail in california. this is a national issue, but in our home state, we're looking to provide leadership to resolve the safety concerns that people have quickly. and california high-speed rail continues to have it's challenges and certainly by the current burn rate of dollars they do not appear to be able to spend the money allocated to them by the deadline. and so our on goingel changes, what else could you use the money for, could it be used for saftd in -- safety in california and i got your written response it wasn't possible and i wanted to bring one thing to your attention under the investment for phase one they state electrifying the entire cal tran corridor to replace out dated diesel technology with electric locomotives or train sets and introducing positive train control will speed you will cal train service but pave the way for high-speed rail and will preduce the potential for train to train collisions and improve signaling at crossings to allow train frequencies and enhancing safety. this money was taken from california high-speed rail they approved the grant agreement to put it in a different corridor to upgrade cal train and put ptc obviously by their own words this is a priority for them. also previously, fra has diversed money from the central valley with $400 million that went to the transs bay joint powers authority at the transbay terminal and you are moving money out of the california central valley hours away to where it may connect some day, if it ever gets built, to san francisco and to l.a. through cal train. and under the high speed inner city passenger rail grant program, the following activities are expressly eligible as noted in the federal register. acquiring, constructing, improving, or inspecting equipment, track and track structures, highway rail grade crossings, improvements related to inner city rail passenger servicing including communication and signalization improvements, that sounds like ptc to me positive train control effects each one of those areas. so i understand by this they could use the same dollars. so i know from your response, you say the grantee would have to approve the process and the groontee is california high-speed rail but again if they are not spending the money, and they've already had the precedent of transferring money, and safety is all of our number one concern, why would we not take money available to be spent in a corridor to be spent under prop 1-a and create a safety -- address safety for our state? >> mr. chairman, we've gone back and forth about this a lot and i'm happy to go back and forth both you and i know our staffs have had conversations about it as well. as i said in my letter to you earlier this week, we do not believe we can take california high-speed rail money and put it into other priorities. >> but you've done that a couple of times already. they requested that you change the grant approval and you've granted that request and they've done it several times for ptc for cal train and for the transbay joint powers authority, $400 million, $171 million and another grant for ptc, it has been done several times already. >> i join you in a concern that the california high-speed rail authority is not burning through our money in a sufficiently fast manner and working with them very closely to make sure that they meet all of their obligations to do so. we are -- our legal analysis of where we are at this moment is we cannot shift money obligated high-speed rail and move it to another priority. even if we were willing to take money away from california high-speed rail, it would go back to the u.s. treasury but we'll continue to engage with you on this and talk through it with you. >> thank you. that appears to be a change in policy since it has already happened several time. i would understand if california high-speed rail, if you need them as the grantee to make the request to fra, then my request would be to the high-speed rail authority, if they've spent money on ptc why if this is a requirement for fra and california high-speed rail are they not improving safety in california. >> i do not believe it is a change in policy but we can continue the conversation. >> thank you. my time is expired. we'll have a second round because i've got many other questions from a national perspective, but as you know, california is a big concern of mine and so is california high-speed rail. i know go to mr. defauzio for five minutes and would recognize the fact that mr. capuano once again has been very gracious to our colleagues on the other side to skip his time so that others may go first. >> i don't think capuano and gracious go together in the same sentence. but i will certainly defer to your judgment mr. chairman. miss feinberg, you heard what cs x-raysed about the potential conflict with the hard deadline and whether or not -- about the inhaleables and the other passengers and -- can you resolve that or do we have to statutorily resolved that? >> the congress will have to act. can i not make a legal decision for csx based on their liability. >> and you can't believe relief because of the hard deadline that was set. >> i cannot extend the deadline. >> okay. now you talked about enforce and you talked about penalties and i would like to get insight into that. we're looking forward now. and there is a lot of history here and a lot of questions about how we got to this point and how some people are much closer to meeting the deadlines and others et cetera. so are you looking at a penalty that exacts funds from the railroads? wouldn't it be better if you mandate everybody puts together a schedule that you would approve or not approve in terms of how quickly they can implement, put in benchmarks and then look at assessing penalties going forward? >> well that would really be extending the deadline. that would be our view. the deadline is the deadline. and if we then communicate to railroads if don't like the deadline, come up with a plan that involves a new deadline for yourself that would be in my opinion extending the deadline. so we would not want to go about that. but in terms of the penalties, there is three or four pages of specific fines and penalties that were finalized back in 2010 that go from everything from not equipping a locomotive to failure to have ptc in a certain segment so it is quite detailed and it is in the public realm. >> but what i'm trying to get at here is -- every here wants to get this done as quickly as possible. there is a lot of history. and in order to go forward, i'm wondering, if we give you flexibility from the dead line but we give you a mandate that it will be implemented as soon as practicable technology and physically practicable by each of those who do not meet and then you set benchmarks an then they violate the benchmarks, then i think fines might be appropriate. would that be a way to go forward? >> well i take my cues from the congress and i enforce what the congressman dates. so if the congress instructs us to enter into negotiations like that, we would do that. but again, my concern would be entered into brand new negotiations with each individual railroad based on what they would like their new deadline to be. >> well i'm not thinking what they would like, that is why i'm saying as soon as practicable. not something that meets their convenience or their capital out lays. any way. this is a difficult issue. quick to the fcc. you now have the capacity to deal with these pole applications and approvals in a streamlined way and as i understand it, there are quite a few that have not been aplayed for and -- applied for and you aren't pushing your capacity, is that correct. >> that is correct. since our streamlined process has been put into place we have reviewed 40,000 poles and to date we've received applications for 8300 so ready for more work. >> and that is something to take into account. and this is off the subject. but i have to ask you quickly mr. mattheus. 5.9 giga hurst and the problem is you have to buy spectrum and amtrak had to negotiate and -- and i'm really concerned about what you might do with the 5.9 gigahertz for smart cars and vehicles for the future bd there is proposals to parcel that up which might lead to interference which might lead us to a point where a smart car manufacturers will have to buy spectrum as opposed to something reserved and so i think you might take that under advisement. >> thank you sir. >> and to csx, how soon can you get it done? >> at csx, our plans call for us to be hardware installed meaning all of the wayside inter face units and the obsolete interface work, all of the locomotives equipped, all of the technology hardware installed by 2018 with full deployment by 2020, and as i say that though i think it is important to know that by the end of 2018 we'll have a significant portion of the system operable so it is not like we get to 2020 and we turn on the 11,000 miles that we have under our ptc footprint. it is a methodical almost linear implementation from here on out. we'll have 500 miles in place by the end of the year which is about the side of the corridor and the metro link deployment and then we get into the thousands of miles per year that ramps us up through 2020. >> again that seems like a long time and that is why i was proposing the idea that the administrator -- i don't think we should be giving people a blarng the -- blanket exception until 2020 and some people will take until 2020, maybe you do, but there needs to be some level of review for to that and that will be something the committee will look at. thank you. >> thank the gentleman. mostly sunny feinberg you and others have testified before congress, that if the december 31st deadline is not met or extended ult use all of the enforcement powers, warnings enforcement powers to encourage the powers to be adopted but can you share with us how you did determine who the good and the bad actors are and categorize them that way and are their metrics and so it is not arbitrary and i see you have some bullet points here on things you intend to do but i'm looking for how you measure csx versus bnsf versus metro link to be able to determine that? >> absolutely. and we would not want to be arbitrary or subjective and we want this to be quite black and white so railroads know what to expect and congress would know what to expect. what was summarized in my oral testimony was an attempt to be quick and to move through the five minutes quickly. but our plan is to come -- to take the penalty and fines schedule that is already laid out and to be very transparent about what our approach will be and to communicate it both to the congress and to railroads so that everyone knows what to expect. >> will that be seen? will we be able to see that shortly? the deadline is getting awfully close and we want to make sure it is transparent. i've seen agencies be very arbitrary and don't like one person ore another. >> no. that is not our poach. that would not be the way we would go about it. we would be very transparent about it. we owe the congress an update on ptc implementation and how railroads are implementing ptc. due to recent feedback from the congress it is clear that the congress would like that report to also include very specific information about how each railroad is doing individually but also what our enforcement strategy will be and so we are included that in the report and plan to get it to you as quickly as possible. >> and if you could go to -- to levying fines against people is that on a dilly basis -- daily basis, a month week, how is that. >> it would be a violation per day but there is some amount of discretion there. >> and would you consider shutting down a railroad? >> that -- i think that would be actually up to the railroads own lawyers would probably make the determination. we've heard from railroads that their lawyers are making that determination based on both the liability and the likelihood of the magnitude of fines and penalties. >> thank you very much. and in terms of transit system and commuter rails, my understanding is you folks are i having a difficult time and i know that septa down in the southeast is whether they will replace cars an track because there is so much money in the budget. can you tell us a little bit about chicago? >> yes. thank you chairman schuster. that is definitely a major challenge for us. as i stated, we got $150 million through the federal form allu fund. ptc has 350 to 400. we have to balance that with other things like bridges. bridges are important. we have bridges built in the 1800s and we're in the process of doing those projects. it is important to find the funding to get this implemented. it is a safety enhancement but it is also competes with every other safety issue we have. >> and you have to be the most challenges of all of the systems because you have class 1s coming in around chicago and thein operability, is that a significant challengear something you are working toward working out. >> that is a huge challenge because you have six of the seven class 1 railroads coming in and out of chicago that have to communicate between each train and the signal locations in the back office is one of the most significant challenges for the back office is the inoperable inoperablity. to mrs. brown. >> thank you. and let me say that every last one of us supports safety in the industry. but i think you are leaving me -- when you talk about daily fines. the industry itself have spent over $5 billion on positive train control and i don't feel that the federal railroad administration or the u.s. federal communication commission -- we've had daily -- but not daily but meetings where we've discussed spectrum and we don't think -- i don't think that the administration have done all they need to do to move us forward. and to sit here and say we're going to have daily fines and we may have to shut down the industry, it's not going to fly. and so i would like you to respond to that. >> ma'am i was responding to the question about what our authority is in terms of fining. we're working on our enforcement strategy and communicate it to you. >> i'm not talking about enforcement, i'm talking about support. what we've done to help the industry. for example with the spectrum. amtrak had to purchase it. how come we did not provide it for the industry? but i'm -- and they had a hard time getting it. and that delayed the projects. >> i'll let the fcc answer the sect rum question. but from the fra perspective. we have hired a significant staff. one of the witnesses previously said there is only a dozen staff at fra working on ptc, that is incorrect. we have staff in washington and across the country. we have offered loans, we have asked for grants, we have offered financial assistance, we have offered assistance across the board. we are still waiting for safety plans to come in from railroads based on implementation. >> i have heard what you are saying. but as far as i'm concerned, you are the caboose moving this forward. and i don't mean this in a negative sense. but you have been here the entire time. we have been going over this for years. and we have not just gotten the administration as far as where it needs as a system moving forward. when we say positive train control, it is a combination. what happened at amtrak, it wasn't just -- didn't have positive train control didn't have the proper equipment as far as the cars are concerned had to purchase the spectrum, it is a whole list of things that i feel that the administration should have worked -- and i don't mean this administration, i'm saying it has been a dupe policity of administrations that haven't done everything they need to do to get us where we need to be. now even if they come up with, well, here we are. even if they come up with it in 2018, then it still will take two or three years to determine whether or not the system working together. >> ma'am i can only speak for this administration i can't speak for previous administrations, but this administration has done a great deal to try to bring railroads along and into compliance with a mandate that was passed about i this congress in 2008. and we have been sounding the alarm for years about our concern that railroads were not going to meet the deadline. and so i believe this administration has done a great deal of work to bring railroads along but we've not seen the progress that we need to. >> all right. i'm just letting you know, you're leaving me. but go ahead to the next person. >> you're asking about the question of the amtrak spectrum. >> yes, sir. >> thank you. the way the railroads approached this process initially, they selected a spectrum band in the 220 to 220 spectrum and it belonged to other people and it has license yips and we would have had to taken it away from the existing owners through a process that would have required expensation, additional spectrum and potentially would have led to litigation so what we thought would be a more productively approach to work with amtrak to find something on the secondary market they would use for ptc in the same spectrum block. >> as we move forward, that is an issue that congress needs to address. my next round i'll go to you frank. thank you. >> thank you mrs. brown. mr. rice, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. miss feinberg and you may not have been around while this started, but why str the need to create this new system. it seems to me there are so many systems that are similar to this it would be incredibly cheaper and quicker to institute. why did we settle on creating this entire new system? >> well, i think ptc is an over lay of some other systems. if you are referring to atc and some of the technologies we've talked about in this committee previously, it is a step beyond that. but it would assist in taking human factors off the table. it is one of the most important technologies that we believe can be implemented for rail safety. >> mr. colonel i'm going to switch over to you, because you know about the technology aspects, you are putting this stuff in. >> yes. >> i know there are gps systems out there you can buy for $1,000 that will control the motion of a vehicle, stop it and start it. >> it tells you where you are at, but as far as -- >> i had one that cost $900 that would steer my boat to a point. why is this more difficult than that. >> the key to ptc is it is not a specific technology as more that it prevents train to train collisions. >> as long as the gpss were connected, it seems it could do that easily. this seems this is light years easier than a google car, because it has to sense people walking in front of it and obstructions and this doesn't have to do that. this just has to control motion. all it can do -- it can't steer. it has to go how fast, how slow or stop right. it is not that complicated. >> i understand and appreciate your point. it is much more complicated. one is the key factors issin operability. it requires seamless transition from one rainfall to the next railroad and the seemness transition -- >> and i understand that. this technology exists today. mr. len eg row, i'm going to switch over to you. do you have technology before this today that you know where your locomotives are? can you tell where they are at any time when they are running? >> we've had gps on our locomotives for the last half a dozen years or so but it is important to understand that gps is one of 100 -- i'll say for raw numbers inputted into ptc. it provides one input and that is where the train itself is. it is not an indicator of speed or grade or where the red signal the indicator where the work zone it is. i can go on and on but that's one input into it. the technology you referred to earlier about access is based on a cap signal method of operation. at csx we only have 400 of the 11,000 miles uses cab signal as a method of operation and then atc is built on top of that and the access system that amtrak is system is built on top of that. that's not a system we utilize to run our trains. >> all these other guys out here are feeling with taxpayers' money and you're not. did y'all do an analysis of whether it would be cheelter to use some of these legacy systems that could control the train or create this entire new is it system that i think this says they're doing 23,000 locomotives, it cost $9 billion that's $400,000 a locomotive. did csx do an analysis to determine whether it would be cheaper to modify the existing legacy systems or create this entire new system? >> there's a couple answers to your question. in the beginning yes we did an analysis whether we should go the amtrak route and the access system or the system that the freight railroads had been working on since the mid '90s the pre cursing was known as communicationed based train management. the thing that's important to know is there are generally three or four methods of operations that freight railroads use to navigate their trains, a small proportion of that is cab signal as i mentioned, signal territory and nonanything nl territory and there are permutations of all of that. the only thing that access works on is that first med odd of operation which is cab signal. so we would have had to change the entire railroad to cab signal, which would have included wayside changes, locomotive changes and why he we did look at the two and believe that the freight version was the right way to go and still believe that today. >> thank you, sir. mr. kerwin you said you spend $206 million on ptc. you have it fully installed now? >> we have it fully deployed on our network of owned lines. we're working with our freight partners and amtrak to get those systems in service. >> how many locomotives do you have? >> 109 locomotives and cap cars that need to be equipped. >> okay. so you spent about $2 million per locomotive, then? >> our total cost -- our budget is 216. we are -- have spent about 200 million of that. that's not just installations on locomotives, there's a tremendous amount of back office components and wayside comp fents as well. >> sounds ridiculously expensive to me. he's messing with his dollars, i believe, if he says he did the analysis and came out cheaper that way i understand. thank you. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman mr. lipinski is recognized for means minutes. >> thaw, mr. chairman. at that thank you for holding this hearing. with he want to make sure we do everything we can for safety, it's been a very difficult issue. i want to thank ms. feinberg for her work on this and other things. it's a difficult time coming into the position as add strard here. i want to first make sure we are all clear. you're saying that fra done have the authority to shut down railroads, it's the fines that are what you can -- what the fra is able to level if the mandate is not extended? >> ultimately if we needed to take the action to shut down a railroad i think we could do that, but my point was that i think what we're hearing from railroads is that's a decision that they are making in consolation with their lawyers on how they would operate on january 1st if he have not -- if they are not fully implemented. >> i don't know if that makes sense to me, mr. lonegro mr. orseno, i don't know if you want to add anything to that in regard to the fines and the impact that they could have on you. >> yes thank you, congressman lip inn ski. >> being in the commuter side of the industry we depend very heavily on tax dollars. what the commuter rail industry has advocated was for an extension, not a categorical extension, but an extension based on good faith effort based on the railroad's ability to complete ptc. i don't think personally it would be in the public's best interest to fine railroads that typically don't have the funding to implement ptc. i think we need to find a solution where we can implement ptc as ex dishesly as possible and not fine the railroads because it's just coming you know, right out of our pot that we use for bridges and cars and everything else it takes to operate the railroad. >> thank you. mr. lonegro, do you have anything? >> yes, sir, if i may. it doesn't matter how big the bear chasing you or how big the cattle prod is. if you're running as fast as you can you can't run any fasting. so the fines -- i spend a billion, we've got a thousand people working on the project. it's hard to say we haven't put the best food forward that we possibly could. we've supplied the fra with both an aggregate level of information in terms of where we had been, we have done that on an annual basis since the end of 2012, the ntsb has asked for it in the interim sick months we have provided that information, we have given a prognosis on a railroad by railroad basis when we will be done -- >> i don't have much time and i don't want to -- >> i don't believe the fine -- i don't believe the fines would be helpful. >> all right. i just -- first of all, we all want to sit up here and find -- find villains and in this situation i think it's very complex and there are not easy answers to this. we just want to move toward and quickly as possible. i've been in favor, i have tried, i've worked on getting more federal funding, especially for commuter rail. mr. orseno, so you're saying about 350 $350 million to finish by 2019, is that the -- >> that is correct. that's a is conservative number. as we get moving into the process is further along, as all these things is have a tendency to change, but that is a conservative number. >> and is did you receive any funding from the railroad safety technology grant program or any other fra grant programs? >> no, we have not. >> would additional federal funding help expedite the safety efforts and help metro invest in its infrastructure? >> there's a very strong possibility that additional funding would help us move the project along faster, but i also want to be very clear that there's only a limited number of resources that are available for installation and purchasing things and, you know the supply and demand chain. we definitely can look at moving it quicker and if we had federal funding we could take the funding that we are using for that right now for other things like i explained before we've got cars that are 60 years old, bridges that are built in the 1800s, we could address some of those issues. >> i also want to make the point that metra has a significantly increased -- has needed to increase fares has a long-term plan of increasing fares. before i conclude i want to touch on one other safety-related issue. ms. sign berg regardless of whatever plan fra chooses or is mandated to use moving forward i hope your agency keeps tabs on cnprtc efforts. they have the least ambitious and aggressive timeline for finishing their ptc installations and other issues we've had with them which we have discussed and i think we need to make sure we follow up and keep rails as safe as possible. thank you, yield back. >> certainly. if i could just make one point in response to the back and forth, we have asked for a sum total of $2 billion to go towards ptc implementation and technologies. $825 million in grow america, but all together $2 billion. so we are absolutely in favor of additional federal funding going to ptc implementation. >> thank you. thank you, mr. lipinski. mr. perry five minutes. >> good morning, ms. feinberg. i have a question here for you. start out with a little bit of a statement. just so i'm clear it's my understanding the fra -- and this comes from testimony -- fra will use all its enforcement powers including warnings emergency orders and enforcement fines to encourage ptc adoption. do we know how the fra would assess the fines? would they be assessed daily in is there a policy that's been defined yet regarding that? ? >> so the goal of our enforcement actions and i think probably any safety regulators enforcement actions is to bring about compliance -- >> i understand the goal. do we know what's coming? >> as we discussed earlier we are finalizing that now. most of the enforcement policy is public and has been public since 2010. there are various fines and penalties based on whether it's locomotives or segments of track but most has been public since 2010 and we are in response to the congress' request finalizing our strategy now so that we can be completely transparent about what railroads and the congress can expect. >> so it might be daily it might be otherwise? >> that's correct. >> okay. so a few weeks ago when you were here right after the -- shortly after the horrible mishap down in philadelphia i kd you hoch of the $1.3 billion in stimulus money that was received some time ago, because it was such an issue and there was questions about congress and one particular party not being responsive and cutting money for ptc. so how much of the stimulus money when everything was in one hand in this town was spent on ptc for amtrak in particular in the northeast corridor. right? do you remember that question? >> i do remember that question and it's $400 million of our went towards ptc. that's not amtrak specific approximate. i'm sorry, i didn't realize you wanted just amtrak specific but it's $400 million. i believe it's 36 for amtrak. >> right now and that's federal funding we're looking at $9 billion is the estimated cost. >> total. >> yeah, total, right. you sigh the difference, right? we don't have ptc where we have money, we're asking for expo mention alley more, we're not asking but that's the requirement for investor owned. this is private money $9 billion. let me can you about the arbitrary -- the deadline. what is your opinion about the deadline? does it take into account the technical aspects? does it take into account the frequency spectrum aspects? does it take into account the timeline where the fra took nearly a year to approve one of the single plans one of the plans that is required by each railroad? does it take into account those things the deadlines? >> it's your deadline. it's the congress' dead listen. >> i'm asking your opinion. >> i believe it was a good deadline and it was a deadline reached -- >> i understand. you say it's good with you does it take into account those things? >> i believe that in 2008 when you passed this deadline you took those things into account. >> you think we did. >> yes. >> okay. we foresaw all the things that might occur or not occur regarding frequency spectrum, regarding approvals, finances, that was all known? there was a political solution to the two sides, one wanting earlier, one wanting later. >> i think there was an understanding in 20 ol that while this would be complicated [ inaudible ]. >> okay. i asked for your opinion. i appreciate it. so under the consolidated pro creations act of 2015 fra was directed to provide a report to congress on implementation within 180 days. do you know what the status of that is? >> yes. previously we had a quick discussion about it. it was due to the committee, i believe, a week ago a. in recent weeks we've gotten additional insights or additional requests from the congress about additional information they want in that report. we're updating it now and should have to you t. to you in days. >> was it on time or wasn't it? >> it was due last week, one week ago. >> so it's not in yet? >> that's correct. it's supposed to be an update on where the railroads are in implementations. >> i understand. congress also approved that gave 180 days, everybody agreed. >> congress has asked for it to now include our enforcement vat swree. >> things change right? >> so who should we fine at the fra when they are not timely? >> you can feel free to hold me accountable for the fact that the report is a week late. >> what should the fine be? >> i will leave that to you. >> hugh, mr. chairman. i yield. >> thank you mr. perry. mr. sires. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i travel on the northeast corridor constantly back and forth and i'm still trying to get this idea with the spectrum how we end up with two -- in places like chicago they only have one and more than 11 companies use it. i just don't understand why we just can't come up with one system. now we have to worry where one is going to interfere with the other. to me it just doesn't make sense. when other parts of the country use one system. can somebody address that. how did we get to this? how do we get to this point? >> i think it goes back to the conversation we had a few minutes ago where the access system for amtrak was really developed for passenger rail and specifically for high speed passenger rail. there is a certain way that passenger railroads run their operation and they utilize certain technologies to run their trains, dispatch their trains and the freight railroads have a literally different way of running the record. >> is this a company not making a concession to the other, amtrak not making a concession to you? i don't understand it. >> we're all making concessions candidly. >> how do we end with two when we are making concessions? >> the systems are separate. this he rely on communications as a fundamental aspect. what we're really doing is the data transmission is using two radios which are going to use two separate but close pieces of spectrum and the closer those pieces of spectrum are the more interference there can be. but i'd say we're actively working between amtrak the northeast commuters as well as the fcc to solve that problem and we believe we have line of sight to that. i don't know if mr. hath i can't say would like to comment on that. >> and i have a -- the fra states that 40% of all accidents are the result of human performance failures. the railroads, however claim that ptc would only prevent 4% of all accidents. inferring that the cost outweighs the benefits. how do we come up with 4%? >> we looked at all of the accidents over, i believe it was either a 10 or 12-year period all accidents, right, and i'm not sure that the fra looked at all accidents, they may have looked at a subset of all accidents. accidents are generally caused by a couple can of things, either the conditions or the behaviors, the conditions could be track-related, signal-related the equipment could be -- how the car operates or some of the components on that and the same on the locomotive side and then you have behavioral based so is there something that happened in the cab of the locomotive the human factor side of things. we looked at the entire portfolio of accidents and did the math on things that we thought were ptc prevent i believe and or not and came up with 4%. at csx it's actually only 2%. >> 2%? >> yes, sir, 2% of all accidents ptc preventable. >> in other words, in your eyes you don't think it's worth it to make this investment? >> i think we're well past that conversation to be honest with you. we are already spent $1.2 billion on it we have good line of sight to completion of the hardware and full implementation by 2020. i think we're well past that conversation. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. hardy you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. feinberg i've read your testimony clear through and it states in your testimony it seems that fra is ready to act directing opinion amounts on ptc if not implemented, also you state that fra is ready to act in the interim to bring railroads into safety compliance. you suggest that congress should authorize fra to require railroads to use alternative safety technologies on specified lines. you also said, and i quote these requirements will likely be costly to railroads. can you share with me your ideas on this alternative technology am? >> sir what i was referring to was what i would refer to as the safety gap that will exist between january 1st 2016, so the day after the deadline, and when ptc is actually implemented by each railroad and what if anything should be ton to raise the bar on safety during that -- during that gap. so whether it's hoold communication between crew members and hoold person had in the cab, we have not made final determinations, i think they would be railroad by railroad specific but it would be how do you increase safety between the date of the deadline that is missed and when ptc is actually implemented. >> in your testimony you stated that these will be costly to railroads. so you've clearly run the numbers on how much it will cost. can you share with me those calculations or how you come to that point with that statement? >> we just frequently hear from railroads that items like additional crew members are quite costly. that's based on that assertion. >> okay. mr. orseno with the safety being paramount i'd like you to delve into the cost a little more. in your testimony that the commuter and great rail industries will have spent over billions of dollars on ptc implementation although progress has been substantial but it remains -- remains to be done before ptc can be safely implemented nationwide. companies on how much money have they spent out-of-pocket, do you believe these costs we passed down to consumers which is naturally what happens but i just want to hear it from you. ? in my opinion, yes, they would be passed on to consumers. when we raise our fares in order to cover ptc costs and other items we have to pass those costs on depending on you only have x amount of state and federal funding. the challenge that we have on the commuter rail side is the higher you raise the fares the less likely you are going to retain all of your ridership at a time when we want to get more people on our trains and off the roads that's a big challenge for us. so it's a very difficult balancing act to still be able to provide safe valuable service for our customers. >> do you believe that we've done all that we can as a committee, as congress to help move this process forward? do you feel like that you're being penalized four our lack of action or inaction or fra's actions or inactions? i'd like to hear your opinion on that also. >> that's a challenging question. >> yes it is. >> the answer is this is a very expensive proposition for all railroads, especially commuter railroads, where we don't have the type of funding that we need. i believe that congress needs to fund the ptc project. it's important. it's important for the safety of our customers, our employees and the communities we operate through. so it's very important to me that the federal government supply some funding for it. >> thank you. mr. lonegro, you made the statement that the immediate impact of the deadline will be that rsia has the potential of making certain rail operations illegal. can you discuss the ramifications -- these ramifications a little bit more if you would please? >> yes, sir. we're in a legal dilemma as i mentioned in the opening testimony. we have a law that requires ptc to be implemented on lines that carry passengers and lines that carry certain commodities, ti h & p ih commodities. so the transport of those after 20 -- january 1st of 2016 would run in contravention to rail safety improvement act yet we also have a common carrier obligation that requires us to haul freight that's ten erred on reasonable request and at reasonable terms and conditions. so, you know we're in a situation of which law do we violate and we have that same could none drum on the passenger side. amtrak runs over us a law that's 40, 45 years old. we're required to allow amtrak to run a as well as a number of other commuters including mr. orseno and we also have this obligation under the rail safety improvement act which requires you us to complete ptc on those same lines. so if we're not able to meet it on those lines do we need to tell had mr. orseno that he can't run them? these are the challenges that many many lawyers right now are trying to resolve. we don't have the answer to that quite yet. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> thank you, mr. hardy. ms. esty. >> thank you for mr. for waiting so long. i want to thank both of you for holding today's hearing. this subcommittee's work is extremely important to the thousands of folks in my district connecticut who ride these rails every day and businesses who rely on the freight service as well. i hear from a lot of those commuters that they are very concerned about rail safety, as you can imagine with the last two years. we've been talking about ever since the fatal collision in 1969 we've been talking about positive train control. as you can sense from today's hearing there's increasing impatience and concern about how long that's taking. now, i think we really need to get town to brass tacks of what are the carrots and sticks? what are the incentives at this time recognizing the difficulty with spectrum the difficulty with interoperability and with the budget challenges, what do we to now to move this forward as ex dishesly and safely as possible and that's where i'd like to start from. the past is the past. we are here now. we are in june of 2015. how do we get this moving forward to keep people safe? first acting administrator feinberg thank you for your patience and transparency and exceptional availability to us on the committee. we value that quite a lot. in your testimony you noted that you think fra should have -- needs the authority given the situation right now over the ptc control systems to test them, as well as to provide for interim safety measures when they do not meet that deadline which it's all very clear most of them will not be meeting that deadline. can you expand and say what should we be doing in this economy to give fra authority and why? >> thank you for the question. i think the most important thing that we can do starting now and going forward is to provide railroads with the resources that they need to implement ptc. so this administration has asked, the fra has asked for significant resources for the commuter railroads so that they can implement ptc. i think that's the most important thing that can happen, but additionally in terms of our authority the statute is quite narrow. as others have discussed, we really do run into a problem on january 1st where the law is the law and despite preferences of railroads i don't -- i can't give waivers i can't base waivers on good faith i can't extend the deadline and i won't extend the deadline. so we have to figure out how to move forward past january 1st to make sure that passengers folks who live near and along rail are safe. so i'm happy to continue to work with the congress on that, but the most important thing is to make sure we're providing resources so we can actually bring this technology on line quickly. >> quick follow-up question. do you believe that the railroads that failed to meet that deadline and i'm asking now under current law, will be subjected to increased tort liability? because insurance issues are already raised here today. that is obviously a very very big stick that, again, i think this had committee needs to understand what is the legal opinion of the fra about that as well as the railroads. >> the opinion of the fra -- look, i don't want to give the railroads legal advice and i'm probably the only person in this room who is not a lawyer, but we are certainly hearing from the railroads that they absolutely believe that they are increased liability as of january 1st and we would -- we agree with them. >> well, i think we need to get to work on that because that's not in anybody's interest as we move forward. mr. mathias, good to see you, we want to college together. thank you for being here. i'm hearing from the railroads and particularly in the northeast corridor we've heard other members reference this, the difficulty about spectrum. what is it from your perspective from the f cc's perspective that we can do particularly in the very coniested space and has spectrum space as well as physical space that we should be doing to expedite the safety in the northeast corridor the most heavily trafficked area in the country? >> thank you. good to see you, too. thank you for your question. we have an increasingly good news story in the northeast corridor with regard to spectrum. it's my understanding that currently amtrak has the spectrum it needs to deploy which would be relevant for connecticut. in addition, we currently have in front of us a proposed transaction that would provide the mta additional spectrum to provide coverage between new york and new haven, which would fill a gap in their spectrum coverage and we also understand that the nbta has the spectrum that we need. so what our job will be is to ensure that we're working as quickly as we can or fully engaged to make sure that those transactions are completed as quickly as possible as soon as we have the information and to be ready in case something changes. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. mica. >> okay. let's go right to mr. mathias. you're talking about the connecticut connection of putting ptc in from boston to new haven. isn't that most of what amtrak doesn't own? >> no, sir, the amtrak has spectrum -- >> but that's where it was installed. it's installed there isn't it? last hearing you gave us a map and that one -- that was pretty much complete. >> yes, sir. >> right. but that's really mostly under a private operation. amtrak runs trains over t they don't own that part of the line. >> i -- >> i'm telling you that they don't own it t i know. okay? all right. just interesting that they could get it done. okay. let's go to the acting administrator. here she is back asking for money again and last question i asked how many rift loans had been given since 2012 and at first i got an answer of until last year two and then add one we got to three. is it still three, three rift loans since 2012? >> yes, sir. >> okay. how many of those were for ptc. >> one. >> one. okay. you could say 33% of them, sounds for impressive. >> good idea. >> let's go back to our communications guy. there was 11000 backlog you took care of it. one time i thought there were as many as 20000 applications. >> we understand from the railroads that their tote deployment would be approximately -- >> what is your number of applications approved and what is your backlog at this point if this. >> we have approved about -- we have had before us for review 8,300. we have no backlog today into no backlog they are all approved and you are expecting before. in the past and i gave you credit before your average processing was about 2000 a year is that correct or did i lie? >> we're able to do more. >> okay. where is my guy from -- okay. metro link. you've been -- the accident in. >> 2008 was the chats worth. >> 2007? >> 2008. >> mr. oberstar we did that -- we did the bill. you still don't have positive train control if all of metro link service or to you do you? >> we have our entire system of metro link owned lines in service. >> what? >> metro link lines are all in service. >> with positive train control. >> with positive train control. >> okay. what's missing then? >> the lines that we run on with our freight partners are not currently ptc operational. >> but ms. feinberg we will go back to her she just testified she's going to hammer those freight people and the hammer is coming down the end of the year right? is that what you said? >> i said we would en dpors the deadline. >> you're going to enforce it. right. that's kind of interesting because then i see you submit a budget that proposes a six-year schedule 2016 of funding commuter railroads to implement ptc. so is it going to take another six years? last i checked they are not allowed passengers on freight trains, is isn't that right? i mean, most of mine are carrying freight not people but i would think people would be pretty important. most of those people that were killed out there in that incident it were people, might have disrupted some freight traffic but it was people. so is this the new policy on people and commuters we're going to take six years but we are going to hammer those freight people, aren't we? >> well no. so first of all we will enforce the deadline against all the railroads not just the freight. >> then we have a plan to go forward with -- >> if they can implement it sooner that would be great. happy to use those resources for other items. >> cameras metro link you got them? are there cameras in the cabs? >> yes we have forward facing cameras in all of our cabs. >> that's been a recommendation of ntsb for some time, since that accident and i cited all the other times back to '73 and they weren't implemented in most instances. >> ours have been implemented since 2009. >> last thing. is tipia eligible for use of installation of positive train control? does anybody know? >> kitia not rift? >> yes. do we know? does anybody foe staff know or anybody? come on, you guys are brilliant on the other side you don't know? it is. okay. they think it is. so that's a mechanism for funding. let me he will it you the last thing before i conclude -- i have seven seconds -- flying up here and i met a guy on a plane i didn't know him from adam's house cat. what are you doing on the plane? well, i'm coming back to d.c. >> i said why are you coming back to d.c.? he said i'm with some kind of a project and we finance projects. he says it took us between 60 and 90 days to get approval for financing under tifia the private sector. i says what are you doing here? he says it's taken us a year. he says these guys are screwing around with the paperwork for a year. so you can go out and get private sector financing while they screw around in dot and here is the mechanism that may be available and is available and you have huge capacity at rift and both of them don't work. did you want to respond on your own time because i'm over in. >> sure. i believe that under secretary fox both of those programs have moved along much faster than they have previously and we can -- there's always room for improvement. >> thank you, mr. mica. the previous chairman did say that the witness' time was also the member's time today. ms. hahn you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman for holding this hearing. thank you to my colleague mr. capuano for yielding to the rest of the committee. first of all i want to commend metro link the second largest rail system by size in the country for the outstanding work that they have done in meeting our ptc deadline. i like it that you worked closely with your railroad partners, nsf, union pacific amtrak to make sure that their technologies were inter operable and worked hard to acquire the funds needed to fund the implementation of your system. i want to point out that 85% of the funds that metro link used to fund the rollout were from the state of california and local sources only 15% were federal. ptc is clearly a top priority for me and it really is for the american people. i think when the american people hear that we can prevent train accidents and deaths of people by the implementation of ptc, they are also very frustrated that many railroads are not going to be meeting our deadline. but i will say i'd like to go on record and agree to disagree with chair pan denham that i don't think we should take money from the california high speed rail to pay for ptc, california high speed rail has it within their budget to make sure that there is ptc on the california high speed rail project. we need to find money for both. i'm going to ask mr. hath i can't say my first question, and we've heard from testimony and a pager part of the process to implement ptc is acquiring the spectrum. according to metro link the process of acquiring spectrum has been trying and prolonged. it purchased a license for spectrum five years ago and before they can use it they need f cc's approval. in order to meet the deadline metro link is currently leasing spectrum at the rate of $50,000 per year from freight railroads while awaiting the approval. i think everyone is going to want to know why has it taken five years to approve the use of spectrum? is this normal? and shouldn't we have am am light of the recent accidents and in light of this urgency to prevent future accidents, shouldn't there be an expedited process for approval for projects that deal with our public safety? >> thank you for that good question and i can appreciate your concern. we're very glad that metro link actually has been able to negotiate a lease and that they will be able to have spectrum necessary to provide the ptc service. we understand their concern and frustration that the spectrum that they had intended to purchase has taken so long to acquire. unfortunately it has been mired in federal litigation as well as in a closed proceeding at the federal communications commission so unfortunately i can't provide details, but what we're trying to do is as much as we can to get that process it -- keep that process moving. we've taken the extraordinary step of taking the spectrum that they wish to require out of our closed proceeding so we can move forward. they have several waiver requests that had he need that would facilitate their use of the spectrum that are pending before us we understand they need to update those. we look forward to receiving that information. >> thank you but again i think the american people are not going to be very sympathetic with excuses for the fcc not approving the spectrum applications as quickly as possible. and i sort of agree with my colleague ms. brown it's sort of difficult to be tining and enforcing the deadline when some of our own agencies are not moving as quickly as most of us would like. so i'm just going to say that. okay. mr. kerwin, you are a model as i said i am very proud of metro link in california. maybe since you've been able to meet the deadline and you've been able to, you know jump over obstacles and through the hoops to actually make this happen, what advice would you give other commuter rail lines in this country who are trying to meet the deadline by the end of the year? >> sure. thank you for that question. i would like to actually thank mr. lonegro for his shout out to our project director darryl maxi who has been just diligent am pushing this project forward. that sentiment has come all the way from the top ranks of metro link, the word our grantors have made a very, very strong commitment to this project. so the funding that they provided has been really the crucial element in getting this project going, along with that adamant support from our board to really get this project started. so we started early and made a very concerted effort around the clock, been working very hard at it for many years. so it's hard to give -- i wouldn't say there is a is silver bullet for other commuter railroads to accomplish it. it's been -- it's been a very challenging process so we do sympathize with the many challenges which we have also encountered. so i would say the funding is a key element and having a close working relationship with your freight partners that you operate with because really that was the other key element for us was the strong support that we had from our freight partners. >> thank you. and again, you have been a model for the country. >> thank you. >> we applaud you. >> thank you. mr. duncan recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'm sorry i had to be at another hearing until just a few minutes ago, but ms. feinberg maybe you've covered this, sh but let me ask you this, you know, it's taken these railroads several years to get to the point where they are now and apparently there is still a pretty good ways to go. i'm wondering do you have any estimate of how long it's going to take your agency to certify a railroad after this process? >> the step is first, say, a safety plan is submitted to us, so it's basically the railroad's plan for how they will implement ptc and how they will ensure that the system is working. we have received one of those and have turned it back around to the railroad. they take a while to go through because you're not only reading the plan, but you are in close consultation with the railroad talking through it offering edits and changes to make sure that the system is going to work. so it takes awhile. but we feel pretty confident that as they roll in we will be able to turn them around -- staff up and turn them around in the kinds of time periods that we've laid out for the railroads, but as of now we have just received one. >> are you satisfied with the progress that the railroads have made thus far? >> i'm not satisfied. i would not be satisfied unless the deadline were going to be met. >> you know my tad told me years ago, and i don't remember what he was talking about at the time but he said everything looks easy from a distance and i was reading over mr. lonegro's testimony just for csx, it says the tasks be are still monumental and it said csx has to do a complete airborne laser paneling survey of our 21,000 mile network to make all assets -- have all assets mapped to within seven feet of their precise location installation of 5,202 wayside units, replacing signals along 7,500 miles of track installing 1,285 base stations, equipping 2,900 locomotives, training 16,000 employees. i mean these tasks monumental is being conservative when you say that. mr. lonegro, tell me about the safety record of csx so far. >> we've been an industry leader for the last two or three years in safety sir. the whole industry if you go back and look at especially the train accidents statistics is -- has seen significant 40% to 50% reductions in train accidents since the 2000 time period. you know, we take safety -- safety is a core value of csx, safety is a way of life it's the first core value we have and it's very similar at every other railroad. i mean every day we live and breathe safety, whether it's to improve conditions along the railroad, the track infrastructure the signaling infrastructure, the equipment side of the house, cars, locomotives and the human factor side of the house, the training effort that we do we have a technology called erad which is a virtual road foreman to figure out whether there are any anomalies in that train handling and then have a coaching is session with that employee if they were over speed we have a conversation with them if they breach a red signal they are taken out of service and feasor if i had. so i'd say we've doing an awful lot on safety, is sir. >> well, the committee staff gave me a statistic a few minutes ago and they said that the freight rail system is 99.995% safe based on the number of trips that are taken. i don't know that seems to me to be an phenomenal safer number. my staffer don walker told me a short time ago that the wall street journal said that 2014 was the safest year ever for the rail industry. now, i mean everybody has tremendous sympathy for these families that lost loved ones in the amtrak accident, but, my goodness, now we're going to be spending billions already have spent billions and going to be spending billions more to try to make something that's already one of the safest things in the entire world -- and i'm thinking that we would be far better off to spend those billions in the many, many other ways, cancer research and everything else. my time is up. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. duncan. mr. capuano. >> thank you for being so gracious with your time. >> grayish. get that, pete, gracious? >> yeah, twice. >> i want to thank the panel, too. ms. feinberg, we're all here today because we think ptc can save lives i think everybody agrees with that. if you are a week or two or month late with a report does anybody die? >> no, sir. >> are there any major property losses? >> no, sir. >> okay. if one of the major railroads came to you and said, we're not going to make december 31st but we're going to make january 15th or february 1st are you likely to be imposing big fines on somebody who is going to be a few weeks or a month late? >> highly unlikely. >> i think so. mr. kerwin you cost roughly 200 -- i little over $200 million into the ptc on your system, smart? >> yes, sir. >> how much did the chats worth accident cost? into in excess of that amount i would say. >> so in hindsight knowing what that accident cost versus what the system cost, the system has already paid for itself? >> yes, sir. >> if it's paid for itself on your line, do you think it's a reasonable thing to say it would pay for itself in any other line in avoided accidents? >> yes i would agree with that. >> i think so too. i guess nobody here believes -- nobody wants any fines, there's no reason to have fines we all understand that mr. orseno we have a community rail system, too, we get that. at the same time we're significant hee seven years later with some of the major railroads having done virtually nothing. how would you suggest if we -- let's assume that we could come together -- by the way, ms. feinberg, who set this december 31st deadline? >> the congress. >> and are you empowered to ignore that? >> no. >> are you empowered to change that deadline? >> no. >> so it's only us? >> correct. >> i think that any reasonable person here understands the deadline is not going to be met. any reasonable person understands the deadline has to be ex tended. we're not looking to to fines. if we don't i would not ask ms. feinberg or anyone else to ignore the law. i would hope congress could come together and do had this. at the same time once we to it how do we avoid a bad actor from simply ignoring it again? for any reasonable period of time. two years, three years five years, ten years without a stick? mr. orseno. know i don't want the tines but how do i do it any other way? >> i think as it was brought up here today on hasn't occasions i believe that at the onset from the 2008 rail safety act that was a date that was agreed upon. i think once we got into the significant challenges that it -- >> i understand how we are today. let's assume today, right now, if i said to you write a law that says in some period of time, some reasonable period of time, two, three, five years, pick a time frame we're going to have this done, how do i then enforce it if i don't have fines? >> well i think we would need to look at it at that time but i think the key issue is right now we aren't going to meet the deadline. and it's not from lack of effort. >> i respect that but the bottom line is i don't know any other way to enforce it amongst bad actors. good actors don't need enforcement, bad actors do which is why fines are in place. my presumption is you have contracts with suppliers that give them fines if they don't meet their requirements we have to have the same thing if we really think the ptc is important. by the way i also fully agree that the federal government should be participating in paying for this but we are having that argument you know the arguments we're having here. i'm with you but i need 217 other members to agree with that. in the meantime we condition do anything. so i think that it's pretty clear to me that we have to do something but to pretend that we do nothing or pretend that somehow goodness will simply overcome the lack of goodness is ridiculous and unenforceable. we need to come up with a reasonable time frame, with he need to allow ms. feinberg to enforce the law. i don't expect you to break the law, i also don't want to fine anybody so we have to act. we can to it all day long we can play games and dance around and point fingers and show what happened five years ago, seven years ago ten years ago, but since 1969 according to the ntsb according to their own figures preventable accidents have killed 246 people. and have injured 4,263. and i don't know how much money has been lost because no one has put that number together. if it's a cap, a $200 million cap which by the way would have cost pl more if it wasn't for the cap, it's hard to time, but it seems to me just rough numbers it looks like the cap probably would have cost even with the cap would have been about $20 billion that these accidents would have cost. this is a doable action and it is an action that pays for itself as proof positive by metro link. help us work with you to get it done. by the way ms. kerwin -- mr. mathias, earlier you said you had 8500 poles agreed to but that doesn't count the 11000 that you did previously. it's my understanding you're closing to 20,000 poles across the country that have been approved and that 20,000 is about out of 30,000, 35000 that they will need. we've already got two-thirds of the locations approved and ready to go. is that right? >> correct. >> thank you. and thank you mr. chairman for your indulgence. >> thank you. mr. barletta. >> safety is my first priority there's no question and positive train control is a necessary tool to improve safety, but the fact of the matter is that most railroads will not have the technology installed by december 31st 2015 deadline. today i'm wondering what happens on january 1st 2016, if the deadline remains? mr. loan grow, today ms. feinberg again committed to hold the railroads accountable for not meeting the ptc deadline, including potential fines and restrictions of service. if the deadline is not extended what actions will the railroads likely take? i want to know what's going to happen on january 1st? >> well, sir there's one way to be compliant with the deadline and that's not to move tih, pih chodities or passengers which is an untenable situation if you are a passenger situation or tih, approximate pih shipper. so the records right now are in a difficult place with the ted line that can only be con greg's nael moved. we again have a lot of folks that are evaluating how we look at the common carrier obligation and how we look at the ptc mandate to in essence figure out is there a way to navigate through breaking a law on one hand or the other hand. we have a similar situation with amtrak and the commuter agencies where we're required to you know, move the passengers or allow them to move their passengers over our lines and again we have a ptc mandate and we have a passenger requirement. i hate to say which -- we're being backed into a corner in terms of which law should we violate. it may be hat path forward really does involve cessation of service. we're all looking at that and evaluating. you remember earlier we talked about increased tort liability. we certainly worry about that as well. it's an untenable situation as i mentioned in my opening statement. >> mr. orseno, in your testimony you mentioned concerns within the apta rail conference about the ability of commuter rail to operate past the ptc deadline as it relates to liability and coverage. can you further describe what liability and coverage issues would prevent commuter rail that doesn't meet the ptc deadline from operating? >> well, when we were at the conference a question was raised on whether we can operate or individual agencies can operate past the deadline because you would be operating outside the confines of the law and there may be restrictions and liability coverages. all the commuter railroads are going back with their risk and legal teams to take a look and see if that's the case. >> you've already said that metra won't meet the december 31st deadline and in pennsylvania se he pta will not make the deadline either. in the worst scenario curse and commuter trail did does not receive any flexibility on the it dead rhine how would commuters who rely on metra or other commuter rail be impacted ond changes? >> that would depend to the degree of what actually happens. if railroads were forced to close down because of liability reasons and insurance reasons for us alone that would put 300,000 passengers on the roads already that are congested and that wouldn't be a good solution. >> in pennsylvania septa is furthest behind in the on board vehicle locomotive system installations. you also cited in your testimony that one of the biggest ptc challenges is on board software and that final production release date is not yet known. can you tell us why it this has been such a challenge? >> i don't have that technical knowledge, but i believe mr. lonegro does. >> ptc in the very beginning was somewhat theoretical in the way that the regulation was published in terms of what it had to accomplish and how it had to accomplish that and so we took a system that was much smaller, much less complicated and much less mature and through the period of the last seven years are really working to the point where it can comply with all of the regulations and the functionality that has been required. i would tell you that from a software perspective we are getting closer meaning, you know arguably the end of the year we could have a piece of software that is very, very close. at the same time we have committed to not implement software that has any critical defects or severe defects, but yet we are willing to deploy software with medium or minor defect. so we're not really trying to get to perfect necessarily but we are making sure that it can provide all the functionality and doesn't create a situation where they are -- you know a safety problem is introduced. just in the last month or so we have found a safety critical defect in the on board software which has to be corrected, has to be retested has to be taken back to the field and the same holds true for the back office software. so, you know these are people in the supplier community -- this is their business right? this is what they do for a living. and if they are unable to tackle the technical challenge that has been put in front of all of us you know, that gives you some understanding of the complexity of the challenge that we have because that's just one piece of the puzzle. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i'd like to recognize ms. brown. if you will indulge pea just for a second, though, i'm going to turn it over to mr. rokita. i it did want to enter one piece of information for the record without objection. this is the -- also from california high speed rail. this is their june 2009 request for funding. on their request they request $230 million from the investment strategy from those funds that have been allocated to california, $230 million. here is a map here where it shows exactly where those improvements would be. can you zoom that in? clearly can -- move it up -- this corridor here, positive train control, $230 million. california high speed rail thinks that it can do it, they've requested it this is in california, we want to have the safety improvements there. here is a good funding source to do that. >> mr. chairman, understood. my staff passed me a note during the hearing that states that high speed rail -- high speed rail funding has been at $328 million. so we will pole up with you and look at those two numbers together and respond. >> thank you. i will have a staff member bring that down just for your record as we continue this ongoing exchange. with that i'd like to recognize ms. brown for our second round of questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. would you indulge me for a minute because when i was out of the room mr. hackel said that amtrak had not implemented positive train control from new haven to boston. not only did they implement it it was the first in the country and i want to submit that for the record. thank you. now, metro link who i visited with several times in california and i just want to mention that you had the support of the state, the local recovery pun and funding is the issue for all of the commuter lines. let's don't sit here and act like it is not. a lot of the local resources are not available for the other lines. with that i want to go on to frank because you -- i want to say all those great things about csx, but you are the one who is here representing the class one railroads and they said that there are some positive players and there are some that's not. would you give us an up-to-date because we need an extension, the idea that we're going to start fining people and then where is that money going? >> a deficit reduction? i want the money to go into the testimony. so would you tell us who are these negative players that they're talking about in. >> thank you member brown. there are no bad actors here. this technology is very difficult to implement, difficult to implement the scale is very challenging, as one of the members mentioned earlier, in terms of the scale of the csx class 1, we all have the major class 1. the canadian railroads don't run as much in the united states and there is no ptc mandate in canadian so their footprint is smaller. so in the class 1 footprint there are no bad actors. >> that is not what i've heard though. are you working with the commuter lines also? >> we are. we each have a different set of commuters that we work with, so on csx we have commuters in and around d.c. and around chicago and a full spectrum of commuters and amtrak that run in essence from baltimore up to boston. so we're in active discussions with them literally all of the time we overnighted a summer in orseno's committee and we brought in the commuters and the short lines and did our best to try to help educate folks on the state of the technology and the challenges we face so they won't have to face the same challenges they deployed on their railroads and we had a good dialogue and mr. orseno can chime in and we have another dialogue later this year to reengage and reassess where we are collectively. >> what is the drop dead amount of time you need frank? >> as an industry one of the things we've come forward with is the ability to be hardware complete by 2018 and completely rolled out by 2020. and again, i want to make sure that everybody understands, by the end of 2018, okay we'll have as an industry 87% of the ptc footprint imstalled and -- installed and implemented and the remaining 13% comes in the last two years. so literally we're starting to deploy ptc in operational mode right now. and then is ramped up from here lynnerally through the end of 2020. >> mrs. feinberg how long will it take you all to inspect, if they complete it in 2018, you have some work to do how long will it take you to verify the system? >> well they would submit to us a plan and we would then turn around to them and they would complete implementation and things would move quite quickly, the issue is you would be three years past the deadline at that point. >> we understand that. and the deadline is realistic and not everybody is going to meet it and we have some concerns about the fines. i have concern about the spectrum and we've talked about it even when it is implemented. what about the local respondents, we need to talk to each other. 9/11, we discovered we couldn't talk to each other. and then, katrina. we're still not talking to each other. and even though they are implementing something and amtrak is implementing something and then the responders, how come we don't have a dedicated -- emergency for this country? >> thank you for that question. i think that congress has worked very hard and diligently to create an infrastructure for a national public communication safety system and that is being addressed in that way and in a separate spectrum band and being handled in a separate process but that is on the way. >> mr. mathis failure is not an option. we really need to get it done. thank you. >> i think the gentle lady's time is expired. i'll recognize myself for five minutes. mr. lonegro, i had a question about the two people in a cab situation. chairman hart testified testified that having two person cabs didn't improve safety and he was on a panel with several union members and several others and i wonder what your thoughts are on that kind of statement? >> we have two people in the cab of the locomotives on the main line trains and we would certainly say over a period of years if not decades in the future will look for the opportunity to reduce the crew size from to to one if the technology supports that and we're able to negotiate an appropriate agreement with the labor unions. there is a path for that when the technology gets to the point when having two people in the cab is no longer necessary. >> roger. ms. feinberg said that the fra is looking at having two person crew situation as an interim solution with probably some additional backstops as well until ptc is implemented, whatever the deadline is. would you supportive of that. >> on the freight side it is not necessary. we already have it. i think sher referring to the commuter side of the house which operated with one person in the cab but they have crew members in the cab. we already have two. >> and same question to you mr. orseno. >> we operate our trains with one person in the cab and two person in the body of the train that are rules qualified. two members in the cab doesn't necessarily mean it is a safer situation. there have been many situations where there are accidents when there are two people in the cab. we don't support that initiative. >> mr. kerwin, same question to you. >> we have evaluate this in the past and will continue to monitor the recommendations from the fra and ntsb on this issue. >> thank you. back to you mr. laguna, you currently have two people on all routes that require ptc by 2016. >> correct. all main line routes yes. >> so csx having two person crew as an interim solution until ptc is fully implemented on ptc required routes is logistically doable. >> it is already been done. >> so then would industry be supportive having two person crews as an interim solution until ptc is fully implemented, thus meeting the requirements of the cab. >> there is no requirement for the two people in the cab today. >> well you phrased it -- >> well if they go from two to one we would work with fra to get approval to do that so it is not needed with respect to the freight railroads and the steps we would go through to remove one remember of the crew. >> thank you. and the only thing i would add for the record is that in addition to any of the other things mostly sunny feinberg may or may not have been blamed for today chef sent mr. micah to the hospital which on gates me to have to go visit him add that to your stack. and with that, my questions are done and i don't see any more questions from the members so on behalf of chairman denham let me thank you for coming today and we thank the members of the audience for their attention today and we move forward. and with that hearing, no other business before the committee this hearing is adjourned. this week on first ladies, influence and image. we learned about garfield and mcelroy. crete to her friends was an educated woman and believer in women's rights. when her husband, james garfield, as assassinated she returned to ohio and made her home into an earl i have version of a presidential library. chester arthur, becames president and his sister mary mcelroy, filled the role of first lady and fills the house withet icky used by future first ladies for eckdecades. first ladies influence and image, examining the women who filled the position of first ladies and their position on first ladies. from martha washington to michelle obama, sunday on american history tv on c-span tv. supreme court reporters review the major cases of the 2014, 2015 terms including health care. the dr. bar section on courts lawyers and administration of justice hosts this 90 minute discussion. good afternoon. thank you all for coming. and welcome to the 27th annual view from the press gallery sponsored by the d.c. bar on courts lawyers and administration of justice. i'm arthur spitzer, i work as the legal director of the local office of the american civil liberties union but i'm not wearing that hat here i'm wearing my hat as a former member of the steering committee of that section of the bar. our thanks first to arnold porter for

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Canada , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Florida , Boston , Massachusetts , California , Washington , District Of Columbia , San Francisco , Connecticut , Central Valley , New Haven , Ohio , Chatsworth , Illinois , Chicago , America , Canadian , American , Frank Len , Giga Hurst , Don Walker , Michelle Obama , James Garfield , Mary Mcelroy , Arthur Spitzer , Chester Arthur , Russell Kerwin ,