is in the corner with headphones and i said what are you doing? and he said i am doing my bible study. tim, you have been a comfort to our state because you are truly a man of god. to the rest of you, i want to tell people in south carolina the senate has a lot of differences and we display them a lot. i wish you could hear what was said to me and tim. everybody in the body has come up to us in one way or another and said the most kind things. so the united states senate we have problems but we are still a family, so thank you all from all over this country for the kindness you have shown during the difficult times. i don't know how you could sit with somebody for an hour pray with them and get up and shoot them. i just can't imagine what it takes of an individual to be welcomed in a church. he went to charleston with a

plan. the people in the church had no idea who he was or what harry reid -- he had in mind. they invited him up for the bible study and spent an hour with them. he said they were so nice i almost backed out. that says a lot about them. that says a lot about him. within 48 hours of having your family member murdered they appear in a public setting, looking at the guy saying you have ruined by life but i love you and i forgive you. that is a level of love and understanding that can only come from some higher authority. i don't have that within me. when it comes to representing south carolina tim and i will do our best but on our best day we are nowhere close to these people. there is no politician in

america that can represent the state better than the people of mother emanuel church when they looked at the guy in the face saying i love and forgive you. i wish i could muster that love a little bit. what would america be like? >> tonight a house hearing on the implementation of new technology for transportation safety. and a recall on the tekata recall. and some of the vote before the senate vote to approve trade promotion authority for the president. congress has required the

adoption of ptc by the end of the year. this hearing on the subject is two hours and 15 minutes. >> senate will come to order. >> good morning and welcome to the subcommittee on railroads, pipelines and hazardous transportation. today's hearing focuses on ptc. a positive train control is a radio or gps system designed to automatically control a train to follow speed limits and avoid train to train collisions. following the crash in southern california, they implemented lines where certain hazardous materials are carried and any line with passenger or commuter

rails. the reason the tragic amtrak crash has reminded us these accidents are rare but can happen and ptc will make the rail safer. it was included in the rail safety and improvement act in 2008 and congress set an implementation date of december of this year. it was going to be a daunting undertaking to consider what the implemented ptc will require, its 38000 weigh side interfaces, 18,000 locoh motives to be updated and thousands of signals. ptc has never been implemented on such a scale and never required such a high level of inner

inner inner operabilty. freight rail is expected to spend a total of $9 billion to fully implement. the american public transportation association estimated they would have to spend $3.5 billion on ptc and the sheer cost and complexty of the system there have been many delays. the process of approving the polls along the right away was delayed when the federal communication system mandated each pole goes through a review process. they created a more streamline process and we will hear about how it is working from them. commuter and passenger railroads have failed to provide the spectrum. today we will discuss how long

it will take to get ptc implemented across the country and what it will take to meet the current deadline. in closing, i look forward to hearing from our witnesses in regarding the issues. i mind like to recognize rank member from massachusetts mr. capuano. >> we know where we are today. tell me how to get to where we want to be as quickly as we can. that is what america and i want. if you think you need federal assistance be clear. we have our opinions on if we should put funds up or not and if you think we should i would say so. i yield back and look forward to the testimony. >> full committee chairman mr.

sires. >> the number one priority of this committee is safety. rail safety has been going in the right direction but the terrible amtrak incident showed us we should remain focused on the efforts to improve rail safety. as chairman denham said this is one of the most costly enhancements the railroads have taken. we knew it would be challenging but seven years into the future we know that will not be the case. with a few exceptions most

railroads will not meet the deadline. technology has been more difficult to create spectrum has been hard to acquire particularly for commuter railroads that serve populated areas. and finally the federal communication commission approval process for new telecommunication polls was not set-up to handle the tens to thousands of polls needed to deploy ptc. i am looking forward to hearing from you today, the witnesses, and where it stands and your testimony will help consider how we move forward to deal with the mandate in an appropriate fashion. >> i will call on mr. defazlo for opening statements. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks for holding the hearing.

we will focus on the extension of the deadline. it is clear the class one will not meet the deadline and some passenger rails will not. this has been something that has been a very, very long time in the making. it was 45 years since ntsb first recommended the idea of positive train control. you know they have had it on their most wanted list for many years and it was removed after the passage of the legislation in 2008 but it was put back on when it was clear the deadlines were not going to be met. just to revisit why we did this chatsworth took place after the house acted. it was a compilation of

accidents over the years including in particular one in 2005 that was a release of chlorine gas with 5,000 people evacuated, eight people died, and 554 were injured. the ntsb at the time said they never saw something like this happen. it was the cause of human error and if ptc had been installed this wouldn't have happened. so we passed ptc, chatsworth took place after house passage which led the senate to change its position. they started with 2018 as the deadline and they were

approaching the two california senators and we compromised on 2015 as something that could be achievable. unfortunately we will not meet that deadline in many cases. congress you know, was in helping some of the passenger rail folks with grants. the president has asked for a billion dollars. we got one $50 million grant, but since 2010 nothing has been allocated by congress. for freight, it is a heavy expense. but it is something -- it is at least a business expense. for passenger rail non-profit passenger rail it is expense that is hard to pass on to the customer so grants could be helpful i believe and hopefully we will hear more about that today. and yet, our colleagues on the appropation committee, it

doesn't take the same view of the issues as we do we are more enlightened on the committee, cut amtrak's grants by $290 million the day after the accident and among other things they found is advanced train control and another infrastructure likely to cause other accidents. the system is decrepeit and needs investment. we got a man to the moon after president kennedy issued the challenge it only took eight years and that was one year after the ntsb first asked for, you know positive train control. i know we can do it. we just need to hear today what impediment impediments remain and what we can do to expedite the instillation across all of the

system in the critical categories we categories. we define routes in addition to the passengers and heavily used routes. i look forward to the testimony and if necessary i would urge the committee to take further action if we hear testimony saying there are steps to get it done. >> i would like to welcome the panel of witnesses. sarah feinberg acting administrator of the federal rail instruction, fra and want to say a special thanks to you for continuing to come before this committee. there have been a number of big issues that this committee is addressing. and you have not waiververed as far as coming before us. also mr. charles mathias, and

mr. frank lonegro, and russell kerwin. i ask consent the witness' full statement be put in the record. no objection. we will ask you to keep your statements limited to five minutes. ms. feinberg you are recognized with that. >> thank you, charman denham ranking member capuano, and members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to appear before you. ptc is the most important safety development in more than a century. elements of ptc have existed since the early 20th century. regulators and safety advocates

have been calling on the rail industly to implement some form of the ptc for decades. the rule is fully implemented by december 21st 2015. ptc is required on lines where hazardous material is transported and required on any railroad where inner city or computer rail passenger service is conducted. following passage of the ptc in 2008, railroads submitted their plans in 2010. these plans laid out a path forward that would allow each railroad to meet the deadline. safety is the federal railroad association top priority. the rail system is not as safe as it could be without the full

implementation of ptc. a safe rail system requires the full system of positive control and that is why we will enforce the 2015 deadline for implementation just as congress mandated. faa has been sounding the alarms most railroads are not meeting the ptc. fra has dedicated resources to assist and guide implementation. we hired staff to oversee implementation and worked with the fcc to resolve spectrum issues and improve the process for communication towers we built a ptc test bed at the transportation technology center in colorado we have provided 650 million in grant funds to support ptc implementation including american recovery and

investment act grants and amtrak grants and other annual appropations. we have requested $825 million to assist computer railroads and issue issued a loan to new york's met metro transportation program the largest in the nation. i have established a team that is managing and monitoring each individual railroad's progress tracking data, insuring we have the most accurate data and reporting to me multiple times a week. the team is working with many individuals at fra based here in washington and offices around the county already working on this challenge. but unfortunately, despite fra's financial support, technical assistance, and warnings many railroads stated they will not

meet the december 2015 deadline. we received updated information about the implementation from 32 of the 38 railroads we are tracking. initial analysis shows the class one railroads have completed or partially completed half of the trains replaced half of signals that need to be replaces and finishes most of the mapping. aar projects that 39% of locomotives will be equipped and 75 way side units installed and 76 percent of base station radios installed and 34 percent of required employees will be trained. 29% are targeted to complete instuitation of equipment by 2015. full implementation is projected

by 2020. fra continues the work to finalize an enforcement strategy for those railroads missing the deadlines. as with any posture, our goal is securing all railroads as quickly and safely as possible. starting on january 1st, fra will impose penalties on railroads not fully implementing ptc and they will be based on the guidelines which establish different penalties depending on the violation. they may be assessed per violation per day. the total amount depends on the amount of implementation progress the railroad has made. fra is planning for what will come after the january 1st deadline. in 2014 and 2015 the department and fra asked congress to provide fra with additional authorities that would address the safety gaps that will exist

on many railroads between january 2016 and each railroad. these additional authorities would provide us with the ability to review and require interim safety measurements that fail to meet the requirements. this is to enforce the raising of the bar but not replacing or extending the deadline. i want to extend thanks and appreciation for the committee to focusing on achieving efficiency as quickly and possible. i look forward to working with you and your questions. >> mr. mathias, you may proceed. >> thank you mr. chairman

danham and subcommittee member capuano, and members of the committee. promoting the safety of life and property through use of wiring, radio communication is the top fcc priority. the fcc helps coordinate spectrum and manage the historic presserivation in environmental reviews of the polls and antennas used to support positive train control of ptc systems. because the fcc was given no mandate to set aside spectrum for ptc we have been working with the railroad since 2008 to identify spectrum on the secondary market. the fcc has acted swiftly to approve transactions including the freight railroad spectrum nationwide and amtrak in the northeastern corridor and enabling and better testing ptc

employment. the commission plays no role in designing or assessing the roll of ptc technology. the railroads are responsible for ptc design and deployment. the country's freight lead the way for securing ptc. they have acquired nationwide spectrum in the 220-222 mega hertz band. they focused on this once the ptc was established and they drove other railroads, including amtrak and computer rails to spectrum in and around such band. for most of the country this strategy appears to have been successful. the fcc has facilitated and continues to facilitate the acquisition on second markets.

we have granted railroads waver more power to facilitate the use of spectrum for the ptc. amtrak and freights are deploying two different ptc systems that were not from the outset engineered to be compatible in the same spectrum broadband. unlook in chicago where the freight railroads tell us 11 different railroads can share the same block of spectrum using a single ptc, in the northeast corridor it requires two blocks of spectrum far enough apart to avoid interference. we will continue to work with amtrak and the rails that use them to identify solutions. ptc infrastructure deployment are a priority. federal, environmental and

federal historic law requires the affordable care act to assess the undertakings and the impact on properties significant to tribal nations. in may 2014 the council on historic presserivation issued rules and under the streamline approach the majority of the rules are exempt from review. the commission has the capacity to receive 1400 exempt and non-exempt every two weeks. by the middle of june they would have submitted as many as 40,000 but only submitted 83,000 polls here 21% of the capacity. issues in the northeast corridor are complex and pose challenges. we stand ready to work with the trails there and across the country to help them meet their

needs. we appreciate the subcommittee leadership on the issue. >> i look forward to answering questions you have. >> i would like to call on representative from florida, ms. brown, to introduce your next witness. >> i am pleased to introduce mr. frank lonegro who will be testifying for csx located in jacksonville, florida. he has worked for the company since 2000. csx is the employer that plays a major strong role in the

jacksonville community, the company and its ceo michael ward have been a lock advocate for veterans in florida and throughout the united states. let me say i am proud of the wounded warriors program. they gave the first $1 million and received two years in a war the top award from the president over 33% of their employees being veterans. with that i want to welcome frank and the other panelist and thank you for joining us. >> thank you, member brown. mr. chairman, ranking member, and members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to be here. i am the project owner for ptc at csx. the chair tasked with achieving this across 60,000 miles of

railroad. given the amtrak tragedy and remembering those impacted i receive there are four issues. why are most railroads unable to meet the ptc? why are a few able to make the ptc by a remainder isn't? what happens what happens if it is not passed? and what is going to happen forward? >> -- as one of the many railroaders working on ptc every day let me recount. i am responsible for ptc at csx and unfortunately it will not be completed by the deadline. this is not the result of lack of will or commitment. we have provided people funding and insured executive support and had hundreds of millions

over budget. with these ingredients companies don't fail at delivering projects that are achievable from the outset. congress shares in this responsibility. the 2015 ptc was reached on agreement. they advocated for 2012 2014, and 2018. unresponsible stakeholders joined in. there were hundreds of pages of regulation regulations requiring significant documentation, safety assessment and fault analysis. they require a lot of time and effort on both sides. no one anticipated the regulatory requirements related to ptc.

when fcc realized they would have to clear 20,000 towers they created a process that pushed the ptc by a year. fcc improved the antenna layer and the canada border agreement. we need a greater emphasis on speed especially solving the interference in the northeast. and given the technical task the suppliers have yet to hit the deadline or deliver software free from defects. a few railroads indicated they will make 2015 notable. both promised completion in 2012. that will illustrate the challenge challenges of ptc for small deployments. successful completion will be a testament to all of the hard

work. there are two main reasons why some will make 2015 and others will not. the first is scale. amtrak and metro link are similar in size. 150 engines and 350 miles of railroad. csx is almost 3,9000 engines 9,000 miles. the second is the state of the infrastructure. it wasn't interface with legacy and at csx ptc is requiring us to replace 7, 500 miles of signals and map 21,000 rail miles and enhance to a precision of 1/10,000 of a mile. the ptc mandate makes it illegal to transport commodities because

of the accomumulationaccumulation? woo which ashould be -- if we cannot transport the commodities or passenger by rail the outcome is not good for the american people or economy. if we continue to hold the commodities or passengers we will be in violation of the law and questionable insurance coverage. not a good situation for csx, its employees and shareholders. the need for an extension is clear. we look forward to working with you to forge that path ahead. thank you. >> thank you, mr. lonegro.

>> thank you mr. denham and members of the subcommittee. and the representative on the subcommittee. we appreciate your championship for transportation. i am the director of ethic. i was lucky enough earlier in my career to be a card engineer and i operate trains every day and it was an enormous responsibility. i took the experiences with me as ceo and director which is my position now. safety is paramount and we are committed to implementing ptc but it is not without

challenges. we are one of the largest commuter rails providing 83 million passenger trips and serve people commuting from the suburbs to work in chicago and operate 11 lines and 240 stations and four of the lines operated by the up. chicago is the nation's busiest rail hub and most complex with six of the seven operating there. the bne were further along with ptc instillation than us so we directed all of our resources to put equipment on the train so we could be complaint when they were. those lines once they are operational, 40% of the lines will be complete covering 50% of the passenger. it will be complete september of 2015 with the up following in

the 2nd quarter of 2016. we made significant progress on metro om lines. we hired a system integration team, awarded contracts to engineering firms to design signal system upgrades and continue to hire the necessary staff and leadership positions and field instillation crews. we have made substantial progress the challenges remain. the limited number of signal design systems, spectrum ability -- in chicago it is not determined if there is not spectrum for ptc in the region. we will not know until the spectrum study is completed. continued validation is part of the process to test reliability and access of ptc and only testing of individual segments has been taking place. this is a huge challenge for chicago given the complexity and integration with the system. the cost are $350 million and

estimates $3.5 billion for all commuter railroads. we receive federal funds, the same sources used for other safety critical infrastructure projects such as bridges, tracks and rolling stock. metro allocated $133 million over the last two years for ptc between the state and federal partners. the metro board approved a $2.4 modernization plan last year which included $275 million of complete ptc which is a combination of borrowing and fair increases. the balance needs to come from state and federal partners is uncertainty. and there is a cost of $15 million annually to be updated. given the challenges it is no surprise that no commuter has

fully implemented ptc. metro is asking for 2019 and asking congress to provide the authority to grant individual waivers for the deadline as long as they show a good faith effort. metro is asking for funding from congress. i would like to thank for hr-1405 reauthorizing the safety program giving us $200 million annually for five years. even though ptc is not going to be fully implemented by the deadline we have taken significant safe guards for safety for passengers. we reviewed the safety advisory and are in the process of implementing automatic notifications notifying the conductor where the speed is reduced by greater than 20 miles per hour for a bridge or curve.

and we have the c-3rs program which is close call reporting. before closing, i want to brainingbring to the committee's attention a question was raised with regard to the commuter rail ability to operate passed the deadline, the computer railroads are investigating this matter currently. it is metro's commitment along with the rest of the rail industry to implement this as quickly as possible. with that said, we ask congress to grant the authority to provide waivers based on good faith. i want to thank the committee for inviting me here today and i am happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. good morning, chairman denham and ranking member capuano and

members of the committee. i am the deputy manager for the southern california regional rail authority, positive train control program. i appreciate the invitation to testify to update the subcommittee on the most significant investments metro link is making to increase the safety of the passengers. ptc. i am proud to report as of june 14th metro link has fully implemented ptc across the entire 341 mile network of metro link owned lines. in addition to this major accomplishment we will submit the safety plan on june 30th seeking fra certification by the end of the year. metro link operates through six counties in southern california carrying over 43,000 week day

riders and dispatching hubs for 350 trains that traverse the area on a daily bases including from the union pacific and amtrak. metro links pcc program is a loco motive system based on the ietms software. the build out and testing of met rolinks ptc infrastructure was completed over six years which is technology installed, all antennas and radios installed and operating, a robust communication network built out and tested and a new hard and dispatch facility constructed and put into service under the project. in addition to the network of owned lines, we are working with

railroad partners to insure ptc implementation is achieved throughout the region. we have been lucky to have support from the local freight partners. we aprecate the many challenges for implementing ptc most of which have impacted our program. they include prolonged nationwide development of the technology, and the need for ongoing software upgrades development of the server, relentless testing to operations challenges in acquiring spectrum and funding constraints. in regard to spectrum, met rahro link has been working with the fcc and trying to follow the same procedure under the wireless bureau granted

application for amtrak. metro link has been lucky enough to use the five year lease allowing us to meet the near-term needs however we are attempt attempting to acquire our own spectrum for lang term needs. it cost $216.4 million. that is equivalent to the entire metro links budget. the majority of the funding, 85%, came from state and local sources. the investment has been significant for the agency however it was the priority of the board and funding projects to implement this lifesaving technology and we will continue prioritize

prioritizeing funding. it will increase the budget cost. metro link is proud to be leading the industry on ptc implementation despite the many challenges we have kept the focus on advancing the ptc program. i will close my remarks by saying at metro link we continue to believe safety is foundational and our investment in ptc as well as a number of other safety technologies shows our unwielding commitment to the safety of passengers. >> thank you. our first round of questions is five minutes. i will start things off this morning. ms. feinberg let me thank you for your response, the last committee meeting we did something somewhat out of the ordinary and asked for a quick

response with some of the questions this committee had on the amtrak crash. i think those issues are important to resolve and understand quickly and this committee thanks you for your rapid response. we are getting those answers to the questions and committee members. you and i pressed fra on positive train control being such a big priority why are you not using california high-speed dollars to upgrade the corridor and connecting routes in california? 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 are looking to provide leadership and resolve the safety concerns that people have quickly. and california high-speed rail

continues to have its challenges and certainly by their current burn rate of dollars they do not appear to be able to spend money allocated to them by the deadline. our ongoing exchanges, what else could you use that money for? could it be used for safety in california? i got your written responsibility and wanted to bring one issue to your attention, under california high speed rail investment strategy for phase one, they state electric the corridor and replacing with electric locomotives or train sets and introducing positive train control will speed up the service and pave the way for high speed rail. positive train control is a federal mandate that will reduce

the potential for train-to-train collision and improve signaling at crossings. this money was taken from california high-speed rail they approved the grant agreement to put it in a different corridor upgrade the train, and put ptc and by their own word this is a priority to them. they have diverted funding from the central valley with $400 million going to the joint powers authority to construct a foundation for high-speed rail service at the transbay terminal. you are moving the money out of the central valley hours away to where it may connect some day if it is difficult to san francisco and la. and under the high-speed inner city passenger rail grant program the following activities are eligible as noted in the

federal register: acquiring, constructing, improving, or inspecting equipment, track and track structures highway rail grade crossings, and improve lit improvements to communication and signalization improvements. that sounds a lot like ptc. positive train control affects each one of those areas. so i understand they would be able to use this. i know from your response you say the grantee would have to approve this and that would be california high-speed rail. if they are not spending the money, safety is all of our number one concerns. how do we not take money that is available to be spent under

prop-1a and address safety for our state? >> we have gone back and forth about this and happy to continue to go back and forth both with you and i happen our staff has had many 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 have done that before. you have granted the request and they did it several times for ptc, cal train and for the trans-joint powers authority. $400 million $171 million and another grant for ptc. >> i join you in concern that the california railroad association is not burning

through the money in a fascmanner and we are werbing closely to make sure they meet the obligation to do that. we cannot shift money that has been obligated to california high-speed rail and move it to another priority. even if willing to take money away it would go back to the treasury. we will continue to engage and talk through it with you. >> thank you. that appears to be a change in policy since it is already happening. i would understand if california high speed rail -- if you need them to be the guarantee to make the request for fra my question would be to high speed rail authority, if they spent money on ptc if this is a priority for the administration and california high-speed rail are they not improving safety in california? >> i don't believe it is a change in policy but we can continue to conversation. >> my time is expired and we

will have a second round. but as you know company is a big concern of mine so is california my speed rail. i go to mr. defazlo and recognize the fact that mr. capuano once again has been very gracious to the colleague from the other side to skip his time so others may go first. >> i think capuano and gracious go together in the same sentence sentence. ms. feinberg you heard what csx raised about the potential conflict with the hard deadline and whether or not their continued carriage of hazard and passengers, can you resolve that or do we have to statutorily

resolve that? >> the congress has to act. i cannot make a legal decision for csx on liability. >> and you cannot extend the deadline? >> i cannot extend the deadline. >> you talked about enforce and penalties. i would like to get a little insight into that. we are looking forward now and there is a lot of history with a lot of questions ability how we got to this point and how some people with much closer to meeting the deadline than others. are you looking at a penalties that exact funds from the railroad? 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 bench marks, look at assessing penalties going forward? >> that would really be extending the deadline.

the deadline is the deadline and if we then communicate to railroads why don't you come up with one that would be extending the deadline to me. in terms of the penalties, there are three or four pages of specific fines and penalties finalized in 2010 going from not equipmenting to locomotive to not having ptc. >> what i am trying to get out is everybody here wants it done as quickly as possible. there is a lot of history. in order to go forward, i am wondering, if we give you flexibility from the deadline but we give you a mandate it will be implemented as soon as

pracitable by each of those who do not meet and then you set bench marks and they violate the bench marks that is who i think fines might be appropriate. would that be a way to go forward? >> i take cues from congress and enforce what congress mandates. if they instruct us to enforce mandates like that we would do. but my concern is entering negotiation negotiations with each railroad on what they would like their deadline to be. >> i am not thinking what they would like but as soon as practical and not something meeting their convenience or capital outlays or whatever. this is a difficult issue. to the fcc, you now have the capacity to deal with the pole applications and approvals in a

streamline way and there are quite a few that haven't been applied for and you are not pushing your capacity. is that correct? >> that is correct. since the streamline process was put in place we can review about 40,000 polls and we have only received application to review 8300. we are ready for more work. >> that is something to take into account. this is off the subject but i have to ask. 5.9 giga hertz. part of the problem was going to buy spectrum. i am really concerned about what you might do with the 5.9 giga hertz for smart cars and between communication of vehicles in the future. there is some talk about it leading to interference and lead us to a point where smart car manufacturers of the future have

to go out and by spectrum as a opposed to having something reserved. i would hope you would take that under advisement. and to csx, how soon can you get it done? >> our plans call for us to be hardware installed meaning all of the signal replacement work we are doing and trains equipped and technology and hardware installed by the end of 2018 with full deployment by 2020. i think it is important to know by the end of 2018 we will have a significant portion of the system operating. so it isn't like getting to 2020 and turning on the 11,000 miles. it is methodical and linear from here on out. we will have about 500 miles place by the end of the year about the size and corridor of the metro link deployment and

then 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 blanket exemptio till 2020 because some people will take that long that don't need to. i think it is something the committee will be looking at. >> you said you will use enforcement fines and warnings to make sure ptc is adopted. will you share how you will determine the good and bad actors? can you categorize in this way? and i am looking for metrics,

ways to measure this, so it isn't arbitrary. i see bullet points on things you intend to do but i am looking for how we measure csx verses up verses metro link to be able to determine that. >> absolutely. we would not want to be arbitrary or subjective. we would want this to be black and white so railroads and congress know what to expect. what was summarized in my oral testimonies testimony was to be quick. but our plan is take the penalty and scheduled laid out and be transparent about what our approach will be and communicate it both to the congress and to railroads so that everyone knows what to expect. >> will we see that shortly? the deadline is getting close and we want to make sure there

is a transparent -- i have seen agencies in the past being arbitrary. >> that is not going to be our approach or the way we will go about it. we will be very transparent about it. we owe the congress on update on ptc implementation and how railroads are doing due to the recent feedback we have gotten back from the congress it is clear the congress would like that report to include specific information about how each railroad is doing individually and what our enforcement strategy will be. so we are including that in the report and plan to get to to you as quickly as possible. >> and levying fines against people does that mean daily, monthly, weekly? >> the statute lays out it can be per violation per day. but there is some amount of

discretion there. >> would you consider shutting down a railroad? >> i think that would be up to the railroad lawyers who would make the determination. we have heard from railroads that their lawyers are making that determination based on their liability and likelihood of the magnitude of fines and penalties. >> in terms of transit systems and commuter rails, my understanding is you folks having a difficult time i know a sector in the southeast has to make tough decisions on whether they will repair or replace cars and tracks because it is throwing money in the budget. can you tell us like a road like chicago. >> that is definitely a major challenge for us. we have about $150 million of federal formula funds, ptc alone is $350-$400 million.

we have to balance using that money for other safety concerns like bridges. bridges are important. we have ones built in the 1800s and in the process of doing those projects. it is important to find the funding and make sure we we can get this implemented. it is significant safety enhancement. there is no question about it. but it completes with other safety issues we have. >> you have to be the most challenged because you have all class ones coming in around chicago.

i have spent over $5 billion. i don't feel that the federal railroad administration, we've had daily, not daily but meetings where we stress to them and i don't think the administration has done all they need to do to move us forward. to sit here and say we may have to shut down the industry i

would like you to respond to that. >> i was responding to the question about what our authority is. >> i'm not talking about enforcing, i'm talking about supporting what we've done to help the industry. for example with the spectrum, how come we did not have provided for the industry? that delayed the projects. >> i'll let the fcc answer the specific question. i can tell you we have hired a a significant staff. one of the witnesses previously said there is only a dozen staff and that's incorrect. we have staff in washington and across the country. we have asked for loans and grants. we have offered assistance across the board. we are still waiting for safety plans to come in from railroads

based on implementation. >> as far as i'm concerned in terms of assistance in moving forward, i don't mean it in a negative way but you haven't been here the entire time. we have been working for this for years and we have not got administration where it needs to be as far as moving forward. you say positive train control and it's a combination. what happened with amtrak wasn't just about the proper equipment and controls the cars there's a whole list of things that i feel the administration should have worked harder. i'm not saying this particular

administration but administration in general hasn't done everything they can do to get us where they need to be. even if they come up with it in 2018 it's still been a long time. >> i can only take for this administration. i can't speak for previous administration. this administration has done a great dale to try to bring railroads along and into compliance with the mandate that was passed in 2008. we have been sounding the alarm for years about the concern that the railroads were not going to meet the deadline. i believe this administration has done a great deal of work to bring railroads along. we have not seen the progress that we need to however. >> i'm just letting you know. >> go ahead to the next person. >> you're asking about the

question of the amtrak spectrum? >> yes. >> the way the railroads approach this process initially they selected a spectrum band in 220 mhz. i'm sorry to 220 megahertz. i'm sorry to get technical on you but it's part of the spectrum that was already owned by other people. unfortunately in that case what we would have had to do to get that back him to on to anyone else is we would've had to taken it away from the existing owners through a process that would have required compensation to find additional and would have led to litigation. we thought what would have been more productive would be to work with amtrak on the spectrum to find something on the secondary market. >> as we move forward, that is an issue that congress needs to address. my next round i'll go to you

frank. >> mr. brown you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. ms. feinberg why is there the need to create this new system? it seems to me there are so many systems that are similar to this that would be incredibly cheaper and quicker to institute. why did we settle on creating this entire new system question mark. >> i think this is actually an overlay of some other system but if you're referring to some of the technology we talked about in the committee previously, it's basically a step beyond that. it would assist in taking human factors off the table. it's one of the most important technologies that we believe can be implement it for rail safety.

>> i'll switch over to you. i know there are gps systems out there that you can buy for a thousand dollars that will control the motion of a vehicle it can stop and start it and all that thing. >> and it tells you where you're at. >> i have one on my on my boat that cost $900 would steer my boat to a point. why is this so much more of a cult than that? >> the key is it's not as specific technology as the specification that it prevents train to train collision. >> as long as the gps is connected it should be able to do that very very easily. this seems like this is light years easier than a google car or whatever you call that thing. a google car has to sense people walking in front of it and this doesn't have to do any of that.

all it can do it can't steer, it has to go how fast how slow and stops. it's not that complicated. >> i understand and appreciate your point but it is more complicated than it would seem. one of the key factors is interoperability. they require seamless transition from one railroad to another railroad property and communications. >> i understand that but this technology exist today. i'm in a switch over to you. >> do you have technology today that you know where all your locomotives are? can you tell where they are at any time? >> we have gps on. >> we have gps on arm locomotives for i would say the last half a dozen years. gps is one of 100 i'll say just for ron numbers inputs. it just

provides one input and that is where the train is. it's not an indicator of speed or grade. or where the red signal is or where the work zone is. i could go on and on but i know you don't want me to. that's just one input into it. what you referred to earlier about access is referred to a cap signal method of operation. we only have about 11000 miles that use that and then the other system is built on top of that. that. it's not a system that we utilize to run our train. >> all these other guys are using taxpayer money and you're not. did you all do an analysis of whether it would be cheaper to use some of these legacy systems that would control the train or to create this entire system. they're doing 23 locomotives and it's costing a lot of money.

did csx determine whether ob cheaper to modify the existing system rather than creating an entirely new system question mark. >> in the beginning yes we did an analysis whether we should go the amtrak route or whether we should go with the system they've been working on since the mid- 90s. the thing that is important to know is that there are generally three or four methods of operation. a very small portion of that is cap signal. signal territory and non- signal territory and there are permutations of all of that. we would've had to change the entire method of operation to cap signal which would have required wayside changes

technology changes and locomotive changes. yes we did look at the two and we believe this is the right way to go and still believe it today. >> thank you sir you spent $216 million. you have to fully installed? we haven't fully implemented. >> comedy locomotives do you have? >> 109 that need to be equipped. >> so you spent about $2 million question mark. >> our budget is 216 million we've spent about 200 million. there's a tremendous amount of components as well. >> it sounds ridiculously expensive to me. thank you.

>> you are recognized for five minutes are. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for holding this hearing. we want to make sure we do everything we can for safety. it's been a very difficult issue. it's a very difficult time coming into the position that the administrator here. i want make sure that we are all clear you were saying that the fra doesn't have the authority to shut down railroads. it's defined if the mandate isn't extended. >> ultimately if we needed to

take the action to shut down a railroad, i think we could do that. my point was what were hearing is that the decision they are making with consultation with their lawyers on how they would operate on january 1 if they're not fully implemented. >> i don't know if that makes sense to me. do you want to add anything to that in regard to the fines and impact that could have on you? >> thank you congressman. on the commuter side of the industry we depend very heavily on tax dollars. what the commuter rail industry has indicated is an extension based on good faith efforts on their good faith efforts to complete this. i don't think personally it would be in the public's best interest to find railroads that typically don't have the funding to implement tpc. i think we need to find a solution where we can implement tpc and not claim the railroads.

it's just coming right out of our pocket from the bridges and everything else we have to operate. >> do you have anything? >> it doesn't matter how big the bear chasing you is if you're running as fast as you can you can't run any faster. we have 1000 people working on the project and it's hard to say that we haven't put the best foot forward that we possibly could. we have supplied the fra with both an aggregate level of information in terms of where we've been. we've done that since the end of 2012. they asked for it and we provided that information. we've given a prognosis on railroad by railroad basis about when we be done. >> i don't believe the fines would be helpful.

>> we all want to sit up here and find villains. in this situation i think it's very complex and there are not easy answers to this. we just want to move forward as quickly as possible. i've been in favor and i've tried and worked on getting more federal funding especially for commuter rail. you're saying about $350 million to finish by 2019. >> that is correct. that's a conservative number. as we get moving into the process first further along that is a conservative number. did you receive any funding from the grant programs? >> know we have not. >> what additional funding help expedite that?

would that help you invest in your infrastructure? >> there's a strong possibility that additional funding would help move the project along faster but i also want to be very clear that i also want to be very clear that there's only a number of resources that are available for installation and purchasing things. the supply and demand chain and things like that. we can look at moving it quicker and if we had federal funding we could take the funding that we are using for that and use it for other things. we have cars that are 60 years old and bridges that were built in the 1800s. we could address some of those issues. >> they have significantly increased fares as a long-term plan so you're doing your part in regard to that parent. very quickly i want to touch on one other safety related issue. regardless of whatever plan i

hope your agency keeps careful tabs on these efforts in the reports they submit. we are ready know they have an ambitious timeline for finishing this. some issues we've had with them which we have discussed and i think we need to make sure the follow-up is done so we can keep them as safe as possible. >> certainly, if i could just make one point. we have asked for a sum total of $2 billion to go toward tpc implementation and technologies. 825 million grow america, but altogether $2 billion. we are in favor of that funding going towards implementation. >> thank you mr. chairman. the morning ms. feinberg. i have a question for you.

just make sure i'm clear it's my understanding that the fra and this come from testimony, they will use all powers including enforcement fines and adoption. we know how they would assess adoption. we know how they would assess the fines. would they be assessed a daily? is there a policy that's been defined regarding that? the the goal of our enforcement actions and any safety regulators is to bring about compliance. >> i understand the goal. do we have a policy? >> as we discussed earlier we are finalizing that now. most of the policy is public and has been public since 2010. there are various signs and penalty and most of it has been public since 2010. we are in response to the congress request finalizing our strategy now.

we want to be completely transparent about what the railroads and congress can expect. >> and might be daily and might be otherwise? >> that's correct. >> so a few days after you were here after the terrible mishap in philadelphia, i asked you, joe the $1.3 billion in money that was received some time ago because it was such an issue and there was question about congress and one particular party not being responsive and cutting money for tpc. how much of the stimulus money, when everything was in one hand in this town was spent on this for amtrak in the north east corner? do you remember that question? >> it's 400 million-dollar that went toward tpc. that's not amtrak specific. i didn't realize you wanted just amtrak specific. i believe it's 36 for amtrak.

>> so that's federal funding and were looking at $9 billion is what the estimated cost of freight railroads. you can see the difference. we don't have tpc but this is private money, $9 billion. let me ask you about the arbitrary deadline. what deadline. what is your opinion about the deadline? does it take into account the technical aspects and the frequencies bactrim aspects question mark doesn't take into account the timeline where the fra took nearly one year to approve a single plan that is required by each railroad? does

it take into account those things? >> it's your deadline. it's the congresses deadline. >> i'm asking your opinion. >> i believe it's a good deadline and was reached during negotiation. >> i understand that but take into account those things. >> i believe in 2008 when you pass this deadline you took those things into an account. >> you did okay. regarding finances there is no political solution to the two sides one wanting earlier and one wanting later question mark. >> i think there was an understanding in 2008 that this would be complicated but it had been called for since 1969 and wouldn't be so complicated. >> i asked for your opinion and i appreciate it. >> under the act of 2015 the fra was required to provide a report to a report to congress within a hundred and 80 days. do not the status of that is question mark. >> yes previously we had a quick discussion about it.

it was due to the committee who have gotten additional information they want in that report. we are updating it now and should have it to you in days. >> wasn't on time or wasn't it? >> it was due one week ago. >> so it's not in yet? >> that's correct it's post be an update on where the railroad is. >> i understand that but they gave a hundred and 80 days. >> that's right but they also asked. >> so the request changed. so who should we hold accountable question marks. >> you can hold me accountable. >> what should the fine be? >> ali leave that to you. >> thank you. >> i travel constantly back and forth.

i'm still trying to get this idea with the spectrum and how we wound up in places like chicago where they only have one in more than 11 companies use it. i don't understand why we just can't come up with one system. now we have to wary about where one is going to interview with another. that just doesn't make sense. other parts of the country uses one system. how do we get to this point? >> i think i think it goes back to the conversation we had a few minutes ago about the access system for and trap that was developed for passenger rail and high-speed trap passenger rail. there's a certain way that they run a certain way that they run their operation and the utilize certain technologies to run their train and dispatch their train.

they have a different way of running the railroad and those two systems _ >> is a company not making concessions with the other? i don't understand it. >> were all making concessions. >> how do we end up with two a for making concessions? >> while they're two separate systems that rely on communications. what were really doing is a data transit mission that's using two radios. they will use two separate but close pieces of spectrum. the closer there are the more interference there can be. were actively working between amtrak as well as the fcc to solve that problem. we believe we are making progress. >> they say 40% of all accidents

are as a result of human performance failure. they believe that tpc would only prevent 4%. how do we come up with 4%? 4%? >> we looked at all of the accidents over a ten or 12 year period. all accidents. accidents are generally caused by a couple of things. either the conditions or a couple of things. either the conditions or the behaviors. the conditions could be track related, signal related, the equipment could have a car problem and the same on the local motive cars. it work could be behavioral on the human side of things. we looked at the entire portfolio of accidents and did the math on things that we thought were tpc preventable and which were not. we came up with 2% of all

accidents would be tpc preventable. >> in other words you don't thing it's worth it to make this investment? >> i investment? >> i think were well past that conversation. we have already spent $1.2 billion on it. i think were well past that conversation. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. hardy recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chan chairman. mr. feinberg i read your testimony and it states that they are ready to implement fines on friday. you friday. you say frei is ready to act to bring railroads into safety compliance. do you suggest that congress should recognize the fra to you require railroads to use alternative safety guidelines.

you also say these requirements will likely be costly to railroads. can you share with me your ideas on this alternative technology? >> what i was referring to is what i would refer to as the safety gap that would exist between january 1, 2016, the day after the deadline and when tpc is actually implemented by each railroad and what, if anything should be done to raise the bar on safety during that gap. whether it's additional communication between crewmembers or an additional person in the cab, we have not made a cab, we have not made a final determination. i think it would be railroad to railroad specific. how do you increase safety between the deadline that was missed and when tpc is implemented? >> you said it would be costly to these railroad so you've clearly run the numbers on how much of a cost. could the cost. could you share with me that information or how you came to that point question mark. >> we just hear that items like

additional crewmembers are quite costly. >> with safety being paramount i'd like you to delve into the cost a little bit more. they will have spent billions of dollars on this implementation while progress before it can be implemented nationwide. how much money have they spent out-of-pocket and do you believe these costs will be passed down to consumers which is naturally what happens and i just want to hear from you. >> in my opinion yes they would be passed down to consumers. we have to pass those costs on and we only have so much state and federal funding. the challenge that we have on

the commuter fare side is the higher you raise the fare, the less likely you will fair, the less likely you will to retain all of your riders at a time where we want to get people on the train and off the road. it's a balancing act to be able to provide safe valuable service for our customer at a fair price. >> do you believe what we have done all weekend as a committee, as congress to help move things forward, do you feel like you are being penalized for our lack of action or the fra's action or inaction? i like to hear your opinion. >> that's a challenging question. >> yes it is. >> the answer is this is a very expensive proposition for all a very expensive proposition for all railroads especially commuter railroads where we don't have the type of funding we need. i believe congress needs to fund the project.

it's important for the safety it's important for the safety of our customers and our employees and the communities we operate through. it's very important to me that the federal government supplies some funding for it. >> thank you. >> you made the statement that the immediate impact of the deadline has potential of making certain rail operations illegal. can you discuss these ramifications a bit more? >> yes or. we are in a legal dilemma as i mentioned in the opening testimony. we have a law that requires this to be implemented on lines that carry passengers and commodities. the transport of those after january 1 of 2016 would run in conflict with the safety act. we also have a requirement to carry freight on reasonable terms and condition.

were in the situation of what law do we value late. we have the same problem on the passenger side. there's a law that is 40 or 45 years old and we have to allow amtrak to run as well as a few other commuters. we also have this obligation under the safety improvement act to complete tpc on those same lines. if we can't meet it do we have to tell them they can't run it. these are the challenges that many lawyers are trying to resolve. we don't have the answer to that quite yet. >> thank you your time has expired. >> mr. hardy you recognized for five minutes. >> i want to think both of you thank both of you for holding the hearing. the subcommittee work is extremely important to the thousands of folks in my district in connecticut who ride

these rails every day and companies who rely on the freight service. i hear from a lot of those commuters that they are very concerned about rail safety over the last few years. we've been talking about ever sense the fatal collision in 1969. we've been talking about ptc. i think we really need to get down to what are the carrots and sticks. what are the incentives recognizing the difficulty and budget challenges? what do we noon now to move this forward to mark the past is the past and we are here now. now. we are here in june and how do we get this moving forward? thank you for your patience and your transparency and your exceptional availability to us

on the committee. we value that a lot. in your testimony you noted that the fra should have met the authority, given the situation right now over the control systems to test and provide interim safety measures when they do not meet that deadline which it's all clear most of them will not meet the deadline. can you expand and say what should we be doing in this committee of jurisdiction to give fra authority and why? >> thank you for the question, why? >> thank you for the question, i think the most important thing we can do starting now and going forward is to provide railroads the resources they need to implement ptc. they have asked for significant resources for the commuter railroad so they can implement ptc. i think that's the most important thing ptc. i think that's the most important thing that can happen.

additionally in terms of our authority, the statute is quite narrow. as others have discussed we really do run into a problem on january 1 for the law is the law. to cite preferences of railroad 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. we have to figure out how to move forward past january 1 to make sure that passengers, those who live near and around around rail are safe. i'm happy to continue to work with the congress on that but the most important thing is that we are providing resources so that we can bring this technology online quickly. >> a quick follow-up question, do you believe the railroads that failed to meet that deadline, and i'm asking under current law, will be expected to

have liability? what is the liability? what is the legal opinion about that? >> the opinion of the fra, 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 believe there is increased liability as of january 1 and we agree with them. >> i think we need to get to work on that because that's not in anybody's interest as we move forward. >> thank you for being here i'm hearing from the railroads in the northeast four-door, the difficulty about what we can do in the congested space. that is spectrum space as well as physical space. what should we do to expedite the safety of that area. >> thank you for your question. we have an increasingly.

amtrak has this vector him they need to deploy which would be for connecticut. in addition we currently have in front of us a proposed transaction that would provide the mta digital spectrum to provide coverage between new york and new haven which would fill a gap in their coverage and we know they also have a spectrum that we need. we need to ensure we are working as quickly as we cans of 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. >> okay, let's go right to mr. mathis. you're talking about the connecticut connection putting

ptc in from boston to new haven. isn't that most of what amtrak doesn't own? no sir. >> but that's where it was installed. it's installed it's installed there isn't it? you gave us a map and that was pretty much complete but that's really mostly under a private operation. amtrak runs trains over but they don't own that part of the line. >> i'm telling you that they don't own it. >> it's interesting but they can get it done. >> let's go to the acting administrator. here she is asking for money again. how many risk loans have been given since 2012? at first i got an answer of last year to and then we got to three. is it still three?

how many of those were for ptc? >> one. >> ptc? >> one. >> you could say 33% of them, it sounds more impressive. >> good idea. >> let's go back to our communication guy. there was 11,000 backlogged and you took care of it. at 1. i thought there as many as 20,000 applications. >> we understand from the railroads that their total deployment would be approximately 30,000. >> what is your number of applications approved and what is your backlog at this point? >> we have had before us 8300 we have no clock. >> no backlog and they're all approved? in the past i gave you credit for processing about 2000 year. 2000 year. is that correct or did i lie? >> i think we did more. >> okay, where is my guy from

metrolink. 2008 we did the bill. we still don't have positive train control in all of metrolink's service or do you? >> we have our entire line of metrolink owned service that have it in place. >> what's missing then? >> the lines that we run on with our freight partners are not currently ptc operational. >> she just said she's going to hammer the freight people and the hammer is coming down the end of the year. is that what

you said? >> i said? >> i said we were going to enforce the deadline. >> you're going to enforce that, right. then i see you submit a budget that proposes a six-year schedule of funding commuter railroads to fund ptc. so is it going to take another six years? last i checked there's not a lot of passengers on freight trains, isn't that right? most of them are caring freight, not, not people. i think people would be pretty important. most of those people that were killed might've disrupted some freight traffic, but they were people. is this a new policy? people people. is this a new policy? people and commuters will take six years but were going to hammer those freight people. >> first of all we will enforce the deadline against all real roads. >> i said we had a land to go forward. >> we'd be happy to use it as reef sources for other items.

>> cameras, metrolink to have them? yes cameras, metrolink to have them? yes we have them in all the cabs. >> that's been a recommendation of the organization since that time. they were implemented in most instances. >> metrolink implemented them in 2000 2009. >> last question does anybody know what mechanism was used for funding? i have seven seconds before i conclude. i'm flying up here in a medic guy who i didn't know and he said what are you doing on the

plane. he set. he said i'm coming back from d.c. i asked why you coming back from d.c. i was part of a project and we finance projects. it took us between 60 and 90 days to get approval for financing. i said what are you doing here? he said it's taken us a year. he said these guys are screwing around with paperwork for a year. you can go out and get private sector financing while they screw around and here's a mechanism that may be available and is available and you have huge capacity at risk and both of them don't work. do you want to respond on your own time? i'm over my times. >> i believe both of those programs have moved along faster than they have previously and there's always room for improvement. >> the previous chairman did say

the witnesses time was also the members time. >> thank you for holding this hearing and thank you to my colleague for yielding to the rest of the committee. first of all i want to command i want to commend metrolink, the second largest rail system in the country for the outstanding work they have done in meeting our ptc deadline. i like that you work closely with your railroad partners to make sure their technologies were interoperable and worked hard to acquire the plans needed to implement your system. i want to point out that 85% of the funds that metrolink used to fund the rollout were from the state of california and local sources. only 15% were federal.

they are clearly a top priority for me and for the american people. i people. i think when the american people here 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. i will say, i want to go on record and agree to disagree with chairman denham that i don't think we should take money from california high-speed rail to pay for ptc. they have it within their budget we need to find money for both. i meniffe my first question.

we've heard the testimony and acquiring the spectrum. according to metrolink, the process of that has been trying and prolonged. before they can use it they need fcc approval. in order to meet the deadline they are currently leasing spectrum at the rate of $50000 per year while awaiting the approval. i think everybody is gonna want to know why has it taken five years to approve the use of spectrum. is this normal? shouldn't we have in light of the recent accidents and urgency to prevent future accidents, shouldn't there be an expedited process for approval to deal with our public safety? >> thank you for that good question. i can appreciate your concern.

we are very glad that metrolink was able to negotiate a lease a lease and that they will be able to have spectrum necessary to provide the ptc service. we understand their service. we understand their frustration that they had intended to purchase is taking so long to acquire. unfortunately it's been in federal litigation and i can't provide details. i can't provide details. what were trying to do, as much as we can to get that process moving. we take an extraordinary step of taking the spectrum that they wish to acquire out of our close proceedings so we can move forward. they have several waiver requests that would facilitate the use of the spectrum. we understand they need to update those. we look forward to receiving that information. >> thank you but i think the american people are not going to be very sympathetic with the fcc

not approving spectrum applications as quickly as possible. i sort of agree with my colleague, mr. brown, that it's difficult to be fining 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 gonna say that. so you are a model and i'm very proud of metrolink in california. maybe california. maybe since you have been able to meet the deadline and you've been able to jump over obstacles and through the hoops to make this happen, what advice would you give other commuter rail lines in this century who are trying to meet the deadline by the end of the year? >> thank you for that question. i would like to thank mr. lemay

grow for his shout out to our project director who has been just diligent in pushing this project forward. that sentiment has come all the way from the top ranks of metrolink the board and our grantors have made a strong commitment to this project. the funding they provided was the crucial element in getting this project going along with the adamant support from our board to get this project started. we started early and made a very concerted effort around the clock and have been working very hard at it for many years. it's hard i wouldn't say there's a silver bullet for other railroads to accomplish it, it's been a very challenging it, it's been a very challenging process. we do sympathize with the many challenges which we have also encountered.

the funding is a key element and having a key element and having a close working relationship with your freight partners that you operate with because that was really the other key element with the strong support we had from our freight partners. >> thank you and again you've been a model for the country and we applaud you. >> thank you. >> mr. duncan you're recognized for five minutes. >> i'm sorry i had to be at another hearing until just a few minutes ago but ms. feinberg maybe you've covered this but 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 on how long it will take your agency to certify the railroad after this process?

>> after a safety a safety plan is submitted to us, which is the railroads plan on how they will implement ptc and ensure 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're in close consultation with the railroad talking through it and offering edits and changes to make sure the system is going to work. it takes a while but we feel pretty confident that as they roll in we will be able to turn them around in the time periods we've laid out for the railroads. as of now we've just railroads. as of now we've just received one. >> are you satisfied with the progress but the railroads have made thus far? >> i'm not satisfied. satisfied. i would not be satisfied unless the deadline were going to be met. >> my dad told me years ago and

i don't remember what he was talking about at the time, but he time, but he said everything looks easy from a distant. i was reading over the testimony for csx and our tasks are still monumental. it said csx has to do a complete airborne imaging survey of our network. all assets have to be mapped within 7 feet of their precise location, the installation of wayside units and signals need to be placed along the track they have to equip locomotives and add employees. these tasks are monumental and that's being conservative. tell me about the safety so far.

>> we've been an industry leader in the last two or three years and the whole industry, if you go back and look at the train accident statistics, has seen significant, 40 to 50% reductions in train accidents since the 2000 time. safety is a core value and it's the way of life and is the first core value that we have. it's very similar at every other railroad. every day we live and breathe safety. whether it's to improve the equipments or make things are in good order. the training that we do with our people, looks at how the train was handled to see if there were any anomalies and then we hold a coaching session. if they breach a red signal there taken out of service and

we are studying behaviors in the cab. i think we are doing an awful lot on safety. >> the committee gave me a statistics and said the freight rail system is 99.995% safe based on the number of trips that are taken. that seems to me to be a phenomenal safety record. i was told a short time ago that a short time ago that the wall street journal said that 2014 was the safest year ever for the rail industry. everybody has tremendous sympathy for these families that

lost loved ones in the amtrak accident, but my goodness, now were spending billions and we've already spent billions and will spend billions more to try to make something that is already one of the most safe things in the entire world and i'm thinking we would be far better off to spend those billions and many many other ways, cancer research and everything else. my times up. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you for being gracious with your time. i want to thank the panel. ms. feinberg, were all here today because panel. ms. feinberg, were all here today because we think ptc can save lives. i think everybody agrees with us if you're a week or two or a monthly, does anybody die? >> no sir. >> is there any major property loss? >> no sir. >> if one of the major railroads came to you and said to make

december 31 but will make january 15 or february 1? are 15th or february 1? are you going to impose big fines? >> highly unlikely. >> i didn't think so. >> how much did the chatsworth accident cost? >> in excess of that amount. >> in hindsight knowing what that accident cost and what the system cost, the system has a ready paid for itself? >> yes or. >> if it's paid fears itself on your line is it reasonable to say that it will pay for itself on other lines in avoidable accidents? >> i think so. >> i think so too. nobody wants to have fines. there's no reason to have fines. we get that.

at the same time were sitting here seven years later with some of the railroads doing virtually nothing. how would you suggest, let's assume we could come together, by the way mrs. feinberg who set this deadline? >> the congress. >> are you empowered to ignore that? >> no. >> are you empowered to change that deadline? >> no. >> so it's only us. >> yes. >> i think any reasonable person knows this is not a deadline that will be met. we need to extend the deadline. i hope the congress deadline. i hope the congress can come together and do this. at the same time once we do it how do we avoid a bad actor from simply ignoring it again. any reasonable amount of time without a stick.

i don't want the fines, but how do i do it any other way? >> i think it was brought up in many occasions today, i think from the onset of the 2008 safety act, the date that was agreed upon, once we got into the significant challenges. >> i understand where we are today if i said write a law that in some period of time some reasonable amount of time we will have this done. hattaway then enforce that if i don't have funds or fines? >> i think we have to look at it at that time that the key issue is were not going to meet the deadline. it's not from lack of deadline. it's not from lack of effort. >> i respect that but i don't know any other way to enforce it among bad actors. good actors don't need it but bad actors do. i imagine you have fines for

your partners that don't meet their deadlines. i do think the federal government should be participating and supporting this. i need 17 other i need 17 other members to agree with that. in the meantime, we can't do anything. i think it's pretty clear to me that we have to do something, but to pretend we do nothing or pretend that goodness will simply overcome the lack of goodness is ridiculous and unenforceable. we need to come up with a reasonable timeframe and allow ms. find feinstein to enforce the law. i don't want to find anyone. we can dance around and point angers and show what happened five years ago, seven years ago, ten years ago, but since 1969 according to the end tsb preventable accidents have

killed 246 people and have injured 4263. i don't know how many funds have been lost because no one's put that together. if it's a 200 million-dollar cap, it's hard to tell but it seems to me just rough numbers but it looks like the cap would've been about $20 billion. this is a doable action. it is an action that pays for itself and has been proof positive by metrolink. help us work with you to get it done. by the way mr. mathias you had 800 polls but that doesn't count

the 11,000 you 11000 you did earlier. you have posted 20000 across the country that have been approved. so we very got two thirds of the locations approved and ready to go. is that right? >> correct. >> thank you for your indulgence. >> safety is my first priority and there's no question. positive train control is enough necessary tool to improve safety. the fact of the safety. the fact of the matter is most railroads will not have the technology installed by december 31, 2015 deadline. today i'm wondering what happens on january 1, 2016 if the deadline remains? today ms. feinberg committed to holding the railroads accountable if they do not meet the 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