>> these are the same sources of funds used for other safety related critical infrastructure projects such as bridges, tracks. metra acela to 133 million over the last two years for ptc between our state and federal partners. the metro board approved $2.4 billion modernization plan last year which included 275 million to complete ptc which is a combination of borrowing and fare increases. that balance would need to come from our state and federal partners which is uncertain at this time. there's a significant operational and maintenance costs estimated at $50 million annually for metra. given these challenges it's no surprise that no commuter rail system is fully implemented ptc to date. metra assist many 19 purple and publication. we are asking congress to provide fra the authority to grant individual waivers for the

deadline as long as the agencies shall good-faith effort. as determined by the fra. metra is asking for funding from congress. on that note i would like to thank you for introducing h.r. 14 survive which rid authorizes the safety program program for ptc which is 200 million annually for the next five years. even though ptc will not be fully implemented by the deadline, metra has taken significant steps to safeguard for our passengers. we have reviewed the 2015 safety advisory and are in the process of implementing automatic notifications are to system load by the conductor in advance where the speed is reduced by greater than 20 miles per hour for average worker. the conductor will communicate and remind engine of the restriction we've also instituted the c-3rs program in conjunction with our labor union

with every. before closing i want to bring to the committee's attention recently a question was raised at the conference with regard to the commit real industry's ability to continue to operate passed the ptc deadline as relates to liability, insurance liability. the commuter railroads are currently investigating this matter. it is mattress commitment along with the rest of the rail industry the ultimate ptc as expeditiously as possible. with that said would ask congress to grant afford to broadway for space on good-faith efforts and the funding to support the limitation of ptc and i want to thank the committee for inviting me here today. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> good morning chairman denham, ranking member capuano and members of the committee. my name is russell crowe deputy project manager for the southern california regional rail authority a.k.a. metrolink. positive train control program.

i appreciate invitation to testify today to update the subcommittee on the significant investment metrolink is making to increase the safety of our passengers ptc. i am proud to report as of june 14, metrolink is fully implemented ptc across the entire 341-mile network of metrolink owned lines. in addition to this major accomplishment we will submit our ptc safety plan to fra next week on june 30 seeking fra certification by the end of the year in accordance with the rail safety improvement act of 2008. metrolink operates on seven routes through six counties in southern california, carrying over 43,000 weekday riders. we are dispatching on for three and 50 trains that traverse metrolink property on a daily basis including trains from u.p. union pacific, and amtrak.

metrolink ptc program is a locomotive centric overlaid system based upon the interoperable electronic train management system, a.k.a. ietms software. the buildup was completed over the past six years which includes ptc onboard equipment installed and tested on all 109 locomotive endcap part, all ways a device of ptc reduce installed and operational, robust communication network buildout and tested, and a new hard and dispatch facility for ptc constructive input into service under the project. in addition to her network of online, we're working closely with the railroad partners bnsf, union pacific and amtrak and the north county transit district to ensure ptc implementation is achieved throughout the region. we have been fortunate to have

tremendous support from our local freight partners. we appreciate the many challenges to implementing ptc. most of which have impacted our program. they include prolonged nationwide development of this interoperable technology and the need for ongoing software upgrades, development of our backup server and dispatching systems, relentless testing come in text operations, challenges in acquiring spectrum and funding constraints. in regard to spectra metrolink has been working with the fcc through many challenges to secure approval of the spectrum that we entered into this agreement for in 2010. currently metrolink is a trying to follow the same procedures under which the fcc wireless telecommunications bureau recently granted amtrak's application. to our partnership metrolink has been fortunate to execute a five year lease or spectrum from ptc. this enables us to meet our

near-term needs however due to long-term needs, we are attempting to acquire our own spectrum. our current ptc program cost the agency $216.4 million. to put that in context is roughly equivalent to metrolink's entire annual operating budget of 221 million. the majority of our funding 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 board and our funding partners to implement this life-saving technology. the agency will be required to continue to prioritize funding as we transition into operations. the ongoing cost contractors consultants and vendors operate and maintain ptc will increase our budget cost. metrolink is proud to be leading the industry on ptc of the petition despite the many challenges we have maintained our unwavering focus on

advancing our ptc program. i would like to thank chairman denham and ranking member capuano for the opportunity to testify and share our experience. i will close my remarks by saying that at metrolink we continue to believe that safety is foundational and our investments in ptc as well as a number of other safety technologies are evidence of this unyielding commitment to the safety of our passengers. thank you. >> thank you, mr. gruenberg our first round of questioning will be five minutes. would ask members to keep their questions about mr. koster things off personal with ms. feinberg. again let me thank you for your response. the last committee meeting we did something somewhat out of the ordinary and asked you for a quick response with some of the questions this committee had on the amtrak crash but i think that those issues are important to resolve and understand

quickly come in this committee thank you for your rapid response. we're getting the answers to those questions back out to committee members this morning. i did want to continue on exchange you and i had several times now. i pressed fra on positive train control is such a big priority, why are you not using california high-speed rail of dollars to upgrade not only the corridors of those connecting routes in california? california obviously we're ptc was started it is a big concern for those that ride the rail in california. it's a big concern for those who live by real in california. this is a national issue but in our home state were looking to provide leadership to resolve the safety concerns that people have quickly. and california high-speed rail continues to have its challenges challenges, and certainly by their current burn rate of dollars they do not appear to be

able to spend the money that has been allocated to them by the deadline. and so our ongoing exchanges, what else could use that money for? could it be used for safety in california? and i gotcha written response. i wanted to bring one issue to your attention. under california high-speed rail investment strategy for phase one, they specifically state electrifying the entire caltrain corridor so must replace outdated piece of technology with electric locomotives or electric multiple units train sets and introducing positive train control will not only speed up caltrain service that paved the way for high-speed rail. positive train control is a federal mandate that will reduce the potential for train to train collisions and improve signaling at crossings so as to allow increased train frequencies while enhancing safety. this money was taken from

california high-speed rail. they approved the grant agreement that put in a different corridor to upgrade caltrain and put ptc's other own words, this is a priority for them. also previously fra has diverted funding from central valley with 400 million that went to the joint powers authority to construct the foundation for high-speed rail service and that chemotherapy were moving money out of california central valley hours away to where it may connect someday, if it ever gets built to san francisco and to l.a. through caltrain. under the high-speed intercity passenger rail grant program, the following activities are expressly eligible as noted in the federal register. acquiring him at constructing, or inspecting equipment, track and track structures, highway rail grade crossings

improvements rather to intercity passenger rail service including communication civilization improvements. that sounds a whole lot like ptc to me. positive train control ethics each one of those areas. i understand they would be able to use the same dollars. i know from your response you say that granting would have to approve this process. the grantee in this case with the california high-speed rail. again if they're not spending the money, and they've already have the president of transferring money and safety is all of our number one concern why would they not take money that is available to be spent in a quarter that is available under prop one a. and create a safety, address safety our state? >> mr. chairman we've gone back

and forth about this a lot and happy to continue to go back and forth both with you and i know our staff had many conversations about it as well. as i said in my letter to you earlier this week we do not believe that we can take california high-speed rail money and put into other priorities spent budget done that a couple of times already. they have requested to change the approval and should granted that request and attended several times for ptc, for caltrain and for the fans they joint powers authority, 409, 101 million another grant has been done several times already. >> i join in any concern that the telephone high-speed rail authority is not burning through our money and a sufficiently fast men and women working with them very closely to make sure that they meet all of their obligations to do so. our legal analysis of where we are at this moment is that we

cannot shift money to award the obligated to telephone high-speed rail and move it to another priority for it would have to go even if they're willing to take money away from california high-speehigh-spee d rail to go back to you treasury but we'll continue to engage with you on this and talk through with you. >> thank you. that appears to be a change in policy since it offered happened several times. i would understand if taliban high-speed rail if you need them as the grantee to make a request to fra, then my question would be too high speed rail authority competitive over spend money on ptc why is this is a priority for fra come the administration in california high-speed rail i did not improving safety in california? >> i do not believe it is a change in policy we can continue the conversation. >> thank you. my time has expired. we will have a second round. as you know california is a big concern of mine and so is california high-speed rail.

i now go to mr. defazio 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 mr. capuano and gracious to together in the same sentence. [laughter] seriously, i would defer to your judgment, mr. chairman. ms. feinberg, you heard what csx raised about the potential conflict with the hard deadline and whether or not their continued carriage of inhalable and other hazards and passenger, can you resolve that what we had to statutorily resolve the? >> the congress is going to have to act. i cannot make a legal decision for csx based on their liability. >> and you can't give relief

because of the hard deadline that was the? >> i cannot extend the deadline. >> you talked about in force and penalties. of which is like to get a little insight into the. we are looking forward up and there's a lot of history here, a lot of questions about how we got to this point and now some people are much closer to meeting the deadline than others et cetera. are you looking at penalties that exact funds from the railroad? wouldn't it be better if you mandate everybody put together a schedule that you would approve or not approve in terms of how quickly they can implement, putting benchmarks and to look at assessing penalties going for? >> that would be extending the deadline. it would be argued. the deadline is at the deadline, and if we can communicate to railroads if you don't like the deadline that we have, why don't you come up with a plan that

involved in the deadline for yourself? that would be extending the deadline. we would not want to go about that, but in terms of the penalties, there's three or four pages of specific fines and penalties that were finalized back in 2010 that go from everything from not equipping a locomotive together to ptc on a certain segment. quite detailed in the public realm. >> what i'm going to get at is everybody 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 keep you flexibility from the deadline but we give you a mandate that it would be implement as soon as practicable, technologically and physically practicable, you know, but each of those who do not meet, and then you said benchmarks and then they violate the benchmarks, that's what i

think fights may be appropriate. would that be a way to go forward? >> i take my cues from the congress and i enforce what the congress mandates. if the congress instructs us to enter negotiations like that, we would do that but again my concern would be entering into brand-new negotiations with each individual railroad based on what they would like their new deadline to be. >> i'm not thinking so much what they would like. that's what i said as soon as practical, physical. not something meeting their continued support council outlays or whatever. anyway, this is a difficult issue. quick to the fcc. you know have the capacity to do with these poll applications and approvals in a streamlined way to as i understand there are quite a few that's not been applied for and you are pushing your capacity here is that correct? >> that's correct.

since our streamlined process was put into place we've had the capacity to review about 40000 per today with one of these applications to review about 8300. we are ready for more work. >> that something to take into account as we are moving forward. this is off the subject but i got to ask quickly. mr. matthias, 5.9 gigahertz part of the problem was here to go out and buy spectrum. negotiate an anticancer negotiate. i'm really concerned about what she might do with the 5.9 gigahertz for smart cars and communication between vehicles of the future. there some proposals to me the parcel that apple but which might lead to interference which might lead to a to point for smart car manufactures of the future will have to go and buy spectrum as those having something reserved and i just hope you take that under advisement. >> thank you, sir. >> okay. and then to csx, how soon can

you get it done in? >> at csx our plans call for us to be hardware installed many all of the wayside units all the obsolete signal replacement work that we are doing, all the locomotives equipped, all the technology hardware installed by the end of 2018 with full deployment by 2020. as i say that the i think it's important to know that by the end of 2018 we will have a significant portion of the system operable so it's not as if we get to 2020 would turn on the 11000 miles that we have under our ptc footprint. is a very methodical almost linear implementation pretty much from here on out. we will have about 500 most in place by the end of the which is about the size of the quarter and about the size of the metrolink deployment and then we get into the thousands of miles per year that rants us up through 2020. >> again, that seems like a long time and that's why i'm

proposing to give the administrator, i don't think we should be giving people a blanket exemption until 2020 to some people are quoted in take until 2020 don't need to. maybe you do, but i think there needs to be some level a review of that and they think that is something to give it will be looking at. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> ms. feinberg, you have testified and others have already testified before congress that if the december 31 deadline is not met or not extended you use all the enforcement powers including warnings, emergency orders, to encourage ptc to be adopted but will you share with congress a transparent policy with regard to how you will determine who the good actors are, bad actors? i think you can categorize them that way. what i'm looking for is metrics our choice to measured so measure it so it's not arbitrary so everybody knows going into this you've got the bullet points on things intended to but i'm looking for how we measured csx

versus bnsf versus u.p. versus metrolink to be able to determine that spent absolutely. and we would not want to be arbitrary or subjective. we would want this to be black and white to railroads with the what to expect and that the congress would know what to expect. what was summarized in my oral testimony was an attempt to be quick and to move through the eichmann as quickly but our plan is to take the penalty and schedule that is already laid out and to be very transparent about what our approach will be calm and to communicate it both to the congress and to railroads so that everyone knows what to expect. >> will that be seen? will receive it shortly, when you expect of an? the deadline is getting close to we want to make sure there's a there's a transparent fashion acting agents in the past been very arbitrary. don't like one person over another. >> no, no.

that would not be our approach and that would not be the way we go about it. we will be very transparent about it. we owe the congress an update on ptc implementation on how railroads are doing inhibiting ptc. due to recent feedback we've gotten back from the congress it's clear congress would like to report to also include very specific information about how each railroad is doing individually but also without enforcement strategy will be. we are now included in the report, plan to get these quickly as possible. >> if you could go to levying fines against them without the daily, monthly weekly? >> the statute lays out the it can be per violation per day. but there is some amount of discretion there. >> and which are considered shutting down a railroad? >> i think i would actually up to the railroad lawyers would probably make that he

determination their paper from railroads that dollars are making that determination based on both their liability and the likelihood of the magnitude of fines. >> thank you very much. and in terms of transit systems and commuter rails my understanding is you folks are having a difficult time. i know in the southeast there's tough decisions on whether they will repair or replace cars tracks because so much money in the budget. can you tell us about chicago? >> thank you, chairman shuster. that is definitely a major challenge for us to assess data we have about $150 million for our federal former fund. pc alone is 350 million-400. we have to balance using that money for other safety sensitive concerns like bridges. bridges are very important or we have many bridges that were

built in 1800 we are in the process of doing this projects. it's important for us to find the funding to make sure we can get this implemented. it is very significant safety enhancement. there's no question about it but also competes with every other safety issue that we have. >> you got to be the most challenged of all assistance because you have have all class was coming and around chicago interoperability. is that a significant challenge or something your moving towards working out? >> that is a huge significant challenge for us because you've got six of the seven class when rivers coming in and out of chicago that have to communicate between each train although signal locations in the back office. that is in probably one of the most significant challenges for the industry as interoperability. >> thank you very much. now go to ms. brown. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. feinberg first albany said every last one of us support safety and industry, but i think

you are losing and when you talk about daily fines. the industry itself has been over $5 billion on positive train control, and i don't feel that the federal railroad administration or visit u.s. federal communications commission, we've had daily, not daily but we've had meetings where we discussed procurement and we don't think, i don't think that the administration has done all they need to do to move us forward. antiseizure and to say we're going to daily fines and will have to shut down the industry, it is not going to fly. and so i would like for you to respond to that. >> i was responded to the question about what our for us in terms of finding. were networking on the enforcement stretchable communicated to you spent on that talk about enforcement.

i'm talking about support. what we've done to help the industry. for example, with the spectrum are amtrak had to purchase it. how can we did not provide it for the industry? they had a hard time getting it and that delay the project. >> i was at the fcc and to the spectrum question but i can type of the effort is perspective we've hired a significant step up with what is the president said there's only a dozen staff at fra working on ptc. that's incorrect. we have staff in washington and across the country. we have offered loans. we've asked for grants. we've offered financial assistance. we have offered assistance across the board. we're still waiting for safety plans to come in from railroads based on implementation. >> i hear what you're saying but as far as i'm concerned you all have been the caboose as far as helping in assistance us moving forward. i don't mean it in a negative

sense, but you haven't been her the entire time. we have been going over this for years, and we just have not gotten administration or where it needs to be as far as assistance moving forward. i mean, when we say positive train control it's 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, just a whole list of things that if you that the administration should have worked come and i mean this administration combined think it's been a bunch of administrations that have been 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 take two or three years to determine whether or not the system working together. >> i can only speak for this administration. i can't speak for previous administrations. this administration has been a great deal to try to bring railroads along and into compliance with a mandate that was passed by this congress in 2008. we have been sound the alarm for years about our concern that railroads were not going to meet the deadline. and so i believe this administration has been a great deal of work to bring railroads along, but we have not seen the progress that we need to. >> all right. i'm just letting you know you are leading me to go head to the next person. >> you asking about the question of the amtrak inspecting? >> yes, sir. >> the way the railroads approach this process initially they selected a spectrum band in the 220-220 megahertz i'm sorry

to get technical on you but it's a part of the spectrum that was already owned by other people. as licensees. and fortune in the case while we would've had to do to give prospective anyone else as we would've had to have taken it away from the existing owners through a process that would've required compensation to find an additional spectrum have potential would've led to litigation. what we do would be a more productive approach would be to actively work with amtrak to find spectrum on the second the market that they could use the ptc. in the same spectrum block. >> well, as we move forward that is the issue that the congress needs to address. my next round i'll go to you frank. thank you. >> thank you ms. brown. mr. rice, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. feinberg, he may not a been around when all this started but why is the need to create this

new system? it seems to me there are so many systems that are similar to those that would be incredibly cheaper and quicker to institute. why did we settle on creating this entire new system? >> i think ptc is actually an overlay of some other systems but if you're referring to some of the technologies we talked about in this committee previously, it's basically a stepping onto that, but it would assist in taking human factors off the table. is one of the most important technologies that we played can be implemented for rail safety. >> mr. kerwin, i'll switch over to you because you know more about the technical aspects. you're a project manager speak with yes sir. >> i know there are gps systems after the two combined for a thousand dollars that will control the motion of a vehicle, right? stop it, started and all that

kind of thing. >> and tell you where you're at but is forced into vehicle -- >> i've had one about the cost $900 in$900 that would give my vote to a point. why is this so much more difficult than that? >> a key to ptc is it's not a specific technology as much as a specification that it prevents train to train collision. >> as long as the gps is connected, it seems to me they could do that very very easily. this seems to me this is light years easier than a google core or whatever you call the thing. a google core has got to send people walking in front of it and obstructions. this doesn't have to do any of that. all they can do come they can't steer. it's got to go how fast, how slow or stop right? is not that complicated. >> i understand and appreciate your point. it is more public it than it would seem to want to keep factors, requires a seamless

transition from one room to another railroads property and communication between different railroads. >> i understand that but this technology exists today. digital technology today this technology would talk about here that you knew all your locomotives are? can you tell whether or at any time when they are running? >> we've had a gps on our locomotives for ivan sigal last half a dozen or so but i think it's important understand, gps is one of i will say 100 purchase raw numbers, it simplifies one input and that is where the trinkets of this. it's not an advocate of speed not an indicator of grade over whether red signal is not indicator of where the works of his. i could go on and on but i know you don't want love me too. that's just one input into the. technology referred to earlier about access is based on a cab

signal method of operation. we only have about 411000 miles that uses a cab signal as a method of operation entities is built on top of and access and trenches is built on top of that. it's nazi system to utilize to run our trained. >> all these other guys do with taxpayer money and you were not. did you all do an analysis what it would be cheaper to use some of these legacy systems that could control the train over to create this entire system? i think this says they are doing 23,000 locomotives the cost $9 billion, about $400,000 a locomotives. did csx do an analysis to determine whether they would be cheaper to modify the existing legacy system to create an entirely new system speak with a couple answers. in the beginning as we did an

analysis about whether we should go to amtrak route or whether we should go with the system the freight railroads have been working on since the mid '90s which the precursor was not as cbd in which was commissions based train management. the thing that's important to note is that they are to three or four methods of operations halfway railroads use to navigate their trained. a very small proportion is cap signal as an mentioned, signal territory and the non sequitur toward and our interpretation of all difficult thing access works on this first method of operation which is cap signal search for. we would change the operation of entire -- and yes we did look at the to and believe the free version of ptc was the right way to go. and sibley that today. >> thank you sir. mr. kerwin come, you said you spent $216 million on ptc. you have the full insults because we have a fully deployed

on our network of where working with our freight partners and amtrak to get those systems in service. >> how many locomotives to have? >> 109 locomotives and cab cars that need to be equipped. >> said he spent about $2 million per locomotives? >> our total cost of our budget is 216 and we spent about 209 of the. that's not just installation on locomotives. there's a tremendous amount of back office components and wayside templates as well. spent sound ridiculous expensive to me. thank you. >> the gentleman, mr. lipinski is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you going fishing. we all want to make sure we do everything we can for safety. it's been a difficult issue. i wanted to thank administrator

fienberg for hobart on this and other things come is a difficult time coming into the position as administrator. i just want to first make sure that we are all clear. you were saying that fra doesn't have the authority to shut down railroads. it's the fines that what they fra is able to level if it meant he is not extended? >> ultimately if we needed to take action to shut down the road i think we could do that, but my point was that he her think what we're doing from railroads is that the decision they're making in consultation with their lawyers on how they would operate on january 1 if they have not come if they are not fully implemented. >> i don't know if that makes sense to me. i don't know if you want to add anything to that in regard to the fines and the impact they could have on you?

>> yes thank you congressman. been in the commuters side of the industry we depend very heavily on tax dollars. what the cumulative industry has advocated for an extension not categoric stench and but an extension based on good faith efforts based on the railroads ability to complete ptc. i don't think personally it would be in the public's best interest to find railroads that people who don't have the funding to implement ptc. i think we need to find a solution where we can implement ptc as expeditiously as possible and not blame the railroads are it's discovered right out of our pocket, used for bridges and cars and nothing else it takes to operate the railroads. >> thank you.

spent it doesn't matter how big the bear chasing is or how big the cattle prod is. if you're running as i said you can't have you can't run any faster. we spent 1 billion. never thousand people working on the project. it's hard to say we haven't put the best foot forward that we possibly could. and so we've supplied the fra with both an aggregate level of information in terms of where we've been. we've done that on an annual basis at the end of 2012. ntsb has asked for it. we provided that information would give a prognosis on railroad by redwood basis about when we will be done. >> i don't have much time and i don't want speed so i don't believe the find would be helpful. >> i just first of all, we all want to sit up here and 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 forward as

quickly as possible. i've been in favor. i've tried come worked on getting more federal funding, especially for commuter rail. mr. orseno you are saying about $350 million to finish by 2019? >> that is correct. at the conservative number. as we get moving into the process further along as all these things have a tendency to change but that is a conservative number. >> did you receive any funding from the grant program or any other fra grant program? >> no, we have not. >> with additional federal funding help expedite the safety efforts and help metro invest in its infrastructure and? >> there's a very strong possibility that additional funding would help us move the project along faster but also want to be very clear that there's only a limited number of

resources are available for installation in purchasing things, you know, the supply and demand chain. we can look at moving 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 or '60s -- six years old and bridges that were built in the 1800s. we could address some of those issues. >> they have significantly increased as needed to increase fares as a long-term plan of increasing fares. so you are doing your part with regard to the. very quickly before conclude out of touch on one other safety related issue with administrator fienberg are regardless of whether the plan and fra chooses, moving forward to help the agency keeps careful tabs, i do on efforts in the reports of this event. we already know they have the least ambitious and aggressive timeline for finishing their ptc installations and some other

issues we've had with them which we have discussed and i think we need to make sure the follow-up is done. i just about spit if i could make one point in response to the back and forth. we've asked for a sum total of $2 billion to go towards ppc intimidation and technologies. 825 million in grow america act but altogether 2 billion solar absent in favor of additional federal funding going to ptc implementation. >> thank you mr. chairman. good morning, ms. feinberg. i've got a question here for you, start a conscious make sure i'm clear. it's my understand the fra and this comes from testimony testimony from fra wages all enforcement powers including warnings from emergency orders and enforcement finds to encourage ptc an option.

do we know how they fra would assess the fines? with the dss daily? 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. you have a policy? >> as we discussed earlier we are finalizing that now. most of enforcement policy is public and has been public since 2010. the arteries find into space and whether it's welcoming or segment attract the most of it has been public since 2010 and where in response to congress requesting finalizing our strategy now. >> so might be daily, or otherwise of? >> that's correct spent a few weeks ago when you here right after, short after the horrible mishap out of philadelphia i asked you how much of the $1.3 billion in stimulus money that was received sometime ago

because of such an issue and there was questions about congress at 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? do remember that question? >> i do remember that question, and its $400 million that went towards ptc. that's not amtrak specific. i'm sorry i did realize you want it just amtrak specific but it is -- >> 400 million? >> i believe it is 36 for amtrak amtrak. >> so right now, that's federal funding, we are looking at $9 billion is what the estimated cost of freight railroads. >> total. >> total right? with this deadline. but you can see the difference. we don't have ptc where we have

money and we're asking for exponentially more. we are not asking but it's a requirement. this is private money, $9 billion. let me ask you about the arbitrary deadline the ongoing arbitrator what is your opinion about the deadline? doesn't take into account the technical aspects, doesn't take into account the frequency spectrum aspects what does it take into account that timeline would fra took nearly a year to approve one single plan one of the planes that is required by each railroad? doesn't take into account those things, the deadline? >> is your deadline. >> i'm asking your opinion. >> i believe it is a good deadline and in fact, it was reached during negotiation. >> i understand. so you say it could take into account of those things. should get -- >> i believe in 2008 when you pass this deadline you took those things into account.

>> okay, we foresaw all the things that might occur are not occur regarding frequency spectrum, regarding approvals, finances. that was all known. there was no political solution to the two sides come one wanting earlier, one wanting lead of? >> i think there's a understand in 2008 that while this would be complicated to get been called for since 1969 and would not be so complicated. >> okay. i ask asked for your opinion. i appreciate it. so under the consolidated appropriations act of 2015 from 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 with a quick discussion about it. it was due to the committee i believe a week ago in recent weeks we've got an additional insights additional request, congress about additional information they want in that report. we are updating it now and should have it to you in these. >> was it on time for wasn't in?

>> it was a do last week, one week ago spent so it is not in your? >> that's correct. it's supposed an update on where the railroad is. >> i understand. >> congress as asked what did not include our enforcement strategy. >> things change right? solution we find at the fra when they are not timely? >> you can feel free to hold me accountable for the fact that report is a week late. >> what should defined be? >> i believe that to you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. perry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know i travel up and down the northeast corridor constantly back and forth. i'm still trying to get this idea with the spectrum, how we end up in places like chicago they only have one come 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 is one system. how did we get to this? how did 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 high speed passenger rail. there is a certain way that passenger railroads run their operation and to utilize a certain technologies to run the trainstranscom dispatch their trains and the freight railroads have literally a giveaway of running a railroad, and so those two systems -- >> a company not making concessions with the other? i mean i don't understand it. >> we are all making concessions, candidly. >> how did we end up with two

for making concessions? >> they rely on committee patients as a fundamental aspect. what we are doing is a data transmission is using two radios which are going to use two separate but close pieces of spectrum. the closer those are, the more interference there can be but i say we are actively working between amtrak, the northeast commuters as well as the fcc to solve a problem and we put we have line of sight to the. >> and i have -- the fra says 40% of box in a result of human performance failure -- 40% of all accidents -- they believe ptc would only prevent 4%. how did we come up with 4%? >> would look at all of the

access over a 10 or 12 year period, all accidents. amateur fra look at all accidents. accidents are generally caused by a couple of things. the the the conditions or the behavior. the conditions could be aggravated, signal related, the equipment could be how the car operates, summit composed on that and say locomotive site. then you have behavioral based is there something happened in the cab of the locomotive, the human factor site. we looked at the entire portfolio of access and did the math on things that we thought were ptc preventable and were not and came up with a 4%. we came up with 2%. >> 2%? >> yes sir. 2% of all accidents ptc preventable. >> in other words in your eyes you think it's worth it to make this investment? >> i think we are well past this conversation we've already spent $1.2 billion on a.

i think we are well past that conversation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. hardy, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. feinberg, i have read your testimony clear through him and estates it seems that fra is ready to implement penalties. also you state fra is ready to act in the interim to bring railroad into safety compliance. do you suggest that congress should authorize fra to require railroads to use alternative safety technology on specified lines? you also say and i quote, these requirements will likely cost because the two railroads. can you share with me your ideas on this alternative technology? >> what i was referring to was what i would refer to as a safety gap that would exist between january 1 2016 for the

day after the deadline come and when ptc isn't limited by each railroad and what, if anything should be done to raise the bar on safety during that gap. so whether additional documentation between crewmembers an additional person in the cab we've not made final determinations. i think they would be railroad by railroad specific but it would be how to increase safety between the date of the deadline that is missed and when ptc is actually implemented. >> in your testimony you stated that these of the cost of the railroads. you could run the numbers on how much it'll cost you can you you share with me those calculations or how you come to that point? >> we frequently hear from railroads that items like additional crewmembers are quite costly. that's based on the assertion. >> okay. mr. orseno, with safety being paramount i'd like you to delve into the cost of a mortgage in your testimony that the commute and the fragrant industries will have spent over a billion

dollars on implementation, although progress has been substantially but it remains remains to be done before ptc can be safely implemented nationwide. companies on how much money have been spent out of pocket. deeply these costs will be passed down to consumers which is naturally what happens i just want to hear from you. is that -- >> in my opinion yes they will be passed onto consumers. when we raise our first a note to cover ptc costs and other items, we have to pass those costs on. we only have x amount of state and federal funding. the challenge that we have on the commuter rail side is a higher you raise the fares the less likely you retain all all of the writer ship at a time when we want to get more people are trained and off the roads. that's a big challenge so it's a very difficult balancing act is to give to provide safe

valuable service for our customers. >> do you believe we've done all we can as a committee as congress to help move this process forward? do you feel like you are being penalized for our lack of action or inaction or fra's action for inactions? i would like to your opinion about also. >> that's a challenging question. >> yes, it is. >> the answer is this is a very expensive proposition for all we are roads, especially commuter railroads would be to have the type of money we need. i believe congress needs to find 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 the federal government supplies some funding for it. >> thank you. mr. lonegro, he made the statement that they need impact of the deadline will be that has

potential of making certain rail operations illegal. can you discuss these ramifications are little more if you would've? >> yes sir. we are in a legal dilemma as i mentioned in the opening testimony. we have a long that requires ptc to be implement on lines that carry passengers and certain commodities. and so the transport of those after january 1, 2016, would run in contravention to rail safety improvement act. yet we also have a commentary obligations that requires us to haul freight that is intended on reasonable request and at regional terms and conditions. we are in a situation of which log we violate? we had the same conundrum on the passenger side. amtrak runs over us and all that is 40, 45 years old to about and try to run as well as a number of other commuters including mr. orseno come and we also have this obligation under

the rail safety improvement act which requires us to complete ptc on those same lines. it were not able to meet on those lines you need to tell mr. orseno he confronted her 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 is expired. >> thank you mr. hardy. >> thank you chairman denham come and thank you for -- would you think he fully today during the this subcommittee's work is actually important to the thousands of folks in my district in connecticut provide israel's everyday and to the businesses who rely on the freight service as well in northwest and central connecticut. i hear from a lot of those commuters that they're very concerned about rail safety as you can imagine with the last few years and we've been talking ever since the fatal collision and 1969. we been talking about positive train control the as adjutants and

from today's drinkers increased impatience and concerned about how long it is taking. i think we really need to get down to brass tacks. what are the carrots and sticks? what the incentives at this time recognizing the difficulty with spectrum interoperability and with the budget challenges? what do we do now to move this forward as expeditiously and estates as possible? how do we get this moving forward? ms. feinberg, thank you very patience and your transparency and exception of the ability was on the committee. we find that quite a lot. in your testimony you noted that you think fra should have met the authority given the situation right now, over ptc control systems to test them as well as to provide for andrew safety measures when they do not

meet that deadline, which is all very clear most of them will not be meeting the deadline. could you expand as a what should we be doing in this committee, what you this committee be doing to get fra authority, and why? >> thank you for the question. that i think the most important thing we can do starting out and going forward is to provide railroads with the resources that we need to implement ptc. this administration has asked for significant resources for the commuter railroad so that they can implement ptc. i think that's the most important thing that can happen. additional entrance of our authority, the statute is quite narrow, and some as others have discussed we really do run into a problem on january 1 where the law is the law and despite preferences of railroads i can't give waivers. i can't base waivers on good faith. i can't extend the deadline that i won't extend the deadline.

so we have to figure out how to move forward as january 1 to make sure that passengers, folks who live near and along rail are safe. and 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 that we can bring this technology online quickly. >> a quick follow-up question. do you believe the railroads that failed to meet a deadline and i'm asking under current law, will be subjected increased tort liability? insurance issues have been raised today. that is a very very big subject that this commute to understand what is the legal opinion of 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 up until the person in this room who is not a lawyer, but we are certainly hearing from the railroads that they believe there is increased by the 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. mr. mathias, good to see. we would dig college together so thank you for being there. i'm interested in the railroads, we've heard from other members can the difficult aspect of your what can we do particularly in a very congested space and that is 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 and good to see you, too. thank you for your question. we have an increasingly good news is stored in the northeast corridor with regard to spectrum your it's my understanding that currently amtrak has the spectrum it needs to deploy to 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 the spectrum coverage and we also understand there's a spectrum that we need so what our job will be to ensure that we are working as quickly as we can more fully engaged the picture those transactions are completed as quick as possible since we have the information them and to be ready in case something changes. ..