opposition. explore this case in the high court's ruling with daniel holly-walker dean of howard university's law school. and peter kirsanow. watch landmark cases live monday at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span.org or listen with a free c-span radio app, and for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book, available for $8.95 plus shipping and handling at c-span.org/landma c-span.org/landmarkcases, for an additional resource there's a link on our website to the national constitution center's interactive constitution. over half of the u.s. commuter railroads may not meet a deadline to install an anti-crash technology by the end of the year. according to a government report. a gao official testified about positive train control, or ptc, which is a system designed to stop trains before certain

accidents occur. this senate commerce science and transportation committee hearing comes after a deadly derailment took place in washington state last december. good morning, we convene today's hearing at a critical time for positive train control, or ptc implementation. the victims' families and all those affected by the overspeed derailment of amtrak's 501 in washington and the collision of amtrak 91 in south carolina remain in our thoughts and prayers. these accidents underscore the importance of implements ptc quickly, safely and successfully. while tragic grade crossing collisions like the one involving amtrak 923 are -- reducing the number of such incidents remains a priority. we're now about ten months away from the december 31st, 2018 statutory deadline for ptc. and recent reports suggest many

railroads will not fully implement -- limited extension to work out software testing and inter inter operablity issues. obama extended the original deadline of december 31st, 2015, amid reports many railroads would meet the deadline. and they were halting essential shipments and water purification. this committee, on a bipartisan basis, took action to avert a rail shutdown, and set a realistic framework for implementation. railroads should be able to get the job done. the law requires railroads to implement ptc by december 31st, 2018 and allows a railroad to

apply for an extension of up to 24 months to make sure ptc works if and only if that railroad meets milestones like hardware installation, and employee training, and meets other milestones, such as implements ptc on specific territory or initiating revenue service demonstration. for class 1 freight railroads and amtrak, the bar is higher. ptc must be implemented on a majority of required territories or rout miles. the law is clear, for each railroad, passenger or freight, all ptc hardware must be on board or in the ground by december 31, 2018. the law also required revised ptc implementation plans to include metrics and new authority for the fra to enforce the plans. to date, fra has initiated cases against railroads that failed to

meet deadlines or make progress. if they have not complied, the fra will take the enforcement action needed to bring railroads into compliance. railroads should not count on any extensions to the statutory framework congress passed in 2015. to be sure, ptc installation is an enormously complex undertaking. they must develop and acquire new hardware components and complex software systems that can communicate with other railroads. there are different systems, and each system has different configurations. yet, they all must work seamlessly. there are a limited number of ptc hardware suppliers and there are a limited number of individuals who have the technical expertise to program the hardware. simply put, ptc is not an off the shelf technology, and a railroad can't simply flip a switch. understanding these challenges,

the federal government has provided substantial funding and financing to support for implement cation. a new report from the department of transportation office of inspector general, which i requested, which will be also released today, shows d.o.t. has awarded nearly 3 billion in grant and loan assistance with $2.3 provided today and another 600 million on the way. this includes much of the $199 million this committee worked to include in the fast act. for instance, this financial support includes a $960 million loan and a nearly $100 million grant to support the metropolitan transportation authority, one of our witnesses today. not all financial assistance should come from the federal government, with a significant amount of federal support not yet enxtended it is critical --i want to conclude my remarks by emphasizing what is at stake here. failing to comply with the law

is not an option. if commuter railroads do not meet the requirements of the law, there is a real risk of halting or reducing service. if so, millions of people who depend on commuter rail to get to work each day, or to visit a doctor, or see a family member, could see their lives disrupted. those entities that aren't on track need to look at successful examples, and recommit their organizations to getting the job done. i will now turn to ranking member senator nelson for any opening remarket you might have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and before i address the topic at hand, i want to wonder what in the world is going on at the fra? because it was just reported yesterday allegations by politico that the acting head safety regulator, heath hall,

heath hall, of the federal railroad administration is in a huge conflict because, according to the report, throughout his tenure, and even at the time of the washington state railroad crash, the acting administrator was doing outside work as a public relations consultant. this was a violation of his ethics agreement, and it's very alarming for the safety of our railroads, particularly as the agency is tasked with the oversight of the positive train control implementation. and it's tasked with responding to these tragic series of cra crashes that we've had.

now to the issue at hand, i certainly appreciate the chairman for calling this hearing on positive train control. i wish i could say that this technology was in place and working so that we wouldn't have to keep having these deadly accidents. but it's not the case. instead we're here again after another tragic crash that has killed several people and injured dozens, which could have been prevented with positive train control technology. in washington state an amtrak train was speeding as it rounded into a curve, and it derailed onto the highway below, killing three people, and injuring more than 60. the facts of the case are ear --

while traveling into a curve killing eight, and injuring hundreds. and just last month, an amtrak train traveling in florida was in a head-on collision with a csx freight train. the engineer and the train conductor from florida were killed in the collision, and more than 100 people were injured. so these tragedies can be prevented. they should be prevented. and that's why the industry must do a better job of implementing positive train control, and get it done quickly. and that's why the u.s. government ought to crack down. we've heard for far too long from some in the industry that implementing positive train control is a complex and expensive process, and that

railroads have faced a series of challenges. we've heard this over and over and over. but more and more these arguments are becoming tiresome. especially in light of the fact that the railroads have had ten years to get this done. now, i know that railroads have had to overcome challenges. but railroads like bnsf, septa commuter rail and others have made significant progress toward implementation. and they should be applauded. but some railroads are way behind the curve, and shockingly, according to the d.o.t., a few have made zero progress. and unfortunately that includes many railroads in my state. now, that's just simply

unacceptable. in 2015 none of the railroads were near completion. so the railroads, the commuter rails, the states the countless others, requested an extension of positive train control, as did the administration at the time in 2015. so reluctantly we, sitting at this dais, discussed it, we granted additional time, but demanded real action, including equipping locomotives on the tracks, significant testing and evidence that their systems work, and new penalties for the department to ensure that the railroads are meeting their deadlines. we provided $200 million in grant funding in addition to the more than $2 billion in federal

support that had previously been provided. and the effort was supposed to ensure that ptc was going to be done, this year. we heard repeatedly that given a limited amount of time railroads would be able to get the ptc in place. yet here we go again, just what the chairman has said. and now it's become crystal clear that many of the railroads simply have not lived up to their agreement. and so i'm very -- well, let me just say it this way. i'm not inclined to give anymore additional time because do we want more crashes? that ptc could avoid? so it means that railroads need to make sure that they're doing everything possible to meet the 2018 deadline.

states and the department of transportation have got to come together to ensure all available resources are being directed to this task. and finally the department must use its authority to hold railroads' feet to the fire. madam secretary, the department of transportation ought to be cracking down. we have a responsibility to the traveling public to learn from these tragic crashes. we've got a responsibility to make sure that their safety is on the line. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator nelson. i want to welcome our panel of witnesses this morning, and thank them for their testimony in advance and ask them to give their opening statements. we first have susan fleming at the government accountability office. mr. barry dewees, who's assistant inspector general, office of the inspector general, mr. david el mire, who is the

chief safety officer for metropolitan transportation authority, and mr. richard anderson who's president and ceo of amtrak. we'll start on my left and your right with ms. fleming. i would ask you if you can to confine your oral remarks as close to five minutes as possible. we'll make sure your entire statement is included in the record, but it will maximize the opportunity for members to ask questions. ms. fleming, welcome and please proceed. >> thank you. mr. chairman, ranking member nelson and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to discuss commuter railroads' implementation of positive train control, or ptc, and fra's oversight of that effort. despite rail safety improvements in recent years, additional accidents, including multiple fatal accidents in the past three months show that more needs to be done. ptc is not designed to, and cannot prevent all rail accidents. nonetheless, successful implementation of ptc provides

significant promise, and can avoid dangerous derailments. our broad body of work on ptc has found implementation is costly and complex, has been fraught with challenges, and progress has been slow. while the implementation of ptc involves numerous stakeholders, my testimony today focuses on the 29 commuter railroads that transport approximately 500 million passengers each year, and fra which is charged with overseeing implementation. turning to commuter railroads' implementation progress we've found based on third quarter 2017 data that most of the railroads reported progress in initial implementation activities, such as installing equipment on trains alongside tracks, acquiring radio spectrum and employee training. however, progress varied widely across individual railroads, in part because of their varying size and unique set of circumstances. for example, equipping

locomotives with one of the areas of greatest variance. 13 completed equipment installation, while six had not yet started. the remaining eight fell somewhere in between. significant work also remains for the majority of commuter railroads to complete more technically complex and time-consuming implementation activities such as field testing software and components and revenue service demonstration which tests trains operating ptc as part of regular operations. as of september, fra had approved conditional certification for two railroads and was reviewing two other safety plans. digging deeper, to estimate how many commuter railroads may have insufficient time to meet the december deadline or to qualify for an rsd based extension, we analyzed commuter railroads scheduled milestones for installing the back office server, and conducting field testing, which must be completed before entering rsd. based on railroads' experience today, and fra's estimate of the

amount of time it can take to complete these steps, over half of commuter railroads may be at risk of not meeting the december deadline, or qualifying for an rsd-based extension. however, many factors could affect how many railroads are ultimately at risk. for example, some schedules may slip, while others may benefit from applying lessons learned. fra's resources and capacity will also affect how quickly it can review the increasing flow of submitted test plans, rsd applications, and safety plans. speaking of fra, i now want to turn to its role in helping ensure ptc is successfully implemented. fra has provided substantial information to individual and groups of commuter railroads. as well as highly praised individual assistance. however, we found two shortcomings with its approach. first, fra has used a largely informal and often reactive communications approach. second, many commuter railroads did not fully understand the agency's planned approach for

reviewing and granting extensions, or the criteria for applying for an extension. the statutory provision allowing for other alternative criteria approved by fra, instead of the rsd criteria, generated the most questions. for the long term we found that although fra collects individual railroad's progress information, it does not use this information to prioritize resources using a risk-based approach. this will be essential given the year end deadline approaching, and anticipated increase in workload and oversight responsibilities that will clearly stretch beyond 2020. and the yet to be tackled issue of interoperablity. in conclusion, there is no ignoring the fact the clock is ticking. ten months and considerable work remains to either complete implementation or apply for an extension. even with sustained commitment from all 25 commuter railroads that have yet to file a safety plan, it is highly unlikely that all will meet the extension, or

implementation deadline. therefore, it is critical that fra implement our two recommendations. first, to systematically communicate deadline extension criteria information and its planned approach, including how it will handle railroads that do not meet the deadline or extension criteria. and second, to use a risk-based approach to prioritize its recommendations and workload. fra agreed with our recommendations. mr. chairman, this concludes my statement. i'd be pleased to answer questions. >> thank you, ms. fleming. mr. dewees. >> that i remember thune, ranking member nelson and members of the committee. thank you for inviting me to this important hearing. several fatal road crashes over the past decade have heightened the need to implement ptc, one of the most complex and costly mandates the railroad has undertaken. the deadline is at the end of this year.

at this committee's request we are currently reviewing federal funding support for ptc, and d.o.t.'s oversight of that support. we plan to issue our full report this spring, and today i will share observations on three aspects of our ongoing review. one, the amount of federal financial assistance for ptc projects, two, d.o.t.'s oversight of federal funds invested in such projects, and three, key funding challenges and concerns as the rail industry implements ptc. d.o.t. has provided $2.9 billion to date for ptc implementation through a combination of grants and loans. as of september 30th, 2017, $2.3 billion has been obligated. rail systems can receive support from multiple sources, and at the time of our review, 29 rail systems had received federal assistance. our work also shows that ptc projects vary greatly. depending on railroad type and

recipients' needs. some recipients use federal funding to acquire wireless communications equipment, while others buy on board equipment for locomotives. d.o.t.'s oversight of ptc funding varies as well. each d.o.t. organization follows its existing oversight mechanisms for grants or loans in. case of formula grants, they have substantial flexibility on the use of funds. regardless of oversight method, d.o.t. cannot ready identify funding support for spending for ptc projects, some ptc funding may be part of a larger grant, and in those cases, recipients may not be required to capture or report ptc-specific spending to d.o.t. this makes it hard to determine which projects include ptc elements. d.o.t.'s grant management systems also generally track spending by broader budget

codes, making it difficult to see what portion of federal awards went to ptc, versus non-ptc projects. therefore, d.o.t. currently relies, as did we, on recipients to provide more accurate information on ptc funds when requested. their financial systems typically captured more detailed data on spending and budget line items. finally, we noted several funding challenges, and concerns as railroads deploy ptc. while the extended deadline for implementation is fast approaching, not all of the funds obligated have been spent. only four recipients have actually spent all of their provided funds, seven reported no expenditures at the time of our review, and the rest reported spending in the 50 to 75% range. it is important to note, however, that ptc funding support was provided at different points in time over the last decade, making it challenging to compare spending

across various rail systems, or to determine if the pace of spending has slowed implementation. in looking to the future, some recipients expressed concern about what it will cost to operate and maintain ptc systems once they are in place, and how it will impact other safety priorities, or their operational budgets. in 2016 the american public transportation association estimated that operation and maintenance costs would run about $100 million a year for commuter railroads, but that long-term costs are still uncertain. a key watch item for d.o.t., congress and industry will be to instill a sense of urgency to deliver ptc while limiting any possible negative effects on the overall safety of the system. we are working to monitor to funding implications that could impact the deployment of ptc. this concludes may prepared

statement. i'll be happy to address any questions of you or the committee. >> thank you, mr. dewees. mr. myer. >> chairman thune, ranking member nelson and other members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to be here. i'm david mayer. north america's largers transportation authority. prior to joining the mta, i spent 23 years with the national transportation safety board and from 2009 to 2014 i was managing director, the senior career official there. i brought my two decades of experience in transportation safety as part of ushering in a renewed safety focus across the mta. the mta's two railroads, the metro north railroad and long island railroad, calls for us to meet all statutory requirements by the end of 2018. and while there are significant risks and challenges to our schedule, the mta is working diligently to implement ptc in a safe, incremental and controlled

rollout. our railroads are confident they will continue to run safely while ptc is implemented. we're the nation's busiest, our railroads provide nearly 588,000 weekday trips, during peak periods we dispatch trains every 90 seconds. we have made significant progress in developing, testing, purchasing and installing ptc. we have embraced the challenges of this effort and are working hard to mitigate schedule risks. ptc is not an off the shelf technology. we are designing, testing and installing all at once, and we have to do this in a way that ensures we do not create any new safety hazards. let me start by providing a snapshot of our status. both railroads operate with a high degree of safety because current signal systems, many have been added incrementally.

one of the requirements of ptc is to prevent overspeed derailments. long island already has overspeed protection on its entire system, and metro north had this protection at critical curves and bridges. i'm pleased to tell you that as of yesterday, all of metro north easteratory has speed protection hardware, and trains are currently protected. coming weeks, metro north will extend to all trains. in addition, once ptc is operatal, it will also enforce temporary speed restrictions. another ptc requirement is preventing trains from entering work zones. metro north implemented a system in 2013 that meets this ptc requirement and has been heralded as a model for the city. long island will achieve this functionality once ptc comes online. it's intended to guard against train to train collisions and the movement of a train over misaligned switch. all trains operating over 15

miles per hour. ptc will extend the protections for all speeds. i will now discuss our implementation status, identify risks for the schedule. for the mta's two railroads, we have secured 100% of the radio spectrum we need. we have installed 80% of the wayside hardware, and we have installed about 63% of the rail car need for compliance. we have trained 68% of the required personnel. the remainder of the installation and training will be completed in time to support revenue service demonstration. both railroads have begun testing and compiling documentation in preparation for june applications to the frr to enter rsd. the mta set a highly aggressive, but achievable schedule. we control only so much of this schedule. railroads around the country are

simultaneously taxing a limited set of specialized resources chls not a federal requirement, our board has maintained an independent third party engineer to identify risks and ways to reduce them. for example, we've pressed our systems integrator to hire additional staff and to extend additional resources to complete the required work. in closing, ptc implementation at the mta remains a vast undertaking. our schedule still faces significant risks and technical challenges. we are working diligently every day to overcome these risks and challenges. we thank the states of new york and connecticut and the federal government for helping us marshal the necessary resources, including the $968 million loan sponsored by the fra. the mta is fully committed to operating safe and reliable railroads, although our challenges are significant and unique, the mta continues to aggressively work toward full

ptc compliance before december 31st, 2018. thank you for giving us this opportunity to share with you the mta's efforts to bring the promise of ptc into reality. >> thank you, mr. mayer, mr. anderson? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you members of the committee. my name is richard anderson. i serve as amtrak president january 1, 2018. following my tenure as ceo and executive chairman of delta airlines, president of commercial businesses at united health group, and a state court prosecutor in houston, texas. as the only amtrak ceo without a background in rail, i bring a different perspective. in 1971 many doubted we'd see passenger rail play such a large role in transportation in america. our services, our railroad, our infrastructures support hundreds of millions of rail transportation trips a year. it's also clear, as you look at our 47-year history that at

times we've underinvested in rail travel, and certainly some safety aspects of the business. amtrak has essentially operated as a freight railroad carrying passengers rather than a world class passenger transportation company. and while freight railroads have done a great job in their business model of improving safety, passenger rail must operate in america at a much higher standard of care. and that means we need to implement, in america, and establish a standard of safety management system based upon the faa, sms program that's in place today in aviation. recent incidents including the terrible derailment of 501 near dupont, washington and the collision of train 91 in casey, south carolina conclusively demonstrate the need for an sms system as recommended by the ntsb. we've commenced implementation of sms at amtrak.

getting to ptc, it's the most important aspect of a safety management system. and it must be the safety standard for all passenger rail in america. without ptc the system in america for passenger trains is vulnerable to single points of human failure. and today we train engineers to memorize routes, trees, boulders, intersections and signals. and the loss of situational awareness or forgetting a single rule, forgetting to throw a switch, we have no basic systems to act as a risk mitigation for basic human error. amtrak's the leader in ptc, it's installed already on virtually on all the northeast corridor. we're set to complete installation on the tracks and equipment we own or control by

the december 31 deadline. for those areas -- we're working with the railroads that operate on amtrak infrastructure to equip their rolling stock with ptc on our railroad. it's been a difficult undertaking for the industry and we are likely and, in fact, i think we will as a country confront scenarios where ptc is not operational by the deadline you've established. some host railroads will apply for an alternative implementation schedule out to 2020. under the law at amtrak, through our sms program, we have to determine whether we continue to

operate in non-ptc territory and apply the principles of our safety management system to mitigate those risks. second, there are host railroads like canadian national that appear unlikely to achieve sufficient progress to year's end to apply for the implementation schedule. some of this isn't clear yet. for those route segments we are required by law to suspend service. third, a portion of our services will operate on routes that receive mainline track exclusions, and actually amtrak will, even after the deadline, operate potentially hundreds of miles of track -- on hundreds of miles of track not required to have any ptc. among those are what are called dark railroads where there's no signal systems. we are reevaluating, in light of 501, 91, 506, 188 and 89 whether that really is the best

practice, if you have a very high standard of care. and lastly, there may be railroads that operate over our tracks which won't be commissioned, and under the present law amtrak cannot permit non-compliant equipment on the railroad. so i think we have some basic challenges. and i think that it's highly probable that there will be parts of passenger rail that are not going to be compliant by the deadline. but one, we should establish ptc as the standard for passenger rail in america, including dark territory, and including covering the areas that are, today, excluded by the law. second, all passenger railroads in america must be early adopters of the safety management system promulgated in a rule-making now by fra, and consistent with bob sumwalt's recommendation from ntsb, we need to apply sms methodologies

and determine how we get to an equivalent level of safety for non-ptc and dark railroads. and lastly, i think the committee is going to be challenged on how much discretion to give fra in terms of the implementation deadline, or there may be significant cancellations of sort of necessary transportation. i know you may not want to hear that, but it is the reality of -- when you listen to all the testimony. thank you. >> thank you, mr. anderson. ms. fleming, you testified that 7 to 19 commuter railroads may not even hit the milestones necessary to qualify for an extension beyond december 31, let alone fully implement ptc. i want to drill down a ways to see what we can do to improve the situation. what can these railroads be doing in the next ten months to best advance ptc implementation? >> i think we're possible it's really important to get management and the board on

board to make some important decisions in order to keep moving forward. we've heard from some of the railroads that are further along that they've had to make service adjustments in order to finish installation of equipment or to begin testing. we also heard from smome of the regards that the railroad be actively involved in all phases, rather than solely relying on contractors. i think the last thing would be, is there some railroads that are further along and there's opportunities to take full advantage of user groups and industry forums to capitalize on some of the best practices, lessons learned from these railroads. >> do you think it's realistic that all that get done in ten months? >> you mean to meet the deadline? our analysis shows that, no, depending how you cut the data, as many as half the railroads

may not meet the deadline or have enough time to meet the criteria to qualify for an rsd extension. so i think part of the problem is that some of the railroads have some heavy lifting to do. they haven't begun the second phase, which is really where you have to deal with some of the complexity and time-consuming things, installing the back office server, field testing. the railroads that have done those things on average it could take them seven to ten months, from fra's perspective, you're talking about one to three years. so if these railroads haven't started tackling some of that, the time is running out for them. >> you also recommended that fra improve its communication with railroads, and better prioritize its workload. based on your recommendations, i intend to send a letter to the fra administrator inquiring about the agency's plan to

address the recommendations in your report. >> i appreciate that. mr. mayer, metro north and long island are scheduled to be operative. i appreciate the aggressive schedule. i want to make sure the traveling public has a clear eyed understanding of the likelihood of this outcome. at this point can you guarantee that metro north and long island railroad will not file for an extension from the december 31st, 2018 deadline? >> well, our schedule is a doable schedule. as i said in my remarks, it is a schedule that has risk. and as we move forward through each stage we don't know exactly what we're going to encounter. we believe we can have all lines in operation by the deadline. but if we don't the schedule does allow for -- or the law does allow for an alternative schedule compliance, and we're certain that we can be able to meet that, if we have to. >> ms. fleming, in follow-up to that question, gao studied how

long certain steps take to implement ptc, including the testing and demonstration phases. how does mta's schedule compare with the information that you learned in your reviews and analysis? >> quite frankly it looks a little bit tight. i think it's because, again, having to tackle some of the more complex, time consuming activities, you know, i know that they have a pretty ambitious schedule, but, you know, things can happen, particularly as you start the testing phase. and again, fra's own estimate on average puts railroads at about two years to complete that phase. so i think it's ambitious, and it doesn't maybe account for some of the glitches that you can find, the bugs you can find through testing. and even installing the back office server, we found that the railroads that are far along it took them at least ten months on average, quite frankly from

fra's perspective you're looking at a couple years. >> we certainly don't disagree this is an extraordinarily aggressive and tight schedule. it has the challenges. that said, at least for our railroads as we enter revenue service demonstration it won't be the first time we've been testing. i mentioned we're able to provide speed enforcement on both of our railroads, particularly metro north railroad we have been testing for two years, that's why we're able to incrementally provide speed enforcement. i went tole you when he won't encounter problems when we add the back office server and move to full revenue service demonstration, but it gives us some degree of confidence other railroads may not have about that phase. >> mr. anderson, you stated there may be railroads that operate over amtrak tracks that will not have ptc, and you stated amtrak cannot permit such locomotives to be used on its tracks after the ptc deadline. based on your understanding of the progress of your tenet railroads, how likely is it that

amtrak will prohibit these commuter railroad locomotives from operating on its tracks? >> i think that the factual situation will arise where they're not technically allowed to operate on the tracks. and i think what we have to work on with some of those are mitigation plans. we have some extra acs 64 locomotives where we could provide the propulsion and the t&e crews. this gets back to my point that i think the reality is, and to your question about what fra is doing, rombatory is actually doing a really good job pulling all the railroads in, we have another two-day session with them on march 4th and 5th, and really going through every single milestone for each one of the railroads that operate on amtrak, or where amtrak operates off its own infrastructure. we're going to get confronted as

a policy question with that issue. do you have a commuter railroad that carries a couple hundred thousand people a day? you know, can you practically, and is it the right policy to not have that railroad operate and put everybody on roads? so the question is, what other mitigation steps can you take? what things can we do as a host with our partners on the corridor to mitigate those issues and be certain that we still provide safe operations? >> which commuter railroads do you think are most at risk? >> i think metro north, njt are probably the two that we understand. but we will know more as rombatory works with us. we're working very close with metro north and working very close with njt. we want to see them succeed. that's our responsibility as a steward of that -- of the

northeast corridor. >> my time is expired. senator nelson, i understand you want to defer? >> yeah, senator cantwell is the one that requested this hearing, so i want to defer my time for her. and just say at the outset that here we are, three years later, confronting the same thing that we confronted three years ago. that several railroads are not going to be ready. and it's going to lead to more crashes. when is enough enough? senator? >> thank you, senator nelson, thank you for your indulgence, thank you, mr. chairman, for both you and the ranking member organizing this hearing. and clearly the discussion of positive train control and implementation has become an all too live debate in the state of washington with the horrific crash that killed three people and injured 80 in the state of washington. so the discussion you were

having right now is about how do we move forward, in that same vain. i know as it relates to washington state, the amtrak uses in washington owned by bnsf will be compliant by the end of this year. is that right, mr. anderson? >> yes, senator, it will. >> so it will only be those, you know, separately run tracks that end the question on their compliance? is that correct? >> that's a correct statement. >> the one that line that was -- where the accident occurred, it's a question about -- >> the deadline. >> so if i could ask, because as this discussion continues with the committee about those sites that are going to be compliant and non-compliant and where we're going do run, if i could just show a picture -- oh, already there. this is the warning -- this is the warning sign, right, this is -- it's like a highway, i

guess, in the sense that your exit's coming up. but in this case, slow down to 30 miles an hour, they see that sign at two miles, at one mile, at a half mile, and as the curve starts. right? but i think in this case -- well, we don't know all the ntsb investigation, but instead of going 30, they didn't have the situational awareness to -- they didn't observe this. and hit that curve, on its maiden route, at speeds, we think, over 50 miles per hour. so this is going to continue to be a real live discussion in other places. now, just to clarify, in this situation, under positive train control, if they blew by this signal at more than 30 miles an hour, the train would be automatically slowed down or stopped. is that correct? >> correct. >> so that implementation, you wouldn't -- you wouldn't need the situational awareness in

that instance. but it is still something that you would want to have implemented with your engineers. is that correct? >> correct. and actually we need to go further than the ptc regulation and establish a standard of 100%, you're a passenger you get on a train in america, you need to be ptc compliant, or ptc equivalent. i just don't think there's any other way to deal with the risk of single human error. i walked that track the night after the accident. and you see the curve, and you see the signs. and it really makes such a compelling case for ptc. we could have avoided it. >> that's what the ranking member was just saying, that, yes, we should have mandated something in 2015 that now we're

going to discuss what's going to happen when it's not in place by the end of the year for certain tracks, and services. right? >> correct. >> so i'm understanding your house testimony that you doubted that amtrak would not operate on any line that wasn't ptc functioning by the end of the year? >> yeah, that hasn't been very popular. >> and so does the committee have a list of that, where those areas are? >> we can give you a list of those. >> okay. >> but, yeah, we do have, and they touch my estimate is probably somewhere between 300 to 700 miles of track we operate on. >> and so just for the riding public on rail services, not knowing where ptc exists, and doesn't exist, what is amtrak going to do to increase the situational awareness training that is important for those lines that don't have ptc, or is

amtrak just going to take a hard and fast line, no more commuter rails transportation after december 31st without ptc? >> look, that's the sort of problem, which is on the one hand we support amtrak assets and trains and t&e crews and maintenance, we support probably a half a billion trips a year. so it's an essential part of what we do. on the other hand, it's not very comforting being the president of amtrak, and running trains on dark railroads. so i think the first thing is we have to -- and after 501 we immediately improved our oversight and hands on engagement of our road foremen in our crew rooms, we've revamped operating procedures. takes my approval to go through the gating process under sms for

a new route. we have reduced head count in the headquarters and we're going to redeploy -- transportation organization. we put in new rules for operating on signal suspended railroads. and we're implementing well in advance of the fra deadlines, rail safety sms program. but we still remain exposed. and even after ptc. now, ptc will be on the defiance by pass and all of the cascades, but even after that, and i can share with you, it's a great question, the places where we even after the deadline, if you assumed every railroad complied with the rule, we are still going to have significant sections of passenger rail operations without ptc. and i think that is a level of risk that we shouldn't be prepared to take as the

railroad. in my board at amtrak has taken that position. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman, i know my time is expired. but this certainly was a very costly incident to the pacific northwest, and we -- our sympathies are with the families who have lost loved ones. the issue is that we need to make sure that the traveling public is safe. >> absolutely. >> and that these -- both situational awareness and technologies are at the best available for the assessment that you're just making is implemented. thank you. >> and we are deeply sorry to the communities in washington, and we have admitted all liability, and we are generous ly settling those claims and covering all those costs in the state of washington. >> thank you, senator cantwell. >> thank you, mr. chair, and

thank you to our panelists this morning. i appreciate your being here very much and the work you do very much. i'll start with a question to mr. anderson and mr. mayer. as you may know, the ntsbntsb recently reported the undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea was a causal factor in two separate commuter train derailments in september 2016 and january 2017. these two derailments collectively involved the injury of over 200 people and the death of one. the ntsb noted that the federal rail administration does not require medical screenings for its safety-critical workers to guard against disorders such as sleep apnea. the lack of federal standards and testing requirements around this issue, i think, is reckless and has clearly led to deaths and injuries in the rail sector. so we absolutely need to do something about it. i recently wrote a letter to fra calling on them to remedy this situation. mr. anderson and mr. mayer, what

steps are you taking to protect rail workers and the commuters who depend on them from harms caused by undiagnosed sleep apn apnea? >> first, you're right. and so at amtrak, fra rule is a physical for an engineer every three years. our rule is every one year. and we require screening for sleep apnea, when diagnosed you're taken out of service. we want our engineers to get the proper treatment. there are proper treatments. >> yes. >> so we are big believesers from an sms standpoint, our safety management system tells us we have to mitigate the risk from sleep apnea. so our program is set up to do that. >> great, thank you. >> we set up a program that we believe leads the industry in this. we decided to screen all of our location motive engineers on both of our railroads, as well as train operators on the new york city subway system. i realize not the subject of this hearing but that's thousands of individuals.

we've been on a very aggressive schedule to do this, screen thousands of individuals and make sure they have the treatment that they require and will be having passed through and screen every one of those job titles by the end of may. >> that's good to hear. thank you. to ms. fleming. is this a problem that merits further attention bit gao? >> you know, it's not an area that we've looked into. but we'd be happy to work with you and the committee on this issue. it sounds like a very important issue. >> i think it is, especially because as both these witnesses answered, there's also treatment for sleep apnea. >> right. >> so it's not an either/or thing, we just need to make sure we're identifying it and treating it. mr. anderson, i wanted to follow up a little bit with you on the issue of what happens to lines that may not be ptc compliant by the deadline. and in my case i'm concerned about lines in vermont which obviously serve constituents of

mine in new hampshire. and as i understand it are exempted from the requirement. so to follow up on some of the other questions you've gotten, you testified before the house transportation committee and stated that you doubted whether service would continue for areas that did not have ptc in place by 2018. we've heard concerns about how this could impact the vermonter service, which travels through new hampshire, and constituents are obviously concerned. so again, is there a way that we can address safety concerns but also not take these lines, which were exempted under the statute, out of service? they're so critical for people in our states and businesses too. >> yes, senator. and after you expressed that to us after my testimony in the house, we have undertaken under our sms risk assessment program what steps we could take in the short run to mitigate operations

on dark railroads. and non-ptc railroads. i do think that -- and we have an r&d project under way at amtrak to determine whether we can use technologies from europe that don't require as much trackside investment. but would give us speed restrictions and signal location. and there may be mitigation efforts like slow speeds coming up on switches requiring the conductor in dark territory to ride in the front of the cab. >> okay. >> so we are putting it throu through -- candidly it's what we did in aviation, we're putting it through that same sort of alternative means of compliance. because we realize the importance of our service. and it's -- the vermonter is a really good route for us. it's not one that economically or otherwise you would ever be motivated to do anything to. as a practical matter, after you

go to washington and walk down and sit at one of these accident sites, it sharpens your focus. >> of course it does, and we're very glad for that sharp focus. thank you all very much. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, senator hassen, senator coal bashar? >> thank you. i think i'll start with you, ms. fleming. while the fra collects information from commuter railroads on their progress in implementing ptc, the gao has found that the fra is not using this information to prioritize resources to those railroads, most likely to miss the deadline. i would think that a risk-based approach would help with ptc implementation. what specific information does the fra need to collect that would help target support where we need it the most? >> you know, i think that they really need to consider as a recommendation to have -- to use the information that it collects and to apply it to our

risk-based approach. they're going to be getting significant information documentation coming their way in the next month months, past everything looking at test waivers, rfd applications, safety plans. to give you a sense what that means, for now it's been taking fra 10 to 100 days for a test waiver. but the safety plans are 5,000-plus pages. and they told us that they won't be able to review more than two or three a year. so if you do the math, that's pretty much a heavy lift. and also fra needs to think about, you know, what do they do? do they then target the railroads that carry the most passengers, work with them? do they work with the railroads that are close to being there and push them over the hump? or do they target the resources to work with the railroads that are really struggling and may need more hand-holding and assistance so that they can tackle some of these challenges?

>> what do you think they should do? >> we are going to leave that up to them. because i think -- you know, there's 12 ptc experts right now, and i know fra is looking to hire a few more. you know, we've heard that the individualized attention, that one on one has been great. but there's only 12 folks. and there are a lot of railroads that could use some guidance. and the other recommendation is -- really speaks to the fact that, again, it's more of an informal, reactive approach. and we think that the downside of that is that there could be inconsistent information be relayed, maybe even inaccurate information. so they need to at this juncture have more of a systematic communication with all the railroads in terms of, what are they looking for in terms of the criteria, the applications and the criteria for the extension? how are they planning to review and approve these? i think railroads just need a lot of good information right now. >> okay. mr. anderson, a different topic,

that's rail crossing safety. and i know that you mentioned that in 2017 there were 1,880 grade crossing accidents. and while ptc we know is very crucial safety technology, it doesn't always handle those kinds of incidents. we've had a few of these in our state. what is amtrak doing to address rail crossing safety? >> in our legend grant, we support the federal highway program which allocates about $250 million a year for investment in rail crossing safety. this is the single-biggest safety issue for rail in america. over 250 to 300 deaths a year. and completely preventible with the right infrastructure investment in rail crossing. i think the work that the fra historically has done has been quite successful in terms of

driving down accidents at rail crossings. so it's something that is a solved problem, we just have to put the investment and the infrastructure. >> you would like to see investment help with that? >> we did. we put it in our legend grant request, an endorsement of the federal highway programs for more investment in grade crossings. what we do is a paredo analysis of the highest to lowest risk, and target investment after investment after investment to drive the number down. >> thanks for your leadership. i know there's a lot going on and i appreciate you stepping up. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you. >> good to see you. >> good to see you. you still live in my state, so there you go. >> i still do part-time. >> he still does, he loves our state even when it's 1 degree. mr. mayer, coming from a border state and as cochair of the canadian/u.s. interparliamentarian group, i'm concerned about the level of interoperability of rail safety

technology with canadian rail operators. we've had a few issues. do you want to briefly comment on this? mr. mayer? thank you. >> we don't operate up into canada, but interoperability is extremely important to us. we share a corridor with amtrak, long island railroad operates over amtrak tracks into and inside of penn station, and our new haven line on metro north territory functions as the northeast corridor that amtrak operates over. so we are committed to interoperabili interoperability. we will be interoperable when we bring ptc online and we will find a way to continue to operate together safely and legally. >> all right, thank you. >> thank you. senator blunt. >> thank you very much chairman thune and ranking member net son for convening this hearing. we all know there have been a number of accidents that could have been prevented if appropriate safety measures had

been in place and several of you have highlighted that in your testimony. even the best technology cannot prevent human error, both on trains and abandoned vehicle on this tracks. i'm concerned about the ability of small commuter railroads being able to sustain the costs for full implementation of positive train control. however, every railroad, commuter or freight, must operate with high safety standards to ensure the protection of the public and the protection of railroad employees. ms. fleming, are low-risk railroads like the real metro's rail runner in new mexico able to operate safely under a risk mitigation plan and without positive train control until they are able to have a system operational? >> so what the risk mitigation strategy would lay out, it's a plan for operating trains that would fall below the threshold that requires positive train control. so wouldn't necessarily provide the same benefits as a fully

operated ptc system. and it allows the railroad to have a grace period. so it basically allows them to operate under that plan. but ultimately they still would be required to implement ptc at some point. >> thank you for that answer. mr. anderson, in your testimony, you outline the ways, including training centralization, that amtrak is improving its safety culture. this is essential to ensure the safety of workers and passengers alike. can you clarify the time frames when these various actions will be operational? >> thank you for the question. and i would start out by offering that we have very -- a really good workforce of conductors and engineers that work really hard to operate a safe railroad. we are right now -- i hired an executive vice president and chief safety officer from the aviation industry, reports

directly to me, and it is a daily process now at amtrak. we have already implemented our new signal suspension policies. we will shortly have completion of our engineer qualification on new routes to address the issues that we had in 501 out in washington. so it's an ongoing process. i will say that the sms program, which is in an mprm right now with fra, has a deadline of november, and we plan on filing our sms plan well in advance of november. this is imperative. this is the single-biggest priority we have at amtrak right now. >> thank you. and mr. mayer and mr. anderson, cyber security protection measures are extremely important for all businesses. but especially for transit systems where a cyber intrusion could cause death or extreme

property destruction. what are the steps that you are taking to prevent cyber attacks, and if you cannot provide a complete answer now, you're welcome to respond in the record. >> i can certainly tell you a little bit about cyber security. first of all, i would point out that ptc is a layer-on to the enginee engineers. so it can slow or stop trains but it is not a remote control capability for trains, so there's limited protection there just in the basic functionality. that said, fra has strict cyber security rules for ptc implementation, and i know our railroads are working very hard with amtrak as we implement a secure ptc solution. amtrak was the recipient of a grant from the fra for cyber security development for ptc. the continue sosortium of rain designed around amtrak are working very hard to ensure our systems are secure and we're using industry best practices

and encryption to roll this technology out. >> mr. anderson, i assume you agree with most of that? >> i agree and i'd love the chance to brief you, because we have a lot of work under way on that. >> that would be great. each railroad system has determined which ptc technology it will use, and there was no federal coordination in selecting software use. can each of you address how your systems will ensure the technology install ed will be interoperable across technology platforms and rail systems? >> the -- amtrak has been using its system for a number of years. so the railroads that interoperate with amtrak have chosen to develop systems that are based on the amtrak solution. now that's been a challenge. we've been able to use about one-third of the amtrak solution right off the shelf. another third has needed a major rewrite. a final third is a complete

ground-up software development project. that said, because we are all based on a common platform, and quite frankly because our engineers and our technical staff speak with each other on a daily basis, we are confident that we will arrive at an interoperable ptc solution across our different railroads. >> thank you very much. my time's exhausted. >> senator blunt. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. let's follow up on senator udall's question a little bit. mr. anderson, you mentioned, i think, that you use 20 different railroad railroads' track and 11 different sist -- and three different systems. mr. mayer commented on that. how do you make that work? is there a reasonable way to make those three different systems work? and do you have the same equipment running on tracks where there's more than one system? just tell us a little bit about

that. >> okay, in the northeast corridor, it's an amtrak-developed system because of the speeds that operate on the acela. and it's called asis. asis is the standard in the corridor. the freight railroads that operate in the corridor have to operate with asis, which is the amtrak system that's been around for a while, but they also have something called etms, which is the standard that the class 1 freight railroads have established around the country. so they're dual equipped. because we run on catenary in the corridor, the acs 64 locomotives are electric, they 68 in the corridor. so that equipment's dedicated there. in michigan, we have a different system. icts. because we run at higher speeds with passenger rail. and that is just for the folks that operate or the railroads that operate on the lines owned by amtrak in the state of michigan, three routes in

michigan. we tend to have dedicated locomotives rather than dual equipage -- >> as long you do that, you think that creates a long-term ability for you to deal with the different systems on the different railroads? >> it does. >> if different equipment is the answer? >> well, ultimately you'd like simplification in a single piece of equipment. because if a locomotive breaks down and you have another locomotive there, you want to substitute it. but if it doesn't have the right equipment on it, you're not going to be able to. so ultimately we will probably go through a process of dual equipping. but for now, the way you can get to the deadline is have -- which we sort of dedicate different types of equipment to different regions anyway. it will work practically for us to have the third emts, which is the -- i don't know if i got the acronym right -- is the system that the class 1 freight railroads use around the united states. >> how does the back office

server relate to all of this? >> the back office server is basically a computer system that for amtrak is operated by rockwell collins. rockwell collins bought something called air, inc., which is a company that connects airplanes in the sky -- >> you know something about that too? >> well, yeah. yeah, i do. and so amtrak, because we had to federate, have interoperability with so many railroads and on two different systems outside the corridor, asis doesn't have to federate, so in the corridor it runs standalone. the other two we rely on, rockwell collins to operate the basic server farm to federate all the other railroads we operate on, and to operate that

server form for us. so that the trains and the dispatchers all communicate. if i were going to suggest one thing for the committee that could accelerate all this, get the president of alston, siemens, web tech, and rockwell collins, put the four of them right here. because much of this technology that we're talking about depends upon software development and hardware development by those oems. and those are probably the biggest critical dependencies right now. >> thank you. maybe the chairman took out notes as to future hearings welcomed have. you mentioned that there was a substantial lack of drawdown by some of the railroads on the money that they have access to. are you evaluated in any way from that what would be a

reasonable amount of money still to be left where they could be done by the end of the year and what clearly is a recipient of funds that has not drawn down funds that would relate to them complying with the goal? is there any way there you're following up with the railroads that aren't drawing down the funds they need? >> i certainly think that the level of expenditure is an indicator of something. you know, the scope of our work as mentioned was trying to piece together the puzzle of who got the money, where did it go, and what is the level of spend tours, and what did they spend it on? we didn't do a deep dive into spending habits. we didn't dive into the spending rates. it's a function of many different things. it could be when they got the money. so even though there's 0% expenditure, it could be that they only recently received their funds. we didn't do any analysis to really show in the time that we

had that even someone who had spent 80% of their funds is going to meet the deadline versus someone who has not spent that level of funding. it depends on the size of the railroad. it depends on the types of projects. the size and scope of the projects that we're talking about. some railroads may have one project and they were able to spend their money quicker than another railroad that may have multiple projects. so it's a function of many different things. and i think just the level of effort that it took my team to really piece together the funding angle. we really weren't able to do a deeper dive into some of the issues that you're talking about, but i do think it's an important one. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator blunt. senator peters. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to our witnesses for being here today to discuss what is truly a very critical issue. it's very personal to me as well. may 12th of 2015, some close friends of mine, gilda and john

jacobs, lost their daughter, rachel, on an amtrak 188 derailment in philadelphia. and she sent a letter to the committee for committee members, and mr. chairman, i would like to enter this letter into the record with unanimous consent? >> no objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think it's important, it's a letter that will be entered into the record, but i'd like to read the first two paragraphsfy may for the committee members. dear committee members -- this is written by gilda jacobs -- as we do often this weekend, my husband, john and i, visited the grave of our daughter, rachel. and each time i go, i cry for her. her now 5-year-old son jacob. her husband todd. and my daughter, jessica. we all lost part of ourselves and our family and the world mourns her loss as well. rachel's life and the lives of seven others were needlessly cut short when the amtrak train they were riding on derailed may 12th, 2015. and it could have been prevented

had ptc been installed and activated on the tracks and train. it has been almost three years and yet more trains have derailed, other pages have died, and scores of others have been injured. and yet ptc has not been installed or activated on all passenger trains in our country. my anger is seething. i think we can all relate to that and share that anger as well. mr. anderson, i know you're new into the position of amtrak, i know you care deeply about every passenger that rides on your train today, and you've expressed that today as well as at a previous hearing. but i think your viewpoint on this is particularly insightful now coming from the airline industry. i know as a leader in the airline industry, you focused on safety and the airline industry now has an enviable record when it comes to safety. you have always given very candid assessments of the situation. i'm going to ask you to give a

very candid assessment today. as you come into this industry and you look at how ptc has not been moving forward, the industry continually comes forward, says we need more time, we need more time, what do you think is going on? and why has the railroad industry not been able to do this when we have seen successes in aviation? >> i think, speaking for passenger railroad and being new to amtrak, is what i said in my remarks, which is, we tend to think of ourselves as a freight railroad that carries passengers, rather than a world-class passenger railroad modeled after the great passenger railroads around the world. and when you take that approach and you take the approach that we had in aviation with the sms systems that have been at the core of driving the improvements in aviation and how the sms systems in aviation got started was in the mid '90s, there were

a series of accidents from about '93 to '97. and as a result of that, we made huge investments in technology and in sms systems. and i think what we have to do in the industry is stop thinking of ourselves as an extension of the freight railroad industry. they do a really good job and their safety record's improving, but we carry passengers. and that's a much higher standard of care. and i don't think the industry has focused on having that same commitment to safety management systems and compliance. >> so they haven't had the commitment. do you believe they've had the time? to do that? >> i believe we have had the time. i mean, we went through these sorts of exercises in aviation with control flight into terrain, wind shear warning systems, collision avoidance systems in midair, which were

the three big drivers of issues in aviation. all three of them got solved with technology that we installed in the cockpits of all airplanes. >> so the industry has had the time, they've had an extension, they may be asking for more time as we heard from ms. fleming, half the railroads aren't going to be compliant. yet there seems not to be a focus. and it doesn't seem to be a resource issue. you mentioned that many of them have not -- in fact, only a few funding recipients have used their ptc funds. so they're not spending the money. they have the time. is this a question of commitment? if there's a lack of commitment, that is a serious, serious problem when we have people dying on our railroads. so the industry's going to need to answer to that. thank you. >> thank you, senator peters. senator blumenthal. >> thanks, mr. chairman.

i want to thank the chairman for his very strong words and strongly expressed admonition at the beginning of this hearing about the urgency of this system and his stated intention to contact appropriate federal authorities about the gao report. i was very disappointed in a response from the secretary of transportation to a letter that i led with 14 of my colleagues demanding answers regarding bot's enforcement plan about positive train control. all she really said was the department was "considering all options." the industry needs to know that there will be penalties, that enforcement will be rigorous, that, in effect, there will be no tolerance for delay.

and that the six criteria that have to be met are not some expanded timeline, they are conditions that will be interpreted narrowly and specifically. if they have no such warning, then the prediction made by one member of the long island rail committee just last week, mitchell pally, said he would be "significantly surprised" if d.o.t. and fra levy fines in the event of a failure to meet the deadline. if that's the mindset of the industry, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy, and we cannot allow an additional delay after all these years. i was really alarmed, miss fleming, by the gao report which said that there was a risk, to

use your word, of two-thirds of the commuter railroads failing to meet those deadlines. i am not sure what you meant by risk. but for me it means that on the present trajectory, they will not meet those deadlines. because of the information and data that you provided in the report. with respect to mt acha, last w mta's project lead for ptc implementation, debbie chen, announced, "our plan is to get it done by the end of the year, but metro north also announced that you're just 61% complete overall. leading many of your customers, and i am a very active one, in fact, i'm going to be riding the train home tonight, hopefully.

whether, in fact, on urgoing to meet the deadline. i would like a commitment from you that you will meet the 2018 deadline and that metro north will have positive train control implemented, in operation by then. >> senator, first of all, our schedule calls for us to meet the deadline. we believe our schedule is acheeflk of achievable, as ms. fleming testified. as we agree, there are significant schedule risks. right now it's our intent and our plan to meet the deadline. i testified earlier that on the railroad that you and i both ride on a frequent basis, we have, thanks to two years of testing, we have cut in civil speed enforcement capabilities on all of the metro north lines, and later in the month we'll be enforcing speed limits -- >> you would agree with me this technology has been proven over the years? >> no, sir. it's not off-the-shelf technology. it hasn't been proven.

we're proving it every day of the week we test it and build it. >> and what would prevent you from achieving that end of year-deadline? >> our most important challenges are the delivery of software. there's been a lot of talk here about office software. to make the portions of the ptc system that are dependant on software communicate and operate. so our biggest challenge is software, and we also heard some discussion from miss fleming about the time it may take the fra -- >> this system has been implemented elsewhere, correct? >> our operations are very different than elsewhere. we are the densest railroads in the country. >> but the same kinds of systems should be applicable regardless of how dense the systems are, wouldn't you agree? >> no. the railroads, although we look very similar, we are extremely different in analysis tells, communication capabilities, operational control. >> are you on a path to completing whatever software issues have arisen? >> we believe so, sir.

that's a major deliverable from our systems integrator, and we have encouraged them to hire staff, our own engineers are assisting with them, they are reaching out to programmers around the world and are doing everything that we know how to motivate them to deliver -- >> is that the major obstacle to your completing the system on time? >> yes. if we were testifying a year ago, we might talk about hardware and delivery of that. but the main obstacle we're facing is software and ultimately fra approval. >> i would like a detailed report and a meeting with metro north on those obstacles, what you are doing to meet and overcome those obstacles, what resources, if any, additionally are necessary, and why you would not meet the end of year-deadline. i don't want to hear in six months that you're not meeting it. >> we look forward to meeting with you, senator. >> and i might just say,

finally, this system, train control, is not a new system, it is a proven technology. it has been around for years and years. there may be software challenges in metro north's sphere. but those challenges also have been around for years and years. it's not like we're discovering a new planet here. or a new kind of equipment. i think, in my view, and frankly in the view of many of your customers, there will be no excuse for metro north failing to meet that 2018 deadline. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. senator fisher? >> thank you, mr. chairman. miss fleming, in your testimony you noted that the field testing phase can be a long and difficult process. in your discussions with class 1 and other railroads, can you

talk about some of the events or unseen circumstances that could delay an extend field test organize revenue service demonstration? can you elaborate on some of that? >> so the six railroads that are at rsd, for them the average was seven months. but fra's estimate is field testing could take an average two years. and i think until you go through that, you don't know what bugs there will be and how to work through that. some railroads have made the tough decision to suspend operations and to conduct that testing around the clock. so i think you don't know kind of what you're going to be coming up against until you start going through that. so i think each railroad, it's been kind of a tricky phase of implementation. >> can you give us some examples, though, on what events could delay that implementation? what are some of those unseen circumstances that delay it?

>> you know, dayn provide that for the record? because i think i'm going to have to go through work papers a little more and get some good examples for you. >> that would be great, thank you. also the fra appears to be taking an approach to ptc implementation that says railroads that have completed all ptc component installation and actually operate ptc for trains across their networks cannot be considered fully ptc compliant, and therefore must request a ptc extension because of the slower progress of other railroads to use their network. in other words, a railroad that finishes everything within their control would need to file for an extension even if they were using ptc for their trains and have the capability of communicating with other railroads. do you believe that the fra may consider a railroad fully implemented, not when the railroad itself has met the

requirements within its control, but when all operations on a track are ptc compliant, regardless of who is responsible? >> to be honest, it's unclear. and i think that's another area where fra really needs to articulate what does it plan to do come january 2019? we've asked them. and we didn't get a satisfactory answer. and i think it's an important information that the railroads need to understand. what does that mean? come january, if you kind of dotted your is and crossed your ts but some of the folks you share tracks with haven't? i think they owe it to the railroads at this point, since we're approaching the deadline, to answer some of those questions that railroads have. >> do you think there would be benefits if the fra, instead of the railroads, to be quoted early adopters, if they're allowed and reasonably comply with the law beginning in 2018? >> you know, again, i think that's something the fra should

consider and to think about. does that make sense? does that meet their criteria? they also, quite frankly, have at their fingertips where they can use alternative criteria that is not rsd-based. i think that's another area that railroads are like what does that look like? what does that mean? fra i think needs to work with the railroads and try to help them understand, what are examples of that? what would meet their threshold? so they have some options at their fingertips but they haven't done a good job of articulating what that means. >> do you have any suggestions on how we can encourage fra to do that? >> i think the chairman announced today that he's planning to send a letter, and i think that may be a good opportunity to seek out some of the clarifications that we all have. >> thank you. mr. dewees, in your report you noted that two commuter railroads utilized the railroad rehabilitation and improvement

financing loans to implement the ptc technology. however, those programs -- the program has billions in loan authority provided by congress that could have been used for ptc. so why is the rrif funding not being used more extensively for positive train control? >> thank you for the question. it wasn't a question certainly that we asked as part of the scope of this effort, but we have done work in this before in the last few years. and i think it's a number of factors that are at play here. i think it could be the lengthy application review process. as you know, that can go anywhere from 90 days to many, many months. it could also be that the costs that are involved, i mean, there are mown application fees, credit risk premiums that have to be paid. that could be -- that could discourage some of your smaller commuter railroads for applying for these loans. the class 1s may rely on their capital budgets to be able to finance some of the investment

projects. so you may not see them applying for these loans. but we certainly reported years ago that a way to streamline the process, the build america bureau sort of was intended to consolidate all these credit programs and streamline the process and put procedures in place. i think that's to be determined, quite frankly. and we have work that we're going to be planning. i know gao too is going to be looking at the bureau. so maybe together we'll be able to figure that out and look at how they plan to do oversight of these programs. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, senator fischer. senator wicker. >> thank you. i guess members of the panel realize that many members of this committee have two other hearings scheduled at the same time. so we've been coming in and out. thank you for your patience and being here. let me just observe generally, we've had some pretty explicit

statements on the part of the committee chairman. and also the ranking member. and i understand the testimony today has not been particularly encouraging about our ability, our collective ability, to have this requirement fulfilled by the end of the year. i do think the chairman and ranking member's statements indicate that on behalf of the congress, they're trying to say that patience is running out. and, i mean, clearly we're going to try not to shut down train traffic around the country. at a date certain. but we need whoever to understand that they need -- we need to get the attention of

those responsible. and get a timetable that will work. and avoid, if i might say, a train wreck coming, either figuratively or literally. so i think that -- thank you, chairman and mennell son, thank you for being explicit there. i might as well ask about an area of particular importance to me, which is amtrak from mobile to new orleans. the southern rail commission, mr. anderson, had hoped for a longer route. and it seems, though, that the real interest there and the real possibility for making it work sooner is to take this real

heavily populated area -- mobile is a major city, the gulf coast of mississippi is heavily populated, and new orleans, of course, one of the major cities of the south in terms of population and potential traffic. so the commission has trimmed its proposal to that. and so i'm just hoping that you can give me some encouragement about making that actually work. i think if the schedule can accommodate passengers and accommodate the public, and if the trains are reliable and they run on time, this could be a winner. because the population is there. so how's ptc going between new orleans and mobile? when will it be complete? what impact will it have on

amtrak? and also, i understand you talked about this, but are we okay with the interoperability of the freight and passenger technology on ptc? >> the interoperability piece with the four large class 1 freights is going well. we've actually federated, or are in the process of fererating, hook are our system up to their system so it speaks to our locomotives. that process is going well. particularly well with bnsf and union pacific, they've been real leaders. >> not particularly well with whom? >> well, it's going better with them. because they're moving along. norfolk southern's done a good job with us, and we still have work to do with csx. >> so you want to encourage csx --

>> we do. >> -- to be part of that. >> let me get to your question. i actually think that well-timed, well-run service between new orleans and mobile is a winner. especially if it's both ways, three times, four times a day, those are big population centers. i'm from the gulf coast, i live on the gulf coast, so i'm familiar with that part of the world. it would work. the problem is, until our preference rights and incremental cost rights under the 1971 statute that created amtrak are properly enforced, you know, right now the question for reintroduction of that service from csx was $2 billion. so the challenge we have in all of these markets where we have routes like that that make good sense, we've never been able to get the preference right that amtrak has on the freights enforced. and we've never been able to really get them to think

straight about true incremental costs. because that's what congress said in '71. >> you say the law is there, it's just not enforced? >> it's never been enforced. >> and whose responsibility is it to enforce that law? >> hopefully yours. >> well, we are the legislative branch. what is the enforcement office? >> stb. >> okay. >> and we'd like a private right of action under the statute. >> so the statute would have to be amended? the law is there but it's not as you would -- >> the law is there, but since 1971, there's never been any effective enforcement over the preference action. that's why the long distance service at amtrak runs at massive delays. >> and so the surface transportation board, if they were of a mind to, could enforce it as an agency, but you would like some sort of cause of action provided for in the

statute? >> correct. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, senator wicker. senator corders master? >> thank you, mr. chair. and like senator wicker, i appreciate your patience, us coming in and out. that's why your testimonies are so important, your written testimonies as well are very helpful. thank you for being here today. i know that my colleagues who manage the congressional transportation appropriations, namely senators collins and reid, have recently written to secretary chow about the need to get moving and spending down millions in fiscal year 2017 funding to help facilitate progress on the ptc at the fra. as a matter of course, the fra reported to our staffs that there are only eight railroads with conditionally certified ptc safety plans, four more under review, and more than 25 who haven't even submitted. so mr. anderson or mr. mayer, what is the average size and complexity of either these ptc

safety implementation plans generally? can you talk about that? >> so our railroads have submitted ptc implementation plans. our next step will be in the months ahead as we submit revenue service demonstration applications. as ms. fleming testified, they are extremely complicated, long documents. but we are running tests now and collecting data and making plans to be able to file those applications. we've also had recent interactions with the fra that's helped us to understand exactly what's going to be required of us. >> talk a little bit about that. how long does it take? does it take the experts at the fra awhile to review and certify them? >> for our revenue service demonstration application, we have allowed eight weeks in our schedule and the fra has told us they will make every effort to do that. but we will need them to hold up that end in order to be able to stay on schedule. >> there is a time frame that you can point to that normally this takes to get through it?

>> we've never been through it before, so i can't answer that. >> i can answer that. >> please. >> for test waivers, it takes an fra anywhere from 10 to 100 days. safety plans, they can only review two or three a year. >> okay. thank you. so let me ask you this. let me follow up, miss flep recognize your testimony underscored the fact that the fra lacks a clear extension review and appeal process. i would ask mr. dewees and miss fleming, can you outline the progress that you've seen in staffing up the necessary personnel and experts internally at the fra and whether it's been sufficient to help facilitate a faster progress on certification of ptc on the national network where it's required? >> so my understanding, there are 12 ptc experts right now. that's not a lot, particularly given that we see in the next

ten months, plus going into next year, their workload and capacity really come into play. they're going to start to be getting the test waivers, the applications, the safety plans. we've suggested that they really consider prioritizing. having a risk-based approach. figuring out, where do we put the resources? what's the best bang for the buck? do we go after the railroads that have the largest passengers? about do we go after the railroads that are really struggling and have a long ways to go? do we go after the railroads that maybe just need a push to go over the wall? and so we leave it up to them. but we really think, just having 12 people in-house, with all these documents and approval processes coming their way, they're going to need to really think about their approach. >> has the administration's hiring freeze had an impact on why there's only 12 people in-house? >> i think it's been this way for a while. it's hard to get these folks. there's a limited number of ptc experts out there.

and so i just don't think that there's a long queue of people that you can draw from. >> okay. and can i ask -- i know i've heard the narrative that there's plenty of federal funding made available to the railroads, and we've heard that today, and we're not making fast enough progress on ptc. mr. mayer, would you agree with that sentiment? >> yes. we -- we are grateful for the roof loans sponsored by the faa, state of connecticut, state of new york. we have a significant amount of money available to us to complete our work. we've submitted invoices in the amount of. >> one-third of those funds and will draw down and begin to pay back that loan. our problem honestly is not really money, and more money wouldn't help us move faster. our bottleneck is, as was just alluded to, the lack of qualified talent, the lack of ptc expertise. every railroad in the country is looking for that same small pool of talent. and we're working with our systems integrator to creatively

tap the talent that exists to help us develop the software that's necessary. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i know my time is up, i'll submit the rest of my questions for the record. thank you again for being here. >> thank you, senator cortez masto. i think we have others here. i'd like to ask a question, maybe direct this principally at least to mr. mayer and mr. anderson. but we talked a lot about the role of the fra in this. i'm wondering what additional guidance or information, if any, from fra would be helpful for you as you continue to work to meet the implementation requirements. >> you know, as i just mentioned, we have recently received some clarification and some informal assistance from the fra to help us understand the road ahead for us. it's been very helpful. our main concern at this point is fra resourcing to receive, process, and approve our revenue

service demonstration application. the time frame is going to be very tight. but if there's anything this committee can do to help them tap into additional resources, either new hires or perhaps even talent within the department of transportation and other modal administrations, that may be helpful. >> i agree with that. you could have everything installed and be operating in revenue service. but we've got to truncate that time fra is going to take in order to certify. because if it's six to eight weeks at the end, you know, we're ten months out. that's number one. number two, ron vitory is leading an effort industry-wide to have everyone in on a regular basis in his office where we go through hours at a time, line by line, installations all over the country. in that effort he needs to -- he's done a good job of it and he's got to spearhead it for the whole industry. >> and unfortunately, he should have been there about six months ago in the job.

so i've heard this repeated, i think reiterated in response to questions that have been posed by members of the committee. but this is a very complex and challenging undertaking, we all agree with that. but it sounds like, if i heard correctly, the most challenging aspect remaining for full implementation is software. at least that's -- sounds like you've talked a little bit about how you plan to overcome that challenge. do you have anything else to add before we wrap up? >> one thing that i would add, and thank you, senator, is we've heard a lot about commitment. we understand that this committee and the congress in general is committed to ptc implementation. we heard a little talk about the mta board of directors. i would want to end by pointing out that our board of directors is extremely clear that ptc is a

very, very high priority and absolutely essential for us to bring online and further provide for the safety of our customers. and the -- that commitment extends to our chairman, our managing director, our two railroad presidents, and the entire implementation team. we are working as hard as we can possibly work to bring the promise of ptc into reality. >> good. any hope of continuing that any think you heard today, us convey the sense of urgency we attach to getting implementation done in accordance with the requirement and the deadline. let us know as this moves forward. i know you're going to be consulting obviously with fra. but what additional help you might need, if there's anything that this committee or the congress can do. i'm going to ask unanimous consent to insert a statement for the record from the association of american railroads on the implementation

of ptc. we will keep the hearing record open for a couple of weeks. i know there are members who have indicated a desire to submit questions for the record. so if our witnesses could respond as quickly as possible to those so that we can close the record out, it would be greatly appreciated. thank you all for this. i think this is an important hearing, a timely hearing, and a very important update for us in terms of what's happening with respect to this very important safety issue. this hearing's adjourned.

>> that's why we want to have the hearing today, to kind of sense of where we are and what some of those year-end problems and challenges could be. obviously if you have tens of thousands of people who can't rely on commuter rail because they don't have compliance, we're going to have major issues. we want them to know we expect them to get there, and they're going to have to step up their referents. that means utilization, more resources. we'll give some thought to what we need to do with respect to the fra as the year moves forward. but we hope to see significant progress in terms of compliance with the deadline.

>> are there going to be penalties against railroads that do not meet that deadline? >> certainly could be, yeah. >> like what do you consider -- >> well, i mean -- i think it could be financial penalties. and i think at this point, it's a little preliminary to -- i mean, i'm hoping they're all going to get behind what we're trying to do, and we want to help them any way that we can to make sure the fra's doing all they can to help them get there. the interoperability issues are challenging, and as you heard, even amtrak and freight railroads are ahead of the game, union and u.p. are doing really well on this. what i really worry about is these northeast commuters, amtrak, and so as you can tell we've got a long ways to go. we'll i guess cross that bridge when we come to it. >> we've only got a few minutes to get in to vote -- >> are you considering another extension like what happened in 2015? >> no. >> we've got to go, thank you. >> thanks, guys.

this week, the supreme court heard a case on government unions and whether they can require workers whether they ca workers to pay union fees. in janus versus afscme, the plaintiff says he doesn't want to pay union dues. we'll have the oral argument on c-span. sunday on c-span, politico magazine contributing editor joshua zeits talking about his book "building the great society, inside lyndon johnson's white house," about the members of president johnson's staff who helped implement his great stooit program society programs. >> exactly how an administration within five years built all of these programs. after they passed congress and

he signed them into law, how did they build medicare and medicaid from the ground up in one year and how did they create the first programs like head start or food stamps, and nutritional programs for children. and how did they do this while des des desegregating a third of the country and fighting a war in vietnam? >> "q and a" sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. next, janet yellen sits down for a conversation with her predecessor ben bernanke. >> good afternoon.