it is because of this notion he -- we sometimes take for granted as americans, with the full inclusion and participation exist better as a nation. it also allows us to develop human solutions to human problems because of the perspectives that are welcomed around that table. my father was a trial lawyer. he would say, i never once lost a case because a jury made up of men and women made a decision. he would say he lost a brother -- he would say he lost them for other reasons. usually, poorly appointed judges. [laughter] i do believe in military and sustainable development that the perspectives offered by teams of men and women is critically important. in my service and city government and state government,

particularly when it came to public safety. which perhaps might seem counterintuitive to some, but not to you. how do we do that? how do we lift up the role of women? look up to leaders. i think you get organizations to change and transform and do the best when you lift up the leaders and celebrate the success of women and men. they are doing incredibly difficult things and doing them with a tremendous amount of innovation, creativity, and excellence. that is how you do it. we do by lifting up examples of the many strong and effective and creative women out there. let me say in closing that i really appreciate what so many

of you had done throughout our -- for our country. you give me a tremendous amount of hope for where our country is headed. as i travel around the nation and i talked to people under 40, i rarely ever me anyone who want to bash immigrants, deny climate change is real, or discriminate against gay couples. that tells me the country is moving to a more compassionate and generous and connected place. i take hope and draw optimism from this. for the next generation, that word "foreign" becomes antique. there's nothing foreign in our world.

we have a tremendous responsibility and power in this direction of growth and life on this planet. thank you for leading the way. thanks a lot. [applause] >> wow. that was a wonderful discussion of so many of the problems and issues that the world and country are facing this group is going to be talking about that at this conference. thank you, governor o'malley for sharing your thoughts with us. you have really set the table

for a very positive tone for this conference. i know good things will come out of it. i think about the issues you have raised and told us we should be thinking about, we will be thinking and talking about for both of the two days that come. as a token of our appreciation we would like to present you with this inaugural medal. this harry truman inaugural medal. i speak for many of us when i say i look forward to following your presidential campaign with interest. i hope you continue to be a champion for liberal internationalism that unites this community. i hope you get to california and

see two great universities stanford and the university of california. share your views with them. i think you will be warmly received. thank you for being with us today. [applause] governor o'malley: thank you. it is beautiful. [applause] >> next a hearing on positive train control. after that, q and a with the author. >> book tv takes over prime time on c-span two, featuring a different subject each night.

monday the war on terror. wednesday, the digital age. thursday, biographies and a memoir. friday, the book on science and technology. watch our special prime time addition starting monday at 8:30 p.m. eastern. book tv, television for serious readers. >> the hearing on the status of positive train call implementation. that is technology that can stop or slow down trains. the congressional deadline for full implementation is december 31. this is to go hours and 15 minutes. -- 2 hours and 15 minutes.

>> the subcommittee will come to order. good morning welcome to the subcommittee on row roads pipelines in hazardous materials materials. our hearing will focus on the implementation of ptc positive train control in the united states. one of the most complex and costly safety mandates taking over the industry. you will include a gps-based system designed to automatically control trains to follow speed limits, and avoid train to train collisions. following a deadly crash in southern southern california congress mandated the installation of ptc on line for certain hazardous materials are carried at any line which commuter rail services operate. the recent tragic amtrak crash in philadelphia has reminded us that while these accidents are rare, they can happen in ptc will make our rail network safer. this mandate was included in the rail safety and improvement act of 2008 and congress set an implementation deadline of december 31 of this year.

from the beginning, the mandate was going to be a daunting undertaking. what a completely implemented ptc will require, its 38,000 weigh side interfaces, 18,000 locoh motives to be updated and thousands of signals. ptc has never been implemented on such a scale and never required such a high level of inner inner inner operabilty. since the 2008 mandate was enacted, that worked the last seven years working to implement the ptc. freight rail is expected to spend a total of $9 billion to fully implement. the american public transportation association

estimated they would have to spend $3.5 billion on ptc and in addition, the sheer cost and complexty of the system there have been many delays. the process of approving the polls along the right away was delayed when the federal communication system mandated each pole goes through a review process. they created a more streamline process and we will hear about how it is working from them. commuter and passenger railroads have failed to provide the spectrum. today we will discuss how long it will take to get ptc implemented across the country and what it will take to meet the current deadline. in closing, i look forward to hearing from our witnesses in regarding the issues. i mind like to recognize rank -- i would now like to recognize ranking member from massachusetts, mr. capuano.

>> thank you mr. chairman. i think the chairman has said everything we need to say. this is long overdue. i like to find out where we are today. tell me how to get to where we want to be as quickly as we can. that is what america and i want. if you think you need federal assistance, be clear. i say that because we have our own difference of opinions if we should put funds up or not. please say so. i yield back and look forward to the testimony. >> full committee chairman mr. sires. >> think you chairman for holding this hearing. i think it is important to start by saying, the number one priority of this committee is safety. in general, rail safety has been going in the right direction but the terrible amtrak incident showed us we should remain

focused on the efforts to improve rail safety. as chairman denham said this is one of the most costly enhancements the railroads have taken. i was the ranking member of the subcommittee and 2008. we knew it would be challenging , but seven years into the future we know that will not be the case. with a few exceptions most railroads will not meet the deadline. this has happened for a few reasons. technology has been more difficult to create, spectrum has been hard to acquire particularly for commuter railroads that serve populated areas. and finally, the federal communication commission

approval process for new telecommunication polls was not set-up to handle the tens to thousands of polls needed to deploy ptc. i am looking forward to hearing from you today, the witnesses, and where it stands, and your testimony will help consider how we move forward to deal with the mandate in an appropriate fashion. >> i will call on mr. defazlo for opening statements. >> thank you, mr. chairman. are you sure your microphone is working? jeff does not need a microphone. thank you, mr. chairman for holding the hearing. we will focus on the extension of the deadline. it is clear the class one will not meet the deadline and some passenger rails will not. this has been something that has been a very, very long time in the making.

it was 45 years since ntsb first recommended the idea of positive train control. you know, they have had it on their most wanted list for many years and it was removed after the passage of the legislation in 2008, but it was put back on when it was clear the deadlines were not going to be met. just to revisit why we did this. chatsworth took place after the house had acted. it was a compilation of accidents over the years including in particular, one in 2005 that was a release of chlorine gas with 5000 people evacuated. eight people died and 554 people were injured. the ntsb at the time had said

they had never seen anything like it. it was caused right human error. had ptc had been installed this wouldn't have happened. they say it would have been prevented with ptc. so, we passed it. chatsworth took place after house passage which led the senate to change its position. they started with 2018 as the deadline and they were pushing the two california senators and we compromised on 2015 as something that could be achievable. unfortunately we will not meet that deadline in many cases. congress, you know, was in helping some of the passenger rail folks with grants.

the president has asked for a billion dollars. we got one $50 million grant but since 2010 nothing has been allocated by congress. for freight, it is a heavy expense. but it is something -- it is at least a business expense. for passenger rail, non-profit passenger rail, it is expense that is hard to pass on to the customer, so grants could be helpful i believe and hopefully we will hear more about that today. and yet, our colleagues on the appropation committee, it doesn't take the same view of the issues as we do, we are more enlightened on the committee cut amtrak's grants by $290 million the day after the accident and among other things they found is advanced train control and another infrastructure likely to cause

other accidents. bridge collapse or tunnel collapse. the system is decrepeit and needs investment. we got a man to the moon after president kennedy issued the challenge it only took eight years and that was one year after the ntsb first asked for you know, positive train control. i know we can do it. we just need to hear today what impediment impediments remain -- what impediments remain and what we can do to expedite the instillation across all of the system in the critical categories. i look forward to the testimony. and if necessary i would urge

, the committee to take further action if we hear testimony saying there are steps to get it done. >> i would like to welcome the panel of witnesses. sarah feinberg, acting administrator of the federal rail instruction, fra, and want to say a special thanks to you for continuing to come before this committee. there have been a number of big issues that this committee is addressing. and you have not waiververed as far as coming before us. and answering some very difficult questions. we thank you for being here with us this morning. also mr. charles mathias, and mr. frank lonegro, and russell kerwin. i ask consent the witness' full statement be put in the record. no objection. so ordered. we will ask you to keep your

statements limited to five minutes. with that, miss feinberg you are recognized. >> thank you, charman denham ranking member capuano, and members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to appear before you. ptc is the most important safety development in more than a century. the technology is not new. elements of ptc have existed since the early 20th century. in fact regulators and safety , advocates have been calling on the rail industly to implement some form of the ptc for decades. the ntsb, that's 1969. the rail safety and improvement act required the rule to be fully implemented by december

21st, 2015. ptc is required on lines where hazardous material is transported and required on any railroad where inner city or computer rail passenger service is conducted. following passage of the ptc in 2008, railroads submitted their plans in 2010. these plans laid out a path forward that would allow each railroad to meet the deadline. as i have stated to this committee before safety is the , federal railroad association top priority. the rail system is not as safe as it could be without the full implementation of ptc. a safe rail system requires the full system of positive control that is white fra will enforce the 2015 deadline for implementation just as congress mandated. for several years, fra has been

sounding the alarms most railroads are not meeting the ptc. fra has dedicated resources to assist and guide implementation. we have hired staff to assist and oversee implementation. we have worked directly with the fcc to resolve spectrum issues and improve the process related to communication towers. we built the ptc test bed at the transportation technology center in colorado. we have provided $650 million in grant funds to support ptc implementation. this includes american recovery and investment act grants and amtrak grants, and other annual appropriations. we have requested $825 million to assist computer railroads and issue issued a loan to new york's met metro transportation program the largest in the nation.

i have established a team that is managing and monitoring each individual railroad's progress tracking data, insuring we have the most accurate data and reporting to me multiple times a week. this team is working in close collaboration with the individuals at the fra-based in washington and offices around the county already working on this challenge. but unfortunately, despite fra's financial support, technical assistance, and warnings many railroads stated they will not meet the december 2015 deadline. recently, fra received updated information about the implementation from 32 of the 38 railroads we are tracking. initial analysis shows the class one railroads have completed or partially completed half of the trains, replaced half of signals

that need to be replaces and finishes most of the mapping. by the end of the year, aar projects that 39% of locomotives will be equipped and 75 way side units installed and 76 percent of base station radios installed and 34 percent of required employees will be trained. 29% are targeted to complete instuitation of equipment by 2015. full implementation of ptc for commuter lines is projected by 2020. the fra continues our work to finalize and enforcement strategy for the railroads that will miss the deadline. as with any posture, our ultimate goal is to secure all

railroads as quickly and safely as possible. starting on january 1st, fra will impose penalties on railroads not fully implementing ptc and finds will be based on the guidelines which establish different penalties depending on the violation. they may be assessed per violation per day. the total amount depends on the amount of implementation progress the railroad has made. fra is planning for what will come after the january 1 at deadline. in both 2014 and 2015, the department and the mra asked congress to provide the fra with additional authorities that would address the safety gaps that will exist on many railroads between january 1 2016 and each railroad's full ptc implementation. these additional authorities would provide us with the ability to review and require interim safety measurements that fail to meet the requirements.

and fail to meet the deadlines. this is to enforce the raising of the bar but not replacing or extending the deadline. in conclusion, i want to extend thanks and appreciation for the committee to focusing on achieving efficiency as quickly and possible. we look forward to working with you and i am happy to respond to your questions. thank you. >> thank you miss feinberg. mr. mathias, you may proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman danham, and subcommittee member capuano, and members of the committee. thank you for inviting me to testify here today. >> can you pull your microphone closer? >> promoting the safety of life and property through use of wiring, radio communication is the top fcc priority. the fcc helps coordinate spectrum and manage the historic

we also manage the preservation and environmental reviews of the polls and antennas used to support positive train control of ptc systems. because the fcc was given no mandate to set aside spectrum for ptc we have been working with the railroad since 2008 to identify spectrum on the secondary market. the fcc has acted swiftly to approve transactions including the freight railroad spectrum nationwide and amtrak in the northeastern corridor and enabling and better testing ptc deployment. to be clear the commission plays , no role in designing or assessing the roll of ptc technology. the railroads are responsible for ptc design and deployment. the country's freight lead the way for securing ptc.

through private transactions, they have acquired nationwide spectrum in the 220-222 mega hertz band. just months before the axle came off. these railroads quickly became focused on this once the ptc was established and they drove other railroads, including amtrak and computer rails to spectrum in and around such band. for most of the country this strategy appears to have been successful. the fcc has facilitated and continues to facilitate the acquisition on second markets. we have also granted the railroads extensive technical waivers, more transmitter power for example, to facilitate the use of the spectrum for ptc purposes. spectral transmission differs because amtrak and freights are

deploying two different ptc systems that were not from the outset engineered to be compatible in the same spectrum broadband. unlike in a market like chicago where the freight railroads tell , us 11 different railroads can share the same block of spectrum using a single ptc, in the northeast corridor it requires two blocks of spectrum far enough apart to avoid interference. fcc staff will continue to work with amtrak, and the rails that use them to identify solutions. ptc infrastructure deployment are a priority. federal, environmental and federal historic law requires the fcc to assess the agency undertakings including the potential impact on property significant to tribal nations. in may 2014 the council on historic presserivation issued rules and under the streamline

approach the majority of the rules are exempt from review. the commission has the capacity to receive 1400 exempted and non-exempted every two weeks. by the middle of they would have june, submitted as many as 40,000 but only submitted 83,000 polls here 21% of the capacity. going forward issues in the , northeast corridor are complex and pose challenges. we stand ready to work with the trails there and across the country to help them meet their needs. we appreciate the subcommittee leadership on the issue. the fcc is committed to working collaboratively with congress our federal partners, and the railroads to get the job done.

i look forward to answering any questions you have. >> thank you. i would like to call on representative from florida, ms. brown, to introduce your next witness. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am pleased to introduce mr. frank lonegro who will be testifying for csx located in jacksonville, florida. frank has worked for the company since 2000. csx is the employer that plays a major strong role in the jacksonville community, the company and its ceo michael ward, have been a lock advocate for veterans in florida and throughout the united states. let me say i am proud of the wounded warriors program. they gave the first $1 million and received two years in a war

the top award from the president over 33% of their employees being veterans. so, with that i want to welcome frank and the other panelist and thank you for joining us. >> thank you, member brown. members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here. and since the passage of the p.t.c. mandate i've been the owner. the industry committee that is tasked with achieving p.t.c. inoperatebility and given the tragedy, i believe four issues are presented by this community. number one why most railroads able to meet by 2015.

number four what is the path forward. accidents have happened. a turnkey system did not exist in 2008 and had to be create bd the rail industry that task continues. >> as one of the many railroads. i'm ultimately responsible for p.t.c. and c.s.x. and it will not be completed by the deadline. this is not a result of will. we have assured executive support. we are hundreds of millions of dollars over budget yet we have not hesitated to have the required capital. congress shares in this responsibility the 2015 p.t.c. deadline was not grounded in fact. it was a political compromise after chats with various constituencies advocated for

2014 2018 and the compromise gave us 2015, a political date not necessarily an achievable date. the industry has thousands working on p.t.c. the f.r.a. has about a dozen. the rule was published in 2014. hundreds of pages of regulation. f.r.a. is requiring safety assessments and fault and cease all geared toward requiring a safe system. no one anticipated the regulatory towers. they imposed a moratorium to develop a better process. that moratorium impacted the p.t.c. timeline for over a year. p.t.c. has approved the canadian border agreement. we do need a greater emphasis

on speed given that much more remains especially solving a p.t.c. radio interference in the northeast. last year, our suppliers have yet toe hit a major deadline or deliver software that has defects. in the begins we believed that p.t.c. was further along. importantly both railroads promised completion in 2012. our reminder of that is to illustrate the challenges for even small deployments. it will be a testament of hard work and great leadership by darryl mack and keith holt. there are two main reasons why some will make it and others will not. the metro link deployments are similar in size. 100 to 250 engines and. it involves 3,900 engines.

about 25 times largers. more engines and more miles -- the second is the legacy infrastructure. p.t.c. does not interface with legacy signal and dispatching signals. they require 7,500 of wayside signals and enhance our dispatching system to 1,000th of a mile. once we are finished it will no longer be our father's railroad. if no extension is passed, they don't have a dilemma. similarly we are also required to allow commuter and passenger state agencies to have our lines. which should we violate. if we cannot transport passengers by rail the outcome is not good for the american people or the american economy.

if we continue the commodities and the passengers which triggers the p.t.c. mandate we will be in violation of the law and uncapped liability and questionable insurance coverage, an untenable situation for us. provide legal certainty for railroads alike. we look forward to working with you towards that path ahead. thank you. >> we've met several times. if i butcher your name as i've been told by colleagues, please let us know. >> thank you, mr. denham. and i would like to thank congress lapinsky.

we appreciate your championship for transportation. i am donald cre of of metro and the commuter rail committee. i was lucky enough early in my career to be an engineer that i was very proud of. i operate trains every single day. it's an enormous responsibility that i do not take lightly. a few years ago i was opponented director of metro. let me be clear, safety is paramount at metro. and to that end we are committed to p.t.c. it's not without challenges. metro is one of the largest commuter rail systems in the country. last year we provided over 83.4 million passenger trips. we operate 11 lines for 241 stations four of those lines owned and operated by the u.p.

and the b.n. chicago's region is the busiest rail hub complete with six railroads operating throughout the network. coordination must include all of these railroads. the b and the u.p. were further along with the insulation with us. so we put equipment on the trains that be operating so we can be compliant when they were. those lines once they're operational 40% will be p.t.c. compliant covering 50% of our passengers. the installation will be complete in 2015 with the u.p. following closely behind it in 2016. we have also made significant progress. to date we hired a system integration team parson's transportation awarded contracts to engineers firms to design systems and to continue to hire leadership positions and field installation crews.

even though we've had substantial progress the challenges are still remaining. the limited number of signals, designs in chicago whether it's determined we have p.t.c. in the region. we won't know until the spectrum study is confirmed. >> continuous validation is part of the testing process. so far only testing of individual segments has taken place. they must certified the railroads plans. inoperateable is a huge challenge for chicago given the complexity and integration of the system. metro cost $350 million and estimated $3.5 million for all commuter railroads. we receive $150 million in federal funds. these are the same sources of funds that are used for other safety relate lathed infrastructure projects such as

bridges, tracks. metro has allocated 150 stuff between p.t.c. and our federal partners. inincluded 275 million which is a combination of borrowing and fare increases. the balance would need to come from our state and federal partners which is uncertain. there's a significant operational maintenance cost that will be $15 million for metro. it's no surprise that no commuter rail system has fully implemented p.t.c. to date. metro is estimating. they are asking congress to provide f.r.a. to grant individual waivers if the deadline adds long as they show a good faith effort as determined by the f.r.a. metro is asking funding from

congress. on that note i'd like to thank senator lapinky 1405 for p.t.c. which is $200 million annually for the next five years. even though it will not be fully implemented. metro has taken significant steps to provide safeguards for our passengers. for example we have reviewed 2015 all -- and through our g.p.s. system. the system will notify the conductor whether the spread is reduced for 20 miles an hour. it will remind the commuter of the restriction. the c 36rbings rs program in congestion with our labor unions at f.r.a. i wanted to bring to the committee's attention recently a question was raised at the real conference with regard to the

commuter rail continuing to operate as it relates to liable. they are currently investigating this matter. is with that said, we ask congress to grant the f.r.a. authority to provide waivers based on good faith efforts and to provide the authority. and i want to thank the community for inviting me here today. and i would be happy to answer any questions. >> you may proceed. >> thank you, good morning chairman ranking member. my name is russell kerwynn southern california regional rail authority a.k.a. metro link. i came here to update the subcommittee on the most significant investments metro

like is making. p.t.c. as of june 14th, metro link has fully implemented p.t.c. in demonstrations rsv across the entire 341 yards of metro link. in addition to this major accomplishment we will submit our p.t.c. safety plan to the f.r.a. next week on june 30th seeking f.r.a. certification by the end of the year in accordance to the act of 2008. carrying over 43,000 weekday writers. we're also a dispatching hub for about 350 trained metro link on a daily basis including being a e.f.f. and amtrak. the p.t.t. program is an overlay system based upon the

inoperateable electronic train system aka i.e.m.s. soft weamplet it includes p.t.c. onboard equipment installed and tested on all loco motives. p.t.c. radios installed and operation. it was built and tested. constructed an put into service over the project. in addition to our network, we are also working closely with our railroad partner, union pacific, amtrak to insure p.t.c. implementation is achieved throughout the region. >> we appreciate the many challenges to implementing p.t.c. most of which have also

impacted our program. they include prolonged nationwide development of this inoperateable. relentless testing in fact two operations and funding constraints. in regards to spectrum metro link has been working with the f.c.c. to have the approval that we entered into in 2010. currently metro link is trying to find the same procedure. recently granted amtrak's investigation. >> through our partnership with the freight railroads he's been fortunate to execute the five-year lease from p.t.c. this week enables us to have our near-term needs. however through long tomorrow needs we are attempting to require our own spectrum.

our current p.t.c. program costs. the agency -- $216.4 million. it's equivalent to matching the entire offering budget of $221 million. the majority of our p.t.c. funding came from state and local sources. the investment has been very significant for the agency. moving forward the agency will be required to continue to prioritize funding as we dran situation into operations. if ongoing cost operate and maintain p.t.c. metro link is proud to be leading the industry on p.t.c. implementation despite the many challenges. i would like to thank chairman denham and capuano for the

opportunity to share our experience. i'll close my remarks by saying at natural link that our safety is -- are evert of this unyielding commitment the safety of our passengers. thank you. >> thank you, mr. kerwin. our first right now of questioning will be five minutes. would ask audience members to key things up for 35. again let me ask you about the response and we asked you for a quick response with some of the questions that this committee had on the amtrak crash. i think that those issues are important to resolve and understand and this committee thanks you for your rapid response i did

want to continue on, an exchange that you and i have had now. i pressed the f.r.a. if positive train control is such a big priority, why are you not using the corridors. but in california of course, i will we're p.t.c. it is a big concern for those that ride the rail in california. it's a big consider. you know this is a and we're looking to provide leadership to resover the safety concerns that people have quickly and california high speed rail continues to have its challenges and certainly by their current burn rate they do not afear be able to spend the money that has been allocated to them by the deadline. on going exchanges what else

could it be for liz and safety in california. i wanted to bring one issue to your attention under california high speed rails investment strategy for phase one and it specifically states, electrifying the entire cal tran corridor to replace electric locomotives or electric unit train sets an sbrutesing positive train control will not only speed up cal tran service but peave the way for. it it will reduce the ability for train-to-train and enhancing safety. this money was taken from california high speed rail. they approve the grant agreement. to put it in a different corridor to upgrade cal train

and put p.t.c. obviously by their own word obviously this is for them. with $400 million that went to the trans stage joint powers authority to conduct the investigation at the trance bay terminal. again, you're moving money out of california, central valuey. hours away to where they rebuild and through sfrang and l.a. through train. under the high speed passenger program, the following activities are ex-tressly eligible acquiring, constructing improving or inspecting equipment track and track structures, highway rail, great cozzings. they would increase communication and signalization

improvements. that sounds a whole lot of time as p.t.c. i understand by this -- they would be able to use these same dollars. i know from your response you said the grand t would have to approve this process. the grand t is california's rail. and safety is all of our number one concern. why are we not taking money that's available to be spent in a corridor that is availability spent aren't 1-a and create the safety address aste for our state. >> we've got -- gone back and forth. happy to don't go back and forth. i know our staff has had many

conversations about it as well. as i said in my let tore -- letter to you we do not believe we can -- >> they requested that you change the grant approval. and they've done it several times for p.t.c., for cal train and for the joint powers authority. $400 million and another grant for p.t.c. it's been done. >> in a sufficiently fast manner. and we are closing very closely. to the obligations of -- it hurts that we cannot shift money that has lrds been aggravated to the high speed rail. would have to go even if we were willing to take money away

from. it would go back to treasury. we will continue to engage with you and talk it through with you. >> thank you. that appears to be a change. it's happened several tiles. i would understand if california high speed rail zpwhr >> do you need him. to make the request to f.r.a. then the question is, the high speed rail authority if you've already spend money, why not a proven safety in southern california? >> i do not belief there's a safety. but we with continue to conversation. >> thank you, my time is ex-pierced. but as you know california is a big concern of mine and so is california high speed real. he would recognize the facting

that mr. capuano has been very gracious. he has skipped his time so that others may go first. >> i don't think you and cap wana certainly do in the same sense. ms. fineberg, you heard what about the potential conflict and whether or not if they continue their courage of other passengers. can you resolve that? >> the congress is going to have to act. i cannot make a little delitigation. and i did leave because of the heart -- deadline. >> i cannot expand the deadline. >> you talked inforce.

i would like to get a little insight on that. >> there's a lot of history here that -- a lot of questions about how we got to this point and how much people are closer to meeting the deadline everett. so these are penaltys that exact funds from the railroads. wouldn't it be better if you main date everybody puts together a schedule that you would approve or not approve in terms of how they can be nut benchmarks. and that would be extending the deadline that would be the argument. the deadline is the deadline and if we communicate to railroads, if we don't like the deadline. why -- we would not want to go

about that. in terms of the penalties. there are three or four ages specific signs that were finalized back in 2010. go from a lipping. in a locomotive too. quite detailed in the public whlme. -- there's a lot of history. and in order go forward i'm wondering, you know, if we give you splex from the deadline but we give you a main dane that it will be implemented as soon as practicable, physically, by each of those folks and then you set benchmarks and then they violate the ben marks. would that be a way to go forward? >> well, you know, i take my q

from the congress. so it's the congress instructs to enter a. again,. my concern would be entering into. based on what they would like their new deadline to be. >> well, i'm not thinking so much what they would like. that's why as soon as practbility physically. not something that we enjoy. anyway this is a different issue. quick to the f.c.c. you have the capacity in a trex line ways. >> and as i understand it there have been a few that i haven't applied for. you're push this capacity. sir, is that correct? >> that's correct. since the pro-sed was nut place we've had the 40,000 poles.

so we're ready for more work. >> ok. that's something to take into account as we're move ward. this is the system but i've got can it very quickly. we've got part of the problem. and you know, negotiation and frank had to negotiate -- you know that was -- i'm really concerned about what you might do with the 5. gigahertz and it's a smart car communication with the car os the future. they might want to parcel that up you know, smart car. going to have to go out and buy. i hope you would take that under advisement >> and then to. how soon can you get it zphun >> the plans call for us to be hardware installed.

you know, the obsolete single work. all the como mo i cleps was for deployment and as i said that we will have a significant portion of the system operable. so it's not like we get to 2010 that we have under our p.t.c. foot print. very methodical, you know, almost lineal implementation pretty much from here on out. we will have it by the end of the year. it's deployment and then we get into the thousands of lawyers. that wraps up us through 10. that cease like a lom time. i was proposing the idea that if the administrator. .

some people take until 2010 who don't need. but i any there needs to be some level of review on that. >> thank you, thank you, you've testified before. it was december 231th. and you'll use all the other -- and we have emergency orders to encourage p.c.k. i -- policy with whard to you i think you've categorized them -- so there's not arbitrary. >>. things you intend to do. but i'm really looking for how we measure csm. . .

verses up verses metro link to be able to determine that. >> absolutely. we would not want to be arbitrary or subjective. we would want this to be black and white so railroads and congress know what to expect. what was summarized in my oral testimonies testimony was to be quick. but our plan is take the penalty and scheduled laid out and be transparent about what our approach will be and communicate it both to the congress and to railroads so that everyone knows what to expect. >> will we see that shortly? the deadline is getting close and we want to make sure there

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

of the magnitude of fines and penalties. >> in terms of transit systems and commuter rails, my understanding is you folks having a difficult time, i know a sector in the southeast has to make tough decisions on whether they will repair or replace cars and tracks because it is throwing money in the budget. can you tell us like a road like chicago? >> that is definitely a major challenge for us. we have about $150 million of federal formula funds, ptc alone is $350 million to $400 million. we have to balance using that money for other safety concerns like bridges. bridges are important.

we have ones built in the 1800's and in the process of doing those projects. it is important to find the funding and make sure we can get this implemented. it is significant safety enhancement. there is no question about it. but it completes with other safety issues we have. >> you have to be the most challenged because you have all class ones coming in around chicago. is it that a significant challenge? >> that is a huge challenge. that has been one of the most significant challenges is the and operability. >> thank you very much. now i go to miss brown. ms. brown: every last one of us supports safety in the industry. i think you are leaving me when you're talking about daily fines. the industry itself has spent

over $5 billion on positive train control. i don't feel that the federal railroad administration, we've had daily, not daily, but meetings where we stress to them and i don't think the administration has done all they need to do to move us forward. to sit here and say we are going to have daily fines and we may have to shut down the industry i would like you to respond to that. >> i was responding to the question about what our authority is. we are working on our enforcement strategy and we will communicate that to you. >> i'm not talking about enforcing, i'm talking about supporting what we've done to help the industry. for example with the spectrum,

amtrak had to purchase it. how come we did not have provided for the industry? they had a hard time getting it and that delayed the projects. >> i'll let the fcc answer the spectrum question. i can tell you we have hired a significant staff. one of the witnesses previously said there is only a dozen staff at -- dozen staff working on ptc and that's incorrect. we have staff in washington and across the country. we have asked for loans and grants. we have offered assistance across the board. we are still waiting for safety plans to come in from railroads based on implementation. >> as far as i'm concerned in terms of assistance in moving forward, i don't mean it in a negative way, but you haven't been here the entire time.

we have been going over this for years and we have not got , administration where it needs to be as far as moving forward. you say positive train control it's a combination. , what happened with amtrak wasn't just about the proper equipment and controls, the cars, there's a whole list of things that i feel the administration should have worked harder. i'm not saying this particular administration but administration in general hasn't done everything they can do to get us where they need to be. even if they come up with it in 2018, it's still been a long

time. >> i can only take for this administration. i can't speak for previous administrations. this administration has done a great dale to try to bring railroads along and into compliance with the mandate that was passed in 2008. we have been sounding the alarm for years about the concern that the railroads were not going to meet the deadline. i believe this administration has done a great deal of work to bring railroads along. we have not seen the progress that we need to however. >> i'm just letting you know. you're leaving me. but go ahead to the next person. >> you're asking about the question of the amtrak spectrum? >> yes. >> the way the railroads approach this process initially, they selected a spectrum band in 220 mhz. i'm sorry to get technical on you, but it's part of the spectrum that was already owned by other people.

it has licensees. unfortunately in that case what we would have had to do to get that back him to on to anyone else is we would've had to taken it away from the existing owners through a process that would have required compensation to find additional spectrum and would have led to litigation. we thought what would have been more productive would be to work with amtrak on the spectrum to find something on the secondary market. >> as we move forward, that is an issue that congress needs to address. my next round i'll go to you frank. >> mr. brown you're recognized for five minutes.

mr. brown: thank you mr. chairman. ms. feinberg, why is there the need to create this new system? it seems to me there are so many systems that are similar to this that would be incredibly cheaper and quicker to institute. why did we settle on creating this entire new system question mark. ms. feinberg: i think this is actually an overlay of some other system, but if you're referring to some of the technology we talked about in the committee previously, it's basically a step beyond that. it would assist in taking human factors off the table. it's one of the most important technologies that we believe can be implement it for rail safety. >> i'll switch over to you. i know there are gps systems out there that you can buy for a thousand dollars that will control the motion of a vehicle it can stop and start it and all that thing. >> and it tells you where you're at.

mr. brown: i have one on my on my boat that cost $900 would steer my boat to a point. why is this so much more of a cult than that? >> the key is it's not as specific technology as the specification that it prevents train to train collision. mr. brown: as long as the gps is connected it should be able to do that very, very easily. this seems like this is light years easier than a google car or whatever you call that thing. a google car has to sense people walking in front of it and this doesn't have to do any of that. all it can do, it can't steer, it has to go how fast how slow and stops. it's not that complicated. >> i understand and appreciate your point but it is more complicated than it would seem. one of the key factors is interoperability. they require seamless transition from one railroad to another railroad property and communications. mr. brown >> i understand that : but this technology exist

today. i'm in a switch over to you. do you have technology today that you know where all your locomotives are? can you tell where they are at any time? >> we have gps on. it is important to understand gps is one of a hundred -- one of 100, i'll say just for ron numbers, inputs. it just provides one input and that is where the train is. it's not an indicator of speed or grade. or where the red signal is or where the work zone is. i could go on and on but i know you don't want me to. that's just one input into it. what you referred to earlier about access is referred to a

cap signal method of operation. we only have about 400 of the 11000 miles that use that and then the other system is built on top of that. it's not a system that we utilize to run our train. mr. brown: all these other guys are using taxpayer money and you're not. did you all do an analysis of whether it would be cheaper to use some of these legacy systems that would control the train or to create this entire system. they're doing 23,000 locomotives and it's costing a lot of money. did csx determine whether ob cheaper to modify the existing system rather than creating an entirely new system question -- entirely new system jack o?

>> in the beginning yes we did an analysis whether we should go the amtrak route or whether we should go with the system they've been working on since the mid-90's. the thing that is important to know is that there are generally three or four methods of operation. a very small portion of that is cap signal. signal territory and non- signal territory and there are permutations of all of that. we would've had to change the entire method of operation to cap signal which would have required wayside changes technology changes and locomotive changes. yes we did look at the two and we believe this is the right way to go and still believe it today. mr. brown >> thank you sir, you : spent $216 million. you have to fully installed? we haven't fully implemented.

how many locomotives do you have? >> 109 that need to be equipped. mr. brown: so you spent about $2 million question mark. -- $2 million russian mark? >> our budget is 216 million we've spent about 200 million. there's a tremendous amount of components as well. >> it sounds ridiculously expensive to me. thank you. >> you are recognized for five minutes are. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for holding this hearing. we want to make sure we do everything we can for safety. it's been a very difficult issue. it's a very difficult time coming into the position that the administrator here.

i want make sure that we are all clear. you were saying that the fra doesn't have the authority to shut down railroads. it's defined if the mandate isn't extended. ms. feinberg: ultimately if we needed to take the action to shut down a railroad, i think we could do that. my point was what were hearing is that the decision they are making with consultation with their lawyers on how they would operate on january 1 if they're not fully implemented. >> i don't know if that makes sense to me. do you want to add anything to that in regard to the fines and impact that could have on you? >> thank you congressman. on the commuter side of the industry we depend very heavily on tax dollars.

what the commuter rail industry has advocated is for an extension based on good faith efforts on their good faith efforts to complete this. -- to complete ppctc. i don't think personally it would be in the public's best interest to find railroads that typically don't have the funding to implement ptc. i think we need to find a solution where we can implement ptc and not claim the railroads. it's just coming right out of our pocket from the bridges and everything else we have to operate. >> do you have anything?

>> it doesn't matter how big the bear chasing you is if you're running as fast as you can you can't run any faster. we have 1000 people working on the project and it's hard to say that we haven't put the best foot forward that we possibly could. we have supplied the fra with both an aggregate level of information in terms of where we've been. we've done that since the end of 2012. the ntsb has asked for it and we provided that information. we've given a prognosis on railroad by railroad basis about when we be done. i don't believe the fines would be helpful. >> we all want to sit up here and find villains. in this situation i think it's very complex and there are not easy answers to this. we just want to move forward as quickly as possible. i've been in favor and i've tried and worked on getting more federal funding, especially for commuter rail.

mr. racine oh, you're saying about $350 million to finish by 2019. >> that is correct. that's a conservative number. as we get moving into the process first further along that is a conservative number. >> did you receive any funding from the grant programs? any other fra grant programs? >> know we have not. -- no, we have not. >> what additional funding help expedite that? would that help you invest in your infrastructure? >> there's a strong possibility that additional funding would help move the project along faster but i also want to be very clear that i also want to be very clear that there's only

a number of resources that are available for installation and purchasing things. the supply and demand chain and things like that. we can look at moving it quicker and if we had federal funding we could take the funding that we are using for that and use it for other things. we have cars that are 60 years old and bridges that were built in the 1800's. we could address some of those issues. >> they have significantly increased fares as a long-term plan so you're doing your part in regard to that. very quickly i want to touch on one other safety related issue. regardless of whatever plan, i hope your agency keeps careful tabs on these efforts in the reports they submit. we are ready know they have an ambitious timeline for finishing this. some issues we've had with them which we have discussed and i think we need to make sure the

follow-up is done so we can keep them as safe as possible. ms. feinberg. : certainly, if i could just make one point. we have asked for a sum total of $2 billion to go toward tpc implementation and technologies. $825 million in grow america but altogether $2 billion. we are in favor of that funding going towards implementation. >> thank you mr. chairman. the morning ms. feinberg. i have a question for you. just make sure i'm clear it's my understanding that the fra, and this come from testimony, they will use all powers including enforcement fines and adoption. we know how they would assess adoption.

we know how they would assess the fines. would they be assessed a daily? is there a policy that's been defined regarding that? ms. feinberg: the goal of our enforcement actions and any safety regulators is to bring about compliance. >> i understand the goal. do we have a policy? ms. feinberg: as we discussed earlier we are finalizing that now. most of the policy is public and has been public since 2010. there are various signs and penalty and most of it has been public since 2010. we are in response to the congress' request finalizing our strategy now. we want to be completely transparent about what the railroads and congress can expect. >> and might be daily and might be otherwise? ms. feinberg: that's correct. >> so a few days after you were here after the terrible mishap in philadelphia, i asked you joe the $1.3 billion in money that was received some time ago because it was such an issue and there was question about congress and one particular

party not being responsive and cutting money for ptc. how much of the stimulus money when everything was in one hand in this town was spent on this for amtrak in the north east corner? do you remember that question? >> it's 400 million-dollar that went toward ptc. that's not amtrak specific. i didn't realize you wanted just amtrak specific. i believe it's $36 million for amtrak. >> so that's federal funding and were looking at $9 billion is what the estimated cost of freight railroads. you can see the difference. we don't have ptc where we have money but this is private money

, $9 billion. let me ask you about the arbitrary deadline. what is your opinion about the deadline? does it take into account the technical aspects and the frequency spectrum aspects? does it take into account the timeline where the fra took nearly one year to approve a single plan that is required by each railroad? does it take into account those things? ms. feinberg: it's your deadline. it's the congresses deadline. >> i'm asking your opinion. ms. feinberg i believe it's a : good deadline and was reached during negotiation. >> i understand that but take into account those things. ms. feinberg i believe in 2008 : when you pass this deadline you took those things into an account. >> you did ok. regarding finances, there is no

political solution to the two sides one wanting earlier and one wanting later question mark. -- one wanting later? ms. feinberg: i think there was an understanding in 2008 that this would be complicated but it had been called for since 1969 and wouldn't be so complicated. >> i asked for your opinion and i appreciate it. under the act of 2015 the fra was required to provide a report to a report to congress within a -- within 180 days. do not the status of that is -- do you know what the status of that is? ms. feinberg: yes, previously we

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

to you. >> thank you. >> i travel constantly back and forth. i'm still trying to get this idea with the spectrum and how we wound up in places like chicago where they only have one in more than 11 companies use it. i don't understand why we just can't come up with one system. now we have to wary about where one is going to interview with another. that just doesn't make sense. other parts of the country uses one system. how do we get to this point? >> i think i think it goes back to the conversation we had a few minutes ago about the access system for and trap that was developed for passenger rail and high-speed trap passenger rail. there's a certain way that they run a certain way that they run their operation and the utilize certain technologies to run their train and dispatch their train. they have a different way of running the railroad and those two systems >> is a company not making concessions with the other? i don't understand it. >> we are all making concessions. >> how do we end up with two a for making concessions? >> while they're two separate systems that rely on communications. what were really doing is a data transit mission that's using two

radios. they will use two separate but close pieces of spectrum. the closer there are the more interference there can be. we are actively working between amtrak as well as the fcc to solve that problem. we believe we are making progress. >> the fra says 40% of all accidents are as a result of human performance failure. they believe that peace tc -- they believe that ptc would only prevent 4%. how do we come up with 4%? >> we looked at all of the accidents over a ten or 12 year period. all accidents.

accidents are generally caused by a couple of things. either the conditions or a -- or the behavior. the conditions could be track related, signal related, the equipment could have a car problem and the same on the local motive cars. it work could be behavioral on the human side of things. we looked at the entire portfolio of accidents and did the math on things that we thought were ptc preventable and which were not. we came up with 2% of all accidents would be tpc preventable. >> in other words you don't thing it's worth it to make this investment? >> i think were well past that conversation. we have already spent $1.2 billion on it. i think were well past that conversation. >> thank you mr. chairman.

>> mr. hardy recognized for five minutes. mr. hardy: thank you mr. chairman. ms. feinberg i read your testimony and it states that they are ready to implement fines on friday. you friday. you say fra is ready to act to bring railroads into safety compliance. do you suggest that congress should recognize the fra to you require railroads to use alternative safety guidelines. you also say these requirements will likely be costly to railroads. can you share with me your ideas on this alternative technology? ms. feinberg: what i was referring to is what i would refer to as the safety gap that would exist between january 1, 2016, the day after the deadline and when tpc is actually

implemented by each railroad and what, if anything, should be done to raise the bar on safety during that gap. whether it's additional communication between crewmembers or an additional person in the cab we have not made a final determination. i think it would be railroad to railroad specific. how do you increase safety between the deadline that was missed and when ptc is implemented? >> you said it would be costly to these railroad so you've clearly run the numbers on how much of a cost. could the cost. could you share with me that information or how you came to that point question mark. -- how you came to that point? ms. feinberg we just hear that : items like additional crewmembers are quite costly. mr. hardy: with safety being

paramount i'd like you to delve into the cost a little bit more. they will have spent billions of dollars on this implementation while progress before it can be implemented nationwide. how much money have they spent out-of-pocket and do you believe these costs will be passed down to consumers which is naturally what happens and i just want to hear from you. >> in my opinion yes they would be passed down to consumers. when we raise our affairs -- when we raise our afares, we have to pass those costs on and we only have so much state and federal funding. the challenge that we have on the commuter fare side is the higher you raise the fare, the less likely you will to retain all of your riders at a time where we want to get people on the train and off the road. it's a balancing act to be able

to provide safe valuable service for our customer at a fair price. mr. hardy: do you believe what we have done all weekend as a committee, as congress to help move things forward, do you feel like you are being penalized for our lack of action or the fra's action or inaction? i would like to hear your opinion. >> that's a challenging question. mr. hardy: yes it is. >> the answer is this is a very expensive proposition for all a very expensive proposition for all railroads especially commuter railroads where we don't have the type of funding we need. i believe congress needs to fund the project. it's important for the safety of our customers and our employees and the communities we operate through. it's very important to me that the federal government supplies some funding for it. mr. hardy: thank you. you made the statement that the immediate impact of the deadline has potential of making certain rail operations illegal. can you discuss these ramifications a bit more?

>> yes sir. we are in a legal dilemma as i mentioned in the opening testimony. we have a law that requires this to be implemented on lines that carry passengers and commodities. the transport of those after january 1 of 2016 would run in contravention with the safety act. we also have a requirement to carry freight on reasonable terms and condition. we are in a situation of what law do we value late. we have the same problem on the passenger side. there's a law that is 40 or 45 years old and we have to allow amtrak to run as well as a few other commuters. we also have this obligation under the safety improvement act

to complete ptc on those same lines. if we can't meet it do we have to tell them they can't run it. these are the challenges that many lawyers are trying to resolve. we don't have the answer to that quite yet. >> thank you your time has expired. >> mr. hardy you recognized for five minutes. >> i want to thank both of you for holding the hearing. the subcommittee work is extremely important to the thousands of folks in my district in connecticut who ride these rails every day and companies who rely on the freight service. i hear from a lot of those commuters that they are very concerned about rail safety over the last few years. -- over the last two years. we've been talking about ever sense the fatal collision in 1969. we've been talking about positive train control.

i think we really need to get down to what are the carrots and sticks. what are the incentives recognizing the difficulty and budget challenges? what do we do now to move this forward to mark the past is the past? we are here now. we are here in june and how do we get this moving forward? thank you for your patience and your transparency and your exceptional availability to us on the committee. we value that a lot. in your testimony you noted that the fra should have met the authority, given the situation right now over the ptc control systems to test and provide interim safety measures when they do not meet that deadline which it's all clear most of them will not meet the deadline. can you expand and say what should we be doing in this

committee of jurisdiction to give fra authority and why? ms. feinberg: thank you for the question, i think the most important thing we can do starting now and going forward is to provide railroads the resources they need to implement pac. -- to implement ptc. they have asked for significant resources for the commuter railroad so they can implement ptc. i think that's the most important thing that can happen. additionally in terms of our authority, the statute is quite narrow. as others have discussed we really do run into a problem on january 1 for the law is the law. to cite preferences of railroad, i can't give waivers. i can't base waivers on good faith. i can't extend the deadline and i won't extend the deadline. we have to figure out how to move forward past january 1 to make sure that passengers, those who live near and around rail

are safe. i'm happy to continue to work with the congress on that but the most important thing is that we are providing resources so that we can bring this technology online quickly. >> a quick follow-up question, do you believe the railroads that failed to meet that deadline, and i'm asking under current law, will be expected to -- will be subjected to have liability? what is the legal opinion about that? ms. feinberg: the opinion of the fra, i don't want to give the railroads legal advice and i'm probably the only person in this room who is not a lawyer, but we are certainly hearing from the railroads that they believe there is increased liability as of january 1 and we agree with them. >> i think we need to get to work on that because that's not in anybody's interest as we move forward.

mr. mathias, good to see you. we went to college together. i am hearing from railroads in the northeast four-door, the difficulty about what we can do in the congested space. that is spectrum space as well as physical space. what should we do to expedite the safety of the northeast corridor? >> thank you for your question. it is my understanding that currently amtech check has the spectrum that it needs to deploy for connecticut. in addition we currently have in front of us a proposed transaction that would provide the mta digital spectrum to provide coverage between new york and new haven which would

fill a gap in their coverage and we know they also have a spectrum that we need. we need to ensure we are working as quickly as we can. those transactions are completed as quickly as possible as soon as we have the information and to be ready in case something changes. >> thank you very much. >> ok, let's go right to mr. mathis. you're talking about the connecticut connection putting ptc in from boston to new haven. isn't that most of what amtrak doesn't own? >> no sir. the amtrak has a spectrum. >> but that's where it was installed. it's installed there isn't it? you gave us a map and that was pretty much complete but that's really mostly under a private operation.

amtrak runs trains over but they don't own that part of the line. i'm telling you that they don't own it. >> it's interesting but they can get it done. >> let's go to the acting administrator. here she is asking for money again. how many riff loans have been given since 2012? at first i got an answer of last year to and then we got to three. is it still three? how many of those were for ptc? >> one. >> you could say 33% of them, it sounds more impressive. >> good idea. >> let's go back to our communication guy. there was 11,000 backlogged and you took care of it.

at one time, i thought there as many as 20,000 applications. >> we understand from the railroads that their total deployment would be approximately 30,000. >> what is your number of applications approved and what is your backlog at this point? >> we have had before us 8300 we have no backlog. >> no backlog and they're all approved? in the past i gave you credit for processing about 2000 year. -- about 2000 a year is that correct or did i lie? >> i think we did more. >> ok, where is my guy, from metrolink? 2008, we did the bill. you still don't have positive train control in all of metrolink's service or do you?

>> we have our entire line of metrolink owned service that have it in place. >> what's missing then? >> the lines that we run on with our freight partners are not currently ptc operational. >> she just said she's going to hammer the freight people and the hammer is coming down the end of the year. is that what you said? >> i said we were going to enforce the deadline. >> you're going to enforce that right. then i see you submit a budget that proposes a six-year schedule of funding commuter railroads to implement ptc. so is it going to take another six years? last i checked there's not a lot of passengers on freight trains, isn't that right? most of them are carrying

freight, not people. i think people would be pretty important. most of those people that were killed might've disrupted some freight traffic, but they were people. is this a new policy? people and commuters will take six years but were going to hammer those freight people. >> first of all we will enforce the deadline against all real -- against all railroads, not just freight. >> i said we had a land to go forward. >> we'd be happy to use it as reef sources for other items. >> cameras, metrolink to have them? >> yes we have them in all the cabs. >> that's been a recommendation of the organization since that time. they were implemented in most instances. >> ours has been implemented since 2009. >> last question does anybody

know what mechanism was used for funding? i have seven seconds before i conclude. i'm flying up here and i met a guy who i didn't know and he said what are you doing on the plane. he said i'm coming back from d.c. i asked why you coming back from d.c. i was part of a project and we finance projects. it took us between 60 and 90 days to get approval for financing. i said what are you doing here? he said it's taken us a year. he said these guys are screwing around with paperwork for a year.

you can go out and get private sector financing while they screw around in the ot -- in d.o.t. here's a mechanism that may be available and is available and you have huge capacity at risk and both of them don't work. do you want to respond on your own time? i am over. ms. feinberg i believe both of : those programs have moved along faster than they have previously and there's always room for improvement. >> the previous chairman did say the witnesses time was also the members time. >> thank you for holding this hearing and thank you to my colleague for yielding to the rest of the committee. first of all i want to command i want to commend metrolink, the second largest rail system in the country for the outstanding

work they have done in meeting in meeting our ptc deadline. i like that you work closely with your railroad partners to make sure their technologies were interoperable and worked hard to acquire the plans needed to implement your system. i want to point out that 85% of the funds that metrolink used to fund the rollout were from the state of california and local sources. ptc is clearly a top priority for me and for the american people. i think when the american people here that we can prevent train accidents and deaths of people by the implementation of pac -- implementation of ptc, they

are also very frustrated that many railroads are not going to be meeting our deadline. i will say, i want to go on record and agree to disagree with chairman denham that i don't think we should take money from california high-speed rail to pay for pac. -- to pay for ptc. they have it within their budget we need to find money for both. i am going to ask mr. mathias my first question. we've heard the testimony and acquiring the spectrum. according to metrolink, the process of that has been trying and prolonged. if purchased a license for spectrum five years ago. before they can use it they need fcc approval. in order to meet the deadline , metrolink is currently leasing

spectrum at the rate of $50000 per year while awaiting the approval. i think everybody is going to want to know why has it taken five years to approve the use of spectrum. is this normal? shouldn't we have, in light of the recent accidents and urgency to prevent future accidents, shouldn't there be an expedited process for approval to deal with our public safety? >> thank you for that good question. i can appreciate your concern. we are very glad that metrolink was able to negotiate a lease a nd that they will be able to have spectrum necessary to provide the pac service. we understand their service. we understand their frustration that they had intended to purchase is taking so long to acquire. unfortunately it's been in federal litigation and i can't provide details.

what were trying to do, as much as we can to get that process moving. we take an extraordinary step of taking the spectrum that they wish to acquire out of our close proceedings so we can move forward. they have several waiver requests that would facilitate the use of the spectrum. we understand they need to update those. we look forward to receiving that information. >> thank you but i think the american people are not going to be very sympathetic with the fcc not approving spectrum applications as quickly as possible. i sort of agree with my colleague, ms. brown, that it's difficult to be fining and enforcing the deadline when some of our own agencies are not moving as quickly as most of us would like.

so i'm just going to say that. so you are a model and i'm very proud of metrolink in california. maybe since you have been able to meet the deadline and you've been able to jump over obstacles and through the hoops to make this happen, what advice would you give other commuter rail lines in this country who are trying to meet the deadline by the end of the year? >> thank you for that question. i would like to thank mr. london agro for his shout out to our project director who has been just diligent in pushing this project forward. that sentiment has come all the way from the top ranks of metrolink, the board and our grantors have made a strong commitment to this project. the funding they provided was the crucial element in getting this project going along with

the adamant support from our board to get this project started. we started early and made a very concerted effort around the clock and have been working very hard at it for many years. it's hard, i wouldn't say there's a silver bullet for other railroads to accomplish it, it's been a very challenging process. we do sympathize with the many challenges which we have also encountered. the funding is a key element and having a close working relationship with your freight partners that you operate with because that was really the other key element with the strong support we had from our freight partners. >> thank you and again you've been a model for the country and we applaud you. >> thank you. mr. duncan, you're recognized for five minutes.

mr. duncan: i'm sorry i had to be at another hearing until just a few minutes ago but ms. feinberg, maybe you've covered this but you know it's taken these railroads several years to get to the point where they are now and apparently there is still a pretty good ways to go. i'm wondering, do you have any estimate on how long it will take your agency to certify the railroad after this process? ms. feinberg: after a safety a safety plan is submitted to us which is the railroads plan on how they will implement ptc and ensure the system is working, we have received one of those and have turned it back around to the railroad. they take a while to go through because you're not only reading the plan but you're in close consultation with the railroad talking through it and offering edits and changes to make sure

the system is going to work. it takes a while but we feel pretty confident that as they roll in we will be able to turn them around in the time periods we've laid out for the railroads. as of now we've just received one. >> are you satisfied with the progress but the railroads have made thus far? >> i'm not satisfied. i would not be satisfied unless the deadline were going to be met. >> my dad told me years ago, and i don't remember what he was talking about at the time, but said everything looks easy from a distant. i was reading over the testimony for csx and our tasks are still monumental. it said csx has to do a complete airborne imaging survey of our

network. all assets have to be mapped within 7 feet of their precise location, the installation of wayside units and signals need to be placed along the track they have to equip locomotives and add employees. these tasks are monumental and that's being conservative. tell me about the safety so far. >> we've been an industry leader in the last two or three years and the whole industry, if you go back and look at the train accident statistics, has seen significant, 40 to 50% reductions in train accidents since the 2000 time. safety is a core value and it's

the way of life and is the first core value that we have. it's very similar at every other railroad. every day we live and breathe safety. whether it's to improve the conditions, equipments or make things are in good order. the training that we do with our people, looks at how the train was handled to see if there were any anomalies and then we hold a coaching session. if they breach a red signal they are taken out of service and we are studying behaviors in the cab. i think we are doing an awful lot on safety. >> the committee gave me a statistics and said the freight rail system is 99.995% safe based on the number of trips

that are taken. that seems to me to be a phenomenal safety record. i was told a short time ago that a short time ago that the wall street journal said that 2014 was the safest year ever for the rail industry. everybody has tremendous sympathy for these families that lost loved ones in the amtrak accident, but my goodness, now were spending billions and we've already spent billions and will spend billions more to try to make something that is already one of the most safe things in the entire world and i'm

thinking we would be far better off to spend those billions in many other ways, cancer research and everything else. my times up. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you for being gracious with your time. i want to thank the panel. ms. feinberg, were all here today because panel. -- here today because we think ptc can save lives. i think everybody agrees with us if you're a week or two or a monthly, does anybody die? >> no sir.

>> is there any major property loss? >> no sir. >> if one of the major railroads came to you and said to make december 31 but will make january 15 or february 1? are 15th or february 1? are you going to impose big fines? >> highly unlikely. >> i didn't think so. >> how much did the chatsworth accident cost? >> in excess of that amount. >> in hindsight knowing what that accident cost and what the system cost, the system has a ready paid for itself? >> yes or. >> if it's paid fears itself on your line is it reasonable to say that it will pay for itself on other lines in avoidable accidents? >> i think so. >> i think so too. nobody wants to have fines. there's no reason to have fines. we get that. at the same time, were sitting here seven years later with some of the railroads doing virtually nothing. how would you suggest, let's assume we could come together, by the way ms. feinberg who set this deadline? >> the congress.

>> are you empowered to ignore that? >> no. >> are you empowered to change that deadline? >> no. >> so it's only us. >> yes. >> i think any reasonable person knows this is not a deadline that will be met. we need to extend the deadline. i hope the congress can come together and do this. at the same time once we do it how do we avoid a bad actor from simply ignoring it again. any reasonable amount of time, without a stick. i don't want the fines, but how do i do it any other way? >> i think it was brought up in many occasions today, i think from the onset of the 2008 rail safety act that was a date that was agreed upon, once we got into the significant challenges. >> i understand where we are

today, if i said write a law that in some period of time, simply ignoring it again. any reasonable amount of time, without a stick. i don't want the fines, but how do i do it any other way? >> i think it was brought up in many occasions today, i think from the onset of the 2008 safety act, the date that was agreed upon, once we got into the significant challenges. >> i understand is not a deadline that will be met. we need to extend the deadline. i hope the congress deadline. i hope the congress can come together and do this. at the same time once we do it, how do we avoid a bad actor from simply ignoring it again. any reasonable amount of time, without a stick. i don't want the fines, but how do i do it any other way? >> i think it was brought up in many occasions today, i think from the onset of the 2008 safety act, the date that was agreed upon, once we got into the significant challenges. >> i understand where we are today, if i said write a law that in some period of time, some reasonable amount of time we will have this done. hattaway then enforce that if i don't have funds or fines? >> i think we have to look at it at that time that the key issue is were not going to meet the deadline. it's not from lack of deadline. it's