[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMUTER RAILROADS
=======================================================================
(116-32)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES,
AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 24, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
41-444 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
DON YOUNG, Alaska District of Columbia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida RICK LARSEN, Washington
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
ROB WOODALL, Georgia JOHN GARAMENDI, California
JOHN KATKO, New York HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
BRIAN BABIN, Texas Georgia
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina DINA TITUS, Nevada
MIKE BOST, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas JARED HUFFMAN, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida MARK DeSAULNIER, California
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California,
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Vice Chair
Puerto Rico ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
ROSS SPANO, Florida TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota GREG STANTON, Arizona
CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
GREG PENCE, Indiana LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
HARLEY ROUDA, California
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois, Chair
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
BRIAN BABIN, Texas ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MIKE BOST, Illinois ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
DOUG LaMALFA, California MARK DeSAULNIER, California
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
ROSS SPANO, Florida JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
GREG PENCE, Indiana District of Columbia
SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio) EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas, Vice Chair
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Daniel Lipinski, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, opening statement.......... 1
Hon. Pete Stauber, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Minnesota:
Opening statement............................................ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, opening statement.................................. 5
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 51
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Arkansas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, prepared
statement...................................................... 51
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement............................. 52
WITNESSES
Paul P. Skoutelas, President and Chief Executive Officer,
American Public Transportation Association:
Oral statement............................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
James Derwinski, Chief Executive Officer/Executive Director,
Metra Commuter Railroad:
Oral statement............................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Peter M. Rogoff, Chief Executive Officer, Sound Transit:
Oral statement............................................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Stephanie N. Wiggins, Chief Executive Officer, Southern
California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA)-Metrolink:
Oral statement............................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Statement of Ray B. Chambers, President, Association of
Independent Passenger Rail Operators (AIPRO), Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio................................ 52
Letter of September 23, 2019, from Jerry Boles, President,
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, et al., Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio................................ 55
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
September 20, 2019
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines,
and Hazardous Materials
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and
Hazardous Materials
RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Challenges and
Opportunities for Commuter Railroads.''
_______________________________________________________________________
PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials will meet on Tuesday, September 24, 2019, at 4:00
p.m. in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building to hold a hearing
titled, ``Challenges and Opportunities for Commuter
Railroads.'' The hearing will explore the state of the commuter
rail industry, challenges these commuter rail service providers
face, and opportunities to address issues through legislation.
The Subcommittee will hear testimony from American Public
Transportation Association (APTA), Metra, Sound Transit, and
Metrolink.
BACKGROUND
I. COMMUTER RAIL BASICS
Rail transportation modes split into transit rail (heavy
rail, light rail, and streetcar) and commuter rail. Typically,
transit rail passengers use these services for shorter trips
and on closed rail systems; commuter rail services carry
passengers for longer trips on the Federal Railroad
Administration-regulated general railroad system, connected to
the broader interstate railroad network. As such, commuter rail
is designed to provide a longer-distance, regional service that
connects riders from suburban areas to city centers. Commuter
rail typically operates with higher-speed, higher-capacity
trains and less-frequent stops, and often operates on freight
railroad right-of-way. Whereas heavy rail systems (often called
``subways'' or ``metros'') typically do not interact with other
rail traffic, given the closed nature of their systems. For
example, in 2017, the average trip length on commuter rail
measured 24.6 miles, compared to 4.6 miles and 5.2 miles on
heavy and light rail, respectively.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Public Transportation Association, 2019 Fact Book,
page 14. Available at: https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/
APTA_Fact-Book-2019_FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the most heavily traveled commuter rail systems are
in the Northeast region of the United States, there are 29
agencies operating commuter rail that service 21 states across
the country, according to APTA's 2017 data.\2\ In recent years,
commuter rail ridership has increased substantially. During
2016-2017, 510 million trips were taken on commuter rail--an
increase of 23 percent from 2000 levels.\3\ In 2017 alone,
riders traveled more than 12.3 billion passenger miles by
commuter rail. As ridership grows, the footprint of commuter
rail has also increased, with a 13 percent growth in
directional route mileage from 2007 to 2017.\4\ In 2017,
commuter rail also directly employed nearly 64,000 workers who
are responsible for operations, maintenance, capital, and
general administration, and help make this transportation mode
possible.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Id. at 39. Note that, while APTA considers the Alaska Railroad
to be a commuter railroad in this count, the FRA generally does not
consider the Alaska Railroad to be a commuter railroad.
\3\ Id. at 14.
\4\ Id. at 20.
\5\ Id. at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. FEDERAL OVERSIGHT AND FUNDING OF COMMUTER RAIL
FRA SAFETY OVERSIGHT; FTA FORMULA FUNDS
Ensuring the safety of commuter rail is the responsibility
of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which establishes
minimum acceptable levels of railroad safety equipment and
operating practices. While FRA regulates safety, federal
funding for commuter rail transportation is provided by the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Commuter rail agencies
are eligible to receive FTA formula funds, including funding
under 49 U.S.C. Sections 5307 (Urbanized Area Formula Grants);
5337 (State of Good Repair Grants); and 5340 (High Density
States Formula funds). These formula funds typically go to a
regional transportation agency (designated recipient) and are
allocated by regional agreements to various transit agencies
operating commuter rail, heavy and light rail, streetcars,
ferries, and bus transit in the same urban area. The most
recent surface transportation reauthorization bill, the Fixing
America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST), authorized
approximately $38 billion for these programs from fiscal year
2016 through fiscal year 2020. Additionally, commuter railroads
may compete for discretionary grants under FTA's Capital
Investment Grant (CIG) program, which funds capital investments
in commuter rail as well as heavy and light rail, street cars,
and bus rapid transit projects. The FAST Act authorized $11.5
billion for the CIG program over five years.
DISCRETIONARY GRANTS
In recent years, commuter rail has also been eligible for
certain federal discretionary grant programs to support
positive train control (PTC) systems implementation. For
example, in fiscal year 2018, Congress made $250 million
available for PTC installation under the FRA's Consolidated
Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) program. Of
these funds, commuter railroads received $187 million,
according to FRA.\6\ In the FAST Act, Congress also authorized
$199 million in fiscal year 2017 FTA funds to assist financing
the installation of PTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In determining this figure, the FRA does not consider the
Alaska Railroad to be a commuter railroad. Alaska Railroad received
$12.9 million under the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING PROGRAM
The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing
(RRIF) program was originally established by Congress in Title
V of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of
1976 and later amended in the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (``TEA-21''). RRIF offers long-term, low-interest
loans for improving rail infrastructure. Eligible recipients
include railroads, state and local governments, government-
sponsored corporations, and joint ventures that include at
least one railroad. RRIF-eligible projects include the
following: acquiring, improving, and rehabilitating track,
bridges, rail yards, buildings, and shops; preconstruction
activities; PTC; transit-oriented development projects; and new
rail or intermodal activities. Under this program the
Department of Transportation is authorized to provide direct
loans and loan guarantees up to $35 billion to finance
development of railroad infrastructure. To date the RRIF
program has provided $6.286 billion in financing since 2002.
There is currently about $30.2 billion available in loan
authority under the RRIF program.
RRIF loans can cover up to 100 percent of a project's cost,
with repayment periods of up to 35 years. Applicants are
charged 0.5 percent of the amount requested to cover the cost
of processing their applications. Borrowers also pay another
fee--the credit risk premium (CRP)--at the time the loan is
issued to cover the potential cost to the government should the
loan default. The CRP is calculated for each loan, based
primarily on the financial soundness of the borrower and the
amount of collateral the borrower pledges. While 22 RRIF loans
have been fully repaid, DOT has not returned any CRP to those
borrowers. As required by the Continuing Appropriations Act of
2019 and the Save Our Seas Act of 2018, DOT, in consultation
with the Office of Management and Budget, has defined the term
``cohorts of loans'' as applicable to RRIF loans executed prior
to the enactment of the FAST Act. Under that law, when all
obligations attached to a cohort of loans has been satisfied,
the Secretary shall return to the original source the CRP paid
for the loans in the cohort. One loan, issued in 2005 to the
Montreal, Maine, & Atlantic Railway Ltd., defaulted.
III. OPERATIONS
OPERATING COMMUTER RAIL
While commuter rail is characterized as providing regional
passenger rail service, how the service is provided varies. For
instance, some commuter rail agencies operate their own service
over track the agency owns, and others contract with freight
railroads for access to their track and dispatching services.
Several commuter agencies also partner with Amtrak for various
services. Others contract out their operations and/or other
services to private sector providers of those services. All
shared use of rail corridors is based on voluntary agreements
negotiated on a case-by-case basis to address corridor- and
service-specific issues. While Amtrak has statutory right of
access to freight railroad infrastructure, this right does not
extend to commuter railroads.
Amtrak operates three commuter train services for state and
regional authorities, including Maryland Area Regional Commuter
(MARC) Penn Line; Southern California Regional Rail Authority
(Metrolink); and Shore Line East (Connecticut). Amtrak also
provides maintenance-of-equipment services for Central Florida
Commuter Rail Commission (SunRail); CTrail (Connecticut); MARC;
Shore Line East; and Sound Transit (Washington), as well as
maintenance-of-way and dispatching services for Massachusetts
Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). Amtrak also provides
access to its tracks (and in some cases, other services) for 10
agencies, including: CTrail; Long Island Rail Road; MARC Penn
Line; NJ TRANSIT; Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority (SEPTA); Delaware DOT; Rhode Island DOT; Shore Line
East; Virginia Railway Express (VRE); and Metra (Chicago area).
Various private sector companies operate commuter train
services for state and regional authorities, including
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain); San Joaquin
Regional Rail Commission (Altamont Corridor Express); South
Florida Regional Transportation Authority (Tri-Rail); Trinity
Railway Express; Trinity Metro (TEXRail); Capital Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MetroRail); Denton County Transit
Authority (Texas); Rio Metro RTD (New Mexico Rail Runner
Express); Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority; Virginia
Railway Express (VRE); and Connecticut DOT (CTrail Hartford
Line). Additional rail services provided by the private sector
include maintenance, engineering, PTC hosting, and railcar
repair services.
POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL
Positive Train Control (PTC) are technologies designed to
automatically stop or slow a train to prevent train-to-train
collisions, over-speed derailments, incursions into established
work zones, and the movement of a train through a switch left
in the wrong position. Congress enacted the Rail Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA, P.L. 110-432) in October 2008,
requiring each Class I railroad and each entity providing
intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation to
implement a PTC system governing certain operations by December
31, 2015.\7\ That deadline was extended to December 31, 2018,
and the Secretary of Transportation was authorized to provide
each railroad, on a case-by-case basis, with an additional
extension of up to 24 months as long as the railroad met the
requirements specified in statute.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Railroads were required to install PTC systems on: (1) main
lines over which intercity rail passenger transportation or commuter
rail passenger transportation is regularly scheduled; (2) main lines
over which poison- or toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials are
transported; and (3) such other tracks as the Secretary of
Transportation may prescribe by regulation or order.
\8\ These requirements include having: installed all PTC system
hardware; acquired all spectrum; in the case of a Class I railroad
carrier or Amtrak, implemented PTC or initiated revenue service
demonstration on 50 percent of its territories; in the case of a
commuter railroad, initiated revenue service demonstration on at least
one territory; and completed employee training required under the
applicable regulations. See Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2015 (P.L. 114-73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the FRA's 2019 second quarter reporting, of
the 28 commuter railroads required to install PTC, six have
fully implemented their systems, with the remaining 22
expecting to complete implementation in 2020.\9\ In sum, 89.7
percent of commuter railroads' locomotives are equipped and
operable with PTC; 91.3 percent of the required track segments
have PTC installed; and 91.5 percent of the required employee
training is complete. FRA also reports that 36.7 percent, or
1,141 of the 3,111, commuter route miles required to have PTC
are complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ These six commuter railroads include: Northstar Commuter
Railroad; Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH); Metrolink; Sounder
Commuter Rail; North Country Transit District; and Virginia Railway
Express (VRE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statutory mandate requires that PTC systems be
interoperable between railroad hosts and tenants, meaning that
the railroads' PTC systems must be able to communicate and
respond to each other, thereby allowing uninterrupted movements
over property boundaries. Configuring the interoperability of
PTC systems between host and tenant railroads remains a
challenge, with only 22 percent interoperability in host-tenant
relationships achieved as of June 30, 2019.\10\ Additional PTC
implementation challenges that commuter railroads have
highlighted include diagnosing and resolving ongoing software
issues and securing adequate time and access to track and
locomotives for installation and testing. APTA estimates that
commuter railroads will spend $4.1 billion implementing PTC
technology and approximately $160 million annually in
operations and maintenance of these systems, though as
indicated above, some federal grant funding exists to alleviate
implementation costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The FRA describes an interoperability relationship as a
relationship between one host railroad and one tenant. A railroad can
be a host in one relationship and be a tenant in a different
relationship. Of the 232 relationships subject to the December 31, 2020
operational deadline, only 50 host-tenant relationships have achieved
PTC system interoperability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. LIABILITY
Commuter agencies are tasked with planning for and insuring
against potential liabilities. Most commuter rail agencies
self-insure against risks in the range of $1 million to $10
million in losses, according to a survey of APTA members.\11\
These costs are only paid in the event of an incursion of
liability, are typically kept as a reserve, and can be thought
of as a deductible. In order to insure against larger losses,
commuter rail agencies purchase policies from the private
markets. The same APTA survey found that premiums for these
policies, which must be paid annually regardless of whether the
policies are used, range from $1 million to $8 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Available at: https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/
Resources/resources/reportsand
publications/Documents/APTA-Commuter-Rail-Liability-2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997, Congress enacted the Amtrak Reform and
Accountability Act, which limited overall damages from all
passenger claims arising from a single accident to $200
million, including punitive damages.\12\ Congress amended this
provision in the FAST Act by requiring the Secretary of
Transportation to adjust the limitation ceiling based upon the
change in Consumer Price Index, with revisions required every
five years.\13\ The Secretary adjusted the rail passenger
liability cap to approximately $295 million in February of
2016.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ P. L. 105-134. See Section 28103.
\13\ P. L. No. 114-97. See Section 11415.
\14\ 81 FR 1289.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commuter rail agencies are not required to obtain an
insurance policy that covers a loss up to that ceiling;
however, they often are required to maintain a minimum level of
liability insurance as a result of contractual obligations with
freight railroads to operate on their track. Host freight
railroads may require commuter rail agencies to indemnify and
defend the freight railroad for any and all incidents that
would not have occurred but for the presence of the passenger
service, regardless of fault. State laws may also influence
commuter rail agencies' contractual abilities.
WITNESS LIST
LMr. Paul P. Skoutelas, President and CEO,
American Public Transportation Association
LMr. Jim Derwinski, CEO/Executive Director, Metra
LMr. Peter Rogoff, CEO, Sound Transit
LMs. Stephanie Wiggins, CEO, Metrolink
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMUTER RAILROADS
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:01 p.m. in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Daniel Lipinski
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Lipinski. The subcommittee will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to
declare a recess during today's hearing.
With no objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
And without objection, so ordered.
Good afternoon. I will start by recognizing myself for 5
minutes. I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing with the
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee to
learn more about the challenges facing commuter railroads.
And before I begin, let me just thank everyone, all the
witnesses, for being flexible with the cancellation of votes
yesterday. We moved this hearing back, so thank you for your
flexibility here. There is a lot going on right now on Capitol
Hill, as we all know. But I think one thing people really are
concerned about all the time is their local transportation. So
we are here to learn more about the challenges facing commuter
railroads.
Since this committee has not held a hearing solely on
commuter rail in a decade, I thought it was important to
convene this hearing. After all, these railroads play a vital
role in the daily lives of tens of millions of Americans. In
2017, 29 commuter railroads provided an estimated 510 million
passenger trips.
It is critical to remember that almost every person on
commuter rail means one less car on our congested roads. And we
certainly have a lot of congestion in the Chicago area.
In addition to reducing traffic, reliable commuter rail
also contributes to the cleaner environment and lower
greenhouse gas emissions.
Metra Rail is Chicagoland's commuter rail agency, and I am
an occasional rider of Metra's busiest line, the BNSF. So I
know personally both its benefits and frustrations. When Metra
passengers get safe, reliable service, it is one of the best
systems in the country. But, like many legacy commuter
railroads, Metra faces tight budgets year after year, and has
limited resources to address ongoing problems with old
equipment and infrastructure that have created more and more
headaches for riders.
Today I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about
what we can do to minimize these headaches, and give Americans
reliable commuter rail service. The timing of this hearing is
critical because, as we begin to draft next year's
reauthorization of surface transportation programs, we will
have an opportunity to address commuter rail funding concerns
that we will hear about today.
In the FAST Act, passenger rail was explicitly part of this
reauthorization bill for the first time. It is a top priority
of mine to do that again. I have heard from numerous
stakeholders about the success of the Consolidated Rail
Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Program, known as CRISI,
which was established in the FAST Act. And there is the desire
to replicate such a program to provide dedicated Federal
funding for commuter railroads. I look forward to hearing from
our witnesses about the potential benefits of creating such a
program.
Another key funding issue for commuter railroads involves
Positive Train Control. I want to be clear that I and this
committee fully expect all railroads to meet the 2020 deadline.
As commuter rail agencies turn their attention to ensuring that
PTC is maintained and functions as intended, I know that they
are facing additional expenses. As a result, money has been
taken from projected capital programs to cover these costs, and
important projects to address the state-of-good-repair backlog
have been delayed or canceled.
As surface reauthorization moves forward, this area will be
one the subcommittee will focus on. I hope to hear from
Metrolink, who has been a leader in PTC implementation, and
others on this panel about their PTC challenges.
It is also imperative that commuter railroads have strong
partnerships with freight railroads and Amtrak in order to
provide reliable service. Unfortunately, in Chicago and other
regions of the country, these partnerships are not always
working as well as they should.
Amtrak, in particular, has fallen short. At Chicago Union
Station, which Amtrak owns, infrastructure failures have
repeatedly caused serious delays and cancellations for Metra.
Amtrak is also demanding that commuter railroads pay
significantly more to use hubs like Chicago Union Station, 30th
Street Station in Philadelphia, and Union Station, here in DC.
I have heard numerous questions raised about these increases,
and I would like to hear more about this today.
The relationship between commuter and freight railroads is
better, but not without its own issues. As the demand for
commuter rail grows, there is a need to expand service. But as
a Member and any other Members who have been involved in
discussions between commuter and freight railroads over service
expansion, I can tell you it is an arduous process that can
take many years to add even a single additional train on some
lines.
While I am understanding of the need to ensure freight
operations aren't significantly impacted by additional commuter
trains, the current process to work out service expansion can
and should be better.
Finally, I look forward to discussion about innovation and
how Congress and U.S. DOT can help advance research and
deployment by commuter railroads of the latest technologies
within the industry, like new technologies that help reduce
rail grade crossing fatalities and trespassing death. The
Federal Railroad Administration has a research and development
program that receives around $35 million annually, and I am
interested in ideas from our witnesses on whether the program
is functioning well, and how we can improve on it in the
upcoming surface reauthorization.
This is the first hearing of this subcommittee as we begin
to look at reauthorization of the FAST Act. I look forward to
using this hearing and others this fall to look at important
rail topics, and working with my colleagues on practical
solutions to the challenges ahead.
And with that, I will now recognize Mr. Stauber, who is
sitting in for Mr. Crawford, as the ranking member, who is back
home because he had some knee issues, messed up his knee pretty
badly last week. So fortunately, from what I have heard, it is
not as bad as he originally feared, and he will be back soon, I
believe.
But I will begin here by recognizing Mr. Stauber for 5
minutes.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Chair Lipinski, for holding this
hearing. And I want to thank our witnesses for attending.
Today we are going to learn about some of the challenges
and opportunities faced by our Nation's commuter railroads.
Commuter rail systems throughout the country provide critical
access to our job centers, and help relieve congestion on our
roads. At the Federal level, the Federal Transit Administration
funds commuter rail transportation through formula funds and
competitive grants. And the Federal Railroad Administration
makes available discretionary grants, direct loans, and loan
guarantees. State and local funding also is available.
As this committee prepares to reauthorize surface
transportation programs, it is critically important for
commuter rail agencies to continue to look for ways to improve
service while reducing costs. Several commuter rail agencies
have implemented competitive contracting for commuter rail
operations and other services as a way to provide the highest
level of service at the lowest cost. Doing so ultimately drives
increase in ridership and more mileage out of the taxpayer
dollar.
Thank you again to all our witnesses, and I look forward to
our discussion.
[Mr. Stauber's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Pete Stauber, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Minnesota
I want to thank Chairman Lipinski for holding this hearing, and I
want to thank our witnesses for attending.
Today, we are going to learn about some of the challenges and
opportunities faced by our nation's commuter railroads.
Commuter rail systems throughout the country provide critical
access to our jobs centers and help relieve congestion on our roads.
At the federal level, the Federal Transit Administration funds
commuter rail transportation through formula funds and competitive
grants, and the Federal Railroad Administration makes available
discretionary grants, direct loans, and loan guarantees. State and
local funding also is available.
As this Committee prepares to reauthorize surface transportation
programs, it is critically important for commuter rail agencies to
continue to look for ways to improve service while reducing costs.
Several commuter rail agencies have implemented competitive
contracting for commuter rail operations and other services as a way to
provide the highest level of service at the lowest costs.
Doing so ultimately drives increases in ridership and more mileage
out of the taxpayer dollar.
Thank you again to our witnesses, and I look forward to our
discussion.
Mr. Stauber. Back to you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Lipinski. And I would now like to welcome our panel of
witnesses: Mr. Paul P. Skoutelas, president and CEO of the
American Public Transportation Association; Mr. Jim Derwinski,
CEO and executive director of Metra; Mr. Peter Rogoff, CEO of
Sound Transit; and Ms. Stephanie Wiggins, CEO of Metrolink.
Thank you for being here today. I look forward to your
testimony.
Before we begin--and I am going to give an additional
opportunity to introduce a couple of the witnesses--I would
also like to welcome a couple of other transportation leaders
who are here, constituents of mine, in the audience.
Steve Palmer, who is here today with Mr. Derwinski, and he
is a Metra board member, and also Rick Kwasneski, who is
chairman of the board of Pace, who is also a constituent of
mine. So good to have the two of you here today.
Mr. Derwinski was selected as the next CEO/executive
director of Metra Commuter Rail Agency by the Metra board of
directors in August of 2017. In his role as Metra CEO and
executive director, Jim has focused on making Metra more
customer-friendly and service-oriented.
Jim has a long career in Metra's mechanical department,
most recently serving as its chief mechanical officer. In that
role he oversaw 650 employees responsible for the repair,
inspection, cleaning, and maintenance of nearly 1,200 railcars
and locomotives. He was also in charge of Metra's in-house
railcar locomotive rehabilitation programs, a contract for
local remanufacturing, and the installation of Positive Train
Control on cab cars and engines.
After a 6-year stint in the U.S. Navy as an electrician on
nuclear submarines, Jim began his railroad career as a
locomotive electrician with the Chicago and North Western
Railroad in 1993. He joined Metra as an electrician in 1997,
and steadily rose through the ranks, serving as a foreman,
general foreman, shop superintendent, director of systems
maintenance, locomotive superintendent, Rock Island division
director, and Milwaukee division director, and then senior
director of mechanical operations. He was named chief
mechanical officer in September 2013. So Jim has a long, long
history in railroads.
Jim is a member of the American Public Transportation
Association board of directors, along with serving on several
other APTA committees. He is also on the Safety Operations and
Management Committee of the Association of American Railroads,
and the Transportation Technology Center board of directors.
And I will now recognize Mr. Larsen to introduce Mr. Peter
Rogoff.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Chair Lipinski, for inviting me to
be here today, and for calling this hearing on the importance
of commuter rail in our Nation's transportation system.
I always say you can't have a big league economy with
little league infrastructure, and robust Federal transportation
investment is critical to improving the access to reliable
commuting options and ensuring the safety of these systems,
which is why I am very pleased to introduce one of today's
witnesses, Peter Rogoff, the CEO of Sound Transit.
I have worked with Peter for many years to expand efficient
commuter transit options for the Puget Sound region. His
leadership and public service as a Federal Transit
Administrator and Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy
in the Obama administration were instrumental to improving
transit service across the country. And he has, of course,
since joined Sound Transit.
Earlier this month I joined Peter, local elected officials,
and community members at the groundbreaking of the Lynnwood
Link extension station in my district, the Washington State
Second Congressional District. The Lynnwood Link extension is a
critical part of Sound Transit's efforts to build rail transit
all the way from Tacoma through Seattle to Everett, my
hometown. This project will help with traffic congestion and
provide a reliable commuting option for up to 55,000 more daily
riders throughout northwest Washington.
And last year the FTA signed a $1.2 billion full funding
grant agreement to get this project across the finish line. The
expansion of safe, accessible, and efficient commuter transit
nationwide must remain a priority. Peter's team at Sound
Transit is part of that.
I want to thank Peter for testifying here today. And with
that, thank you for allowing me to participate, and I yield
back.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Representative Larsen. Without
objection, our witnesses' full statements will be included in
the record. And since your written testimony has been made part
of the record, the subcommittee requests that you limit your
oral testimony to 5 minutes.
And with that, I will recognize Mr. Skoutelas.
TESTIMONY OF PAUL P. SKOUTELAS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; JAMES
DERWINSKI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, METRA
COMMUTER RAILROAD; PETER M. ROGOFF, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SOUND TRANSIT; AND STEPHANIE N. WIGGINS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY (SCRRA)-
METROLINK
Mr. Skoutelas. Thank you, Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member
Crawford, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves,
Representative Babin, and members of the subcommittee, we thank
you for the opportunity to testify today on commuter rail
challenges and opportunities. I am Paul Skoutelas, president
and CEO of the American Public Transportation Association, also
known as APTA.
We represent 1,500 public and private sector organizations
throughout North America, and we are the voice of public
transportation modes for all of the modes of public transit,
including commuter rail.
Commuter rail today is a $10 billion industry which creates
and supports over 200,000 jobs. The overwhelming majority of
commuter rail funding, some 63 percent, flows through the
public funding avenues to the private sector. Today 32 agencies
operating commuter rail safely carry more than 500 million
passengers each year. Over the past decade commuter rail
ridership has grown by over 9 percent.
For commuter rail operators and the entire public
transportation industry, safety is a core value, a
nonnegotiable operating principle, and a promise to our riders.
As a result, public transportation today is the safest form of
surface transportation.
In fact, traveling by commuter and intercity passenger rail
is 18 times safer than traveling by car. Over the last few
years commuter railroads have been working to make commuter
rail even safer by installing and implementing Positive Train
Control. And they are making great progress. One-fifth of all
commuter rail agencies have fully implemented PTC, including
Metrolink and Sound Transit. And, of course, Metra is well on
its way, as well, to fully meeting the deadline by 2020.
To date, the cost of full implementation of PTC is
estimated to be approximately $4.1 billion for the commuter
railroad agencies. And while we greatly appreciate Congress'
support for commuter railroads by providing some Federal
funding for PTC implementation under the FAST Act and the CRISI
grants, nearly 90 percent of PTC costs are being borne by State
and local governments and agencies.
Moreover, these very significant investments do not include
the ongoing operating and maintenance costs associated with PTC
implementation, which are currently estimated to be $160
million per year. APTA urges the committee to expand commuter
rail eligibility under CRISI, and to provide a total of $1
billion over 6 years--that is $160 million per year--
specifically to provide grants to publicly funded commuter
railroads to operate and maintain PTC.
Although great progress has been made on PTC, many commuter
rail agencies have had to defer other important infrastructure
safety projects to focus on this mandate. For instance,
highway-rail grade crossing safety and trespassing remain
significant issues. Over the last 5 years, 96 percent of
railroad fatalities were attributable to trespassers or
highway-rail grade crossing users. We urge the committee to
authorize a total of $1.5 billion over 6 years--$225 million
per year--from CRISI grant funds to commuter and other
passenger railroads for highway-rail grade crossing safety
initiatives. These funds would be in addition to the Federal
highway-rail grade crossing set-aside, known as the section 130
program.
Federal investment in public transportation, including
commuter rail, is an investment in American jobs and economic
competitiveness. The Federal, State, and local partnership
remains essential to ensuring that critical infrastructure
investments are made. Commuter rail receives funding from three
separate Federal sources: urbanized formula area grants, state-
of-good-repair grants, and the Capital Investment Grants known
as CIG.
The economic benefits of investing in commuter rail are
wide ranging. In addition to the critical local economic
benefits of these projects, there are vehicles, parts, supplies
that are made all over America and across the Nation that
really do contribute to the economy.
In the next surface transportation bill APTA strongly urges
the committee to continue that Federal partnership by investing
$145 billion over 6 years in public transportation to fund
critical projects that will repair, maintain, and improve our
public transit systems, including commuter rail, both today and
well into the future. Our proposal would address the entire
state-of-good-repair backlog, and would fund all the CIG
projects in the pipeline for the next 6-year period.
Finally, given the critical need for investment in public
transportation, we are deeply concerned about proposed cuts to
public transportation funding in the Senate's fiscal year 2020
transportation appropriations, or the THUD bill. The bill cuts
CIG funding by $575 million, and state-of-good-repair grants by
another $178 million. These cuts would directly impact
investment in new commuter rail projects, and limit the ability
of public transit systems, including commuter rail, to address
state-of-good-repair needs.
We strongly urge the committee to work with us to restore
these critical investments for public transportation in
conference with the Senate. And this year is critically
important. The final fiscal year 2020 THUD funding levels will
reset the budget baseline as you begin developing the next
surface transportation authorization act.
Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to testify
and share our thoughts on commuter rail. We certainly look
forward to working with the committee as it writes the surface
transportation authorization act. I look forward to any
questions you may have.
[Mr. Skoutelas' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul P. Skoutelas, President and Chief Executive
Officer, American Public Transportation Association
Introduction
Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Crawford, and Members of the
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, on
behalf of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and its
1,500 public- and private-sector member organizations, thank you for
the opportunity to testify on ``Challenges and Opportunities for
Commuter Railroads''.
My name is Paul Skoutelas, and I am the President and Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) of APTA, an international association
representing a $71 billion industry that employs 430,000 people and
supports millions of private-sector jobs. We are the only association
in North America that represents all modes of public transportation--
bus, paratransit, light rail, commuter rail, subways, waterborne
services, and high-performance intercity passenger rail.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ APTA members include public transportation systems; planning,
design, construction, and finance firms; product and service providers;
academic institutions; state transit associations; and state
departments of transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public transportation not only spurs economic growth, but reduces
congestion, improves air quality, saves time and money, and advances an
equitable and better quality of life for our communities.
Commuter Rail
Nearly 40 years ago, Congress enacted the Northeast Rail Services
Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35) to salvage commuter rail operations from
Conrail and created six commuter rail authorities.\2\ The state of
commuter rail at that time suffered from low and declining ridership
and equipment long beyond its useful life. These agencies and the many
others across the nation that existed then or have started anew have
transformed commuter rail into an essential, reliable, growing, safe,
and affordable mobility option carrying hundreds of millions of
travelers each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The six commuter rail authorities are the: Metropolitan
Transportation Authority; Connecticut Department of Transportation;
Maryland Department of Transportation; Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority; New Jersey Transit Corporation; and
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, commuter rail is a $9.9 billion industry, creating and
supporting over 200,000 public- and private-sector jobs. Moreover, the
overwhelming majority (63 percent) of this funding flows through the
private sector.
32 Commuter Rail Agencies
Today, there are 32 agencies operating commuter railroads,\3\
safely carrying passengers on more than 500 million trips each year.
Commuter rail services are higher-speed, higher capacity trains with
less frequent stops. They are traditionally used to connect people from
suburban areas to city centers. In the last decade, nine new commuter
rail systems \4\ have begun operation, with the latest--TexRail in Fort
Worth, Texas--starting up earlier this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A list of commuter railroad agencies can be found in Appendix
A. APTA's list includes all commuter and hybrid rail agencies that
receive funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and
report data to the National Transit Database.
\4\ The nine new systems are Portland, OR (Westside Express, 2009);
Minneapolis, MN (Northstar, 2009); Austin, TX (Capital MetroRail,
2010); Denton, TX (A Train, 2011); Orlando, FL (SunRail, 2014); Denver,
CO (A Line, 2016); Marin County, CA (SMART, 2017); Antioch, CA (eBART,
2018); and Fort Worth, TX (TEXRail, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commuter Rail Agencies in the United States
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Increased Ridership and Fare Recovery
Commuter rail has enjoyed nearly constant annual ridership growth--
growing by more than 42 million passenger trips (9.2 percent) over the
last decade. Commuter rail has also increased fare recovery (fare
revenue as a percent of operating costs) in the last decade. On
average, fares recover more than one-half (52 percent) of the operating
costs of commuter railroads.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Safety is a Core Value
For commuter rail operators and the entire public transportation
industry, safety is a core value--a non-negotiable operating principle
and promise to our riders. The men and women responsible for managing
and operating public transportation systems are fully committed to the
safety of their systems, passengers, employees, and the general public.
As a result of this overriding and sustained commitment to safety,
public transportation is the safest form of surface transportation.
Every year, 32 commuter railroads across America safely carry
passengers on more than 500 million trips. And, traveling by commuter
and intercity passenger rail is 18 times safer than traveling by car.
positive train control
Implementation Status
APTA commuter rail members are working to make commuter rail even
safer by installing and implementing Positive Train Control (PTC), a
complex signaling and communications technology that provides a
critical safety overlay on top of already safe commuter rail systems.
All of our commuter railroads met the five statutory milestones
required to be implemented by December 31, 2018, including acquiring
spectrum, installing wayside equipment, installing on-board equipment,
back office control set up and workforce training.
Commuter railroads are now focused on PTC implementation and are
making great progress. One-fifth of all commuter rail agencies have
fully implemented PTC, including Southern California Regional Rail
Authority/Metrolink (Los Angeles, CA) and Sound Transit (Seattle, WA),
who are testifying before the Subcommittee today.\5\ Four additional
commuter rail agencies have implemented PTC on their railroads but are
awaiting final actions from other railroads operating in the territory.
The remaining commuter railroads are in revenue service demonstration
or field testing and aggressively working to complete PTC
implementation by the December 2020 deadline.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The six commuter rail agencies that have fully implemented PTC
are Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) (Metrolink);
North San Diego County Transit District (NCTD) (Coaster); Metro Transit
Northstar Commuter Rail (Northstar); Tri-County Metropolitan Transit
District of Oregon (TriMet) (Westside Express); Virginia Railway
Express (VRE); and Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority
(Sounder).
\6\ TexRail began operation in 2019 and is committed to installing
and implementing PTC by the December 2020 deadline; New Mexico received
a temporary exemption to the PTC requirement from the Federal Railroad
Administration but is committed to installing and implementing PTC by
the December 2020 deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTC Costs
PTC will cost commuter rail operators approximately $4.1 billion to
implement, and almost 90 percent of these costs are being borne by
state and local governments and agencies. In addition, PTC will cost an
estimated $160 million each year to operate and maintain. For publicly-
funded agencies that rely on federal, state, and local funding, as well
as passenger fares to operate their service, these costs are
staggering.
Moreover, these costs are in addition to the existing $90 billion
backlog needed to bring the current public transportation system,
including commuter railroads, into a state of good repair, as estimated
by the U.S. Department of Transportation. A recent survey of commuter
railroad agencies found that many commuter railroads have state-of-
good-repair needs that far outweigh their capital budgets, even before
including the additional costs associated with implementing PTC. As a
result, to fund PTC, commuter railroads have had to divert funds from
other critical infrastructure and safety projects, such as replacing
bridges (some of which that are more than 100 years old),
rehabilitating outdated locomotives, and upgrading tracks and other
safety systems.
Although we greatly appreciate Congress' support for commuter
railroads by allowing these railroads to be eligible for Consolidated
Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) grants for PTC
implementation, more investment is needed to ensure that commuter rail
agencies can pay for ongoing operation and maintenance costs of PTC,
and other critical infrastructure needs.
APTA urges Congress to authorize a total of $1 billion over six
years ($160 million per year) under the CRISI program
specifically to provide grants to publicly-funded commuter
railroads to implement, operate, and maintain PTC.
highway-rail grade-crossing safety and trespassing issues
Grade-Crossing Safety
Although great progress has been made on PTC, highway-rail grade-
crossing safety and trespassing remain significant issues. Over the
last five years (2014-2018), 96 percent of commuter railroad fatalities
were attributable to trespassers or highway-rail grade-crossing users.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Our commuter railroads have been working hard to mitigate these
incidents, often involving unlawful entry to the railroad's right of
way. These incidents cost lives, cause serious injuries and property
losses, and result in delays to the traveling public. To address
highway-rail grade-crossing hazards, commuter rail agencies are using
myriad treatments and technologies, including creating pedestrian
crossings, constructing corridor fencing, installing delineators, and
placing cameras at crossings and in rail cars. Education is key and
many commuter rail agencies have participated in specific campaigns to
reduce highway-rail grade-crossing incidents. Engineered solutions are
very expensive to construct.
Private sector mapping technology is also critical to combating
this significant safety issue. For example, the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, on behalf of the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR)
and Metro-North, has partnered with Waze to integrate a railroad
crossing warning into its GPS application. The application warns
drivers that they are approaching a grade crossing and whether the turn
is before or after the crossing along with other traffic and highway
information. LIRR and Metro-North upload the grade-crossing data daily
to be used in the application.
APTA is encouraged by these individual partnerships with technology
companies and welcomes other map navigation developers to work with our
industry to add automatic notifications of railroad grade crossings to
their maps. There are too many senseless incidents and deaths because
cars do not stop at grade crossings or bypass the gates. Navigation
developers have created powerful tools for helping us find our way and
drive more safely. With their support, we can provide an important tool
to warn drivers and prevent needless accidents and deaths.
It will take a collective effort to reduce these grade-crossing
incidents. Although we are grateful for Congress' continued funding of
grade-crossing measures under the railway-highway crossings set-aside
(23 U.S.C. Sec. 130), more needs to be done.
APTA urges Congress to authorize a total of $1.5 billion over
six years ($225 million per year) under the CRISI program to
provide grants to commuter and other high-performance passenger
railroads for highway-rail grade-crossing safety initiatives.
Trespassing on Railroad Properties
Commuter railroads are also addressing the long-standing, critical
issue of trespassing on railroad tracks. APTA's most recent analysis of
commuter rail data over the last five years indicate that trespassing
remains a major contributing factor to railroad fatalities--nearly 70
percent of rail-related fatalities were as a result of trespassing.
Causal factors for trespassing-related fatalities include suicide,
direct-route crossing, and general distraction.\7\ Trespassing issues
are complex. Our commuter railroads have partnered with their local
communities, mental health care providers, law enforcement, and
national organizations to launch educational campaigns about the
dangers of trespassing and to develop ways to mitigate these incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Federal Railroad Administration, Report to Congress: National
Strategy to Prevent Trespassing on Railroad Property (October 2018), at
11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APTA and its commuter rail members will continue to be leading
advocates to improve railroad and public safety. We urge Congress to do
its part by providing the funding that is needed to assist commuter
rail in making these important safety investments. In addition, we urge
Congress to ensure that the rail statutes and regulations, which are
often very prescriptive, do not prevent railroads from introducing new
technologies to make our railroads safer.
Federal Investment in Commuter Rail is Critically Needed
We strongly urge Congress to increase federal funding for public
transportation, including commuter rail. The federal, state, and local
partnership is essential to ensure that critical investments are made
to our public transportation systems.
Federal funding through FTA, namely Section 5307 Urbanized Area
Formula grants and Section 5337 State of Good Repair grants, provides
commuter rail agencies with some assistance but falls short of the
federal investment needed. Commuter railroads are also eligible for
FTA's Section 5309 Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program. Since 2000,
16 commuter rail projects have received Full Funding Grant Agreements
under the CIG program. In addition, five commuter rail projects,
requesting $8 billion, are in the CIG pipeline.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A list of the CIG projects with Full Funding Grant Agreements
and those in the CIG pipeline is in Appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The economic benefits of these projects reach far beyond the
railroad's specific region. For example, a commuter rail project in
Florida may include parts, materials, or equipment from a supplier in
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, or Wisconsin. These commuter rail projects
also represent thousands of construction jobs, manufacturing jobs, and
other jobs generated by multiplier effects associated with spending on
parts and materials. Appendix C illustrates the jobs created across
America in rail car manufacturing.
A good example of the far-reaching economic benefits of investing
in commuter rail is the project that the Peninsula Corridor Joint
Powers Board is undertaking to modernize its CalTrain commuter rail
system. In the San Jose-San Francisco corridor, the Joint Powers Board
is investing $1.9 billion (including $647 million of CIG funds) to
electrify approximately 51 miles, providing increased service and
performance improvements to the communities along this commuter
route.\9\ However, the benefits of this project are felt nationwide.
For instance, the electric train manufacturer (Stadler Rail)
constructed a new facility with 350 employees in Utah to build the
train sets and components and parts are being manufactured in 12
different states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Caltrain Modernization Project at http://www.caltrain.com/
projectsplans/CaltrainModernization.html
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Moreover, after a new commuter line is constructed and operational,
there are ongoing, permanent economic growth and development impacts
enabled by the transportation improvements and associated economic
productivity gains. Investment in commuter rail is critical to ensuring
that it can continue to spur economic growth, reduce congestion, and
connect people to their jobs and communities.
Surface Transportation Authorization Recommendations
Over the past 18 months, APTA has solicited input from our diverse
membership on priorities for the Surface Transportation Authorization
Act. At our Legislative Committee meeting on June 23, 2019, members
unanimously approved APTA's surface transportation authorization
recommendations, which include proposals for commuter and high-
performance intercity passenger rail. In October, APTA's Board of
Directors will consider these recommendations for final approval.
APTA strongly urges the Committee to invest $145 billion over six
years in public transportation and fund critical projects that will
repair, maintain, and improve our public transit systems (including
commuter rail) today and in the future. Our proposal, which includes
$112 billion for Urbanized Area Formula, State of Good Repair, and CIG
grants, would address the entire state-of-good-repair backlog and fund
all CIG projects in the pipeline in the next six years.
Along with this increased funding, APTA recommends that the
Committee conduct a zero-based review of the CIG program to assess all
statutory, regulatory, and other administrative requirements. We have
previously testified that the bureaucratic maze that project sponsors,
including commuter railroads, must adhere to is costly and burdensome.
Finally, APTA calls on the Committee to create a Passenger Rail
Trust Fund funded in part with new, long-term, dedicated revenues to
significantly increase passenger rail investment to $32 billion over
six years. This investment would include $7.1 billion for CRISI grants.
As noted above, more investment is needed to ensure that commuter
rail agencies can pay for ongoing operation and maintenance costs of
PTC and mitigate grade-crossing incidents. APTA urges the Committee to
expand the eligibility of the CRISI grant program to commuter rail to
provide funding for:
Operations and maintenance of PTC ($160 million per year/
$1 billion over six years); and
Passenger Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Grants ($250
million per year/$1.5 billion over six years).
Congress must provide the necessary, dedicated funding to ensure
safe, reliable, and efficient commuter rail systems.
Conclusion
On behalf of APTA, thank you for giving me the opportunity to
testify and share our thoughts on ``Challenges and Opportunities for
Commuter Railroads''. We look forward to working with the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure as it writes the next Surface
Transportation Authorization Act. It is imperative that we make
meaningful investments in commuter rail to enable these critical
services to continue to grow, serve our communities, and contribute to
the national economy.
Appendix A
32 Commuter Rail Agencies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ridership
2018
State Primary City Urbanized Area Agency Year (Unlinked
Name Opened Passenger
Trips)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Anchorage Anchorage Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) 1923 199,666
California Los Angeles Los AngeleSouthern California Regional Rail 1991 12,523,337
Authority (SCRRA) (Metrolink)
California San Diego San Diego North San Diego County Transit District 1995 3,838,002
(NCTD) (Coaster & Sprinter)
California San Francisco San Francisco Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 1992 18,562,763
(PCJPB) (CalTrain)
California San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit 2018 1,316,134
District (Bart) (eBART)
California San Rafael San Francisco Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District 2017 714,653
(SMART)
California Stockton San Jose Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) (ACE 1998 1,479,150
Rail)
Colorado Denver Denver Regional Transportation District (Denver 2016 7,619,589
RTD)
Connecticut New Haven New Haven Connecticut Department of Transportation 1990 597,616
Shore Line East (SLE)
Florida Miami Miami South Florida Regional Transportation 1989 4,414,030
Authority (Tri-Rail)
Florida Orlando Orlando SunRail 2014 1,114,859
Illinois Chicago Chicago Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter 1856 68,446,239
Railroad Corp (Metra)
Indiana Chicago Chicago Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation 1908 3,400,197
District (NICTD) (South Shore Line)
Maine Portland Portland Northern New England Passenger Rail 2001 534,058
Authority (NNEPRA)
Maryland Baltimore Baltimore Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) 1830 9,387,801
Massachusetts Boston Boston Massachusetts Bay Transportation 1931 32,143,251
Authority (MBTA)
Minnesota Minneapolis Minneapolis Metro Transit Northstar Commuter Rail 2009 787,327
(Northstar)
New Jersey New York New York New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ 1839 91,170,160
TRANSIT) (Rail & River Line)
New Mexico Albuquerque Albuquerque New Mexico (Rail Runner) 2006 771,602
New York New York New York Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company 1832 91,873,366
(Metro-North)
New York New York New York MTA Long 1844nd 105,538,101LIRR)
Oregon Portland Portland Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation 2009 394,708
District of Oregon (TriMet)(Westside
Express)
Pennsylvania Harrisburg Philadelphia Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 1980 1,533,055
Keystone Line (Keystone)
Pennsylvania Philadelphia Philadelphia Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation 1834 33,318,746
Authority (SEPTA)
Tennessee Nashville Nashville Regional Transportation Authority (Music 2006 298,765
City Star)
Texas Austin Austin Capital Metropolitan Transportation 2010 807,869
Authority (Metro Rail)
Texas Dallas Dallas Trinity Railway Express (TRE) 1990 2,039,990
Texas Denton Denton Denton County Transportation Authority (A 2011 409,667
Train)
Texas Fort Worth Dallas TEXRail 2019 N/A
Utah Salt Lake City Salt Lake CUtah Transit Authority (Front Runner) 2008 5,082,168
Virginia Washington Washington Virginia Railway Express (VRE) 1992 4,529,091
Washington Seattle Seattle Central Puget Sound Regional Transit 2000 4,631,525
Authority (Sounder)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APTA's list includes all commuter and hybrid rail agencies that receive funding from the Federal Transit
Administration and report data to the National Transit Database.
NNEPRA and Keystone are operated by Amtrak and are counted in the FTA National Transit Database.
TexRail opened in 2019 and therefore does not have any 2018 ridership.
Appendix B
Commuter Rail Capital Investment Grant Projects
(Since 2000)
(in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
State Project Sponsor Project Project Cost CIG Funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects with FFGAs
CA Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) Caltrain Peninsula Corridor $1,931 $647
Electrification Project
CA Riverside County Transportation Riverside-Perris Valley Line $248 $75
Commission
CA Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit SMART-San Raphael to Larkspur $55 $23
District Regional Connection
CO Denver Regional Transportation Denver - RTD Eagle $2,043 $1,030
District
FL South Florida Regional Fort Lauderdale-$334Rail Comm$111
Transportation Authority Rail Upgrade
FL Florida Department of Transportation Orlando, Central Florida Commuter $357 $179
Rail Transit
FL Florida Department of Transportation Orlando, Central Florida Commuter $187 $93
Rail Transit Phase 2 South
IL Regional Transportation Authority Chicago-Metra Southwest Corridor $198 $103
Commuter Rail
IL Regional Transportation Authority Chicago-North Central $226 $135
IL Regional Transportation Authority Chicago-UP West Line Extens$135 $81
IL Chicago Transit Authority Chicago-Ravenswood $530 $246
MN Metropolitan Council Minneapolis-Northstar Corridor $317 $156
Rail
NY New York Metropolitan Transportation New York-East Side Access (LIRR) $7,386 $2,632
Authority
OR Tri-County Metropolitan Wilsonville to Beaverton, Oregon $117 $59
Transportation District of Oregon Commuter Rail
TX Fort Worth Transportation Authority Fort Worth TEXRail $1,034 $499
UT Utah Transit Authority Salt Lake-Weber $612ty to Sal$489
Lake City
--------------------------
Subtotal for Commuter Rail FFGA Projects........................................... $15,710 $6,557
--------------------------
Projects in the CIG Pipeline
FL Florida Department of Transportation SunRail Connector to the Orlando $175-$225 TBD
International Airport
FL Florida Department of Transportation SunRail Phase II North $69 $34
IL Northern Indiana Commuter West Lake Corrid$891roject $440
Transportation District
NJ Gateway Program Development Portal North Bridge Project $1,642 $811
Corporation
NY/NJ Gateway Program Development Hudson Tunnel Project $13,702 $6,769
Corporation
--------------------------
Subtotal for Commuter Rail CIG Pipeline Projects................................... $16,529 $8,054
--------------------------
Total Funding for Commuter Rail CIG Projects..................................... $32,239 $14,612
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix C
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Skoutelas.
I now recognize Mr. Derwinski for 5 minutes.
Mr. Derwinski. Good afternoon, Chairman Lipinski, Ranking
Member Crawford, members of this esteemed committee. My name is
Jim Derwinski, executive director and CEO of Metra in Chicago.
In addition, I also represent APTA on their board of directors
and the Commuter Rail CEO Committee, and I am also chairman of
the recently formed Commuter Rail Coalition. I am pleased to
have this opportunity to be here today.
Let me first begin by commending the leadership that
Chairman Lipinski and Congressman Garcia have brought in
advancing transportation infrastructure needs in our region and
in the Nation. On behalf of Metra and its 280,000 daily
commuters, we thank you for all that you do for us.
Broadly, Metra and the commuter rail industry face two
major challenges: a lack of sustainable, consistent Federal
funding for operations and capital projects, and constraints on
our ability to grow. Throughout the United States, commuter
rail systems receive a combination of Federal, State, and local
government funds. Not all receive Federal.
Metra was created in 1983 by the Illinois General Assembly,
and since then has invested over $6 billion into our network.
Yet our own regional transportation association estimates we
will still need to spend $1.2 billion a year over the next 10
years just to achieve and maintain a state of good repair.
Growth is not in that equation.
Our estimate to complete PTC installation will cost Metra
over $400 million, which equates currently to 2\1/2\ years of
our Federal formula funding. It also will put a burden on our
operating expenses of $20 million annually. All commuter
railroads have the same ongoing operating costs, as Mr.
Skoutelas pointed out.
I wanted to take the opportunity to thank Congress and the
FRA for allowing commuter railroads, including Metra, to
utilize the CRISI grant program for PTC projects. However, this
source of funding is not sustainable, and we strongly believe
more needs to be done by Congress. Creating a new dedicated
commuter rail grant program would provide some relief to public
agencies to address PTC operations and maintenance costs and
associated capital costs. It would also help to ensure that
many commuter rail systems across the country are no longer
forced to rely on sporadic discretionary grants, and can
effectively plan for both safety and capital expenditures.
Our second major challenge has been the constrained growth
of our system in the face of increased demand. Recent studies
have shown that more than 80 percent of the U.S. population
lives in urban areas. That is up from 64 percent in 1950. The
number is projected to grow to 90 percent by 2050. This rapid
pace of change in the commuter rail industry reflects these
facts.
For example, when Congress created Amtrak in 1970, there
was one public commuter rail agency. As Mr. Skoutelas just
pointed out, today there are 32. This rapid growth has placed
an incredible demand on the railroad infrastructure capacity.
The convenience and necessity of moving people and
passenger trains can create friction with our freight rail
partners and Amtrak. These issues are particularly acute in
high-density areas. These situations can cause tension and
unfortunate delays for both commuter, intercity passenger, and
freight.
Commuter rail desires a relationship with Amtrak that is
fair and transparent. In 2016, the GAO conducted a study to
review Amtrak's efforts to reorganize and reform. The report
found that several material weaknesses and significant
deficiencies have hindered Amtrak's ability to create
consistent and timely accounting documents and financial
information. Amtrak's accounting and transparency issues have
led to challenges in commuter railroad relationships. We
encourage this committee to implement the GAO report's
recommendations.
Lastly, despite the intention of past Congresses to give
preference to passenger trains over freight, recently, the
concept of public convenience and necessity has been focused on
the interests of freight railroads and their customers, and
less on the interests of publicly funded commuter railroads.
Under Federal law, certain preferences have been given to
Amtrak. However, those preferences have not been extended to
the publicly funded commuter railroads, even though many run on
the same tracks with Amtrak and the freight railroads.
This Chamber has already begun to consider these types of
issues in a thoughtful manner. Chairman Lipinski constructively
worked with the appropriators in the 2020 THUD bill to improve
on-time performance to Chicago. Metra is proud that we have
maintained a 93-percent or higher on-time performance since
1983.
To be clear, Metra and the 13 freight railroads in Chicago
work closely daily to move passengers and goods through the
most complicated network in the country. Our freight partners
demonstrate their commitment to this vital public asset daily.
We also applaud the chairman's and this committee's
leadership on the CREATE program. It continues to be a positive
example of Federal Government, rail operators, and local and
State governments coming together to tackle major challenges
like Chicago's congested rail network. Increasing investment in
programs like CREATE are clear solutions to relieving
congestion on railroad infrastructure that benefit all rail
operators, public and private, by increasing movement of
trains, not increasing the parking of trains in communities.
Metra thanks Congress for its continued support of public
transportation systems like ours, and appreciates the
opportunity to update this committee on our challenges, and I
look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[Mr. Derwinski's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Derwinski, Chief Executive Officer/
Executive Director, Metra Commuter Railroad
Good morning, Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Crawford, and
Members of this esteemed Subcommittee. My name is Jim Derwinski and I
am CEO/Executive Director of Metra, the Chicago-area's commuter rail
agency. I am also here representing the commuter rail industry as a
member of the APTA Board of Directors and Commuter Rail CEO Committee,
and as Chairman of the newly formed Commuter Rail Coalition. I am
pleased to have this opportunity to speak to you today.
Let me first begin by commending the tremendous leadership that
Chairman Lipinski and Congressman Garcia have brought in advancing
transportation and infrastructure in our region and in our nation. On
behalf of Metra and the 300,000 daily commuters, we thank you for all
that you do and will continue to do for us and the Chicago region.
As background, Metra was created to run Chicago's commuter rail
system by the Illinois General Assembly in 1983. Our creation followed
a tumultuous period in which the private railroads that had been
operating the service experienced major financial problems and
bankruptcies.
Over the years, Metra has grown to be the largest commuter railroad
in the country based on track miles, and the fourth largest based on
ridership. The Metra system has 11 separate lines with 242 stations and
nearly 1,200 miles of track throughout the northeastern Illinois
region. Metra owns and operates four of those lines, has trackage-
rights or lease agreements to operate Metra trains over freight
railroads on three lines, and has purchase of service agreements with
two freight railroads, which operate commuter service on four other
Metra lines.
Metra's primary business is to serve people traveling to downtown
Chicago to work. Approximately half of all work trips made from
suburban Chicago to downtown are on Metra. Our riders, whose trips
average 22 miles in length, come from all parts of our region's 3,700
square miles.
Broadly, Metra, and the commuter rail industry, face two broad
challenges: a lack of sustainable and consistent federal funding for
operations and capital projects and a legacy passenger rail system that
must grow its service to meet increased demand but is constrained by
several external forces.
Throughout the United States, commuter rail systems receive a
combination of funding from federal, state, and local government
sources, though not all receive federal funds. Our industry has been
working diligently to install and implement Positive Train Control
(PTC), but the federal safety mandate has put great strain on our
limited dollars for state of good repair and capital projects. I am
pleased to report that Metra will meet its 2020 Alternative Schedule
deadline for PTC implementation. Further, legacy commuter railroads,
like Metra, face unique capital challenges as we work to maintain and
upgrade aging track infrastructure and rolling stock.
Since 1985, Metra has invested more than $6 billion to rebuild,
maintain and expand Chicagoland's passenger rail network. Operating
funding is provided through system-generated revenues--primarily
fares--and subsidized in large part through a regional sales tax.
Capital funding is provided through a variety of federal programs,
state and local funding sources, and a small amount of fare revenue.
Metra's total budget for 2018 was $994 million. That includes $797
million for operations and $197 million for capital.
Capital funding to maintain and improve our aging system remains a
constant challenge. Metra's capital program is mostly funded through
federal formula funds (Sec. 5307 and 5337) totaling $173.6 million for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2019. However, our needs far exceed the level of
funding available. In fact, the Regional Transportation Authority
(RTA), our region's transit funding and oversight agency, estimates
that Metra needs to invest $1.2 billion annually over the next decade
to achieve and maintain a state of good repair.
While we must reinvest in our network to continue to safely and
efficiently move our customers, our complete PTC system is expected to
cost Metra more than $400 million, equal to the amount of federal
formula funding Metra receives every 2\1/2\ years. Further, based on
our own estimates and discussions with our freight railroad partners,
PTC operation and maintenance costs are expected to be between 5-10% of
the total installation cost per year, or $15-$20 million with no
current federal financial assistance available.
I wanted to take this opportunity to thank Congress and the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) for allowing commuter railroads,
including Metra, to utilize the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and
Safety Improvement (CRISI) grant program for PTC projects. However,
this source of funding is not sustainable, and we strongly believe more
needs to be done by Congress to financially help commuter rail agencies
with the ongoing costs of PTC, especially those agencies that will meet
their statutory PTC deadlines.
There is no doubt that the federal PTC mandate has added to the
pressure on our capital and state of good repair needs and the expected
PTC operations and maintenance costs will continue to add pressure for
years to come. While the State of Illinois recently passed a much-
needed state capital bill, which will help address some of our needs,
we believe the federal government has a role to play in recognizing and
supporting the unique challenges faced by commuter railroads resulting
from the dual mandate of PTC implementation and safely maintaining
aging capital-intensive infrastructure. Creating a new grant program
specifically for commuter railroads would provide some relief to these
public agencies struggling the most to address PTC operations and
maintenance costs and associated capital costs.
The federal formula funding that Metra receives annually is the
bedrock of our capital program. However, because our needs are great
and state funding has been inconsistent, it has been nearly impossible
to effectively budget and plan a capital renewal program. One area that
Metra is struggling to meet demands is in its bridge infrastructure.
Many of the bridges Metra operates over are aging and are expensive
pieces of infrastructure to maintain. Congress may help us remedy this
situation by increasing Section 5307 Urban Area Formula Grants and
Section 5337 State of Good Repair transit formula funding. Further, we
believe Congress should also consider creating a dedicated formula
funding stream for commuter railroads to ensure the numerous commuter
rail systems across the country are no longer forced to rely on
sporadic discretionary grants and can effectively plan for both safety
and capital expenditures.
Metra, like other publicly funded railroads, is a highly regulated,
capital-intensive entity. It requires a substantial annual investment
to maintain its own rights-of-way and track structure. Metra's capital
assets are diverse and extensive: locomotives, passenger cars, track
signal and communications equipment, yard and maintenance facilities,
station buildings, platforms, parking lots and headquarters. Each day,
the delivery of safe, reliable, efficient train service depends on
these assets. Constant maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement, and
significant funding, are required to keep Metra's, and other commuter
rail, facilities and equipment in working order.
Our second major challenge has been constrained growth. Recent
studies have shown that more than 80 percent of the U.S. populations
live in urban areas, up from 64 percent in 1950. That number is
projected to grow to 90 percent by 2050. The rapid pace of change in
the passenger rail industry reflects this fact. For example, since this
Congress created Amtrak as the nation's preeminent intercity and long-
distance passenger rail carrier in 1970, the growth of commuter rail
services has been stunning. At the time of Amtrak's creation, there was
one publicly owned commuter railroad. Today, there are now
approximately 30 active commuter rail systems in the United States that
deliver over 490 million passenger trips annually and provide the
safest form of surface transportation for commuters. By comparison, in
FY 2018, Amtrak served approximately 32 million passengers.
However, publicly funded passenger rail, particularly old
``legacy'' systems have struggled to keep up with this population
growth and increased demand for service. In the metropolitan regions
that we serve, our critical services support economic development, tax
base growth, and livability. Additionally, many commuter rail agencies,
like us, are now working directly with private employers to ensure new
offices, factories, and facilities are accessible to our services.
This rapid growth has placed an incredible demand on our limited
railroad infrastructure capacity. Commuter rail agencies must
coordinate with both the freight railroads and Amtrak in order to
operate, especially in Chicago where we must deal with more than 700
freight and Amtrak trains each weekday. While in general, we all work
collaboratively in trying to solve issues and move goods and people in
a capacity constrained system, like in all partnerships, there are
sometimes challenges.
The public convenience and necessity of moving people and passenger
trains can create friction with our freight rail partners and Amtrak,
particularly in high-density areas. Commuter railroads and Amtrak
operate with one another over some of the most congested and complex
areas in the United States, including the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and
the greater Chicagoland region. Since we operate together in some of
the most congested regions with limited available trackage for
passenger rail operations, commuter railroads, Amtrak, and other
passenger transportation services often share rail terminals, yard, and
stations. While Amtrak often owns many of the rail assets and stations,
it is no longer, necessarily, the only major passenger operator in the
area. In fact, in certain instances, there are stations in which
commuter railroad operations are responsible for over 50%, in some
cases even 60%, or 70%, of the train movements, but do not own the
underlying assets or infrastructure.
Much in contrast to past history, recently the concept of public
convenience and necessity has been focused on the interests of the
freight railroads and their customers and less on the interests of
publicly funded commuter railroads. Under federal law certain
preferences have been given to Amtrak; however, those preferences have
not been extended to publicly funded commuter railroads even though, in
many cases, Amtrak, freight railroads and commuter railroads share the
same tracks. While the free flow of interstate commerce is of great
concern to the economic interest of the United States' economy, the
flow of interstate commerce is for the benefit of the people of the
United States. From their involvement in logistics operations to the
actual operation of transportation vehicles, people are significantly
involved in the flow of interstate commerce as well as being the
beneficiaries of that flow of commerce. With the incredible growth of
publicly funded commuter railroads perhaps the time has come to
reconsider commuter rail's legislative standing regarding the essential
public needs as expressed in the terms of public convenience and
necessity of people verses the considerations of public convenience and
necessity for freight railroads.
In 2016, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a
study to review Amtrak's efforts to reorganize and implement certain
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) provisions
intended to reform Amtrak. The report found that ``Amtrak has not
developed clear information detailing the specific costs and
activities,'' of its state-supported routes segment and that ``several
material weaknesses and significant deficiencies'' have hindered
Amtrak's ability to create consistent and timely accounting documents
and financial information.\1\ Amtrak's accounting and transparency
issues have led to challenges in commuter railroad relationships. While
Metra does not operate a state-supported route, we have encountered
similar issues with Amtrak's cost methodology formulas for shared
station services--like security personnel--and infrastructure. While
Metra, and other commuter railroads, are committed to paying our fair
share for shared services and infrastructure, a lack of standard
financial information and a transparency in cost methodology has led to
frustration on both sides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2016, January). Amtrak:
Better Reporting, Planning and Improved Financial Information Could
Enhance Decision Making. (Publication No. GAO-16-67). Retrieved from
GAO Reports Main Page via GPO Access database: http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/gaoreports/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, further improvements could be made to enhance Amtrak's
accountability for improving operational and financial performance. The
GAO report made several such recommendations including the
standardization of Amtrak financial reports, greater transparency in
Amtrak's cost allocation formulas, and for Amtrak to adopt a strategic
management system to improve performance across all of its business
segments.\2\ Considering the importance of shared stations and state-
supported routes to commuter and intercity passengers, we encourage
this Subcommittee to consider measures that improve transparency at
Amtrak.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our current passenger rail system has not kept up with the pace of
growth in commuter rail operations. Short-trip and commuter passenger
services have increased dramatically, yet lack parity with our
intercity and long-distance passenger rail counterparts. We believe the
federal government should consider mechanisms that level the playing
field between Amtrak and publicly-owned commuter rail agencies.
The House of Representatives has already begun to consider these
issues in a thoughtful manner. Chairman Lipinski constructively worked
with the THUD Appropriators in the FY 2020 bill to improve on-time
performance in Chicago. The Chairman has suggested a collaborative
process, led by the FRA, in which Amtrak, commuter railroads, and
freight railroads all play a part in working together to improve on-
time performance in Chicago and develop recommendations to present to
Congress. Metra is particularly proud that it has maintained an on time
performance of 93 percent or better in each year since 1984, the year
after Metra was created. This has been achieved despite operating one
of the oldest fleets in the country. We appreciate the continued
leadership of the House and the Chairman, on these matters, and hope to
continue to provide a high on-time performance rate for our customers.
As many of you know, Chicago's railroad network is very complex.
About 500 freight trains and 760 passenger trains pass through the
region each day. Freight trains from six Class I railroads, passenger
trains from Amtrak, and commuter trains frequently interact and use the
same tracks. Because of this, Metra has developed strong working
relationships with freight railroads as we work together to effectively
move passengers and freight across Chicagoland. Our partnerships are
further enhanced by the landmark Chicago Region Environmental &
Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) program led by Chairman Lipinski and
others in our congressional delegation. This program continues to be a
positive example of the federal government, rail operators, and local
and state governments coming together to tackle a major challenge.
Expanding capacity in Chicago, removing bottlenecks, and bringing the
network to a state-of- good-repair will enhance passenger train speeds
and ensure our freight partners can continue to effectively serve their
customers. We continue to appreciate the Chairman's leadership on
CREATE and would strongly support Congress and this Subcommittee as it
considers other changes to ensure we have a modern passenger rail
system that provides for a level playing field amongst all passenger
rail operators.
Congress will soon have several upcoming opportunities to address
the unique needs of commuter railroads as its debates reauthorizing the
Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Metra looks forward
to working with Congress as its debates authorizing new surface
transportation programs. Our current funding situation is unsustainable
and threatens the future viability of the important service Metra, and
commuter railroads across the country, provide regionally and
nationally. Additionally, we would support federal efforts to modernize
the passenger rail system, improve accountability at Amtrak, and create
a more level playing field between all passenger rail operators.
Metra thanks Congress for its continued support of public
transportation and systems like ours and appreciates the opportunity to
update this committee on our operations and challenges. Federal support
has provided a significant amount of the funding for our capital and
safety needs over the last decade, and Metra will continue to depend on
it while working with all our funding partners to secure additional
assistance.
Thank you for inviting me to testify and I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
Mr. Rogoff?
Mr. Rogoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representatives Babin
and Weber, members of the subcommittee.
Sound Transit provides commuter rail, light rail, and
express bus service throughout our 3-county region, which
includes some 51 cities, including Seattle, Tacoma, and
Everett. The unprecedented population growth in our region has
caused highway congestion to more than double in just the last
6 years. As such, our voters in 2016 approved and funded a $54
billion ballot measure, which, when combined with our prior
ballot measures, has launched us into the largest transit
expansion program in the United States.
I am going to focus my remarks this afternoon on the
challenges we face in expanding commuter rail, specifically
expanding our busiest Sounder South route, which has grown more
than 30 percent just since 2014. The line is an extraordinarily
great value, especially for the riders of Pierce County and
cities like Lakewood, Tacoma, Sumner, Puyallup, and Auburn,
who, for just about $5, can bypass the punishing congestion
that is a daily occurrence on State Route 167, Interstate 405,
and I-5.
The challenges we face in expanding Sounder commuter rail
directly relate to many of the unique challenges that the
commuter rail industry faces writ large, which you are hearing
about from my colleagues. Unlike our expanding light rail
system, which we build and control ourselves, on Sounder we run
along BNSF's main line, which also serves the Ports of Seattle
and Tacoma. Together these two ports represent the Nation's
second largest gateway to Asia.
So we have one long segment of mainline track that must
accommodate freight trains to these busy ports, Sound Transit
commuter trains, State-funded Amtrak trains, federally funded
Amtrak trains, and military deliveries to Joint Base Lewis-
McChord. We are trying to do a great deal over very constrained
infrastructure.
This is not a unique challenge for commuter railroads, but
it may be especially acute in our region. It certainly presents
challenges when we, the commuter railroad, are trying to
deliver our passengers to their destination on time. As a
transit provider, our service is only desirable if it is
reliable, and nothing undermines the reliability of our Sounder
trains more than interference with Amtrak or freight trains
that are not running on time.
It is in this congested environment in which we are now
challenged to introduce additional commuter rail service to
meet growing demand. Commuter rail is an expensive enterprise
because of the operating and capital costs inherent in putting
the service on the street every day. Unlike our light rail
systems, for commuter rail we must negotiate for track access
with BNSF, paying millions for each track easement.
That said, the return on investment for commuter rail is
tremendous for the working families who ride it. With our
rapidly growing regional economy, to the extent that there is
affordable housing to be found anywhere in our region, it is to
be found in cities like Everett and Tacoma and the cities in
east Pierce County that are served by Sounder commuter rail. As
is the case for many growing cities around the country, it is
not just middle-class families that are being pushed to the
suburbs. The transit-dependent working poor are also being
pushed farther and farther out of town in search of affordable
housing.
And we, as the federally funded regional transit agency,
are both obliged and determined to serve them. Adequate Federal
funding and streamlined Federal processes are essential in
helping us to do so. When it comes to Federal funding, the
taxpayers of the Puget Sound region are already financing 84
percent of our overall system expansion, but we rely on Federal
partnerships to finance the remainder. As such, we strongly
support the expansion of Federal programs that help us meet the
demands of our passengers. We participate in the Federal
Transit Administration's Capital Investment Grants program and
look forward to applying in the next few weeks under the FRA's
CRISI Program.
Going forward, as we expand our Sounder commuter rail
service, we are very interested in investigating a partnership
with the FTA's Core Capacity program, perhaps combining our
local taxpayer investments with a combination of FTA Core
Capacity funds and an FRA RRIF loan.
Sound Transit is also the Nation's largest TIFIA borrower.
We are the only recipient to date of a TIFIA master credit
agreement. TIFIA has been an incredibly powerful tool in
helping us borrow funds affordably to deliver improved service
to our region.
In the years I worked for the Federal Government both in
Congress and at the U.S. DOT, I have had the privilege of
having some level of involvement in each of the surface transit
reauthorization bills going back to ISTEA in 1990. I have
included in my written testimony 10 concrete recommendations
that I would encourage you to consider for the next one. These
recommendations are all about streamlining and harmonizing
Federal programs and processes to make them more effective and
less bureaucratic so we and our Federal partners could get
improved service to our taxpayers more quickly. MAP-21 and the
FAST Act made good progress in these areas. More remains to be
done. So thank you for holding this hearing today. I look
forward to your questions.
[Mr. Rogoff's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter M. Rogoff, Chief Executive Officer, Sound
Transit
Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Crawford, Members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Peter Rogoff. I have the privilege of serving
as Chief Executive Officer of Sound Transit, the regional transit
agency in Washington state's Puget Sound region.
Sound Transit provides commuter rail, light rail, and express bus
service throughout our three-county region, which includes some 51
cities including Seattle, Tacoma and Everett. Our region is undergoing
unprecedented population growth causing highway congestion to more than
double in just the last six years. As such, our voters in 2016 approved
and funded a $54 billion ballot measure which, when combined with our
prior ballot measures, has launched us into the largest transit
expansion program in the United States.
While commuter rail from a ridership perspective is the smallest of
the three services Sound Transit provides, it is also one of our
fastest growing and we are currently in the planning stage to expand
it. So I want to thank the subcommittee for holding this hearing on the
unique challenges and opportunities for commuter rail. The issues and
potential solutions certainly merit the Committee's attention.
Our Sounder commuter rail consists of two lines on an 83-mile, 12-
station system. Sounder North runs between Everett and Seattle, and
Sounder South runs between Lakewood, through Tacoma, and onto Seattle.
Today, Sounder South is the most popular route and runs 13 round trips
per weekday, along with occasional extra trains for weekend events. At
the busiest times, trains carry as many as 1,000 riders each. The
Sounder system has average weekday ridership of 16,000, up more than
30% since 2014. Sound South is an extraordinary great value, especially
for the riders of Pierce County in cities like Tacoma, Sumner, Puyallup
and Auburn who can bypass the punishing congestion that is a daily
occurrence on State Route 167, I-405, and I-5.
We are currently in the early planning stages for a mix of
investments to expand this service, both by expanding the capacity of
the trains themselves and exploring the opportunity to operate a
greater frequency of service during more hours of the day. In 2025, we
will begin planning to expand Sounder South by 8 miles, with two new
stations, including one near Joint Base Lewis-McChord--a major Pierce
County employer with surrounding roadway congestion that is worsening
each year
The challenges we face in expanding Sounder commuter rail directly
relate to the many unique challenges that the commuter rail industry
faces.
Unlike the 116-mile light rail system we are building--where we
construct new right of way that we own, control, and manage as sole
operators--on Sounder we own less than 10% of the tracks, with the
majority owned by BNSF and shared with other operators such as Amtrak.
We run along BNSF's mainline which also serves the critical employment
centers of the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma. Together, they represent
the nation's second largest gateway to Asia and fourth largest
container port. As partners, we at Sound Transit are invested in the
ports' continued growth just as we are invested in minimizing area
highway congestion so their truck traffic can move. We have one
mainline that must serve these busy Ports, Sound Transit commuter
trains, state-funded Amtrak trains, federally funded Amtrak trains, and
military rail deliveries to Joint Base Lewis-McChord. We are trying to
accomplish a lot with one very busy but constrained segment of track.
That is not a unique challenge for commuter railroads but it may be
especially acute in our region. It certainly presents challenges when
we, the commuter railroad, are trying to maintain the on-time
performance for our current trains as well as introduce additional
trains into service to meet growing passenger demand.
Commuter rail is an expensive enterprise because of the operating
and capital costs inherent in putting the service out each day. On a
per-rider basis, our taxpayer subsidy per Sounder passenger is 50%
higher than express buses and nearly triple the per-rider subsidy for
our light rail passengers. Unlike our light rail system, where we
construct new right-of-way we control, with commuter rail we must
negotiate for track access with host railroads such as BNSF, paying
millions for each track easement. Other factors driving up operating
costs include the strong one-way peak demand from regional cities to
central cities, which makes labor shifts inefficient to schedule and
requires lots of mid-day storage space for trains as they wait for the
next rush hour.
That said, the ROI for commuter rail is tremendous for the working
families that ride it. Unlike the late 20th-century paradigm where
cities were poorer due to divestment and suburbs were wealthy due to
urban flight, our region has joined many others in seeing the reverse:
the suburbanization of working class families and the renaissance of
wealthy metropolitan cities. Our central cities such as Seattle and
Bellevue are booming job centers attracting global talent at companies
such as Amazon, Microsoft, Boeing, Facebook, Google, Starbucks and REI.
Even though our region has done better than some of our peer regions
when it comes to housing production, we still are facing an affordable
housing crisis. The average home price is more than $700,000 in Seattle
and is nearly $1 million in Bellevue. To the extent that there is
affordable housing to be found anywhere in our region, it is to be
found in cities like Everett and Tacoma and the cities in East Pierce
County that are served by Sounder Commuter Rail. These are outstanding
communities in which to raise families. That suburban lifestyle in
combination with more affordable housing is why residential growth has
been particularly strong in Pierce and Snohomish counties, with growth
rates that in recent years have outpaced that of neighboring King
County, home to Seattle. That pattern is expected to continue in the
future where households are expected to grow in Seattle 27% by 2040,
58% in Everett and 56% in Puyallup.
Without Sounder South, there would be no way a worker in a city
such as Puyallup could get to Seattle in under an hour. The State Route
167 corridor Sounder South serves has seen its traffic congestion
increase by a staggering 27% recently. Traveling up to 79mph, Sounder
South trains reach communities such as Puyallup and Sumner in half the
time it takes a car or bus.
The story is similar in Snohomish County to the north. The Everett-
Seattle corridor has some of the worst traffic in the country, and
Sounder North provides traffic-free access to Seattle from Edmonds,
Mukilteo and Everett.
In 2016 our voters committed more than $1 billion to expand Sounder
service, lengthen trains, and improve parking, walking and biking
access. It is important to note that our region's voters are financing
84% of our overall system expansion, but we rely on federal
partnerships to finance the remainder.
As such, we strongly support the expansion of Federal programs that
help us meet the demands of our passengers. We serve as project
sponsors in the Federal Transit Administration's Capital Investment
Grants (CIG) program. We are currently constructing a light rail
expansion to Lynnwood in Snohomish County, with 38 percent of the
project cost coming from the CIG program. By the end of this year, we
are hoping to receive a Full Funding Grant Agreement to extend our
light rail network south to the City of Federal Way with 25 percent of
the project cost coming from the CIG program. We also look forward to
applying in the next few weeks under the Federal Railroad
Administration's Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety
Improvements (CRISI) program. Our application will seek funds to double
track sections of rail in Tacoma to remove chokepoints for Amtrak,
Sounder and freight trains including military trains serving Joint Base
Lewis-McChord. Going forward, as we expand our Sounder commuter rail
service, we are very interested in investigating federal partnership
with the FTA's Core Capacity program, perhaps combining our own
investments with a combination of FTA Core Capacity funds and an FRA
RRIF loan.
Sound Transit has made extensive use of the TIFIA program as we
have expanded our transit services throughout the region. We have a
sizeable TIFIA loan but no CIG grant funding in our East Link project--
a 10-station light rail expansion across Lake Washington connecting the
cities of Seattle, Bellevue, and Redmond that opens in 2023. We are
also the only recipient to date of a TIFIA Master Credit Agreement
(MCA) with the USDOT's Build America Bureau. By grouping four separate
TIFIA loans together under this MCA, we have collectively saved our
region's taxpayers between $200 and $300 million in borrowing costs. We
have closed three of the four loans to date with the final closing
expected this December. Two of these loans have been paired with FTA
CIG funding to help us meet project costs. We look forward to the day
where we might be able to combine FTA Core Capacity funding with either
TIFIA or RRIF borrowings to expand Sounder commuter rail services.
The remainder of my testimony goes into further detail about
reforms we would recommend as you consider your authorization and
funding decisions in the upcoming reauthorization cycle.
One area I would encourage the Committee to pursue is the
opportunity for further environmental streamlining to speed the
delivery of Federally funded or permitted projects. In the Pacific
Northwest, we are intensely focused on the environment, believing it is
elemental to both our quality of life and our commercial success. It
is, however, a frustration when the federal environmental and
permitting process actually slows our ability to get projects delivered
that are inherently beneficial to the environment. The sooner we can
deliver viable high-capacity transit services to new communities, the
sooner we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions along with other
pollutants.
I would encourage the Committee to consider approaches that would
provide preferences and incentives to expedite approvals for projects
that provide such substantial environmental benefits.
Implement One Federal Decision when using two or more funding programs
When commuter railroads seek to combine FTA funds with RRIF loans,
the Department of Transportation should create one process that
streamlines the approval processes for the two federal decisions. This
would be an extension of the ``One Federal Decision'' policy the
Administration is implementing relative to environmental clearance.
While separate approvals would still be required for the grant and the
loan, the FTA and the Build America Bureau could jointly conduct much
of the evaluation of the project in question. This would streamline the
process and provide better coordination on the timing of decisions.
Ensure adequate federal agency staffing to reduce processing times
Adequately staffed Federal agencies are essential to the prompt
processing of permits, grant or loan funding, and environmental
clearances. Having served as the Federal Transit Administrator during
the Obama Administration, I am acutely aware of the challenges faced by
a very thin staff as they process a very daunting workload. Sound
Transit currently pays for additional staff at FTA Region X--who are
prohibited from working on Sound Transit projects--as well as
additional consultants to the FTA so that the agency has additional
capacity to deal with our expanding capital program. While we are proud
to partner with the FTA in this way, it is not the kind of solution
that can be replicated nationwide. I would strongly encourage the
committee to review the staffing levels of the FTA and FRA and
authorize funding for increased staffing commensurate with what we find
in other grant-making modal Administrations. It is also essential that
attention be paid to the staffing levels at the natural resource
agencies that are charged with conducting environmental clearances and
permits, including the EPA, NOAA, the Army Corps, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Coast Guard, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
National Parks and the Forest Service. It is not reasonable to think
that these agencies can engage in project reviews early and process
permits more quickly if their staffing is continually shrinking.
Though costing federal agencies more up front, ensuring adequate
staffing will result in net taxpayer savings due to faster project
delivery, lower borrowing costs and a shorter inflation time window.
Harmonize RRIF and TIFIA procedures
We believe the FRA's RRIF loan should work more like the DOT's
TIFIA loan program. Under TIFIA, the Treasury pays the Credit Risk
Premium out of funds appropriated by Congress, so that the borrower
does not have to draw on loan proceeds to pay it. The RRIF program, on
the other hand, does not have a similar mechanism and borrowers are
required to pay the premium up front.
Extend RRIF TOD authority expiring December 4, 2019
RRIF is available to support Transit Oriented Development loans so
that transit agencies can support the development of commercial and
residential buildings that support the transportation network. That
authority will expire on December 4, 2019, before the rest of the FAST
Act programs expire. Extending the TOD authority so that it aligns with
the rest of the programs in the FAST Act, or eliminating the expiration
date altogether, would ensure this authority remains available.
Streamline TIFIA loan compliance procedures
Sound Transit has combined TIFIA loans with CIG funding for light
rail extensions included in Sound Transit's TIFIA Master Credit
Agreement (MCA). Despite the fact that TIFIA is a loan fully repaid
with interest, some TIFIA requirements are more onerous than for CIG
grants. For example, TIFIA requires FTA or PMOC review for all physical
invoices--on $3+ billion projects--which creates substantial workload
for the grantee, FTA, and/or PMOC. For TIFIA recipients with low credit
risk such as Sound Transit, we ask that drawdowns be able to occur with
oversight provided by the annual single audit, FTA triennial review or
other existing grant oversight reviews.
Improve CIG Core Capacity definitions
Under current core capacity requirements, commuter rail projects
need to show that they will be ``at capacity'' today or in five years
to be eligible. But since the CIG process itself can take five or more
years, qualifying projects will be over capacity before beginning
construction. Expanding the timeframe from five years to ten years, for
example, could streamline the process and get core capacity projects
approved and built faster.
Provide more clarity on FRA's System Safety Rule
FRA's System Safety Rule is an opportunity for commuter railroads
to take a holistic safety approach that considers local conditions and
takes advantage of the benefits of various engineering, technical, and
system management approaches. Commuter rail agencies would benefit from
having clearer FRA direction on approval standards for System Safety
plans. The absence of clear standards for plans creates a more
interactive role for the FRA in plan development, and exposes agencies
to risk by creating an iterative approval process where conditions may
change unpredictably. Sound Transit welcomes the implementation of the
new System Safety rule, but we would ask for more clarity up front on
what the FRA will require for approval. Though we are pleased to have
met the FRA's deadline for implementation of Positive Train Control
(PTC), we have not forgotten the PTC-avoidable Amtrak derailment in
2017 that claimed three lives on tracks owned by Sound Transit. We
believe it is more important than ever that we work closely together on
shared safety standards.
Expand the use of Categorical Exclusions (CEs) for work on existing
transit projects
We believe transit agencies should be able to accelerate project
delivery by being empowered to assume the responsibility and risk for
approving routine projects under NEPA. State DOTs currently have
programmatic CE agreements with FHWA and Section 1318 of MAP-21 sought
to expand their application. Unlike state DOTs, local and regional
transit agencies have not enjoyed this same flexibility. We believe
Congress should authorize a pilot program enabling qualifying transit
agencies to enter into programmatic CE agreements with FTA. We also
believe that projects that can show an inherent environmental benefit,
such as reducing greenhouse gases, should benefit from streamlined
environmental procedures.
Modernize historic preservation laws
We believe it is time to reconsider how to better harmonize the
multiple environmental laws governing similar resources. A prime
example is the treatment of historic resources protected by Section
4(f) of the 1966 Transportation Act and Section 106 of the 1966
National Historic Preservation Act. We need not diminish the
requirements to consider and mitigate the impacts to our historic
resources, but it is worth exploring how we can better harmonize the
processes.
Align level boarding standards across agencies
Sound Transit is fully committed to ensuring equal access for our
riders with disabilities. We have been endeavoring to implement level
boarding at station platforms to comply with regulations. However,
BNSF, Amtrak Cascades, long-distance Amtrak trains and Sounder each
have distinct rolling stock with a variety of track clearances,
precluding a single ``level boarding'' platform. Although federal
guidance suggests ways to accommodate these complexities, there are
inherent challenges faced by commuter rail agencies that make achieving
true level boarding nearly impossible. Sound Transit requests that
regulators work together with us to identify and provide practical
options that would help us achieve true level boarding.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our insights as both a
commuter rail operating agency and as federal grantee making use of
several financing programs. We appreciate the attention you are
devoting to these issues and we look forward to working with you to
provide the efficient transportation system the American people rightly
expect.
Thank you.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
And finally, I recognize Ms. Wiggins for 5 minutes.
Ms. Wiggins. Good afternoon, Chairman Lipinski, Congressman
Babin, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting
me to participate on this panel to discuss the challenges and
opportunities facing our Nation's commuter railroads. I am
Stephanie Wiggins, and I assumed the chief executive officer
position at Metrolink in January 2019. Since then I have been
focused on how our rail service can help improve the lives of
the 21 million people in southern California. A detailed
written testimony has been submitted. I would like to highlight
a few points.
Metrolink began operating in 1992 with the idea to serve
southern California. Today, Metrolink is literally and
figuratively connecting southern California communities, and
even into the northern portion of San Diego County. This is a
vast 538-route-mile network. Last fiscal year, a record 11.9
million trips were taken on Metrolink, the highest in our 26-
year history. This is equivalent to removing 9.3 million
vehicles from our congested southern California roads. Even
more significant, this is the fifth consecutive year we have
seen growth in ridership.
Commuter railroads give people more: more freedom, more
connections to economic opportunity, and more time. In an era
of escalating housing costs around the country, commuter
railroads allow Americans to avoid having to choose between
where they live and where they work. Riders avoid the stress
associated with sitting in traffic for hours each day. We
enable them to make a more environmentally friendly decision
and to choose an overall healthier lifestyle.
Why is commuter rail important? Southern California is
notorious for soul-crushing traffic 24/7, and Metrolink is the
alternative. Even half of our staff take it to work every day.
My goal is to leverage our recent successes and unlock the
great potential of Metrolink to double the ridership in the
next 5 years. We want to be the premier regional rail system by
the time southern California and the Nation are on the world
stage again for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Some 300 passenger and freight trains are dispatched on the
Metrolink network every day. That is more than 50,000 trains
each year. The freight trains carry the cargo that drives our
economy, like shipments to and from the Ports of Los Angeles
and Long Beach, which together serve as the entry point for 40
percent of the Nation's goods.
None of this would be possible without ensuring safety is
at the core of what we do. Metrolink is proud to be one of the
four railroads in the country to have PTC installed and fully
interoperable by the congressionally mandated deadline.
To acknowledge and appreciate this milestone, Metrolink
hosted a rail safety summit as part of California's Rail Safety
Month. We were honored to have National Transportation Safety
Board Member Jennifer Homendy as our keynote speaker. Since
this week is National Safety Week, I would be remiss if I did
not highlight other safety initiatives on which Metrolink has
sought to lead the way.
We installed precursor technologies to PTC. We installed
inward- and outward-facing cameras on locomotives and cab cars
a decade prior to the proposed rules by the FRA. And we
designed crash energy management into our newest rolling stock.
We will continue to operate with safety as our core value.
Another part of the vision is to have a zero incident
railroad for grade crossing and trespasser strikes. The large
geographic region serviced by Metrolink includes intercity
passenger and freight rail that are all growing. And with 456
at-grade crossings in the network, these are the most common
interface points with railroads, and often the most precarious.
And we must also ensure infrastructure is in a state of
good repair, and our facilities and customer-facing
technologies all provide the type of experience that will keep
our customers coming back, and will entice new riders. To do so
we need your help. Our State and region have stepped up to
provide significant funding for infrastructure over the next
decade. To make the best use of these funds we need to leverage
Federal dollars.
With that in mind we have the following requests: provide
full eligibility to commuter rail for FRA-administered
discretionary programs; provide substantially more funding for
critical railroad crossing and right-of-way improvements; and
include dedicated new funding for commuter rail that does not
supplant existing funding sources.
I thank you again for the opportunity to speak to the
subcommittee today, and I look forward to today's dialogue.
[Ms. Wiggins' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephanie N. Wiggins, Chief Executive Officer,
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA)-Metrolink
Introduction
Thank you Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Crawford and
Subcommittee Members for the invitation to testify today on the many
challenges and opportunities facing our nation's commuter railroads. I
appreciate the opportunity to provide Metrolink's perspective as the
largest commuter rail operator in California and the third largest in
the Country.
My name is Stephanie Wiggins, Chief Executive Officer of Metrolink
(Southern California Regional Rail Authority). Metrolink began service
in October 1992 with the ideal to serve the Southern California region
with safe, efficient, dependable and on-time rail transportation
service that offers outstanding customer experience and enhances
quality of life. Today, Metrolink--a Joint Powers Authority--governed
by an 11-member Board of Directors representing Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties, is literally and
figuratively connecting Southern California communities. Metrolink's
538 route miles also extend into the northern portion of San Diego
County.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Metrolink system connects Southern California with a convenient,
reliable alternative to increasingly congested roadways.
The Metrolink System
Southern California is a region with some of the most notoriously
congested highways in the nation. For those commuting to work,
Metrolink provides the freedom to live in almost any portion of the
region with the option to hop on one of our trains to get to work.
Every day, riders leave their personal vehicles at home and bypass the
traffic and unpredictable highway commute in favor of a more relaxing
and environmentally conscious ride. We connect multiple commercial
markets, along with urban and rural areas, to major job centers all
over Southern California--the largest of which is downtown Los Angeles
where most of our lines converge at historic Los Angeles Union Station.
The population of the six Southern California counties served by
Metrolink is now 21.5 million people, more than half of California's
total population. Over the next 15 years, these counties are forecasted
to add one million people, while still striving to meet the State's
ambitious goals to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and make
housing more affordable to all.
Over the last five years, Metrolink has experienced sustained
annual ridership growth, culminating in the highest ridership in our
26-year history for Fiscal Year 2019, which ended on June 30, 2019. The
11.9 million annual riders who chose Metrolink in Fiscal Year 2019
represent a reduction of peak travel volume on parallel highways of up
to 28%, as well as annual reductions of 335 million vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and 130,000 metric tons of GHG emissions--the equivalent
of 9.3 million fewer car trips.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Metrolink system is the economic engine of our region. We share
more than half of our system with our railroad partners. The Southern
California rail system not only carries an average of 173 Metrolink
commuter trains per day, but also up to 30 daily Amtrak intercity
trains on the San Luis Obispo-Los Angeles-San Diego (LOSSAN) Corridor,
as well as hundreds of Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and Burlington-
Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Class I freight trains. UPRR and BNSF are
hauling freight along these nationally significant corridors from the
ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the nation's largest cargo
gateway.
Safety
September 22 through 28 marks National Rail Safety Week. Therefore,
it is timely to emphasize that safety is a foundational value at
Metrolink, and we are proud to lead the nation in the innovation,
collaboration, piloting and implementation of critical safety
technologies--as well as providing thought leadership and studying
lessons learned related to safety. Just two weeks ago, in support of
Rail Safety Month in California, Metrolink hosted a national Rail
Safety Summit to spur discussion and collaboration around improving
rail safety across the region. The event featured a keynote by National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Member Jennifer Homendy, as well as
discussions where panelists shared perspectives on ways to solve
critical safety issues including evolving safety technologies,
trespasser strikes, and the role of mental health and homelessness in
the rise of fatal incidents across our region. Ultimately, the summit
galvanized attendees to find creative solutions that will help our
industry pursue a zero-incident future.
Metrolink was the first commuter rail operator in the nation to
bring Positive Train Control (PTC) technology online. PTC is a GPS-
based safety technology that can stop a train and prevent train-to-
train collisions, over-speed derailments and unauthorized train
movement. This technology ensures the safety of our passengers and
employees by acting as a safeguard against human errors and other
potential hazards. Since 2009, Metrolink has committed approximately
$250 million to develop and install PTC and advanced train control
systems. Our agency has always been committed to the timely deployment
of PTC. We have worked collaboratively with stakeholders, operators and
regulatory agencies as an incubator for best practices and industry
standards.
Our systems are now interoperable with PTC on all host and tenant
tracks with UPRR, BNSF and Amtrak. Metrolink continues to advance
safety through projects like nearside crossing technology that can
minimize the impacts to vehicular traffic at crossings that are
adjacent to train stations. The technology keeps the gates from
activating while the train is in the station until it is ready to
depart and proceed through the crossing. This reduces the gate down
times that impact cross-traffic and can lead to driver frustration and
attempts to beat or go around the crossing gates.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
As these technologies continue to evolve, there will continue to be
new operations and maintenance costs associated with PTC technology.
Our agency continues to budget between $8-$10 million annually for
recurring costs associated with PTC. This commitment equates to an
approximate 7.5% increase in Metrolink's total operations budget. In
addition, we anticipate an additional $50 million is necessary over the
next 10 years for the continued evolution of the PTC system. Safety is
a core value you cannot put a price tag on. Nevertheless, for Metrolink
to continuously build upon its successes, we will need the support of
the federal government by making the waiver for technology applications
under the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement
(CRISI) Program permanent, as an example.
PTC is just one part of the safety platform at Metrolink. We have
gone beyond PTC to include additional technologies as part of
Metrolink's commitment to the safety of our passengers, employees and
the traveling public. These technologies include:
Automatic Train Stop (ATS)
Prior to the instillation of PTC, Metrolink implemented ATS
technology. In 2009, we expanded the use of ATS and have since kept the
system as a redundant safety backstop during the installation of PTC.
ATS includes magnetic inductors that are placed next to the track at
locations where the train is approaching a curve or speed change. The
ATS system includes an audible alarm and flashing alert on the
engineer's control panel. The train brakes are then automatically
applied if the engineer does not push a button acknowledging the alert
within approximately eight seconds. Now that PTC has been installed,
the older ATS technology will ultimately be phased out.
Inward and Outward Facing Cameras
In 2009, Metrolink installed inward and outward facing cameras in
all locomotives and cab cars. The observation of the operator and the
right-of-way provides an additional layer of safety for our crews and
passengers. This technology is recommended by the NTSB and was deployed
a decade before the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published
proposed rules. Today, all 62 locomotives and 73 cab cars have inward
and outward facing cameras on board.
Crash Energy Management (CEM) Technology
In 2010, Metrolink became the first passenger train service in the
nation to debut the next generation of cab and passenger rail cars
equipped with CEM technology. This safety feature is included in 117 of
our passenger cars. CEM technology provides a unique collision-
absorption function with redesigned seats and work tables and advanced
crumble zones at each end of the cars. This technology is analogous to
the crumple zones found in private automobiles meant to dissipate the
energy from a crash before the driver feels it.
Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs)
In February 2019, Metrolink installed AEDs on all train cars, a
critical safety resource to help those experiencing sudden cardiac
arrest. The medical device can analyze the heart's rhythm and, if
necessary, deliver an electronic shock, or defibrillation, to help the
heart re-establish an effective rhythm. This technology provides a
critical resource to passengers and train crews, just like they do to
airports, sports venues and many workplaces around the country.
Metrolink began the installation of AEDs prior to the introduction of
state legislation requiring them and completed the installations more
than a year ahead of a July 2020 deadline.
Surveillance Detection System
Metrolink piloted a real time video software to monitor rail
rights-of-way and detect pedestrians entering sensitive areas. We have
tested the technology along the perimeter and entrance of our Central
Maintenance Facility (CMF). The pilot allowed for an improved
monitoring and response for unauthorized access into a determined area.
We continue to test and refine the technology, which we intend to
expand along the rights-of-way to provide notification to Metrolink's
Security Operations Center (SOC) and Dispatch Operations Center (DOC)
to stop train movement or reduce speeds in an area to reduce the risk
and allow the opportunity to remove an individual.
Opportunities & Challenges
Our region provides many opportunities to further the successes
experienced by commuter rail operators across the country. Southern
California relies on commuter rail to provide a convenient, viable
alternative to driving severely congested roadways. In fact, Metrolink
just recorded its highest ridership ever in its 26-year history--11.9
million boardings. This record is also supported by five years of
consecutive ridership increases on the Metrolink system. But it's more
than that. We know that taking public transit contributes to our
riders' physical health and overall better quality of life. According
to the American Heart Association, taking public transportation results
in people walking more, which contributes to cardiovascular health. In
recognition of our complementary missions, Metrolink and the American
Heart Association have started a new partnership that can better inform
new audiences about the benefits and virtues Metrolink has to offer.
What we do is important to the overall health of Southern
California residents. According to the American Association of Retired
Persons (AARP), it is projected that 8.7 million Americans will be age
85 or older by 2030, and a substantial portion of them will no longer
drive. Plus, as more millennials between the age of 20 and 37 express a
willingness to take public transportation, despite having access to a
car, Metrolink provides a vital transportation alternative for our
region. 60% of Metrolink riders travel across county lines. More than
85% of our riders own a car, and their average ride is 36 miles long.
My customer-focused vision for the future is to double ridership in
the next five years and to provide service no less than every 30
minutes throughout the day. We will do this by tapping into the
peoples' desires to leave their personal vehicles at home most of the
time, be environmentally conscious, and by removing key barriers like
infrequent or nonexistent mid-day service that can leave people feeling
stranded.
Metrolink is also a leader in the zero-emission future of rail
transportation as Southern California sets aggressive targets to reduce
mobile source emissions. The United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has set standards for railway locomotive emissions that
are designated by a tiered status, with Tier 4 being the highest
achieved indicating the greatest reduction in pollutant emissions.
Metrolink has received more than half of its purchased Tier 4
locomotives, the remainder of which are scheduled to be delivered by
summer 2020. These locomotives reduce emissions between 65% and 85%
compared to legacy Tier 2 and Tier 0 locomotives. Metrolink was the
first commuter rail operator in the State of California to deploy this
technology. As part of a recent state grant award, Metrolink is now
embarking on a fleet modernization study to further research
opportunities accelerate deployment of a zero-emission operations
strategy.
We are at an important juncture for the future of commuter rail,
which provides such a critical alternative to suffering through
crushing traffic in our personal automobiles to connect us to each
other, affordable housing to jobs, and to leisure travel opportunities
as illustrated in the map below. As the House of Representative
Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee considers future
funding opportunities--either through a surface transportation
authorization bill, formula funds or discretionary grant opportunities,
we respectfully request that the following policy recommendations be
considered.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
(Source: Southern California Association of Governments)
Surface Transportation Authorization Bill
The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act authorizes
transit programs through September 30, 2020. The reauthorization
process provides an opportunity to provide new, long-term dedicated
revenues to significantly increase commuter rail investments.
The Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement (CRISI)
Program
The CRISI Program was authorized in the FAST Act in 2015. The
program consolidated five existing FRA funding programs into one safety
and infrastructure funding source. Despite being regulated by the FRA,
there are provisions within the CRISI Program that limit project
eligibility to corridors that provide intercity rail service. With this
provision, only half of the Metrolink system qualifies to receive
program funding.
The Metrolink system is critically important to maintaining
national economic competitiveness. Our proximity to the ports of Los
Angeles, Long Beach, Hueneme and San Diego contribute to over 62
million metric tons of freight shipments carried over shared tracks
annually. To ensure the safety and resilience of rail corridors for
passenger and freight service, we request that Congress consider
including full eligibility for commuter rail to be a qualified
applicant for capital projects. We also request that the current waiver
for technology applications be made permanent for further PTC
developments.
Railroad Crossing Improvement Funding
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Railway-Highway Crossings
(Section 130) Program provides funds to mitigate hazards at railway-
highway crossings. According to the FRA, in 2017, there were 274
fatalities across the U.S and 38 deaths and 57 injuries in the State of
California related to railway-highway crossings. Across urban and rural
centers, the Metrolink service area includes 456 at-grade crossings.
The large geographic region serviced by Metrolink includes intercity
passenger and freight services that are all growing. Unfortunately,
existing Section 130 funding does not meet national demand. These are
the most common interface points with railroads, and often the most
precarious. More funding is needed here for us to realize our
continuous safety improvements that drive us to minimize risk and move
towards a zero-incident future.
There are further opportunities for commuter rail operators to
incorporate innovative technologies into crossings. We encourage the
FRA to consider support for new pilot programs and technologies that
could revolutionize railroad crossing infrastructure. Metrolink is
already leading the industry in crossing design standards with active
pedestrian gates and vehicular and pedestrian channelization. We
appreciate the opportunity to discuss new and emerging technologies.
The passenger and freight service supported by railroad crossings are
simply too important not to invest in.
Without additional resources to reinforce Metrolink's 538 route
miles of track, our system also remains vulnerable for trespassing.
Metrolink has partnered with Operation Lifesaver to implement best
practices to encourage safe behavior around the right-of-way through
engineering, enforcement and education to deter trespassing. The FRA
recently submitted a report to Congress on a national strategy to
prevent trespassing on railroad property. We support the FRA's
approach, which includes identifying new funding for trespasser
mitigation.
State of Good Repair
In an environment of limited resources, the focus on installation
of PTC meant an increase in the state of good repair backlog. When
compounded with constrained funding, Metrolink's maintenance and
rehabilitation program includes a $444 million backlog of unfunded
state-of-good-repair projects. These projects put Metrolink service at
risk of delays and reduced speeds to ensure the safety of our
operations. Our system requires $85 million annually in funding to
maintain current rehabilitation conditions. Metrolink receives
approximately $50-$60 million annually for maintenance and
rehabilitation projects, which is below the funding amount to maintain
current conditions. We require approximately $100 million annually in
Fiscal Year 2020 to draw down the backlog over 20 years.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Deferred maintenance can also have cascading impacts on delays for
Metrolink, Amtrak and freight trains operating in the Southern
California region. Conditions of rolling stock, equipment, track,
signals and structures all impact our on-time performance. In FY 2019,
track and signal related maintenance resulted in approximately 702
Metrolink trains impacted by delays averaging 13 minutes, resulting in
over 9,000 minutes in delays systemwide. Nevertheless, we have still
realized improvements in on-time performance through better operating
approaches. To keep this up, we must be able to address the backlog
more quickly.
For example, a tunnel on our Antelope Valley Line (AVL) support
Metrolink and freight service through north Los Angeles County. Each
weekday, 30 Metrolink AVL trains and five UPRR freight trains enter the
tunnel between Newhall Station and Sylmar/San Fernando Stations. The
tunnel has 4,300 wood ties and 69 pumps that remove water that is
continually seeping into the tunnel, even in dry weather. The tunnel
was originally built in 1876, reinforced with a concrete liner in 1924
and received some improvements in the mid-1990s after the Northridge
Earthquake. The tunnel recently received maintenance in 2015 and 2018;
however, the maintenance performed was temporary and designed to keep
this asset in service until a more permanent solution could be funded.
A $12 million rehabilitation project in the tunnel would avoid nearly
$58 million in life-cycle costs associated with additional inspection,
emergency repairs and temporary fixes, as well as slow orders and bus
bridges. Delays associated with the deferred maintenance are expected
to cause a loss of 265,954 riders per year on the AVL, approximately
16% of the line's total annual ridership--more than 1.8 million in
Fiscal Year 2019.
Constrained Funding
There are not enough resources to maintain a state of good repair
and provide the necessary capacity projects to improve service.
Metrolink is primarily funded through fare revenue, grants and JPA
member agency subsidies. Our infrastructure needs further improvements
and investments to meet regional demand for Metrolink service.
Metrolink is working to leverage state and local grant programs to
secure federal funding through programs like the US DOT Core Capacity,
Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) and Better Utilizing
Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) discretionary grant
programs. We already have secured approximately $2 billion in state and
local funding to deliver our Southern California Optimized Rail
Expansion (SCORE) Program, which is a 10-year plan to improve railroad
safety, efficiency, reliability and enable more railroad service
throughout the Southern California region in time for the 2028 Olympic
and Paralympic Games. According to Los Angeles County Economic
Development Corporation analysis, the SCORE Program is expected to
generate over 1.4 million jobs throughout the region and add $684
billion to Southern California's regional gross product through 2050,
defined as all finished goods and services produced in the region as a
result of the SCORE Program. With additional federal funding, we
believe Southern California can even unlock private investment in at
least one of its key corridors over the course of the next decade.
Conclusion
In my role as Chief Executive Officer, I am committed to delivering
the transportation service of choice. Safety is our foundational value
from which we will always build. With improved customer service and
increased frequency and reliability, commuter rail will become an even
more viable alternative to our nation's most congested roadways. The
future for our region--and the health of its population--depend on an
integrated transportation system that connects all modes across
Southern California, especially all rail and transit modes in a
seamless system to the customer. This transportation renaissance begins
with commuter rail. We are modernizing our business practices and
delivering services for future generations.
To achieve the vision for improved commuter rail service across the
country, we respectfully request that the following policies be
considered:
1. Provide full eligibility to the CRISI Program for commuter rail
as a qualified applicant;
2. Provide substantially more funding for critical railroad
crossing and right-of-way improvements to deter trespassing and reduce
railroad crossing incidents to keep people safe;
3. Include dedicated new funding for commuter rail in the surface
transportation authorization bill that does not supplant existing
funding sources.
Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Crawford and Subcommittee
Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I
look forward to working with you as we deliver on the vision of
transformative commuter rail service across the nation.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Ms. Wiggins. Now I am going to
recognize Members for 5 minutes of question time, and I am
going to begin by recognizing Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Crawford, for hosting this hearing on the challenges our
commuter rail systems are facing. I especially want to thank,
of course, Mr. Jim Derwinski, CEO of Metra in Illinois, the
largest commuter rail system in the U.S. That is no small job,
and I am thankful that you could join us today. And I want to
thank all the panelists, of course.
Jim was so kind as to take 2 hours of his busy day this
past March to personally give my staff and I a tour of a major
metro locomotive rehabilitation facility. So I thank you for
your leadership, Jim.
My district hugs the Chicago downtown area. It serves as
that sweet spot served by both the CTA train system and by the
Metra system. In fact, there are at least five major commuter
rail lines that run through my district, the Fourth
Congressional District, about 15 Metra stations. The BNSF to
Aurora, Union Pacific Northwest to McHenry, Milwaukee District
North to Fox Lake, North Central Service to Antioch, and Union
Pacific West to Elburn. These lines run through the communities
of Cicero, Berwyn, Riverside, Brookfield, Berkeley, Melrose
Park, Elmwood Park, and the Northwest Side of Chicago,
including Logan Square and Humboldt Park, all of which I
represent.
As Chairman Lipinski and Metra CEO Jim Derwinski noted,
commuter rail is an essential component of what makes Chicago
run, by connecting people to jobs and taking cars off the
congested roads.
But Metra and our commuter rail systems face significant
challenges. Ridership has gone up 23 percent since the year
2000, yet, as I understand it, commuter rail systems continue
to face significant restraints on growth, and continue to
struggle with uncertain and inadequate funding streams. So I
would like to ask some questions.
Mr. Derwinski, we have challenges relating to affordable
housing and urban sprawl in Chicago. Smart planning and
transit-oriented development are vital to ensuring that we are
building diverse, affordable, and inclusive communities, and
that Metra plays a key role in connecting our communities to
jobs and educational opportunities.
So my question is how can Congress support Metra and
commuter railroads in the upcoming FAST Act reauthorization,
especially in regards to helping urban areas plan sustainable
communities?
Mr. Derwinski. Thank you for that question, Congressman.
Clearly, as all of my colleagues have pointed out today,
commuter rail plays an integral part of all communities that
they serve. As Congress looks toward the reauthorization of the
FAST Act, increased dedicated funding to commuter is exactly
what is needed.
I believe we can show, on a normal basis, that the return
on investment is immense. Where we go, the community really
grows. You talk about the transit-oriented developments, they
are occurring all over the place, and a lot of them are
occurring naturally. It is just building around the train
station, and that is what people want to be able to do. They
want to live where they want to live, but they know where they
have to work. And the commuter is that one way to get there.
As other colleagues talk about, congestion on the west
coast is horrible, it is no different than in Chicago. It may
just not last 24 hours. So I think increased funding is what we
need.
Mr. Garcia. And does a dedicated funding stream or expanded
eligibility for existing discretionary grants have a role in
the solution?
Mr. Derwinski. Absolutely. We definitely need that type
of--the competitive system right now doesn't really work for us
because, as we have grown from 1 publicly funded commuter rail
to now 32, there is such a big demand out there, and the
competitive system doesn't work. We need some dedicated
funding.
Mr. Garcia. OK. Let's talk about safety, briefly. I know
both commuter and freight have diligently worked to implement
Positive Train Control, PTC, by the 2020 deadline. I share the
views of my counterpart in the Senate, Ranking Member
Duckworth, that PTC is not implemented until every stakeholder
is fully implemented, interoperability being the key.
On July 31st, a few weeks ago, you testified before the
Senate about the ongoing financial and technological challenges
of completing interoperability in major urban areas like
Chicago. Can you comment on any ongoing challenges there have
been with technology companies working on interoperability like
Wabtec, and implementing the full PTC?
Mr. Derwinski. Yes, I can. And I thank the Senate for
inviting me to testify there. As I checked on PTC status even
this week, I have heard--and I will use their terms--there is
an army of people from Wabtec right now currently serving
Chicago. So the message got through to Wabtec, they are
certainly helping.
But the challenges for interoperability are still in front
of us. As we begin testing with all the 13 railroads, we are
going to have to test within Chicago. It is time, and it is
eventually sometimes those software patches. But currently,
right now, Wabtec has increased their manpower in Chicago, and
it is really trying to help us.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, I
yield back.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I recognize Mr. Babin for 5
minutes.
Dr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we appreciate the
witnesses coming today. Thank you all for being here.
A question for all of you. In the implementation process of
the Positive Train Control mandate, have you experienced or do
you see concerns with interoperability?
We will go to you first, Mr. Skoutelas.
Mr. Skoutelas. Sure, thank you. Yes, indeed. As we have had
our many meetings and technical workshops over the past couple
of years, there is no doubt that the complexity of installing
Positive Train Control really comes down to the final stages,
which means the interoperability between the railroads and how
they operate their various systems. They need to be able to
talk to one another. And that is where you are putting together
different systems, different technologies, and protocols that
need to be adapted.
So it has been one of the challenges that our commuter rail
agencies have faced. They are working through it. There is
great progress being made, but there is no question it remains
a challenge as they look to complete this by the 2020 deadline.
Dr. Babin. Thank you very much. And Mr. Derwinski?
Mr. Derwinski. Yes, in Chicago here Metra is not yet
interoperable with any of its freight partners. However, next
month, October, we will be testing with five of those
railroads, and we have plans to finish up those five railroads
by the end of the year, beginning to work with the other
railroads in the beginning of the year.
The good news is that the technologies that we are using
and the software we are using were already developed and
refined in L.A., and so we believe that there will just be some
refinements in Chicago.
Dr. Babin. OK, thank you. Mr. Rogoff?
Mr. Rogoff. I would just add we at Sound Transit were up
and running fully on PTC in October of 2018, ahead of the 2019
deadline. But we had multiple railroads, obviously, as I said
earlier, running on one main line, and not everyone was at the
same level of development. So Amtrak was progressing on at one
pace, BNSF and we and, for that matter, Tacoma Rail, was
progressing on another.
So I will say this. I think Administrator Batory at the FRA
did a good job as we were approaching that deadline of
convening all the commuter railroads and having us not suffer
in silence as we were all trying to figure out these
implementation challenges, but actually learning from each
other on what the industrywide challenges were, and helping us
work through those.
But that is going to be one of the challenges, is when you
put a mandate of multiple railroads sharing the same track,
getting them all to progress at precisely the same pace, it
just doesn't always come together.
Dr. Babin. And then Ms. Wiggins, real quickly, if you don't
mind.
Ms. Wiggins. Yes. It was very complex and difficult, but
interoperability was achieved, principally because our Class I
partners, BNSF and UP, along with Amtrak and Coaster, we all
got in a room together and figured it out.
Dr. Babin. Excellent. Thank you. Many commuter agencies
across the country now contract for services, including
operations and maintenance. Certainly Amtrak is one competitor,
but there are many others.
And what are your thoughts on both your current experience
working with contractors, and the future of competition between
private providers in the commuter arena?
Mr. Skoutelas?
Mr. Skoutelas. Well, what we find in the commuter rail
arena--but we also find it in other modes of transit, as well,
particularly on the bus side, but even light rail--there is a
mix.
Certainly our agencies, I believe, are really looking at
what makes the most sense for their local circumstances, the
requirements that they have to operate. But we have seen with
many of the new commuter rail lines that have opened up in the
past decade, they are privately contracted by choice by the
agencies. And I think that is the right approach. In every
circumstance, not one solution or approach is going to be the
correct one. It has to be adaptable to what makes sense,
locally. And that is what we are seeing, really, in our
experience, in looking at the agencies and how they are
approaching this issue.
Dr. Babin. And one more question for you, if you don't
mind, sir. How would you balance the funding needs of our
highway network with the needs of commuter agencies?
Mr. Skoutelas. Well, we have a very robust and
comprehensive authorization proposal that our association has
been working on for the past 18 months. We think it is
critically important that the issue of the Highway Trust Fund
solvency be addressed. Obviously, the FAST Act expires at the
end of September of next year.
Dr. Babin. Right.
Mr. Skoutelas. We have a detailed set of proposals that
move forward with the highway mode, because we think it is
important to address surface transportation together, not
separately. And so our proposal moves in that fashion.
We are part of a unified approach that our coalition
partners, including AASHTO and ARTBA and the U.S. Chamber, all
support, and that is, for our purposes, increasing the gasoline
tax in the medium term. That would raise more money not only
for highways, but for public transit, as well. And we have
other proposals, as well, that go into the fine details of how
we would accomplish that, and we would be happy to share that
detail with this committee at any time.
Dr. Babin. Right. And I have run out of time, Mr. Chairman,
so I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. The Chair will now recognize Mrs.
Napolitano for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this
important meeting. And I welcome Ms. Stephanie Wiggins, the new
CEO of Metrolink to testify, and I am glad to see you.
It is a major transportation provider for residents and
business in my district. It has two routes, San Bernardino-
Riverside, four stations, and I am very pleased the board
appointed Ms. Wiggins last December as the new CEO. She has a
long track record of effective transportation leadership in
southern California, having worked three out of the five of the
Metrolink member agencies, including San Bernardino County
Transportation Authority, Riverside County Transportation
Commission, and most recently deputy CEO at L.A. County Metro.
We need more women in transportation, ma'am.
I read your testimony with much interest, and you briefly
discuss innovative technologies in grade crossing safety, and
request that Congress and FRA support such programs. I am
concerned with the suicides and pedestrian accidents on the
railroad, and also the homeless situation in the area. Could
you expand a little on that?
Ms. Wiggins. Sure. One of the challenges of operating a
system that covers over 500 route-miles is that we also have
over 400 at-grade crossings in the network. And it is not just
Metrolink operating, as I shared in my testimony. We have the
freight railroads operating, Amtrak operating, so it is 300
trains a day. And we are operating through communities. This
issue of trespasser strikes and grade crossing conflicts is of
deep concern to all of us in the industry. It was reiterated by
FRA's report just last fall.
While every area is unique, geographically, we have been
challenged with homeless encampments in some of our rail right-
of-way that have contributed to trespasser strikes, and
generally, I think all of us would attest to just pedestrian
distraction. Right?
So we are working, looking at innovative technologies, we
are working with Operation Lifesaver. We are working with the
vendor community to come up with different ways to help educate
people to stay off the tracks, but also looking at engineering
and law enforcement resources.
Inevitably, though, it goes down to what the FRA report
highlighted. There is not enough funding to address the needs.
And we are just 456. I am sure my colleagues can talk about
more, but we know that grade separations make a difference, and
additional Federal funding would be needed.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I know the quad gates were rather
expensive, because I know several of my cities wanted to put
them in, and they shuddered when they saw the price on them.
The Operation Lifesaver, is it still volunteer?
Ms. Wiggins. I am sorry, Congresswoman, I didn't hear the
question.
Mrs. Napolitano. Operation Lifesaver. The Operation
Lifesaver, is it still a volunteer operation for employees?
Ms. Wiggins. Yes, it is.
Mrs. Napolitano. And is there any funding for that, so they
can get more information out to the general public?
Ms. Wiggins. We would appreciate and support additional
funding for Operation Lifesaver. We were fortunate to just
receive a grant, again, to help with education and outreach on
railroads--crossing safety. But yes, Operation Lifesaver is a
voluntary nonprofit organization that seeks to partner with
railroads across the country for safety.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, those are very important things in
my area. The other area that our region both benefits from and
is burdened by is the private and public railroad sharing the
same rail lines. What is the current state of your relationship
with the freight railroads?
Ms. Wiggins. We are fortunate in southern California to
have a positive relationship with the freight railroads. Forty-
eight percent of our network is made possible because we share
the corridor with the Class I railroads.
While just as with any family, there can be challenges at
times, the opportunities are we are able to add more frequency
of service, we are able to, when our goals align, advocate for
additional funding, both at the State level and the local
level.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, you have increased ridership. Will
that interfere with the railroads doing their job?
Ms. Wiggins. I think the challenge is that we are all
trying to grow. But I am fortunate that our railroad partners,
particularly, right now, BNSF and Metrolink, are talking about
how we can jointly grow and not conflict with each other.
Fundamentally, that means identifying the capital projects that
are needed and the Federal funding that is needed to help
support them.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, congratulations on getting the work
done on the Positive Train Control. That is very important. I
think we did an extension. I don't think we are going to do
another one.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Wiggins. Thank you.
Mr. Lipinski. The Chair will now recognize Mr. Weber for 5
minutes.
Mr. Weber. Is that all? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I came in a little late, so I missed some of the first part
of your presentation. But I do have some questions. I want to
follow up on Brian Babin's question about working with freight
trains.
I think, Mr. Rogoff, you answered it, but I don't think
everybody else answered that. Or did I miss that?
Let's start with you, Mr. Skoutelas. Are you all seeing a
lot of cooperation between the freight and the passenger
trains?
Mr. Skoutelas. We are. We are seeing a great deal of
cooperation. Let's understand that, obviously, they are
competing interests. On the one hand, the freights need to move
goods and make their revenue targets and such. Our railroads
need to move passengers. And therein lies the challenge that we
have.
But I think, if you heard from my colleagues here, there is
a great deal of cooperation that goes on day-to-day to make
sure that we are doing the very best from the passenger
railroad side to be able to get the time that we need and the
trackage to operate the service.
Certainly in the best of ideal worlds, I think everybody
here would probably say, ``If I had my own dedicated right-of-
way, my own track, we would be better off.'' But that is not--
--
Mr. Weber. How about a two-way highway? Would that be
better? Two tracks on the same path, you know, where you had,
like, cars. We had one going this way, and one coming back.
That would require an expanded right-of-way, obviously. But,
boy, that would be ideal, wouldn't it?
Mr. Skoutelas. Sure, in some instances that might be
possible, given the right-of-way and others. It is not, because
of the limitations of geometry and the land that you have
available to it.
But I think, again, our experiences in working very closely
with our commuter rail agencies, is they do an incredible job
of balancing those needs and making sure that they are doing
their very, very best they can to deliver----
Mr. Weber. Thank you. I am going to jump down to Ms.
Wiggins. I am going to go out of turn here.
I was fascinated. You said that southern California is
notorious for soul-crushing traffic. Is that what you said?
Ms. Wiggins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. Not soul-crashing, but soul-crushing traffic?
Ms. Wiggins. That is correct.
Mr. Weber. OK, 456 at-grade crossings in the network. Is
your only partner--you said you have been partners--41 percent
of the railroad is shared, and then you mentioned BNSF. Is that
the only rail line that is there?
Ms. Wiggins. No. Thank you for allowing me to clarify. It
is BNSF, but also Union Pacific Railroad.
Mr. Weber. Just those two?
Ms. Wiggins. Yes, those two.
Mr. Weber. Do you know what percentage of those?
Ms. Wiggins. Not offhand, but I can get you the
information.
Mr. Weber. OK. I am getting--my expert over here is saying
major percentage.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Weber. So thank you for that, Mrs. Napolitano.
Mr. Derwinski--is that how you say that?
Mr. Derwinski. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. You said you didn't have a lot of freight
interoperability, if I remember your comments. Is that correct?
Mr. Derwinski. Oh, as far as the PTC interoperability.
Mr. Weber. Right.
Mr. Derwinski. We are working with the freights right now
to start that process next month.
Mr. Weber. Do you have a date?
Mr. Derwinski. Next month we intend to start five of the
railroads that we are going to be interoperable with, and be
finished with that interoperability testing by the end of this
year.
Mr. Weber. By the end of--the testing by the end of this
year, but how about operability?
Mr. Derwinski. Well, and then that--after you finish the
testing, then you are certified interoperable. Yes.
Mr. Weber. OK. All right. Well, thank you for that.
Let me go to Ms.--stay with you for a minute, Mr.
Derwinski. You referenced the 2016 GAO report on Amtrak's
implementation of PRIIA. Have you noticed an improvement in
that accounting transparency since enactment of the FAST Act?
Mr. Derwinski. Not really. We have been, obviously, working
with Amtrak on negotiations at Chicago Union Station, and
transparency has been one of the key topics. We just want to do
for the Illinois taxpayers the right thing, and it is just
making sure we are paying the bills we should pay.
Mr. Weber. Well, you have the camera and the microphone
right now. So what recommendations do you have to improve
Amtrak's accounting?
Mr. Derwinski. Well, I would say, once again, the GAO
report had recommendations. I would ask this committee to help
Amtrak enforce those recommendations for transparency.
Mr. Weber. None that you care to highlight?
Mr. Derwinski. Specifically, just once again----
Mr. Weber. Just what is in the report? OK.
Mr. Derwinski. Sir, I think the big thing is, when we talk
with Amtrak, there are line items that have a lot of vagueness
in it. And then, when you question into those line items
without getting very specific, you find out maybe there are
bills from other parts of the country.
Mr. Weber. OK, fair enough. I want to jump over to Mr.
Rogoff now, if I may.
Given your experience in the administration, both at FTA
and OST, can you explain the benefits of streamlining project
delivery? What are some of the areas you would recommend for
further streamlining?
Mr. Rogoff. Well, I thank you for the question. I have,
like I said, 10 specific recommendations in my testimony.
But I think, as a transit provider, one of the frustrations
we have is our expanded service, by definition, is
environmentally beneficial. So it can be a frustration when the
``environmental process'' is the thing that slows us down, and
I think it is--it would be worth----
Mr. Weber. It is kind of an antithesis, isn't it?
Mr. Rogoff. A little bit. But, you know, part of that is
just about consulting with communities, and we want to consult
fully with communities.
But there are some things, you know, that we are putting in
there. We have got two different requirements, for example, on
how we comply with looking out for historic preservation, one
under section 106, one under 4(f). Surely those can be
harmonized.
I think one of the important things I noted in my testimony
is there seems to be a drive in Congress to get agencies to act
more quickly on environmental permits, and we agree with that.
At the same time, the staff ranks of those agencies have been
allowed to diminish. And I am not sure it is reasonable to
think that we can get faster action out of agencies--I used to
head one of these agencies--and still expect them to be able to
do it with smaller and smaller staffs.
So I think there really should be some ground-up looking at
do they have the staffing complement they need to engage with
us early, and issue permits early.
Mr. Weber. OK, thank you for that. I am out of time.
I appreciate you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I will now recognize myself. I am
recognizing myself for 10 minutes to start a second round, the
second 5 minutes. So if I can do that, I will do that. Or else
we will see what the transcript says. I wanted to make sure my
colleagues had a chance to ask questions, and a lot of good
questions there.
I sort of feel like I have--I go through this a lot, and I
have gone through this with Mr. Derwinski and others at Metra.
I talked about the BNSF line that I will take when I am going
into downtown Chicago. Here are a few of the things that have
happened in the last couple of years that have caused major
disruptions: a train derailed coming out of the yard, blocking
multiple tracks at Union Station; a computer problem, which we
won't get into, that Amtrak--mistake caused, that shut down all
signals for 3 rush hours; a freight train dragging utility
poles across the tracks, and blocking the tracks.
That is just a few of the things that have caused major
disruptions. There is falling concrete at Chicago Union Station
that causes issues. There are a lot of problems out there. And
I think there is a lot more help that some of us--we can help
with here in providing more funding for commuter rail. Commuter
rail is certainly--it is growing very, very fast, and I think
more than other forms of public transportation. Though I think
we need to support all of it more.
But I want to start out by asking--we have talked a little
bit about Amtrak here. And this is not an easy question, but I
am going to throw it out there. So what can--what would you
like to see Congress do when it comes to your ability to deal
with Amtrak?
Mr. Derwinski, you started talking about some of the issues
that you are having with Chicago Union Station. There are other
issues with Amtrak. There is the Heritage Corridor line that
Metra has that only has seven trains total during the day. The
demand is great. I have tried to get tickets between Metra and
Amtrak so that it provides a little more service locally, but
that has not been worked out.
So let me start with you, Mr. Derwinski. What would you
like Congress to do that would help you in your negotiations
and your work with Amtrak?
Mr. Derwinski. Well, specifically, sir, on the Chicago
Union Station, right now we are in the STB with Amtrak, trying
to work out an access agreement. But it has been a struggle. We
are 89 percent of the train movements in Union Station, yet we
have really no say at the table. So it has been--nothing is for
sale, per Amtrak. We understand that. What we are looking for
is a partnership where there is--the responsible parties can
actually meet each other at a table on a normal basis, and try
to work out problems.
Now, I want to say very clearly, on a day-to-day basis the
local people on the ground do deal with all these problems that
you discussed. Some of those problems were major, they really
affected tens of thousands of people. And there are minor
problems that happen on a normal basis. And the local people,
Metra, Amtrak, BNSF, they are all working together to make that
stuff happen.
As far as the growth goes--and the Heritage Corridor line
that you brought up--the real problem with the Heritage
Corridor line is Metra can't really provide extra service out
there because of the six freight tracks we have to cross at
grade. It is just the infrastructure of the system right now.
Once again, create projects that would actually start
elevating one railroad over another railroad, and start
creating these super-highways for passenger trains is really
what needs to start being looked at within----
Mr. Lipinski. All right, we will get more to that. I want
to see if anyone else has anything to say about Amtrak.
Mr. Rogoff?
Mr. Rogoff. I think it is important to note that, you know,
both Mr. Derwinski and I, if--we have very similar on-time
performance levels. When things work well, they work very, very
well. But when they work poorly--as in the instances that you
pointed out, Mr. Chairman--things go really badly really
quickly, and a lot of commuters are delayed.
One of the things that goes wrong is when Amtrak isn't
running on time. Amtrak being an interstate operator, when
they, for example, send Coast Starlight trains into the State
of Washington, they may already be hours late, having left
California and Oregon.
Getting Amtrak to run on time helps us run on time. Also,
if they arrive late, BNSF has to, through its dispatching
method, still get them through the system. And that not only
clogs up BNSF's movements, they clog up our passenger
movements.
There has been a serious deterioration of on-time
performance of Amtrak trains. And I think the committee should
well look at that, in terms--and see if their priority that has
been granted them in the law for operating over freight right-
of-way is really being honored. Anything that would help them
move a bit more on time would help the rest of us that share
the track.
Mr. Lipinski. And Ms. Wiggins, could you tell us--anything
to add? You don't need to, but--OK.
I will--did you have something, Ms. Wiggins?
Ms. Wiggins. No, I----
Mr. Lipinski. OK. I want to be clear. I want Amtrak to work
well. I am fully supportive of Amtrak and Amtrak's service. But
I think there are some issues here that, obviously, have been
mentioned.
I want to move on to working with the freight railroads.
Again, I am looking for anything that anyone would recommend
that they would like to see Congress do when it comes to
commuter railroads' ability to work with the freight railroads.
Does anyone have any suggestions on that?
Mr. Derwinski. I will take that first. As I said earlier,
when I was talking about the Heritage, that is one of the
nature--the problems with Chicago. All the freight trains that
we have to work with--700 freight trains a day with 700
passenger trains a day on the same network, when they cross at
grade, when--it is like a stop sign. It is not a stop light, it
is a stop sign. And when the fast car goes through, the
passenger train 20 feet long, it has to then wait sometimes for
up to almost a 2\1/2\-mile freight train.
So separating these two elements inside this tight urban
network is challenging. Adding extra lanes of traffic isn't
always an option, just because land isn't available. So,
really, it is about separating these things.
Eventually, it is also about how the trains integrate with
each other. As Mr. Rogoff pointed out, that sometimes happens
all the--I mean it actually happens all the time. A freight
train is out of pocket, a passenger train is out of pocket, and
that throws off these heavy, dense rush hours.
Now, for the most part, freights work with us inside our
rush hours, and that is where, obviously, the domino effect can
really, really hinder us.
Mr. Lipinski. Did you want to talk at all about issues in
Lake County?
Mr. Derwinski. In Lake County we are stagnated on growth
right now. We just had recently an opportunity to look at a
reverse commute market. It is up and running, but our ability
right now to add an extra train was basically a no. The current
infrastructure right now, the owner says no. So we did have,
basically, a little bit of a frustration there, where we are
trying to grow the system, we are trying to take care of our
operating needs, but we are hindered on that.
Mr. Lipinski. All right.
Mr. Rogoff?
Mr. Rogoff. Well, I would just say, all of our
conversations with BNSF are always collaborative, cooperative,
but also expensive ones. And I say that they are expensive
because when we want to introduce additional frequencies to
meet passenger demand, the test for BNSF is what infrastructure
investments will we make, the general taxpayer, to their
railroad to help eliminate the likelihood that our trains are
going to intersect. And that is to make sure that freight
movements can serve the ports, and also serve us.
I think Congress can take a position that recognizes that a
robust and functional freight network is inherently beneficial,
even though they are privately held, especially if we are
talking about climate change, especially if we are talking
about decongestion, and what we can do to keep both trucks
moving on the highway, but freight moving across the country.
At this current juncture, it is all on us, Sound Transit,
to make the investments to deconflict our commuter trains with
the freight trains. We could get Federal grants for that, but I
also believe that there may be a way of getting into the
funding mix, a conversation of how we can make our freight
network more hospitable to all, both them and us.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Any other comments on that one?
I will then move on--I just started 10 minutes, correct?
All right, I just wanted to make sure. I have been going that
long.
I just--I ask those questions--those are more difficult
questions, because I think we have covered a lot of the
important issues here. The cost of PTC--and we need to have
PTC. You know, the mandate is in place, we are going to hold
everyone to that. But I think you have all made clear how much
that is going to cost, and that comes at the expense of other
capital projects.
Mr. Skoutelas had talked about $1 billion for PTC, I
believe, over 6 years, $1.5 billion for grade crossing safety.
And CRISI, in addition to section 130, I think that is also
critical grade crossing safety.
I would probably go for--we want more than that. I think
there are things--grade separations can be very expensive, but
those are really the most safe ways to go, in general,
increasing the amount that we give for public transit.
But I think it is important in this hearing that--like I
say, I wanted to have this hearing because it has been a decade
since we had a hearing solely on commuter rail. And it is
becoming more and more important in so many communities across
the country. And I think it is important that this community,
this subcommittee, focus on what can be done for commuter rail
for all the reasons that you have talked about here.
So I appreciate very much all of your testimony, and I
think I owe it to--I am going to yield back, and I am going to
owe it to Mr. Weber, if--I will give you 5 minutes if you want
to ask any more questions.
All right. So thank you, Mr. Weber. I want to thank all of
our witnesses--as I go and look for my script, so I say all the
right things here at the end that I need to say.
Mr. Weber. Do you want me to take those 5 minutes?
Mr. Lipinski. No, that is all right.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lipinski. I want to thank all of our witnesses for your
testimony, as I said. This is an issue that I have spent many
hours going through, issues with commuter rail in the Chicago
area. And I not only ride it, I hear from my constituents about
it often every time there is an issue. I hear from members of
my family when there are issues.
But I think it is critically important, especially as we
are looking at what are we going to do to get cars off the
road. Southern California, talked about the congestion there,
but I will give you Chicago's congestion--put it up against
that any day.
And critical also for our environment, I think. And I think
we really need in this reauthorization of the FAST Act to
seriously not just consider, but put the money up for commuter
rail.
So I am going to ask unanimous consent that the record of
today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses
can provide answers to any questions that may be submitted to
them in writing.
And I ask unanimous consent that the record remain open for
15 days for any additional comments and information submitted
by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's
hearing.
Without any objection, so ordered.
If no other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chairman Lipinski and Ranking Member Crawford, for
calling today's hearing to examine the challenges and opportunities
facing commuter railroads.
For many people across the country, commuter rail networks serve as
a vital link between their home and their place of employment. For
others, they help enable connections across communities to shop, dine,
and enhance citizens' quality of life. All told, according to the most
recent data available, it was estimated that more than 500 million
passenger trips occur annually on commuter rail networks.
It is important that we recognize the Federal partnership that
exists to allow these commuter rail networks to flourish. According to
FTA data, commuter rail has the lowest cost per passenger mile across
the rail system. This allows commuter rail agencies to make smart
decisions by investing in communities, enabling economic growth, and
connecting people with new opportunities.
Of course, the benefits of commuter rail extend beyond the
passengers who take it. By serving as an alternative to driving, these
systems help to take cars off our congested roadways, which reduces
travel times and helps keep pollutants out of the air. If we are to
tackle the catastrophic consequences of climate change, the benefits of
transitioning commuters from the roadways into more environmentally-
conscious ways of transportation must be considered.
The commuter rail agencies that we have here today show how diverse
these systems are across the county. As of 2017, there were 29 commuter
rail systems operating in the United States, helping to bring
connections to communities across the country. While many experience
similar challenges, the uniqueness of each system operator's geography
and communities is different. Risks may be different, including the
risks posed by the destruction of our environment, in Illinois and
Southern California.
Many of my constituents have come to rely on the Tri-Met system,
and enabling that system to succeed, in the face of climate risks, is
important to me.
So, with the reauthorization of the commuter rail program on the
horizon, today we want to hear from our witnesses what their needs are
and how the Federal government can continue this partnership. Investing
in commuter rail systems is a good use of Federal dollars, as the
returns help to provide opportunity, convenience, and growth to our
communities.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Arkansas, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
Thank you, Chairman Lipinski, for holding this hearing. I
appreciate our panel of witnesses being here.
Today, we are going to learn about some of the challenges and
opportunities faced by our nation's commuter railroads.
Commuter rail service is primarily designed to address a high
volume of passengers requiring daily travel to and from work in city
centers, operating in metropolitan and suburban areas and usually
having morning and evening peak period operations.
Commuter rail systems can be a cost-effective transportation
alternative for longer commutes to downtown from outlying suburbs.
While we have a number of agencies that operate their own services,
others contract with Amtrak or private sector companies to do so. These
private sector providers have helped lower costs, improve services, and
increase ridership.
I'm sure there are best practices to be learned from those
agencies.
As this Committee prepares to reauthorize surface transportation
programs, I look forward to hearing about the challenges and
opportunities ahead for commuter railroads, as well as best practices
to improve service, realize efficiencies, and increase fare revenue.
Thank you again to our Chairman and witnesses, and with that I
yield back.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is with great appreciation that I thank the Chairman for holding
this hearing today, as it allows us to hear from a transportation
association as well as commuter railroads about their challenges they
face and any opportunities that can be addressed through legislation.
For more than 25 years in representing Dallas, I have worked
alongside local leaders in many communities to develop new and improve
existing transportation systems that benefit people all across Texas.
My state of Texas has faced large population growth in the past
decade. Regional commuter railroads give riders an alternative
transportation option to driving on roads and increasing congestion. We
need to continue to find alternative transportation options.
In my district, we have a commuter railroad called the Trinity
Railway Express that connects riders from downtown Dallas to downtown
Fort Worth.
In 2018, The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) awarded the
Trinity Railway Express a $9.5 million grant to assist implementing a
positive train control (PTC) back office system, interoperability
testing and training for workers.
The fact that only one Federally-certified company had developed
the PTC technology and employee training was a challenge Trinity
Railway Express overcame, in meeting the December 2018 deadline.
It is imperative the multiple trains sharing the same railroad
track be able to communicate with each other to avoid collisions, which
is part of the PTC technology.
I look forward to hearing the testimony from the witnesses about
the progress of interoperability among multiple passenger and freight
railroad operators that share the same track.
I am interested to learn when we should expect PTC to be fully
implemented, and what challenges, if any, exist to full implementation.
Thank you. I yield back.
Statement of Ray B. Chambers, President, Association of Independent
Passenger Rail Operators (AIPRO), Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Peter A. DeFazio
AIPRO appreciates the opportunity to present its views on commuter
rail priorities for the future. This is the first such hearing in many
years and it is important. Despite the acrimony and partisan
polarization taking place in American politics and Congress today, it
is clear from the opening statements and testimony submitted that this
Subcommittee is launching a true bipartisan effort to enact sound
transportation legislation that includes passenger rail. Passenger rail
is the forgotten mode in American transportation. This Subcommittee may
the very best team in Congress to advance passenger rail in general. We
advocate you vigorously pursue the issue with an intense focus on
Commuter and State Supported Intercity Rail Priorities.
Our members are Herzog, First Transit, Keolis, and Transdev. The
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way/Teamsters is an Associate Member.
AIPRO companies carry surface passengers on everything from traditional
bus and ADA paratransit, to autonomous vans to streetcar to commuter
rail to intercity passenger. They also build and maintain track,
dispatch commuter trains and provide all manner of rail services. These
companies are a major player in American commuter rail running two
hundred-fifty thousand trains each year.\1\ This commuter model that
has developed rapidly over the last two decades embraces competition
between providers assuring the best service at the lowest cost. We
submit this developing commuter model is the prototype for the
passenger rail future of America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rail Passenger service today--Commuter rail systems deliver
about 490 million passenger trips a year. The AIPRO companies (1st,
Herzog, Keolis, Transdev), Amtrak and Bombardier are among the rivals
who compete for these operations. The AIPRO members provide 80 million
of those trips. Amtrak serves approximately 32 million passengers in
its intercity service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The national hodge-podge of passenger service today is an
embarrassment by international standards. It grows out of a complex
150-year legacy that has been undermined by highway and air policy and
underfunded in modern times. Rail has become an afterthought in federal
transportation investment. Population growth, carbon emissions and
urban congestion cry out for significant change. AIPRO will soon
propose a comprehensive Rail Title for the reauthorization of the FAST
Act. It will make recommendations regarding commuter rail. This
document will be circulated to all key stakeholders including host
railroads, labor, the Secretary, FTA, FRA and key committees in
Congress. It will call for robust sustainable federal investment that
encourages private participation, increased competition for providers
of corridor passenger rail service and reform of liability exposure.
Specifically, we will suggest:
The Future of Passenger Rail Funding--We are in accord with the
funding recommendations of APTA, the Rail Passenger Association and the
Commuter Rail Coalition. In our view there should be a dedicated
formula funding stream for both commuter and state supported (regional)
intercity passenger operations. We will make a specific proposal for an
INFRA Passenger fund (as there is now an INFRA freight fund) that will
be available to commuter and state authorities for the regional
intercity service they support. Every state will be eligible for
planning and rail investment funding.\2\ It will include Pilot Projects
to demonstrate ways of expanding passenger service through public and
private cooperation and best practices for managed competition by
states and commuter agencies. The Pilot Projects will also seek to
create ``best bid'' practices in the competitive process. They will
provide new data from both private operators and Amtrak for creating
greater transparency in passenger costing. This will establish a
baseline for understanding passenger rail costs. We will also propose
new mechanisms for value capture transportation-oriented development
(TOD) based on legislation introduced in a previous Congress by Dan
Lipinski and Tom Petri. We believe this new approach to TOD will
attract a growing ridership with pulsating lifestyle opportunity within
these regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Economic Corridors Comment--The Cascade Corridor between
Portland, Seattle and Vancouver is an advanced in planning. But there
are many others--and they need to be defined. States like Hawaii, that
have no intercity passenger rail, will receive funding for commuter
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liability Reform--Liability exposure is a significant barrier to
passenger rail expansion and continuously chills projects. We believe
the USDOT should play a stronger role in confronting this complex
arena. We are pleased that the FTA and FRA have initiated an informal
dialogue chaired by the Deputy FRA Administrator and FTA counsel. In
the coming weeks we will be recommending specific reforms into this
forum and the Congress. We believe there should be a framework for
pooling arrangements that would give all passenger service providers
across the board national coverage. We will also suggest catastrophic
protection for passengers and operators such as exists in the nuclear
field.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constrained commuter growth--access to Amtrak facilities--In
addition to the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak owns scattered track,
stations and other facilities across the country that are often not
central to their core operation. Commuter operations depend on access
to this Amtrak infrastructure. In fact, commuter agencies often use 50%
to 70% of the passenger capacity on Amtrak owned infrastructure. Amtrak
treats that infrastructure as private property to extract maximum
revenue from public authorities and others. Amtrak accounting is
opaque.\4\ This makes it hard for the commuter agencies to quickly
close deals in a transparent way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Amtrak Accounting--A GAO review of Amtrak practices is damning.
It points to significant weaknesses and deficiencies that cloud
transparency that cloud negotiations in a fog. US Government
Accountability Office, (Publication No. GAO-16-67), January 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIPRO suggests a zero-based review of those assets. They were
largely acquired by US taxpayers and should be reorganized for maximum
benefit to all public users. We believe the commuter and state
authorities should have fair and equal access to these facilities, and
we will be putting forward specific suggestions and legislative
proposals. Right now, there are a number of ideas on the table. They
range from better access to the Surface Transportation Board for quick
dispute resolution; to new authority for the Secretary of
Transportation to settle disputes; transfer of shared assets to the
Secretary who will create a new DOT entity that will manage the assets
and make them available to public users on a fair and reasonable basis.
We ask the House Railroad Subcommittee leadership, in the words of
METRA Chair Jim Derwinski, to pursue ``mechanisms that level the
playing field between Amtrak and publicly-owned commuter rail
agencies.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Testimony of Jim Derwinski, CEO Chicago Metra, House Railroad
Subcommittee, September 24, 2019, p5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase private operations through competition--The commuter
agencies that now select service providers through competition provide
the model for the future of both urban and state supported regional
passenger rail service. One state, Connecticut, has already applied
this to an intercity corridor. We believe the Administration should
advance the competitive agenda in a vigorous fashion. Both PRIIA and
the FAST Act encourage competition and AIPRO will be putting forward
specific legislative proposals that will promote the competition model
through pilot projects and federal finance requirements.
Harmonize the Federal approach to urban and intercity passenger
rail--It is a fact that the growth of commuter and state supported
intercity is a bright spot. Northeast corridor and long-distance train
ridership are essentially flat. The reality is commuter operations and
intercity state supported passenger corridors operate under separate
authority but the two are much the same in terms of service offered. On
both riderships is also growing. All of these urban and intercity
corridors get people from point to point in a matter of hours. These
trains often carry the same passengers. Further passengers could care
less whether they are on an intercity or commuter operation. The trains
run over the same track and use similar equipment. Passengers don't
care whether they are on a commuter or a state supported intercity
regional train. Safety and funding are primary concerns of both. The
two have multiple common concerns including a shortage of passenger
equipment. The two, both commuter and state supported intercity, are
the best hope for the future. The term Commuter Rail itself may suggest
limitations--these trains do far more than carry commuters just as the
state supported intercity trains do carry commuters.
We should seek better solutions that create consistency between
commuter and state supported intercity. For example, as short distance
intercity passenger service expands, specific commuter authorities may
have the staff and resources to best manage state supported intercity
corridors through such mechanisms as Joint Powers Authorities.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Joint Powers Authorities--California provides an excellent
model for coordinating oversight of both commuter operations and state
supported intercity routes through the creation of Joint Powers
Authorities with sufficient resources and professional staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, commuter trains should dovetail with the state supported
intercity passenger operations. The relations between them should be
harmonized to the best overall advantage of the railroad passenger. In
both cases expanding private sector participation through competition
should be a paramount goal.
A New Rail Title for the FAST Act Reauthorization--In the final
analysis we would urge the Subcommittee to play a key role in producing
a New Rail Title that will create a National Urban and Intercity
Passenger Network of which we can be proud. There must be a cooperative
partnership to provide oversight in reorienting our passenger system.
USDOT \7\, urban Commuter Authorities, States (intercity shorter
corridors), along with an array of public and private stakeholders will
be at the heart of transforming our fractured rail service into
something better.\8\ The goal will be high performance service.\9\
There should be new emphasis on inclusion of private service providers
and commercial finance. The goal will be a National Corridor Network
providing superior rail service that is highway competitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ USDOT--The USDOT functions need to be reviewed and further
rationalized to produce maximum passenger service. FRA and FTA together
have major responsibility for commuter rail and FRA for state supported
intercity service. We will propose FRA play a stronger role in
strengthening our long-distance network which consists of 15 corridors.
As rationalization takes place the traditional labor arrangements on
intercity service must be preserved and agreements with host railroads
must be through commercial negotiation not compulsion.
\8\ Not a New Idea--This concept for oversight in the restructuring
of the US passenger rail system is not particularly new. The Amtrak
Reform Council, created by Act of Congress, made excellent
recommendations for reform in 2002. A former US Under Secretary of
Transportation recently called for a national passenger system ``made
up of strong regional networks . . . (which would be composed of)
federal and state partnerships (that could make decisions) whether
actual services would be outsourced to private companies.'' Quotes
taken from remarks of Emil Frankel, Passenger and Freight RRs Unite
Conference, Washington, D.C., March 14, 2019.
\9\ High Speed Rail (HSR) Comment--America is not Europe or Asia so
the path forward over mostly private rights of way will be unique. High
Performance Rail, not HSR, is the principal objective. However, there
will be HSR corridors within the national network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A New Rail Title can transform the transportation paradigm so as to
reduce the nation's congestion and carbon footprint while binding area
economies. This proposed new rail program is not aspirational; it is
the practical next step. Further, it must be bipartisan. We look
forward to working with you on this agenda.
Letter of September 23, 2019, from Jerry Boles, President, Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen, et al., Submitted for the Record by Hon. Peter
A. DeFazio
September 23, 2019.
Hon. Daniel Lipinski,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
RE: September 24, 2019 Hearing on Challenges and Opportunities for
Commuter Railroads
Dear Chairman Lipinski:
The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division-IBT
(BMWED); Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS); and International
Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers-
Mechanical Division (SMART-MD) represent Maintenance of Way Employes,
Signalmen, and Sheet Metal Workers on the freight railroads, Amtrak and
all major commuter railroads. The organizations support improvement and
expansion of commuter rail transportation, but the organizations are
concerned about the adverse impact of Federal capital spending in
support of commuter rail service on railroad workers. The organizations
also oppose efforts by some entities to provide commuter rail service,
acquire portions of the interstate rail system for commuter rail
service, and/or to transition from commuter rail service to intercity
passenger rail service without application of Federal railroad labor
and employment laws such as the Railway Labor Act, Railroad Retirement
Act, and Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act to the employees who
perform traditional core railroad work.
The nation's large commuter rail systems, and certainly all
interstate commuter rail systems, are covered by the federal railroad
labor and employment laws, whether service is provided by government
agencies or private operators. Intercity passenger rail service
provided by Amtrak, as well as intra-state intercity service that is
part of the general system of railroad transportation, whether provided
by government agencies or private entities, are covered the Federal
railroad labor and employment laws. Coverage under these laws has
enabled railroad workers to achieve and maintain decent wages,
benefits, and working conditions; permitted rail service providers to
recruit and retain skilled workers for core traditional railroad
functions and minimized disruptions of service due to disputes between
employers and employees. However, certain proposals and plans, that
require Federal involvement and funding have the potential to both
undercut the wages, benefits and working conditions of railroad
workers, and upset the labor relations stability provided by these
laws.
use of federal grants to create or expand commuter rail service, impact
of such grants on rail workers, and application of employee protections
to affected rail workers
Many plans for creation or expansion of commuter rail service
depend on Federal grants. Some states and state agencies have utilized
hundreds of millions of dollars Federal Transit Act grants to acquire
railroad lines that are part of the general interstate system of
railroad transportation for commuter service, with the lines still used
by the vendor railroads for interstate freight service. While the
grants are subject to employee protections under 49 U.S.C.
Sec. 5333(b), those protections do not apply to employees of freight
railroads who do not already perform work in support of commuter rail
service. So, freight employees who worked on the acquired lines (which,
again, would still be used for interstate freight service) have been
treated as ineligible for the protections. There is no reason for
exclusion of the workers who will be most directly affected by a line
sale from the protections imposed in connection with Federal funding
for that line sale. There are also those who advocate blending or
cross-utilization of funding so an FTA transit grant could be used to
build or upgrade railroad lines; an FRA rail grant could be used to add
a second track or sidings for a rail line that might be used for a
combination of freight, intercity passenger and commuter service; or an
FTA grant could be used to build an intermodal facility that is used by
buses, commuter trains, and intercity passenger rail. There can
certainly be practical reasons for increased flexibility in the use of
grants denominated for use for specific modes of transportation; but
any employee who is adversely affected by a grant should be covered by
employee protections attached to the grant, not just those who work in
the mode of transportation for which the specific funding mechanism was
designed.
use of federal grants to convert commuter rail systems into intercity
passenger rail systems
Another concern is the potential for the use of Federal grants to
extend commuter rail operations, so they effectively become intercity
passenger rail operations. Various parties seek to extend intra-state
commuter rail transportation that operates on the interstate general
rail system lines well beyond the range of local commuting areas, to
effectively become intercity passenger rail service. Certain states
seek to use Federal grants to, or to knit together disparate commuter
rail operations which combined would constitute intercity passenger
service, but they want to keep the entities performing the core rail
functions for such services from being covered under the Federal
railroad labor and employment laws. Also, they seek to use Federal
grants to fund these extensions. This issue was partially addressed in
the FAST Act, which provided that FRA capital grants could not be used
for commuter rail transportation. Certain parties seek to eliminate
that provision. BRS, BMWED, and SMART-MD believe that if a state or
agency seeks to alter the nature of a commuter rail service, so that it
effectively becomes intercity passenger service on interstate lines, it
is not appropriate for the service to remain outside the coverage of
the Federal railroad labor and employment laws that are applicable to
intercity passenger rail service. The organizations recognize that non-
rail contractors may be used for certain functions, particularly in
accordance with a collective bargaining agreement. However, traditional
core railroad functions should be performed by railroad workers when an
intra-state commuter service on interstate lines is extended to become
intercity passenger service. Also, it is certainly not appropriate for
Federal funds to be used to facilitate evasion of the Federal railroad
labor and employment laws.
acquisitions of portions of the interstate rail system for commuter
rail service, with the acquired lines and employees working on the
lines removed from coverage of the federal railroad labor and
employment laws
State agencies and local governments have acquired portions of the
general interstate system of railroad transportation for commuter rail
service, when the acquired lines will still be used for interstate
freight service, but neither the acquiring entity nor any contract rail
service provider for that entity becomes a rail carrier subject to the
Federal railroad labor and employment laws. In a series of inconsistent
decisions the STB has held that neither its approval nor exemption from
approval (either of which would result in rail carrier status) was
required because the agency lacked jurisdiction (which meant that the
agency would not have jurisdiction over a piece of the interstate
system), then that the agency had jurisdiction, but declined to
exercise it; and then that it was unnecessary to exercise jurisdiction
because the vendor carrier was still deemed the owner of the line for
the STB's purposes (which surely surprised the vendor). In such cases
the acquiring entities typically hire rail service providers who are
not rail carriers, which means that pieces of the interstate rail
system that are still used for interstate freight service (and possibly
intercity passenger service) are no longer covered by the Federal
railroad labor and employment laws; and the railroad workers cannot or
do not want to continue working on those lines for such service under
those circumstances. Often, federal grants have been used to fund these
acquisitions.
Again, SMART-MD, BMWED, and BRS support the expansion of commuter
rail transportation, but not when it results in removal of pieces of
the interstate system, and with those who perform traditional core rail
functions removed from the Federal railroad labor and employment laws.
Also, they certainly oppose the use of Federal funds to accomplish that
result. Fixing this problem will not necessarily mean that state and
local government entities, will have to become rail carriers under the
ICCTA and the Federal railroad labor and employment laws (some states
have laws that bar them from becoming rail carriers). Before the recent
confusing decisions, the STB's predecessor (the ICC) held that if a
state entity acquired a physical line, but all rail responsibilities
remained with a rail carrier, there was no need for ICC approval of a
transaction. A return to that policy would address the problems
identified by BMWED, BRS, and SMART-MD, without requiring state
entities to become rail carriers under the ICCTA and the Federal
railroad labor and employment laws. Also, as before, the rail carrier
entities could still contract-out work to non-carrier entities
consistent with applicable collective bargaining agreements.
The organizations appreciate your past efforts to maintain good
railroad industry jobs, and they look forward to engaging with you and
members of the Subcommittee to facilitate the growth of commuter rail
transportation with railroad workers retaining their rights, and their
strong wages, benefits and working conditions, under the Federal
railroad labor and employment laws.
Respectfully,
Jerry Boles,
President, Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen.
Fred N. Simpson,
Brotherhood of Maintenance
of Way Employes
Division-IBT.
C.A. Iannone,
Director, International
Association of Sheet
Metal, Air, Rail and
Transportation Workers-
Mechanical Division.
[all]