BEFORE THE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS
*****
May 20, 1998
9:30 a.m.
*****
Presented by
Thomas F. Prendergast
President
Long Island Rail Road
*****
American Public Transit Association
1201 New York Avenue, N. W.
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 898-4000
APTA is a nonprofit international association of over 1,100 member organizations including transit systems; planning, design, construction and finance firms; product and service providers; academic institutions, and state associations and departments of transportation. APTA members serve the public interest by providing safe, efficient and economical transit services and products. Over ninety percent of persons using public transportation in the United States and Canada are served by APTA members.
Good Morning, Chairman Franks and Members of the Subcommittee. My name
is Thomas F. Prendergast, and I serve as President of the Long Island Rail Road, the
nation’s oldest and largest commuter railroad. I am also Vice Chair of the American
Public Transit Association’s Commuter Rail Committee and I am here today testifying
on behalf of APTA.
The safe operation of the nation’s public transit systems is a
particular concern to me. In one of my first jobs in the transit industry I worked at UMTA
– or FTA as we now know it – as a System Safety Specialist. In that capacity I
was involved in the development of safety policies and programs for the nation’s rail
transit systems. I have continued to have a strong personal interest in rail safety issues
and have served as Chair of APTA Commuter Rail Safety Committee for the last two years. I
represent APTA on the Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC).
As you know, over 1 million people a day and 370 million annually ride
the nation’s 15 commuter railroads. The safety of those riders, and equally
important, the safety of our employees, is of paramount importance to every commuter
railroad. We are working hard to make sure that we not only comply with the FRA’s
safety regulations, but that we are in the lead, voluntarily implementing new procedures
and technologies that will enhance the safety of our passenger operations. While we are
pleased with our current safety record, we are constantly seeking to do better.
In the last several weeks you have heard testimony from two of my
fellow CEOs, Shirley DeLibero and Jerry Hanas, about many of the safety initiatives that
the commuter railroads are undertaking, and about our reactions to the
Administration’s proposed Rail Safety bill.
The entire House Railroad Subcommittee, Chairman Franks, Ranking Member
Wise and the Subcommittee staff, have gone to great lengths to gather a wealth of
information regarding railroad safety. You are to be commended. Hearing from such a broad
spectrum of views will serve the Subcommittee well in its consideration of the federal
role in railroad safety.
In my testimony I will focus on the topic of today’s hearing:
FRA’s regulatory process, and the experience that the nation’s commuter
railroads have had in working with the FRA in the rulemaking process.
APTA and its commuter rail members appreciate the new, open manner in
which the FRA is now doing business, and we support the continuation of the FRA’s
consensus-based rulemaking efforts. This is in contrast to the prior regulatory
environment, which was adversarial and not very helpful. FRA Administrator Molitoris has
successfully put constructive "reinventing government" concepts into practice
through a cooperative RSAC process, emphasizing face-to face discussions among the
affected parties. We support this approach because it results in regulations that are well
thought out, which can be implemented effectively, and which will truly result in safer
railroad operations.
Of course the consensus approach takes time and resources, and it is
unrealistic to expect FRA to deliver completed rulemaking efforts overnight. Merely
getting all of the affected parties – rail labor, rail management and rail equipment
suppliers – together and participating in the process takes considerable time and
resources. And finding ways to get these parties to agree is often an even larger
challenge.
The focus of these rulemaking efforts are complex technical issues,
requiring considerable research and analysis. The current efforts of RSAC working groups
provide clear examples of the time and effort required to produce new rules:
- The Locomotive Crashworthiness Group has been considering ways to strengthen railroad
equipment to withstand the effects of a collision and to design interiors to minimize
personal injury. Development of the standard depends upon computer modeling about how
vehicles perform under various crash scenarios. When that computer modeling work is done,
we feel that real world crash testing will need to be performed and we are working with
the FRA to move this critical test program forward.
- The process of computer modeling validated by testing has proven effective in enhancing
automobile and airline safety, and the railroad industry should be no different. Given the
$2 million plus cost of a new locomotive – equipment that could potentially be in
service for 40 years, it’s important that we do it right the first time.
- Similarly, the Positive Train Control Working Group is developing standards and a rule
for a technology that is still evolving. It would be very shortsighted to quickly complete
a rulemaking effort just so that something is on the books. Since this technology involves
a significant investment of funds and is the next generation of rail safety enhancements
that will be in use decades from now, it is imperative that we learn from the current
demonstration projects where positive train control systems are being tried out before
making final decisions.
In terms of constructive criticism of the consensus-based process, in
our view FRA’s resources are stretched too thin to support the extensive rulemaking
process that is currently underway. We have frequently found that additional data and
testing are needed to support rulemaking decisions – data that can only be derived
from a research program that is already underfunded. Further, the staffing resources
available to FRA are more appropriate to supporting 2 to 3 major rulemakings at one time,
not the 8 to 10 major rules that are currently in progress.
APTA and its members have supported the RSAC process with our time,
energy and dollars, and we are committed to continuing this support. However, we are
concerned – and frankly confused – when the FRA is inconsistent and fails to use
the RSAC process to address safety issues. Two examples come immediately to mind:
- Last November the FRA issued a Notice of a proposed order regarding signal system
improvements on the north end of the Northeast Corridor. The technology that they proposed
is a positive train control technology. Rather than bring this issue forward through the
RSAC process, engaging all of the affected parties and attempting to work out all of the
details, FRA simply published the Notice in the Federal Register.
- A second example is the FRA’s proposal for the development of Fatigue Management
plans by the railroads. While APTA’s commuter railroads recognize the beneficial
safety aspects of this proposal, we feel that it is an important safety initiative that
should come through the RSAC process.
It is our position that consensus-based rulemaking should continue to
be the way the FRA makes regulatory changes that will affect railroad operations. However,
if the rail industry fails to come to agreement – and there have been times where
agreement is not possible – on proposed rules, then we agree that the FRA needs to be
able to issue a rule that it feels will best address the situation and improve safety.
I indicated at the outset of my testimony that APTA and its member
commuter railroads are working hard to anticipate safety problems and to find ways to
enhance the safety of our rail systems before problems occur. Our System Safety Plans are
an example of this approach. In 1997, all commuter rail agencies voluntarily established
system safety plans in accordance with adopted industry procedures. These plans take a
system-wide approach to safety in which every employee and supervisor is responsible for
the safe operation of the railroad. The system safety approach analyses every aspect of a
railroad’s operation in terms of potential safety hazards. These safety hazards are
then acted upon in the most appropriate manner with priority given based upon the severity
and likelihood of the hazard.
We feel that system safety plans, emphasizing every employee’s
contribution to safety and implementing each railroad’s safety policies, are the
appropriate way to deal with several of the current safety issues that are under
discussion. As you heard two weeks ago from Mr. Hanas, APTA feels that the manner in which
each of our member railroads deal with the issue of fatigue management and countermeasures
properly belongs in its system safety plan. Similarly, the Emergency Preparedness Plans
being developed in response to the most recent FRA rulemaking effort also belong in our
system safety plans. Each railroad will soon be updating its own system safety plan to
reflect these new issues.
In conjunction with the System Safety Plans that are in use at our
commuter railroads, APTA has established a Commuter Rail System Safety Management Program
to audit the system safety management practices of its members. Conducted on a triennial
basis, the focus of the audits is to determine if the established commuter rail system
safety programs are effective and how each individual railroad’s system safety
efforts can be improved. APTA is working with the FRA to coordinate our Commuter Rail
System Safety Management Program with the FRA’s Safety Assurance and Compliance
Program to provide coordinated and effective assistance to the nation’s commuter
railroads in safety matters.
I want to emphasize that both the development of System Safety Plans by
the commuter railroads and APTA’s development of a System Safety Management program
were voluntary efforts undertaken by our industry. We did not wait until FRA required us
to take action, but rather recognized that we needed to document and review our individual
approaches to the safety issues that face our railroads and worked together to implement a
solution that works for each railroad. This is part of the new, proactive safety culture
which is taking hold at commuter railroads. The new emphasis is on safety performance and
personal responsibility rather than blind adherence to regulations.
Similarly, our Passenger Rail Equipment Safety Standards (PRESS)
project is a cooperative effort that reflects our commitment to constantly improve the
safety of passenger operations. About two years ago, in response to requests from the FRA,
the nation’s commuter railroads set out to update and revise the physical standards
and inspection and maintenance practices established for passenger railroad cars and
locomotives. For many years, neither the Federal government nor the rail passenger
industry maintained formal safety standards specific to our equipment.
To help fill this void, our members elected to take on the
responsibility for developing and maintaining passenger rail equipment safety standards.
APTA’s commuter rail members and Amtrak have contributed over $1.2 million to fund
the PRESS effort. More than 100 people, representing passenger railroads, equipment
builders and suppliers, labor organizations, government agencies and consultants to the
rail industry are participating in the PRESS effort.
The Task Force committees identified a need for over 60 safety
standards and recommended practices pertaining to passenger rail equipment. Approximately
one half of these documents have been completed and the remainder should be completed by
the end of 1998. These documents will be adopted and compiled in the first edition of APTA’s
Manual of Passenger Equipment Safety Standards and Recommended Practices to be
published in the first quarter of 1999. APTA believes that the PRESS effort has become a
model for how rulemaking and standards setting should be accomplished, and in fact FRA is
relying upon us to finish this effort to complete the second phase of their Passenger
Equipment rule.
The nation’s commuter railroads have demonstrated a strong
commitment to enhancing the safety of their passengers, employees and the American public,
a commitment that will always be our top priority. We look forward to working with the
Committee to reauthorize the Rail Safety Act with a bill that reflects the issues that
APTA has outlined in its testimony, building on and strengthening the successful
consensus-based rulemaking efforts that the FRA has established.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be
happy to answer any questions or provide any additional information that may be useful to
the Subcommittee.
Some of these pages may include links to documents in the Adobe PDF format. Please download the Adobe PDF reader if you have not already done so.
