Positive Train Control: Many Commuter Railroads Still Have Significant Additional Implementation Work and Opportunities Exist to Provide Federal Assistance

Forty-one railroads including 29 commuter railroads are required by statute to implement PTC. Commuter railroads unable to implement a PTC system by December 31, 2018, may receive a maximum 2-year extension if they meet certain statutory criteria.

GAO was asked to review commuter railroads' PTC implementation. Among other objectives, this statement discusses (1) commuter railroads that may not be positioned to meet the PTC deadline or to qualify for an extension, and factors affecting their progress, and (2) the extent to which FRA's management and oversight approach has helped ensure that commuter railroads meet the deadline or qualify for an extension.

GAO analyzed commuter railroads' most recently available quarterly progress reports and collected information on planned implementation schedules, interviewed 19 commuter railroads—including 14 FRA identified as at-risk and 5 others further ahead with implementation—and interviewed FRA officials.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible for overseeing railroads' (including commuter railroads') implementation of positive train control (PTC) by December 31, 2018. PTC is a communications-based train control system designed to prevent certain types of accidents and involves the installation, integration, and testing of hardware and software components. For example, railroads must install equipment on locomotives and along the track, and complete field testing, including revenue service demonstration (RSD)—an advanced form of testing that occurs while trains operate in regular service.

GAO's analysis of commuter railroads' PTC scheduled milestones for two key activities necessary to meet the 2018 deadline or qualify for an RSD-based extension (one of the statutory options) found that as many as two-thirds of the 29 commuter railroads may not have allocated sufficient time to complete these milestones. Specifically, in comparing the commuter railroads' schedules to FRA's estimates of the time required to complete these milestones and the experiences of railroads that have already completed them, GAO's analysis found that from 7 to 19 commuter railroads may not complete the milestones before the 2018 implementation deadline or qualify for an RSD-based extension. For example, FRA estimates that field testing (one of the milestones) takes at least one year, but GAO found that 14 commuter railroads plan to start this testing less than a year before the 2018 deadline, increasing the potential risk that this milestone will not be completed. However, FRA has the authority to establish alternative criteria for an extension not based on RSD, and several other factors can affect commuter railroads' planned and future progress. As a result, the number of commuter railroads at risk of not meeting the deadline or qualifying for an extension could increase or decrease in the coming year.

FRA's PTC management and oversight includes monitoring commuter railroads' progress, reviewing documentation, and sharing information with them, but the agency has not systematically communicated information or used a risk-based approach to help these railroads prepare for the 2018 deadline or qualify for an extension. GAO found that FRA has primarily used informal assistance, meetings with individual railroads, and participation in industry-convened groups to share information with commuter railroads, and in some cases the information conveyed has been inconsistent according to industry representatives. Some commuter railroads also told GAO that clarification about the agency's planned process for reviewing and approving extension requests would be helpful. Federal internal control standards state that management should externally communicate the necessary quality information to achieve its objectives. While FRA officials have said they are working to identify additional ways to convey extension-related information, they have not yet done so. Moreover, although FRA receives information from commuter railroads on their progress in implementing PTC, it has not used this information to prioritize resources using a risk-based approach. With the year-end 2018 deadline approaching, and an anticipated significant increase in FRA's workload, targeting resources to the greatest risk can help better ensure that FRA effectively fulfills its oversight responsibilities and provides commuter railroads the information they need to prepare for the 2018 deadline or seek an extension.

GAO recommends FRA identify and adopt a method for systematically communicating information to railroads and use a risk-based approach to prioritize its resources and workload.

DOT concurred with the recommendations. The agency also provided technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate.

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our review of commuter  railroads’ implementation of positive train control (PTC).

In the wake of rail accidents such as the 2008 Los Angeles, California,  collision between a commuter train and a freight train, resulting in 25  deaths and over 100 injuries, legislation was enacted requiring certain  freight, intercity passenger, and commuter railroads to implement PTC— a communications-based train control system designed to help control  train movements, including braking—by December 31, 2015. While the  safety of the rail industry has improved in recent years, additional  accidents, including the recent Amtrak derailment in Washington state in  late 2017, have demonstrated the continued need for technological  improvements that could help slow or stop a train to reduce the risk of  certain types of accidents such as train-to-train collisions and derailments  caused by exceeding safe speeds. In total, 41 railroads, including 29  commuter railroads, are currently required to implement PTC. Commuter  railroads provide approximately 490-million annual passenger trips over  8,440 miles of track. Their size varies significantly, from rail lines  providing approximately one-million passenger trips a year to those  providing over 80 million.

Our prior work on PTC implementation has found that it is a complex and  lengthy process. It requires the integration of various components— including communication systems, hardware on locomotives and along  the side of the track, and software in centralized office locations as well  as onboard the train and along the track. In order to implement PTC,  railroads must design, produce, and install more than 20 major  components that will ultimately communicate trains’ locations,  movements, and speed, and then slow or stop a train that is not being  operated safely. Many of these components are new technologies being  designed and developed for PTC, and railroads must integrate them with  their existing systems. Full implementation of PTC involves a number of  steps, including but not limited to: equipment installation, testing,  certification, and achieving interoperability. Interoperability will enable  trains to move seamlessly across track owned by different railroads with  potentially different PTC systems. U.S. railroads often operate their cars  as “tenants” on the track of another railroad, known as the “host.” The  Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible for overseeing  railroads’ implementation of PTC.

As part of our body of work examining railroads’ progress in implementing  PTC, we found in September 2015 that nearly all railroads did not expect  to meet the originally mandated deadline of December 31, 2015. In  October 2015, Congress extended the deadline to December 31, 2018,  and established criteria that would enable FRA to grant railroads meeting  certain requirements a further extension up to 2020.

You requested that we examine commuter railroads’ implementation of  PTC. This statement describes the results of our review and focuses on:  commuter railroads’ progress in implementing PTC; how many, if any, commuter railroads may be at risk of not meeting  the mandated PTC deadline or certain extension criteria, and what  factors may be affecting implementation progress; and  the extent to which FRA’s management and oversight approach has  helped ensure that commuter railroads either meet the deadline or  qualify for an extension.

To address these objectives, we reviewed applicable laws as well as  applicable FRA and PTC regulations, reports, and guidance. We also  interviewed FRA officials involved in PTC monitoring, enforcement, and  technical assistance. To describe commuter railroads’ progress  implementing PTC, we reviewed the most recent available railroad  quarterly data that the 29 commuter railroads submitted to FRA that  outlines installation and implementation progress in selected areas as of  September 30, 2017. We assessed the reliability of the data in these  reports by reviewing them for anomalies, outliers, or missing information,  among other things. Based on these steps, we determined that these  data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes of describing progress in  PTC implementation. To identify railroads that may be at risk of not  meeting the PTC deadline or qualifying for certain extension criteria, we  collected additional information from all 29 commuter railroads related to  their planned schedules for key implementation milestones. We then  compared this information against FRA estimates for how long these  milestones may take and to the experiences of commuter railroads that  have already completed these milestones. To obtain perspectives on  factors that may affect implementation progress and FRA’s oversight  approach, we interviewed representatives from 19 commuter railroads.  These selected railroads include: (1) 14 railroads that according to FRA  were identified in May 2017 as at risk of not meeting the 2018 full  implementation deadline and not completing statutory requirements  necessary to receive a deadline extension and (2) 5 other railroads that  were further ahead with implementation and that varied in geographic  location and size of rail system, among other factors. We also interviewed  representatives from all 7 of the Class I freight railroads, which are also  required to implement PTC; 5 major PTC equipment suppliers and  contractors identified by FRA; and 2 railroad industry associations.  Information from these interviews is not generalizable to all commuter  railroads or all PTC stakeholders but provide valuable insights into  implementation issues. Finally, we compared FRA’s management and  oversight approach to federal internal control standards related to  communications and risk assessment. Appendix I describes our scope  and methodology in greater detail.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2017 to February 2018 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Under the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, a PTC system must be  designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, derailments due to excessive  speed, incursions into work zone limits, and the movement of a train  through a switch left in the wrong position. Railroads may implement any  PTC system that meets these requirements, and the majority of the 29  commuter railroads are implementing one of three primary types of  systems: the Interoperable Electronic Train Management System (I- ETMS), the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System, or Enhanced  Automated Train Control (E-ATC). PTC’s intended safety benefits can  only be achieved when all required hardware has been installed and  tested, and a train is able to communicate continually and in real time with  the software and equipment of its own railroad and also with that of other  railroads operating on the same tracks. Real-time communication is  needed to account for changing track conditions, which may, for example,  include temporary speed restrictions where railroad employees are  conducting track maintenance. Figure 1 illustrates how one system is  intended to operate.

PTC’s multi-step implementation process can be grouped into three  primary phases (see fig.2). Each phase involves key activities for  railroads to complete—such as installing PTC equipment—as well as the  submission of key documents for FRA review and approval—such as test  plans. Based on railroad data reported to FRA, most commuter railroads  are currently in the second phase, which involves system design,  installation, and testing. According to a recent FRA presentation,  completing key activities within this phase is the near-term focus for many  commuter railroads.

According to FRA officials, railroads must complete certain  implementation steps sequentially, while other activities can be worked on  simultaneously; for example, railroads may work to finish installing  locomotive and wayside equipment while also beginning testing on an  initial track segment. Furthermore, based on railroads’ PTC  implementation plans, the scale of implementation activities can vary by  railroad, based on the size of the railroad and the number of components to be installed. For example, one relatively large commuter railroad must  install computer hardware on 528 locomotives and 789 wayside units  along 218 route miles, while one relatively small commuter railroad’s  installation is limited to 17 locomotives and 35 wayside units along 32  route miles.

According to FRA, full implementation of PTC is achieved when a  railroad’s system is FRA-certified and interoperable, and all hardware,  software, and other components have been fully installed and in operation  on all route miles required to use PTC. The PTC system is required to be  interoperable, meaning the locomotives of any host railroad and tenant  railroad operating on the same track segment will communicate with and  respond to the PTC system, including uninterrupted movements over  property boundaries.

In early 2016, railroads required to install PTC had to submit revised  implementation plans to FRA that included a schedule and milestones for  specific activities, such as installing locomotive and wayside hardware,  acquiring radio spectrum (if necessary), and training employees who will  have to use and operate PTC systems. Railroads are required to report  annually to FRA certain information on their implementation progress.  As part of overseeing railroads’ PTC implementation, FRA established a  PTC Task Force in May 2015 to track and monitor individual railroads’  progress. Railroads are also required to report quarterly to FRA on the  status of PTC implementation in several areas such as: locomotives  equipped, employees trained, territories where revenue service  demonstration (RSD) has been initiated, and route miles in PTC  operation.

FRA’s oversight tools include assessing civil penalties if a railroad fails to  comply with legal requirements, including a railroad’s failure to comply  with its implementation plan. FRA has a national PTC director,  designated PTC specialists in the 8 FRA regions, and a few additional  engineers and test monitors responsible for overseeing technical and  engineering aspects of implementation and reviewing railroad  submissions of documents and test requests. FRA officials told us they  conduct various types of PTC-related work simultaneously, such as  providing technical assistance to railroads, addressing questions, and  reviewing documentation submitted by railroads. As railroads progress  with testing and before completing implementation, FRA must review and  approve a safety plan for each railroad and certify the PTC system.

Commuter railroads that will not be able to implement a PTC system by  December 31, 2018, may receive a maximum 2-year extension if they  meet six criteria set forth in statute. Specifically, commuter railroads must  demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Transportation, that  they have: (1) installed all PTC system hardware; (2) acquired all  necessary spectrum; (3) completed required employee training; (4)  included in a revised implementation plan an alternative schedule and  sequence for implementing their PTC system as soon as practicable; (5)  certified to FRA that they will be in full compliance with PTC requirements  by the date provided in the alternative schedule and sequence; and (6)  either initiated RSD on at least one territory required to have operations  governed by a PTC system or “met any other criteria established by the  Secretary.”

Progress Reported in Some Implementation Areas, but Significant Work Remains

Most of the 29 commuter railroads have reported progress in some of the  key areas of PTC implementation that FRA monitors, such as locomotive  and wayside equipment installation, but the amount of progress reported  varies across individual railroads (see fig. 3 below).

Over half of the commuter railroads reported that they have made  substantial progress in some initial implementation activities, while other  railroads reported that they have made much more limited progress or  have yet to begin equipment installation or employee training. For  example, as of the end of September 2017:

Locomotive Equipment Installation: 18 commuter railroads reported  50 percent or more of their locomotive PTC equipment was installed,  and of these, 13 had completed installation. In contrast, 6 railroads  reported that they had not started installation of locomotive  equipment.

Wayside Equipment Installation: 16 commuter railroads reported 50  percent or more of their wayside PTC equipment was installed, and  half of them reported that they had completed installation. In contrast,  7 reported that less than 20 percent of this equipment was installed.

Employee Training: 11 commuter railroads reported completing PTC  training for 50 percent or more of their employees requiring training.  Of these, four reported that they had completed employee training.  Thirteen commuter railroads had completed 10 percent or less of their  employee training, and of these, 11 reported that they had not started  training their employees. However, some commuter railroad  representatives we spoke with stated that they are waiting to conduct  training until their PTC system is closer to deployment. For example,  representatives from one railroad told us they are waiting to conduct  training so employees will be recently trained and familiar with PTC as  the system is rolled out.

Notably, commuter railroads reported that they have made the most  progress in obtaining spectrum, which allows PTC components to  transmit information about a train’s movements and location. Specifically,  15 of the 17 railroads that require spectrum reported that they have  obtained it. The two other railroads reported that they are in discussions  to obtain leased spectrum.

Beyond the initial implementation activities, much work remains for the  majority of commuter railroads to complete other key PTC activities that  will enable them to complete implementation. PTC implementation  requires many additional steps to integrate equipment and software  systems that go beyond installing equipment and training employees, and  the majority of commuter railroads reported that they continue to work to  complete these steps, which are technically complex and time  consuming. For example, as of the end of September 2017:

Locomotives Fully Equipped and PTC-Operable: Fifteen commuter  railroads reported that half or more of their locomotives were fully  equipped and PTC-operable, meaning that all necessary onboard  hardware and software is installed and commissioned, and is capable  of operating over a PTC-equipped territory. Eight commuter railroads  reported that none of their locomotives were fully equipped and  operable.

Field Testing: Thirteen railroads reported that they had begun field  testing—a key implementation milestone that precedes RSD and  allows railroads to assess how PTC components and software  function together. FRA officials said that the testing phase can be a  long and difficult process, as data obtained during field testing must  prove the functionality of the system and be included as part of a  railroad’s application to enter RSD.

RSD: Following successful field testing, FRA may grant a railroad  approval to enter the next level of testing, RSD. In RSD, testing is  performed on trains operating PTC as part of regular operations.

According to FRA, RSD is the final phase of testing that a railroad  completes in order to validate and verify its PTC system, and the  results from RSD, along with earlier testing, are to be included in the  safety plan a railroad submits to FRA. While six commuter railroads  reported that they have begun RSD, most had not yet reached this  key milestone—including some of the largest commuter railroads.

Conditional Certification: Once FRA approves a railroad’s safety plan,  the railroad receives a PTC system certification. According to FRA  officials, as of September 30, 2017, only two commuter railroads were  conditionally certified—meaning FRA has reviewed their safety plans  and granted conditional approval for PTC operations, and the  railroads are providing regular service in PTC operations—and two  additional commuter railroads had submitted a safety plan for FRA  review.

Given the variation in commuter railroads’ progress, especially related to  completing later-stage PTC activities such as testing and developing  safety plans, 13 of 29 commuter railroads told us they planned to seek a  deadline extension, and the remaining 16 told us they do not intend to  seek an extension. However, the number of commuter railroads planning  to seek an extension is subject to change before the end of 2018.

Over Half of Commuter Railroads May Be at Risk of Not Meeting the 2018 Deadline or Criteria for RSD-based Extension, Though Numerous Factors Create Uncertainty

Based on our analysis of the PTC schedules of the 29 commuter  railroads, over half may not have sufficient time to complete activities  needed to implement PTC by the end of 2018 or to qualify for an  extension of that deadline by meeting criteria based on initiating RSD— for the purposes of this statement, referred to as an RSD-based  extension. In particular, our analysis focused on the time likely needed for  railroads to conduct RSD activities, because RSD is both the final step of  field testing required by the 2018 deadline as well as one of the statutory  options railroads have in seeking a deadline extension. For our analysis,  we compared the amount of time railroads plan for completing two key  milestones—installing the back office server and conducting field  testing—to the amount of time FRA officials estimate is required for each  milestone and to the experiences of railroads that have already  completed RSD. However, it is important to recognize that numerous  factors could affect railroads’ planned and future progress. For example,  commuter railroads could face delays due to unexpected issues with PTC  components or FRA reviews of documents submitted by the railroads.

Over Half of Commuter Railroads May Be at Risk

In May 2017, FRA sent letters to 14 commuter railroads and their  respective state departments of transportation and governors informing  the recipients that they had not installed at least 50 percent of their  required locomotive and wayside equipment. In these letters FRA raised  concerns that these railroads were at risk of not meeting the 2018  deadline and not completing requirements for a deadline extension.  Subsequently, in January 2018, FRA applied a more stringent  benchmark—whether a railroad had installed at least 65 percent of all  equipment—and determined that 13 commuter railroads remained at  risk. Using this more stringent criterion, only one railroad had made  enough progress installing equipment to no longer be classified as at risk  by FRA.

In addition to FRA’s benchmarks for equipment installation, for our  analysis we evaluated more broadly railroads’ progress in completing  other implementation activities that follow equipment installation and that  FRA and stakeholders said are more difficult to achieve. Specifically, we  analyzed commuter railroads’ planned schedules for two key milestones  to determine whether these railroads appear to have built sufficient time  into their implementation plans to complete these and other activities by  the 2018 deadline or to qualify for an RSD-based extension. The two  key milestones we examined, both of which need to be completed before  a railroad enters RSD, were:  installing the back office server (BOS) and associated software  necessary to connect and interface with wayside, locomotive, and  dispatch equipment (the BOS transmits and receives data among this  equipment that enables PTC to work); and  conducting field testing, in particular testing of installed infrastructure  and initial assessments of the PTC system’s overall functionality on  trains that are not transporting passengers or operating during regular  passenger service.

Our analysis found that at least one quarter, and potentially up to  approximately two thirds, of commuter railroads may not have sufficient  time to enter RSD and, thus, may not meet the 2018 PTC implementation  deadline or qualify for an RSD-based extension. These railroads vary by  size and type of PTC system and by whether they plan to apply for a  deadline extension. Specifically, our analysis found the following:

Projection based on BOS status: Between 9 and 19 commuter  railroads appear to be at potential risk of not meeting the 2018  deadline or qualifying for an RSD-based extension based on our  analysis. Our analysis found that the 6 commuter railroads already in  RSD took an average of 10 months from installing the BOS to starting  RSD. However, the schedules of 9 railroads indicate that they plan  to install a BOS less than 10 months before the 2018 deadline. We  believe that given past experience of other railroads, this places these  9 railroads at potential risk. Moreover, FRA officials estimate that it  can take 2 to 3 years for a railroad to install and prepare the BOS and  associated software to support testing and RSD. Using FRA’s 2-year  installation estimate (which would require BOS installation before  January 1, 2017) further exacerbates the potential risk of not meeting  the deadline or of not qualifying for any RSD-based extension for up  to 19 railroads.

Projection based on time allowed to conduct field testing: Based on  our review of the planned schedules, between 7 and 14 railroads may  not have built sufficient time into their plans either to complete field  testing ahead of the 2018 deadline or to qualify for an RSD-based  extension. Commuter railroads and FRA officials told us that field  testing is challenging and can take a substantial amount of time due  to, for example, unanticipated issues and limited available track for  testing given regular passenger operations. On average, our analysis  found that the 6 commuter railroads already in RSD took 7 months to  move from starting field testing to starting RSD. However, 7 commuter  railroads plan to start their field testing less than 7 months before the  2018 deadline. This situation raises concerns about their ability to  conduct field testing before the 2018 deadline. Moreover, FRA  officials told us that moving from the start of field testing to the start of  RSD can take between 1 and 3 years, averaging about 2 years, and  that most railroads under-estimate the amount of time needed for  testing. When we applied the lower end of FRA’s estimate, we found  that it further increases the potential risk for 14 railroads that plan to  start field testing less than a year prior to the 2018 deadline. As a  result, they could be at risk of not meeting the 2018 deadline or  qualifying for an RSD-based extension.

We used RSD as a benchmark for our analysis of key milestones based  on the importance of this benchmark in implementing PTC and on the  three RSD-based alternative criteria that FRA has approved to date.

While the three approved alternative criteria all include RSD, FRA has  broad authority to approve “any other” alternative criteria even if not  based on RSD, as noted above. One FRA official told us the agency  approved these three alternative criteria requests because they were all  based on specific, quantifiable measures, rather than because they  included RSD in particular. FRA officials stated that they have not issued  guidance on uniform alternative criteria because they will strive for  railroads to meet the criteria for a deadline extension that are listed in  statute and want the discretion to make determinations on a case-by-case  basis. In addition, FRA officials said they want to ensure that each  railroad’s criteria are consistent with the statutory requirements for final  implementation by December 31, 2020. Because it is unknown what  alternative criteria FRA may establish in the coming months, which may  not include RSD, it is difficult to determine at this time whether the  railroads we found to be potentially at risk of not qualifying for an RSD- based extension might be more or less likely to qualify for an extension  based on other, non-RSD criteria.

Many Factors May Affect Commuter Railroads’ Ability to Meet the Deadline or Qualify for an Extension

Much uncertainty exists regarding railroads’ ultimate implementation  progress and their ability to meet the 2018 deadline or qualify for an  extension. This uncertainty is due, in part, to the fact that PTC is a new  way of operating and involves technologies that are more complex to  implement than many other railroad capital projects. Furthermore, a  number of factors can affect commuter railroads’ planned and future  progress, including unexpected setbacks installing PTC components and  resources and capacity issues. Below we highlight some of the factors  that that could affect implementation progress.

Limited Industry Expertise and Resources

Three out of five PTC contractors and suppliers and about half of the  commuter railroads we spoke with acknowledged that industrywide, there  are a limited number of individuals with PTC technical expertise available  to successfully implement the technology. This can affect the ability of  railroads and contractors to meet planned schedules. For example, one  large commuter railroad said it took a year and a half to hire an internal  expert to continue work on its PTC project. In addition, five commuter  railroads told us that they faced other issues with their prime contractors  missing their milestones; such issues, going forward, could impact  railroads’ progress during the coming year. Also, though most railroads  we spoke to are relying on contractors, some commuter railroads may  lack the in-house resources and expertise to plan and oversee a project  as large and complex as PTC. Representatives from three commuter  railroads we interviewed noted that PTC is not a traditional capital or  construction project for a railroad; therefore, it requires additional  expertise. FRA officials also stated that small commuter railroads may not  have technical capacity or expertise with large contracts for such complex  projects, especially given limited industry resources.

In addition to limited expertise and resources, some commuter railroads  told us they faced unexpected delays in obtaining PTC equipment, such  as radios, from the supplier. Some PTC equipment is only available from  a single provider, which can lead to delays executing contracts and  obtaining equipment. Three commuter railroads we spoke with said they  encountered issues executing contracts for PTC radios, in particular  negotiating unique liability requirements sought by the only supplier of this  equipment, which resulted in delays or higher overall costs to the  railroads. One railroad noted that executing sole-source contracts for  such circumstances is particularly problematic for state and public  agencies.

Interoperability and Host and Tenant Coordination

As noted above, PTC is being implemented by different types of railroads  using different systems, and achieving interoperability among PTC  systems can complicate implementation. For example, Northeast Corridor  railroads that are implementing versions of the Advanced Civil Speed  Enforcement System need interoperability with freight railroads using I- ETMS. Even railroads that are installing the same PTC system have to  take significant steps to ensure that systems will communicate and  interoperate properly. In one case, a railroad told us that it is equipping its  locomotives with equipment for multiple PTC systems to ensure that it  can operate on various host railroads’ tracks.

Some commuter railroads that only operate as tenants on other railroads’  tracks may be able to complete some PTC implementation work more  quickly, as these railroads may benefit from work the host railroads  already completed as they coordinate to implement PTC. For example,  representatives from one commuter railroad we spoke with said they have  to acquire and install PTC equipment on their locomotives but rely on the  host railroads to install the remainder of the necessary PTC infrastructure.  These tenant-only commuter railroads, however, have to coordinate field  testing and RSD with the host railroads.

Unexpected issues with components or technology can also require  additional time to complete certain activities, causing schedules to slip.  Such issues could affect railroads currently on schedule as well as  railroads pursuing aggressive schedules in an effort to overcome late  starts or early setbacks. For example, representatives from 10 railroads  we spoke with said that installing the BOS and associated software, and  ensuring it functions properly, can pose a challenge. One contractor told  us that once the BOS is delivered to a railroad, a lot of testing work  remains, and unexpected issues inevitably arise during testing, even if the  BOS works according to all specifications. Representatives from one  railroad said that despite strong organizational commitment to  implementation and setting internal targets for progress, their PTC project  schedule slipped many times over the course of implementation due to a  variety of issues, including on-going software updates that caused delays  while also straining the budget and burdening staff. Representatives from  that commuter railroad also noted that equipping vehicles with PTC  components took three times longer than originally expected (3 years  instead of 1 year). However, some railroads are looking for ways to  accelerate implementation. For example, representatives from one  railroad said they made the difficult decision to cut some weekend  passenger service to accelerate wayside equipment installation.  Therefore, as representatives from one railroad articulated, given the  schedule slippage experienced by railroads further along in  implementation, railroads with aggressive schedules would have a limited  ability to accommodate any additional delays.

As the 2018 deadline approaches and railroads progress with  implementation activities, the amount of documentation railroads will  submit to FRA for review and approval is likely to increase significantly.  For example, FRA reported in summer 2017 that it had taken between 10  and 100 days to review each of the test requests it received from  railroads. As the 2018 deadline approaches, FRA will have to review a  considerable amount of additional test plans and procedures as well as  applications to begin RSD. In addition, FRA will have to concurrently  review any safety plans that are submitted by railroads reaching the  certification phase. At the American Public Transportation Association’s  (APTA) Commuter Railroad Summit in June 2017, FRA officials said that  they expect each safety plan review—which involves all the regional  specialists and some contract personnel—to take between 6 and 12  months to review. These plans are about 5,000 pages in length. FRA  officials told us that reviewing all of the safety plans in a timely manner  will be a challenge given staff resources. FRA has 12 technical staff  dedicated to the review of railroads’ PTC documentation and monitoring  of PTC testing. Representatives from 10 out of 19 commuter railroads we  interviewed said they are concerned about FRA’s ability to review  submitted documentation in a timely manner.

As railroads continue to progress with their projects and the industry  becomes more experienced with PTC, railroads could benefit from  lessons learned. For example, representatives from one railroad that is  implementing I-ETMS, the system all large Class I freight railroads are  implementing, told us that they anticipate being able to capitalize on  lessons learned from freight railroads that have operated in RSD. By  leveraging the freight railroads’ experiences, one commuter railroad  hopes to address issues before testing, rather than during, and therefore  move more quickly through the testing process. If commuter railroads are  able to apply lessons learned from other railroads’ testing processes, then  they may be able to accelerate their implementation efforts. Railroads  may also accelerate implementation schedules as they become more  adept at the overall testing process, which involves submitting test  documents to FRA and scheduling multiple tests. This could potentially  shorten the average time it takes a railroad to complete one or more of  the key milestones analyzed. The two commuter railroads that have been  conditionally certified told us they have met with other commuter railroads  informally and have shared their project experiences as a way to facilitate  information sharing.

FRA Monitors Railroads’ Progress but Has Not Systematically Communicated with Them or Prioritized Efforts

FRA Monitors Railroads’ Implementation Progress, Reviews Documents, and Shares PTC Information

Since 2015, FRA has assumed additional roles and responsibilities— primarily through the PTC Task Force and regional PTC specialists—to  monitor railroads’ implementation progress, review required  documentation, and share information about implementation steps and  activities.

Monitoring and Document Review: In response to a recommendation  in our September 2015 report, FRA began to identify and collect  additional information from the railroads to enable it to effectively track  and monitor railroads’ PTC progress. For example, in 2016, the PTC  Task Force began collecting quarterly progress data and monitoring  railroads’ annual reports to track progress in meeting the PTC  implementation milestones set out in railroads’ implementation plans,  such as locomotive equipment installed at the end of the year. As  previously noted, the Task Force used this implementation progress  data in May 2017 to identify 14 commuter railroads at risk of not  meeting the 2018 deadline or requirements for an extension. FRA  also monitors railroads’ PTC implementation through meetings with  railroad and industry associations, visits to individual railroads, and  reviewing and commenting on PTC documentation submissions, such  as requests to begin field testing and RSD. FRA officials told us that  they monitor railroads’ progress to determine how much commuter  railroads understand about the implementation process and to trigger  discussions between FRA and the railroads. Regional PTC specialists  are responsible for reviewing and approving requests submitted by  railroads preparing to test system functionality as well as individual  testing procedures describing the specific equipment and movements  involved in each test. In addition, FRA officials told us that assessing  civil penalties and sending commuter railroads letters of concern are  the primary enforcement mechanisms they have available to oversee  PTC.

Information Sharing: FRA officials said that they have primarily used  informal assistance and participation in group meetings to convey  information related to the implementation process and specific  milestones necessary to meet the 2018 deadline or qualify for an  extension. FRA officials acknowledged that they do not have the  capacity to provide frequent one-on-one assistance to all railroads  given their growing PTC workload and limited agency resources. As  such, FRA officials explained that in order to reach a wide audience  given the approaching deadline, their current focus is on  presentations at industry group meetings (e.g., APTA’s Commuter  Rail Summit) and specific PTC systems user-group meetings. FRA’s  regional PTC specialists told us they also provide direction on  technical aspects of PTC implementation and testing, primarily by  discussing issues at individual and railroad-industry meetings and  providing informal feedback on commuter railroads’ PTC  documentation, such as testing requests.

FRA Has Not Systematically Communicated Information to Help Railroads Prepare for the 2018 Deadline or to Qualify for Extensions

While the majority of the railroad representatives we met with said FRA  officials were consistently available to discuss issues that arise during  day-to-day PTC implementation activities, the information conveyed by  these officials has sometimes been inconsistent. In particular, FRA’s  heavy reliance on informal assistance and participation in group meetings  to convey information to commuter railroads has led, at least on some  occasions, to different or inconsistent information being communicated in  different meetings. For example, representatives from one PTC  equipment supplier said that FRA has not consistently commented on  different railroads’ test plans, and as a result, they have not been able to  carry lessons learned on to other railroads’ plans. In addition, while FRA’s  officials said their position has been consistent with the regulations stating  that the host railroad must submit a safety plan to FRA, representatives  from one railroad we met with said they had heard conflicting information  from FRA. For example, these railroad representatives told us that FRA  officials originally said commuter railroads that are only tenants on other  railroads needed to submit their own safety plans but later stated at an  industry association meeting that tenant railroads could be included in the  host railroads’ plans.

In addition, commuter railroads have expressed a need for additional  clarification about the criteria for applying for an extension. FRA officials  also told us that they have received a lot of questions from commuter  railroads about the criteria for an extension related to RSD or other  alternative criteria. As noted above, to date, FRA has approved  alternative extension criteria for three railroads, and in each case, the  criteria involved RSD testing on a shorter track segment. However,  representatives from one contractor working with several commuter  railroads said it is unclear what “alternative criteria” FRA will approve to  receive an extension. In addition, representatives from one commuter  railroad stated that any opportunity to clearly outline FRA’s interpretation  of the PTC requirements, specifically the alternative extension criteria that  could, for example, allow for a shorter test segment, would enable  railroads to better position themselves to apply for an extension.

Representatives from some commuter railroads we met with were  likewise unclear about the agency’s approach to reviewing and granting  extension requests. Representatives from three commuter railroads said  clarification of FRA’s planned approach would be helpful as the deadline  approaches. According to FRA officials, the statute does not set a  deadline by which railroads have to apply for an extension, and FRA has  not set a deadline or indicated the latest date by which a railroad should  apply. Nonetheless, for railroads that do not comply with PTC deadlines,  FRA officials said they could impose civil penalties for each day a railroad  fails to implement a PTC system by the applicable statutory deadline, but  the agency has yet to determine how it will handle railroads that do not  meet the deadline or receive an extension. With less than a year  remaining before the 2018 deadline, FRA officials stated that they  anticipate their workload is likely to increase as railroads submit additional  documentation to review and continue to progress with testing. More  systematic communication that delineates FRA’s planned approach for  the upcoming deadline and extension process may be critical for the  agency to efficiently use its limited resources and convey consistent  information to all the railroads.

Standards for internal control in the federal government state that  management should externally communicate the quality information  necessary to achieve the entity’s objectives. These standards also note  that management should select the appropriate form and method of  communication, so that information is communicated widely and on a  timely basis. As we have previously found, the particular form of the  agency’s communication—for example, by oral presentation, written  guidance, or formal regulation—will depend on multiple factors including  the purpose and content of the specific communication and applicable  legal requirements. Moreover, internal control standards indicate  agencies should have standard processes in place to determine which  form of communication is appropriate in each case. FRA officials told us  that the agency could issue written guidance explaining how it has  decided to apply its deadline extension authority and what type of  information railroads will then need to submit to get an extension.  However, FRA officials stated this written guidance would require time- consuming approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the  Paperwork Reduction Act, and would make timely issuance of such  guidance difficult. As noted, however, FRA may have the option to use  less formal, less time-consuming methods of communicating key  information about the extension process, such as webinars or conference  calls, to communicate information more systematically. FRA officials  acknowledged they are working to identify mechanisms such as these,  but they have yet to do so. Absent systematic communication articulating  the agency’s planned approach for the extension process, railroads may  not have the information they need to effectively prepare for the deadline  or seek an extension.

FRA Has Made Limited Use of Implementation Progress to Prioritize Efforts and Mitigate Risks

While FRA has taken steps to more closely monitor railroads’  implementation progress, the agency has not prioritized its efforts,  including its allocation of resources, based on an assessment of risk. In  its 2015 Railroad Accountability Plan, FRA stated that its PTC data  collection and monitoring efforts would allow the agency to inform, among  other things, its resource allocation and risk mitigation. While FRA has  used its data to identify at-risk railroads, it has not used this information to  prioritize how to allocate its resources or address risks. For example, as  discussed earlier after reviewing railroads’ data on their progress in  installing PTC equipment, FRA notified 14 commuter railroads of their at- risk status in May 2017. However, while FRA officials said that they hold  regular meetings with many—but not all—of the at-risk railroads, 9 of  these 14 commuter railroads said that the formal letter they received did  not ultimately trigger any change in the type of interaction they have with  FRA. More recently, in December 2017, the Secretary of Transportation  notified all railroads required to implement PTC by letter of the  expectation that all possible measures be taken to ensure implementation  requirements are met by the 2018 deadline. However, these letters made  no distinction between railroads—that is, the same letter was sent to  railroads with conditionally certified PTC systems and to railroads that  reported completing no training or installing no locomotive equipment to  date—nor did the letters describe how FRA’s approach to working with  the railroads would respond to their particular circumstances and risks.

As noted above, FRA officials have stated that the agency does not have  the resources to meet more frequently with or provide additional  assistance to railroads. While the PTC Task Force helps monitor  railroads’ progress, FRA still employs fewer than 12 individuals with the  requisite PTC expertise and experience to review technical documents  and help railroads implement PTC systems. In an environment with  limited agency resources, targeting agency efforts to areas of the greatest  risk or highest priority areas is one way to leverage existing resources.  According to standards for internal control in the federal government,  management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks. In addition,  FRA’s Strategic Human Capital Plan states that developments including  the rapid introduction of new technologies, such as PTC, demand that  FRA continuously evaluate its programs and resources to adapt to  changing demands.

However, FRA has not fully leveraged the implementation progress data  that railroads’ submit to the agency to identify and develop a risk-based  approach to prioritize agency actions. At present, it is unclear whether the  agency’s priorities are, for example, to help the largest commuter  railroads meet the deadline or extension requirements, push those  railroads that are very close to full implementation, or assist railroads that  are in the earliest stages of their PTC project. For example, one regional  PTC specialist we met with said that if he did not need to be reviewing  documentation or observing railroads’ field testing, he could spend more  time with at-risk railroads. By not effectively targeting actions to help  mitigate risks posed by railroads most at risk of not meeting the PTC  deadline or qualifying for an extension, FRA misses the opportunity to  leverage its limited resources by providing direct assistance in the areas  of greatest need.

Much progress has been made in implementing PTC by commuter  railroads. Nevertheless, about half of commuter railroads plan to apply for  an extension, and many of the railroads’ planned schedules raise  questions about their ability to complete key implementation milestones  and qualify for RSD-based extensions prior to the 2018 deadline. As the  2018 deadline rapidly approaches, the need for clear information that is  systematically communicated to all railroads implementing PTC becomes  even more critical. FRA cannot expect to provide information and  guidance to railroads individually, and therefore, adopting a risk-based  communication strategy could help it more efficiently share information in  the coming year. Moreover, the information FRA collects on railroads’  progress has not been used to inform the agency’s resource allocation  decisions. Using this information to better allocate resources could help  position FRA to better meet its responsibility to monitor and oversee PTC  implementation in the future.

We are making the following two recommendations to FRA:

The Administrator of FRA should identify and adopt a method for  systematically communicating information to railroads regarding the  deadline extension criteria and process. (Recommendation 1)

The Administrator of FRA should develop an approach to use the  information gathered to prioritize the allocation of resources to  address the greatest risk. (Recommendation 2)

We provided a draft of this statement to DOT for review and comment. In  its comments, reproduced in appendix II, the agency concurred with our  recommendations. DOT also provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate.

Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the  Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to  respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please  contact Susan Fleming, Director, Physical Infrastructure team at (202)  512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony  are Susan Zimmerman (Assistant Director), Sarah Arnett, Jim Geibel,  Delwen Jones, Joanie Lofgren, SaraAnn Moessbauer, Malika Rice, Amy  Suntoke, Maria Wallace, Eric Warren, and Crystal Wesco.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This statement examines commuter railroads’ implementation of positive  train control (PTC). Specifically, this report addresses:  commuter railroads’ progress in implementing PTC; how many, if any, commuter railroads may be at risk of not meeting  the mandated PTC deadline or certain extension criteria, and what  factors may be affecting implementation progress; and  the extent to which FRA’s management and oversight approach has  helped ensure that commuter railroads either meet the deadline or  qualify for an extension.

To address these objectives, we reviewed the Rail Safety Improvement  Act of 2008, the Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation  Act of 2015, and applicable Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)  regulations, reports, and guidance. Our review focused on the 29  railroads FRA officials identified as commuter railroads required to  implement PTC. We also reviewed previous GAO work on PTC and  applied Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government to  FRA’s role overseeing PTC implementation, including the principles that  management should externally communicate the necessary quality  information to achieve the entity’s objectives and that management  should identify, analyze, and respond to risks. In addition, we interviewed  representatives from 19 commuter railroads to further understand their  implementation progress, factors that may be affecting progress, and the  interviewees’ perspectives on FRA’s management and oversight of PTC  implementation. We selected the 19 railroads to include the 14 railroads  that according to FRA were identified in May 2017 as at risk of both not  meeting the 2018 implementation deadline and not completing statutory  requirements necessary to receive a deadline extension, as well as 5  other railroads that were further ahead with implementation and that  varied in geographic location and size of rail system, among other factors.

We met with relevant FRA officials involved in PTC monitoring,  enforcement, and technical assistance including the PTC Staff Director,  regional PTC specialists working in each of the FRA regions where  commuter railroads selected for interviews operate, and members of the  headquarters-based PTC Task Force. In addition, we met with FRA Office  of Railroad Safety specialists and engineers, among others. We also  interviewed representatives from all 7 of the Class I freight railroads  (which are also required to implement PTC), 5 major PTC equipment  suppliers and contractors identified by FRA, and representatives from 2  railroad industry associations—the Association of American Railroads  and the American Public Transportation Association—to obtain their  perspectives on commuter railroads’ implementation of PTC, factors  affecting implementation progress, and FRA’s PTC management and  oversight.

To identify commuter railroads’ progress in implementing PTC, we  reviewed railroads’ third quarter progress reports submitted to FRA for the  period ending September 30, 2017. We reviewed the most recently  available quarterly data outlining the 29 commuter railroads’ installation  and implementation progress in selected areas as of September 30,  2017, including: locomotive equipment installed, wayside equipment  installed, employee training, locomotives fully equipped and PTC- operable, spectrum obtained, the status of field testing, and revenue  service initiated. As necessary, we also reviewed the narrative fields in  the quarterly reports for additional context related to a given railroad’s  implementation activities and the extent of progress made in specific  implementation areas. We assessed the data in these reports by  reviewing it for anomalies, outliers, or missing information, and reviewing  supporting narratives to ensure they aligned with the reported data,  among other things. Based on these steps, we determined that these  data were sufficiently reliable for our purpose of describing railroads’  progress implementing PTC. We also reviewed other sources of  information, such as PTC Implementation Plans, railroads’ 2016 annual  progress reports, and interviews with railroad representatives.

To assess progress on locomotive equipment installation and wayside  equipment installation, we compared the quantities installed to the total  quantities required for PTC implementation. Similarly, to assess progress  on employee training, we compared the number of employees trained to  the number of employees required to be trained for PTC implementation.  To assess progress in fully equipping locomotives to be PTC-operable,  we compared the quantity of locomotives that are fully equipped and  PTC-operable to the quantity required for PTC implementation. To assess  progress on obtaining spectrum, we reviewed the quarterly update on  spectrum. We concluded that a railroad had obtained spectrum if, for one  or more area or location, it reported that spectrum was either (1) acquired  but not available for use or (2) acquired and available for use. We also  reviewed the narrative, as appropriate. For some railroads, we concluded  that spectrum was not applicable because they use a PTC system that  does not require spectrum, or because their host railroad is responsible  for obtaining spectrum. To assess progress on field testing, we reviewed  the third quarter status on installation and track-segment progress. We  concluded that a railroad initiated field testing if one or more of its  segments were reported as (1) testing or (2) operational/complete. To  determine which railroads initiated revenue service demonstration (RSD),  we reviewed the cumulative territories where RSD had been initiated. If  the railroad reported that one or more territories had initiated RSD, we  concluded that RSD had been initiated.

Finally, to determine which railroads anticipate completing implementation  before the December 31, 2018 deadline and which plan to seek any RSD- based extension, we obtained information from all 29 commuter railroads  to identify which railroads plan to implement PTC by the 2018 deadline  and which plan to submit an alternative schedule (that is, a request for an  extension) to implement PTC after the December 31, 2018 deadline.

To identify commuter railroads at risk of meeting neither the PTC deadline  nor any RSD-based extension criteria, we first reviewed data on railroads’  progress installing PTC locomotive and wayside equipment. We did this  because FRA used such installation progress to identify 14 commuter  railroads as being at risk and notified them via formal letter in May 2017.  To confirm FRA’s identification of commuter railroads that would be at risk  based on an updated benchmark for the third quarter of 2017—railroads  with less than 65 percent of total hardware installed—we analyzed  railroads’ reported locomotive and wayside equipment installation status  as of September 30, 2017 to determine the percentage of total hardware  installed for each commuter railroad.

To build on this analysis, we collected information from all 29 commuter  railroads on their actual and planned schedules for key implementation  milestones. For the 19 commuter railroads we met with, we collected this  information as part of our interviews, and for the remaining 10 commuter  railroads, we collected this information by email using a standard data  collection instrument. The key implementation milestones covered  procuring a prime contractor for PTC implementation; applying for and  entering field testing and RSD, which is the final phase of field testing;  installing the back office server (BOS) and associated software; and  completing PTC implementation. This schedule information was collected  between September 2017 and January 2018.

We compared the amount of time commuter railroads’ planned for  completing two key milestones to the amount of time that FRA officials  estimate is required for each milestone and to the experiences of  railroads that already initiated RSD. The two milestones are as follows:  Install the BOS and associated software necessary to connect and  interface with wayside, locomotive, and dispatch equipment.

Conduct field testing of installed infrastructure, which is an initial  assessment of the PTC system’s overall functionality on trains that  are not transporting passengers or operating during regular  passenger service.

We selected these two milestones because (1) each milestone follows  equipment installation (which FRA had previously analyzed to assess  commuter railroads PTC implementation progress); (2) a railroad must  complete both to enter RSD; and (3) several interviewees, including PTC  contractors and suppliers and FRA officials, said these activities are  important project milestones that are complex and time consuming. We  calculated the amount of time a commuter railroad planned for each  milestone (with initiating RSD as the endpoint for each milestone), and  compared that amount of time to two benchmarks: first, the anticipated  length of time FRA officials said that the milestones have taken or may  take, and second, the average amount of time (in months) that each  milestone took the six commuter railroads that had started RSD as of  September 2017. Since we used two benchmarks, we present a range of  railroads that may not have sufficient time to complete these milestones  and thus may be at risk of not meeting the 2018 deadline or qualifying for  an RSD-based extension.

Appendix II: Agency Comments  This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.