Positive Train Control and Railroad Safety

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I wish to state my opposition to S.
650 in its current form. This legislation would extend the deadline for
installation of Positive Train Control, PTC, by 5 years. I cannot agree
with allowing such an extension without addressing so many other
critical rail safety matters.

As Joe Boardman, the head of Amtrak and former FRA Administrator has
said, ``PTC is the most important rail safety advancement of our
time.'' The need for this technology was first brought to our attention
over 45 years ago, sparked by a head-on train collision in Darien, CT
in 1969. There have been many other horrible crashes since, and within
the past decade alone, the National Transportation Safety Board has
completed more than two dozen train accident investigations that took
65 lives and injured over 1,100 people--all of this, according to the
NTSB, could have been prevented by PTC.

One of those horrific crashes occurred in 2008 in Southern
California, and 25 lives were lost. PTC could have saved those lives.
Accordingly, soon after that tragedy, Congress took real, thoughtful,
substantive action and gave railroads more than 7 years to implement
the life-saving technology of PTC. Since then, there have been other
major accidents, such as the horrific crash of a Metro-North train in
the Bronx in 2013 in which four lives were lost. Metro-North did not
have PTC, and the NTSB has said the technology could have prevented
those four deaths. Now, as we near the end of the 7 years, S. 650 gives
railroads an extension of 5 more years--and then an option for 2 more
after that. So, again, we must wait and risk continued loss of life as
we further put off proven, life-saving technology.

There may be issues with the deadline, and we should have a
discussion about those issues. We should also have a discussion about
the many other issues with PTC. These include the need for resources
for commuter railroads, the need for greater transparency for all
railroads and the need for dedicated spectrum to ensure commuter
railroads have bandwidth to operate PTC. S. 650 doesn't address these
other issues. Rather, the bill just focuses on the deadline. I want to
make sure the bill solves all the other problems.

In the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, I filed
amendments that actually address these other outstanding issues. I want
to make sure funding is available for cash-strapped passenger railroads
and commuter lines. I want to bolster transparency and make sure we
know where railroads truly are in the implementation process. I want to
make sure commuter railroads have the frequency they need to build out
PTC, and I do not want any bill to move to the floor that ignores these
needs and shortchanges our commuter railroads.

Another issue I hold with S. 650 is the bill's lack of attention to
other serious safety concerns that should be addressed hand-in-hand
with the shortcomings PTC works to resolve. Over the past few years, we
have witnessed an onslaught of other rail safety issues spurred by far
too many preventable accidents. Many of these accidents have happened
on Metro-North, the commuter railroad serving Connecticut, the State I
proudly represent. From mid-2013 into early 2014, we witnessed five
major incidents on our commuter railroad. Then, again in February 2015,
we witnessed another horrific incident in which six lives were
lost. These accidents have raised a host of other needs: cameras on
trains, sufficient crew size, improved rail inspections, close-call
reporting systems, redundant signal protection, alerters on rail cabs,
speed restrictions, better Federal oversight, and safer highway-rail
grade crossings.

In the committee, I filed amendments that also advance these reforms.
Those reforms must be a part of any real rail safety discussion. If we
are even to consider a PTC deadline extension, it is imperative we take
up other well-known measures that can improve safety while we work
toward full PTC implementation. I appreciate the commitment from the
chairman and ranking member of the Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Committee to work with me to advance these reforms. I
also appreciate the committee including a modified version of one of my
amendments in the bill that passed out of the committee. Although I
withdrew my other amendments in the committee, I look forward to
working with all of my colleagues to improve this bill further. I am
confident that together we can achieve important reforms and truly
advance safety for all who depend on rail.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source