Commuter & Intercity Rail Legislative Subcommittee Meeting

Transcription

1 Commuter & Intercity Rail Legislative Subcommittee Meeting Saturday, June 20, :30 6:00 p.m. The Grand America Hotel Salt Lake City, UT Belvedere, Third Floor Anna M. Barry, co-chair Joseph Giulietti, co-chair AGENDA Welcome and Introductions Anna M. Barry/Joe Giulietti Rail Legislation o Review of Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015 (PRRIA) o Senate Commerce Passenger Rail bill o S. 1360, Passenger Rail Liability bill o S. 650, Railroad Safety and Positive Control Extension Act o Recent and upcoming rail hearings FY 2016 Appropriations Updates Authorization Updates Rail Vehicle Accessibility Issues Other Business Packet Items 1) S. 1360, Passenger Rail Liability bill 2) S. 650, Railroad Safety and Positive Control Extension Act 3) APTA FY 2016 House THUD Subcommittee testimony 4) FY 2016 House THUD funding table 5) Summary of Rail Vehicle Access Issues (Electronic version)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Testimony Of Michael P. Melaniphy President & CEO American Public Transportation Association Before The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies On Federal Transit Administration and Federal Railroad Administration Programs for Fiscal Year 2016 April 14, 2015 Introduction Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill. The work that you do to support federal investment in public transportation and high-speed and intercity passenger rail is crucially important and appreciated. Along with supporting the appropriations process, APTA looks forward to working with Congress to pass a long-term Surface Transportation authorizing bill this year. The current authorization expires on May 31, and much work needs to be done. APTA has proposed a six-year authorization bill that reflects the need for substantially increased federal investment in public transportation. Our proposal would give transportation agencies and planners the long-term certainty that they need to move forward with major capital investments in a cost-effective way. Congress must break the cycle of short-term funding fixes because they result in project delays, cancelations, and increased costs. APTA has also called for authorizing legislation that would create a federal program to increase investment in intercity passenger rail, including high speed rail. About APTA APTA is a nonprofit international association of nearly 1,500 public and private member organizations, including transit systems and high-speed, intercity and commuter rail operators; planning, design, construction, and finance firms; product and service providers; academic institutions; transit associations and state departments of transportation. Overview of FY 2016 Funding Requests Fiscal Year 2016 is a critical year for the public transportation industry. Federal funding uncertainty continues as the authorization for programs funded by the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) is set to expire on May 31. As the committee fully understands, the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund is the primary funding source for Federal Transit Administration programs. Absent congressional action on revenues going into the HTF, the Congressional Budget Office projects that balances in both the Mass Transit Account and the Highway Account will drop to levels below a minimum prudent balance this year. If this occurs, the Department of Transportation will have difficulty making payments to states and transit systems in a timely manner. APTA strongly encourages Congress to take action now to prevent the insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund. Of the $ billion authorized for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in FY 2014 (the final year of MAP-21 s authorization) $8.595 billion comes from Mass Transit Account. The remaining funds are appropriated from the General Fund for New Starts, Research Programs, TCRP, Technical Assistance, FTA Administration, and other programs. 1

11 The work that this Committee does to appropriate funds for FTA programs is vitally important to the industry and our national economy. Capital Investment Grants support necessary development opportunities for growing communities with increasing public transportation demand. Transit research and technical assistance programs require levels of appropriations that are small in relative terms, but lead to considerable improvements in transit services that maximize the impact of federal dollars. APTA urges Congress to appropriate funds for these programs that, at a minimum, are consistent with levels set in the expiring authorization law. The Continuing Need for Federal Transit Investment For decades America has been underinvesting in its transportation infrastructure, and the impact is being felt today. Recent estimates of the costs to bring just the existing transit infrastructure into a state of good repair stand at $88 billion, and due to under-investment, that number is continuing to climb. The longer we wait to address this deficit, the more expensive it becomes. The fiscally prudent approach is to invest in infrastructure now, because deferred maintenance will have major safety implications and result in higher costs and asset deterioration. Public transportation providers work every day to provide safe, reliable mobility options for Americans, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to fulfill that core mission as aging transit infrastructure in many communities across the nation is being pushed to the limit. Over the last ten years, transit use has grown at a higher rate than population growth or highway travel, but federal funding has not kept pace. U.S. public transportation systems provided 10.8 billion trips in 2014, which is the highest annual public transit ridership number in 58 years. Many of the largest increases were seen in rural and small urban communities. These national trends also support APTA s recommendations for significant growth of capital programs to increase transit capacity, and they underscore the need to bring systems up to a state of good repair. Public transportation is an essential part of the nation s transportation network. Transit provides the connectivity and mobility needed to keep the U.S. competitive in the global economy. Without robust investment in public transportation, economic opportunity will decrease; harmful emissions will increase; our national security will be negatively impacted; seniors, veterans, and other Americans will be unable to get to medical appointments; congestion will harm productivity; workers and businesses will suffer; and American families will lose both time and money, and have fewer transportation options. Federal Transit Administration Programs Formula Grant Programs The core formula grant programs, including the Urbanized Area Formula, Rural Area Formula, Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities, State of Good Repair, and Bus and Bus Facilities, among others, are the foundation of the federal transit program. These programs are funded by the Highway Trust Fund. Transit agencies in every state of the nation rely on these programs to fulfill their purpose of providing safe, reliable public transportation options in their communities. In order to accommodate increasing ridership numbers and to address the $88 billion state of good repair backlog, APTA s recommendations for the next authorization bill would significantly increase funding for core formula programs and maintain the balance between core formula and capital investment programs. A significant priority for APTA in the next authorization bill is for Congress to address changes to the Bus and Bus Facilities program. This program was reduced by 57% and was restructured as an entirely formulabased program. For many transit agencies, especially those in rural and small urban communities, this approach has been insufficient to meet capital investment needs. A discretionary aspect to this program is crucial for investments that are large and infrequent, including costs associated with acquiring a new busses or building new facilities. We will continue to work with the authorizing committees to address these priorities. 2

12 Capital Investment Grants (New Starts/Small Starts) Capital Investment Grants are the primary source of federal investment in the construction or expansion of heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, bus rapid transit and ferryboat projects. This is an indispensable program for increasing capacity to accommodate the steadily upward ridership trends in communities across the nation. Successful light and heavy rail, commuter rail, streetcar, and bus rapid transit projects bolster local and regional economies and are a factor in attracting investment in American communities that might otherwise go overseas. The success of major, multi-year capital projects depend on predictable federal funding to honor current and future Full Funding Grant Agreements. The President s Budget requests $3.25 billion for Capital Investment Grants. APTA s authorization proposal takes into account the demand for funding in the federal pipeline of projects that have been approved or are under review and recommends significant growth in the Capital Investment Grants program for FY 2016 and subsequent years. Transit Research/Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)/Technical Assistance and Standards Development/Workforce Development APTA strongly urges the committee to fully fund the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), Technical Assistance and Standards Development, and Human Resources and Training programs. APTA s legislative recommendation for the next authorization bill proposes funding these programs through a take-down from the urban area formula allocation in the amount of $25 million per year. We ask, at a minimum, that these programs be funded at the levels authorized for FY 2014 in MAP-21. This level of funding is greater than has recently been appropriated, but is justified because the benefits and savings caused by these programs can be much greater than their cost. For example, TCRP leverages industry knowledge and best practices to provide recommendations that result in enhanced safety, better performance and real cost savings for taxpayers. This year alone, TCRP has published studies on the legal issues of public-private partnerships, practices for establishing ADA paratransit eligibility assessment facilities, and the issues involved in obtaining insurance for large transit projects, to name just a few. For over 20 years, through more than 500 reports, TCRP has provided in-depth knowledge of a system to allow for stronger safety, higher efficiency and better effectiveness nationwide. With regard to standards development, the industry recently completed a standard to address the protection of all roadway workers conducting work on or near the rail transit systems right-of-way to create a consistent approach throughout the industry. This was in response to a request by NTSB to ensure that programs adequately and effectively address appropriate training, communication, maintenance vehicle movement authorities, flagging procedures, rules compliance and the sharing of a work area by multiple work crews. In creating an industry-wide standard for on-track equipment, worker safety will be a fundamental goal of systems around the country. Federal Railroad Administration Programs Federal funding to implement passenger and freight rail safety initiatives and federal support to leverage state and local funding for High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) service are two critical priorities for the industry. Several bills have been introduced and advanced in the 114 th Congress to address various aspects of rail safety and authorize federal investments for passenger rail service. We urge the Subcommittee to strongly consider appropriating funding for rail safety and passenger rail programs. Positive Train Control APTA urges the Subcommittee to appropriate funding to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for the Railroad Safety Technology Grants Program, which provides grants to publicly funded commuter rail agencies to implement Positive Train Control (PTC) technologies on their systems. PTC implementation was mandated by the Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) of 2008 and specifically requires commuter rail operators to implement PTC systems by December 31, To date, 3

13 commuter rail agencies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to comply even as many systems simultaneously face significant state-of-good repair capital costs. APTA s most recent estimates of the cost of implementing PTC on public commuter railroads has increased to $3.48 billion, not including costs associated with acquiring the necessary radio spectrum or the subsequent software and operating expenses. APTA s commuter railroads are committed, as a national safety priority, to implementation of PTC, however, additional resources are needed. Congress authorized $250 million for the Railroad Safety Technology Grants Program within Section 105 of the RSIA, however, only $50 million was ever appropriated. APTA urges the Committee to support positive train control implementation by appropriating funding equivalent to the prior authorized level. High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Investment (HSIPR) APTA continues to support robust new funding for high speed and intercity passenger rail service through a distinct reauthorization measure to succeed the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). Specifically, APTA recommends an authorization and appropriation of $50 billion over six years to facilitate the development of a national network of high-performance passenger rail systems, funded by a dedicated and indexed federal funding stream and complemented by the use of public private partnerships. APTA also opposes any legislative provisions that limit funding for the development of high-speed and intercity passenger service. Over the past four years, commuter rail ridership has continued to increase annually. In 2014, commuter rail ridership was slightly below one-half billion trips. Demand for commuter rail and intercity passenger rail service continues to grow, and some systems are expanding existing service and some regions are starting new service. According to the FRA, at least 30 state rail plans and corridor service development plans define the future of passenger rail investments throughout the country. Each project supports economic growth by creating construction and manufacturing jobs for American workers and also enhances local and regional economic expansion as small businesses and residential units are often developed in proximity to new and expanded commuter rail service routes. Additionally, APTA supports safe, efficient, and adequately funded Amtrak service. Amtrak ridership exceeded 30 million trips in FY2014 despite a slow economy. At a minimum, we urge the Subcommittee to restore funding for Amtrak s capital grants to at least the levels authorized in the recently House passed passenger rail legislation. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the U.S. population will grow by more than 100 million over the next 40 years. Such an increase will overwhelm America's existing transportation network airways, roads, and our existing rail transportation infrastructure. To meet the demands of a growing and highly mobile population, the United States must develop and continually expand a fully integrated multimodal highspeed and intercity passenger rail (HSIPR) system. Investing in infrastructure ensures the efficient movement of people and goods that is essential to continued economic growth and other national policy goals. Conclusion We thank the subcommittee for allowing us to share our recommendations on FY 2016 public transportation and high-speed and intercity rail appropriations issues. APTA looks forward to working with the Committee to grow and improve federal public transportation programs. This is an important year for public transportation, and your support will be crucial to increase mobility and opportunity, grow the economy, and ensure that public transportation services can be provided in a safe and reliable manner. 4

14 2016 THUD Appropriations Comparisons FY 2015 Enacted (Millions) FY 2016 Proposal (Millions) House THUD Subcommittee Mark (Millions) House Appropriations Committee Mark (Millions) FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS Programs Currently Funded from the Highway Trust Fund (a) 8, , , , (b) Transit Oriented Development Pilot Program Planning Urbanized Area Formula 4, , , , Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Indiv. with Disabilities Rural Formula Bus Testing Facility (d) National Transit Institute National Transit Database State of Good Repair 2, , , , Bus and Bus Facilities Formula , Growing States and High Density States Programs Currently Funded from General Funds (a) 2, , , , Research, Develop., Demonstration, Deployment Transit Cooperative Research Program Technical Assistance and Standards Development Human Resources and Training Emergency Relief Program Capital Investment 2, , , , Administration Newly proposed programs 5341 Rapid Growth Area Transit Program Fixing and Accelerating Surface Transp. Grants (b) Total GROW AMERICA Act FTA Funding Proposed 10, , , ,648.3 Separately authorized programs Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Total Transit Funding Proposed 11, , , ,748.3 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINSTRATION 5602 Fixing and Accelerating Surface Transp. Grants (b) FEDERAL RAIL ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS Current Passenger Rail Service Program --- 2, Rail Service Improvement Program --- 2, Rail Safety Technology Grants (PTC) (non-add) Amtrak Operating Grants Amtrak Capital and Debt Service Grants 1, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION TIGER Grants , Fixing and Accelerating Surface Transp. Grants (b) --- 1, (a) As part of the Administration's surface transportation reauthorization proposal - the GROW AMERICA Act - all federal transit programs would be funded through Transportation Trust Fund. (b) The Administration refers to FAST program funding in budget documents as "embedded" in FTA and FHWA program budgets, but the program will be administ the Secretary. FAST funds are listed twice to show this relationship. They are not intended to be counted twice.

15 Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee Background The US Access Board convened the Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee (RVAAC) in 2013 to develop consensus recommendations for the Board s use in updating sections of the guidelines that cover vehicles that operate on fixed guideway systems. More information on the RVAAC can be found at The Access Board anticipates the following steps in the process. Access Board finalizes RVAAC report. RVAAC votes on recommendations Minority report deadline is established RVAAC recommendations published (estimated for July 2015) Access Board develops Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to update the current rail guidelines based on RVAAC recommendations, which may or may not incorporate points from minority report, and develops a regulatory impact assessment (RIA) outlining cost impact of recommendations. Public comment on NPRM and RIA. Access Board finalizes updated guidelines with updated RIA. DOT publishes NPRM to adopt Access Board updated guidelines for rail vehicles. Public comment DOT Final Rule The notes below are based on the draft recommendations as of June 4, 2015, which can be found on the website, but there may be changes to these issues or additional issues when the fully updated report reviewed. Issues of Concern Bridge Plates. The latest version of the report requires automatic deploying bridge plates that are activated on demand by a push button that is accessible to both the train crew and passengers. The current standard allows a manually-deployed bridge plate. The current recommendations also require that the maximum slope of the bridge plate be reduced from 1:4 to 1:8, which will effectively double the length of the bridge plate for a given vertical gap. Bridge plates are required when the new specified gap standard of +/- 5/8" vertical gap or +/- 2" horizontal gap cannot be met at all passenger stations. Concerns about the current recommendations include: Safety. The bridge plate for every car would need to be designed to work with the worst case offset of any car at any station. In order to address all gaps, devices would need to be 32 long, assuming a typical 4" vertical offset between car and platform. The longer bridge plate would reduce the amount of space the wheelchair has to maneuver as it exits the bridge plate, and could interfere with columns or other features on the platform when 1

16 deployed, particularly since many subway platforms have columns that are 48 from the edge of the platform. The longer bridge plates also would present a hazard to customers on the platform and in the car vestibules during deployment and retraction. If the car is higher than the platform, the 32 long exposed ramp would be a tripping hazard to passengers on the platform. If the car is lower than the platform, the ramp would need to extend into the passenger compartment, creating a tripping hazard to passengers on the car. If the car can be higher or lower than the platform depending on the station, the device would need to be significantly more complex to meet the slope requirements and also automatically fold out of the way when not in use. While the goal discussed at the RVAAC would be to allow wheelchair customers to board trains without assistance, the customer activation requirement could be potentially problematic since a customer could activate the bridge plate while other riders are attempting to board the train. This and other safety issues could be mitigated if a member of the train crew were required to activate the bridge plate. Such a requirement would make push-button activation less critical since a crew member would already be at the doorway. The continued use of manually-deployed plates would increase options for storing bridge plates and also improve reliability, discussed below. In the longer term, automatic deploying mechanisms may preclude future installations of platform screen doors. Reliability. Automatically-deploying bridge plates operating upon demand would be complex electromechanical devices requiring new safety-critical indication systems for the crew, and would introduce a new mechanism that could impact service. For example, if the device does not retract, the train would not be able to leave the station. Car design and weight. The bridge plate system would add weight to the car, which would significantly impact the vehicle structure and require additional strengthening especially around the door pockets. It is also possible that adding recommended exterior equipment to the standard car profile may violate the wayside clearances. Cost. In addition to the up-front costs for equipment to cover all required doors and spares, there will be expenses incurred for energy consumption, maintenance, and overhauls. Customer impact. Deployment would increase dwell times, reducing throughput, and increasing crowding. Equipment-related delays also could occur. As noted above, if the device fails, a train could be prevented from leaving the station removed from service for repairs. Car interior space. The need to have automatic deploying bridge plates would require a device at each door. This will require more space than the current single manual bridge plate that can be used for all doors on a car. The increased bridge plate storage space would lead to decreased seating and/or vestibule space. 2

17 Floor heights. In order to reduce the complexity of the bridge plate device, the floor of rail cars could be raised to permit the bridge plate to always reach the platform without interference. However increasing the height of rail cars may not be possible due to wayside clearance requirements, which typically define the existing envelope of rail cars. Toilet access. The RVAAC report will include new requirements for space around the toilet bowl. The impact of the requirement will depend on the wording adopted and the interior arrangement of passenger cars. 32 wide end doors. The report recommends 32" wide end door openings on all passenger cars, except cab cars in cases where it can be proven that the smaller cab size results in operation issues. Since most commuter rail equipment has end door openings approximately 24" wide between the collision posts, this new requirement would force the collision posts (on non-cab ends) apart by approximately 8", affecting the car body structure and design and possibly impact antitelescoping performance should there be a collision of between cars with the new design and existing equipment. The change would also lead to increased weight and possibly a loss of seats. On board lifts. The report requires that new cars have on board lifts for stations that do not have high platforms. As a result, station-based lift platforms could no longer be used for new equipment This would be a significant cost and capacity issue for new cars that serve stations without high platforms. The on board lifts will also have a negative impact on car structural design and crashworthiness and will lead to increased car weight. Audible and visual requirements. The report requires that all new cars have audible and visual components for all messaging systems used to communicate with passengers, including door out of service indications and station announcements. This recommendation would result in a substantial increase in audio alarms and announcements on trains and would impact the passenger environment. The report mandates that all audio messages be provided visually, except for in life threatening emergencies. Since there currently is not accurate real time speech-to-text conversion technology on the market, this new requirement could have the unintended consequence of limiting the amount of information provided to passengers via the public address system. The report requires that audio and visual notification indicate which doors will open at each station. However, since the platform used for a given train may vary at certain stations, and doors may open on either side of the car, this information cannot be recorded for each station, and would have to be provided in real time by the crew. A more complicated crew interface with the communication system would be needed so the recorded messages could be adjusted in real time. Hearing loops would be required on all new cars. Hearing loops have never been tested in a subway system and present a number of challenges listed below. In addition, this technology benefits a subset of the deaf community. The use of visual displays providing timely information would offer a better means to communicate with the entire deaf community. For a rail car application, the following issues that need to be addressed and fully understood prior to implementation of hearing loops: Technology. There are known challenges in making hearing loops effective within steel framed buildings or structures. Metallic interior paneling, including aluminum, interferes with 3

18 the hearing loop signals, and areas around propulsion equipment are difficult to cover due to electro-magnetic interference from the propulsion equipment. The frequencies at which the system operates would need to be carefully reviewed to prevent any interference to/from communications based train control equipment, train radios, and other equipment. Cost. As part of one recent procurement, the estimated cost was $38,500 per car. Since there are currently no domestic projects and very few international projects that have successfully implemented hearing loops, the cost at this time is not certain. The net cost for a large fleet would be millions of dollars. Additional maintenance costs also would result for this untested technology. Coverage. The current report mandates coverage in all areas of the car that are feasible, but in no less than two areas. Since there are known issues with achieving 100% coverage as outlined above, each new procurement would need to justify the coverage area if they do not achieve 100% coverage. Signage. The report requires most signage on rail cars to be compliant with size, and font and include braille, which will significantly increase the size of many typical decals. The larger size may not be achievable due to limited available space in a rail car. 60 turning radius for wheelchair parking area. The report includes new requirements for wheelchair parking areas in each car. The existing requirement of 30 X 48 had been replaced with 32 X 54 or 32 X 59, and a 60 turning circle for maneuvering into the parking area. This standard would require more space and could reduce seating capacity, depending on the interior arrangement. Next steps Review draft report. As applicable, develop minority report(s) on key issues for submittal to the Access Board. Identify accessibility improvements that can be implemented to achieve similar objectives while minimizing unintended consequences. Continue engagement throughout rulemaking process. 4