Solving the PTC Deadline Problem

[wanswheel]

Excerpt from Railway Age, Aug. 1, 1999

Though railroads and suppliers have made significant strides toward interoperable Positive Train Control, questions remain as to whether the FRA will allow the industry enough time to "do it right."

The good news is that in under two short years, the major U.S. railroads have made significant progress in working with the industry to develop its next generation train control technology known as Positive Train Control (PTC). The bad news is that it is unclear whether actual PTC deployment will be fast enough to satisfy the Federal Railway Administration--partly because its own timetable may have become infected by a need for political expediency.

Dr. Robert Gallamore, program manager for the North American PTC Joint Program, probably best articulated the railroads' perspective in his paper for the Railway Age/PTG De Leuw, Gather Third International Conference on Communications-Based Train Control in Washington, D.C.: "FRA is considering using its regulatory powers to mandate PTC in high risk corridors. But the railroads argue that without interoperable standards, cost-effective systems are impossible. Without cost-effective systems, wide-scale deployment is unlikely. And without wide-scale deployment, few safety benefits will be realized."

Both major U.S. PTC programs, the North American PTC Joint Program (also known as the IDOT program) and the CSX Transportation/Norfolk Southern PTC program, appear to be converging on common standards and technologies. Despite these positive indicators, however, significant issues surrounding safety regulation of PTC appear still to be open and recent transit experience with CBTC technology suggests it may take longer than expected before PTC technology is ready for prime time.

[Buslist]

wanswheel

Excerpt from Railway Age, Aug. 1, 1999

Though railroads and suppliers have made significant strides toward interoperable Positive Train Control, questions remain as to whether the FRA will allow the industry enough time to "do it right."

The good news is that in under two short years, the major U.S. railroads have made significant progress in working with the industry to develop its next generation train control technology known as Positive Train Control (PTC). The bad news is that it is unclear whether actual PTC deployment will be fast enough to satisfy the Federal Railway Administration--partly because its own timetable may have become infected by a need for political expediency.

Dr. Robert Gallamore, program manager for the North American PTC Joint Program, probably best articulated the railroads' perspective in his paper for the Railway Age/PTG De Leuw, Gather Third International Conference on Communications-Based Train Control in Washington, D.C.: "FRA is considering using its regulatory powers to mandate PTC in high risk corridors. But the railroads argue that without interoperable standards, cost-effective systems are impossible. Without cost-effective systems, wide-scale deployment is unlikely. And without wide-scale deployment, few safety benefits will be realized."

Both major U.S. PTC programs, the North American PTC Joint Program (also known as the IDOT program) and the CSX Transportation/Norfolk Southern PTC program, appear to be converging on common standards and technologies. Despite these positive indicators, however, significant issues surrounding safety regulation of PTC appear still to be open and recent transit experience with CBTC technology suggests it may take longer than expected before PTC technology is ready for prime time.

 

 

There are those in the industry that blame (perhaps falsely) Gallamore for the failure of the IDOT project and his insistence on using a consultant near his beach home, but never mind!

[Euclid]

MidlandMike

 

Euclid

...

You mentioned that the Administration asked for the authority to extend the deadline.  Have they been given that authority?  If so, why haven’t they extended the deadline? 

...

It seems evident to me that Congress overall does not quite want to give an extension. Obviously they feel like they have the right, the duty, and the necessity to inflict financial pain on the railroads to spur them on in the quest to complete PTC.  Perhaps the fines are just an empty threat to spur them on, but even so, it is an indication of a belief that the railroads need to be pushed.  This mindset of keeping up the pressure is inconsistent with the idea of granting an extension and thereby losing the push for three years. 

 

 

There has been a steady drumbeat from the republican Congress for smaller government and less regulation, so I have no idea why you say "Obviously they feel like they have the right, the duty, and the necessity to inflict financial pain on the railroads to spur them on in the quest to complete PTC." 

 

I say it is obvious because it is clearly apparent from the law and fines that the law calls for, and by the threat of the FRA to issue the fines.  They would not have written the law, stipulated the fines, and threatened to apply them if they did not feel like they have the right, the duty, and the necessity to inflict financial pain on the railroads in order to spur them on in the quest to complete PTC. 

But the main point of the comment is the sentence preceding it as follows:

“It seems evident to me that Congress overall does not quite want to give an extension.”

So, when I say it is obvious that Congress and the FRA “feel they have the right, the duty, and the necessity to inflict financial pain…”, I am simply explaining why I say it is evident to me that Congress does not want to give an extension.  Or at least, that sentiment exists, and it is holding back on an extension.

Allow me to elaborate:

One popular way to look at this now is that since it is apparent that the railroads cannot meet the deadline, they need more time. Therefore, we must give them more time by extending the deadline, and the only impediment is the time needed to change the law.  But I think this overlooks one major factor.  

What this overlooks is that there are many who don’t want to delay the implementation of PTC.  There is pressure on the railroads to hurry the implementation today because of the deadline and its fines.  That pressure disappears with an extension.  So it is not just legal process in Congress that is holding back an extension.  It is also the desire within Congress to not grant an extension.  That too is holding back an extension. 

[Deggesty]

Euclid

 

MidlandMike

 

Euclid

...

You mentioned that the Administration asked for the authority to extend the deadline.  Have they been given that authority?  If so, why haven’t they extended the deadline? 

...

It seems evident to me that Congress overall does not quite want to give an extension. Obviously they feel like they have the right, the duty, and the necessity to inflict financial pain on the railroads to spur them on in the quest to complete PTC.  Perhaps the fines are just an empty threat to spur them on, but even so, it is an indication of a belief that the railroads need to be pushed.  This mindset of keeping up the pressure is inconsistent with the idea of granting an extension and thereby losing the push for three years. 

 

 

There has been a steady drumbeat from the republican Congress for smaller government and less regulation, so I have no idea why you say "Obviously they feel like they have the right, the duty, and the necessity to inflict financial pain on the railroads to spur them on in the quest to complete PTC." 

 

 

 

I say it is obvious because it is clearly apparent from the law and fines that the law calls for, and by the threat of the FRA to issue the fines.  They would not have written the law, stipulated the fines, and threatened to apply them if they did not feel like they have the right, the duty, and the necessity to inflict financial pain on the railroads in order to spur them on in the quest to complete PTC. 

But the main point of the comment is the sentence preceding it as follows:

“It seems evident to me that Congress overall does not quite want to give an extension.”

So, when I say it is obvious that Congress and the FRA “feel they have the right, the duty, and the necessity to inflict financial pain…”, I am simply explaining why I say it is evident to me that Congress does not want to give an extension.  Or at least, that sentiment exists, and it is holding back on an extension.

Allow me to elaborate:

One popular way to look at this now is that since it is apparent that the railroads cannot meet the deadline, they need more time. Therefore, we must give them more time by extending the deadline, and the only impediment is the time needed to change the law.  But I think this overlooks one major factor.  

What this overlooks is that there are many who don’t want to delay the implementation of PTC.  There is pressure on the railroads to hurry the implementation today because of the deadline and its fines.  That pressure disappears with an extension.  So it is not just legal process in Congress that is holding back an extension.  It is also the desire within Congress to not grant an extension.  That too is holding back an extension. 

 

I  have the impression that anyone who does not want to extend the time does not comprehend the reality that much still needs to be done before all of the track that needs to be protected can be protected. Apparently such a person has his mind made up and refuses to be confused by reality.

[Euclid]

Deggesty

 

I  have the impression that anyone who does not want to extend the time does not comprehend the reality that much still needs to be done before all of the track that needs to be protected can be protected. Apparently such a person has his mind made up and refuses to be confused by reality.

I think this is the way that some people in Congress look at it:

There will be as much time available as is needed to finish the job, no matter whether the deadline is extended or not.  The people who do not want to extend the deadline feel that doing so will cause PTC to take more time overall than it would take with the deadline and its fines in place. 

A three year extension would eliminate the fines and their motivating effect for three years.  It would also set the precedent that extensions are granted if needed when a deadline arrives.  That would render deadlines moot, and make the PTC conversion voluntary.   It would mean that there was no point to the mandate in the first place.   

[Norm48327]

Jailhouse lawyers have all the answers, don't they.

[MidlandMike]

Euclid

 

I say it is obvious because it is clearly apparent from the law and fines that the law calls for, and by the threat of the FRA to issue the fines.  They would not have written the law, stipulated the fines, and threatened to apply them if they did not feel like they have the right, the duty, and the necessity to inflict financial pain on the railroads in order to spur them on in the quest to complete PTC. 

...

 

You seem to talk of Congress in somewhat of the abstract.  As I have said, the democratic Congress that enacted PTS is not the republican Congress that is there now.  As an example, the ACA (ObamaCare) which was enacted by a democratic Congress, has been voted 40 times to be repealed by the present republican Congress.  The present Congress may be as likely to repeal PTC as extend the deadline.  Sure there are some members of Congress who espouse keeping the present deadline, mainly democrats in the northeast, however they know they are in the minority.  Their rhetoric may score points with their base, nevertheless, I am not sure how committed they are to an absolute deadline, since most of the commuter line shutdowns are in their districts.  Even the democratic administration wants to extend the deadline.  The Senate has approved the extension.  You will need to show me the members of the republican House majority who want to hold to the Janurary deadline.

[Euclid]

Midland Mike,

People keep talking about what Republicans will do.  I have no idea how Republicans will view this mandate deadline problem.  But more importantly, I am not attempting to prove that a certain outcome will occur.  I am just looking at what might happen given this very odd set of circumstances in which Congress has created a mandate with a deadline that is unenforceable because enforcing it will damage the U.S. economy.  If the mandate is unenforceable now, will it be enforceable at the end of three years if extended?  If the mandate is unenforceable now, it seems to me that there never was a mandate, and never will be one.  Why was it ever felt that a mandate was needed?   

[jeffhergert]

I would be more worried about some House members adding amendments for items they know the President wouldn't otherwise sign.  They might not go anywhere and be removed in reconciliation, but would delay everything.  There are some politicians who aren't above playing politics at the risk of everything else.

Jeff 

[dehusman]

Euclid

I say it is obvious because it is clearly apparent from the law and fines that the law calls for, and by the threat of the FRA to issue the fines. They would not have written the law, stipulated the fines, and threatened to apply them if they did not feel like they have the right, the duty, and the necessity to inflict financial pain on the railroads in order to spur them on in the quest to complete PTC.

Virtually all the federal regulations have penalties attached for non-compliance.  Its nothing new. Safety appliance regs, hazmat regs, hours of service regs, etc., etc. etc.  All have penalties, typically in the form of fines, for non-compliance.  If you want to characterize that as "the necessity to inflict financial pain on the railroads" ok, seems a bit melodramatic.  Its like saying the library feels "the necessity to inflict financial pain" on people who keep a book too long.  That's kinda the purpose of all fines and penalties.  If the railroads violate the law then there are fines for the violation.  You make it sound like some vendetta.

[Euclid]

Well it is a bit melodramatic because my point is to push back against the popular idea that the railroads tried, but the job is bigger than estimated, so they need more time; therefore, let’s give them more time by extending the deadline.  What this simplistic view conveniently ignores is that there is a strong feeling that the railroads need to be pushed into PTC because they would not have done it on their own. 

I am emphasizing this point by saying, “They would not have written the law, stipulated the fines, and threatened to apply them if they did not feel like they have the right, the duty, and the necessity to inflict financial pain on the railroads in order to spur them on in the quest to complete PTC.”

This is the point of my statement that you quote, but it needs the first sentence to complete the context and meaning.  My point is that there is more to this than just the need for more time.  There is also the need to get it done as quickly as possible because every day delayed is more potential for lives lost.  Essentially, this is the reason why some in Congress do not want to grant an extension.

If all that was needed is more time, there would not be the need for inflicting financial pain as a motivator to get the job done.  There would be no need for deadlines and fines.  So the existence of a deadline with fines indicates a need to enforce the deadline, not to extend it.

[schlimm]

Non-compliance generally carries penalties, whether fines, jail time or both.  Otherwise the law is unenforceable, i.e., toothless.

[wanswheel]

blue streak 1

Boehner resignation how will it affect this problem??

 

 

Might help.  He’s still Speaker through October, and without the need to worry anymore that sensible legislation passed with the help of Democrats will outrage his critics.  He is the man who invited Pope Francis to come to the Capitol. I won’t be surprised if he follows the Golden Rule (do unto others) and arranges not to burden his successor with problems that he is currently empowered to solve.

[Euclid]

Buslist

 

Euclid

 

 

Buslist

For those thinking that a shutdown might be lengthy due to congress wanting the railroads to loose revenue need to consider a basic fact.

 

 

I don't know of anybody here who has said that a shutdown might be lengthy because congress wants the railroads to loose revenue.  Can you please explain?

 

 

 

 

someone in another forum said 

"In my previous post, I was talking about a case where Congress fails to grant an extension by the deadline, and the railroads shut down a large amount of operations as they have announced they will do.  I can see how fuel and crews would be cheaper during a shutdown, as you say, but what about the loss of revenue?  How long could the railroads stand that loss?  In other words, what will the railroads do if Congress persists in not extending the deadline after it passes?" 

 

Why would they refuse to pass it if they didn't think that the loss of revenue wasn't a way to get the railroads running again? 

 

 

 

 

Okay, I see.  You are responding to my comment in Fred Frailey’s blog.  You ask why Congress would refuse to pass an extension if they didn't think that the loss of revenue wasn't a way to get the railroads running again.  One reason, other than the reason you cite, might be that they will refuse to pass an extension because they believe that doing so would slow the implementation of PTC. 

But I understand your point, and agree that it might be an objective of Congress.  The way I see it, a shutdown puts both Congress and the railroads over a barrel.  A shutdown will pressure Congress because of damage to the economy.  But it will also pressure the railroads because of a loss of revenue.  So I don’t think a shutdown works to the advantage of either side. 

[BaltACD]

A carrier shut down will futher delay any PTC installations as all personnel will be laid off during the period of the shut down.  PTC doesn't install itself.

[MidlandMike]

Euclid

Midland Mike,

People keep talking about what Republicans will do.  I have no idea how Republicans will view this mandate deadline problem.  But more importantly, I am not attempting to prove that a certain outcome will occur.  I am just looking at what might happen given this very odd set of circumstances in which Congress has created a mandate with a deadline that is unenforceable because enforcing it will damage the U.S. economy.  If the mandate is unenforceable now, will it be enforceable at the end of three years if extended?  If the mandate is unenforceable now, it seems to me that there never was a mandate, and never will be one.  Why was it ever felt that a mandate was needed?   

 

The mandate with its present deadline is certainly enforecable, and the FRA has threatened such (unless they are successfully sued by the RRs.)  Because the deadline has now been shown to be unreasonable (by all private RRs and virtually all government run commuter agencies) the administration has asked for the ability to extend the deadlines.  They would negotiate reasonable extensions with the individual RRs, with penalties for missing the new deadlines.  I have mentioned some of the available legal instruments previously.  This is done all the time in the regulatory process.  They are simply delaying enforcemrnt to a more reasonable time.  The mandate is to get PTC done; this will get it done in a realistic timeframe.

[Euclid]

MidlandMike

 

Euclid

I am just looking at what might happen given this very odd set of circumstances in which Congress has created a mandate with a deadline that is unenforceable because enforcing it will damage the U.S. economy.  If the mandate is unenforceable now, will it be enforceable at the end of three years if extended?  If the mandate is unenforceable now, it seems to me that there never was a mandate, and never will be one. 

The mandate with its present deadline is certainly enforecable, and the FRA has threatened such (unless they are successfully sued by the RRs.)  Because the deadline has now been shown to be unreasonable (by all private RRs and virtually all government run commuter agencies) the administration has asked for the ability to extend the deadlines.  They would negotiate reasonable extensions with the individual RRs, with penalties for missing the new deadlines.  They are simply delaying enforcemrnt to a more reasonable time.  

 

 

Well yes the deadline is enforceable in the practice of the enforcement mechanism.  But if that leads to the ruin of the economy and of the railroads, the deadline is not enforceable in any practical sense.  You say they will just delay enforcement.  What happens after the delay? They are back to the same problem of ruining the economy.       

 

[BaltACD]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/us/politics/rail-service-threatened-as-deadline-for-train-safety-system-looms.html?emc=edit_th_20150929&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=33885527&_r=0

[zugmann]

Don't worry, the house leadership is busy on this subject.....by.....discussing planned... parenthood....?

 

We're screwed.

[Euclid]

I can see the following three outcomes:

 

1)   Congress wants to extend the deadline, and they will have enough time to change the law and extend the deadline before it arrives.

 

2)   Congress wants to extend the deadline, but will not have enough time to change the law and extend the deadline before it arrives.  So they will extend the deadline sometime after 1/1/15.

 

3)   Congress will refuse to extend the deadline because they want the deadline to remain in place. 

[wanswheel]

Have to stop thinking of Congress as a body with a brain, it’s a bunch of individuals. Gradually, gradually by osmosis, its least interested members are learning of the existence of this PTC deadline thing, probably thanks to Sen. John Thune.  I see the NY Times article is on page 16, meaning, the sky isn’t falling yet but pay attention. That’s good news, everybody important keeps an eye on the Times.

[Euclid]

I don’t consider Congress to be a "body with a brain."  I only refer to it as a single entity because it will make a decision speaking as a single entity.  I realize that it is a bunch of people with differing and shifting views and a whole lot of procedural rigmarole.  But at the end of the day, it speaks with one voice as the legislative body. 

[BaltACD]

While Congress may be a body, it's actions over past decades demonstrates that it is many petaflops short of having a functioning brain.

[MidlandMike]

Euclid

 

 

 

Well yes the deadline is enforceable in the practice of the enforcement mechanism.  But if that leads to the ruin of the economy and of the railroads, the deadline is not enforceable in any practical sense.  You say they will just delay enforcement.  What happens after the delay? They are back to the same problem of ruining the economy.       

  

The RRs have spent $6 billion so far on PTC.  Do you think that after investing so much they are just going to quit if the deadline is delayed?  They will continue to implement the system under more reasonable extended deadlines.  Some will move faster than others.  When some have completed, while others trail behind, the slower ones will have to justify why they can't meet new deadlines.  If a few RRs have been less than diligent, and enforcement action needs to be taken on them, it will not be an economic catastrophy, as their competitors will take the business.

In the meantime, I previously asked you to identify a majority (republican) caucus who opposes extending PTC.  You seem to have tried to deflect, while repeating the same "yeah but's".

[Euclid]

MidlandMike

 

Euclid

 

 

 

Well yes the deadline is enforceable in the practice of the enforcement mechanism.  But if that leads to the ruin of the economy and of the railroads, the deadline is not enforceable in any practical sense.  You say they will just delay enforcement.  What happens after the delay? They are back to the same problem of ruining the economy.       

  

 

 

 

The RRs have spent $6 billion so far on PTC.  Do you think that after investing so much they are just going to quit if the deadline is delayed?  They will continue to implement the system under more reasonable extended deadlines.  Some will move faster than others.  When some have completed, while others trail behind, the slower ones will have to justify why they can't meet new deadlines.  If a few RRs have been less than diligent, and enforcement action needs to be taken on them, it will not be an economic catastrophy, as their competitors will take the business.

In the meantime, I previously asked you to identify a majority (republican) caucus who opposes extending PTC.  You seem to have tried to deflect, while repeating the same "yeah but's".

 

Hey, I am just giving my opinions and making some observations.  I have no stake in the outcome.  If you want to believe in the most rosy scenario, that’s fine with me.  But I am under no obligation to prove otherwise to you.  I have stated my reasoning.  The rest is up to you.

You say that the solution is more reasonable deadlines.  How reasonable do they have to be?  If they can’t be enforced, what is the point of having a deadline?  

You say that with reasonable deadlines, some railroads will move faster than others.  What if, on the whole, they all slow way down because they think that is reasonable?   

You say the railroads have spent $6 billion so far, and ask if I think they will quit if the deadline is extended.  I have no idea what they would do going forward if this deadline is extended.  If the only acceptable deadline is what the railroads feel is reasonable, why have a deadline?  Without a deadline, you don’t have a mandate.  Would the railroads have spent that $6 billion without the mandate?    

I am not dodging your question about who opposes extending PTC in Congress.  I don’t know the answer, and I don’t care.  I certainly would not predict the outcome based on what the answer appears to be.  If there is enough support, there will be an extension.  I have never ruled that out.

[tree68]

Euclid

You say that the solution is more reasonable deadlines.  How reasonable do they have to be? 

The deadline(s) should take into consideration variables over which the railroad has no control.  Things like necessary technology, required equipment that hasn't been invented/purpose built yet, acquisition of land and frequencies, and the like.  If a manufacturer tells you he can't have the part you need for a year, how can you meet a deadline that's three months away?

Euclid

You say that with reasonable deadlines, some railroads will move faster than others.  What if, on the whole, they all slow way down because they think that is reasonable?   ...  If the only acceptable deadline is what the railroads feel is reasonable, why have a deadline?

While the railroads will likely have a say in any new deadlines, they probably won't be the ones setting them - that will come down to Congress and/or the FRA.  

That said - if a new blanket deadline is set (as opposed to deadlines for each railroad, based on how they are coming along on the project), then perhaps a railroad that is currently ahead of the curve might "slow down."  In reality, that simply means that they will redirect some of the resources currently being used on PTC to other projects.  They will continue to work toward meeting the new deadline, but perhaps not as fast as they could otherwise.

If individual deadlines are set, then it will depend on how "good faith" a given railroad's estimated completion date is.  And all the other variables...

[Deggesty]

tree68

 

 

Euclid

You say that the solution is more reasonable deadlines.  How reasonable do they have to be? 

 

 

The deadline(s) should take into consideration variables over which the railroad has no control.  Things like necessary technology, required equipment that hasn't been invented/purpose built yet, acquisition of land and frequencies, and the like.  If a manufacturer tells you he can't have the part you need for a year, how can you meet a deadline that's three months away?

 

 

Euclid

You say that with reasonable deadlines, some railroads will move faster than others.  What if, on the whole, they all slow way down because they think that is reasonable?   ...  If the only acceptable deadline is what the railroads feel is reasonable, why have a deadline?

 

 

While the railroads will likely have a say in any new deadlines, they probably won't be the ones setting them - that will come down to Congress and/or the FRA.  

That said - if a new blanket deadline is set (as opposed to deadlines for each railroad, based on how they are coming along on the project), then perhaps a railroad that is currently ahead of the curve might "slow down."  In reality, that simply means that they will redirect some of the resources currently being used on PTC to other projects.  They will continue to work toward meeting the new deadline, but perhaps not as fast as they could otherwise.

If individual deadlines are set, then it will depend on how "good faith" a given railroad's estimated completion date is.  And all the other variables...

 

Well said, Larry, especially the first paragraph.

[Euclid]

Deggesty

 

tree68

 

 

Euclid

You say that the solution is more reasonable deadlines.  How reasonable do they have to be? 

 

 

The deadline(s) should take into consideration variables over which the railroad has no control.  Things like necessary technology, required equipment that hasn't been invented/purpose built yet, acquisition of land and frequencies, and the like.  If a manufacturer tells you he can't have the part you need for a year, how can you meet a deadline that's three months away?

 

 

Euclid

You say that with reasonable deadlines, some railroads will move faster than others.  What if, on the whole, they all slow way down because they think that is reasonable?   ...  If the only acceptable deadline is what the railroads feel is reasonable, why have a deadline?

 

 

While the railroads will likely have a say in any new deadlines, they probably won't be the ones setting them - that will come down to Congress and/or the FRA.  

That said - if a new blanket deadline is set (as opposed to deadlines for each railroad, based on how they are coming along on the project), then perhaps a railroad that is currently ahead of the curve might "slow down."  In reality, that simply means that they will redirect some of the resources currently being used on PTC to other projects.  They will continue to work toward meeting the new deadline, but perhaps not as fast as they could otherwise.

If individual deadlines are set, then it will depend on how "good faith" a given railroad's estimated completion date is.  And all the other variables...

 

 

 

 

Well said, Larry, especially the first paragraph.

 

 

I agree that the railroads cannot meet a deadline that needs more time due to factors out of their control.  However, the problem with all possible deadlines going forward is not whether they will be unreasonable. 

On the contrary, the problem with all deadlines going forward is that they cannot be deadlines at all.  They can only be deadlines if the railroads meet them, which is not a deadline at all.  If the railroads cannot meet them, they must be extended, which is not a deadline at all.  A so called extended deadline will not be a deadline.  Instead, it will be a status reporting point with no ability to enforce progress.  It cannot possibly be a deadline according to its definition: “The time by which something must be finished.” 

[ruderunner]

Seems the house is bringing a 3year extension to the table on its own. Hopefully the Senate will OK it all by itself instead of packed into their transportation bill.

[wanswheel]

ruderunner

Seems the house is bringing a 3year extension to the table on its own. Hopefully the Senate will OK it all by itself instead of packed into their transportation bill.

 

 

Excerpt from House transportation committee press release, Sept. 30

http://transportation.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=399332

The Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015 extends the deadline to fully implement the technology to the end of 2018, provides limited authority for the U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary to extend the deadline beyond 2018 if railroads demonstrate they are facing continued difficulties in completing the mandate, but have made every effort to install Positive Train Control as soon as possible, and requires railroads to complete progress reports on implementation.

Click here to read the Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015.

Excerpt from Reuters, Sept. 30

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/30/usa-trains-safety-idUSL1N12018O20150930

U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio of Oregon, the House panel's leading Democrat, said the PTC extension was necessary but expressed disappointment that the change would not be part of a larger bill that could have included other rail safety enhancements.

There was no immediate word on when the House might vote on the new legislation...

"We look forward to working with both the House and Senate bipartisan leadership to quickly get the PTC extension across the finish line," said Edward Hamberger, president and chief executive of the Association of American Railroads, an industry lobbying group.