PTC: A passenger operator perspective

Vancouver, B.C., June 7, 2010: Class I freight railroads may be dealing with the most pressure to meet the federal government’s mostly unfunded mandate for fully operational Positive Train Control by year-end 2015, but their passenger rail counterparts are dealing with equally problematic issues, some similar, some very different.

At the 2010 American Public Transportation Association Rail Conference, Parsons Brinckerhoff Assistant Vice President Planning and Special Projects Peter Sklannik Jr. led a presentation on PTC plans featuring four senior passenger rail executives: Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District General Manager Gerald R. Hanas (who is also chair of APTA’s Commuter Rail Committee), Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) Director of Maintenance Gary Jarboe, North County Transit District Operations Director Thomas Lichterman, and MTA Metro-North Railroad President Howard Permut.

Speaking for the regional/commuter railroads, Hanas pointed out that three issues—cost, timing, and technology—are common to all operators. For this segment of the industry, the cost of PTC has been estimated to be at least $2 billion, and cost-sharing scenarios with freight railroads are under discussion. In the current economic environment, where there is “a lot of angst” over service cuts and fare increases, “the financial capacity for PTC may not be there,” he said. In terms of meeting the Federal Railroad Administration’s implementation deadline, realistically, the timing is “pushed beyond 2015.” Few passenger rail agencies “have advance funding authority, or the ability to contract up front,” he said. “PTC rollout should be phased,” with priority given to properties that already have some form of cab signal and/or automatic train control. These issues have been raised with FRA, which at least seems willing to take them into consideration.

Metrolink, which interfaces with Union Pacific, BNSF Railway, and Amtrak, is developing a “semi-turnkey procurement” for PTC in which the vendor will be responsible for engineering and installation, with a maintenance option, according to Gary Jarboe. Such PTC elements as WIUs (wayside interface units) for 82 signal locations and 100 control points and trackwork modifications will be outsourced. June 18 is Metrolink’s deadline for proposals from potential PTC system integrators; a contract award is expected by mid-July. The agency’s biggest risk factor is ITC (Interoperable Train Control) standards, “which must be in place before we can install a communications platform,” Jarboe stressed. On a positive note, FRA has approved Metrolink’s PTC implementation plan, and the program is about 90% funded. Metrolink’s goal, which is shared with UP, BNSF, and Amtrak, is to have PTC installed and ready for testing and commissioning by 2012. Jarboe also pointed out that Metrolink itself undertook and completed many of the upfront engineering tasks.

For California’s North County Transit District, the cost of PTC—estimated at $60 million—could swallow up funding for major SOGR (state of good repair) capital needs, especially bridge replacement. To avoid this situation, the federal government will have to pick up about 50% of the cost. On the technical side, NCTD is dealing with interoperability issues affecting it and four other operators that use its San Diego-Oceanside route—Amtrak, BNSF, UP, and a short line railroad on the southern end. Tom Lichterman noted that PTC communications standards “are still in development, and the radios do not exist yet.”

For Metro-North, the estimated cost of PTC is $350 million (sister MTA property Long Island Rail Road is looking at $424 million)—funds that will have to be diverted from SOGR projects unless the feds come through. The main PTC issues, said Howard Permut, are “the shortage of time, the large investments that have to be made within the next year, the small existing market of PTC subsystem suppliers and system integrators, and the lack of available radio spectrum and the associated inability to initiate design of a cost-effective data radio system.” On top of that, there may be “additional unknown operating impacts,” he said. “We need an extension to allow for exploration of cost-effective alternatives,” Permut said.

For operators like NICTD, the biggest challenge may be an apparent disconnect between the FRA and the Federal Transit Administration, specifically, the FTA’s rules prohibiting single-source contracts. NICTD shares operations with Metra, CN, UP, and regional freight railroad Chicago, South Shore & South Bend. Interoperability requirements have dictated that, at least for onboard PTC equipment, the five railroads have agreed to use the same vendor (UP, BNSF, Norfolk Southern, and CSX have standardized on the Wabtec Railway Electronics ETMS platform). The FTA is going to have to make exceptions to its single-sourcing rules in order for passenger operators to meet FRA’s timeline.

That may prove difficult for FTA, which by some accounts needs a fast, thorough education in PTC. One commuter rail agency, which did not wish to be named, told Railway Age that a recent grant application to FTA was sent back for revision because the application included a request for PTC funding. FTA, according to this agency, said that PTC is “an experimental technology.”

Former FTA Administrator and current New Jersey Transportation Commissioner Jim Simpson recently told Railway Age that, for efficiency purposes, FRA and FTA should be combined into a single agency he would call the Federal Railroad and Transit Administration (“FRATA”). In light of FTA’s apparently compromised understanding of PTC, Simpson’s idea sounds like a good one. Either that, or the rail industry needs to get the FRA and FTA talking to each other. Aren’t they both part of the U.S. Department of Transportation?

—William C. Vantuono, Editor, Railway Age