Mr. Sullivan, you mention in your testimony here that CSX spends more than $1 billion 218 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 a year in maintaining and upgrading its physical assets. Is this the budget for maintaining your facilities and equipment for the entire country?
How much is spent for maintaining the property that you have in the Delaware Valley area or specifically the Philadelphia area?
Is it a thousand dollars out of the 1 billion? Because it seems to me from the pictures that I've been seeing and the testimony I'm hearing from people throughout this hearing today that you don't evidently spend too much money in this area. I would like to know how much is spent in the Philadelphia area for maintaining your structures here. Do you have that information? Do you have a breakdown of that?
Councilman, I 219 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 don't have it with me, but we can certainly get you a number for a specific year.
Another item of interest is that you mention in your testimony that your interest is in keeping the trains moving. "A standing train consumes resources and produces no 13 value. When any train is delayed on our network, we do everything in our power to restore motion to the system." Well, we couldn't on this Council agree with you more. What we would like to see you do is keep those trains moving in a way and not parked so it prevents people from using that Schuylkill River project. And we could put up the barriers that would prevent people from getting in the road of a moving train, but, unfortunately, that's not what's happening today. What's 220 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 happening today is that you're parking the trains there, sometimes for hours, sometimes for days probably. I don't know. I don't know. I would like to get, if it's possible, how many trains go through that facility or that location and how many of them are parked.
Councilman, there are approximately to trains a 11 day that go through there. It's going to 12 vary by day. 13
Now, are 20 they moving trains or are they parked trains?
They are going to be both. There are going to be trains that go all the way through. There are going to be trains that do stop. 221 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148
When you say you park the trains there, generally how many hours are you talking about?
Again, Councilman, that's going to vary. It's going to vary by --
The minimum could be 10 to 15 minutes. It could be a period of time where what you actually have is a train that's setting off cars to go into East Side Yard or to go to a customer here. It could be as simple as -- as quick as a rapid crew change. There could be a problem with the train. There could be a problem on the tracks ahead that causes that. There are any number of issues that could cause a train to hold. 222 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148
I would like to follow up on the Council President's line of questioning about hazardous materials. Are you familiar with a train derailment that happened in South Carolina in a small little rural area and that I believe that at least nine people were killed by one of the tanks leaking out some chlorine gas, I believe it was?
How are you going to prevent something like that happening in Philadelphia? For instance, if something happened like that near the location of our Center City of the Schuylkill River Park, that gas could travel throughout the City, and there could be literally thousands of people affected. What kind of plans do you have to prevent such an occurrence?
Councilman, we do the same thing that we do in every other community and that every railroad 223 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 does, and, that is, work with local emergency response agencies in terms of training. We do a great deal of inspection and training of our own forces. We also do a great deal of work with customers to make sure that the cars that those things are transported in --
Mr. Sullivan, what I'm really concerned about is that when you're moving these hazardous materials through our area -- according to the testimony that I've been listening to today, your tracks aren't in very good shape, your bridges certainly aren't in any good shape, and I don't know if you're going in the right direction as far as providing safety for the citizens of Philadelphia. I really don't. I have questions about that. And another question that I have is, what do you do when Philadelphia or a department, License and Inspections or some health department or whatever department it is in the City, sends you a 224 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 request to do something on your tracks? What do you do with that? Do you follow it up? Do you contact the City? Do you make immediate repairs?
Councilman, when you -- and I'm not being funny here. Are you speaking in terms of the condition of the tracks or the condition of the property around the tracks?
The tracks themselves are inspected by not just our forces but the Federal Railroad Administration. I'm not personally aware -- I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I'm not aware of any --
I know in your testimony you say you make two inspections a year, I believe, but according to the testimony from the gentleman from Southwest Philadelphia, he's made his own inspection and they're deplorable. I don't know. I'm not an 225 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 expert on tracks, don't get me wrong, but I think somehow or other, I don't know if your company is really on top of these inspections. I really don't know.
Councilman, let me make clear that the twice-a-year issue related to the 25th Street viaduct, and I've committed to the Council President that we will get more information back. Tracks are inspected. It can be once a week or it can be every other day, depending on the class of track. Track is inspected on a regular basis and --
Well, I appreciate the inspection. I think that's fine, but what I want to do is to follow up on seeing that if the inspection at least gets you to notice that there are serious flaws in the tracks or whatever, at least you're going to make immediate repairs to that track.
If there are immediate repairs that need to be made, 226 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 we do make them, Councilman. The other thing that needs to be noted is that condition of track varies based on the track speed that's authorized there. So if you have a track that trains are going 40 miles an hour over, that's maintained to one level. A track that trains are going miles over 10 is maintained to a different one. It's 11 the equivalent of a side street and an 12 interstate highway, I suppose. 13
Well, I 14 would just like to end by saying that I 15 hope somewhere along the line that you could become a good corporate neighbor to Philadelphia, to its citizens, and to do something to resolve the issue of that Schuylkill River Park. That's very, very important for the people throughout the City and throughout the Delaware Valley really who use and want access to that park. I know it's in litigation right now, but I think that even so, that I think you would come to the conclusion 227 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 that we are serious about wanting that access to continue, and I believe that we're asking you to become the good corporate neighbor I think that you would like to be and giving access to that park. Thank you.
Sure. Thank you, Councilman. Just a couple facts on the record and then I want to ask you an operational question. Mr. Sullivan, what were the company's revenues last year?
Councilman, I don't have an annual report with me. I will get that for you and provide it to you, and I can provide that to you tomorrow.
Do you have 228 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 a sense off the top of your head?
It would have been several billions dollars, but, again, I don't have the answer.
The operating income of a billion dollars. Your testimony, which I appreciate your submitting, in essence, while talking about Schuylkill River Park, only points out, of course, the danger and the concern and safety issues that you've been talking about for some time. It naturally and unfortunately does not provide one new thought, one new idea, one new way of looking at this situation. So we have your testimony. 229 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 I've talked to the members of the Committee. We've read it, so there's really no need to go through that. We have it. It will be a part of this hearing.
What I've yet to understand and is not laid out in your testimony is, when we look at these surveys that have been done, we see, of course, the spikes in crossings or crossing closures, in essence, in July, August and September. Can you explain why the trains seem to only sit at these particular locations, Race and Locust, and why there's such an increase in their layovers during the summer into fall? Why do you park the trains there?
If a train is being held there, it's because there is a reason that it can't move forward, and we very much want them to move forward.
I kind of 230 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 figured that. Why?
It may be because there's track work being done on the track ahead. It may be that we're waiting for a crew. It may be that there is a problem with the train. There can be any number of reasons why a train would be held.
Why do you just sit at that location? I mean, don't you have a yard somewhere for these trains to go?
The intent, and this is typical of railroad operations, is to get that train on the move as quickly as you can. Once you start putting trains into yards that are meant to be through trains, you actually delay the entire system. So that if you have traffic -- and, again, I keep going back to this point --
So you're saying people over there because of your operational issues, people in the 231 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 neighborhood, people trying to access a new park, they should be all inconvenienced so that you're not inconvenienced as you try to do what you do? Is that the way this works?
I think we're going to an area of an agreement that we believe we have and that we're trying to resolve with the City at this point.
I'm sorry. I didn't understand that. You said you're going into an area --
The question of the ability to do something there I think gets to a question of the litigation and the settlement discussions.
I haven't asked you anything about the litigation. I'm asking you, why don't you move them somewhere else. You have a yard. And if someone is going to be inconvenienced, I don't understand why it's the general public as opposed to it's a part of your business operation. That's the issue. 232 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 I'm not asking you about the litigation.
Mr. Chairman, what we try to do, not just in Philadelphia but everywhere, is to keep things moving in such a way that all of our customers get service as quickly as possible. So if we're holding trains in Philadelphia, we're going to be holding trains perhaps in other communities as well, and we definitely want to keep them moving.
Now, you understand that the streets in question have a certain significance in Philadelphia. Do you know about that?
These streets are called charter streets. Have you ever heard that term?
And what that means is that they're actually owned 233 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 by the City and they had their origin in the Charter of William Penn, who just happened to be the Founder of the City.
And you're blocking these streets with your trains. The agreement and the ordinance from 1885 -- we all love wonderful irony -- that ordinance from 1885 came as a result of a legal dispute between your predecessors and the City of Philadelphia 120 years ago, which you're now disputing in court as to what that means. So you've been in litigation with us 120 years ago, the result of which was an ordinance that was passed to make it clear what you can and cannot do, and now 120 years later, you're disputing that.
Sir, with all due respect, this does directly go to the litigation. I mean, in the litigation CSX is contending that the City's rights 234 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 in those streets were modified by a construction agreement that the City voluntarily entered into in 1979, and that's directly what the litigation is about. So I would advise Mr. Sullivan to not answer that question.
I didn't ask him a question. I put a statement on the record of fact. There was an ordinance that was passed -- it's not a secret -- that comes as a result of a previous litigation directly on point. I was merely pointing out that 120 years ago, apparently that City Council was dealing with your predecessor on virtually the same issues, which are now under dispute 120 years later. So I appreciate your effort to protect your client. I haven't asked him about the litigation. I haven't asked him to reveal any of the deep, dark secrets that are going on between you guys and the City of Philadelphia down at the Federal Courthouse. 235 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 So what are you prepared to do here today? How are we going to move this forward and get a resolution with regard to Locust and Race Street? As I mentioned, there's nothing in your testimony that lays out any action that you're prepared to take. You've not supplied the individuals that we asked for. You have very long testimony that lays out, of course, every possible doom and gloom scenario that anyone could imagine, with no end in sight but also no 14 solution. So where does that leave us?
Mr. Chairman, I think it leaves us where we began the hearing in the sense that we have --
The company is going to send whoever you want. You're going to ignore any further efforts for us to get the proper personnel here. We don't know who the proper personnel is, because you're still trying to figure that out from a 236 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 Jacksonville perspective. You're over in court with the City, and are you just going to continue to ignore the increase of this City Council?
Mr. Chairman, I think we're trying to be responsive to them, and I think we've committed to getting you the names of some people as quickly as we can --
What can you tell me today? We're all here together today.
I don't know, because that's something that's being determined down there to say who are the best people who can come up, and I think we committed to having those names to you in the conversation that you had with Mr. Casselini earlier today.
I 237 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 understand that. We have pretty much the same discussion. It went in a fairly circular fashion, similar to this discussion here. He's working on getting me some names. We're going to have some conversations, and as much as I love to have a conversation, and my colleagues know I love to talk, what I'd really like is action and results, and so far, you've been a bit short on that. So I'm not sure exactly where that leaves us. You've got a ton of people doing a ton of things, but no one seems to be able to come up with an answer to this particular issue. We want access to the park. You're insisting on blocking our streets and denying people that access and creating, without the appropriate procedures in place, a very dangerous condition. You have bridges that have chunks falling off of them. You got containers carrying all types of materials in them, some of which we can 238 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 read on the side, some of which we may not know anything about. What are you prepared to do? Shall we issue just another round of subpoenas?
No, Mr. Chairman. We're going to be cooperating with you and we are going to work with you on each of those subjects.
Well, I appreciate that, but you understand, Mr. Sullivan, that there is no City Council, and certainly not one here in Philadelphia, that would allow someone to just ignore a subpoena. So more than likely, we'll probably proceed to ask for enforcement by the courts here for a subpoena that was properly issued. That is just not something that is acceptable under the circumstances. We'll continue this conversation, but we're going to have enforcement of the subpoena. You're here today, recognizing that a subpoena was 239 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 issued. You're not disputing that it was issued, that you received it or that you're functioning here today in response to it, correct?
Well, if I were you, I wouldn't be surprised at what happens next. But this Mr. Ingram here, he's kind of the main guy?
All right. Maybe we need to reach out to him in a certain special way. Are there any other comments, questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Okay. I do have one request of the Committee just to make sure that our actions are 240 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 consistent. In light of what has happened here today and what has not happened, I would ask the Committee that we have authorization to pursue an emergency motion with regard to enforcement of the subpoena that was issued, notwithstanding the response by CSX in this particular matter. Is there a motion?
The ayes have it. The motion is unanimously approved. We'll direct our attorneys to take the appropriate action. Councilman, I didn't see you. 241 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 Do you have any more?
I'm actually okay, although I was informed that in Darby, I believe, approximately eight, nine years ago, there was some levels of civil disobedience and it was a blockage of a CSX rail line that was actually led by the Mayor of Darby, Ms. Brown. So there already has been the precedence set. I'm actually going to do some research to find out what the outcome of that action was. It's quite interesting. It seems like other people were as frustrated as we are.
Councilman, as you bring that up, I do remember that, and I'm sorry I didn't remember it at the time.
I remember that. I remember being involved in that at the time, and I believe that ended up with Federal Court barring the City from or 242 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 its officers, certainly the Mayor, from taking any such action.
She was told she couldn't block the trains anymore? You said you got a Federal Court to say she couldn't block the trains anymore?
One last question. Does your Chairman know what's going on down here in Philadelphia?
How far do things have to get before someone tells the Chairman that there's a serious problem here in Philadelphia?
I'm sure he may very well be aware of it. I can't sit 243 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 here and say to you specifically that --
I'm looking at your annual report from last year. The Chairman has a statement here and appears to be his signature. He talks about, By living our core values, quote, it starts with the customer. Quote, People make the difference. Quote, Safety is a way of life. Quote, Fact based. And, of course, that one from your ethics statement, "right results, right way." This would seem pretty much to be the wrong result, the wrong way. So someone might want to let the Chairman know that there's a very serious issue and problem here in Philadelphia. And I don't know what it will really take and maybe, as Councilman Clarke indicated earlier, maybe it's because we've had meetings with the President, we've had other discussions, we've been very, I think, patient and decent in our public hearings, and maybe that decency is just 244 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 really being taken for granted and that other kinds of actions, whether it's what Councilman Clarke has alluded to or additional legal actions, I mean, maybe the company would just like to spend the bulk of its time in litigation with us, whether it's with one part of the government or the City Council part of the government, and decimate whatever it thinks its reputation is here in the area and that we should just become that much more aggressive until somebody decides to pay a little more attention to this particular issue. And if that's what it takes, I mean, we know how to do those kinds of things. We have the ability to get the attention of the appropriate people. So you may really want to let the Chairman know that there's a very serious storm brewing here in Philadelphia as it relates to CSX, because we've really had it with the attitude and the behavior. I'm really at 245 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 my limit. I can't speak for my colleagues, but we've had some conversations, and I just think that we need to probably take it to another level so that the company really understands that we're not playing. We're very decent people, but we're very serious about this particular issue, and I don't think they've heard that yet. I just don't think they've heard that yet. So we'll be in touch. Mr. Dunlap, I guess we obviously know how to reach you.
You'll receive any other documents that we send over to you?
All right. We look forward to seeing you soon. All 246 11/15/05 - TRANSPORTATION - RES. 050148 right? Thank you.
This hearing will stand in recess until Tuesday, December 13th at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Committee on Transportation and Public Utilities adjourned at 4:40 p.m.) - - - 247 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on November 15, 2005, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)