OTE: AMTRAK - NORTHEAST CORRIDOR. QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTION SHEET During inspections any deficiency which constitutes a possible safety hazard must be corrected on the spot if possible. PERSONS INVOLVED OTHER PARTY AMTRAK VEHICLE TIME & LOCATION Amtrak National Railroad RETURN COMPLETED FORM WITH TWO ESTIMATES FOR REPAIRMENT OF DAMAGED AMTRAK VEHICLE TO: NATIONAL RAIL ROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION TAX AND INSURANCE DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC ACCIDENT REPORT DATE OF ACCIDENT (MONTH-DAY-YEAR COUNTY STATE DAY OF WEEK MOUR MR. OPERATOR'S OR PEDESTRIAN'S NAME (FIRST MIDDLE, LAST) MISS ADDRESS (STREET CITY STATE,ZIP CODE) USE THE FOLLOWING SECTION TO RECORD VEHICLE NO. 2, PEDESTRIAN, OR OTHER PROPERTY Operator's License State Vehicle License No. State NAME OPERATOR NO. 1 IF MORE VEHICLES/PEDESTRIANS ARE INVOLVED USE EXTRA PAPER SAME SIZE AS THIS REPORT IF YES, NAME OF POLICE DEPARTMENT AND INVESTIGATING OFFICER. GIVE A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCIDENT IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO IMPACT, ERATOR'S SIGNATURE. DATE DATE PERVISOR'S SIGNATURE. C-1310 (5/77) Mr. PALUMBO. Now, in addition to this matter, I think we should know for the record that in an audit issued May 3, 1978-this audit being done by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration-Amtrak was cited as: (1) Needing to improve policies, procedures, and performance over the requisitioning of equipment, material, services, and supplies; (2) needing to improve Amtrak's cost estimating/cost proposal system; (3) needing to establish a Northeast corridor improvement project management policies manual; and (4) needing to improve monthly reimbursement cost procedures. Now, Mr. Reistrup, when was it that you said that Amtrak finalized its undertaking of this Northeast corridor improvement project? You alluded to a meeting with Secretary Coleman in which the contract between you and FRA finally was drafted. Mr. REISTRUP. I said August in 1976, yes. Sunday afternoon. Mr. PALUMBO. So from August 1976, you were aware of the fact you were going to be doing a lot of work on this project? Mr. REISTRUP. That is correct. Mr. PALUMBO. Could you explain to us then why, almost 2 years later-and I don't want to go too far-a year or 9 months later, you have an audit saying all these things needed to be improved. Mr. REISTRUP. Yes. Mr. PALUMBO. Why? Mr. REISTRUP. It is a big project, and it ought to have a system to run it like a big engineering project which would include work scheduling, budgeting, control of Government furnished equipment, term inventory, and so forth. We don't have it because the funding was cut off for it. Mr. PALUMBO. In other words, the Federal Railway Administration was responsible for your not having it? Mr. REISTRUP. That is correct. Amtrak was at work with this because it was desired to make such a system compatible with Amtrak's system, an organization which is 7 years old-Amtrak is just 7 years old in May-and realizing this was a short-term project, the improvement program, and therefore this system should continue, as more maintenance, more work is done in the future, and Amtrak is a contributor in the negligence here in that we did not do the best job in the summer of 1977 in implementing that system. A lot of it is almost ready to be used. There has to be some sort of a system there. You just don't operate something this big without more refined procedures. Mr. PALUMBO. If I understand that correctly, the Department of Transportation audit finding you at fault in these areas can really be turned around and laid at the doorstep primarily of the Department of Transportation for not funding you to do the things they say you should have done. Mr. REISTRUP. Yes. Mr. PALUMBO. So it is their fault? Mr. REISTRUP. And Amtrak's responsibility is that we did not get accomplished what we should have as rapidly as we should have in the intervening period. |