Comments on: Federally Mandated, Locally Operated

By: Charles Stanford, P.E.

Charles Stanford, P.E. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:02:37 +0000

Way baqck in the late 60′s, when rulemaking for the new track safety act, the DOT and FRA announced that they woulc not regulate transit “at this time.” They admitted that they barely had the resources for the railroads.

So now what? Obviously the FTA does not have the resources now.

In 1984, when the president of NYCT demanded that the FTA audit the safety of the track system, they refused, and then, under great pressure, they prevailed on the FRA to do it.

In addition, most transit systems will not meet the track geometry condition.

Charles Stanford

By: Glenn Laubaugh

Glenn Laubaugh — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:23:35 +0000

We should be concerned about what those federal regulations are going to be. Right now, one of the large limitations on getting economical railroad passenger equipment in the USA is that our safety standards are radically different than that used anywhere else in the world – even across the border in Canada, where train weight and length is pretty much the same as it is in the USA.

We don’t want to see FRA style structural regulations for light rail trains or subways. Implementing rail transit would suddenly become far more expensive than it already is.

In the name of “safety” these radically different federal regulations have caused commuter and intercity train service to be extremely expensive to implement here, which means that more people drive. Since driving is a whole lot less safe than taking the train, these “safety” regulations have resulted in a much higher overall transport death rate than would be if less expensive but worldwide standard equipment were available.

By: signal engineer

signal engineer — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:47:54 +0000

Safety always sounds good, but Federal regualtion after the fact on operating authorities might be very distruptive. The only set of regulations FTA has at this time is FRA. Transit does many things that would never fit with FRA practices, ie street running, nearside grade crossing scenarios, many different types of warning signs and aspects, much abreviated procedures for authorizing a train to proceed through a failed track circuit or signal, etc. These are essential to transit in general and there are many site specific differences between authorities that were necessary for them, but may not be understood by an outsider who has spent a career using an FRA rulebook.

By: California Transit Rider

California Transit Rider — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:03:10 +0000

If transit workers unions balk and won’t accept reasonable safety regulations (such as a prohibition on using cell phones while driving), then just de-unionize transit.

At one dysfuctional transit agency (like many others) here in California, the driver’s union seems to be running the whole show and it’s a classic example of the “Tail wagging the dog” syndrome.

If mass transit is going to be a workable alternative to private auto, the industry must adopt a market oriented approach and this means that the transit workers unions must cater to the needs of the riders and management -not the other way around.

If bus and train operators are routinely disregarding the safety rules against using cell phones while operating a vehicle, then install a camera right in the operator’s cab and promptly follow up with disciplinary action if a violation is observed.

If the transit worker’s unions refuse to abide by these rules, then just decertify like what happened with the air traffic controller’s union.