The fact is that some people will not be told ‘no’. When that happens, the most unfortunate result is the effect on the conscientious and empathetic trainman. As cavalier and unempathetic as it may sound, a happy result should be that someone who can’t see the value in a policy or law, and who wilfully flouts it, will pay the price that removes society of any further responsibility for that person…if things go the way they should.
Crandell
Nor can I but there sure seems to be a huge effort here to attack the messenger rather than indicate factually why elimination of responsibility from the freight rail companies would be a bad idea.
Bucyrus,
As one who criticized the report as junk science, I took the notion that “the public” would assume liability for grade crossings as not a serious proposal, given the context of the report The author did not make any case for that change.
If that was a serious proposal I am sure the railroads would be all for it. I do not take this document as a serious proposal to relieve the railroads of liability associated with grade crossings.
Mac
Mac,
I am not sure I understand what you mean by the report not being a serious proposal. On page 13-15, they seem to indicate that such tort reform would almost be essential. In other places in the report, they say that cost reduction cannot go forward without relieving the railroads from liability. Indeed it is the liability that has inflated the cost, according to the report. So as far as a proposal goes, it seems to me that report is making one. It must be serious, or else why else would they make it?
Whether such a proposal has any serious chance of going anywhere, I don’t know. Maybe that is what you mean by serious proposal. I don’t see it as an easy change to make.
And, while the proposal to nationalize grade crossings would end the problem for the railroads, the carnage would continue. Although it should reduce as more passive crossings are signalized due to new funding resulting from cost reducing crossing protection systems.
I took the general tenor of the piece to be that by reducing the cost of installing grade crossing protection from $1.00 to 50 cents, we could then put crossing protection on twice as many crossings. Much of the piece dealt with the pro’s and con’s of the replacement technologies.
As has been mentioned, however, only the potential replacements for existing technologies were evaluated in the various charts - we have no comparison between the present and the proposed future in terms of performance or reliability, or any other factor.
While ownership/liability is a very important consideration, including present technology in the comparison would provide a clearer picture of what would be gained or lost moving to a replacement. Those of us familiar with current crossing protection technology can do a mental overlay. Someone who doesn’t know a cross arm from a crossbow doesn’t have that ability.
This omission may have been by design. While I didn’t spend a lot of time looking through the report, it appeared to me that none of the suggested solutions measured up to current technology, and making them do so raised the price to the point that the represented little or no savings.
Public sector liability…using public sector designs to lower the cost… using non-union, non-railroad labor … to eliminate using the highest quality, and therefore highest cost safety systems. On the surface, it sounds like a recipe for disaster. Would you buy stock in a start-up company that said it was going to do the preceeding? If you are a taxpayer, you would, in essence, be buying stock in said enterprise, without being asked for your approval first.
I have no way of knowing whether they can deliver the promised cost savings. They say they can, so it is up to them to prove they can. I don’t expect to be asked to believe they can do what they say they will do without them proving their case economically.
As far as a lower cost resulting in lower quality, and thus lower reliability, they will have to prove that works too. But their premise at this point is that railroad owned systems have more quality than they need due to the railroad bearing the liability. So they are not presenting this as eliminating necessary quality. Nevertheless, I would be skeptical of a claim that significant cost could be saved by eliminating quality that is not needed.
However, there might be the calculation that society is collectively safer if we signalize all the passive crossings even if it is with systems that are ten percent less safe.
Interestingly, I had found another report that attempts to thoroughly discredit this one. And it does it a year earlier than the date of this report. So this idea must have been circulating a bit. Maybe I can find it.
Bucyrus, Schlimm…
Not so much attacking the messenger, but the message, and obviously you failed to read all of my post.
A few items you should be aware of before you go forward with your normal attack toward those who don’t agree with you that change is always good or that we should change because we can…
One, the “Tenneco Road” test actually took place at Jones Channel Road, which leads to the Tenneco/Georgia Gulf complex, it is locally known as Tenneco road.
Now, for a research scientist to not even give the proper official name to a location where testing and data gathering is done strikes me as odd, I know a researcher or two, and they are anal beyond belief about the most minute detail.
Two, the report states that the public pays for the installation of the crossing devices.
One would hope that a research scientist could at least spend the time to look up the facts, as here in Texas, TDot determines what, if any protection is required at any public grade crossing, and what type of protection installation is put in.
TDot does all the design and engineering specifications, the carrier has some input, but not much.
By state law, the carrier is responsible for 75% of the cost of installation, 100% of maintenance and repair.
The report claims/states the public pays 90% of the installation cost which is simply not true or correct in Texas, oddly the very state TTI is located in.
We, the PTRA, contract all of our active crossing device repairs to the UP Signal department, simply because of cost.
S. Roop is TTI, he has been doing “studies” of rail crossings, rail capacity, so forth and so on for years, all based on his version of junk science.
Had you read my post completely, you would have gotten to the part where I stated that, if there was an agency created to assume all liability at all grade crossings, and assume all the associated cost in
Ed,
I am not attacking anybody. And they used the term out of box. I only repeated it in reference to their usage. Although, I do know it is a hot button. As far as dismissing the report, I was not inclined to draw enough of a conclusion to dismiss it. So I just save all this stuff. I have reports on putting air bags on the front of locomotives in order to protect pedestrians. My only conclusion about this report so far is that it is a royal pain to read it.
And I did read all of your earlier post several times. I did notice that you said:
“Fact is if someone came along, offered to buy out the signal maintainers, and assume liability for all grade crossing safety, not just the “passive” or rural crossings, most railroads would jump at the chance to opt out completely…”
My interpretation of the report is that it is proposing exactly that.
But there is one specific point about this report that you raise in your latest post, and I am not sure what the report actually intends as a way of addressing it. They do say that they will reduce cost and that will reduce quality. But I hear them make the point that there is more quality than there needs to be. So even though quality will be reduced, it does not necessarily follow that it will be reduced far enough to reduce safety. But as I mentioned above, it is hard to believe that there is that much excess safety in the current systems.
Does it not strike anyone else as odd that this report purports to discuss and address grade crossing liability matters - but there is apparently no indication that competent legal counsel on the subject was engaged or relied upon for a professional opinion or guidance as to how to go about this, and what its prospects for success are ? (i.e., “What dog didn’t bark ?” here ?)
[:-,] Stated the other way around, would these traffic engineers be comfortable with a traffic signal system designed by a lawyer who may be an expert in traffic accident cases, but has no qualifications in highway engineering, signal systems, electronics, etc. ? (not some ‘hybrid’ / bstrd mix of both like me [swg] ) Why not obtain and include an opinion from an expert on the precise subject that’s at the heart of this proposal ? Would that not make the report more complete and credible ?
On that precise subject - though I’m no expert: There’s a fairly recent (10 - 15 years ago) Federal law that essentially (and overly simply stated here) immunizes the railroads from grade crossing accident liability provided that the signals are installed and maintained in accordance with state programs that are based on standards approved by and funding for same provided by the FRA. That law has been upheld as against some serious challenges, and this proposal could well be based on that same approach. Unfortunately, the report doesn’t seem to say so. Did anyone see where it did ?
EDIT: Consider this excerpt from: http://georgiafela.com/Suing_Railroads.html
"V. D. (ii) Crossing Protection.
To watch and listen to the almost hysterical responses, I have to wonder if we are all reading the same report? Just how “thoughtful” is it to accuse a research engineer of engaging in “junk science” rather than specifically dispute the assumptions and contentions of the report.? Last I looked, the use of that phrase is typical of political types without any qualifications who attempt to dismiss scientific research because it disagrees with their vested interests. I am not all that certain the report has any practical benefit or not, but having less bias and inflammatory reactions is the only rational way to examine it, IMO.
When a “research engineer” does not publish the exact methodologies of his testing along with specific results of those methodologies of testing that can be replicated by others in the same field of research if falls into the junk pile.
The ‘report’ smacks me as something I would have written in college trying to impress the instructor that I was smarter than I am.
Wherever this concept goes, I don’t see its future rising or falling just on this one report. There is no law that says you have to offer your entire concept for peer review right out of the box. Obviously, they are not even at that point in the concept yet. But even as it is, they have already laid a lot on the table in concrete terms. They have made a clear proposal. If all you scientists who want peer review would look at what the report says, there is plenty to critique in concrete terms. You don’t need the whole thing just to get started.
I think that the most interesting aspect of this concept is the relieving of the railroads from liability. Do you honestly believe that as a first step, this report should have come out with an A to Z strategy for making this profound legal change so it can be reviewed by experts? I have no idea of whether this liability relief would be possible, but it seems to me that the report makes a fair case for it. It also makes a compelling case for a sea change in crossing protection starting with getting crossings out of the hands of the private railroads and into the public sector.
It is only a proposal, not the results of conducted experiments. As such it follows the standard format, including an indication of methods for evaluation of all aspects, technology and costs, in chapter 4. hardly “junk science.” You folks who are so negative are jumping the gun in your critique. And Ed, please do not put words in quotes and make an attribution as though they were the opinions of others. It is quite dishonest. I am not attacking anyone because they disagree with me. I do not favor change for change’s sake. As i said, I do not have an opinion as to whether or not the proposal has any merit. I just think folks should have a more open mind about proposals.
Had you written this report in college perhaps your instructor would have been impressed. And perhaps he would have been correct to be impressed.
What makes anyone think the public sector wants any more liability for crossings than they already have?
Well maybe it would just be a matter of public fairness to not punish the railroads for the fact that trains are hard to stop.
I’ll keep this relatively nonpolitical.
Note that this issue was the nominal cause (circa 1928) of the de-emphasis of automatic train control under the provisions of the Esch Act. And people are still confused about what to do with it.
The ‘correct’ situation is to privatize the warning installations (with public subsidy where deemed in the public interest) for any private crossing… and shift the liability from the railroads over to private owner(s) or to any municipality or other party which wants to keep that crossing open.
I still think a few well-thought out tort reform laws would be more beneficial. I don’t see the various towns, hamlets, counties, cities, townships, boroughs and villages really lining up to take on more liability. Be one heck of a fight, for sure.
Where is Jim Hill now that we need him?