As one who believes less government is a good thing, this call to investigate “viaducts” appears on the surface to be baseless and if so, is an apt example of free floating anxiety. One would think that there would be due diligence on the part of the owner to insure that an increase in speed would not result in the situation blowing up in their collective faces…I suspect that this is a mid term political ploy in an election year to appeal to the local body politic. If so, one would think that this use of federal resources to bolster one’s image as a defender of public safety is a red herring as well as a misuse of federal power for personal gain aka “getting the vote.” Is this an example where railroads flying under the radar of public perception, that causes a lack of public support or for that matter, suspicion? I would be curious to know the origin of this situation escalating to this point… http://www.stargazettenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061010/NEWS01/61010013
One would think the owner would do “due diligence”. NS is very safety conscious- they would not have won the Harriman award if they weren’t.
However, it’s common knowledge that infrastructure, especially in the Northeast, is failing. It seems to be a big surprise to everyone when a highway bridge drops into the water… or when a railroad bridge fails to raise (or lower). Railroads are businesses. They will follow FRA regulation only because they have to.
Any time you have hazmat running through town, it makes sense to inspect, reinspect, and inspect again the infrastructure supporting those movements. It’s not big bad government out to stick it to business. It is a legitimate concern on the part of government to protect the people in and around the railroad.
There is a healthy concern about the transport of materials through towns which might cause death to citizens, and that concern is not just limited to railroads. What you might see as a purely political move could very well be legitimate concern on the part of the local residents- and yes, this being an election year, a politician is going to pick up on that concern and use it as an issue.
If it is common knowledge that the railroading infrastructure in the Northeast is failing, or is about to fail, one would think that this situation would be evidenced by federal regulatory legal action brought against the owner’s responsible for public safety, especially in regard to Hazmat. While I am unaware of this being the case, perhaps this is the tip of a proverbial iceburg, in other words, that if this case has the potential to open the door to a wider investigation, will the same standard apply to tax funded infrastructure which is also failing? One has to wonder who regulates the regulators? Who governs government? See link below for a third party evaluation of where this situation stands. http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=103
It’s a politicician (Democrat- it figures) playing up the the local fears of the uneducated electorate. (LC would know a little about politics, bridge inspections and FRA)…
Just because it’s old or unpainted, doesn’t make it unsafe. Many of the older railroad bridges were overdesigned to start with. If the track is maintained to a higher class, then the chances of damage from impact loading should drop. From my experience, I’d be a little more concerned if it were still Conrail instead of NS. (NS was appalled with some of what they inherited from CR and it’s in-house methods … started changes and upgrades immediately, bypassing the beancounters)
wally: be careful when watching ASCE comment on railroad structures as ASCE’s credentials are a little weak in that area. (have been in that arena since AREA was formed over 100 years ago)
He may have seen this on the news.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/01/overpass-collapse.html
According to the article, it appears NS already checked the line over, before they increased the speed limit? Is this politician running for re-election by chance?
Finally!! someone raises a topic big enough to be embraced with both arms, little surprise it was you behind it, wallyworld. [8D]
One can’t help but to mock the right wing dittoheads with a retaliatory “Gee, if you are not doing anything wrong, then a little closer government scrutiny shouldn’t bother you”, to let them see the other side of that fallacious coin for a change. Funny how the potential for abuse only concerns people after they realize they themselves might find their way into the crosshairs.
“But NO NO NO, we don’t need the gov’t sticking their nose any deeper into our business…yada yada!” etc ROFL!!
(sarcasm) HEY,my young daughter might one day be beneath one of those bridges right as a speeding train proves to be the bridge’s undoing, so be it! The safety of me and mine is FAR more important than anyone else’s right to be left in charge of their own affairs ( pr
Are you thinking that this wouldn’t be an issue, if the same structures had been painted up pretty all the time? They would be in the same physical condition, just prettier.
The railroads need to learn new approaches as the return to a world where they seek government funds. A little paint in Covington goes a long way when you plan in the future on going to the KY state legislature for some money. If railroads are going to go after government money succesfully they need to crank up their public relations efforts as a part of their investor relation programs. Perhaps the NS should bring back their steam program so many people in their service area have at least one favorable impression of the railroad each year.
The redirection of attention from realities to appearances is a two sided coin. My car may look like a shambles but it is mechcanically flawless. My car has a shiny new paint job, but the brakes are in dire need of repair. Who arbitrates the weighing of public safety by perception, for my privately owned car? I do if I don’t want to hurt anyone, get sued, replace the car and have my insurance cancelled, then I will exercise due diligence. However if I relied on public perception to arbitrate the matter, perhaps having an attractive vehicle would carry as much weight as having reliable brakes. Whoever goes to a public forum and announces that Wallyworld’s car is a potential menace ought to have two things in mind before contemplating such a move. They do not live in a glass house. They have reasonable proof of their suspicions beyond appearances, or a theoretical guess. If I want to avoid someone manipulating appearances over substance, Mr Railroad had better get to know Mr Taxpayer and beyond that, have some positive face time with Mr Taxpayer so the next time you hear unfounded rumours about Mr Railroad, you allow him to address the issue first rather than allow a political hack to exploit your fears in a pre-emptive public forum. Mr Railroad is in the defaulted position of playing defense.
What I’m actually thinking is, the locals would prefer to not have the additional disruption (noise, commotion, etc) of faster, and more numerous trains, and are exploiting concerns for safety, as a tool.
(not entirely unlike the “safety” arguments against one man crews, where staying employed is the primary concern, but safety is the argument no one dare dismiss out of hand)
But, I think that the rusty bridges will only fortify the public’s resolve to support the need for inspections
(example) Suppose a cement bridge is the focus of debate in some town.
A handfull of concerned citizens raises a stink, gets a politician involved, and he calls for a gov’t inspection .,.
The RR trys to oppose, stating it is unnecessary.
If half the town drives by a rusting hulk of a steel bridge on the other side of town everyday, that just might color their perception of the RR’s claims that they already are doing everything that’s needed. The credibility of the RR’s counterclaims easily becomes suspect and the handful of citizens (the ones originally concerned with the cement bridge) uses the condition of the steel bridge to impeach the RR’s counter argument. gaining the wider support of everyone willing to judge the RR based upon the condition of the steel bridge alone
Make more sense now?
Yep, exactly.
Would it matter if the two bridges were owned by different railroads ?
I recently had the brakes redone on my car, because i got tired of the dirty looks when I’d pull up to the light and everyone would hear the grinding of steel on steel from my wornout brake pads. [}:)]
I refuse to wash it though. If I wash it then it’ll only reveal how badly it needs repainted.
Excellent question, one that paragraphs and paragraphs could be written about.
But my short and sweet opinion on that is, it SHOULD make a difference, but probably wouldn’t.
Logic tells us we should only hold a party responsible for it’s own actions.
But, when the public in general declares it’s cause celebres, and saftey is it’s underlying concern, I think they become very iconic.
ANY negelected RR bridge might be enough fuel for their fire.
The safety “bandwagon” gathers strange bedfellows indeed.
I see what you’re saying, and I agree. Maybe railroads need more PR people. (Or more paint[;)])
I think it would be quite possible, that it could be different, depending on which railroad has a better relationship with whichever politician found the need to raise a fuss over something.[B)]
I agree, a unpainted bridge is an open ended question that begs all sorts of uninformed manipulation under the general guise of “safety concerns.” Why troll for both structural weakness from corrosion, let alone public ire over a perception of deferred maintenance? An ounce of prevention trumps a pound of cure. However, I keep coming back to the lack of good public relations, a recognizable positive face, which, magnifies real or imagined issues in a negative light rather than countering or diminishing 'bad neighbor" perceptions in a public forum. The laudable Operation Life Saver often touted as a good public relations tool, can be translated as “Here’s some education so our business won’t kill you.” That is loss prevention, not great PR. Identifiable, positive corporate images are rote tools of product marketing since the 1920’s. Combine nonsensical monikers like BNSF or CSX with media coverage consisting of death, traffic obstructions, toxic spills et al and you have the perfect images of faceless corporate monoliths that are potentially deserving of a kick in the pants by a self appointed body politic. It’s as predictable in coming, sooner rather than later. Railroads history is so intertwined with the development of this country that this history has a dollar value that is incalcuable when you build on the positive aspects of this history by promoting it’s past and current value. Most industries would give their right arm for this. But railroads are prone to Vanderbuilts image and dictum, “The Public be damned…”
Very well put, and I think it ties in well with Murphy siding’s observation earlier on the dearth of railroad PR.
corporate culture and the way many corporations are owned “facelessly” by armys of stock holders are probably part to blame.
No longer are there individuals such as James Hill or old Vanderbilt, who regard the image of their railroad a reflection on them personally, the sense of entrepreneurial pride is MIA.
How many BNSF stockholders do you think place “running the best railroad in america” as their highest priority? Just about none, I would guess. Most are focused on short term gain, and in consequence the corporate chieftains have to accomodate.
If they were to address the stockholders and say “for the next 3 years dividends will be retained and plowed back into our PR campaign, because an improved public perception promises many intangible benefits”… I predict those chieftains would become the next “intangibles” the railroad would produce.
Probably why the neglect to infastructure, and subsequent decline is there in the first place. [2c]
Remember, the railroads’ reputation for deferred maintenance precedes them. Also, perception is reality in the collective minds of the electorate.
It does follow a logical thought process though- If the railroads were/are willing to defer maintenance on their tracks, why wouldn’t they also defer maintenance on their support infrastructure?