The OP was being a little misleading I suspect but then with all the stuff going on about ‘change’ and all that I’m not at all surprised at the rigmarol going on.
Of course, the implication in your post seems to say that the Democrats can do no wrong—[:-^]
I think that instead of politicizing this whole thing further that we just look at the scenario for what it may be instead—a simple standardization of the regulations such that the safety of both passengers and staff is such that there is a set practice in place across the board. The FAA do not run the airlines. The FRA does not own the RR so—?
If you believe that I am a Democrat, then you are in error. One does not have to be a member of, or even in agreement with, group A in order to see that group B’s little red choo choo has gone chugging 'round the bend. 22 years of law enforcement has taught me to recognize ulterior motives when I see them.
That said, I am in complete agreement with your last paragraph.
If this proposal is enacted, the real story is not nationalization, but turf expansion. Before railway safety oversight was shifted from the old ICC to FRA (and into the executive branch), it was an open secret that the 'crats itched to take on oversight of transit and commuter operations as well, something that lay beyond the grasp of the old ICC, which was charged with regulating interstate commerce, not tranist operations – where its presence was both unwanted and unwelcome.
In truth, FRA safety staffers would welcome this addition to their portfolio of responsibilities. Since rail industry dereg, derailments, grade crossing collisions, reportable accidents (to OS
2.The subject that came up was apparently WMATA rail operation did not have much in the way of safety oversight either internally or externally. NYCTA has (New York City subways) has had a strong commitment to safety internally. BART (SF Bay area) has had to deal with safety reps from the state PUC(Public Utilities Committee)
I am not sure about other operations. Most transit authorities usually have an external safety review from either a state authority or FRA(Metro North, SEPTA, other railroad operations) .
WMATA is kind of an exception in that they are not Heavy Rail subject to FRA rules and as a multi state operation( MD, VA, DC) they are not subject to oversight by a single state jurisdiction.
Hence when that really awful accident happened earlier this year NTSB saw that there was not an external check (& balance) to any potential safety concerns. In addition it happened in the FEDERAL backyard(Washington “DC”)
I’m not sure how to phrase or color this, but essentially the problem is that WMATA does not have any major oversight. I’ve seen commentary elsewhere about how FTA rules are easier to deal with than FRA rules(300,000Lb buffer strength, Crash worthiness, Etc)
The other item is that, if I remember correctly, MATA board is appointed not elected.
As a retired Class 1 railroad person who was heavily involved in FRA regulation, I have mixed reactions to this announcement. On the one hand, FRA type regulation of transit systems is likely bring with it a whole pile of non safety related baggage which has nothing to do with safety and a whole lot to do with protecting various political constituancies, as it has in the rail industry. On the other hand, some of the recent transit accidents have simply been mind boggling, and raise serious questions as to the design and maintenance of transit sytems. The Washington DC wreck, apparently caused by the malfuncton of a singe sensor, is a case in point. Where are the redundancy or fail safe features normally found in railroad signal systems? The CTA “Blue Line” derailment caused by a wide gauge condition in a subway is another. Wide gauge conditions don’t just happen suddenly. The track structure gives ample warning of this condition which can be readily detected by a competent track inspector.
On balance, I guess I come down in favor of “safety first”. I see sufficient evidence that some rail transit sytems are not properly designed or are not being properly maintained to warrant federal intervention, in spite of all of the excess baggage it may bring.
For those who don’t get the gist of Fox News, this statement shows the difference between Fox News’ “fair” slant (“Nationalization) with all other liberal media factual slant ('oversight”). You decide!
Despite what most people here think I say, I would not be in favor of such “nationalization” as inferred in the headline. Each transit system is so parochial that there is no “cookie cutter” approach. Traffic densities, geography, climate, end point to end point distances, station to station distance, street or non street, etc. all make each system individual. That does not mean certain criteria cannot be used as guidelines when it comes to safety, public needs, and certain other standards and standardizations of equipment and appliances cannot be used. The PCC cars are a good example of a piece of equipment that was a universal success because it did allow for market to market differences and still be a standard. (A friend often points out to me that the PCC cars are the only success every to come out of a committee!)
It be better to check both out then come up with something like —
It be BOTH turf expansion AND oversight. Normal scenario in ANY organization–private (boy, do I know this one!!) or public(BTDT). The trick is to let those that know summat of what they are doing do their jobs—
Agree here. Sometimes a form of standardization comes in handy.
The PCC cars success may be interpreted as being inspite of a committee’s wants/needs!!![swg]