|
|
| Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit (1142292) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Wed Feb 29 10:40:28 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 29 03:17:47 2012. "Come back when it's a catastrophe", eh? So now we need some bloody bodies before we can justify safety improvements which SEPTA admits they're negligent for not making? SEPTA got lucky that the one engineer held her position rather than proceed. You'd have gotten your bodies if she'd not stopped her train. Study after study has shown that PTC is NOT economically justified. I am actually not aware of any fatality producing PTC-preventable accident accident in the history of SEPTA's service. Sure something "might" happen, but you can't base public policy on the worst case scenario. What actually happens is that train-train crashes are a highly rare event and most of the time when they do happen few if any are hurt or killed. I can't fucking believe that you still support this boondoggle, you're smarter than that. Yes! Easily! They'll be paying *at least* 10 million dollars to each of the estates of 10 people killed in a crash. Again, they got lucky at Roslyn, but you very easily could have had ten people killed and hundreds of millions of dollars blown on settling or paying out the resultant lawsuits. Why do you insist gambling on a game which is rigged against SEPTA and every other transit system? First of all the economic value of a human life is 2 million, not 10. Damages are usually reduced to that amount on appear, which would be more likely against a non-profit public service entity. Second of all if you factor in both the fixed and ongoing costs of PTC over the long run it is far cheaper for SEPTA just to pay the money considering that on average there is one fatality producing PTC preventable accident nationally once per DECADE. No, it would not. If the train operator is bent on continuing his route he can ignore the cab signal indication, accidentally or not, and proceed through the stop signal. If this E/R passed the signal at danger then what makes you think he'd have paid any heed to the cab signal indication? Because cab signals come with automatic speed control and acknowledgment. How can you argue for PTC when you don't even know how cab signals operate?? Aside from being in your face cab signals drop in advance of stop signals, require acknowledgment and impose a speed limit on both the violating train and the train with authority to proceed as soon as a conflict is present. This accident was 100% preventable with 1920's era cab signaling that was installed on that line 2 years ago. |
|
|
|