|
|
| SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit (1142237) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (1142237) | |
SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 22:30:04 2012 So they have to put it in even though they won't be increasing speeds and there hasn't been an accident on SEPTA or many other railroads that could be properly attributed to its lack. Thanks a lot, Veolia over in LA . . .Philadelphia Inquirer
|
|
|
| (1142245) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 29 01:57:31 2012, in response to SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 22:30:04 2012. there hasn't been an accident on SEPTA... that could be properly attributed to its lackUmm, not so much: "A Collision of Errors on the R2"  RPOTW A cornfield meet like this collision is the *exact* reason you install a PTC system. |
|
|
| (1142255) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Wed Feb 29 02:46:58 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 01:57:31 2012. How many people were killed in that event? Does it justify spending 100 million to prevent? Could it have been prevented using the cab signaling that has now been installed on that line?Answers: 0, no and yes. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1142258) | |
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, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by Jersey Mike on Wed Feb 29 02:46:58 2012. How many people were killed in that event?"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. Does it justify spending 100 million to prevent? 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? Could it have been prevented using the cab signaling that has now been installed on that line? 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? |
|
|
| (1142266) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Wed Feb 29 05:22:17 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. SEPTA's insurance carrier would be paying, not SEPTA. |
|
|
| (1142292) | |
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. |
|
|
| (1142308) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by The Flxible Neofan on Wed Feb 29 12:35:39 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. Regardless, the issue isn't simply whether they should ever install PTC or not. The issue is that this unfunded mandate is taking well needed dollars away from projects to bring the system to a state of good repair, such as renovating old bridges, upgrading ancient substations, and more. The very aggressive timeline to implement this system is hurting the budget of a variety of commuter rail systems out there.Plus this PTC system (which may or may not prevent accidents on SEPTA) automatically drastically increases the costs of any future Regional Rail extension. |
|
|
| (1142330) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Wed Feb 29 14:23:10 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by The Flxible Neofan on Wed Feb 29 12:35:39 2012. Well a lack of regional rail expansion would be a good thing because it encourages commuters to use their cars which are FAR safer than rail transit. ::rolls eyes:: |
|
|
| (1142348) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Feb 29 16:53:45 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by Jersey Mike on Wed Feb 29 14:23:10 2012. Yup, especially on snowy days. What's safer than slipping and sliding at high speed on an interstate, after all? |
|
|
| (1142419) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Thu Mar 1 00:27:35 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by Dave on Wed Feb 29 05:22:17 2012. SEPTA is self-insured. |
|
|
| (1142421) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Thu Mar 1 01:02:34 2012, in response to 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. Study after study has shown that PTC is NOT economically justified.For FREIGHT lines. The AAR hasn't has the gall to tread upon the NTSB's recommendations for passenger railroads. It's bad enough they're responsible for the regulatory capture of the FRA which has resulted in this mess. I am actually not aware of any fatality producing PTC-preventable accident accident in the history of SEPTA's service. Again with your requirement that we have bloodied and broken bodies lying across the tracks before we can justify the expenditure for even the most rudimentary safety implements recommended by the NTSB. Sure something "might" happen, but you can't base public policy on the worst case scenario That is completely and utterly false. It is absolutely unacceptable for two trains to touch each other in any way. 36 lawsuits and 39 claims originated from the Abington cornfield meet. Even if they were settled for an average of less than 1 million dollars the PTC system will have paid for itself with just 3 averted collisions. 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. In the past 15 years we've barely managed to average more than 3 years between incidents where train-train collisions occur. They're hardly 'rare', and especially not 'highly rare'. 40 claims of injuries from the Abington crash, nor the hundreds who claimed injuries in the Chatsworth crash certainly do not qualify as 'few' people being injured. First of all the economic value of a human life is 2 million, not 10. Metrolink offered a $200 million dollar settlement to the families of the 25 people killed in the Chatsworth collision. $10 million is much closer to the amount any transit system could expect to pay in damages for each person killed in a collision. Because cab signals come with automatic speed control and acknowledgment. The engineer of the southbound train passed three signals without obeying them, and was operating at speeds in excess of the indications he claimed to have seen on the signals he'd violated. Reaching over to acknowledge the signal, or worse, cut out the cab signal system because he thought he knew better would not have been out of the question. |
|
|
| (1142422) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Thu Mar 1 01:30:27 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by The Flxible Neofan on Wed Feb 29 12:35:39 2012. The issue is that this unfunded mandate is taking well needed dollars away from projects to bring the system to a state of good repair, such as renovating old bridges, upgrading ancient substations, and more.Oh please. Every commuter railroad has managed to get along just fine with unfunded mandates for the past 30 years. They're called FRA crashworthiness requirements. They result in railroads paying a premium for rolling stock, then paying more to operate that equipment on a daily basis. Yet the usual chorus around here has been curiously tacit on this particular source of lost capital funding because it suits their purely aesthetic taste in railfanning. Furthermore, why are you taking Luther Diggs' comments at face value? SEPTA has a 311 million dollar capital program this year, growing to $407 million in 2015. That means the PTC system, installed over the same time frame, amounts to around 7% of the SEPTA capital budget for the next 3 years, yet potentially saves them money from the day it is installed. It's ludicrous to claim their capital program is 'endangered' because they're being forced to adopt a regulation seven years in coming. The very aggressive timeline to implement this system is hurting the budget of a variety of commuter rail systems out there. They only have themselves to blame. New Jersey Transit got out ahead of the requirement and began installing ASES on a more reasonable, lower cost timetable. SEPTA was foolish enough to think they could skate by to the last minute without being require to comply with the regulation and now they're being made to pay for that decision. Plus this PTC system (which may or may not prevent accidents on SEPTA) automatically drastically increases the costs of any future Regional Rail extension. There are 446 fixed guideway route miles in the Regional Rail system. Discounting the 105 route miles shared with Amtrak that brings the cost to somewhere on the order of $300,000 per route mile to install the system. To say that is in the noise when it comes to the cost to construct a new regional rail line is an understatement. Having to install PTC on any of the many SEPTA projects it wasn't about to build won't make any of those commuter rail projects any less likely to be built. The fact that they were conceived by SEPTA makes them plenty unlikely they'll be built. |
|
|
| (1142449) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Thu Mar 1 12:32:28 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by WillD on Thu Mar 1 01:02:34 2012. Again with your requirement that we have bloodied and broken bodies lying across the tracks before we can justify the expenditure for even the most rudimentary safety implements recommended by the NTSB.The best indication of future risk is past performance so yes, SEPTA shoudl demonstrate that they are operating unsafely before they are required to remedy anything. It is stupid to install "safety" devices simply to prevent an event that "might" happen. Trying to make something like rail transit is not only impossible, but also a massive waste of resources that would be better spent on service expansions to get people out of their cars. If you want to save lives grade crossing elimination and/or full RoW fencing would get more bang for the buck if you really must protect people from their own stupidity. Seriously dude, life is dangerous sometimes, accept the risk. That is completely and utterly false. It is absolutely unacceptable for two trains to touch each other in any way. 36 lawsuits and 39 claims originated from the Abington cornfield meet. Even if they were settled for an average of less than 1 million dollars the PTC system will have paid for itself with just 3 averted collisions. Which there haven't been in over 30 years of operation so it would not have paid for itself. You also assume that PTC is not only costless to maintain year in and year out, but also costless in terms of operational performance. Are you prepared for even slower service if PTC gets installed? Metrolink offered a $200 million dollar settlement to the families of the 25 people killed in the Chatsworth collision. $10 million is much closer to the amount any transit system could expect to pay in damages for each person killed in a collision. Then states should pass laws to give immunity to transit providers or they should install cost effective cab signal and ATC systems that are proven and not simply a gift to the signal and consulting industry's bottom line. What do people expect for their state subsudized ticket...to live forever? The engineer of the southbound train passed three signals without obeying them, and was operating at speeds in excess of the indications he claimed to have seen on the signals he'd violated. Reaching over to acknowledge the signal, or worse, cut out the cab signal system because he thought he knew better would not have been out of the question. By your logic then the engineer could have hit the stop release feature on the PTC system and proceeded into the path of the oncomming train...orsimply cut out the PTC. There's a difference between preventing accidents and malicious behavior. Active alerting system are astonishingly effective unless willfully disabled as no engineer usually WANTS to be fired or to die in a crash. Anyway, watch this and see how the PRR solved this sort of problem 80 years ago. Start at about 3:40 in. |
|
|
| (1142450) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Thu Mar 1 12:35:43 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by WillD on Thu Mar 1 01:30:27 2012. SEPTA is paying money for a system that will being no benefit to the average rider. Instead they will face slower speeds and higher operating costs. It doesn't matter how much of a rounding error it is, slower trains are slower trains and having to pay the the privillage is insult to injury. Once the transportation funding bill passes and PTC is either scaled back or postponed SEPTA's strategy will be vindicated. All your big L Liberal safety think of the children BULLSHIT has fortunately empowered an appropiate legislative backlash. I hope you're happy. |
|
|
| (1142487) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 1 18:19:33 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by Jersey Mike on Thu Mar 1 12:35:43 2012. Modern new-build LRT suffers from exactly that. |
|
|
| (1142523) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 1 22:51:57 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by Jersey Mike on Thu Mar 1 12:32:28 2012. I honestly can't believe some of the responses in this thread. Mike, I don't know what you do for a living now, or what you plan to do, but if you ever thought you might want to hold some sort of management position at a transit agency, or really any entity that provides a service that has a component of public safety, you'd better pray that the posts you just made never get seen by your superiors. You really think that one of the reasons we don't need PTC is because human lives are only worth about $2 million? That's not just wrong, it's downright disgusting.To address the issues, I don't see what the big deal is. PTC can be implemented in many ways, and once you're starting to get into cab signalling, PTC isn't that far behind. Its ironic that you are always railing against CBTC, yet it would be the cheapest way to implement a PTC system. It's also peculiar that while you rail against the cost of PTC, stating that collisions are rare, as Will points out, you seem to have no problem with FRA regulations that force added cost onto commuter rail procurements and disallow the mixing of light rail with heavy rail. Where's the outrage over that long standing 'unfunded mandate'? The big argument against this is because it's an 'unfunded mandate'. So what? Unfunded mandates have been around for quite some time, and they serve to protect the public from interests that only care about the bottom line. Things like requiring drivers licenses, fall protection rules on construction sites or provisions of MSDS's are all 'unfunded mandates' that most rational people would agree we all need. |
|
|
| (1142556) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Fri Mar 2 11:24:39 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 1 22:51:57 2012. I honestly can't believe some of the responses in this thread. Mike, I don't know what you do for a living now, or what you plan to do, but if you ever thought you might want to hold some sort of management position at a transit agency, or really any entity that provides a service that has a component of public safety, you'd better pray that the posts you just made never get seen by your superiors. You really think that one of the reasons we don't need PTC is because human lives are only worth about $2 million? That's not just wrong, it's downright disgusting.~2 million dollars is the Federally defined cost of a human life that is used to determine if a regulation is economically justified or not. If you can't compare costs to benefits when performing a risk analysis you are destined to make BAD DECISIONS. Money doesn't just fall from the sky. When you spend money on PTC that is money you canot spend on other things like grade crossing elimination, RoW fencing, improved service, healthcare benefits, etc, etc. If you choose to spend 100 million on something that statictically has almost a zero chance of saving ANY lives and don't spend the money on something that will save lives, YOU'VE KILLED PEOPLE. "Think of the children" not only kills people, it also makes daily life worse. Thinking that spending unlimited amounts of money to save small amounts of lives is right up there with thinking we can cut taxes and still pay for Grandma's medicare. OMFG, life involves hard choices and tradeoffs. Our education system and elected officials have for decades been failing to teach this important lesson. To address the issues, I don't see what the big deal is. PTC can be implemented in many ways, and once you're starting to get into cab signalling, PTC isn't that far behind. Its ironic that you are always railing against CBTC, yet it would be the cheapest way to implement a PTC system. It's also peculiar that while you rail against the cost of PTC, stating that collisions are rare, as Will points out, you seem to have no problem with FRA regulations that force added cost onto commuter rail procurements and disallow the mixing of light rail with heavy rail. Where's the outrage over that long standing 'unfunded mandate'? I rail against CTBC because CBTC isn't reliable and presents numerous security risks that signaling vendors aren't equipped to handle. Think cell phone vs land line and then which would you want running your train. The big deal with PTC is that 90% of its safety benefits can be realized with off the shelf cab signaling that is a proven technology and comparativly cheap. SEPTA has already been installing cab signals over its entire system. Additional complexity, that will serve little benefit, result in large costs (that will probably double from the 100m estimate), will have operational impacts when it breaks and will probably degrade the standard level of safety is in my opinion a bad idea. Regarding light vs heavy rail regulations I am in favor of safety, I just want smart safety. Safety that is achieved with the best bang for the buck. Making rolling stock that is crash resistant is the best way to fully secure rail vehicles in an environment with freight trains, grade crossings, industrial sidings, etc. It's a fixed cost that requires no ongoing mantainence and protects from ALL types of collision, not just running through a stop signal. Also, I believe that most heavy rail solutions are far cheaper than modern "light rail" Go compare the RiverLINE with something CMSL Tony could cook up with RDCs. The big argument against this is because it's an 'unfunded mandate'. So what? Unfunded mandates have been around for quite some time, and they serve to protect the public from interests that only care about the bottom line. Things like requiring drivers licenses, fall protection rules on construction sites or provisions of MSDS's are all 'unfunded mandates' that most rational people would agree we all need. That has never been my argument. PTC is just a bad idea, full stop. It would be more rational for SEPTA to set the money on fire or give it to Greece. |
|
|
| (1142557) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Fri Mar 2 11:27:20 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 1 18:19:33 2012. When Federal capitol dollars are plentiful and operating dollars hard to come by, it does make sense to trade the former for the latter with concrete ties and overbuilt stations. |
|
|
| (1142573) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by The Flxible Neofan on Fri Mar 2 13:05:55 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 1 22:51:57 2012. The big argument against this is because it's an 'unfunded mandate'. So what? The "so what" in this case that because of the knee-jerk reaction and the quick deadline, important projects that are already process have to halt in their tracks to build this system in time. Perhaps if the federal gov't had to pay an additional portion for each requirement they impose, they'd think of the pros and cons of each policy they come up with before it's implemented. It's already bad enough the federal gov't continues to try to reduce funding to the various agencies... |
|
|
| (1142574) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by The Flxible Neofan on Fri Mar 2 13:07:08 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by Jersey Mike on Thu Mar 1 12:32:28 2012. Did Metrolink have this type of system installed on the line? |
|
|
| (1142589) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Fri Mar 2 15:18:06 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by The Flxible Neofan on Fri Mar 2 13:07:08 2012. No, they had no active safety technologies installed on the line in question, not even Automatic Train Stop.If you wonder why PTC was being touted as a solution where more proven technologies may have sufficed it was because the signaling industry sold regulators and congress a bag of magic beans about a "low cost wireess solution". |
|
|
| (1142607) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 2 16:27:42 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by The Flxible Neofan on Fri Mar 2 13:07:08 2012. Nope. Only CTC, that I recall. And when it was Amtrak running the ops there, no problems of the magnitude that happened under Veolia. There's a reason why Veolia (then named Connex) was kicked off the rails in Britain . . . |
|
|
| (1142652) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Mar 2 18:23:24 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by Jersey Mike on Fri Mar 2 11:24:39 2012. ~2 million dollars is the Federally defined cost of a human life that is used to determine if a regulation is economically justified or not. If you can't compare costs to benefits when performing a risk analysis you are destined to make BAD DECISIONS. Money doesn't just fall from the sky.Yeah, in other words: there's a level of death that's acceptable to tolerate because it's cheaper to let these people die than it would be to outfit a system that could save them. That's inhumane. If you choose to spend 100 million on something that statictically has almost a zero chance of saving ANY lives and don't spend the money on something that will save lives,YOU'VE KILLED PEOPLE. Except that there have been numerous incidents that would've been prevented with PTC. Thinking that spending unlimited amounts of money to save small amounts of lives is right up there with thinking we can cut taxes and still pay for Grandma's medicare. OMFG,life involves hard choices and tradeoffs. Unlimited money? The cost is defined. It's not 'unlimited'. Considering the cost per mile of constructing new rail projects in this country, the proposed price for PTC doesn't seem exceptional. I don't consider omitting a practical safety concept that many transit properties have been using for decades an acceptable tradeoff. I rail against CTBC because CBTC isn't reliable and presents numerous security risks that signaling vendors aren't equipped to handle. As the sunset limited wreck in Arizona proved, if someone wants to screw with your signals, they will. The big deal with PTC is that 90% of its safety benefits can be realized with off the shelf cab signaling that is a proven technology and comparativly cheap Once you implement cab signalling, making it enforced cab signalling is the next logical jump. …will have operational impacts when it breaks… Standard signal systems have the same issue. …will probably degrade the standard level of safety is in my opinion a bad idea. "Will probably"… sounds like your opinion. Making rolling stock that is crash resistant is the best way to fully secure rail vehicles in an environment with freight trains,grade crossings,industrial sidings,etc. It's a fixed cost that requires no ongoing mantainence and protects from ALL types of collision,not just running through a stop signal. The heavier stock has higher operating costs in the form of increased energy consumption. What other types of collisions were you referring to? Derailing into other vehicles, or wayside equipment? Even FRA compliant cars don't seem to hold up too well in those types of events. We can argue the points to death, but the simple fact is PTC will prevent collisions we will never know about. If that saves even a single life, then since you can't replace anyone's life, it's worth it. But you are insisting that we not do so until a horrific accident with a high body count occurs. If we got rid of ALL the unfunded mandates in the world, we could build a lot more things. The cost of construction, manufacturing and transport would drop significantly. We would also return to the levels of fatalities we saw at the turn of last century. |
|
|
| (1143152) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Mar 5 11:17:29 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by J trainloco on Fri Mar 2 18:23:24 2012. Yeah, in other words: there's a level of death that's acceptable to tolerate because it's cheaper to let these people die than it would be to outfit a system that could save them. That's inhumane.No, its called reality, you should try acknowledging it. Spending large amounts of money to save small amounts of life is making us less well off because there are still cases where spending that same money could save large amounts of life. Except that there have been numerous incidents that would've been prevented with PTC. The number of PTC preventible accidents resulting in passenger fatalities starting with the Chase, MD accident in 1986 is somewhere between 5 and 10 and only 3 of those had any significant causalities. Personally I can only think of 5 such accidents, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to track down every last one. Of those, I am aware of only one (the first MetroLink accident) that may have failed to be preventible by cab signaling as currently employed. Unlimited money? The cost is defined. It's not 'unlimited'. Considering the cost per mile of constructing new rail projects in this country, the proposed price for PTC doesn't seem exceptional. I don't believe that $100 million number considering that the MBTA projected something closer to $400 million and Metro North $700 million. Look for it to double or triple as time goes on. Either way PTC will degrade service, and given SEPTA's piss poor cab signal implementation it will probably degrade it significantly. Paying more for worse service is insult to injury. I don't consider omitting a practical safety concept that many transit properties have been using for decades an acceptable tradeoff. Railroads are not transit. They have higher skill workers, lower cost infrastructure and greater operating flexibility. Tell me the last time you got a transit ride that didn't suck. As the sunset limited wreck in Arizona proved, if someone wants to screw with your signals, they will. Forcing an attacker to assert physical presence is a huge win. If someone in China wants to screw with our signals they have to get a viva, buy a plane ticket, fly to our country, drive somewhere, tamper with the signals, then get back home. With CBTC they can walk to their internet cafe and turn on a laptop. Once you implement cab signalling, making it enforced cab signalling is the next logical jump. First of all for passenger trains cab signals ARE enforced down to a speed where most accidents don't matter. For freight trains it is impractical to enforce them because their handling characteristic are not easy to model. PTC systems can come close, but still fall far short of what an engineer can do based on their years of experience and training. Standard signal systems have the same issue. If a standard signaling system breaks there are manual fallback systems. If a locomotive's PTC box breaks it cannot depart its initial terminal until the safety appliance is fixed. That means your train gets annulled. This problem already exists with standard cabs, but those are a much simpler system. "Will probably"… sounds like your opinion. The FRA's regulatory release said that PTC was likely to reduce the capacity of the US rail network. Also, ask any systems engineer...when safety systems are added it will almost always degrade the performance of the system being made "safer". It is possible to install a PTC system that does not degrade performance, but this means doing things like setting the PTC enforced speeds to the overturn or derailment speed instead of the rulebook/comfost/coffee cup speed so that the engineer won't be conditioned to operate below the posted speed to avoid a PTC enforcement action. However if the FRA/rail operators would be gutsy enough to allow this is highly doubtful and will simply take the performance hit. We can argue the points to death, but the simple fact is PTC will prevent collisions we will never know about. If that saves even a single life, then since you can't replace anyone's life, it's worth it. But you are insisting that we not do so until a horrific accident with a high body count occurs. There's just no point arguing with you because its clear you're a "think of the children"-er, but I'll try one last this. THIS IS WHY YOU ARE WRONG Opportunity cost is the cost of any activity measured in terms of the value of the next best alternative forgone (that is not chosen). It is the sacrifice related to the second best choice available to someone, or group, who has picked among several mutually exclusive choices. The opportunity cost is also the cost of the forgone products after making a choice. Opportunity cost is a key concept in economics, and has been described as expressing "the basic relationship between scarcity and choice". The notion of opportunity cost plays a crucial part in ensuring that scarce resources are used efficiently. Thus, opportunity costs are not restricted to monetary or financial costs: the real cost of output forgone, lost time, pleasure or any other benefit that provides utility should also be considered opportunity costs. In the REAL WORLD money does not grow on trees. When the government chooses to fund PTC it means it chooses NOT to fund something like healthcare, or transit expansion or basic research. By spending 15 BILLION dollars to implement PTC nationwide that's a lot of people you could helping or saving in other ways...far more than the few that would ever be helped by PTC. A wise man once said "The good of the many outweighs the good of the good of the few, or the one. Try to learn that before you ever try to make decisions that might affect people or organizations. |
|
|
| (1143259) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Mar 5 18:19:38 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Mar 5 11:17:29 2012. "No,its called reality,you should try acknowledging it.""THIS IS WHY YOU ARE WRONG" "Try to learn that before you ever try to make decisions" I'm not sure that making a detailed reply to you even makes sense, since the tenor of your reply seems to indicate that you think I am a total idiot and i'm incapable of even being able try out thinking with my inadequate brain. I will point out a few quick things: 1. Even if the cost of PTC is double what SEPTA estimates that's still $600,000 per mile. That's a fraction of the cost estimated for even starting up commuter services on existing rail lines (I see estimates of 5-7M per mile). It's an even smaller fraction of new services. 2. Remote hacking of CBTC would still require the local physical presence of a device to pick up the signal. Remote hacking is certainly possible of a number of non CBTC CTC rail facilities. 3. Your disdain for rapid transit is duly noted. It's worth pointing out that Rapid transit is able to accommodate a far greater number of passengers than commuter rail operations are capable of, and many of them already include at least some aspects of PTC, which you claim hinders performance. 4. More than a few would be benefitted by PTC. It would benefit everyone who uses the lines, not simply the few whose lives are saved by avoiding accidents we'll never know of. 5. By your own metric (which seems to be that we should only take a reactionary approach to safety), Cab signalling is a waste of money too. |
|
|
| (1143302) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Mon Mar 5 21:34:31 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by J trainloco on Mon Mar 5 18:19:38 2012. Good post. |
|
|
| (1143303) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Mar 5 22:13:37 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Mar 5 11:17:29 2012. Tell me the last time you got a transit ride that didn't suck.If I wanted to be an absurdist, July 2010 in Germany, but in reality, in the past six months, I've had non-sucky rides on NYCTA, Tri-Met, SoundTransit/KC Metro, and TransLink. Coincidentally, the only sucky ride within that six month period was the slug-like and late New Jersey Transit train leaving Newark Airport. lower cost infrastructure How much is ESA again? How much was that half-assed terminal in a cave under 34th Street? Of course, the smart thing would have been to build a two track terminal, but that level of service is only expected from rapid transit, so the commuter rail agencies "need" six tracks to do what others do with two tracks. Railroads are not transit. If you keep thinking like that, we'll never get a full-fleshed out and easy to use transit network that encourages ridership and transit oriented development through out our metropolitan areas. The gold-plating that people complain about on BART only exists because it's nearly impossible to get railroads to mature and become more transit like on the cheap. Thus the only alternative is to chase the railroad away and go Stadtbahn or build an imitation S-Bahn over it as we did in San Francisco. Either way PTC will degrade service, FWIW, the Swiss have managed to implement 120 second headways at 200 km/h with recent ECTS Level II installations on mixed use line... |
|
|
| (1143472) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Mar 7 03:10:55 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by The Flxible Neofan on Fri Mar 2 13:05:55 2012. Knee jerk reaction? Legislation crafted in response to three major accidents and a half dozen smaller accidents over the course of a decade is hardly a knee jerk reaction. If anything the fact that they didn't take steps to curtail signals being passed after the Secaucus wreck is downright irresponsible in the first place.What the FRA did do in response to the Secaucus crash was exactly what Jersey Mike advocates. They beefed up crashworthiness requirements (itself an unfunded mandate draining scarce operational dollars alongside its capital expenditure) rather than attempting to avoid accidents in the first place. Except that a focus on crash survival rather than crash avoidance has done NOTHING to make rail travel any safer than it was before the Secaucus wreck. Jersey Mike's rhetoric was put into place and it failed miserably, and THAT is why we have the PTC mandate, a decade in the making and seven years in implementation. |
|
|
| (1144964) | |
Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 16 12:36:45 2012, in response to Re: SEPTA to spend $100 million on PTC (unfunded federal mandate); other projects take hit, posted by WillD on Thu Mar 1 01:02:34 2012. Metrolink offered a $200 million dollar settlementTwo hundred million dollar dollar . . . |
|
|
