bikkuri bahn Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 But a House bill that would dictate the nation's future transportation agenda pushes back the installment deadline five years. Rail industry officials say more time is needed to deal with the complexity and costs associated with installing and operating the equipment. "It's still really in the product development stage," said Rob Healy, vice-president of government affairs for the American Public Transportation Association, a trade association for commuter rail operators. "There's not only a dearth of technology, but also expertise in terms of getting this installed." Facepalm... http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jTo8dIDgNImMPNt6NUneY-6gAQxQ?docId=8f96bee9705c4dfdaf9224ea1caa1ba1 Link to comment
Mudkip Orange Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Doesn't bug me. I don't really see it as necessary for lines that carry a shitload of freight plus a daily Amtrak in each direction. Broad policymaking based on a single spectacular incident is the bane of Anglo representative democracy. Link to comment
KenS Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 The accidents have mainly happened where there are more frequent passenger trains due to commuter use (e.g. LA, Chicago, various parts of the Northeast corridor), not the one-train-per-day lines. There's value even on the latter in avoiding head-ons that kill train crews and risk toxic spills (although the risk of those is another one of those things that's over-hyped; tank cars are pretty hard to crack open). But the impetus came from passenger-heavy lines. Chatsworth was the last straw, but hardly the only passenger/freight crash in recent memory. And it's not just accidents with two trains. Remeber the idiot who took a 30 mph curve into Back Bay (Boston) station at 110 mph and took his F40 vertical up through the street in 1990? Even though nobody was killed, it was still a very serious accident. I was on that line less than an hour before the crash, so a PTC system that would avoid such things has some meaning to me. But really, even twelve years is fast as railroads do things. Granted, we've been talking about PTC for a lot longer. Still, it's getting it done that really matters. Another five years, while annoying, is understandable given that most of the passenger railroads involved are publicly-funded and dependent on tax revenues or similar, which are in short supply these days. And note that the "rail industry officials" in the article are the "American Public Transportation Association, a trade association for commuter rail operators", so it's the commuter operators (in most cases state agencies) who are complaining about the cost. Link to comment
Guest ___ Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 HR7 is more of a concern to me at the PTC. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now