3 ms·

It seems less reasonable when you compare the safety of train travel to the safety of automobile travel, and when you consider that every time a new passenger r

It seems less reasonable when you compare the safety of train travel to the safety of automobile travel, and when you consider that every time a new passenger route is opened it takes cars off the road. Yes there are train wrecks, and yes, PTC would have prevented this specific wreck, but trains remain one of the safest modes of transit.

AdamJacobMuller 9y ago
> this specific wreck PTC wouldn't have just prevented this specific wreck, PTC would have prevented like 9 of the last 10 fatal train wrecks in the USA. Every single fatal wreck that happened since Obama pushed back the mandate would have been avoided by PTC.
- betterunix2 9y ago
  Let's assume you are right, and that in the past three years PTC would have prevented the majority of fata train wrecks. How many fatalities are you talking about? How many lives should we expect PTC to save over the next decade? The more important question is this: how many automobile fatalities could be prevented if we took the billions of dollars being spent on PTC and spent it building a new commuter rail line that took hundreds of cars off the road every day?
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    Make sure to build it up to at least 1950s standards in safety. Many parts of US rail do not feature even basics. They rely on the driver and signals only... Like this one where the derailment happened.
mikeash 9y ago
Are you sure trains are safer? I found these tables: https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_42.html https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pu... https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_17.html https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pu... Train fatalities tend to be clumped so the stats tend to vary a lot from one year to the next, but it looks like in recent years the typical rate is something like 5 fatalities per 100 million passenger-miles. The car data only gives fatalities per vehicle-mile for some reason, but that will always be a pessimistic number (at least until autonomous cars happen), and that rate is just a bit over 1 fatality per 100 million vehicle-miles. It looks like cars are quite a bit safer, unless I've misunderstood something. The absolute number of fatalities is far lower for trains, but the number of passenger miles per year is also far lower.
- betterunix2 9y ago
  One issue is that the motor vehicle fatalities table seems to include data from buses (that is how I understand the references), which are safer than cars. I tried looking at the sources for the passenger rail data but a quick glance was not very informative. Here is another study, from 2010, showing some very different numbers: http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~ipsavage/436.pdf http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~ipsavage/436.pdf

AdamJacobMuller 9y ago

> this specific wreck PTC wouldn't have just prevented this specific wreck, PTC would have prevented like 9 of the last 10 fatal train wrecks in the USA. Every single fatal wreck that happened since Obama pushed back the mandate would have been avoided by PTC.

betterunix2 9y ago
Let's assume you are right, and that in the past three years PTC would have prevented the majority of fata train wrecks. How many fatalities are you talking about? How many lives should we expect PTC to save over the next decade? The more important question is this: how many automobile fatalities could be prevented if we took the billions of dollars being spent on PTC and spent it building a new commuter rail line that took hundreds of cars off the road every day?
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  Make sure to build it up to at least 1950s standards in safety. Many parts of US rail do not feature even basics. They rely on the driver and signals only... Like this one where the derailment happened.

mikeash 9y ago

Are you sure trains are safer? I found these tables: https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_42.html https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pu... https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_17.html https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pu... Train fatalities tend to be clumped so the stats tend to vary a lot from one year to the next, but it looks like in recent years the typical rate is something like 5 fatalities per 100 million passenger-miles. The car data only gives fatalities per vehicle-mile for some reason, but that will always be a pessimistic number (at least until autonomous cars happen), and that rate is just a bit over 1 fatality per 100 million vehicle-miles. It looks like cars are quite a bit safer, unless I've misunderstood something. The absolute number of fatalities is far lower for trains, but the number of passenger miles per year is also far lower.

betterunix2 9y ago
One issue is that the motor vehicle fatalities table seems to include data from buses (that is how I understand the references), which are safer than cars. I tried looking at the sources for the passenger rail data but a quick glance was not very informative. Here is another study, from 2010, showing some very different numbers: http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~ipsavage/436.pdf http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~ipsavage/436.pdf