3 ms·

Is someone offering to pay? The reason we do not have a Pennsy anymore is that they went bankrupt, partly because they had to compete with subsidized highways

Is someone offering to pay? The reason we do not have a Pennsy anymore is that they went bankrupt, partly because they had to compete with subsidized highways and airports (there are various other reasons). The fact is that PTC is an expensive way to increase the safety of one of the safest ways people can travel. Automobiles are far more dangerous. If the billions of dollars being spent on PTC were instead used to expand passenger service (and take cars off the road) we would almost certainly save more lives. Also keep in mind that PTC solves just one of many ways that train wrecks can occur. It is not hard to find examples of other recent fatal incidents that PTC would have done nothing to prevent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valhalla_train_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valhalla_train_crash

jimktrains2 9y ago
> Is someone offering to pay? The reason we do not have a Pennsy anymore is that they went bankrupt, partly because they had to compete with subsidized highways and airports (there are various other reasons). I would say more than partially. Large portions of their revenue suddenly shifted to use those subsidized highways and airports. Sudden shocks are hard, even for a company doing financially well like the Pennsy was until the last few years. My point is more that this technology has largely existed for the past 60 years. Even implemented slowly over the last 30 years, that time would have left us with a system that had most of the benefits of PTC. > The fact is that PTC is an expensive way to increase the safety of one of the safest ways people can travel. Automobiles are far more dangerous. If the billions of dollars being spent on PTC were instead used to expand passenger service (and take cars off the road) we would almost certainly save more lives. No argument. I hate cars. Car culture is toxic and causes so many problems. > Also keep in mind that PTC solves just one of many ways that train wrecks can occur. It is not hard to find examples of other recent fatal incidents that PTC would have done nothing to prevent: Just because a safety feature wouldn't prevent every accident doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. The question is how much of a benefit does it bring?
mulmen 9y ago
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying we should disregard train safety because there are other more dangerous forms of travel? Travel by rail may be one of the safest methods of travel (citation needed) but the US has much more dangerous rail infrastructure than the rest of the developed world. There doesn't seem to be a good reason for this. The fatal train crash in this article was on the first run of a newly expanded line. It injured more people than were on the train because it fell on the freeway. You may be able to cherry pick train crashes that PTC would not have prevented but my understanding is that several recent (last 10 years) fatal crashes would have been prevented by PTC.
- betterunix2 9y ago
  My point is that we can spend billions of dollars making trains safer, or we can spend those billions expanding passenger rail to reduce the number of people who drive, something which would save far more lives. It is a matter of economics. A dollar spent on PTC is a dollar not spend expanding passenger rail service (and the PTC mandate raises the cost of building new passenger lines), and the question is whether or not it is worth the extra safety. Considering how safe rail transit already is, and how much more unsafe driving is, it seems like our money would be better spent taking cars off the road. Or to put it another way, I am arguing that focusing only on rail fatalities is too narrow and that we should instead focus on travel fatalities in general. Increased access to passenger trains, more frequent and more reliable service, and faster passenger service are all ways to reduce travel fatalities because all the above reduce the number of people who drive. PTC also reduces travel fatalities, but not by as much. If you need a more extreme example, many lives could be saved by banning automobiles altogether, but obviously the costs would be far too high to justify such an approach.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    Except in this case we did spend the money on PTC but then didn't bother to turn it on. This fatal crash was the first run of a newly expanded line. Are all new rail line expansions dangerous? If so will trains still be safer than cars if we expanded them enough to carry similar numbers? I think I understand your argument but I'm not convinced more routes without PTC is safer without seeing numbers. That train was only 1/3 full, if we added more trains and put more people on those trains would the deaths really be lower? What if we compare to just the alternative of traffic fatalities on interstates between Seattle and Portland? Also this train fell onto the freeway and injured drivers, is that included in traffic statistics (slightly facetious)? I'm not convinced that banning automobiles entirely would save lives. There are too many practical concerns there. Do ambulances still exist? Would people just drive anyway, perhaps ignoring all laws or driving unsafely to flee police? It's not a compelling argument. I take issue the most with the attitude that we shouldn't be critical of the safety of trains because there is another method of travel that is worse because that kind of thinking does nothing to make trains safer.
kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
The thing is it doesn't cost billions to have an open loop GPS guided speed governor that only works most of the time. But there's no money in that.

jimktrains2 9y ago

> Is someone offering to pay? The reason we do not have a Pennsy anymore is that they went bankrupt, partly because they had to compete with subsidized highways and airports (there are various other reasons). I would say more than partially. Large portions of their revenue suddenly shifted to use those subsidized highways and airports. Sudden shocks are hard, even for a company doing financially well like the Pennsy was until the last few years. My point is more that this technology has largely existed for the past 60 years. Even implemented slowly over the last 30 years, that time would have left us with a system that had most of the benefits of PTC. > The fact is that PTC is an expensive way to increase the safety of one of the safest ways people can travel. Automobiles are far more dangerous. If the billions of dollars being spent on PTC were instead used to expand passenger service (and take cars off the road) we would almost certainly save more lives. No argument. I hate cars. Car culture is toxic and causes so many problems. > Also keep in mind that PTC solves just one of many ways that train wrecks can occur. It is not hard to find examples of other recent fatal incidents that PTC would have done nothing to prevent: Just because a safety feature wouldn't prevent every accident doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. The question is how much of a benefit does it bring?

mulmen 9y ago

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying we should disregard train safety because there are other more dangerous forms of travel? Travel by rail may be one of the safest methods of travel (citation needed) but the US has much more dangerous rail infrastructure than the rest of the developed world. There doesn't seem to be a good reason for this. The fatal train crash in this article was on the first run of a newly expanded line. It injured more people than were on the train because it fell on the freeway. You may be able to cherry pick train crashes that PTC would not have prevented but my understanding is that several recent (last 10 years) fatal crashes would have been prevented by PTC.

betterunix2 9y ago
My point is that we can spend billions of dollars making trains safer, or we can spend those billions expanding passenger rail to reduce the number of people who drive, something which would save far more lives. It is a matter of economics. A dollar spent on PTC is a dollar not spend expanding passenger rail service (and the PTC mandate raises the cost of building new passenger lines), and the question is whether or not it is worth the extra safety. Considering how safe rail transit already is, and how much more unsafe driving is, it seems like our money would be better spent taking cars off the road. Or to put it another way, I am arguing that focusing only on rail fatalities is too narrow and that we should instead focus on travel fatalities in general. Increased access to passenger trains, more frequent and more reliable service, and faster passenger service are all ways to reduce travel fatalities because all the above reduce the number of people who drive. PTC also reduces travel fatalities, but not by as much. If you need a more extreme example, many lives could be saved by banning automobiles altogether, but obviously the costs would be far too high to justify such an approach.
- mulmen 9y ago
  Except in this case we did spend the money on PTC but then didn't bother to turn it on. This fatal crash was the first run of a newly expanded line. Are all new rail line expansions dangerous? If so will trains still be safer than cars if we expanded them enough to carry similar numbers? I think I understand your argument but I'm not convinced more routes without PTC is safer without seeing numbers. That train was only 1/3 full, if we added more trains and put more people on those trains would the deaths really be lower? What if we compare to just the alternative of traffic fatalities on interstates between Seattle and Portland? Also this train fell onto the freeway and injured drivers, is that included in traffic statistics (slightly facetious)? I'm not convinced that banning automobiles entirely would save lives. There are too many practical concerns there. Do ambulances still exist? Would people just drive anyway, perhaps ignoring all laws or driving unsafely to flee police? It's not a compelling argument. I take issue the most with the attitude that we shouldn't be critical of the safety of trains because there is another method of travel that is worse because that kind of thinking does nothing to make trains safer.

kevin_thibedeau 9y ago

The thing is it doesn't cost billions to have an open loop GPS guided speed governor that only works most of the time. But there's no money in that.