Presidential Race Enters Rail Safety Debate
THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION has held a big emergency session of its Rail- road Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), where new regulatory measures were on the agenda, all of this occasioned by the Ju- ly 6 derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec on the now bankrupt Montreal Maine & At- lantic Railway. Four issues are front and center. The railroad industry for its part in- tends to be very much a part of those dis- cussions.
Thumb On the Scales Though PTC or Positive Train Control was not an issue in the Lac-Megantic crash, it is very much a part of the FRA deliberations. (PTC is the advanced crash-avoidance tech- nology U.S. railroads have been instructed by law to install. The legislation passed in the fall of 2008 with the crash in California of a Metrolink commuter train and Union Pacific freight, resulting in 25 dead and scores injured.) Deadline for complete in- stallation is December 31, 2015. The rail- roads say overall, they can’t reach that goal. The alternatives offered include a pushback to December 2018, and more recently (see below) December 2020.
Hurry Up Already? The AP, the U.S.-based storied worldwide wire service, has plunged in with a political twist apparently to pressure the railroads to hurry the PTC process, even though the in- dustry argues that’s easier said than done. In an unsigned piece that purports to tell the entire story of the PTC debate in Con- gress, readers of the first (and usually most read) paragraphs are invited to view opposi- tion almost exclusively through the lens of how much money industry sources had con- tributed to any lawmaker who dared to open his mouth to point out there are some legiti- mate barriers to the “rush.” The railroads have been pressured for decades on these upgrades, but they point out that much of that political heat started in the days when America’s railroad system was falling apart. Mere survival, not regula- tion, was the supreme priority then. The survival problem now has been solved in spades thanks to the 1980 Staggers de-reg- ulation bill signed into law by President Jimmy Carter.
So should there be an accelerated repair
schedule now? A good case can be made for that, but without impugning motives of everyone who questions the feasibility of the reform schedule. For example, Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) would have reason to hope for the health of the railroads traversing his home territory. South Dakota farmers (in a state with no inter-city passenger trains, and thus no human customer “cargo”) are more concerned about being served by the railroads in a timely manner during the grain harvest. For the railroads, safety of course must be Number One. But the farmers’ immediate concern is their bread and butter, so to speak. If the railroaders are not there to pick
12 OCTOBER 2013 •
RAILFAN.COM
up the shipments on time, they do hear about it from their customers. Besides which, timeliness is an important public interest factor beyond the concerns of the railroads or the farmers. Timely delivery of crop harvests can affect food prices and/or food shortages and of course, payment to the farmers whose crops feed the rest of us. The economic impact of an efficient rail industry is huge
Senator Thune is lead sponsor of a bill to push the PTC deadline back to 2020 in lieu of 2015. He has the bipartisan support of co- sponsors Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Roy Blunt (R- Mo) and Claire McKaskill (D-Mo.), all with significant farm constituencies.
Meaning of 2020: Politics? The AP rightly and fairly quotes passenger train advocate Ross Capon (NARP) and safe- ty regulator Robert Sumwalt (NTSB) as pushing for faster scheduling than 2020 or even 2018. There seems to be some concern that by end of either year there may be a less regulatory-minded administration in this town, and then the safety pressure and memories of the ’08 crash will vanish. So now, some, apparently including the AP, are fearful the 2015 to2020 delay is all about 2016 presidential politics. Metrolink (L.A. commuter) and BNSF are expected to meet the 2015 deadline, as is Amtrak on its Northeast corridor between Boston and Washington and in Michigan.
Other Safety Issues 1) Crew size is a safety concern that has tak- en on new attention after Lac-Megantic. That’s a hot labor-management issue, with freight crew sizes in the latter 20th and ear- ly 21st centuries having dropped over time from five to two. Canada seems to have settled on two as a max. In the U.S. it’s a big debate. 2) The implementation of specific require- ments for securing trains; operational test- ing to ensure employees follow proper proce- dures for securing the trains. 3) More to the point, sufficient training to enable employees to understand the re- quirements. In the Quebec case, that was a key point of friction. The operator and his union say the man followed the rules by the book. Beyond that, recall we reported last month that a training operator offered MMA a deal to put employees through a training course aimed at avoiding the kind of acci- dent that occurred at Lac-Megantic. The trainer says MMA rejected the offer because the railroad deemed the fee too steep. That rejected offer may be reviewed in courts and by regulators. 4) Finally, the FRA panel has begun to consider “Identification, classification, and operational control and handling of haz- ardous materials” during transport.
Tall Order
The FRA safety organization will split into several working groups with the necessary expertise to deal with the specifics, gather facts, and develop a range of options. This
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66