NYT piece: New Jersey Transit, a Cautionary Tale of Neglect

[jamesinclair]

Not exactly. You can still do 20 per hour if theyre all one way.

6 per hour would be if you were foolish enough to run 1 in, 1 out, 1 in, 1 out.

The reality would be somewhere in the middle. AKA, weekend service, when you get 6 trains all running in, and then 6 all running out.

[ExCon90]

That's what Amtrak did on weekends when they took one tube out of service for rehab (are they still?). The constraint is that all trains in one direction are confined to a 25-minute period, then 5 minutes to clear the tunnel, then all trains in the opposite direction are confined to another 25-minute period, when it's time to clear for the next wave. If the last train in the parade is late and misses the window it's stuck in the meadows for a half hour while the opposite direction runs its course. You can live with that on weekends, but 24-7 for a couple of years would get old--and might do almost irreparable harm to the long-term high-speed market WAS-NYP-BOS.

[jmatchesky]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/nyreg ... risis.html

Stunning. And it's pretty clear who bears a lot, if not most, of the blame.

One thing that struck me while reading the article.

"In June, federal inspectors swarmed New Jersey Transit’s rail operations, part of a “deep audit” by the Federal Railroad Administration prompted by an increase in safety violations and a lack of leadership at the railroad. The federal agency fined the railroad for several violations and warned officials of the problems it had uncovered."

So the railroad can't afford to fix the infrastructure that would increase on-time performance and safety, yet the FRA's solution is to fine them for safety violations. The way passenger railroads are run in this country is an absolute joke.

[SemperFidelis]

So your solution is for the federal regulatory agency in charge of inspecting railroads to not fine a commuter railroad for its safety violations? The federal agency should not do its job at the federal level because a state agency is the victim of poor funding at the state level?

That makes no sense.

That would be as if a State Trooper didn't ticket you for not having your child in a car safety seat. I know lots of people who have trouble affording car seats where I live. Should they get a pass from the agency charged with enforcing driving safety because they can't afford the seat?

Heck, I arrested more than a few people who couldn't afford what they were stealing at the time. Many times, those things weren't mere frivolities, but the truest sorts of necessities. Sadly, we don't get to just take what we need. Ask Victor Hugo.

It is not the Federal Railroad Administration's job to set transit funding priorities for a state. It is not the FRA's jo to break partisan gridlock in state houses and find ways to fund pension obligations, education, highways, and also legislate tax breaks while somehow funding a commuter railroad. The FRA's job, in this instance, is one of safety oversight. If the FRA refused to fine the railroad for violating safety rules, not just due to poor funding but for any reason, what would be the disincentive for violation of safety rules?

I am not trying to be negative or strike a condescending tone, I agree with you that the funding of passenger rail (among a thousand other things) is a total joke, I just don't understand what you think the FRA should have done.

[jmatchesky]

Not at all suggesting that, as the current system is set up, the FRA shouldn't impose penalties which hopefully hold railroads accountable and force them to do things safely.

My problem is with the way the system IS set up. The FRA, a federal agency, shouldn't be forced to hand out fines to railroads that can't afford to pay them. Ideally, the FRA would help to allocate federal funding to railroads that need help improving infrastructure and/or operations.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

How does one enforce safety if one is not able to levy penalties? Penalties which are financial, because very little else other than criminal charges--which the FRA, not being a law enforcement agency, can't levy--compels compliance like losing money and/or explaining to taxpayers why you lost their money.


I mean, this is Regulation 101. For every agency under the sun tasked with regulating compliance in whatever its designated area is. I can't believe this is even being called into question.

[SemperFidelis]

That would have the FRA, an agency tasked with oversight in regards to safety, assuming part of the role of the legislative branch, directing funding from the federal government to state agencies. It would make no sense to restructure the FRA away from the enforcement of safety regulations. Who then would be in charge of safety oversight? Perhaps the, admittedly dysfunctional and hyper-politicized, transit agencies could police themselves?

One of the most important roles of the federal government, unless your political beliefs are dictated by talk radio hosts, is the oversight of safety regulations.

Forget F Line's (very correct) invocation of "Regulation 101"...this is perhaps just Common Sense 101 as applied to matters as varied as the "simple" task of raising a child all the way up to the operation of an agency charged with the safe transport and passage of hundreds of thousands of people a day...anyone who wants to see rules followed will disincentivize bad behavior. As the FRA can't send NJ Transit to a timeout...or arrest someone at the agency as F Line just wrote, I think they're stuck with fining them.

Now, perhaps there is something to be said for the idea of directing the agency towards the right resources, but every state transportation agency in our nation has people whose job it is to know these programs, apply for their benefits, lobby on behalf their application, and then apply the benefits of those programs to their agency. When such people in state transit agencies exist, it would seem pointless, redundant and, again if your beliefs are best reflected by the rantings of angry folks shouting into radio microphones, a form of over-reach by an ever-expanding federal government to not only supply taxpayer funded safety programs but also to then task and staff an entire agency whose role is to inspect, determine points of failure, and then direct scarce federal monies to those points of failure.

Again, I am not trying to be overly negative when it comes to your opinion, but it just doesn't make any sense. The safety oversight portion of the system is, despite occassional failures, working as it should.

Rather than stifle an intelligent discussion, however, I would like to ask you who you think should be in charge of a state commuter railroad's adherence to safety regulations? What would cause this agency to want to follow rules that can be quite expensive to adhere? Is there any punishment levied when a failure (accident) occurs and the cause is a broken safety rule? Would a state transit agency, staffed and restaffed at upper levels every 4 years when administrations change be capable of self policing when it comes to safety? As safety regulations are wickedly expensive to adhere to, wouldn't the politicized state agency try to defer maintenance until the Governor who appointed them left office, thus helping his or her budget while dumping the backlogged costs onto an administration they have no loyalty to? Does every transit agency, even the ones who fail to live up to safety regulations, get a trophy so they feel good about themselves? Aside form the last question, your answers would perhaps either help you realize the shortcomings in your plan to retask the FRA or help me understand what it is I am missing.

As I imagine some of the answers to those question demonstrate quite aptly, this is the point of federal oversight. If state transit agencies policed themselves, if there were no issuance of fines when safety rules were broken, safety related maintenance would be deferred and deferred and deferred, and the "saved" funds would be spent on more plitically popular items, right up until the costs could be passed on to the next administration. There is not a politician on the planet who wouldn't pass the cost to his/her successor if they thought they could get away with it. Would you trust Governor Christie to not do this? Or any Governor of any state?

Long rant short: Without federal safety oversight, systems would break down and, without a moment's worth of hyperbole whatsoever, good people would die.

[jmatchesky]

This is getting too far from the original topic, which I don't want to contribute to. And aside from that, the discussion we're having could go on forever.

I understand that the FRA is designed to enforce safety regulations and nobody (including myself) is saying this is a bad thing. I also understand that, outside of monetary penalties, there's not many other ways to get its points across.

It just seems counterproductive (a never-ending cycle) to fine railroads that can't afford to make the large-scale improvements which would make them run more safely. Admittedly, I don't have a real solution to fix this problem.

[SemperFidelis]

Fair enough. Let's call it an evening, then, friend!

[Hamhock]

Perhaps change the regulation to directly fine the state, instead of the poorly-funded state agency, with the additional restriction that funding cannot subsequently be reduced to compensate for the fines.

[JCGUY]

"One of the most important roles of the federal government, unless your political beliefs are dictated by talk radio hosts, is the oversight of safety regulations."

Unless your political beliefs are dictated by NPR, you'd realize that being on the hook for multi-million dollar tort claims is a crisper incentive to take safety seriously than the dictates of any ponderous federal agency.

[Hamhock]

One does not negate the other.

[Ken W2KB]

Perhaps change the regulation to directly fine the state, instead of the poorly-funded state agency, with the additional restriction that funding cannot subsequently be reduced to compensate for the fines.

Fines are rather effective in enforcement actions against private enterprises. Fines against government agencies are rather ineffective since states and state agencies pay fines using someone else's money.

[R36 Combine Coach]

One of the most important roles of the federal government, unless your political beliefs are dictated by talk radio hosts, is the oversight of safety regulations.

As I imagine some of the answers to those question demonstrate quite aptly, this is the point of federal oversight. If state transit agencies policed themselves, if there were no issuance of fines when safety rules were broken, safety related maintenance would be deferred and deferred and deferred, and the "saved" funds would be spent on more plitically popular items, right up until the costs could be passed on to the next administration.

Long rant short: Without federal safety oversight, systems would break down and, without a moment's worth of hyperbole whatsoever, good people would die.

Same issue applies about WMATA here.

Although back in the days of the ICC in rail safety oversight (pre-1970s), was the ICC board ever as aggressive in threatening fines/sanctions against violations?

[SemperFidelis]

"One of the most important roles of the federal government, unless your political beliefs are dictated by talk radio hosts, is the oversight of safety regulations."

Unless your political beliefs are dictated by NPR, you'd realize that being on the hook for multi-million dollar tort claims is a crisper incentive to take safety seriously than the dictates of any ponderous federal agency.

!!! Before I get back on topic I just want to point out, though you would have no wat of knowing this,, that were one to review my history of posting here one would see that I normally take the time out at the end of posts where I use a tongue-in-cheek reference to the views of those who huddle well to the right-of-center to poke some self deprecating fun at my fellow Enya listening, dolphin voting rights advocating, EV driving, NPR listeners. I was insanely tired last night and the normally fair and balanced nature of my smart assery slipped through the cracks. May Godess forgive me. !!!

That being said...

I guess I should thank you for proving my point?

I suppose the NPR remark felt right from where you were typing, but it kinda rings hollow and clearly was reflexive when compared to the point I was making...the point you then reinforced: As you have so ably demonstrated, subscribers to certain political theories do not recognize the value of the federal government in the role of safety oversight. As an El Rushbo listener since around '92 (the good old days of Rita X) I can cite rather easily examples of talk radio hosts and those who follow them not valuing the role of federal agencies in the role of safety oversight. This is a role best left up to either the states or, as you say, the courts.

National Public Radio is deafeningly silent on the topic of government's role in safety oversight. I listen every day and I cannot remember the last time anyone aboard the network advocated either way on this topic. Get that it is fun to lash out and all when you feel your beliefs have been attacked, but perhaps some self reflection is due when the act of citing the actual, very proudly held and loudly spoken beliefs (state oversight, free market solutions vs government solutions) is percieved of as an insult.

Trying to get back on topic because my soap box needs a good polishing...

Sure, I suppose we could have NJ Transit police itself, but it seems a poor choice to let a badly run overly politicized agency be in charge of its own oversight. We could let trial attorneys, the courts, and massive settlements (wow, those sound like things my side would support) fulfill the role of federal safety oversight, but for there to be a lawsuit with a massive settlement, one that will be "crisper incentive"' to follow the rules...well it doesn't take someone with a very high IQ to figure out that for there to be a massive payouts, there would have first had to have been a massive failure.

Massive failures, those massive enough to allow the most crisp of incentives, those failures that occur when a professional is trying to safely operate a commuter train with twelve hundred souls aboard...those failures don't only come at a cost to the bottom line, they generally come at a cost far higher. This is why we don't allow Randian economic theory and personal beliefs to drive aviation safety, naval safety, rail safety, highway safety etc. Huge payouts in these fields are generally due to there being a huge loss of life. I'd rather not wait long enough to let the free markets determine how much safety is due my wife's train or my son's bus. I think I would rather let the professionals at the FRA and the NTSB handle these matters rather than a law firm after the fact.