Proposed Federal regulation of Light Rail and Subway systems

Batman2 wrote:

jb9152 wrote:

R36 Combine Coach wrote:Anything self-propelled and running on rails should be considered FRA standard.

That's going to be tough when not ONE rail transit vehicle is currently FRA-compliant.

R36 is saying said rolling stock should be deemed FRA-compliant. I'd be worried about some pretty low standards emerging from that kind of a standard. I foresee some very spartan concept vehicles arising from such a ruling.

Ah. Then I change my statement to: FAT CHANCE. Transit rolling stock is not FRA-compliant now, and it will not be deemed so in the future. That would mean the FRA abandoning its primary safety paradigm of vehicle-hardening.

Batman2 wrote:R36 is saying said rolling stock should be deemed FRA-compliant. I'd be worried about some pretty low standards emerging from that kind of a standard. I foresee some very spartan concept vehicles arising from such a ruling.

Whatever exists should be deemed compliant or whatever exists should be brought into compliance with a real standard?

I would not mind seeing a tiered system where more crash resistant and "closed" systems would have to meet a lower standard than high speed Amtrak lines and commuter rail operations that share rail with freight, have at grade crossings with other rail lines and roadways. Disney's monorail and WMATA wouldn't be held to the same standard as Chicago's METRA. Although if WMATA can't bump cars together at 20 mph without destroying them crashworthyness is a major issue.

While there needs to be some time to allow agencies to rise to a new standard, why does the federal government have to pay for it? If commercial vehicles fail to pass state inspections the federal government doesn't pay for repair or replacement ... the owner is responsible. If a rail vehicle isn't compliant get it off the rails. Don't ask me to buy you a replacement.

For air travel I'm glad that the FAA controls all planes. They all fly in the same sky. It is unlikely you'll see a CTA Rapid Transit car running down one of Metra's line. The systems are separate... Congress and the FRA can draw the line and say this is regulated, and that is not. Could you imagine the mess if each airport's traffic control was run by an airline instead of the government? "Delta's OHare International" giving priority to their aircraft over the competition when there are conflicts in schedule? It makes more sense for the government to control shared facilities, especially airspace. It isn't a closed system.

Someone needs to oversee these smaller systems ... my primary concern with it being the FRA is stretching the agency beyond it's limits. I wouldn't want to see the FRA have to back away from other activities because of the extra burden of monitoring light rail and subway systems. They already have a job to do.

Whatever happened to the federal commerce clause? If the Light Rail/Subway systems aren't being used in interstate commerce they should be regulated by the States (each state responsible for its own regulation). I know Massachusetts has the Department of Public Utility (DPU) which has authority to regulate any transit system in the state, including the MBTA's subway and light rail systems and the numerous public transit bus companies among others; but not interstate railways (FRA is in charge).

crash575 wrote:Whatever happened to the federal commerce clause? If the Light Rail/Subway systems aren't being used in interstate commerce they should be regulated by the States (each state responsible for its own regulation). I know Massachusetts has the Department of Public Utility (DPU) which has authority to regulate any transit system in the state, including the MBTA's subway and light rail systems and the numerous public transit bus companies among others; but not interstate railways (FRA is in charge).

You're definitely correct, crash575. However, the federal government has a way with cash... namely, withholding it for transit programs and projects unless states follow certain regulations. Such is how the 55 mph speed limit and the 0.10 (later 0.08) blood-alcohol content limits were passed - states that didn't comply would lose half of their transportation funding. It'd be more difficult to put a regulatory BODY in place, but with the proper application of straight cash, homey, it's fairly easy to say that all vehicles subject to any FTA funding must be inspected by the FTA.

I wonder what states think of these regulations. On the one hand, it stifles their potential purchases. On the other, those states with influence at the top could tweak regulations to fit their equipment, and may possibly be able to reduce their own oversight departments.

What happens if the federal government proposes overly stringent crash worthiness standards instead of positive train control? I fear that a national regulatory system won't be able to cope with the uniqueness of the numerous transit systems. I can only see two options for federal regulation: a paper tiger with no teeth or an incredibly stringent regulatory structure that hurts more than helps.

justalurker66 wrote: I would not mind seeing a tiered system where more crash resistant and "closed" systems would have to meet a lower standard than high speed Amtrak lines and commuter rail operations that share rail with freight, have at grade crossings with other rail lines and roadways. Disney's monorail and WMATA wouldn't be held to the same standard as Chicago's METRA. Although if WMATA can't bump cars together at 20 mph without destroying them crashworthyness is a major issue.

That's fair; A sample 5-tier system could be 1. Commuter rail on shared trackage, 2. commuter rail on functionally isolated ROW (a lot of the Metra UP North Line, for example), 3. Metro/light rail with grade and/or rail crossings, 4. Fully isolated Metro (no grade crossings), 5. Streetcars.

justalurker66 wrote:While there needs to be some time to allow agencies to rise to a new standard, why does the federal government have to pay for it? If commercial vehicles fail to pass state inspections the federal government doesn't pay for repair or replacement ... the owner is responsible. If a rail vehicle isn't compliant get it off the rails. Don't ask me to buy you a replacement.

Then again, private vehicle owners rely on the assumption that the car manufacturer builds cars to meet standards. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have a unified standard for a collection of independent systems built to different specs. Changing standards would affect more than just the cars. Suppose the FRA designated a specific platform height; most Subway systems would have to rebuild stations.

justalurker66 wrote:For air travel I'm glad that the FAA controls all planes. They all fly in the same sky. It is unlikely you'll see a CTA Rapid Transit car running down one of Metra's line. The systems are separate... Congress and the FRA can draw the line and say this is regulated, and that is not. Could you imagine the mess if each airport's traffic control was run by an airline instead of the government? "Delta's OHare International" giving priority to their aircraft over the competition when there are conflicts in schedule? It makes more sense for the government to control shared facilities, especially airspace. It isn't a closed system.

But most light rail and subway lines are closed systems with at most a few unused connections to mainline railroads (and usually none).

justalurker66 wrote: Someone needs to oversee these smaller systems ... my primary concern with it being the FRA is stretching the agency beyond it's limits. I wouldn't want to see the FRA have to back away from other activities because of the extra burden of monitoring light rail and subway systems. They already have a job to do.

...or not. A federal response program a.k.a. the NTSB has done pretty well so far except for the very occasional (less than 5 per decade) fatal accident. That's, in my opinion, a pretty good track record where the best solution is to modify the system slightly. I don't feel there's a need for a total overhaul.

justalurker66 wrote:While there needs to be some time to allow agencies to rise to a new standard, why does the federal government have to pay for it? If commercial vehicles fail to pass state inspections the federal government doesn't pay for repair or replacement ... the owner is responsible. If a rail vehicle isn't compliant get it off the rails. Don't ask me to buy you a replacement.

The government IS the owner. Under FTA purchasing rules, they maintain ownership which "depreciates" per years of service/mileage until 0 at the end of its expected service life. In case of buses, 12, 15, or 17 years.

FTA already has safety oversight on vehicles; I assume they are looking for some standards in terms of signal systems and other operational aspects that are leading to these crashes.

I don't know why WMATA and MBTA have had so many nasty crashes lately, but in MBTA's case I know it's not just "old equipment" because they've always had very old tracks, signals and equipment, and quite often in a questionable state of repair. From where I sit the T's problems look more like personnel problems. They don't require a civil service exam (rather--lottery), but they treat employees terribly. This will ensure a lowest common denominator grade of employee in safety-sensitive positions. Think about it.

I suspect WMATA's problems are more along the lines of extremely dysfunctional management.

Batman2 wrote:But most light rail and subway lines are closed systems with at most a few unused connections to mainline railroads (and usually none).

Not just most--must. If there is any shared usage the rolling stock must meet FRA standards.

State of NJ had to pull some major political armtwisting to get a closed line converted from FRA to FTA not that long ago. (They wanted to run lighter/cheaper FTA "heavy rail" equipment.) This line had NO level crossings--rail or otherwise.

Please please please let's not bring the FRA into transit.

As FTA regs stand, both "light" and "heavy" FTA-purchased rolling stock must "be able to withstand" collision with an FRA vehicle--however, interoperation is not allowed under any circumstances. Truly, the worst of both worlds. The US runs the most heavy and expensive LRVs in the world. The once-ubiquitous PCC car (revived in the 1990's by the Czech firm Škoda) does not meet this onerous (and arguably safety-detracting) standard.

(Remember, LRVs may operate in mixed traffic, meaning that any ped, bike, or auto is at risk of getting hit with that beast--and PCCs were deadly enough.)

There is a law of tonnage on our roads but heavier does not always equal safer. Sometimes a meter or two less of stopping distance is worth a thousand crumple zones.

The Mattapan-Ashmont High Speed* Rail Line operates with aluminum body "wartime" PCCs and has multiple grade crossings. The T wanted to convert to buses but they were too heavy (!) for the elevated turnout at the end of the line. I have never heard of a serious accident on this line. Weight and safety are not the same thing!

*-It's a joke. Laugh.

FFolz wrote:

Batman2 wrote:But most light rail and subway lines are closed systems with at most a few unused connections to mainline railroads (and usually none).

Not just most--must. If there is any shared usage the rolling stock must meet FRA standards.

State of NJ had to pull some major political armtwisting to get a closed line converted from FRA to FTA not that long ago. (They wanted to run lighter/cheaper FTA "heavy rail" equipment.) This line had NO level crossings--rail or otherwise.

Which line are you talking about? All trackage recently (within the last 10 years) that has been repurposed for light rail has multiple grade crossigs with roads, and 2 out of 3 of them share trackage with freight using temporal seperation, so they do have connections to other rail lines. I think you need to check you sources again.

oknazevad wrote:

FFolz wrote:

Batman2 wrote:But most light rail and subway lines are closed systems with at most a few unused connections to mainline railroads (and usually none).

Not just most--must. If there is any shared usage the rolling stock must meet FRA standards.

State of NJ had to pull some major political armtwisting to get a closed line converted from FRA to FTA not that long ago. (They wanted to run lighter/cheaper FTA "heavy rail" equipment.) This line had NO level crossings--rail or otherwise.

Which line are you talking about? All trackage recently (within the last 10 years) that has been repurposed for light rail has multiple grade crossigs with roads, and 2 out of 3 of them share trackage with freight using temporal seperation, so they do have connections to other rail lines. I think you need to check you sources again.

You got me--I had forgotten what the issue was about. Shooting from the hip again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Line ... y_Transit) This is the line I was talking about. Scroll down to "Signals" and you'll see what the kerfuffle was about. (Looks like NJ lost, too.) They own the line and put in special signals so they could run mixed equipment like they do in Germany (damnit, I thought I remembered something about Germany!) but FRA refused. Sorry, that's quite a bit different from my assertion above, which is wrong. You are quite correct about time separation.

Looking at the wiki article it says that NJT controls access to the line, which is not the same as grade separation. I think I read about this originally in a trade mag and I either misunderstood or the person writing the blurb did ... which is quite likely, as it was a BUS trade mag :DDD

Note that NJ spent a pile of its own money to make this project happen, investing in a proven safety system ... and the FRA STILL stamped DENY.