Comments on: Times vs. Second Ave. Sagas: Federal transit safety oversight

By: E. Aron

E. Aron — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:47:56 +0000

Dusting off the old con law outline, I guess the case that most closely correlates here would be SD v. Dole, and this would be a condition imposed by the feds that’s directly related to fed transportation money, namely safety?

Aside from my concern with an ever-expanding federal government, do you see constitutional issues with this hair-brained proposal? 10th Amendment?

By: Lawrence Velazquez

Lawrence Velazquez — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:41:28 +0000

I’m generally a fan of regulation… when there’s a demonstrable need. Like Benjamin, I see no need here. It isn’t as if we’re seeing train accidents every week.

By: Lawrence Velazquez

Lawrence Velazquez — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:39:01 +0000

Yeah, I thought that must be a typo. Perhaps they meant to say “system” rather than “line”.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:59:56 +0000

Probably not – the Lex, Broadway-7th, and QB systems (i.e. trunk line plus extensions) all have more ridership than the entire DC Metro.

By: Streetsblog New York City » Today’s Headlines

Streetsblog New York City » Today’s Headlines — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:03:05 +0000

[...] 2nd Ave Sagas: Fed Safety Rules Could Hamstring Local Transit Agencies [...]

By: Lawrence Velazquez

Lawrence Velazquez — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:24:39 +0000

The Washington accident happened on the second-busiest subway line in the nation.

Really? Is this accurate?

By: leg

leg — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:11:02 +0000

Why shouldn’t the MTA be able to weigh safety recommendations against budget constraints? There will always be ways of making the subway safer (let’s start with sealed tracks with elevator-like doors) but they might well be very expensive: enough so that we’d end up pushing people to more dangerous modes of transport. Bad cost/benefit analyses is what Benjamin fears when he brings up train weight—heavier trains may well be safer, but they have real costs that hold back US transportation.

By: Alfred Beech

Alfred Beech — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 04:43:10 +0000

When I read about the proposed oversight, I thought it was a good idea to promote standards of safety that were nationwide, rather than system by system. I agree with the first poster, however, and would like to know details.

Part of the Washington issue was that the group that was in charge of safety oversight didn’t have access to the whole system, making their job more difficulty. If safety is done in-house, it makes sense to me that the group in charge of inspections be autonomous, and have full access to the system. That may sound self-evident, but I can easily imagine an organization like the MTA dismissing safety recommendations because of budget constraints, and that shouldn’t be allowed.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:55:15 +0000

I propose that any person whose first language is English should be banned from proposing any rules about rail or transit operations in the US. If Americans want new regulations, they should have the option of using either the existing European rules or the existing Japanese rules. Third world countries run by corrupt kleptocrats should not try to come up with their own ideas of how to run things, not if they want success.

By: rhywun

rhywun — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:49:51 +0000

If you put light rail on the same tracks as freight, accidents would be horrific.

Tell that to Karlsruhe and the numerous other cities which do just that. You might as well say that tractor trailers and subcompacts on the same street should be banned.

Anyway, The Times has never met a Federal regulation it didn’t like, so no surprise there. I don’t have the knowledge to judge whether this particular regulation is wise or not, but like Ben, I think unfunded mandates suck.