FRA Blows it Again on Car Safety

May 7, 2012 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Car Stop 

For decades, FRA safety rules for railroad passenger cars have unnecessarily raised the cost of U.S. equipment. By specifying buffer strength requirements that differ substantially from those in Europe, it has ruled out much European equipment out of the U.S. market and forced expensive changes on that sold here. The U.S. is a very small market for rail passenger vehicles, and when small markets have unique requirements, per-unit costs go through the roof. The more expensive rail equipment is, the less we can buy and the fewer passenger trains, light rail cars and streetcars we can ride.

An article in the May issue of Trains magazine, “Crash Course in Passenger Safety,” by Steven M. Sweeney, indicates the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is about to perpetuate its mistakes through another generation of rail vehicles. The article quotes FRA’s acting Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety and Chief Safety Officer, Robert Lauby, as saying of forthcoming FRA requirements, call it “European Standards – – plus . . . we’re taking [European] work and trying to improve it.”

That is exactly what we cannot afford to do. As soon as we “improve” on European standards, we again make most European equipment illegal in the U.S. market. Once more, European manufacturers will have to re-design their products to sell them here, and manufacture very small batches for U.S. rail operations. The cost of each passenger car, light rail vehicle or streetcar will go through the roof. That means some otherwise viable projects won’t get built, or won’t have enough equipment to meet passenger loads and provide frequent service.

Here we run into a classic problem with government regulation: the FRA safety folks will pay no price for their bad decision. What is it to them if equipment prices go up unnecessarily? The price difference doesn’t come out of their budget. If some projects don’t get built, that doesn’t hurt them. Their answer is the answer of bureaucrats everywhere: “It’s not my job, sir.”

Because the American passenger rail equipment market is so small, we are beggars. Beggars can’t be choosers. If we want affordable prices, we have to buy standard designs that are built in large numbers for other, larger markets. This isn’t wheel-rail interface science. It could not be more obvious.

Let me suggest Mr. Lauby “correct the record” and say, “What I meant to say was that the FRA will adopt European standards. No plus, just straight. What is safe enough for Swedes and Germans and Brits is safe enough for Americans too. And we can afford to buy more, because avoiding unique requirements will keep the cost down.”

Mr. Lind serves as Director of The American Conservative Center for Public Transportation

Tags:

OUR VIEW ON THE PRICE OF OIL

March 6, 2012 by · 1 Comment
Filed under: The Right Answer 

We at The American Conservative Center for Public Transportation believe that our dependence on foreign oil is a continuing major risk that imperils our national security and ultimately our economy. Transit, especially rail transit, can provide the mobility alternatives that we need to help reduce our reliance on foreign oil. So how do we respond when (some) conservatives lament that we have reduced our dependence on foreign oil over the last five years, yet our oil and gasoline prices remain high?

Yes, we have reduced our use of foreign oil. It still remains, however, that we import, by the latest available figures (2010), 49 percent of our oil needs from foreign sources. While Canada remains our biggest source (and a politically stable one) with a 24.4% share, the Middle East with 20.6% continues as a major source of the foreign oil that we import. As long as we consume 25% of the world’s production, and possess little more than 2% of the world’s proven oil reserves, we clearly remain at considerable risk.

Now back to those rising gasoline prices. Determining the price of a barrel of oil is a function of the world market, whether we like it or not. When we go to the world market to procure our oil, we are competing with a number of other countries around the world for this finite commodity. This includes China, India and other maturing, dynamic economies. Granted, there is a multi-tiered market pricing system for oil. Oil originating in the North Sea is traded as Brent Crude on the London market. Oil production from other parts of Europe, Africa and the Middle East shipped west takes the Brent Crude benchmark into account. This is also true for OPEC countries which use the OPEC basket benchmark. About two-thirds of oil produced for world markets uses the Brent Crude benchmark.

Oil produced in North America uses the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) benchmark. The disparity between Brent and WTI prices reflect transportation and risk factors (i.e., Iran and U.S. ‘saber rattling’). Right now, Brent Crude is priced about $15 higher than WTI and, for the most part, this reflects the current state of affairs in the Middle East. Both Brent and WTI oil are priced on the world market; hence when Iran makes threatening noises to close the Gulf of Hormuz (through which 20% of global oil consumption flows), or Israel hints at attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, gas prices climb in the U.S.

While we have made strides in extracting “hard oil” and gas deposits (through hydraulic fracturing, popularly known as “fracking”) in this country, the fact is no amount of domestic drilling (Alaska, off-shore, etc.) is going to make an appreciable dent in our dependence on foreign oil. While we have increased domestic oil production by 9% since 2008, only a combination of measures will dramatically reduce foreign oil imports. Expanding public transportation alternatives (especially rail) to the automobile, improving CAFÉ standards, instituting rational land use policies through dual codes (sprawl and Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND)), and, yes, greater domestic production are the main solutions. We at The Center think that we might have a win-win situation here as expanded use of rail based transit solutions reduces the need for foreign oil while fostering economic development and where dual codes are in place, more efficient market-driven land use patterns.

So the next time you think about the price of a gallon of gasoline, reflect on our over-reliance on oil-based conveyances. The automobile consumes 50% of daily oil usage in this country. Don’t blame the President (Bush or Obama) when prices edge up. It’s like howling at the moon; it might feel good but, frankly, there’s no effect. Democrats did it when Mr. Bush was President and Republicans are doing it now to our current President. Dramatic oil price increases reflect world conditions. Thus, our over-sensitivity to world events is a direct result of our addiction to oil.

Oil has us literally over the barrel. If this situation is to change, we will all need to recognize that our present course is not sustainable. All of our institutions are geared to an era that was designed for a different set of circumstances that mainly relied on cheap domestic oil. That day is over. We need to realize it and embrace a future that recognizes that fact. That future must include public transportation, especially rail. Delay simply pushes future prosperity and enhanced mobility that much further from our grasp.

Glen Bottoms serves as Executive Director of The American Conservative Center for Public Transportation

Tags:

Transit Needs both Quality and Quantity

February 29, 2012 by · 4 Comments
Filed under: Car Stop 

A recent column published by our friends at Reason Foundation, “Why More People Should Ride Mass Transit” by Tim Cavanaugh, starts with a question: “How many public transit expert/advocates actually ride on public transportation?” Well, from the time Washington’s Metro heavy rail system opened its King Street stop until Free Congress moved to Alexandria, more than twenty years, I took Metro to work almost every day. It was far more pleasant than driving in Washington’s notorious traffic. After Free Congress moved to a building about two miles from my house, I commuted on my bicycle. My colleague Glen Bottoms, a former employee of the Federal Transit Administration, took the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) commuter rail service almost from its inception until his retirement in 2005.

Mr. Cavanaugh’s column goes on to establish a false dichotomy: do we need more transit or better transit? Employing the vernacular, he writes:

The reality of transit use . . . is that you don’t need smarter hubs or better coordination more efficient transfers . . . you need more sh[*]t running more frequently to more destinations.

He’s right. Good transit service is characterized by the old line of many a street railway company, “Always a car in sight.” The more routes, the fewer transfers required (though Cavanaugh is flat wrong when he says that “For every transfer in your itinerary, you need to double the time allotted for the trip.“) and the more frequent the service, the more people will take transit.

Unfortunately, Cavanaugh then goes on to attack the idea that transit also picks up more customers when it offers an enjoyable travel experience. We are all, it seems, Jeremy Benthems, caring only for efficiency. Specifically, he attacks Darrin Nordahl, who wrote in his 2008 book, My Kind of Transit, of New Orleans’ wonderful trolley line.,

Consistent features of wonderment aboard the St. Charles streetcar – – history, connection to the urban context, stimulation of the senses, and sociability through architectural detail – – offer important lessons about providing a memorable transportation experience.

I have ridden the St. Charles Avenue line, and Nordahl is correct. Just being aboard the historic trolley cars, built in the 1920’s, with wooden seats and windows that open wide, is a joy.

Those who worship reason tend irrationally to discount non-rational factors. The things that draw people to the St. Charles Avenue line are in part non-rational (not irrational). But they are still real. Therefore, any reasoned appraisal of the line (and streetcars elsewhere) should take those non-rational factors into account.

Libertarians refuse to do so. Why? Because they always start with the answer – – buses, not rail – – and who likes riding a bus? Even the best bus trip is regarded by most people as a necessary evil. No non-rational factors lead people to board, looking forward to the experience for its own sake – – the way they do board the St. Charles Avenue streetcars.

Now, it so happens that the St. Charles Avenue line also provides frequent service. There really is (almost) always a car in sight. And that is the point: good transit service, service people want to ride, offers both quantity and quality. It appeals to both our rational and non-rational sides.

St. Charles Avenue does it with equipment that will soon be a century old. Perhaps some genius among consultants will find a way we can manage to do it with modern technology. If so, it will truly be back to the future.

Tags:

Next Page »