More on Obsolete FRA Regs
In a previous Car Stop [“Another Way Government Boosts the Cost of Rail Transit”] posted on this website in October, I discussed how FRA buffer strength requirements unnecessarily raise the cost of commuter rail cars and some other rail vehicles. In effect, those regs force manufacturers to design and build special equipment for the U.S. market. Because we are a small market, the unit cost rises substantially.
The FRA replies, “Safety.” But it now appears the cars that meet the FRA’s expensive requirements are less safe than modern European equipment, not more. In effect we are paying more to get less (why is it not hard to guess a federal agency is involved with that?).
On November 7, Stephen Smith posted a blog on the Forbes Business website that references a video you may want to watch. The blog says of the video, “(it) shows FRA compliant rail passenger coaches failing miserably while foreign-built passenger equipment (non-FRA compliant) survive (sic) almost intact.”
Take a look at the video and see for yourself. Then read Mr. Smith’s blog: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stephensmith/2011/11/07/why-the-fra-is-bad-for-america-in-10-seconds/ It isn’t only this website that wonders why the FRA makes transit properties pay more to get less. Perhaps it’s time we took the differences out of FRA’s budget. Think the buffer strength requirements would change then?
Comments
One Response to “More on Obsolete FRA Regs”
Leave a Reply
TAC-CPT Menu
WHAT'S NEW
- Read the Joint Statement issued by William S. Lind, Center Director and Michael Melaniphy, President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association (APTA) supporting continuing dedicated federal funding for public transit.
- Read Bill Lind's latest response to the National Journal's Expert Transportation Blog Question of the week
- Click to read about a new tram network approved for Shengyang, China
- Read an incisive look at the reasons why Passenger Rail declined in the U.S. in A Nation Derailed, By Lewis McCrary, Senior Editor, The American Conservative magazine
- Click here to access different aspects of Bill’s speech given to the Atlanta Sustainability Roundtable on how to attract conservative support for rail transit on June 3, 2011
- Previous What's New Links
Bill Lind's Car Stop
The Right Answer
- OUR VIEW ON THE PRICE OF OIL
- Detroit Misses the Train (Again)
- Yes, Virginia, There are Alternatives to Highways
- A Tale of Two Cities [L’viv, Ukraine and Krakow, Poland]
- HITCHHIKERS INDEED!
- TAKE MY STATE DOT, Please!
- A Suggested Tea Party Agenda
- How to Finance the Next Six-Year Transportation Authorization: A Taxing Issue
Urban Rail Statistics Updated: 5/29/2012
Moving Minds
The following quote if from a rail expert I know.
“Some of this is true but most is nonsense. You can judge the issue by that short video as we have no idea what the test constraints are. The “conventional” equipment appears to lack anti-climbers which would prevent exactly what you see happening with the car popping up over the loco and is required on all modern US trains.
Also, many of the safety regulations are driven by the unions to protect their workers.
If you think about all the worst rail accidents outside the 3rd world they all occur in Europe or Japan where you have high speeds with lightweight equipment and no collision protection. Case in point is that train in Germany that derailed and slid along the tracks until it slammed into a road pillar and sliced in half. This could never happen on any US built train.
Regardless, there are probably many new technologies that could be implemented and the Feds are constantly testing them (that video was from the Volpe test center in New Mexico) but they are very slow and cautious in implementing any change.”