FRA Safety Regs Add Costs, Not Safety, to American Rail

The Federal Railroad Administration is an increasingly frequent target for Streetsblog Network members. Writers including Alon Levy at Pedestrian Observations and the mysterious “Drunk Engineer” who pens Systemic Failure have called out FRA safety regulations as irrational and out-of-date, adding unnecessary costs to rail operations and preventing the modernization of Amtrak and commuter rail systems.

Today, Stephen Smith of Market Urbanism boils down the criticism to its essence: The FRA is “bad for America.” Using the above video to illustrate his point, Smith writes that not only do FRA safety regulations stand in the way of expanding American rail, they also don’t even make train travel safer:

As the twentieth century has progressed, vehicles have gotten safer as they’ve gotten lighter. The key is to use materials intelligently, absorbing impacts strategically with things like crumble zones and the basic energy management system in this video, to prevent things like telescoping. Building vehicles out of lighter, more crash-absorbant materials costs much less than when you’re deriving all your safety from sheer bulk, as with the so-called “conventional equipment” in the video (which in another country might be called “antique equipment”). Lighter designs also improve fuel efficiency and do less damage to roads and railroad tracks, further reducing costs and greenhouse emissions. Oh yeah, and obviously it’s safer.

Your car is built this way, as are trains used all around the world. Except, that is, in the United States. The FRA, America’s main line passenger rail (that is, Amtrak and commuter railroads) safety regulator, has yet to recognize that there are ways to protect passengers from crashes besides entombing them in obese railcars. And so we’re stuck with these expensive, dangerous, polluting 1950?s-era behemoths.

Elsewhere on the Network today: The Urbanophile reviews Gary Hustwit’s much-anticipated new film, “Urbanized.” Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space wonders why DC has yet to develop a strategic plan, while smaller metros forge ahead. And I Bike TO reports that Toronto’s cycling community is concerned about a new ordinance that could ban bike parking anywhere except on bike racks.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

White House Unveils Transit Safety Bill to Cautious Praise on the Hill

|
Lawmakers on the House transportation committee today greeted details of the Obama administration’s transit safety plan with approval, but some sounded skeptical notes about the costs of state compliance with new federal rules even as transit agencies cope with billions of dollars in maintenance and repair backlogs. Washington D.C.’s transit safety oversight agency has less […]

Obama Aide Defends Transit Safety Plan as Different from Rail Rules

|
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) chief Peter Rogoff today mounted a defense of the White House’s transit safety plan, assuring some skeptical members of Congress that he does not want to "replicate" inter-city rail safety rules that have taken flak for impeding the development of viable U.S. train networks. As of last year, D.C.’s Metro had […]

House and Senate Split on Approach to Obama’s Transit Safety Plan

|
After a year marked by discord between the House and Senate over the timing of the next federal transportation bill, another split emerged yesterday over the timetable for taking up the Obama administration’s plan for federal involvement in transit safety oversight. Rep. John Mica (R-FL) opposes the White House safety plan, but he also wants […]

Senators Seek Rail Safety Funding in Aftermath of Metro Crash

|
Mere hours after the Washington Metro system suffered a shocking accident, two senior senators released a letter to their colleagues asking for $50 million in grants to improve rail safety technology. The scene of yesterday’s D.C. Metro crash. (Photo: NYT) The letter was sent by two chairmen with a central role in transportation policy — […]