BS, just change the law. Why is this so fifficult?????
diningcar BS, just change the law. Why is this so fifficult?????
It's Congress and they make everything fifficult, which is even worse than difficult!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
wanswheel All right, the railroads’ fear of lawsuits is not exaggerated and certainly engineers can’t be breaking the law. The law has to be changed. But if it isn’t, wouldn’t a government decision to suspend enforcement effectively suspend the law as well, for purposes of using it to sue a railroad or its employee?
wanswheel The law would stand unchanged by an FRA decision not to enforce it. The decision needs to be an executive order to disregard the deadline provision, citing the President’s duty to maintain orderly commerce for the good of the country.
dehusmanThe railroads and the FRA have been discussing the need for an extension and the implications of not having an extension for years.
That certainly seems to be the case. One of the most contenious issues has been with the required bandwidth to put in PTC. The railroads have had serious difficulties acquiring adequate frequencies and have been criticizing Congress and the FRA for several years for doing little to help the railroads acquire it (or pay for it). This is from the AAR website (and has been up for a while):
To support interoperability, the rail industry is adopting the use of 220 MHz radio channels as a common means of wireless data communication. Specific allocation of channels for PTC has not occurred and railroads have had a difficult time acquiring the necessary amount of spectrum on the open market, particularly in metropolitan areas.
https://www.aar.org/policy/positive-train-control
The AAR also issued a press release Wednesday citing a recent Goverment Accounting Office (GAO) report that supports the rail industry's contention that the December 31, 2015 deadline is not realistic:
The GAO review examined the rail industry's PTC implementation progress and challenges, and identified the complexities associated with developing, installing and testing the technology. "The GAO report reinforces the freight rail industry's contention that PTC is an extremely complex technology that requires more time to install and safely test," Hamberger said. "Freight rail operators have always contended that the Congressionally mandated 2015 deadline for having PTC fully functional and being used coast to coast by passenger and freight rail alike was not realistic.
"The GAO report reinforces the freight rail industry's contention that PTC is an extremely complex technology that requires more time to install and safely test," Hamberger said. "Freight rail operators have always contended that the Congressionally mandated 2015 deadline for having PTC fully functional and being used coast to coast by passenger and freight rail alike was not realistic.
If this conversation was taking place on December 19th -- instead of September 19th -- I'd be worried. There's still plenty of time to resolve this.
For those of us old enough to have who lived through the 1970s there is a precedent for a President using his powers to keep the trains rolling. President Nixon did it at least twice I think, both times when Penn Central was about to shutdown. Once it was when PC was about to willingly take a strike in order to force some work rule changes and the second time was when PC was out of money and threatening to shut down.
On the latter occasion I recall the PC's bankruptcy trustee telling Congress that, "Our employees will not continue to work once they are no longer being paid and, realistically, I don't see why they should."
Euclid Suspending enforcement is a prerogative of the FRA, but doing so would not suspend or change the law. On the contrary, enforcement measures and discretion could be changed by changing the law; but the law cannot be changed by suspending or changing enforcement. ...
Technically they would not suspend enforcement, but they would use different enforcement tools available to regulatory agencies. When the police stop your car for a burned out tail light, they don't usually impound your car, or even give you a ticket. They often give you a warning, with a deadline to fix the tail light, the fine suspended unless you miss the deadline. As I have mentioned before, regulators may use administrative law instruments such as consent agreements/decrees with a schedule to achieve compliance with appropriate deadlines, and stipulated penalties for missing deadlines. Of course, it would be better if the senate language (less than a page) to extend the PTC ddeadline was approved, which would codify a procedure similar to the above, but as a regulatory procedure rather than an enforcement procedure.
The concern the railroads seem to have is, as spelled out by CSX, is not so much the problem of "breaking the law" but the increased liability they would face. Specifically, if there was a serious accident on a line being operated in defiance of the PTC deadline. CSX CEO Michael Ward has said if that happened the road would be looking at potentially "huge liability."
I'm not a railroader but having been in private industry for a number of years I agree. I think unless and until the law is amended the railroads would be well-advised not to operate after Dec. 31, 2015 on lines that require but don't have PTC. From a liability standpoint that would be very risky.
EuclidIn the larger perspective, I suspect that the Obama Administration is considering nationalizing the PTC installation under the premise that the job is too big for the railroads.
The only person considering that is you.
The government could mobilize the forces ....
Pray tell where is the government hiding the 20,000+ signal, mechanical and IT personnell that it would take to implement PTC. Where are all the people hiding with the expertise to interface PTC with all the different railroad information and signal systems, ally of which have different software from different vendors written in different languages?
... and and provide the nearly unlimited funding that it will take to provide public PTC (PPTC).
Where in the US budget is the billion dollars a year it would take to fund the development?
There is no budget for it, the government doesn't have the expertise, the government doesn't have the manpower, the government does have the organizational structure, the government doesn't have the infrastructure and even if they did nationalize it they would STILL have to work with the same component deliver schedules from the vendors, they would still have to have a similar installation schedule, they would still have the same testing protocol.
There has been no, none, zero, zippo discussion of any form of nationalization from any person actually involved with the process.
The only person discussing it is you.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusman Euclid In the larger perspective, I suspect that the Obama Administration is considering nationalizing the PTC installation under the premise that the job is too big for the railroads. The government could mobilize the forces .... ... and and provide the nearly unlimited funding that it will take to provide public PTC (PPTC). There is no budget for it, the government doesn't have the expertise, the government doesn't have the manpower, the government does have the organizational structure, the government doesn't have the infrastructure and even if they did nationalize it they would STILL have to work with the same component deliver schedules from the vendors, they would still have to have a similar installation schedule, they would still have the same testing protocol. There has been no, none, zero, zippo discussion of any form of nationalization from any person actually involved with the process. The only person discussing it is you.
Euclid In the larger perspective, I suspect that the Obama Administration is considering nationalizing the PTC installation under the premise that the job is too big for the railroads.
No, none, zero, zippo discussion of any form of nationalization from any person actually involved with the process? I think you exaggerate.
Euclid For PTC, they tried a mandate and it didn’t work, so the next step is nationalization.
Can you find a single policy writer or congress critter that shares the same thought?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
EuclidFor those objectives, PTC is the perfect target for nationalization.
And it would likely set back implementation 20 years and with huge cost overuns. The federal government isn't noted for getting things done expediently.
Norm
Norm48327 Euclid For those objectives, PTC is the perfect target for nationalization. And it would likely set back implementation 20 years and with huge cost overuns. The federal government isn't noted for getting things done expediently.
Euclid For those objectives, PTC is the perfect target for nationalization.
EuclidFor PTC, they tried a mandate and it didn’t work, so the next step is nationalization.
You been tokeing on too much Colorado grass????? With multiple chasers of high proof adult beverages!
BaltACDYou been tokeing on too much Colorado grass????? With multiple chasers of high proof adult beverages!
You may be on to something there.
Norm48327 BaltACD You been tokeing on too much Colorado grass????? With multiple chasers of high proof adult beverages! You may be on to something there.
BaltACD You been tokeing on too much Colorado grass????? With multiple chasers of high proof adult beverages!
Sadly, he's most likely stone cold sober.
I don't know about the federal government taking on the role of PTC-supplier but they are already providing financial assistance in the form of low-interest loans to certain commuter agencies. This was reported in the suburban New York newspaper Journal-News last month:
MTA spokesman Adam Lisberg said PTC is expected “to be fully installed and operational on both railroads [Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North] by 2018,” noting that the federal government recently approved a nearly $1 billion loan “to help us install on-board components for 1,455 rail cars as well as transponders along 588 route miles of track as quickly as possible.’’
The same article also quoted an FRA report that made it plain the FRA is well aware that many commuter agencies and freight railroads are not on target to meet the Dec. 31, 2015 deadline for PTC:Metro-North and the Long Island Rail Road are among a half dozen commuter rail lines that expect to begin testing accident avoidance equipment known as positive train controls by the end of 2016, according to a survey released Friday [August 7th] by the Federal Railroad Administration.
Metro-North and the Long Island Rail Road are among a half dozen commuter rail lines that expect to begin testing accident avoidance equipment known as positive train controls by the end of 2016, according to a survey released Friday [August 7th] by the Federal Railroad Administration.
The article also describes the FRA's approach to enforcement:
Federal rail regulators have renewed a warning that railroads that don’t have crash avoidance systems operating by the end of this year could face enforcement penalties...“FRA’s use of its enforcement tools will be targeted to maximize safety, save lives in the event of an accident and bring railroads into compliance,’’ the report said. “Certain enforcement actions, such as prohibiting service on specific routes, may potentially result in sustained and disruptive impacts on the movement of freight and passengers...[enforcement] tools include civil penalties or pursuit of injunctions and criminal penalties through the Justice Department.
http://www.lohud.com/story/news/transit/2015/08/10/metro-north-safety-equipment/31428443/
The Association of American Railroads' PTC page (which I've linked to at least twice in this thread) has a chart that shows the industry-wide progress on installing PTC systems to date and the scheduled targets to have it fully installed and operational by 2020. To date the railroads are roughly 27% to completion, having already spent some $6.5 billion of the total $9.2 billion required for 100% compliance. Some of the big ticket items like wayside interface units and base station radios are about two-thirds complete. One of the most time consuming and labor intensive requirements -- installing the required equipment on locomotives -- is only about 30% complete or will be by year's end (6,949 units out of the required 22,000). So with a lot of the other infrastructure in place, next year the railroads expect to double the number of units equipped to almost 14,000 units or about 60% of the required total.
Here's the AAR link again:
Remember, like all industries, no railroad today has large numbers of staff sitting around with nothing to do that could quickly be put to work installing PTC. This is a huge job the carriers had to take on in addition to running the trains!
Euclid If PTC is as complicated and time consuming as they say it is, what is the chance that it can be completed in another three years?
Much greater than it will be completed on Dec. 31, 2015
Euclid As I understand it, the enforcement is not the issue. In this case, the enforcement would be the fines, and the FRA has the power to decide whether fines will be levied or not. The law gives the FRA the power to control the fines, but the FRA does not have the power to change the law in any way. Extending the deadline would require changing the law, and so the FRA does not have the power to extend the deadline. As a matter of enforcement, the law could have been written to require all non-compliant operations to cease after the deadline, but they did not write it that way; probably because they realized how disruptive that would have been. But now the railroads have said they will shut down anyway if non-compliant, regardless of how disruptive it might be. It makes no difference if the FRA were to not issue fines. The position of the railroads is that even with no fines, the non-compliant operations would still be illegal. And they don’t want to break the law. Abiding by the law may seem like a moot point if there is no enforcement of it, but everybody has the right, if not the duty, to abide by the law. It is a moral principle if nothing else. But, in this case, it could also be a ploy to pressure Congress into extending the deadline. As a personal decision, most people would not cease a profitable business activity just because it is illegal; if the government did not intend to enforce the law. They would just go ahead and break the law, because there would be no consequence from it.
You seem to have an "all or nothing" understanding of how law works, that does not seem to be based on any real life experience in the regulated community. I am not sure why you started a thread called "Solving the PTC Deadline Problem" if you did not want to consider others experience and knowledge that may be applicable to defining or solving the PTC deadline problem.
The one thing you appear to have picked-up on is the possibility that the worst case scenario predictions by the FRA and railroads "could also be a ploy to pressure Congress into extending the deadline."
tommyboy https://www.aar.org/policy/positive-train-control Remember, like all industries, no railroad today has large numbers of staff sitting around with nothing to do that could quickly be put to work installing PTC. This is a huge job the carriers had to take on in addition to running the trains!
It is also a huge undertaking for the manufacturers of PTC equipment.
MidlandMike Euclid As I understand it, the enforcement is not the issue. In this case, the enforcement would be the fines, and the FRA has the power to decide whether fines will be levied or not. The law gives the FRA the power to control the fines, but the FRA does not have the power to change the law in any way. Extending the deadline would require changing the law, and so the FRA does not have the power to extend the deadline. As a matter of enforcement, the law could have been written to require all non-compliant operations to cease after the deadline, but they did not write it that way; probably because they realized how disruptive that would have been. But now the railroads have said they will shut down anyway if non-compliant, regardless of how disruptive it might be. It makes no difference if the FRA were to not issue fines. The position of the railroads is that even with no fines, the non-compliant operations would still be illegal. And they don’t want to break the law. Abiding by the law may seem like a moot point if there is no enforcement of it, but everybody has the right, if not the duty, to abide by the law. It is a moral principle if nothing else. But, in this case, it could also be a ploy to pressure Congress into extending the deadline. As a personal decision, most people would not cease a profitable business activity just because it is illegal; if the government did not intend to enforce the law. They would just go ahead and break the law, because there would be no consequence from it. You seem to have an "all or nothing" understanding of how law works, that does not seem to be based on any real life experience in the regulated community. I am not sure why you started a thread called "Solving the PTC Deadline Problem" if you did not want to consider others experience and knowledge that may be applicable to defining or solving the PTC deadline problem. The one thing you appear to have picked-up on is the possibility that the worst case scenario predictions by the FRA and railroads "could also be a ploy to pressure Congress into extending the deadline."
Would you please explain why you say I have an "all or nothing" understanding of the how the law works? In her confirmation hearing, Sarah Feinberg repeatedly said that the law was black and white, and that she had to enforce it as it stands. Is that an "all or nothing" understanding of how the law works?
And where have I ever indicated that I do not want to consider the experience of others as it pertains to defining or solving the PTC problem? If you have suggestions, let's hear them.
Euclid MidlandMike Euclid As I understand it, the enforcement is not the issue. In this case, the enforcement would be the fines, and the FRA has the power to decide whether fines will be levied or not. The law gives the FRA the power to control the fines, but the FRA does not have the power to change the law in any way. Extending the deadline would require changing the law, and so the FRA does not have the power to extend the deadline. As a matter of enforcement, the law could have been written to require all non-compliant operations to cease after the deadline, but they did not write it that way; probably because they realized how disruptive that would have been. But now the railroads have said they will shut down anyway if non-compliant, regardless of how disruptive it might be. It makes no difference if the FRA were to not issue fines. The position of the railroads is that even with no fines, the non-compliant operations would still be illegal. And they don’t want to break the law. Abiding by the law may seem like a moot point if there is no enforcement of it, but everybody has the right, if not the duty, to abide by the law. It is a moral principle if nothing else. But, in this case, it could also be a ploy to pressure Congress into extending the deadline. As a personal decision, most people would not cease a profitable business activity just because it is illegal; if the government did not intend to enforce the law. They would just go ahead and break the law, because there would be no consequence from it. You seem to have an "all or nothing" understanding of how law works, that does not seem to be based on any real life experience in the regulated community. I am not sure why you started a thread called "Solving the PTC Deadline Problem" if you did not want to consider others experience and knowledge that may be applicable to defining or solving the PTC deadline problem. The one thing you appear to have picked-up on is the possibility that the worst case scenario predictions by the FRA and railroads "could also be a ploy to pressure Congress into extending the deadline." Would you please explain why you say I have an "all or nothing" understanding of the how the law works? In her confirmation hearing, Sarah Feinberg repeatedly said that the law was black and white, and that she had to enforce it as it stands. Is that an "all or nothing" understanding of how the law works? And where have I ever indicated that I do not want to consider the experience of others as it pertains to defining or solving the PTC problem? If you have suggestions, let's hear them.
You state that "Extending the deadline would require changing the law, and so the FRA does not have the power to extend the deadline."
The following is example of FRA's ability to effectivly extend a deadline where NS was late in filing some required safety reports (from FRA FY2014 Enforcement Report):
"Norfolk Southern Railway Company Compliance Agreement On October 3, 2012, FRA entered into a Compliance Agreement (Agreement) with Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS) addressing NS’s failure to report highway-rail grade crossing accidents/incidents, highway-user casualties, and trespasser casualties properly. The Agreement covered a two-year period with the option to extend the Agreement subject to NS’s performance. FRA identified these issues during its statutorily mandated 2012 audit of NS’s compliance with FRA’s accident/incident reporting regulations (49 C.F.R. part 225) and secondary audit that same year. The Agreement required NS to (1) late-report all of the unreported highway-rail grade crossing accidents/incidents, highway-user casualties, and trespasser casualties identified by the audit team; (2) correct any previously submitted reports identified by FRA as defective; and (3) provide a more detailed Action Plan subject to FRA’s review and approval within 60 days, establishing the specific steps that NS would take to resolve the identified reporting issues along with a timeframe for the implementation of the changes. Further the agreement required, following FRA’s approval of the Action Plan, that NS submit monthly updates to FRA addressing the actions it had taken. FRA had on-going discussions with NS senior management regarding its corrective actions and any new issues that arose (such as properly identifying the longitude and latitude on certain forms). Based upon its performance and subsequent audit findings, FRA opted not to extend the Agreement, which concluded in October 2014."
Sarah Feinburg would not have to change the law, she could use available enforcement tools to bring the railroads back into compliance.
My two posts previous to the above already talked about Consent Agreements/Decrees, so you already have heard my suggestions.
MidlandMike Euclid MidlandMike Euclid As I understand it, the enforcement is not the issue. In this case, the enforcement would be the fines, and the FRA has the power to decide whether fines will be levied or not. The law gives the FRA the power to control the fines, but the FRA does not have the power to change the law in any way. Extending the deadline would require changing the law, and so the FRA does not have the power to extend the deadline. As a matter of enforcement, the law could have been written to require all non-compliant operations to cease after the deadline, but they did not write it that way; probably because they realized how disruptive that would have been. But now the railroads have said they will shut down anyway if non-compliant, regardless of how disruptive it might be. It makes no difference if the FRA were to not issue fines. The position of the railroads is that even with no fines, the non-compliant operations would still be illegal. And they don’t want to break the law. Abiding by the law may seem like a moot point if there is no enforcement of it, but everybody has the right, if not the duty, to abide by the law. It is a moral principle if nothing else. But, in this case, it could also be a ploy to pressure Congress into extending the deadline. As a personal decision, most people would not cease a profitable business activity just because it is illegal; if the government did not intend to enforce the law. They would just go ahead and break the law, because there would be no consequence from it. You seem to have an "all or nothing" understanding of how law works, that does not seem to be based on any real life experience in the regulated community. I am not sure why you started a thread called "Solving the PTC Deadline Problem" if you did not want to consider others experience and knowledge that may be applicable to defining or solving the PTC deadline problem. The one thing you appear to have picked-up on is the possibility that the worst case scenario predictions by the FRA and railroads "could also be a ploy to pressure Congress into extending the deadline." Would you please explain why you say I have an "all or nothing" understanding of the how the law works? In her confirmation hearing, Sarah Feinberg repeatedly said that the law was black and white, and that she had to enforce it as it stands. Is that an "all or nothing" understanding of how the law works? And where have I ever indicated that I do not want to consider the experience of others as it pertains to defining or solving the PTC problem? If you have suggestions, let's hear them. You state that "Extending the deadline would require changing the law, and so the FRA does not have the power to extend the deadline." The following is example of FRA's ability to effectivly extend a deadline where NS was late in filing some required safety reports (from FRA FY2014 Enforcement Report): "Norfolk Southern Railway Company Compliance Agreement On October 3, 2012, FRA entered into a Compliance Agreement (Agreement) with Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS) addressing NS’s failure to report highway-rail grade crossing accidents/incidents, highway-user casualties, and trespasser casualties properly. The Agreement covered a two-year period with the option to extend the Agreement subject to NS’s performance. FRA identified these issues during its statutorily mandated 2012 audit of NS’s compliance with FRA’s accident/incident reporting regulations (49 C.F.R. part 225) and secondary audit that same year. The Agreement required NS to (1) late-report all of the unreported highway-rail grade crossing accidents/incidents, highway-user casualties, and trespasser casualties identified by the audit team; (2) correct any previously submitted reports identified by FRA as defective; and (3) provide a more detailed Action Plan subject to FRA’s review and approval within 60 days, establishing the specific steps that NS would take to resolve the identified reporting issues along with a timeframe for the implementation of the changes. Further the agreement required, following FRA’s approval of the Action Plan, that NS submit monthly updates to FRA addressing the actions it had taken. FRA had on-going discussions with NS senior management regarding its corrective actions and any new issues that arose (such as properly identifying the longitude and latitude on certain forms). Based upon its performance and subsequent audit findings, FRA opted not to extend the Agreement, which concluded in October 2014." Sarah Feinburg would not have to change the law, she could use available enforcement tools to bring the railroads back into compliance. My two posts previous to the above already talked about Consent Agreements/Decrees, so you already have heard my suggestions.
CFR is regulations written by the administration. The PTC deadline is "hard coded" in the law. The FRA can't grant extensions.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.