
How the FRA is Regulating Passenger Rail Out of Existence - Symmetry
http://www.ebbc.org/rail/fra.html
======
blendergasket
This is really sad. I drove a long distance (maybe 60 miles?) for the first
time in years yesterday because I'm staying with my mom in the suburbs that
have 0 public transportation infrastructure.

First: It's impossible to have a life without a car here when the weather gets
bad for biking (I'm outside of Seattle so that's a pretty good % of the year).
People without a car are basically prisoners in this town with no culture,
where the last bus from town leaves at 6:45. I can't go to work on days I
can't bike because I usually work crazy long hours, til 10 or 11pm so I have
to work from home if the weather's going to be prohibitive (I didn't bring my
waterproof gear with me).

Second: My mind was blown at the mental space driving in a car for a long
period of time put me in. Weird stuff like traffic lights gave me this feeling
of helplessness. It's a blueprint for a system of arbitrary, total control.
The fact that no decisions are really based on the situation at hand but on
these lights that mindlessly blink from green to red to green to red and you
never interact with anyone or anything except through this sheets of glass.
Call me crazy but I really think one of the big influences that's creating the
massive societal problems we have in the USA can be traced to the fact that
between work, home, school, and whatever destinations we get to we interact
with one another in this alienated and antagonistic way.

[edit] I know this rant is a little off topic, but it just highlights to me
the need for a coherent public transportation network. It'd be interesting to
look at this draconian regulation in relation to what was done to the rail
network in the USA in the middle of the 20th century. GM and a bunch of other
auto-related corporations formed a coalition, bought up and then dismantled
lots of inner-city streetcar networks in order to replace them with buses that
they would sell to the cities:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scanda...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal)
[/edit]

~~~
Alex3917
"between work, home, school, and whatever destinations we get to we interact
with one another in this alienated and antagonistic way."

As opposed to within work, home, or school? Most of our public and private
institutions seem to train people to be in abusive relationships.

~~~
masklinn
> As opposed to within work, home, or school? Most of our public and private
> institutions seem to train people to be in abusive relationships.

These don't have to work on an abuse basis, that's a cultural deficiency
rather than a built-in defect. With automobile transportation, the distance
and antagonism are pretty much built-in.

~~~
derleth
> With automobile transportation, the distance and antagonism are pretty much
> built-in.

Only if you expect them to be. A lot of people enjoy driving.

~~~
chc
I don't believe I have ever heard anybody say "The only thing I enjoy more
than the 45 minutes I spend commuting to work is the 45 minutes I spend
commuting back." I'm sure there's somebody who feels that way, but I don't
think it's a lot of people.

~~~
blendergasket
I can honestly say this is how I feel commuting on my bicycle. I've always
been blessed with beautiful commutes, along the water or across a bridge, and
it makes for an excellent way to wake up when going to work and an excellent
wedge I could drive between work and not work on the way home. I could gauge
the stress of the workday I just finished by how fast I rode home.

------
ams6110
The problem with government regulatory agencies is that once they solve the
problem that instigated their creation, they can't stop. They keep looking for
more problems to "fix" in a never ending loop of justifying their existence.
Once they become typical bloated behemoth bureaucracies, common sense doesn't
work anymore.

~~~
drinian
I don't buy that. Every other country with high-speed rail has rail
regulations as well.

~~~
ajross
Exactly. In fact, I'd say that looking at the existing evidence successful
rail deployments are _entirely uncorrelated_ with regulatory action. This is
just a whipping post for the libertarian nutjobs, and the only notable thing
is that it's one that aligns them in goal with the pinko commie rail boosters.

Clearly the determining factor isn't regulation, it's subsidy. Countries that
pay for fancy rail systems out of public funds ... have them.

~~~
drinian
Effective, good-quality regulation is a form of subsidy.

This article is right to look at the costs of not updating regulation to meet
reality.

------
kposehn
Ok, as someone who has long been very close to the rail industry, a few
points:

1\. "...the Long Island Commuter Railroad (LIRR) in New York City, which has
no freight traffic" - Incorrect. The LIRR also is host to the New York &
Atlantic railway, a freight line which does indeed operate on LIRR lines
daily. Average train gross weight is about 1,200 tons for each freight on that
line, not 100 tons.

2\. "FRA staffers point out that it is unfair to compare US buffering
standards with those in Europe because passenger rail in the US has to contend
with more (and heavier) freight traffic." - They are quite right to do so. The
US plays host to the highest density of freight rail traffic in the world with
most trains exceeding 5,000 tons (some closer to 15,000).

3\. "In both Europe and Japan, a competitive business exists in the DMU
marketplace. But that market is off limits to US transit agencies because the
FRA has effectively created a trade embargo." - Incorrect. In San Diego, the
Sprinter lines use Siemens Desiro DMU's, a light design totally unadapted for
the US Rail network as far as weight goes. The line also plays host to freight
trains at night. How they got around the weight requirement, I do not know.
Furthermore, the San Diego Trolley has the line from downtown to El Cajon by
way of Lemon Grove. That line also plays host to freight at night - a
streetcar line! The market is indeed open, but the trick agencies use to get
around the requirement is a bigger question.

4\. "The FRA proposed rule would only allow Quiet Zones exemptions at
crossings that had been improved with "four-quadrant" gates and curb medians."
- for good reason! Many fatalities happen at grade crossings and horns are one
of the only really efficient ways to keep people off the tracks. Most other
nations have few crossings, preferring grade-separated rights-of-way. However,
in the US, drivers are often grossly idiotic and don't pay attention. Not how
many grade crossing accidents you see on YouTube...

That said, it is indeed a major issue that the FRA rules apply to any rail
line connected to the freight network that spans the nation. It would be far
better if the regulations made clear exceptions for trains on passenger-only
lines, hours of operation, etc.

For example, let's look at CalTrain. The main line up the peninsula only sees
freight traffic at night. By setting operational rules that restrict speeds
near freight trains, etc, this would allow much better equipment for CalTrain
while continuing to let freight run at specific times.

The FRA very much needs to get with the program and allow better conditional
standards.

~~~
kinofcain
Rail operators are occasionally able to get waivers from the FRA to run non-
compliant rolling stock. Caltrain was awarded such a waiver for a future
rolling stock purchase, and the Sprinter was awarded one as well. Typically
the FRA requires that there be some sort of temporal separation between the
trains, which could mean freight only running at night, or it could mean all
trains on the line have some form of electronic PTC (positive train control)
that guarantees separation between trains. The freight lines have been
fighting PTC for several decades, but they're finally being forced to
implement it (of course the FRA hasn't set much of a standard, so there's
going to be a dozen different incompatible systems, yay).

The problem is that the waivers are arbitrary and one-offs. There's no
standard for light passenger rail in the US, there's just a bunch of hyper-
specific waivers for each case and operators must re-apply if their rolling
stock changes. So if caltrain wanted to switch from UIC-compliant Siemens
Desiro trains to a UIC-compliant hitachi train, they'd have to apply for
another waiver.

To top it all off, the FRA's own studies showed that their "buff strength"
standards are more dangerous than the more modern energy-absorbing crash
structures mandated on European and Japanese lines.

The FRA really does need to be reformed.

~~~
kposehn
Totally agreed.

------
dpearson
Another failed government policy regarding rail: the requirement for cleaner
locomotives. The vast majority of railroads in the US do not buy new
locomotives, and in fact usually use locomotives from the 60s and 70s (bought
secondhand). Yet, the federal government is requiring newly bought locomotives
to have cleaner emissions. Given that most emissions are from yard switchers
(again, old locomotives no longer used in long-haul service), this makes no
sense...

------
smokeyj
As an airliner, lobbying for tightened RR regulation seems like a handsome
roi.

/takes off conspiracy hat

~~~
_delirium
I wouldn't be too surprised if that's part of it. In the failed early-90s
project to build high-speed rail in Texas, Southwest Airlines spent a lot of
money and litigation making sure that all "rail safety" rules would be
interpreted as strictly as possible, opposing any streamlining or exemptions
granted to the project that would've made it more sensible.

Other main players are the freight railroads and the railroad-workers' unions,
neither of which cares too much about passenger rail (freight is much bigger
business, on both the corporations' and the unions' side).

~~~
jrockway
Ironic as Southwest had to ground 44 planes because they were flying them
without the federally-mandated safety checks. Also, one of them "opened up" in
flight.

"All is fair in LUV and war," I guess

------
keithpeter
Good luck: in the UK the worst train accidents with the largest number of
fatalities have been due to poor track maintenance. The accidents have tended
to occur on commuter trains with high passenger numbers and many people
standing. Not sure what the French have seen as history on their much faster
trains.

~~~
dpearson
Track has been an issue in the US, as has losing track of trains and having
collisions. The vast majority of fatalities are exactly what these laws won't
help with: people swerving the gates, or walking on the tracks.

~~~
jrockway
Or a boat crashing into a rail bridge pier:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Big_Bayou_Canot_train_wrec...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Big_Bayou_Canot_train_wreck)

(Honestly, I feel like this is one of those "cannot be avoided" situations.)

------
Anechoic
(I worked on the environmental assessment of the Acela back in the 1990's and
worked with testing the first two vehicles off the line in Pueblo and along
the NEC NJ "race track in 2000. The firm I was working for back then also did
the noise analysis behind the revised FRA horn noise rules)

This article keeps popping up on various geek sites over the years. In
addition to the points kposehn brought up, I'll add the following: FRA isn't
the reason why HSR sucks. The reason that HSR sucks is because we as a nation
don't want to invest in the infrastructure to make a good HSR system. At a
minimum that means exclusive ROW (grade-separated crossings) with relatively
few stops and long straight sections where it can get up to speed.

As for the FTA buffering standards - it really doesn't matter. Yes, the Acela
is heavier than the TGV. That extra weight isn't why Acela service sucks. The
Acela is perfectly capable of maintaining 155+ mph speeds for extended periods
(I witnessed this myself in Acela enduracing testing). The power cars are more
than capable of handling the load - during the first few months of Acela
operation, there was a problem with the network connection that linked the
front and rear power cars. To get service running until the power could be
sorted out, the trainsets were run with only one power car operating. Running
with one power vs both power cars (and pulling the dead weight of the second
power car) only increased DC to Boston run time by _5 minutes_. As for cost,
the price of an Acela trainset is within the range of most other popular HSR
trainsets (TGV, ICE, Pendolino, etc) albiet at the higher end. The effect of
the train weight on track wear is minimal as it's the unsprung mass of the
train (essentially the wheels, axles, traction motors and brakes) that is
proportional to wear, not the static train weight. And train weight has
_nothing_ to do with noise.

kposehn already commented on DMU but I'll add that the biggest impediment I
saw to transit agencies adopting DMU's was that since no one else in the USA
had them, transit agencies didn't know what to expect in terms of maintenance,
operation, and environmental effects. In fact FRA and FTA were essentially
begging transit agencies to try them, and it's only been recently that they've
been operating in Vermont and other locations.

Finally, regarding FRA horn noise rules: first of all, the preemption of state
horn rules originated with Congress who directed FRA to get involved with horn
noise (Google "Swift Rail Development Act" for more information). But the
reason those rules exist is because whenever there is a grade crossing
fatality, inevitably the next of kin sue and all too ofter _win_ in court. As
a result, there is a tendency to do anything and everything in the name of
"safety" on the part of RR operators, agencies and regulators. As long as this
remains true, horns are going to be part of rail travel.

edit: btw we had this discussion at ArsTechnica back in 2008 (I'm Anechoic
there as well): <http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=2671067>

~~~
kposehn
Awesome! Thanks for posting, really interesting to see what you have to say
about working on the Acela.

Good point as well about unsprung weight - hadn't thought about that. As the
Acela is that powerful (it _is_ based on the TGV Atlantique I believe), what
in your opinion is the worst issue that set has faced? I really think that if
we could buy off the shelf designs (Shinkansen N700 for example) with minimal
adaptation, that would solve a large number of problems. (I'm also more a
proponent of HSR with EMU's instead of power cars).

I do agree about our nation being unwilling to invest, but I also would add
that it is a matter of density. Average travel distance via any HSR line in
the US will be much longer than any other nation on the planet, making it much
less attractive. There are some corridors which would see benefit, but because
of the sprawl that most non-northeast cities have, a train doesn't provide you
a realistic way to get from point A to point B outside station-to-station. You
still have to get from the platform to your final destination.

~~~
Anechoic
> _what in your opinion is the worst issue that set has faced?_

Well the crappy infrastructure (shared ROW, lots of stops, lots of crossings,
100-year old catanary south of NYC, etc) is by far the most detrimental issue
to Acela performance.

With regard to the actual Acela vehicles itself: from what the insiders have
told me, the worst issue the set has faced was, frankly, the selection of
Bombardier/Alstom in the first place. I was told that when FRA auditioned the
various HSR vehicles on the NEC (they actually paid to bring over a bunch of
European trainsets to the NEC for testing back in the late 80's or early
90's), Siemens told them that their vehicle (ICE) could meet most of
FRA/Amtrak's spec with a little work but not everything. Bombardier/Alstom
said they could meet all of the performance requirements with no problems.
After getting the vehicle contract, Bombardier/Alstom started to agitate about
not being able to meet large parts of the specs which led to compromises in
the design and delays. By the time FRA/Amtrak realized they made the wrong
choice, they were in too deep.

Again from what I've heard, if Amtrak/FRA had it to do over again, they would
have gone with Siemens. It will be interesting to see what happens when it's
time to replace the Acela.

~~~
kposehn
Interesting, didn't know about Siemens bid being much closer to the mark.
While we can't say that they wouldn't have had problems, I always figured that
Bombardier/Alstom really had botched it, especially with the issue where the
carbody was too wide for full-tilt.

------
EGreg
The purpose of government should be to ensure that the minimum expectations of
its citizens are met. These minimum expectations are a changing set of things,
and I think that better feedback between government agencies and those which
are affected by the rulings would be one of the best ways to solve the
country's problems.

I think that <http://data.gov> and <http://recovery.gov> are a step in the
right direction. Experts should analyze the data and blog about it, and the
government agencies should be keeping an ear out to what experts are saying.
Also the interested public can do the same.

The word "minimum" that I use is not accidental. The problem is that
government rarely solves just the minimum set of problems. Once an agency
exists, among the new employees there are always those who want to make their
mark, and increase the amount of regulation. This is how government grows and
grows. It's free for them to regulate but not free for those who have to
implement it, and thus they don't feel the right incentives at the time. We
need to figure out a way to incentivize government to stick as much as
possible to only enforcing minimum regulations. Maybe it can be done by
requiring them to get the citizenry to clamor for something before they
implement it.

~~~
jwallaceparker
> The purpose of government should be to ensure that the minimum expectations
> of its citizens are met.

That seems like the purpose of a welfare state.

If you want a government that sticks to the 'minimums' you're asking for, I'd
redefine that purpose statement to something like:

The purpose of government is to ensure the natural rights of its citizens, and
nothing else.

~~~
EGreg
I've heard that a lot. The problem with this kind of formulation is that
"rights" is a loaded term, like "intellectual property". It implies that there
are some universally recognized rights that come from nature, and only those.
For example, if "intellectual property" was a natural right, then where does
the 20 years come from in patents? That number 20, or the length of copyright,
show that it's society's conventions and not rights.

Instead, I treat everything as "expectations". Thousands of years ago, most
people expected to hunt or farm if they wanted to eat. 500 years ago you
didn't expect almost every child to survive past childbirth and the early
years. Now we expect all these things and more. Clean water. Food that doesn't
contain killer bacteria. Buildings that don't have obvious structural
problems.

Obviously we can't ensure things 100% but we as a society can work to set up
organizations to regulate and oversee these things. A free market allows
anyone to start cutting corners at any time, such as a new and inexperienced
company that wants to make things cheaper. For example, a real estate
developer can build a building that's not up to code. In theory, we could all
walk around with our own subscriptions to private "auditing agencies" like
Zagat for buildings, that would inspect buildings as they are built or
whatever. But most of us outsource this kind of stuff to a centralized
government. Which we vote for. Also, government could tax us to do
unprofitable stuff such as the US Postal Service.

However, the problem is that our government lacks incentives to stop growing,
and we need to introduce them.

~~~
jwallaceparker
I define "rights" as the freedom to do whatever you want with your body and
property as long as you don't infringe on another's freedom to do the same.

But as you say, "rights" and "expectations" are slippery slopes.

> if "intellectual property" was a natural right

I don't believe this is a natural right. If anything, nature shows us that
there is no such thing as intellectual property. Once an idea is "out in the
open" it's out there for good.

> Also, government could tax us to do unprofitable stuff such as the US Postal
> Service.

But this is a terrible thing, is it not?

I'd guess at least 85% of mail is junk mail. This is only possible because
mail is so cheap and the post office runs at an annual loss in the billions.

Eliminate the post office. Let UPS/FedEx/whoever compete to deliver your mail.
Pay $3 to mail a letter. Save trees. Eliminate junk mail.

> However, the problem is that our government lacks incentives to stop
> growing, and we need to introduce them.

I agree.

I'd start with not allowing the government to print its own money. As long as
it can, it will never have an incentive to stop growing.

~~~
jarek
If you are advocating increased independence for the Federal Reserve
(discussing the U.S. case), are you concerned that it will then grow itself to
perpetuate the organization as discussed elsewhere in the comments on this
post?

~~~
jwallaceparker
More likely the eradication of the Fed.

~~~
EGreg
The Ron Paul solution? How do you propose to move from the current situation
to a non elastic currency backed by a combination of commodities, in a way
that doesn't involve hurting a lot of people? And how would it be better?

------
mahyarm
If Caltrain did a symbolic disconnect, cut off several feet from the track,
put up a barrier, a few days work to do and undo. from the national rail
network, would they still be subject to the FRA?

~~~
_delirium
In Caltrain's case, they actually got an interesting waiver that allows them
to time-segregate the network, where it's part of the national rail network
(and can accept freight traffic) at night, but cut off from it (with no
freight traffic, and interlocks making sure it's disconnected) during the
daytime. In that setup, it would have permission to run non-FRA passenger-rail
equipment: [http://wilshirevermont.com/2010/05/31/caltrains-amazing-
waiv...](http://wilshirevermont.com/2010/05/31/caltrains-amazing-waiver-with-
the-fra/)

However I believe implementation of this is on hold, because they want to
coordinate any upgrades with the HSR project.

They've also discussed completely cutting it off from the national rail
network at times. Unlike in many places, Caltrain actually owns the rails
(rather than a freight network owning them), so that would be possible.
There's strong lobbying against it from various landowners along the line,
though; even though the line doesn't get a lot of freight usage, the
possibility to receive at least an occasional freight shipment increases the
value of the land.

~~~
kinofcain
Yes Caltrain (actually the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board that owns the
track) has a clause in their contract from when they bought the line from
Union Pacific that states they can start freight abandonment proceedings if
they make a significant change to the line. It's generally believed that was
put in there in case they wanted to convert the line to BART, but in theory it
could be brought into play for a Caltrain electrification or the HSR project.

Caltrain has so far, however, refused to go down that route. Apparently the
one freight train per day is too much to lose.

------
davesims
Those Trinity Rail Express cars are now used for the Denton-Dallas A-train
commuter rail, soon to be replaced with new Swiss-made cars. I like the old
ones actually, extremely comfortable and seats like a massive couch.

[http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/drc/localnews/stor...](http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/drc/localnews/stories/DRC_Rail_Cars_0821.e5c8cf00.html)

~~~
iliis
I can asssure you, the new ones will be quite comfortable as well ;) Granted,
they might not have couches as seats but they are very spacious and bright. I
like them quite a lot... (They are in use since a few years already here in
Switzerland.)

------
kschults
The one issue this article doesn't address is what is being done about the
FRA. Are there movements to change the regulations? Overhaul the FRA? Even
something as small scale as what, if anything, the author is trying to do
about it would have been nice to hear.

------
protomyth
I wonder if they have regulatory authority over monorails or maglev?

~~~
dpearson
What this article talks about is only for trains that run on tracks used for
freight...so that wouldn't apply to monorails/maglevs...

~~~
kposehn
Monorails and Maglev are remarkably expensive and inefficient, so
unfortunately I doubt they'll ever be a viable alternative.

~~~
protomyth
I'll agree with you on maglev at present, but monorail has gotten a bad rap
from some false assumptions (e.g. switching) and some early problems.

------
rmk
I think these numerous regulatory agencies are a way of circumventing popular
will (read: write mandates handed out by interest groups). Whatever happened
to Obama's promise that he would weed out regulations that harm small
businesses (I think they would benefit the most from the increase in foot
traffic that would result if public rail service were more prevalent).

------
jarek
Can we add "in the U.S." to the title?

~~~
graupel
The FRA only has jurisdiction in the US.

~~~
m_eiman
We have an FRA in Sweden too, except it's our NSA-like thing.

------
stretchwithme
what strikes me as odd is that one of most cost-effective safety devices, the
set built, is unavailable to most passengers on buses or trains.

~~~
ars
What is a "set built"? Do you mean "seat belt"? If you do, then you should
know that seat belts do nothing on vehicles of that size.

~~~
stretchwithme
I think I was half asleep when I wrote that :-) wtf

~~~
stretchwithme
But I'm not sure I understand your point. It seems when large vehicles stop
suddenly, unsecured cargo doesn't. Airplanes have them don't they?

I had heard something suggesting seat belts are not cost effective on trains
and buses for the amount of lives saved. Perhaps that's what you're thinking
of. Still, I would rather have them even if it cost an additional tenth of a
cent per mile.

------
georgieporgie
The honking is driving me nuts. They're required to hit the horn four times
_per crossing_. Sometimes it's a series of quick blasts. Other times, they'll
lay on that thing for -- I swear -- five full seconds per honk. Midnight, 2am,
3am, they don't care. I'm around a mile away from the track, and I can't
imagine what life could possibly be like for those who live closer to the
track.

