# Federal oversight of subways proposed



## MrEd (Nov 15, 2009)

The Obama administration will propose that the federal government take over safety regulation of the nation's subway and light-rail systems, responding to what it says is haphazard and ineffective oversight by state agencies.

Under the proposal, the U.S. Department of Transportation would do for transit what it does for airlines and Amtrak: set and enforce federal regulations to ensure that millions of passengers get to their destinations safely. Administration officials said the plan will be presented in coming weeks to Congress, which must approve a change in the law.

The proposal would affect every subway and light-rail system in the country, including large systems in Washington, New York, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9111402459.html

Critical details of the plan remain unclear, including how much it would cost, where the money would come from, how the federal government would enforce its rules and whether it is equipped to carry out enhanced oversight. Existing state oversight bodies could remain in place to enforce the new regulations but would need to meet federal standards and gain federal approval.


----------



## DET63 (Nov 16, 2009)

The Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution supposedly allows Congress to only regulate interstate commerce. How many subways are used in interstate commerce? I could understand the PATH and the Philadelphia systems (maybe), as well as the D.C. Metro (but that probably already has a lot of Congressional oversight anyway), but most other systems operate in only one state.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 16, 2009)

St. Louis does and Portland will if the planned extension is built. Plus of course PATCO in Philly, SEPTA's subways don't cross a state border.

That's all that I can think of.

However, the easy out here is just like what the Richard Nixon did with the 55MPH speed limit, if you want Federal funding then you accept Federal oversight. Since most systems depend on Federal funding, they'll have no choice.

Personally I have mixed feelings about this idea. It's clear that many city/states cannot be trusted to properly oversea things, yet I'm not sure that the Fed will be able to do a better job. It would of course at least create a uniformity of rules, which could be helpful to the industry by helping to standardize things, but beyond that I just don't know.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 16, 2009)

AlanB said:


> St. Louis does and Portland will if the planned extension is built. Plus of course PATCO in Philly, SEPTA's subways don't cross a state border.
> That's all that I can think of.
> 
> However, the easy out here is just like what the Richard Nixon did with the 55MPH speed limit, if you want Federal funding then you accept Federal oversight. Since most systems depend on Federal funding, they'll have no choice.
> ...


Ditto for the mixed feelings but the states and cities have done such a poor job of inspection and regulation of most things (the old mantra of give me services without taxes is strong, look @ California!!!)that IF the feds will do what they are supposed too we will have standards that can be used so that everyone is on the same page! With all the travel now a days its not just local commuters that ride the local transportation system!

Our founding fathers thoughts on transportation involved horses/carriages/sailboats and barges so the arguement about what they intended is not really very practical and sure doesnt provide the safety we need in our transportation systems! Its all connected, oversight is not done well by local and state

agencies in my experience but the feds do a good job when it comes to such things as airlines/Amtrak!!!!/freight lines etc.


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 16, 2009)

DET63 said:


> The Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution supposedly allows Congress to only regulate interstate commerce. How many subways are used in interstate commerce? I could understand the PATH and the Philadelphia systems (maybe), as well as the D.C. Metro (but that probably already has a lot of Congressional oversight anyway), but most other systems operate in only one state.


Much, if not most federal oversight is constitutionally based on the welfare clause of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8). The welfare clause grants Congress the right "...to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." "General welfare" has been interpreted to mean virtually anything that Congress and the President feel is beneficial to the people, unless specifically excluded by some other portion of the Constitution. So, the bottom line is that the Federal government can regulate transit is they feel it's a good thing to do.


----------



## tp49 (Nov 16, 2009)

PRR 60 said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > The Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution supposedly allows Congress to only regulate interstate commerce. How many subways are used in interstate commerce? I could understand the PATH and the Philadelphia systems (maybe), as well as the D.C. Metro (but that probably already has a lot of Congressional oversight anyway), but most other systems operate in only one state.
> ...


Actually this is a weak argument for it. The better argument is under the Commerce Clause. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress has to power to regulate the channels of interstate commerce (highways, waterways, air, railroads, etc.) Congress also has the power to regulate the instrumentalities of interstate commerce (truck, airplanes, telephones, railroad cars, etc.). Congress' argument falls along the lines of that for airliners or trucks which the feds have the power to regulate even though some don't necessarily cross state lines. California has a number of intrastate flights but the state does not have the authority to regulate them the federal government does. Once the law passes both houses of Congress and is signed into law it would preempt any existing state laws on the subject.


----------



## the_traveler (Nov 16, 2009)

tp49 said:


> Congress' argument falls along the lines of that for airliners or trucks which the feds have the power to regulate even though some don't necessarily cross state lines. California has a number of intrastate flights but the state does not have the authority to regulate them the federal government does.


That is true, but if those lines are used by United Airlines, Delta Airlines or Alaska Air, don't those airlines have interstate flights? :huh: Likewise, there may be a rail line from Oakland to Sacramento or LA to Bakersfield or San Diego to El Cajon, but doesn't UP or BNSF or Amtrak operate outside of California also? :huh:


----------



## DET63 (Nov 16, 2009)

An intrastate rail service can be subject to federal regulation if there are issues of interoperability of equipment, for example. Couplers, brakes, etc., on a railcar that spends most or all of its time in one state still need to be compatible with those used on other cars to which it may become attached.

In the case of a stand-alone rapid-transit system, like BART, that's much more difficult to argue. BART trains will never be used in interstate commerce. BART is far from any state line, and the trains are operated on a broad-gauge track, not standard-gauge. If BART were ever to be extended to Reno (fat chance!), then I could see an argument for federal oversight.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 17, 2009)

For all practical purposes, the DC metro already has federal regulation. Their multitudinous errors and disasters are more of an arguemetn AGAINST federal control. Given that the electric track circuit was invented in eighteen something or other, for a train to dissapear from the signal system is simply inexcusable, and it had happened to them before, just without the fatalities.


----------



## MrEd (Nov 17, 2009)

I watched the head of the NTSB last night on CSPAN, making the case for federal rules for metro and all others. They want to make the subways safe like Amtrak. The crash standards appear much lower than other rail modes.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 17, 2009)

George Harris said:


> For all practical purposes, the DC metro already has federal regulation.


Not really. WMATA is its own standalone entity.


----------



## Heading North (Nov 17, 2009)

Doesn't it seem a little rash to do this largely in response to the WMATA accident this June?

I'd also imagine that what constitutes "realistic" safety improvements would vary greatly among the new systems (Minneapolis, Baltimore, Denver), compared to the last generation (DC, San Francisco, Atlanta), or those about a century old (New York, Boston, Chicago). It's just like the North River tunnels--there are some things you can do to improve safety, but if you set the bar too high, you threaten the viability of the system. I know there have been quite a few posts on this board concerning how various FRA rules make it more difficult to acquire/build/restore railcars.

Granted, I am saying this as an ex-New Yorker who, despite no love for MTA management, gets a little wary about the Feds getting involved in a generally good system for its age, size, and complexity. (Don't get me started on a litany of DC metro complaints...)


----------



## jis (Nov 18, 2009)

Actually NTSB has asked for this for many years. It appears that the WMATA accident is the vent that finally is forcing the issue, specially since crashworthiness turned out to be a significant issue in that accident.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 18, 2009)

MrEd said:


> I watched the head of the NTSB last night on CSPAN, making the case for federal rules for metro and all others. They want to make the subways safe like Amtrak. The crash standards appear much lower than other rail modes.


1. Don't believe everything you hear. "Safe like Amtrak" is nonsense. On a per passenger or even a per passenger mile basis I would suspect that the various transit systems are already safer than Amtrak because they generally operate in a closed system.

2. Crash stanndards are lower than those for the Amtrak vehicle and it is reasonable that they would be. Remember, transit systems are usually freight free and most are also free of road crossings. The WMATA accident was due to a failure of the basics and involved systems and rules that are already in place.

3. This is pure and simple a power grab.


----------



## jis (Nov 18, 2009)

If somehow we collectively can pull of the miracle of getting FTA to use UIC standards as the baseline that could mitigate a lot of the dangers of standards setting. This is a good opportunity to align European and American practices at least in the realm of FTA, but it might be too much of a good thing to hope for.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 18, 2009)

jis said:


> If somehow we collectively can pull of the miracle of getting FTA to use UIC standards as the baseline that could mitigate a lot of the dangers of standards setting. This is a good opportunity to align European and American practices at least in the realm of FTA, but it might be too much of a good thing to hope for.


Before you get all worm and fuzzy about UIC (and Euronorm) standards, I would suggest that you read those related to rail and transit. I have. They are NOT the better way.

They are in general and outgrowth of the standards and practices prevailing in Western European countries over the last century plus, generally tilted toward French and German practices - after all these are the major countires in Western Europe.

Likewise, American standards and practices are an outgrowth and based on US practices over much the same time period.

There are some things to be learned from European standards, but it is best that we shop through them and buy the good items, not buy the whole store.


----------



## jis (Nov 18, 2009)

George Harris said:


> There are some things to be learned from European standards, but it is best that we shop through them and buy the good items, not buy the whole store.


I agree


----------

