> That one thing is CHATSWORTH. Whether we like it or not, it is these dramatic and very
> visible disasters that shape public policy, and it has always been thus. No Triangle
> Shirtwaist Fire, no fire exits, etc.


Actually then, I do not believe we are disagreeing much about that either.

The process of "public policy" in regards to railroad safety has been going on for well more than 150 years, and in the general economy since the day the Constitution was ratified. While our government's powers are limited, the founding fathers were acutely aware of the need for federal regulation of commerce; even Thomas Jefferson, who was an anti-federalist. About this issue they were pretty much unified.

That is why they wisely incorporated into the Constitution, provisions assigning to congress the duty and power to "regulate commerce among the states" (The word "Interstate" does not appear anywhere in the constitution). Not only that, but heavy federal subsidies of desired industries were not uncommon from 1789 onward. Such subsidy accompanied the growth of railroads since the very beginning, even by republican presidents and congresses.

Where there was deep disagreement in the constitutional convention was over the issue of regulating or banning slavery. Mr. Jefferson had proposed its banning at the federal level, insisting that unless all the competing plantation owners gave up their slaves together; none could do so, whether they wanted too or not. This was due to the unbalanced competitive pressures that would result. Those who gave them up would be at serious competitive disadvantage to those that kept them. Of course, as we all know, Mr. Jefferson did not get his way - with disastrous results some seventy or so years later.


And herein lies the great principle that governs my particular opinion of federal regulation of railroads (or any other commercial enterprise). While most of us appreciate the benefits of the free enterprise system and the free market, there is another side of the coin to consider, just as the founding fathers did. The other side of the coin is the harsh economic reality that no business can afford costs such as good wages, decent working conditions, customer service, or even railroad safety, that do not bring anything to the bottom line; unless all its competitors also bear similar expenses.

The natural tendency then, is to be the first one to cut those costs out, thus gaining a competitive advantage at the bottom line. And it is only your bottom line that determines your success in the stock market. But if you fail in the stock market, your business fails, or is quickly bought out in a hostile takeover. Either way, your socially responsible ways of doing business are snuffed out! The harsh reality then, is that the monetary bottom line simple cannot measure the cost benefit ratio of any socially beneficial activity.

But Federal Regulation can, by exercise of the will of the people through Congress's power to regulate commerce. For example, by requiring that all competitors must apply a similar standard of safety in the design and operation of railroads (and the equivalent in trucking); all are on an equal footing in the market place, and can thus afford to do it. Federal regulation then, is the only means whereby things like expensive safety devices are even made possible. My life's work was thus made possible. So of course I believe in it!

But where I have a problem with PTS, is that its mandate is way out of context with all other railway signaling regulations; so much so that it literally violates the very first premise of all previous regs; that of requiring the use of proven technology and "closed loop" failsafe design principles. In fact it directly mandates the use of technology that is unproven, known to be NOT Failsafe, and indeed already shown to be consistently unreliable, except under very narrow conditions and usages.

It was indeed mandated in a knee-jerk reaction after one very bad accident. But again, it was way out of context, without regard to the lessons of history that were long and hard taught over the years; costing thousands of lives per year, until reliable solutions were found. The many unreliable ones that were tried, actually caused the death toll to accelerate. PTS, using only the mandated technology, unfortunately may well do the same.

Hence, one could only wonder why a supposedly intelligent Senator would mandate it. Until that is, you hear through the industry grapevine and also from someone on the AREMA CBTC committee; that there had been for several years, very heavy lobbying by a certain railway supply corporation, compromising both the Congress and the NTSB. Literally, this technology was not impressing the industry leaders and was thus not selling.

So what to do - at the first opportune incident, just abuse the power of government to force its sale. This is why Congress kneejerked after Chatworth. This company's technology was mandated despite the fact that already proven technologies had long existed that with only relatively minor improvements, could do the whole job for orders of magnitude less cost and effort. It would have been in place and operational long ago - and on much more mileage than so-called PTS will ever see - had Congress mandated that instead.

So, while I fully believe in Federal regulation of commerce, and its attendant public policy issues; I would still like to insist that Congress get it right! And quit allowing itself to be corrupted by corporate lobbyists. Same goes for the NTSB.