 |
Re: Bad Railroad Bridges? All good points Greg...
Author: BOB2
Date: 03-12-2021 - 09:44
"Between FRA regulations and liability concerns, railroad bridges are in pretty good shape -- far better than interstate hiway bridges score."
I tend to agree with that assessment, as w have some really scary old highway bridges that are in terrible shape.
And, also agree completely with your comment on the FRA sraffing problems, recruitment, retention, and quality of training, especially in recent years. They have had a more traditional role in operational and infrastructure regulation, and the loss of expertise and turnover of an experienced generation of FRA inspectors, many who came out of the RR industry, who have not been replaced with the level of experience or training they had, is a serious problem.
This is also true of the failure to properly staff, train, and establish effective taxpayer oversite for FRA's new role of a capital grants agency in recent years.
As to the impact on RR's, and especially small carriers, I think that "privatizing" regulatory compliance by requiring the carrier to bear the cost of "consultant" bridge inspections using private contractors is a real problem. And worse, the cost of complying with these public safety needs, falls disproportionately on small carriers, causing potentially unnecessary closures and abandonments, as you have noted.
Carriers should be allowed a hefty "tax credit" to offset these kinds of public safety related regulatory compliance costs, and the FRA should realy look at establishing better policies aimed at creating a more cost competitive environment for the procurement of those private services for inspections.
And, if "we" really want to preserve and maintain "our" national legacy of public and private infrastructure at these higher and more expensive levels of safety compliance, then I suggest that more use of tax credits and "gubmint" grants will needed to pay for it.
I tend to agree with that assessment, as w have some really scary old highway bridges that are in terrible shape.
And, also agree completely with your comment on the FRA sraffing problems, recruitment, retention, and quality of training, especially in recent years. They have had a more traditional role in operational and infrastructure regulation, and the loss of expertise and turnover of an experienced generation of FRA inspectors, many who came out of the RR industry, who have not been replaced with the level of experience or training they had, is a serious problem.
This is also true of the failure to properly staff, train, and establish effective taxpayer oversite for FRA's new role of a capital grants agency in recent years.
As to the impact on RR's, and especially small carriers, I think that "privatizing" regulatory compliance by requiring the carrier to bear the cost of "consultant" bridge inspections using private contractors is a real problem. And worse, the cost of complying with these public safety needs, falls disproportionately on small carriers, causing potentially unnecessary closures and abandonments, as you have noted.
Carriers should be allowed a hefty "tax credit" to offset these kinds of public safety related regulatory compliance costs, and the FRA should realy look at establishing better policies aimed at creating a more cost competitive environment for the procurement of those private services for inspections.
And, if "we" really want to preserve and maintain "our" national legacy of public and private infrastructure at these higher and more expensive levels of safety compliance, then I suggest that more use of tax credits and "gubmint" grants will needed to pay for it.
