POST 1
What was the cause of the Metrolink accident, and could it have been avoided?
The cause of the Metrolink accident was due to negligence of the conductor, Sanchez. This was due to him being distracted due to texting, as well as his various health issues. The NTSB final report concluded it was Sanchez’s inattention to the red signal light, due to texting which was in violation of company rules (Steiner & Steiner, 2012).
In 2006, a rule against cell phone use while on duty went into effect, and Sanchez was already counseled about the policy by a supervisor (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). Sanchez was texting a teenage fan to sneak him onto the train to take control. A month before the accident he was spotted by another conductor using his phone and was counseled again by a supervisor about cell phone usage (Steiner & Steiner, 2012).
In 2007 Sanchez was cited twice for failing to call out a wayside signal., which Metrolink Engineers are supposed to radio the Metrolink operations center to acknowledge each lighted signal they encounter (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). Sanchez failed to do this twice on the day of the accident.
Also, had Metrolink that if Metrolink had installed an automatic system called positive train control would have intervened to prevent the collision by taking control of the train when Sanchez failed to stop at the red signal (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). If Metrolink had followed the NTSB recommendation of installing this program when it was previously recommended, then I feel that the accident could’ve been avoided.
Is the high cost of train control justified by the likely safety gains for passengers?
In my personal opinion, the prohibitive cost of train control is justified for the safety gains for passengers. Even though it would cost Metrolink money to upgrade, the benefits in lives saved and injury averted is a greater cost according to Steiner & Steiner (2012).
Is the money spent to regulate railroad safety being spent in the most efficient way to reduce the risks of death and injury in society?
According to the 20-year benefit-cost projection, the money spent to regulate railroad safety isn’t being spent efficiently. Depending on net present value assumptions, the costs would be $9.6 billion to $13.3 billion with benefits of $440 million to $674 million, a ration of more than 20:1 in either case (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). The reason why this is not efficient is because it will only protect passengers and not the environment in cases of accidents due to faulty mechanics, vehicles on railways, or strictly cargo in underserved areas (Steiner & Steiner, 2012).
If you had been a lobbyist wishing to influence safety legislation after the crash, what would your strategy have been?
If I were a lobbyist, I would focus on the Metrolink crash, and push for all trains to install the positive train control system. This is due to fact that one conductor was under the influence of marijuana (even though he tried to stop his train), and the other was distracted texting and had health issues. As well as the fact that there were seven accidents besides the Metrolink collision where cell phone use distracted engineers (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). Due to human failure, and in order to minimize the human failure part, install a backup system to ensure an accident like this doesn’t happen again. I would argue the 2006 regulation in regard to cell phone usage and gather data showing how that regulation isn’t followed, as well as push for more stringent controls in reporting of the regulation checks by the railroad systems. I would also push for more health screenings of the conductors, as well as drug testing.
References
Morgan, D. (2015). Insight-buffett may benefit as train lobby bids to weaken safety
rule. Reuters. Retrieved from: http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-train-regulations-idUSL2N0ZT0VW20150714
Steiner, J.F. & Steiner, G.A. (2012). Business, Government, and Society A
Managerial Perspective, Text and Cases. (13thed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin
Reply Post 1
I agree with you that the main cause of the accident is Sanchez. However, it is necessary to look at the whole picture in the investigation process. For Instance, you talked about using marijuana and other health issues. I appreciate your concerns about the capability, efficiency and workability of the staff to save the lives of people. It is also important to make the train control system of the authority responsible for the safety of people in the train. Sanchez did not do it intentionally, and it should also be a concern. I also agree with you that the train control system needs to be changed. I like your concerns about being a lobbyist in the country. You want to change the regulations and review existing ones. It is a good approach to start things and come up with something new. The train accident is a disaster, and it must be avoided in future at any cost (Davis, 2014).
Reference
Davis, R. (2014, March 29). Oregon’s Greenbrier lobbies to build safer oil train tank cars as federal rules evolve slowly. Retrieved from Oregonlive: https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/03/oregons_greenbrier_lobbies_to.html
POST-2
The Metrolink accident could have been avoided and prevented, and with this said, there were two main issues that contributed to its cause. 1) There was disregard for safety in terms of Sanchez himself, and that of the passengers. Sanchez failed to radio in a red signal light ahead of a curve, it was a command to stop. Sanchez also did not stop due to the fact that he was texting and disregarded all signals as he was distracted (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). 2) Sanchez was sleep deprived and he did not stay in compliance with the FMCSA (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). “He reported at 5:30 a..m. and worked for four hours, rested for four hours, then returned to work in the afternoon” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). It would be best to get the recommended full 8 hours of sleep to be in compliance/to operate an engine.
The high cost of train control can be justified by the likely safety gains for the passengers. It is best to increase safety for all no matter how many it would affect and the cost, but it would have to go to the proper places, including ECP brakes. The government feels that installing the brakes would slap an unnecessary $3 billion costs on railroads, and potentially jeopardize safety, but the rail industry says the equipment is unreliable and may jeopardize safety (Morgan, 2015). It might be best for the government to invest in the brakes rather than throwing all of the money at research. Therefore, it might be best to conduct an audit to see if all funds are being appropriately used, and that would include investing toward making all safe.
If I were a lobbyist wishing to influence safety legislation after the crash, I would begin by forming a grassroots group that consists of those who were directly affected by the crash. This group can speak and/or write to the appropriate legislatures/those in charge by expressing that they need to be held accountable. Sometimes by pointing fingers, it may get the job done that is needed to be done, such as increasing safety/getting new braking systems This group would also have to make enough “noise” to draw the public’s attention and educate them as well. This effort would enforce cameras in cabs to prevent distractions and to make sure that employees are following the rules, such as getting proper rest. Besides the grassroots initiative, there needs to be better safety standards put in place for preventative measures at all railroad crossings—it seems to be a big issue.
References
Morgan, D. (2015). INSIGHT-Buffett may benefit as train lobby bids to weaken safety rule. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-train-regulations/insight-buffett-may-benefit-as-train-lobby-bids-to-weaken-safety-rule-idUSL2N0ZT0VW20150714
Steiner, J. & Steiner, G. (2012). Business, government, and society: A managerial perspective, text and cases. McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Reply Post 2
I agree with you that the train control system can lead towards the people safety gains. It is necessary for the train administration to ensure the safety of people at any cost. The increase in cost is not the issue. Efficiency in the implementation and enabling the safety of people are the main outputs. I agree with you that the train legislation must be changed to ensure the safety of people and regulate staff. Training and development of people to stay active on a job can be a good move. You mentioned hourly routine, which can also be a good concern as the safety of people is concerned. I also agree with you that cost and braking acts must be reviewed because these are one of the top causes of this accident. I appreciate your views and concerns and like your arguments, which you made to highlight issues. The train control must be shaped to ensure the lives of people (Fang, 2015).
Reference
Fang, L. (2015, May 15). Wall Street Analyst Encouraged Rail Company To Lobby Against Train Safety Rules. Retrieved from The Intercept: https://theintercept.com/2015/05/15/wall-street-analyst-demanded-rail-industry-invest-lobbying-train-speed-safety-regulations/
+447462439809