The Manhattan Project
Morning Roundup: Second Helpings Edition
Compromise Uncertain on Same-Sex Marriage Law
Fire at 17th and L NW Forces Evacuations
Sculpture Garden Ice-Skating Rink Remains Closed
We didn't get this quote down during this morning's press conference, but City Desk provides:
NTSB’s Debbie Hersman this morning confirms that the the striking train was a 1000-series car and that the struck train was a mix of 3000- and 5000-series. She notes that the NTSB has "long been on record" about the crashworthiness of the 1000 series. "We recommended to WMATA to either retrofit those cars or phase them out of service," she says. "Those concerns were not addressed."
Pretty damning. The NTSB has not determined nor even speculated at this point what caused Tuesday's crash, but as far as its degree of deadliness, they are rather clearly blaming Metro's inaction on its recommendations.
City Desk also has excerpts from NTSB's 2006 report in response to the 2004 Woodley Park crash, which outlines how the NTSB strongly recommended that WMATA either retrofit or accelerate its phase out of the 1000-series cars due to the possibility of telescoping crashes like yesterday's, while WMATA responded that it would continue to use the 1000-series cars until 2014 due to "tax advantage leases." After WMATA refused to comply with NTSB's recommendations, the transportation board responded with this: "In view of WMATA’s response to the Board’s recommendation, it appears that further dialogue on this issue would prove futile. Consequently, we have no choice but to classify Safety Recommendation R-06-2 Closed Unacceptable Action."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Ah yes, NTSB, because we all know there's just a ton of money floating around for WMATA to put to use retrofitting old cars! Can you say "unfunded federal mandate"? Senator Tom Coburn can!
Whether the money is around is besides the point. NTSB is a federal agency charged with investigating accidents, determining root causes, and issuing recommendations on how to prevent such accidents from recurring. Cost has nothing to do with that process - only in the decision of the owner/operator to implement or ignore the recommendation.
I. Smell. A. Big. Damn. Lawsuit.
Totally agree.
NTSB's report will be used by victims' lawyers to argue that Metro knew its 1000-series trains had serious safety concerns, but that Metro chose to take financial benefits over improving rider safety. Metro needs to start doing bake sales to raise money for the coming onslaught of lawsuits.
Maybe now the Feds will be spurred to give Metro some extra money to pay for safety upgrades and new cars?
There are limits on the extent to which NTSB reports can be utilized in court, but you are correct that lawyers will attempt to work around that.
Don't bet on it, the feds are great at requiring agencies to meet certain obligations while not giving them to tools to do so. OPM does it all the time, requiring all kinds of crazy time restrictions on hiring but not rescinding decades old hiring laws that cause the proess to take so long in the first place.
No doubt they'll say that Metro should have waved a magic wand to wish money into existence to fix the cars like every other agency does... Metro will be blamed no matter what the outcome is... sadly...
NTSB findings are not mandates. They do not carry the force of law. At least when it comes to findings and recommendations after airplane crashes, only the FAA can force action. So I assume something similar with transit incidents. That said, it's too bad Metro couldn't follow through with the NTSB recommendation.
OK, point taken, but the issue here remains that THEY HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN THE MONEY THEY NEED TO FIX THE SYSTEM.
So if your car fails its safety inspection, do you:
1. Complain about the costs associated with running a vehicle?
2. Stop driving completely?
3. Keep driving until someone gets killed?
4. Hop freight cars and trade hobo storys for spongebaths?
5. Become a public advocate for ski-lift gondola/trebuchet mass transit?
Um..gmg how is a safety recommendation an unfunded mandate? Metro should be spending any and ALL extra money on critical safety infrastruction concerns and not on raises or anything else. As riders, we demand and expect safe trains. I smell class action lawsuit brewing, which is going to be a HUGE FUNDED SETTLEMENT that could shut the whole system down forever. John Catoe has a LOT of 'splainin' to do. I hold HIM responsible.
And WaPo still maintains the death count is nine instead of seven. Says WMATA released that number this morning (their story was updated at 10:26 a.m.).
In defense of Metro, the NTSB made a recommendation that they knew could never be fulfilled. Just exactly how did the NTSB expect Metro to retire 1/3 of its trains without without any money to replace them? The Feds will blame Metro and I'll turn around and blame the Feds for creating a transit system without a dedicated source of funding.
You're talking about assigning blame in the court of public opinion. Who gives a rat's ass about that? Either D.C. Superior Court or perhaps federal district court is the key, and the one left holding the bag is Metro and the D.C. government. Blame the feds all you want, but they are judgment proof. Again, the lack of funds is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT.
Well, let's see-- what are Metro's options to comply with that NTSB recommendation?
Even had Metro ordered new trains the day that NTSB made the recommendation, Metro would only now be receiving its first deliveries of the new models. Was Metro supposed to take all 300+ of these trains out of service in the meantime? I would just love to see them try. The resulting decrease in service would force people off Metro and onto the roads.
I suspect that the resulting number of fatal car crashes would be far greater than the number of people who died because Metro risked using its 1000 series trains.
Again, all of the financial issues associated with taking who-knows-how-many trains out of service is IRRELEVANT for purposes of determining fault. This is torts law 101. If your mechanic tells you that you need new tires, and you can't afford them but decide to keep driving anyway, then you shouldn't be surprised when you get sued for running into the busload of nuns. Indigency is not a defense, even where agencies are concerned.
That's where things stand legally. You appear to be making a point from the practical side of things and sure, there's always going to be a funding issue when you're dealing with safety on mass transit, and that a cost/benefit analysis needs to be made. But there's a lesson here: spend the money upfront to make things safer, or spend the money on the back end when things fail and you're nailed with a lawsuit.
This is true. However, I think Congress should pass legislation limiting WMATA's liability in these cases or at the very least limiting damages. The region's need for mass transit outweighs the individual's need for millions in compensation that may bankrupt the Metro system.
Why should Metro have limited liability? The fact that Metro can be held liable for injuries or deaths to its passengers is one of the driving forces behind its safety program!
If Metro knew it could essentially wash its hands whenever it had a major accident, imagine the corners it would cut to save money.
The should be absolved from all liability, but I bristle at the idea of using an accident as a "get rich quick" scheme. People deserve to be compensated for their injuries but winning millions (of our tax and fare money) in damages for a broken arm or twisted ankle is a scam. I would be in favor of tort reform in this area for all claims, not just those levied against WMATA.
I meant to say "shouldn't be absolved from all liability"
Additionally, I don't see how the DC government is left holding this bag. WMATA is a joint DC-VA-MD entity.
Lest we forget the MD and VA governments who always seem to forget their checkbooks at home when the plate gets passed through the pews.
Excellent point. You can expect plaintiff's attorney's to parse WMATA's operating documents to rope in whatever deep pockets they can.
WMATA responded that it would continue to use the 1000-series cars until 2014 due to "tax advantage leases."
Well it's certainly heartening to hear that WMATA is putting lucrative lease agreements ahead of the safety of its whining cargo...I mean "valued customers."
So, when are those lawsuits going to start rolling in? Because you know they're coming. And you know who will get stuck holding the bill.
Ding!
So how much is the fare increase going to be after Wmata settles somewhere in the zillions?
..."The NTSB has not determined nor even speculated at this point what caused Tuesday's crash, ..."
The other pointed comment NTSB made was that they expected to get *no crash data* from the 1000-series train that did the striking. Apparently, that early series was not only less safe, but had no black-box recorders. And NTSB had recommended they be retrofitted.
So, not only is that series more deadly in an accident, it provides less data about an accident.
Not good for Metro; not good at all...
And may I just say, I'm really tired of all the people in my office who have NEVER ridden Metro saying things like "oh see that's why I drive I don't trust those subway trains and I don't know why anybody would ride them after a mess like that." I guess they don't remember that little accident in MN a few years ago involving a bridge that collapsed and killed / injured about an equal amount of people; or all the multi-car pile-ups that happen frequently on busy highways; or the plane crash just recently with France Air... *grumbles*
I think I feel sorry for Mr. Catoe... he's about to have his ass handed to him for the sins of his predecessors...
The go on the googlez and get some stats on Beltway vehicular deaths in 2008 vs. WMATA deaths in 2008 (and the 9 from yesterday for that matter) and drop some knowledge on their asses.
tell them to walk everywhere, maybe a metro bus will hit them. and you can say 'well see thats why i ride the bus because i would rather be in a seat on the bus than have my seat plastered to the front of the bus'
or tell them they are stupid and slap them on the forehead for acting educated about dc transit.
ps i am a diehard metro supporter, take it all the time and i am pretty sure the only reason i am still on this earth is because i do not operate a vehicle.
When metro increases it fares, no one wants to pay them. In fact, everyone bitches and moans about it.
Increased fares can lead to better service and can lead to the phasing out of old trains that may cause accidents.
You are correct in that raising fares can help--BUT--Metro can raise it's fare to the highest heavens but it will do no good without a dedicated source of funding. Fares will never be able to cover the entire cost of operation, and if they could, you'd pay the same price (or higher) that Amtrak charges. Paying $15 bucks one-way to get from Fort Totten to Alexandria is not an option for my daily commute. So there needs to be dedicated funding from the feds and each of the local jurisdictions. If the feds refuse to help, than we charge a toll for everyone getting off a Fed Triangle, L'Enfant, Gallery Place, Smithsonian and all the other heavily fed populated stops downtown...everyone else who benefits from the system has to help support it--they should be no exception!
True, but the Feds pay for their employees to take Metro; so the Fed sort have a backdoor funding stream, it’s just through their employees. Now let’s see if they will fund transit for their contractors.
That type of funding should not be considered true funding for two main reasons:
A) It is not dedicated in amount or length of time, etc.
B) It is given to employees directly and can (technically) be used for multiple agencies including MTA (Maryland) and van/car pools (even privately owned ones).
C) Though it is a help to employees and may encourage SOME to use Metro over driving; most of the people it goes to would use Metro anyway and thus would pay the fare if the subsidy suddenly ended.
So really, it's not a benefit for Metro in the long-run. So there still needs to be dedicated support from the feds; especially since the system is heavily used not only by their employees but by people who they want to visit all of their fancy monuments. How many people would be able to come and visit all the wonderful sights here if there were no Metro service to them? I'm not saying this is the fed's fault, or that anyone is at fault for not providing money. I am saying that to help in preventing future accidents--a solution is needed--and that $olution i$ needed, and that $olution i$ going to be a money i$$ue for $ure!
I'm not worried about the lawsuit. Some opportunistic ambulance chasers will jump on every angle of this tragedy to capitalize on it (how many of those walking wounded are sitting in an attorney's office right now? I'd say, conservatively, 60 percent). Fortunately, WMATA is most definitely insured for a situation like this, so their day to day money won't be affected.
What worries me is public perception. mlswanso3470 hit it perfectly. I'm listening to coworkers right now who are saying the same thing.
As a response to all those people who are worried about the safety of riding metro, I'd point them to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. In 2007, 67.2% of transportation-related fatalities were passengers in cars and light trucks. Passengers on subways accounted for 0.07% of fatalities.
Granted people travel many more miles in cars than they do on subways, but I would be willing to bet that even adjusted for fatalities per passenger mile, riding rail is much safer. It's like airline crashes - they happen relatively rarely, but when they do it's incredibly dramatic which means everyone talks about it.
You can use table 1-37 to get passenger-miles. 2006 is the latest data. There were 0.00866 fatalities/passenger-mile for highway, and 0.00435 for transit.
Excellent point. You can expect plaintiffs' attorneys to parse WMATA's operating documents to rope in whatever deep pockets they can, especially VA and MD.
FYI, here's the NTSB report: http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2006/R06_01_02.pdf
At first glance it sure seems to eerily foreshadow this crash.
"reduced alertness"
SLEEPING AT THE DAMN WHEEL... COME ON!!!!
I heard that press conference on the news this morning. They asked Catoe if he knew if the "striking" train was operating manually or automatically, he said indignantly that he didn't know. Don't ya think he should know something like that? What's all this I hear about central control knowing where trains are at all times, and knowing whether the operator is running them or they're running on auto? Is this just in the movies or what?
I think it is more a sign of them not wanting to say something and then be wrong. Yesterday, there was a lot of misinformation going around (that it was a headon collision, that it was a derailment, etc.).
Looking back through articles on the dc metro rail and federal funding, all parties are responsible for this mess, including WMATA.
Do we know the insurance status of Metro? I would assume that they self-insure since the premiums for a policy that would cover a catostrophic train accident would be prohibitive (if such insurance could even be purchased).
Metro should (and likely will) offer immediate settlements to all of the "walking wounded" with the stipulation that they can never again bring a claim for their injuries. The death cases will likely end up in court or end with major settlements after cases have been filed.
The NTSB report doesn't help, but even without it, Metro is on the hook. Their trains, their tracks, their operators, their liability.
Should be active. From this this document, looks like the annual perineum is $8mil/ year.
Thaks for the link, that document states that "all policies have deductibles and coverage limits." It will be interesting to see who eventually pays and how much.
Well, I don't know anything about your fancy "anal perineum" insurance jargon, but WMATA is going to get sued for an assload of money.
I had forgotten, not sure if it was mentioned elsewhere, but my girlfriend remembered this from Overheard earlier in the month:
Creepy.
Can Metro just put all the substandard rail cars on the lines extending into Virginia? They're the only state that benefits from Metro service but can't figure out how to sustainably fund transit. (Of course there's a lot of blame to send downstate for that.)
The NTSB should not consider costs when making safety recommendations. Their job is to determine the cause of an accident and what could be done to prevent the same accident from happening again or being as severe.
Even if the older cars had been replaced, there could have been a fatal collision. We have no evidence at this point that a failure unique to the 1000-series cars was responsible for the crash or its severity. It is possible that the energy absorbed in the destruction of the older car mitigated damage in other cars.
NTSB will look at the cause of this crash and what factors contributed to injuries and fatalities. They will make recommendations that my include repeating their 2006 advice if it is relevant to this crash.
Responsibility for making the cost/benefit decision properly sits with the WMATA Board. Regardless of the NTSB's findings in yesterday's tragic crash, WMATA may decide that its decision to reject the NTSB's 2006 recommendations was ill-advised.
We all make decisions that puts others and ourselves in jeopardy. Pedestrians cross streets against the light. Bikers make rolling stops at stop signs. Drivers talk on their cell phones.
The problem here is the Metro Board tends to be an isolated group of people that do not routinely use MetroBus or MetroRail, so they know little of the operational details while they know budget and financing issues in great detail. Given this bias, it is not surprising they decided protection of a financial instrument was more important than protection of their passengers. Replacing the cars turned a potential but unlikely problem (serious accident) into a very real (budgetary and service) problem.
Have not seen this confirmed elsewhere, so perhaps take with a grain of salt considering the source....
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has confirmed that the Metro train car that slammed into another was 2 full months overdue for scheduled brake maintenance.
http://tcattorney.typepad.com/wrongfuldeath/
The Post has it on their website as well. Unbelieveable.