|
I’m no physicist and I’m not about to play one in the
newspaper. Still, maybe someone can explain to me why speed kills
in automobiles but not trains.
Union Pacific Railroad has announced it will juice the
maximum speed it runs trains through the city of Chico from the
current 45 mph to a blistering 70 mph next month.
This paper quoted Union Pacific spokesman Mike Furtney as
explaining “The evidence is showing that speed isn’t the issue … It
doesn’t matter what the speed is, if it’s 20 mph or 70 mph. People
still do stupid things.”
He apparently thinks people will believe stupid things
too. For road vehicles, study after study has shown that higher
speeds increase both the probability and severity of accidents.
Common sense tells you the same must be true for trains; given his
druthers, I suspect even Mr. Furtney would rather be smacked by a
locomotive going 20 mph than one traveling 70.
Sounds like the makings of a fifth grade math question,
but the new policy effectively eliminates speed limits for freight
trains passing through Chico since most don’t operate much faster
than that anyway. Union Pacific notes their trains can’t stop fast
enough to avoid collisions now, implying there is therefore no
reason not to just barrel through.
Try that reasoning next time you get pulled over for
speeding. “Well, officer, my brakes won’t really stop this buggy so
I figured I might as well just go for it.”
Butte County, and Chico in particular, seems to have
more than its share of train accidents. There’s no question many
involve shaky judgment on the part of the splattered; I’ll grant Mr. Furtney that some are just behaving stupidly. Statistics reported
by this paper show that in 13 of the14 trespassing-related railroad
accidents in the county since January 1999, the victims were either
walking, standing, or laying on the tracks. (Insert your favorite
Darwin joke here.)
However, logic suggests that when operating an
extraordinarily large vehicle near unpredictable pedestrians, with
limited braking power and absolutely no ability to swerve, it might
make sense to compensate by slowing down. That’s why cars reduce
speed for schools and crosswalks; I fail to see why trains shouldn’t
do the same for an entire city.
So why this death defying offense against reason?
Here’s my take: Union Pacific sees Chico as a small town in a
Podunk county with little clout. A search of
2002 and
2001 press releases on the company’s web site reveals they also
jacked speeds through Coolidge and Picacho in southern California;
Livonia, Erwinville, Oberlin, Port Allen, Maringouin, and Vinton,
Louisiana; Shakopee, Minnesota; Sedalia, Missouri; Central City,
Nebraska, and; Odessa and Weimar, Texas. Fine cities all, I’m sure,
but not exactly metropolitan powerhouses.
Chico City Manager Tom Lando says railroad and federal
officials told him the city has no sway in the decision and they’re
right. For example, local ordinances in Inola, Oklahoma once slowed
trains passing through that town to 35 mph.
According to a release by Frasier, Frasier & Hickman,
the Oklahoma law firm that handled related litigation, town
officials asked Union Pacific to make improvements at local
crossings in 1995. Instead, the company hiked the maximum speed to
60 mph.
As it did with Mr. Lando, the railroad cited their right
to do so under federal law. Just months after the limit was raised,
a 115-car Union Pacific train going at least 55 mph broadsided a car
at a crossing, killing three. The railroad settled out of court
with their heirs and agreed to pay half the cost of upgrading the
crossings.
Union Pacific may be legally entitled to blast through
town at warp speed but it is possible to be wrong in the name of
rights. Let’s hope a little corporate good citizenship prevails.
On Brentmorrison.com: Links to related news reports.
|
