Can Air Travel Be Made Safe?

Well, this is easy – the answer is no, air travel cannot be perfectly safe.

Besides the unsustainable physics of defying gravity, no one can guarantee that any flight will be 100% safe from a hijacking or terrorist’s actions.

Some Perspective: Air Travel = the Least Used Transportation Mode in the US!

Here’s something to think about: of all the modes of travel in our great land, air travel is a tiny percentage of the overall modal split.

But when it comes to protecting trav-eling Americans from terrorist at-tacks, which mode is so much the focus of public discussion, media coverage, and gov-ernment spending?

Well, you know which one it is.

Every day, there are 4 people riding on the New York Subway for ever person on a flight over the US. Nationwide, rail passengers (transit, regional, and long distance) far outnumber air passengers.

Add auto passengers, and the percentage of travelers flying becomes microscopic!

Worldwide, cars and trucks are the terrorist's preferred modes of mass murder.

Given all this, all the talk and so much of the funding still goes to the air transport mode. Does it make sense as policy?

Back to the Question at Hand

Whether or not it makes sense to focus the majority of concern on the minority travel mode, the question at hand is what went wrong and what should we do.

With the recent thwarted attempt to blow up a passenger jet, it is clear that our security measures only go so far. So, is this a failure of the agencies that are supposed to protect us from terrorists? And do any of the new measure close the security gap?

Whose Failure Was It?

It’s too soon for a definitive answer, but the following is clear:

• the perpetrator was known as a potential threat, but was not on the “no fly” list. Still, they were planning to interview him when he arrived in Detroit based on information compiled. Just a little late on putting 2 + 2 together.
  
• instead of hiding the materials in a shoe or in a carry-on bag, he hid them in his clothing. Again, a terrorist is one step ahead of us. From what I see, Homeland Security is always adding measures to prevent the last attack (millions have taken off their shoes because of one attempted attack) but seems incapable of getting one step ahead of the terrorists.
  
• beginning with 9/11, there have been 6 incidents on individual planes now. The score is 3-3. What was common to the victories over the terrorists? Passengers and/or crew took action and thwarted the terrorists.
  

Will the New Measures Work?

To me, it seems the new measures are a knee-jerk reaction that is still one step behind the terrorists.

Why remain seated only during the last hour of the flight? Pam Am 103 was blown up over Lockerbie early in the flight. Will they force passengers to remain seated for entire flights?

What good are full-body scans? We know from prison security measures that even strip searches don’t reveal contraband when it’s hidden in body cavities. If the terrorist is going to die anyway, why not hide the bomb inside his body? That way you can fool the scanners, the dogs, and the air sprays.

Technology alone will not protect us, no matter how great it is. Think of this: Osama Bin Laden was a structural engineer; the Christmas day terrorist was an engineer. Americans, beginning with many in Homeland Security, are below average in their understanding of science and technology. The terrorists will win the battle, IF we depend only on technology.

Well, Then, What to Do?

Here my approach to a more effective policy regarding air travel security:

• Don't make unnecessary enemies with your foriegn policy! If no one hates you, then no one will want to kill you. Good idea in theory, but the world is complex and the influence of the US is worldwide, so it is virtually inevitable that somewhere someone hates the US. Nevertheless, why make unnecessary enemies with your foreign policy!
  
• Listen to the experts. No other nation surpasses Israel in its experience dealing with terrorists. Here's what their experts say:
  
  Lesson 1: Technology alone won’t work. (Didn't I just say that?) The terrorists have cleaver engineers and scientists that can figure out how to overcome our newest mousetrap.
  
  Lesson 2: Profiling and interviewing must complement technology. In short, it pays to ask travelers about their itinerary and purpose. And then ask them again. Pick out individuals by behavior, originating country, or by recently visited nations. We need some “Lie to Me” trained observers watching the video feed.
  
  
• Change how we travel. We depend too much on commercial flights that anyone can board. Responsibility is split in a perculiar way between government (security, traffic control, regulations) and the private sector (airlines). Someone has to say it: It's not working!
  
  What to do? I say don’t criticize the executives in the corporate jets. We need to shift more air travel to private, corporate and charter flights – smaller planes (lower kill count, less damage when crashed as a weapon) and harder for an outsider terrorist to fit in.
  
  
• Proven method: Focus on the only proven method of stopping terrorist in flight: on-board intervention. Have trained and armed marshals on all flights. Mix uniformed marshals with others in plain clothes.
  

FRA Reports: Freight Trains More Fuel-Efficient Than Trucks

A recently released study from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) concludes that railroads are truly more fuel-efficient than truck for freight shipment. As reported by Railway Age , the findings confirm what I’ve know for some time: the lower coefficient of friction of steel on steel translates into less fuel per ton-mile. Adding to the inherent advantage governed by the laws of physics, the FRA also noted technological advances in more fuel-efficient locomotives:

“While all types of transportation are vital to the distribution of goods across the country, this study shows that utilizing America’s freight rail system can lead to significant fuel savings,” said FRA Administrator Joseph Szabo (pictured at left). “The environmental benefits of these positive changes over the last two decades are enormous. We look forward to working with the freight rail industry to make sure these gains continue.”

The text of the final report (Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck Fuel Efficiency on Competitive Corridors, dated November 19, 2009 ) is even more impressive. Section 1.5 summarizes the main finding:

“For all movements, rail fuel efficiency is higher than truck fuel efficiency in terms of ton-miles per gallon. The ratio between rail and truck fuel efficiency indicates how much more fuel efficient rail is in comparison to trucks. As illustrated in Exhibit 1-1, rail fuel efficiency varies from 156 to 512 ton-miles per gallon, truck fuel efficiency ranges from 68 to 133 ton-miles per gallon, and rail truck fuel efficiency ratios range from 1.9 to 5.5."

Translating that to English, in case you didn't get the impact of it, means that rail is between twice and 5.5 times more fuel efficient!

With ongoing technological development in locomotive efficeincy, the scorecard for rail will only improve more. Already, there are the locomotive equivalent of the Prius. And even more emissions reductions for yard locomotives, to the point where there is even a working battery-powered yard engine prototype being tested.

Add the environmental advantage to rail to the econonomic advantage to the tax payer: every frieght car on privately-owned and maintained, tax-paying freight rail lines saves the equivalent of four trucks pounding the life out of highways and bridges that will be repaired and replaced at taxpayer expense. The economic benefit of rail is truely a two-for: reduces the cost of taxpayer-finances public infrastructure while adding revenue (thus, higher tax payments) for the freight railroads.

Road to Reform? The MassDOT is Coming! The MassDOT is Coming! (Part 1)

Coming in one week is a major reorganization of the state transportation agencies. Right now, Massachusetts has an alphabet soup of agencies loosely organized under the Secretary of Transportation and Public Works. The reorg will create MassDOT, somewhat resembling the normative state DOT (Department of Transportation) that most states have.

The stated reasons for the reorganization are many. There are fiscal considerations such as the savings of consolidating certain administrative functions and reforming retirement programs. There is the idea all state highways and bridges should be maintained and operated by a single agency instead of several. There is the idea of greater transparency, greater responsiveness. And the idea of consolidating transportation policy, decision-making, and funding into a single multi-modal vision.

While the fiscal considerations are the selling point for many, I want to focus on what this means for transportation in Massachusetts.

• Will this end the chronic underfunding of the MBTA?
  
• Will this do anything with the backlog of structurally and functionally deficient bridges?
  
• Who will plow the DCR parkways and bridges this year?
  
• Where is that bus that should have come 15 min. ago?
  

I’ll get to a number of these issues over the course of a series of posts on this topic. But first, my number one argument for creating a DOT.

Argument No. 1 for a DOT
Witness how the taxpayer looses out when there’s an uncoordinated gaggle of transportation agencies each with their narrow vision and objectives. My example takes place along the MBTA Lowell Line, where the proposed Green Line Extension is planned. I’ve been working on projects in this corridor over the last 18 years. For all that time, the MBTA anticipated the Green Line extension and we had even done a preliminary alignment for that extension so that when we designed drainage improvements in 1991, we would design to accommodate the future Green Line.

All the while, MHD (Massachusetts Highway Department) had its consultants designing replacement bridges for the local streets that spanned the MBTA rail corridor. Now MHD could save a lot of money on the new bridges by spanning as narrow a corridor as possible. Shorter bridges are less expensive. So, rather than consider the future Green Line, MHD would rather just design a new bridge to span only the active tracks.

Keep in mind that the Commonwealth had made a commitment to extend the Green Line as mitigation for the Big Dig. And to build the Green Line, the bridges needed to be long enough to span not just the 2 or 3 active tracks, but at least 4 tracks to accommodate the addition of the extension. Nevertheless, over the last 10 years, MHD still built 3 new bridges that are not long enough to accommodate the Green Line Extension.

So, this is clearly a case where a narrowed-focused agency was not making decisions in concert with the state’s commitment for another agency. With such parochial thinking, it is the Commonwealth and ultimately the taxpayers who are the losers.

So, my hope is that a single DOT will ensure that all transportation divisions (bridges, roads, transit, aviation) will be on the same page as far as state commitments and coordination with other proposed projects. Capital and operating expenditures need to be considered in the context of the planning and objectives of the entire state transportation system.

Some Clear Advantages
Theoretically, a single DOT should result in a better approach to policy, funding, and planning:

• A single consistent transportation policy
• An intermodal approach to transportation planning
• Better funding of all modes (particularly the chronically underfunded transit systems and parkways)

My example above illustrates the need for the first two advantages. Let me expound a little on something I’ll call “cross-modal” funding.

Cross-Modal Funding
On the funding side, there should be more opportunities to achieve equity in funding the various modes. In particular, gas tax revenues could more readily fund more that just highways as it typically has in the past. This approach could help out the chronically underfunded MBTA.

But to understand this approach, there needs to be an understanding of how this will benefit the Commonwealth. This starts with understanding that adequate funding for transit and rail will also benefit the state roadway system. As people shift from single-occupancy vehicles (SOVs) to transit, it frees up roadway capacity, improving highway operations and reducing the wear and tear on roads and bridges. This also should reduce the need to spend funds to increase roadway capacity.

The same is true with freight. Every freight car represents 4 less trucks taking up roadway capacity and pounding the life out of taxpayer funded bridges. Shifting freight, particularly to the privately owned freight lines, off loads the tax burden of repairing and replacing public roads and bridges while providing added revenue to tax-paying freight railroads.

Furthermore, transit and rail use of less real estate than highways to carry the same number of people per hour or tons of freight per hour.

In summary, a shifting of funding to provide reliable passenger transit and encourage freight rail use will provide benefits in terms of lessening the burden of taxpayer-funded maintenance, repair, replacement, and capacity improvements on the state’s public roads and bridges.

More to Come
More discussion will follow in subsequent posts.

High Line Park: A Most Unusual Rail-to-Trail Project

The High Line Park opened this week on the west side of Manhattan. This is probably the most unusual and unique rail-to-trial conversion in the US.

Why? Perhaps because it’s located 30 feet above the city streets. Perhaps because it’s a rail line that few knew it was there. Perhaps because it may be the only rail-to-trail linear park entirely on an elevated steel viaduct.

Also, it is a new approach to the creation of a linear park. The linear park, pioneered by Fredrick Law Olmsted with Boston’s Emerald Necklace, is typically characterized by one or modes of transportation facilities weaving through a long park corridor. High Line Park weaves a pedestrian esplanade with park landscaping within the linear corridor of this Westside viaduct.

High Line Park was one the New York Central Railroad’s West Side fright line, high above 10th Avenue in Manhattan. It was built in the 1930s to replace the street-running tracks that served the Hudson River piers and other industrial customers. The railroad used men on horseback, nicknamed “cowboys,” to guide the trains through the city streets.

The elevated line brought two improvements:
1. It removed the conflicts of running freight trains through busy city streets
2. It was electrified and eliminated the use of steam engines



The elevated line served many west-side customers for years. But with the dawn of interstate highways and the shifting of freight from trains to trucks, the line feel into disuse in the 1970s and abandonment in the 1980s. Interestingly, the out-of-service line remained in the ownership of Conrail and was even transferred to CSX in the Conrail breakup.


As with most unneeded and abandoned structures, the High Line was scheduled for demolition. However, others had another vision. What some saw as an eyesore, others saw as a most unique and interesting “place.” It is above and away from the bustle of the sidewalks and streets. It provides a unique view of the city. And it is an opportunity to provide new open space without demolishing any buildings to create it.

The Friends of the High Line and others advocated for the vision of a park for years. Finally, it has become a reality, as the first segment opens.

For more information about the park, the history of the High Line, and great photographs and videos, visit the Friends of the High Line at the website: http://www.thehighline.org/ .

How to Safely Control Trains on the Green Line

Following the recent MBTA Green Line crash at Government Center, and with another similar crash in recent history on the Riverside Line, a number of people have asked “Can it have been prevented?” In other words, could a more modern type of signals and train control have made it impossible for one train to crash into another?

Right now there are signals in the subway and out on the Riverside Line. But, unlike other lines, there is no “enforcement” of the signals. On the other subway lines and on major rail lines (like Amtrak’s Northeaster Corridor), a train that passes a red light will automatically have its breaks come on.

There is no such system for the Green Line. But would a signal system with “enforcement” work on the Green Line?

The short answer is that such a train control systems could be used, but I don’t think it would work on the Green Line. Such a system would keep the trains further apart. With trains running 90 seconds apart, they would back up and the Green Line wouldn’t handle the approximately 240,000 people a day that use it.

Train Control Systems - A Brief Overview
What most people know about tranit signals are the red-yellow-green lights in the subway. The indications are similar to traffic signals for motor vehicles.

In addition to the signals themselves, train control often has a component of “enforcement.” The simplest feature is the trip stop – a little arm next to the track that is up when the signal is red. The arm sets off the train brake, preventing it from going through the red signal.

In more complex systems, the signal system can interact with the train controls. Sometimes called “civil enforcement” a train control system will not only stop the train before it goes through a red signal, but also will slow it down if it’s going over the speed limit. [Can you imagine that in automobiles? You’re on the MassPike going the limit of 65. You want pass a car, and speed up to 70, but the “enforcement” comes on and slows you back to 65!]

This “civil enforcement” is used on most of the Red and Orange Lines and on high-speed lines, like Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor.

The Green Line has on “civil enforcement” and that is part of the question: should it be used on the Green Line.

Train Control on the Green Line Today
In general, the MBTA Green Line employs 3 types of train control:

1. Automatic Wayside Block Signals: These are the red-yellow-green signals along the side of the tracks.

2. Line of Sight: This is used for street reservations (like the median of Commonwealth Avenue, Beacon Street, or Huntington Avenue) and for street running (e.g., Huntington Avenue and South Huntington Avenue outbound of Brigham Circle.

3. Traffic Signals: Where there are traffic signals at intersections where the Green Line runs in a street reservation or in the street, these traffic signals also govern the operation of the trains.

Automatic Wayside Block Signals
The red-yellow-green automatic wayside block signals are used on the Lechmere Viaduct, Central Subway and on the Highland Branch (Riverside Line, D Branch). This system employs a three-aspect (red, yellow and green), two-block system. Wayside signals will display red if the track circuit immediately beyond the signal is occupied. Signals will display yellow if the next signal in the direction of operation displays red and the intervening track circuit is unoccupied. Signals will display green if the next signal in the direction of operation displays yellow or green and the intervening track circuit is unoccupied (i.e. a minimum of two signal blocks ahead are clear).

Line of Sight and Traffic Signals
When the Green Line runs in the street (like South Huntington Ave.) or in a street reservation (like Commonwealth Avenue), there is no signal system. Rather, operations are be governed by what is called “operator line of sight.” This is no different from anyone driving a car.

Just like driving, there are a series of rules that the operator must follow. And, like driving a car, safety is highly dependent on the operator’s judgments and actions. The operator must obey the traffic signals and also maintain a safe separation from the train in front of them.

What Works and Doesn't Work for the Green Line?

The Green Line is the most heavily used light rail system in the nation. With over 240,000 daily riders, it's four branches converge in the Central Subway, where trains run an average of 90 seconds apart at rush hour. Any regular rider of the Green Line knows how close the trains operate. Often as one train leaves a station, the next one is entering.

Also, the trains tend to bunch up, something know as "platooning." When my firm was working on the light rail accessibility study, we modeled the Central Subway. Even when we started the model with every train running right on time, the model showed that give it an hour or so and the trains will bunched up!

This bunching means that trains may be running at about 45-second headways while bunched, and a few minutes between the bunches. In other words, there is a statistical distribution and the 90-second headway is only the statistical average.

Why is this important? Because, a signal system with train control would not support headways as little as 45 seconds in the Central Subway. Such as system looks at the breaking distance, the distance it takes a train to stop. The system ensures that the train will stop before it can possibly hit the train in front of it. This would keep the Green Line trains further apart. It would reduce the number of trains that can pass through the subway in an hour.

On the other hand, such as system might work on the Riverside Line where speeds are higher and trains run about 5 min. apart at rush hour. Likewise it might be applicable to the new extension to Medford. But the MBTA is studying this, and we should await the study results to see if it would work.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I agree that safety may need to be improved in the wake of recent accidents. However, a train control system does not appear feasible for the subway, due to the tight headways that are needed to get all the trains through on time. It may be applicable for the Riverside Line and the new extension to Medford. But in any case, we should await the results of the ongoing MBTA study of how best to safely control trains on the Green Line.

Speed Isn’t What It Used To Be

When we think of “high speed” and “rapid” we may think of something really fast, maybe like a rocket.

But when our Federal government defines these terms, it isn’t all that it should be.

High Speed Rail (HSR)
Take “high speed” rail, for an example. Now, when I think of that term, I’m thinking the Bullet Train in Japan or the TGV in France. Speeds over 150 mph up to 200 mph, and maybe faster.

Is that what our Federal government is thinking? Not quite. While our President declares “Make no little plans,” the legislation is designed to lower expectations. “High speed rail” is 110 mph, a full 40 mph below the top speed of Amtrak’s Acela.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
BRT is supposed to be a blending of buses and rapid transit. So, it should be as fast as rail rapid transit (like a subway), but cheaper to build with buses and simple pavement replacing more costly and complex rails, power and signals systems.

In theory, the buses would run on a separate busway or a highway HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lane, therefore traveling “rapidly” (say, 40 to 60 mph) between stations.

Let’s contrast theory and practice.

In Boston, the Silver Line is considered BRT. There’s the Washington Street Silver Line, where the bus has a bus lane and some advantages (pre-emption) at the frequent traffic lights. So, maybe between stops and red lights, the bus may get up to about 25 to 30 mph. But when you add in time waiting for lights, the speed averages maybe 15 or 20 mph. What’s so rapid about that? Many in Roxbury and the South End know we’re not talking travel times equivalent to the long-gone elevated Orange Line on Washington Street.

Then there’s the Silver Line from South Station to Logan Airport and City Point in South Boston. Part is in a subway tunnel, not unlike the four rail transit lines (Green, Red, Orange and Blue). Now the Red Line travels at up to 50 mph in the subway. Even the Green Line can hit 30 mph or more in the subway. So what about that BRT? The Silver Line tunnel opened with a posted speed limit of 10 mph. Even at 15 or 20 mph, is that what you’d call “rapid.”

Ashmont-Mattapan High Speed Line
Another local speed misnomer is the least know segment of Boston’s rail transit system – the trolley line between Ashmont and Mattapan. When it opened on August 29, 1929, it was truly “high speed.” A typical trolley line ran in city streets, which was fairly slow going. The “High Speed” line was built along a partially abandoned rail line, avoiding city streets, and reaching “high speeds” up to 30 mph.

Today, the line still runs, with streetcars approaching 70 years old, still reaching speeds approaching 30 mph. But to many, it’s still known as the High Speed Line.

Conclusion
Speed certainly isn't what it used to be!

Focus on Your Driving!

Stories recently in the news:

• MBTA drive crashes while texting
  
• Women dies when hit by driver painting her nails
  
• Passengers killed when commuter rail engineer crashes train while on cell phone
  
• Man gets in accident driving while eating cereal with milk
  

These are all recent tales of driving while distracted. The common sense lesson is simple! No matter what mode of transportation: Focus on your driving!