Light Rail Is Deadly, So Give the Feds More Power

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published data verifying the Antiplanner’s conclusion that light rail is just about the most dangerous form of urban travel in America. Not necessarily dangerous to the riders; just to anyone who happens to be nearby. Of course, we always blame the accidents on the people who get hit.

So what is the FTA’s conclusion? That it needs more power to regulate transit safety. We heard the same thing after the Washington MetroRail crash that killed nine people: just give the FTA power to regulate transit safety.
Pills as such can be taken if online viagra pills the root cause of the problem. At the end of this process, it is going to be turbulent at some point of time. cheap generic sildenafil Choose a site where prices for cialis you can get only genuine products A safe and original medication helps to lead a successful ED treatment. There are levitra 20mg several factors that can cause impotency and so you need to be conscious about the several problems that can occur in your body.
That’s a pretty dumb idea considering it was the FTA that funded all those rail projects in the first place. Unlike subways, light rail sharing the right-of-way with cars and pedestrians is inherently dangerous, like putting a vicious dog in a room with nursery school children. Having someone monitor the dog is not going to help much if the dog is faster than the guard. A real solution to safer transit is to stop building light rail. Then no one would be needed to regulate it.

Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

47 Responses to Light Rail Is Deadly, So Give the Feds More Power

  1. the highwayman says:

    Trucks & cars are “inherently dangerous” to pedestrians, so would you like them outlawed?

  2. the highwayman says:

    Trucks & cars are “inherently dangerous”, so would you like them outlawed?

  3. Francis King says:

    Antiplanner wrote:

    “The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published data verifying the Antiplanner’s conclusion that light rail is just about the most dangerous form of urban travel in America. Not necessarily dangerous to the riders; just to anyone who happens to be nearby. Of course, we always blame the accidents on the people who get hit.”

    That’s an extraordinary conclusion to reach.

    Many of the collisions occur on light rail lines that are segregated from the roads. Vehicles on the roads jump the red lights, and are then hit. Solution – add barriers to crossing points. This is true of light rail and the BRT alternative. I notice that the bus category is not split down into bus (in lanes) and bus (BRT, segregated). This may give a very different perspective.

    At urban speeds (~20mph), light rail is much safer than buses, since light rail units have anti-crush guards and buses don’t. If you, as a pedestrian, get hit by a bus at only 5mph it will drive over you and crush you to death. Nice.

    As an example – in the UK, a lady was hit by a light rail unit. She started to cross the road, when the light rail units was almost upon her, on the basis that the light rail unit would naturally stop for her – it didn’t manage it. She then tried to sue the light rail company, unaware that the company had fitted video recording devices to their vehicles, and had recorded her dangerous behaviour. But, unlike with a bus, the anti-crush devices meant that she suffered a broken pelvis, instead of being killed.

    Light rail has many problems. Safety, as it happens, isn’t one of them.

    “Of course, we always blame the accidents on the people who get hit.”

    That’s a good place to start.

  4. JimKarlock says:

    Light rail has many problems. Safety, as it happens, isn’t one of them.
    JK: Actually, safety is VERY MUCH a light rail problem.
    Portland’s Poster child light rail, MAX kills people at over twice the rate of cars:

    Max death rate 1987-2006: 1.14 per 100 million miles
    Portland auto death rate: 0.46 per 100 million miles.

    See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/Transit/MAXSafetyChart.html

    This is pretty much that same as the national death rate.

    Note that this includes all deaths attributable to the mode, including suicides, drunks, etc.

    Occasionally some people try to claim that careless people should not be counted. But they are counted in the car rate and if LRT does kill more careless people than other modes, then we have a name for that: attractive nuisance.

    Thanks
    JK

  5. Frank says:

    JK, I also wonder about injury rates on the MAX. You know, like old folks falling and breaking hips. Any data for that?

  6. bennett says:

    I was wondering when the per mile or per passenger mile stuff would come out in this chain. The claim that “MAX kills people at over twice the rate of cars,” is interesting. We generally see about 40,000+ auto deaths per year. Light rail doesn’t even come close to that number.

  7. bennett says:

    http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_2007-09a.htm

    I’m sure the antiplanners out there will find many errors in the data in the provided link. Just want to show that there is data analysis that refutes every claim you have. Notice that the FTA is also the source of most of the data. Also notice that motor vehicles are the most dangerous per-passenger mile. Well, I’ll be!

  8. bennett says:

    p.s. that’s 40,000+ deaths per year in the US.

  9. bennett says:

    Frank said: “JK, I also wonder about injury rates on the MAX. You know, like old folks falling and breaking hips. Any data for that?”

    You mean the old people that can no longer drive and have limited transportation options. Yeah they probably get injured on light rail more because they don’t get behind the wheel anymore. I bet train operators get injured on trains more than bus drivers too. While we’re mining for useless date, I wonder what mode has the most “track” related accidents? Oh, I have many more. I wonder what mode has the most subterranean deaths, cars or trains?

    I suppose my point is that some will do everything in their power to use data in an irresponsible way. Cherry pick it, distort it and engage in research in an ethically suspect way. I don’t know these people personally but you have to wonder what agenda they are pushing. It’s defiantly not objective, but we’re all guilty of that..

  10. Mike says:

    bennett: “It’s defiantly not objective, but we’re all guilty of that..”

    Speak for yourself.

  11. Hugh Jardonn says:

    You can argue the practical and economic merits of LRT till the cows come home, but I don’t see how you can argue that light rail is bad because people are too stupid to get out of the way of trains. If “we always blame the accidents on the people who get hit,” that’s because they’re too stupid to see that big machine coming down the tracks.

    One complaint about LRT is that it’s “19th Century” technology. This means that it’s been around for more than a century. During that time, people should have learned to stay out of the way of trains. If they don’t get the message and die, well it cleans out the gene pool. Now what happened on DC Metro is different; it sounds like equipement failure.

    People need to stay out of the way of trains the same way they should stay out of the way of cars on major streets.

  12. Hugh Jardonn says:

    For your viewing pleasure, see “Metro’s greatest hits” with the “Kill the Wabbit” soundtrack:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV2rdGX4JYc

  13. ws says:

    Less than 20 people have been killed by MAX since 1986 (including suicides and traffic violators). Despite this, 4 high school students (from the metro area) died a few weeks ago in a horrific auto accident.

    Yep, sound the alert, MAX is downright dangerous.

    Motor vehicles are the #1 cause of death for teenagers ages 15-19: http://www.statisticstop10.com/Causes_of_Death_Older_Teens.html

    An accident on MAX generally is the fault of another person like a car running a red light. Yet, that accident goes against light rail, if I am not mistaken.

    How about this incident:

    “It doesn’t end there. Regular service between the Tualatin Valley and downtown Portland dragged to a halt in February when a drunk driver drove his car about halfway through the 3-mile Robertson Tunnel.

    Riders between the Sunset Transit Center and the library downtown were put on buses after Steven Stein, 54, of Vancouver was arrested on DUII charges.”

    http://www.oregonlive.com/news/argus/index.ssf?/base/news/122124001822460.xml&coll=6

    But hey, a drunk driver going into the tunnel (how is that possible??) is the fault of MAX light rail. We couldn’t possibly put blame on that poor ol’ intoxicated driver. That would be outrageous.

    Frank:“JK, I also wonder about injury rates on the MAX. You know, like old folks falling and breaking hips. Any data for that?”

    ws:What?? First, what a stupid question to ask, secondly, we can clearly see your motive here. Mass transit could cure cancer and you’d still be trying to put it down. Lastly, I see people in wheelchairs who are completely immobile otherwise w/o MAX or para transit service.

  14. Dan says:

    You can argue the practical and economic merits of LRT till the cows come home, but I don’t see how you can argue that light rail is bad because people are too stupid to get out of the way of trains. If “we always blame the accidents on the people who get hit,” that’s because they’re too stupid to see that big machine coming down the tracks.

    One must, quite often around here, move the goalposts to have any play. This hand-waving says a lot about many things: strength of rhetoric, quality of position, whacked-out level of quality of our transportation modes….

    DS

  15. Mike says:

    To be fair, accidents caused by people getting hit while crossing the tracks don’t really weigh against rail transit in principle. I mean, it’s not like those rails are moving around or anything. It’s fair to say that those people are on notice that the rails are there.

    There may be failed implementations of rail where poorly planned track crossings and curves create bad sight lines and suboptimal street interfaces, but those are shortcomings of a given implementation of rail, not of rail as a mode in and of itself. The Phoenix Metro Rail, one of the newest in service in the world, crosses many streets without incident, possibly owing in part to wise intersection design and a route that avoids the most congested intersections entirely.

    Of course, Phoenix Metro Rail won’t pay for itself until 2046 even if ridership stays at the unexpectedly high levels that have been seen so far, so as always there’s a cost involved.

  16. ws says:

    Here is what I mean about people not being careful – which happened just today. I do not know much about the case, but it seems the individual who was hit may be at fault (but I cannot be 100% positive of what actually happened, however):

    http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/max_train_strikes_man_on_holly.html

    Now, compare this to actual car accidents where a car crashing into another car is CLEARLY the fault of the car. Is this case the fault of light rail? Not from my vantage point.

  17. Borealis says:

    The Arizona Republic reports:

    Phoenix Metro’s light rail system appears to be more accident-prone than its peers. Between Jan. 1 and July 30, Metro had 35 crashes and ran 837,000 miles of service. That’s 41.8 crashes per million miles, nearly six times the average for light rail systems.

    You can watch some of the crashes at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWAbtkd3CMs

  18. Dan says:

    You want to compare apples to apples. That is – what are the rates in the first 3 years of existence of different LRs. The rates tend to drop off as distracted drivers get used to non-auto transport. You can’t compare a new LR to, say, BART.

    DS

  19. Francis King says:

    Hugh Jardonn wrote:

    “For your viewing pleasure, see “Metro’s greatest hits” with the “Kill the Wabbit” soundtrack:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV2rdGX4JYc

    That’s Wagner, not Wabbit!

    Neither light rail nor buses can stop quickly. Well, they both can in theory (light rail uses magnets to clamp itself to the rails), but it would chuck the passengers all over the place.

    The car drivers are not using their mirrors at all. I can only wonder what would happen if someone tried filtering through traffic on a motorbike. A lot of the collisions are also taking place at stop lines – are the cars jumping red lights? In one case, also, the lane marking is clearly ahead only, and yet the car turns left!

    Strange behaviour happens on all road networks. In the UK, a car driver pulled out on an articulated lorry, and his first words to the lorry driver (after the front of the car was sliced off) was – “Sorry mate, didn’t see you”.

  20. Mike says:

    Oh, our local Phoenix media reports accidents involving Metro Rail with relish, Borealis. You Googled for that Arizona Republic article just now; I read the Republic every day, so I’ve been seeing them in real time. So far, however, only two such collisions were reported to be indisputably the fault of transit: one faulty signal caused a train to “run a red” and hit a truck, while another involved an inattentive bus driver turning into a train’s path (and thus ends up tagged as a “transit-caused collision” even though the train itself wasn’t the malpositioned vehicle).

    Still, Metro Rail could have a perfect safety record and still wouldn’t be worth the cost, nor would it make it right to have expropriated that cost from taxpayers against their will. Public transit is not a legitimate function of government, as it does not protect individual rights. Transit is a function for the private sector. The point of this and my previous posts was to say that collisions involving rail transit are a red herring and misdirect from the true underlying issue.

  21. Francis King says:

    Antiplanner wrote:

    “Unlike subways, light rail sharing the right-of-way with cars and pedestrians is inherently dangerous, like putting a vicious dog in a room with nursery school children. ”

    Is Antiplanner – ‘light rail is too expensive’ – advocating subways, which cost a lot more???

  22. JimKarlock says:

    I am amazed by how many posters her do not understand what a rate is. Did these guys ever pay attention in school?

    Pay attention bennett, ws & Dan:
    If we just look at the number of deaths, we would conclude that mountain climbing is safer than walking city streets since fewer people die climbing mountains.

    To realistically present safety data (and a lot of other data) we need to adjust it for the number of exposures. That is deaths PER mile. Simple concept. Simple math. Too bad so many transit supporters have problems understanding this. Or pretend not to because the data is so bad for rail.

    There are a number of standard tricks people use to hide facts. One being combining several data items to hide an embarrassing one. That is what bennett’s lightrailnow refrence did. He tried to trick us by combining deaths with injuries, while this discussion is about deaths.

    Finally if everyone switched from cars to toy trains, we would see that 40,000+ number of deaths skyrocket to 80,000+ if the rate stayed pretty much the same. Before you criticize this projection, please look up the death rate from streetcars in their heyday

    Thanks
    JK

  23. ws says:

    JK:“To realistically present safety data (and a lot of other data) we need to adjust it for the number of exposures. That is deaths PER mile. Simple concept. Simple math. Too bad so many transit supporters have problems understanding this. Or pretend not to because the data is so bad for rail.”

    ws:We understand what rates are, Jim. Autos have an extraordinary large number of passenger miles / vehicle miles that it does not offer a valid comparison. For intensive purposes, autos are pretty darn safe in context that so many people use them as much as they do – but that does not mean that transit is dangerous, either. Spare us the hyperbole.

    Assuming passenger or vehicle miles dropped with today’s auto technology, I would surmise total vehicle fatalities would no doubt decrease, but ultimately vehicle fatality rates would increase.

    Some LR stats:

    LR 2005:

    15 Fatalities67 million vehicle miles22.4 / per 100 million VM

    LR 2006:

    11 Fatalities72 million vehicle miles15.3 / per 100 million VM

    For intensive purposes, 2005 to 2006 vehicle miles are not that far from each other, but just 4 fatalities made 2005’s stats an astounding 30% higher than 2006! Was LR 30% more dangerous in 2005 than 2006? I DON’T THINK SO!

    Also, hypothetically, if there was just 1 death in 2006 for LR, that would mean a fatality rate of 1.4 – about the rate for motor vehicle fatalities.

    JK:“There are a number of standard tricks people use to hide facts. One being combining several data items to hide an embarrassing one. That is what bennett’s lightrailnow refrence did. He tried to trick us by combining deaths with injuries, while this discussion is about deaths.”

    ws:Tricks…you mean assessing the actual safety of a mode of transportation by the above mentioned methodology?

    The title says deadly, bu ROT then goes on to talk about “safety” and “dangers” of transit to which goes beyond fatalities. I’d like you to argue that it’s not a big deal regarding safety if someone is a quadriplegic from an auto accident.

    JK:“Finally if everyone switched from cars to toy trains, we would see that 40,000+ number of deaths skyrocket to 80,000+ if the rate stayed pretty much the same. Before you criticize this projection, please look up the death rate from streetcars in their heyday”

    ws:Um, no, because:

    a) This assumes that rates of transit will stay the same but that’s impossible if there’s more miles traveled by those modes. Increase transit ridership with auto passenger or vehicle miles which are in the trillions and you will see an immediate reduction in these rates.

    b) Heavy rail is already safer than autos as far as fatality rates, accidents, and crashes per vehicle miles. So now we know you’re a huge liar already. http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2008/html/table_02_32.html

    My opinion of rates is that they are ineffective at assessing things when you’re comparing two categories that are very different from one another. In this case vehicle miles of cars and vehicle miles of light rail. One’s very high, and the other is very low.

    An instance regarding rates is growth of cities. New York only expanded 2.6% in population from 2000-2006. Big deal, right? Except that 2.6% meant more than 206,000+ people being added to the city’s population. Meanwhile, Phoenix, one of the nation’s fastest growing cities grew a staggering 14.5% from 2000-2006, yet *only* added 191,000+ people (which is a lot, don’t get me wrong).

    LIES DAMN LIES AND STATISTICS indeed.

  24. the highwayman says:

    Mike said: To be fair, accidents caused by people getting hit while crossing the tracks don’t really weigh against rail transit in principle. I mean, it’s not like those rails are moving around or anything. It’s fair to say that those people are on notice that the rails are there.

    THWM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ZU9AE-05I

  25. bennett says:

    Bennett said: Also notice that motor vehicles are the most dangerous per-passenger mile.

    Then,

    JK said: I am amazed by how many posters her do not understand what a rate is. Did these guys ever pay attention in school?

    What the hell? You get personal, make quips, but the fact is I sourced a friggin’ RATE! Do you know what a rate is? Obviously you do, you explained it quite well in your comment. And you can write, so I can only assume you can read. Why do you choose not to. Pay attention! Don’t be an a-hole!

  26. JimKarlock says:

    ws: We understand what rates are, Jim.
    JK: Then why did you try to pawn off total deaths as being meaningful?

    ws: Autos have an extraordinary large number of passenger miles / vehicle miles that it does not offer a valid comparison. For intensive purposes, autos are pretty darn safe in context that so many people use them as much as they do – but that does not mean that transit is dangerous, either. Spare us the hyperbole.
    JK: Just look at the numbers in that chart your refer to below:
    Bus: …….3.4/3.9 (2005/2006)
    LRT:…….22.4/15.3
    CR……….10.3/4.9
    What stands out as safest? bus
    How does LRT compare to bus? 660% / 390% higher death rate.

    Spare us YOUR hyperbole.

    BTW, one should really use passenger-miles not vehicle miles in such comparisons.

    ws: Assuming passenger or vehicle miles dropped with today’s auto technology, I would surmise total vehicle fatalities would no doubt decrease, but ultimately vehicle fatality rates would increase.
    JK: And I would surmise you are just speculating. Wrongly.

    ws:
    Some LR stats:
    LR 2005: 15 Fatalities67 million vehicle miles22.4 / per 100 million VM
    LR 2006: 11 Fatalities72 million vehicle miles15.3 / per 100 million VM

    For intensive purposes, 2005 to 2006 vehicle miles are not that far from each other, but just 4 fatalities made 2005’s stats an astounding 30% higher than 2006! Was LR 30% more dangerous in 2005 than 2006? I DON’T THINK SO!
    JK: Of course not, that is just noise in the data because there is so little LRT usage. That is why we average several years of data to get a larger sample (like I did at http://www.portlandfacts.com/Transit/MAXSafetyChart.html) . For someone who pretends to know what they are talking about, you sure get a lot of basics wrong.

    ws: JK:“There are a number of standard tricks people use to hide facts. One being combining several data items to hide an embarrassing one. That is what bennett’s lightrailnow refrence did. He tried to trick us by combining deaths with injuries, while this discussion is about deaths.”

    ws:Tricks…you mean assessing the actual safety of a mode of transportation by the above mentioned methodology?
    JK: Yeah, combining data to hide one you don’t want people to know about.

    ws: JK:“Finally if everyone switched from cars to toy trains, we would see that 40,000+ number of deaths skyrocket to 80,000+ if the rate stayed pretty much the same. Before you criticize this projection, please look up the death rate from streetcars in their heyday”

    ws:Um, no, because:

    a) This assumes that rates of transit will stay the same but that’s impossible if there’s more miles traveled by those modes. Increase transit ridership with auto passenger or vehicle miles which are in the trillions and you will see an immediate reduction in these rates.
    JK: You are guessing. You have no credibility here.

    ws: b) Heavy rail is already safer than autos as far as fatality rates, accidents, and crashes per vehicle miles. So now we know you’re a huge liar already. http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2008/html/table_02_32.html
    JK: My data shows about 0.6 per 100 million – how is that less than your 1.8?

    ws: My opinion of rates is that they are ineffective at assessing things when you’re comparing two categories that are very different from one another. In this case vehicle miles of cars and vehicle miles of light rail. One’s very high, and the other is very low.
    JK: That’s you opinion and it is probably wrong.

    Thanks
    JK

  27. the highwayman says:

    Mr. Karlock you remind me of Bible thumper.

  28. JimKarlock says:

    the highwayman said: Mr. Karlock you remind me of Bible thumper.
    JK: And you remind me of a paid transit industry/smart growth hack.

  29. ws says:

    JK:“Just look at the numbers in that chart your refer to below:”

    ws:You’re looking at the average section of the chart for transit total, not buses, btw.

    JK:“BTW, one should really use passenger-miles not vehicle miles in such comparisons.”

    ws:These are my stats for 2006 in pass miles:

    Highways (rates per billion passenger miles)

    Fatality: 8.643
    Injured Persons: 521.92
    Crashes: 1,210.66

    Transit (rates per billion passenger miles)

    Fatality:
    (Transit total: 2.32)
    -Motor bus: 3.33
    -LR: 5.89 <———————- I see lower than highway #…
    -Heavy Rail: 0.82
    -Commuter Rail: 1.35
    -Rail total: 1.37 <————- Total rail WAY lower than Highway Fatality

    Injured Persons:
    (Transit total: 154.6)
    -Motor bus: 314.9 <————- Motor bus has less deaths than LR, but WAY higher injured persons.
    -LR: 136.7
    -Heavy Rail: 6.4 <————- Compare injured persons to highways 521 IP / billion pass miles!
    -Commuter Rail: 9.7
    -Rail total: 16.6

    Calculations:

    LR: 11 deaths / 1,866 (million passenger miles) = 5.89 deaths per billion passenger miles

    Highways: 42,642 deaths / 4,933,689 (million passenger miles) = 8.64 deaths per billion passenger miles

    To make sure this is not “noise”:

    LR 2000-2006 (Average of the 7 years):

    Pass-miles avg: 1,529 (million passenger miles)
    Deaths avg: 14

    14/1,529 = 9.16 deaths per billion passenger miles

    Highways 2000-2006 Average of the 7 years):

    Pass-miles avg: 4,726,980 (million passenger miles)
    Deaths: 42,716

    42,716/4,726,980 = 9.04 deaths per billion passenger miles

    Highways and LR are hardly different in their fatality rates. Care for me to compare Injured Persons? How about heavy rail to highways? LR and rail is not any less safe than highways, in fact all forms of rail are SAFER than highways.

    STOP THE LIES.

    *Feel free for anyone to look over my stats, hopefully there are no errors, but there might be*

  30. JimKarlock says:

    ws:These are my stats for 2006 in pass miles:
    JK: I notice you did no give a source. Are these truly your made up stats per your statement “These are my stats”

  31. ws says:

    JK:“I notice you did no give a source. Are these truly your made up stats per your statement “These are my stats””

    ws: Good point. Data that was used below:

    Motor Vehicle Safety Data:

    http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2008/html/table_02_17.html

    Transit Safety:

    http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2008/html/table_02_32.html

    Passenger miles:

    http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2008/html/table_01_37.html

  32. ws says:

    7 year average Heavy rail:

    2000-2006: 98,784 total passenger miles (millions)
    2000-2006: 126 total deaths

    126 fatalities / 98,784 (million pass miles) = 0.0012755 ~ 1.275 Deaths / Billion passenger mile for Heavy Rail.

    —-

    Just a side note, my point in calculating the safety of of rail to highways is not to cast doubt into highways or make them feel unsafe or wrong – I drive plenty and I feel it is pretty darn safe. As one can clearly see, ROT and JK are wrongly casting rail as dangerous and unsafe, as noted by this hyperbolic blog title and ROT’s continued chicanery regarding the truth behind rail, transit, and highways.

    C’mon, a title of a publication that’s called “Great Rail Disasters”? Is anyone really fooled by this, other than the extremists? Really, I think this puts serious doubt into other publications that ROT has done. Is he really neutral to where we can take what he says for being true? Can he be trustworthy?

  33. JimKarlock says:

    WS:
    Transit (rates per billion passenger miles)
    Fatality:
    (Transit total: 2.32)
    -Motor bus: 3.33
    -LR: 5.89 <———————- I see lower than highway #…
    -Heavy Rail: 0.82
    -Commuter Rail: 1.35
    -Rail total: 1.37 <————- Total rail WAY lower than Highway Fatality
    JK: Better take a look at your:
    http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2008/html/table_02_17.html
    I see line under, “Rates per 100 million vehicle-miles”, titled “Fatalities”. It shows recent “motor vehicle” fatalities as about 1.5, (or 0.955 at 1.57 per car.)

    The large discrepancy between that published number and your calculated number should have been a clue to look closer to find the cause.

    But Wait! I did it for you!
    You made a little decimal point “error.”(see below)
    Using your number after correcting your decimal point “error”:

    Using that figure your littel chart becomes;
    Ws’ Chart Corrected:
    Transit (rates per billion passenger miles)
    Fatality:
    (Transit total: 2.32)<——— 2.6 times as deadly
    -Motor bus: 3.33<———— 3.7 times as deadly
    -LR: 5.89 <——————– 6.5 times as deadly.
    -Heavy Rail: 0.82<———– slightly safer, probably not statistically significant.
    -Commuter Rail: 1.35<—— 1.5 times as deadly
    -Rail total: 1.37 <————- 1.5 times as deadly as

    BTW,
    42,716/4,726,980e6 = 9.04 e-9 deaths per passenger mile
    9.04 e-9 deaths x e8 = 0.904 per billion passenger miles

    PLEASE STOP THE LIES.

    Thanks
    JK

  34. JimKarlock says:

    WS: As one can clearly see, ROT and JK are wrongly casting rail as dangerous and unsafe, as noted by this hyperbolic blog title and ROT’s continued chicanery regarding the truth behind rail, transit, and highways.
    JK: May I suggest that you be more sure of you numbers before making accusations? You look less foolish that way.

    WS: C’mon, a title of a publication that’s called “Great Rail Disasters”? Is anyone really fooled by this, other than the extremists?
    JK: In view of the real data it ought to be called “Rail – the great killing machine”

    WS: Really, I think this puts serious doubt into other publications that ROT has done. Is he really neutral to where we can take what he says for being true? Can he be trustworthy?
    JK: Time after time you have been shown wrong -any chance of you shutting your mouth until you learn a few things?

    Thanks
    JK

  35. JimKarlock says:

    Hey ws, Just a note to follow up:

    You have been reading garbage like lightrailnow and the sierra club that your head is filled with mis-information. Try to learn a little. Look at PortlandFacts.com and learn. It is really pretty good and quite accurate. Anytime you find something there that looks wrong – find out why. You will probably find that you have been lied to by the car haters. (But you may find an error or two that I missed.)

    Quit accepting the green idiots and profiteers’ lies as facts. (You do know that most of the green movement has been taken over by corporate interests, don’t you?)

    Thanks
    JK

  36. ws says:

    JK:“I see line under, “Rates per 100 million vehicle-miles”, titled “Fatalities”. It shows recent “motor vehicle” fatalities as about 1.5, (or 0.955 at 1.57 per car.)

    The large discrepancy between that published number and your calculated number should have been a clue to look closer to find the cause.”

    ws:That large discrepancy is due to different units. They’re using 100s of millions of VM. I used per billion mile. There’s 14 fatalities per billion miles for 2006, and 1.4 per 100 million (BTS website)

    JK:“BTW,
    42,716/4,726,980e6 = 9.04 e-9 deaths per passenger mile
    9.04 e-9 deaths x e8 = 0.904 per billion passenger miles”

    ws: I am going to have to disagree with your math. I for one will admit that I am prone to basic math errors, however, I feel your numbers are wrong.

    .904 is not fully converted to the billions. Let’s make this easier. Working backwards, your numbers do not pan out because .904 should means there is (.904) deaths for every billion passenger miles. There are 4,726 billions in 4.7~ trillion.

    So…

    .904 * 4,726 (billion) = 4,272 <—-That’s how many deaths your numbers show per year by cars. Way too low. There’s .904 deaths per 100 million passenger miles, however.

    Breaking it down another way. 42,716 deaths / 4,726 (billions of pass miles) = 9.04 (rounded and truncated version)

    Check the math backwards…9.04 deaths per billion miles…there’s 4,726 billion miles traveled by highways: 9.04 * 4,726 = 42,716.

    ROT ADC Great Rail Disasters:“Interstate freeways cause 3.9 deaths per billion passenger miles. Accidents on urban roads and streets in general lead to about 6.8 deaths per billion passenger miles.”

    Randall’s numbers are in the whole number range per billion passenger miles, close to my numbers, though I think he’s using only “motorized deaths” and I am using “motorized and non-motorized” deaths total. Is a pedestrian who gets hit from a drunk driver a motorized death? I think so. Is a bicyclist who goes down the wrong way and gets killed the fault of the motorist? I certainly don’t think so.

    The rate billions per pass mile was used to express data in whole number form.

  37. ws says:

    JK:“9.04 e-9 deaths x e8 = 0.904 per billion passenger miles”

    ws:I believe that is your error right there. It should be IMO:

    (42,716 / 4,726,980,000,000) = 0.00000000903664 * 1 Billion = 9.037…you need to convert to billion unit, not 100 millions which multiplying it by 100 million (e8) will do that…

    Can we get a neutral party to verify this math?

  38. prk166 says:

    I don’t get the point of comparing the two. They’re very different on how they operate. Cars are still operated by hundreds of millions of individuals constantly making decisions on their own. Trains on the other hand have fixed route and often have automated controls. For example, if a driver falls asleep at the wheel they can end up rolling the car. Or if they’re dozing off and run a red light, they’re likely to t-bone another car or take out a pedestrian. If a train engineer falls asleep though, the train won’t veer off course. In fact it may even stop on it’s own with many routes including equipment to automatically stop a train if it runs a red light. There aren’t a lot of trains running. A 100 trains a day would make for a busy double tracked line. A 100 cars in a day would make for an empty road. Trains are operated by professionals who do it for a living, who are getting paid to drive that sucker. Cars are operated by people who aren’t paid to do so, they’re just trying to get to work or grandma’s house. I don’t get the point of comparing accident rates between the two.

  39. Dan says:

    I don’t get the point of comparing accident rates between the two.

    Sure you do. Rail haydurz are thrashing about looking for play.

    Wait ’til we implement a libertarian pay-to-drive scheme to pay for roads and folk drive magically drive less. The accident rate on trains will…will…hmmm. Fewer cars for trains to run into at crossings…hmmm…

    DS

  40. ws says:

    prk166:“I don’t get the point of comparing the two.”

    ws:I only do because ROT and JK mislead about its actual safety. I really don’t know how light rail can be perceived as more dangerous when I actually see – according to my calcs – fatality rates lower than highway’s and I have yet to get a follow up from JK (or Antiplanner).

    2006 Highway Occupant fatality rate: 36,902 / 4,726,980,000,000 = 7.48 deaths per billion passenger miles.

  41. JimKarlock says:

    ws: I only do because ROT and JK mislead about its actual safety.
    JK: Please quit making unfounded accusations, you ignorant fool.

    ws: I really don’t know how light rail can be perceived as more dangerous when I actually see – according to my calcs – fatality rates lower than highway’s and I have yet to get a follow up from JK (or Antiplanner).
    JK: Two comments about YOUR calcs:
    1. Please use the standard deaths per 100 million, not billion.

    2. Please quit comparing apples and oranges. Transit buses & toy trains (light capacity rail) are urban not rural, so you must use urban road data. In the meanwhile quit making accusations about people’s integrity.

    ws: 2006 Highway Occupant fatality rate: 36,902 / 4,726,980,000,000 = 7.48 deaths per billion passenger miles.
    JK: Out of context. We were discussing urban rates and you come back with combined urban and rural.

    Thanks
    JK

  42. ws says:

    JK:“Please quit making unfounded accusations, you ignorant fool.”

    ws:I’m ignorant? You dedicated a few pages to saying how my math was incorrect and have not shown where I made an error.

    JK:“Two comments about YOUR calcs:

    1. Please use the standard deaths per 100 million, not billion.”

    ws:It doesn’t matter if you use millions or billions – they’re rates. I used billions because they created whole numbers which was easier to see. I also used billions because in Randall’s ADC paper linked at the top used billions as well. Maybe you should inform Randall not to use billions too.

    JK: “2. Please quit comparing apples and oranges. Transit buses & toy trains (light capacity rail) are urban not rural, so you must use urban road data.”

    ws: Sure thing:

    1,977,047 million urban vehicle miles * 1.64 national occupancy rate = 3,242,357,080,000 urban passenger miles. There were 18,309 deaths on urban roads in 2006.

    18,309 / 3,242,357,080,000 = .565 deaths per 100 million passenger miles or 5.65 deaths per billion passenger miles on urban roads.

    Remember, LR had about .589 deaths per 100 million passenger miles, or 5.89 deaths per billion passenger miles in 2006. Yeah, Light Rail is downright dangerous…NOT! I can and will calculate the last numbers from 2000, if you want.

    JK:Out of context. We were discussing urban rates and you come back with combined urban and rural…In the meanwhile quit making accusations about people’s integrity.

    ws:You’re really are trying hard to convince yourself that light rail (and mass transit) are dangerous, hu? I posited hypothetical questions about yours and ROT’s integrity – but I was not overly accusatory. I have no issue about questioning people’s integrity when they display misleading facts, half-truths, and downright untrue statements.

    LR is not “deadly” or “unsafe” by any measure of the word according to the statistics I have compiled.

    Source: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2008/html/table_02_18.html

  43. JimKarlock says:

    ws: Sure thing:
    1,977,047 million urban vehicle miles * 1.64 national occupancy rate = 3,242,357,080,000 urban passenger miles. There were 18,309 deaths on urban roads in 2006.

    18,309 / 3,242,357,080,000 = .565 deaths per 100 million passenger miles or 5.65 deaths per billion passenger miles on urban roads.

    Remember, LR had about .589 deaths per 100 million passenger miles, or 5.89 deaths per billion passenger miles in 2006.
    JK: Good job!! Picking 2006, one of the lowest kill years for toy trains.

    Lets look at 2005: 0.88 per 100 million (or 880 per 100 billion, just to get away from decimals) That is 157% the kill rate of your urban roads number. I guess we know why you didn’t choose 2000 (Kill rate: 1.622 which is 275% that of roads.)

    Or we could look at the last 7 years AVERAGE to smooth out the bumps: 0.90, 159% the kill rate of your urban roads number.

    ws: Sure thing:
    Yeah, Light Rail is downright dangerous…
    JK: You got that right!

    ws: Sure thing:
    I can and will calculate the last numbers from 2000, if you want.
    JK: Please do.

    Thanks
    JK

  44. ws says:

    7 year fatality rates 2000-2006:

    Urban Roads: .568 deaths per 100 million passenger miles

    All Roads: .904 deaths per 100 million passenger miles

    Light Rail: .916 deaths per 100 million passenger miles

    Urban Rail: .204 deaths per 100 million passenger miles (427 deaths / 177,193,000,000 total pass miles ’00-’06) * 100,000,000 = .2049 per 100 million pass miles … Urban rail = Light rail + Heavy Rail + Commuter Rail

    7 year injured persons 2000-2006:

    Urban Roads: 96.23 per 100 million passenger miles

    Light Rail: 17.13 per 100 million passenger miles

    Urban Rail: 2.40 per 100 million passenger miles

    Conclusion: LR has a higher fatality rate than urban roads, however, Urban rail fatality rate is lower than urban roads. For Injured persons, LR is much safer than urban roads with urban rail even more safe. Here’s the numbers though, one can make their own conclusions if they want.

    *Hopefully these numbers are correct, I did the calcs pretty quickly*

  45. JimKarlock says:

    ws: Conclusion: LR has a higher fatality rate than urban roads, …

    JK: Thank you.

  46. Scott says:

    Why LR?
    Look at pros & cons?
    Sure, “nicer” than bus, really? How so?
    All the pluses & misuses are illusory.
    Removal of lanes, that take more cars?
    And with continual traffic/light flow? Get it?
    (Messes up parallel car flow.)
    If it is grade-separated, good extra. Rarely happens. Still cost?

    Face it! all LRT is a loser, everywhere, in US.
    Please, provide contrary info.
    Too much capital cost.
    Buses could have more effective.
    Subsidy still.
    (Gas taxes can pay for roads, but officials are too scared to provide for “user-ness”, morality funding.)

    Is that a spin on you folks?
    No.
    Use highways–pay.
    Use transit–pay.

    The latter seems to be a problem & applied with a double standard

Leave a Reply