Last week, Andrew asked why the Antiplanner hadn’t commented on the federal shutdown of dozens of “Chinatown bus” companies, and the simple answer is that I hadn’t heard about it until then. Although my friends at the American Bus Association, whose members do not include the Chinatown bus companies, are happy about the shutdown, I am not so certain it is a good thing.
If the same criteria used to shut down the Chinatown buses were applied to the Washington Metrorail, Boston T, or Chicago Transit Authority, these systems would be shut down as well. At the moment, the federal government doesn’t have the authority to shut down urban transit systems for safety reasons, but Congress is considering giving it that authority. Can you see the FTA shutting down a major transit system just because it has deferred maintenance for years and its system is deteriorating faster than it can keep it up? I can’t. Somehow I think pressure from Greyhound, Megabus, and other larger carriers have as much to do with the Chinatown shutdowns than safety issues.
However, user do not need to grab this opportunities because the medicines are licensed and safe for the health. cialis for sale cheap A browsing of a playboy center page where photos of levitra online undressed beautiful ladies nevertheless may possibly generate stimulation and sexual thoughts. A viagra super active man with ED condition is seen to easily reaching and maintaining penile erection irrespective of his age. Drugs like cheap cialis pamelaannschoolofdance.com and Kamagra have certainly been the blessing to patients suffering from ED but regular exercises, lifestyle changes and changes in diet can also help in their over-all grooming.
Meanwhile, out in California, Governor Brown wants to exempt high-speed rail from the same laws that environmentalists use to stop highway construction (contradicting a May 15 promise from the chair of the high-speed rail authority that it would never ask for such exemptions). Fortunately, not all California environmentalists support high-speed rail, and those that don’t are pretty bent out of shape by Brown’s proposal.
To the Antiplanner, both of these are just two more examples of the liberal view of government, which is that liberals support new laws and regulations that they don’t think will affect them but want to exempt themselves, and their favorite projects, from similar laws and rules. Somehow, I doubt Mayor Bloomberg ever orders a 32-ounce soda at a movie theater.
To the Antiplanner, both of these are just two more examples of the liberal view of government, which is that liberals support new laws and regulations that they don’t think will affect them but want to exempt themselves
This is a corollary to the other liberal viewpoint, that of (selective) free speech. To elaborate, free speech is OK with liberals only as long as your speech agrees with their speech.
If the same criteria used to shut down the Chinatown buses were applied to the Washington Metrorail, Boston T, or Chicago Transit Authority, these systems would be shut down as well
I honestly know little about the Chinatown buses, and especially, their record of injuries and fatalities. However, how does this record compare to the above-noted transit systems?
Great Post.
However, I would say it is simply “human” to want to exempt yourself from the requirements (laws/regulations) you place on others. I have to always check myself: “Do I really believe in free speach for my enemies?”
My thoughts exactly. Mr. O’Toole and metrosucks (or planners and liberal bureaucrats for that matter), don’t seem to realize that most of these criticisms apply universally across ideological lines, we just like to think that “our group” is better. Can you really state with a straight face that the conservative view point in America is less two-faced than a liberal one? (Antiplanner: who happens to love many centrally planed aspects of America).
Bill Moyers had a great show on this topic which I encourage everybody to watch (link below). You conservatives will love it as it paints you in a slightly more glowing light than you ideological foes. But alas, we all fall into these traps.
http://billmoyers.com/episode/how-do-conservatives-and-liberals-see-the-world/
Most people do understand it happens on both side and it needs to end.
We all know that power corrupts, no matter what side of the isle you sit on.
So why are you diverting from the subject?
We have the “China town” bus co. that the customers seem to like and it is being closed down to protect who?
“We have the “China town†bus co. that the customers seem to like and it is being closed down to protect who?”
The feds will say the passengers. But Mr. O’Toole is correct, it’s to protect Greyhound, Megabus, Bolt bus, and Coach. These companies hire drivers trained to proficiency on bus safety and they also hire drivers with valid CDL’s. They purchase the correct type of insurance according to federal standards. The preform preventative maintenance and keep their buses in “safe” condition as detailed by federal regs. These are all things the Chinatown buses are accused of NOT doing. The jury is still out, but enough infractions have already been found to legally justify a shut down of operations.
Also, one reason that the feds don’t have the authority to shutdown many transit agencies is that most agencies do not have interstate service. Because of this, the type of insurance they get is different and it’s regulated by the states. For large urban bus systems no federal dollars can be spent on operations, usually meaning that the locals are taxed to fund the service. For these reasons the power to intervene in service is delegated to state and local governments, and has been used on occasion.
Also, public transit agencies with safety issues get shut down all the time (usually smaller operations). Safety issues are usually only the tip of the iceberg however as the real reason for demise is financial insolvency or corruption. My guess is that this is where the Chinatown case is headed.
My point being, liberals are usually screaming about “hate speech”, “racism”, or other stuff like that concerning their opponents, but I have rarely seen conservatives do this. I am sure both sides would love for the other to be restricted in speech, but I have yet to see conservatives mount a concerted effort to do so, the way many liberals have. That’s my honest opinion and I’m not trying to inflame anyone by saying it.
My point being that our psychology helps us ignore the fact that “our side,” (or in this case your side) does it ALL THE TIME!
And the fact that you “have rarely seen conservatives do this,” proves my point nicely considering the evidence (see: Dixie Chicks, William Cronan, Ward Chruchill, Frank Zappa, Ice T, I could go on, and on, and on, and on…).
Conservatives are constantly trying to silence the liberal provocateurs, and vice-verse. In fact I would argue the conservative outrage machine is much more effective at silencing liberal mouth pieces (but this is coming from my liberal group think world, where you guys are just awful 😉 ).
Agreed bennett, I suppose I jumped the gun a little there, and I apologize.
The federal government doesn’t even have the authority to shut down the Washington Metro? I find that rather strange. Than who does the city government. How many accidents with casualties has Metro had since 2000 that should warrant the closure of stations or lines.
As I understand it, no entity can force the Washington Metrorail system to shut-down (even for safety reasons), except possibly the Board of Directors of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.
Antiplanner,
One of the dirty things about politics is that there never really is equal application or treatment under the law.
That aside, the Federal jackboots moved in to shutdown the Chinatown bus companies, presumably on the regulatory authority that they were protecting the public. While they were doing this, they were ignoring the fact that prospective passengers now have an application available where they can assess the safety record of a bus company for themselves before they buy a ticket and make the trip.
This whole episode reeks of paternalistic government. It is a mindset that says, “We have to have a regulatory state to protect the public because, quite frankly, people are just too stupid to make the right decisions themselves, and they must be saved from the consequences of bad decisions.”
This isn’t even an issue of caveat emptor, because the rule of caveat emptor applies to everything in life and not just allegedly unsafe transportation.
So where do we draw the line. Should vehicles have to have inspections and insurance? Should you have to have a license to drive a bus?
These are all accusations applicable to this case.
How does that nifty app account for:
“Safety officials have long complained that their attempts to put unsafe bus operators out of business are frequently thwarted by “reincarnated carriers” that simply reopen for business under a different name or in a different location, or that transfer their buses to an affiliated company that shares similar ownership. Buses belonging to such rogue companies are known in the industry as “ghost” buses because they are frequently painted white with relatively little decoration to make it easier to repaint them with a new company name.”
from the article link in Mr. O’Toole’s post.
Bennett, the previous link you sent me was rather vague about the actual damages from these practices (I guess not surprising, considering it read like a government press release). Any idea of real incidents like deaths and injuries? Not trying to downplay the serious of the problem, but just want some numbers to consider. Thanks!
What I know at this point is word of mouth through people involved in the industry. Other than the details of fatalities and accidents, which are outlined in the links of Mr. O’Tool’s posts today, I can only be vague as well.
They accusations are that drivers are not drug-tested, trained or do not have CDL’s. That the carriers violate the regs re: how much time a driver can spend behind the wheel (we know that one accident involving a fatality was a result of a driver falling asleep at the wheel). That the carriers were using vehicles that were not properly inspected or insured. That vehicles are not being properly maintained.
So the jury is still out but the case has been made for ceasing operations. In the near future these companies will either be proven guilty or vindicated. My guess, seeing that their fares were so much lower than other private carriers, is that they were cutting corners in all of these areas, but I can’t say this with absolute certainty. My assumption is that this is not some big government nanny state witch hunt, and that federal regulators are acting based on evidence.
Thanks.
They accusations are that drivers are not drug-tested, trained or do not have CDL’s. That the carriers violate the regs re: how much time a driver can spend behind the wheel
I think that’s unacceptable. It’s not like Greyhound or Megabus is $500 for a ticket, after all, and chinatown buses are the only affordable alternative. The pricing here is coming at the cost of safety.
My assumption is that this is not some big government nanny state witch hunt, and that federal regulators are acting based on evidence.
Agreed. Why would regulators arbitrarily choose to ground an entire fleet of vehicles, or worse yet, do so because of prodding from competitors? I doubt the private bus industry has some sort of powerful lobbying group to achieve such aims.
This whole episode reeks of paternalistic government. It is a mindset that says, “We have to have a regulatory state to protect the public because, quite frankly, people are just too stupid to make the right decisions themselves, and they must be saved from the consequences of bad decisions.â€
I vigorously disagree.
For starters, the states (in some states the state DOT, other states the State Police, still others the Highway Patrol) do a pretty good job of enforcing state and federal laws regarding commercial vehicles – as they apply to freight-hauling trucks, including legal limits on gross weights, axle loadings, tandem axle loadings, length, width and height. Usually the same enforcement personnel also enforce the regulations regarding safety equipment (tires, brakes, lights horn and so forth) and drivers (including hours-of-service). But if a violation is found (even a serious violation that places a vehicle or driver out-of-service), the truck can usually be parked at the place of inspection (often at weigh/inspection stations), until problems can be corrected or the driver rests back to compliance.
With some exceptions (such as a weigh/inspection station on New Jersey’s Garden State Parkway on the way to Atlantic City, which was designed to handle bus inspections and stranded passengers) this does not work for buses (in particular those buses with passengers aboard) because there is usually no place to accommodate the needs (water, rest room, drink) of 30 or 40 passengers.
So the FMCSA has to take a different approach with bus companies, and I don’t believe they are interested in discriminating against “Chinatown” buses in particular – with one legally important exception – in the United States, drivers of commercial vehicles (including buses) are supposed to be able to communicate in the English language. I don’t know where these drivers get their Commercial Drivers Licenses, but I have repeatedly seen “Chinatown” bus drivers who cannot speak English. That’s an “out of service” violation, and it is quite common among these buses.
At least some of this has grown out of a fatal Chinatown bus wreck in June 2011, on I-95 in Caroline County, Virginia. The driver was fatigued, and was ordered by his bosses to drive from North Carolina to New York City in spite of that, and ran his bus off the road in the early hours of the morning, killing four people.
After the crash, the owners of the company tried to resume operation under a different name (after having been shut-down by FMCSA), though this illegal scheme was discovered and thwarted.
“If the same criteria used to shut down the Chinatown buses were applied to the Washington Metrorail, Boston T, or Chicago Transit Authority, these systems would be shut down as well.”
This is assuming that maintenance backlogs and accidents are the only criteria being used in this investigation. If public transit agencies were letting unlicensed individuals whom were never drug tested operate their vehicles, which have improper inspections and insurance, they’d be shut down too (maybe not by the feds, but by state gov).
But I think what your getting at is a fair point. One death caused by a maintenance backlog is one too many. If transit agencies do not have the funds to do preventative and routine maintenance on their facilities and equipment in order to meet reasonably safe standards they should 1. find some money, or 2. discontinue the service until safety standards can be met. You’ll get no argument from me.
Thanks Randall.
I’m not sure why CTA and MBTA are being lumped in with WMATA.
I agree that WMATA’s safety record is so appalling at this point that something drastic needs to be done with its management and authority. Especially considering that it serves our capital and is thus under direct authority of congress, inaction is inexcusible.
I heard an interesting viewpoint on Bloomberg’s proposed soda ban. The hypothesis is that it has little to do with public health (of course not), and much more to do with additional revenue collection. Since larger sodas tend to cost proportionately less per unit of volume, forcing the consumption of a larger number of smaller sodas in order to reach the desired level of consumption will increase the amount of taxable sales, and hence raise more revenue for the city.
Maybe MJ. But the public health community has known for many years that sugar-sweetened drinks are a major contributor to increase in caloric intake and thus obesity. And we know that our society and constant advertisements overwhelm the strong, Galtian self-reliance and self-discipline to avoid eating bad food.
You can graph the manufacture of HCFC over BMI, the lines are very close. Combine the empty calorie increase with the reduction in caloric output (movement), and fat people everywhere is unsurprising. And the industrial ag industry keeps this going. Harper’s wrote about this years ago*.
When I lived in Europe the locals would always try and guess what country the tourists were from, except for America. That was easy – the fat ones.
Nevertheless, IMHO the correct response is a fat tax. People can choose to pay extra for those calories.
DS
* http://harpers.org/archive/2000/03/0063534
If you graph the “eat local food movement” and obesity you get a great correlation. If you graph the “Food Network” viewers and obesity you get a great correlation. If you graph mp3s and obesity you great a great correlation.
Funny how NYC didn’t ban large alcoholic beverages — now that would REALLY cut into the tax revenue.
Bloomberg banned soda and bake sales at public schools. Banned transfats in all restaraunts. Then his Health department went after salt. But the rules don’t apply to him having added salt to nearly everything he eats. The New York Times took pictures of him eating all kinds of stuff. Amazing how Mayor Bloomberg was so photogenic when he was pictured and videoed eating Chili dogs, Pizza, salted pretzels, Fried Chicken. It’s time for Atlas to Shrug, I mean McDonalds to shrug. Assume I was the CEO of McDonalds; If New York is gonna tell me what I cant sell, I’ll shut down all the McDonalds restaraunts in the State. The State will lose millions in the sugar and soda tax and more in the income tax of all the people getting layed off. Then Wendy’s and BK, KFC and Checkers and Arby’s do the same thing. Once New York loses enough money they’ll come around again. They’ll be like “OK you can have your big drinks, hell hook it to an IV for all I care”. Keep in mind a tall glass of soda may have 200 calories, a same sized glass of Tropicana Orange Juice has nearly 170 calories. Look at the nutrition label. Excess weight can be problematic but it’s not a crisis and it’s mostly an excuse for government to pass legislation. Most of this is aimed at poor people. A San Franciscan McDonald’s is a cheap place to get a meal, however the typical plate dinner in SF costs around 40 dollars. Some people like to eat at McDonalds others dont. I love a good box of nuggets every now and then. But if that’s the way the discussion turns, it’s really about the certainty and effects of socialized medicine. As a teetotaler I’m no expert on alcohol, what do they spend the tax money on.
The MAJOR reason you don’t hear about major ferry sinkings and hundreds of deaths at a time in the U.S., Europe and a few other advanced countries like Japan or Australia is the very strict enforcement of safety regulations. Having worked for the Vallejo to San Francisco “Vallejo Baylink” ferry system for 15+ years (1990-2005), my direct experience is that the U.S. Coast Guard is very strict–almost draconian–in its enforcement of commercial vessel safety regulations.
The last time there was a ferry sinking with fatalities in the U.S. (a tour boat on a Missouri lake) was when the operator was way out of compliance with USCG regulations.
Also working with local transit for 20+ years, I can report that the California Highway Patrol is also quite strict in its enforcement of vehicle safety requirements, whether private commercial trucks, private commuter and charter buses, school buses and local transit buses. Being out of CHP compliance carries quite stiff fines and in the most egregious cases, criminal charges. We’ve had some spectacular bus crashes in California, in ALL cases where operators were out of compliance with state and federal safety regulations.
I suppose the Feds sidelining so-called “Chinatown buses” on the East Coast may be partially a result of lax state enforcement?
I suppose the Feds sidelining so-called “Chinatown buses†on the East Coast may be partially a result of lax state enforcement?
No. See my response to Neal, above.
I think most people agree that the government has a legitimate role in setting safety standards for transportation of the public. The Coast Guard and FAA have very high standards, but I think that is appropriate for our society. It is probable even good for business, especially for US air carriers.
I think the crackdown on the bus companies is probably both good government and protectionism. It is important to make them live up to a safety standard, even one far more than minimal, but the enforcement should be across the board.
The intercity bus industry has grown so fast that enforcement was probably inevitable. The cheap fare companies need to be brought in line and compete at a fair level. But the enforcement was probably pushed by their competitors. Better that than a major accident.
Agreed. I’ve seen mixed feelings here (surprisingly), but my opinion is that saving a little (or even a lot) on your fare simply isn’t worth the risk of death of serious injury. And companies have an obligation to operate in a safe manner. We can probably all agree that even if the Chinatown buses had a disclaimer that said “you may be injured or killed, ride at your own risk”, that would not obviate their responsibility in a court of law.
They don’t just have an obligation to operate in a safe manner, they are required by federal law to do so.
“I think most people agree”
Appeal to the majority.
“has a legitimate role”
How about a constitutional role? Arguable.
“in setting safety standards for transportation of the public”
How many people died on the private buses in question? Here’s a stat on public school buses for you, and this doesn’t even include those who have died on government transit buses: In 2002, 26 children ages 14 and under were killed, and in 2001 an estimated 4,500 were injured, in school bus-related incidents. So. Government is again a big effin hypocrite.
“It is probable even good for business”
Bare assertion fallacy.
“The cheap fare companies need to be brought in line and compete at a fair level.”
Who are you, or anyone else, to say what a “fair level” is? “Brought in line” = government force.
“good government”
Oxymoron.
“Better that than a major accident.”
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. You don’t think the bus is safe, then don’t effing ride it, but don’t you dare to presume to keep me or other poor people from doing so at our own risk. Again, you and/or other put their kids on far riskier government buses daily.
Tripe, tripe, tripe.
Ummm. Did you read, like, the first two words or my post? Doesn’t that make your whole post just a tad over the top? Or are you the expert on what I think? I think not.
I am mostly a libertarian, but I seriously doubt even a small minority of people want to self-assess whether a bus is death trap. There is a middle ground, though you don’t even admit to a middle ground, but a middle ground in America is pretty darn safe.
This is all well in good, still if Chinatown buses were so inherently dangerous, would not the customers abandon them? Apparently not. A 1977-1978 lecture series given by Milton Friedman, in which he is questioned by a student about free market principles and the Ford Pinto. The Ford Pinto, which was sold from 1971 to 1980, was a subcompact which, because of its design, had a gasoline tank that would explode during rear-end collisions. Ford in an internal memo estimated that the problem could be fixed through a $13 fix, but as this would amount to spending more than $200,000 per estimated life saved, this would be too much. About 1,000 Ford Pinto drivers were unfortunate victims of rear-end explosions.
The student said this was morally wrong. Friedman said it is not a question of morality, but of economic calculation. No human life is of infinite value, he said; you wouldn’t spend $1 billion to save a human life, because it would soak up resources needed to preserve other human lives. So the only question, according to Friedman, is whether Ford weighed costs and benefits correctly. He did not express an opinion on whether it did. Economic factors often do set a limit on what is feasible to do. I would assume that Chinatown buses are the principal provider of transportation services for otherwise very poor people who couldn’t afford to travel using other means.
Et tu, metrosucks? I’m really sad to see a self-proclaimed Austrian indulging in statist protectionism.
Well Frank, you have good points, but that being said, this isn’t “exactly” what I’d term “protectionism”, though I’d love to hear your argument regarding that. The larger bus companies are already complying with the safety requirements, after all, and I doubt that most are arbitrary designations designed mainly to squelch competition. Which of the requirements do you believe are arbitrary? Which could be shelved? Also, there is a point at which cheap enough is cheap enough. The major companies are already there, and it’s ridiculous to cut pricing further at the expense of safety, the government bus problems you cited aside. I think what I’m trying to say is that merely since the public bus system causes injuries and fatalities, doesn’t make it OK for a chinatown bus (or any other private bus) to occasionally break a patron’s leg.
I would certainly consider myself a Austrian School fan, but regarding our current regulatory environment, where people expect a certain level of regulated safety, it’s hardly appropriate to hand every bus patron a “buyer beware” slip.
As Sandy said, “I am mostly a libertarian, but I seriously doubt even a small minority of people want to self-assess whether a bus is death trap. There is a middle ground, though you don’t even admit to a middle ground, but a middle ground in America is pretty darn safe.”
I am certainly more of a “mostly” libertarian rather than a hard core, “let’s demolish the state tomorrow and let the strongest survive!” fellow.
Then you’re not a “libertarian” you’re an anarchist, though be honest about it.
Tell me the government has a leg to stand on regulating safety when incidents like these are common place:
An inside look: Carmel bus crash
4 hurt in school bus crash near Orange Cove
Driver to be charged in school bus crash
32 students hurt after bus rear-ends other bus outside St. Francis Xavier Catholic High School
Bus driver fired after kicking 2nd grader off bus, driving off
School bus hits parked car
School bus slams into packed minivan on I-94, killing one
Or try this Google search.
‘Nuff said.
Frank, from your series of posts here, we must conclude you’re an ideologically-blinkered idiot who has his Austrian Economics arse firmly in the air and his head rammed into the sand.
In the U.S. airline industry, the typical annual death toll is zero, primarily the result of hard-nosed FAA safety standards–and the fact that the media diligently reports any safety shortcomings of the U.S. airline industry that pop up. I speculate that one reason for the relative success of FAA safety efforts is a political result of the fact that the “1%” fly VERY FREQUENTLY and simply don’t tolerate unsafe conditions.
School buses suffer from several big problems.
(1) There are thousands of school bus operators versus a few dozen airlines, which means that the “law of averages” results in sub-par performance from the 0 to 10th percentile of operators.
(2) School bus safety regulation is in the hands of at least 50 different states, and possibly in some cases local police or sheriffs departments in the more backward states (anybody know if this is the case?)
(3) These days, schools are too often underfunded, and school bus programs often suffer from elderly vehicles and skimpy maintenance.
(4) Compared to transit buses, most school buses are literally “cracker boxes on wheels”, e.g., body on truck frames rather than unibody designs, typical of “real” transit buses (as opposed to “cutaways” (but I digress). Unibody designs hold up much better than “body on frame” in collisions, as any competent vehicle designer will tell you.
(5) Despite all the problems with school buses, they still are safer than if all the kids took cars to school, except perhaps in those districts with the oldest, least safe vehicles.
I wouldn’t term it quite the way you did, msetty, since we are all ideologically blinded at times, but I do, in fact, in these instances, agree with the government-mandated, rigorous safety regime of agencies like the FAA, Coast Guard, and others. Good points on buses though, makes sense to me.
Frank’s comments are on the borderline of accusing those who disagree with him of being morally deficient; ideological screeds such as his are increasingly tiresome.
If people like Frank want to argue about various ways of enforcing safety, including market incentives, I’m willing to listen. There are enough things to worry about in daily life than having to figure out myself if the bus company or train I want to ride is safe; it is much more efficient for everyone overall–and for the economy–that travelers can have a very high level of confidence that outfits like the USCG, FAA, California Highway Patrol, etc. are properly doing their job.
In fact, this is one area where I will NEVER compromise with short-sighted “objectivists”, “Austrian economists” and others of such ilk. Compromising on this topic leads directly to people being unnecessarily being killed and injured.
I have to say that while I almost always disagree with Frank, find many of his comments cold and void of virtue and compassion, and find his humor both offensive and unfunny, I appreciate him ramping up the conversation.
The online community Mr. O’Toole has created is creative in dancing around the bigger picture by miring ourselves in data and details (and a pathological obsession with trains). Rarely do we ever make it to a substantive debate about communitarianism v. libertarianism, or pragmatism v. objectivism. At least we avoid the bigger discussion until Frank comes in and drop the proverbial bomb.
I believe that Mr. O’Toole is, above all else, a culture warrior trying to disguise himself as an objective researcher. I would personally like to get down to the nitty gritty with this community, but we’re holding ourselves back (everybody but Frank).
bennett wrote:
I believe that Mr. O’Toole is, above all else, a culture warrior trying to disguise himself as an objective researcher. I would personally like to get down to the nitty gritty with this community, but we’re holding ourselves back (everybody but Frank).
Do you know Mr. O’Toole? Personally? I do – not as well as some other posters here, but well enough to respect him and his work.
As a self-identified liberal Democrat, I don’t always agree with him, but I think he plays it straight, and I must strongly disagree with the words “culture warrior” above.
No you are not CPZ, you want economic protectionism for roads and a gun pointed at rail lines.
Highman, I’d suggest you point the gun at your own head, but you don’t have any brains to blow out. You really need to take he four-year-old clue and $tfU.
To my libertarian fellow commenters:
Most people agree with you that government is way too intrusive. But they primarily mean stupid activities like licensing coffin makers, requiring a year of training to cut hair or being an interior designer, etc.
A vast majority of people feel strongly that government should have a role in setting safety standards for common carriers. Sure there are stupid individual regulations, but the confidence in a safe transport is good for business and good for the public.
The US air transport system is ridiculously safe and ridiculously cheap. Never before in human history have people had confidence they could travel thousands of miles safely, much less in just a few hours and for the cost of a day or week’s work. That is an amazing achievement.
Perhaps the government could regulate the inter-city bus industry by requiring proper insurance, and then let the insurance companies enforce standards on the industry. After all, one serious bus accident with dozens seriously injured could cost tens of millions of dollars in damages. The insurance companies would certainly require CDL drivers and maintenance standards.
The US air transport system is ridiculously safe and ridiculously cheap. Never before in human history have people had confidence they could travel thousands of miles safely, much less in just a few hours and for the cost of a day or week’s work.
But read this Slate article by Matthew Yglesias for different opinion: Passenger Aviation in the United States: 40 Years of Failure
Good comment, CPZ. But I should note that is about financial success rather than safety or consumer benefit.
Most people don’t distinguish between airlines except for price. The exception may be Southwest Airlines, which is notorious for its lack of seating reservation and unwillingness to pay reservation fees to internet sites.
But as CPZ’s link shows, what is the only profitable airline? Southwest.
Oh, and what airline has the best safety record? Southwest.
Good comment, CPZ.
Thank you.
But I should note that is about financial success rather than safety or consumer benefit.
Agreed.
Most people don’t distinguish between airlines except for price. The exception may be Southwest Airlines, which is notorious for its lack of seating reservation and unwillingness to pay reservation fees to internet sites.
Also correct.
But as CPZ’s link shows, what is the only profitable airline? Southwest.
Though the “Southwest” model probably does not translate that well to intercity bus service. I suppose Megabus comes the closest.
I agree with you CPZ. Southwest Airlines does not necessarily translate to intercity buses.
I think the lesson to learn from Southwest is their safety record. They only use one model of airplane, the Boeing 737. So all their pilots and all their mechanics know that airplane inside and out.
It hurts their business because that plane can’t do overseas or coast-to-coast flights. But the specialization reduces their costs and makes them very safe.
I am not saying it is the perfect business model, but it has one heck of a track record.
Sandy Teal, I agree with everything you wrote above about Southwest.
To think that this private-sector success story can be attributed to the administration of President Jimmy Carter. Not Reagan. Not Nixon. Carter.
As an aside, your comments above apply equally, I think, to the “European” Southwest, Ryan Air.
The Antiplanner wrote:
If the same criteria used to shut down the Chinatown buses were applied to the Washington Metrorail, Boston T, or Chicago Transit Authority, these systems would be shut down as well. At the moment, the federal government doesn’t have the authority to shut down urban transit systems for safety reasons, but Congress is considering giving it that authority. Can you see the FTA shutting down a major transit system just because it has deferred maintenance for years and its system is deteriorating faster than it can keep it up? I can’t. Somehow I think pressure from Greyhound, Megabus, and other larger carriers have as much to do with the Chinatown shutdowns than safety issues.
I understand your point, and I also happen to agree with you that it seems unfair (and probably an oversight by Congress) that there is no federal agency that can shut-down an urban transit system in the way that USDOT’s the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) can shut-down a bus carrier for safety reasons.
In a perfect world, such power should be available to the USDOT’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). I would prefer FRA, only because the FRA is largely a regulatory agency now, and unlike the FTA, does not promote rail transit.
But Congressional failure to provide such authority to the USDOT’s modal administrations which regulate urban transit does not, in any way, relieve over-the-road bus operators, be they “Chinatown” buses, Megabus, Greyhound (or Greyhound’s Bold subsidiary) from running safe operations.
Some might be interested to know that what is now the FMCSA was once part of the Federal Highway Administration, but was split off to a separate, stand-alone entity (still within USDOT) by a Republican Congress.
Washington Post editorial on this subject: Cracking down on shady curbside buses
Well, at least I haven’t called anyone names, unlike some of the commenters above, who refuse to address my main points or who compare apples (airlines) and oranges (buses).
Here it is again: If government is so much better at protecting its citizens than private companies, why do the same amount of people die on public school buses as do on “China Town” buses? If government is so much better at protecting its citizens than private companies, why are children being raped on government buses? If government is so much better at protecting its citizens than private companies, why do drivers abandon second graders in unfamiliar neighborhoods? If government is so much better at protecting its citizens than private companies, why are school bus fatalities .2 per HUNDRED MILLION passenger miles while intercity buses are .3 per BILLION passenger miles?
I’ve heard a lot of excuses, and there’s the perennial “lack-of-funding” ballyhoo. These are indictments of government, not valid reasons why government is more effective at protecting its citizens than private companies.
When a customer dies, companies suffer the financial consequences, but when government kills citizens or allows them to be raped, there is no lasting consequence; private companies go bankrupt. Government monopolies don’t.
Frank:
Please provide back-up for the source and derivation of the statistics you cite. 1 death per 500 million PM on school buses would be one student being killed in an accident every few days or a week. This seems unlikely given a paucity of deaths in the news.
OTOH, 1 death per 3 billion PM on intercity buses seems improbable given the PM and ridership of the major companies versus known deaths in accidents. Passenger miles per year of Greyhound is 5-6 billion on 20+ million passengers. Ridership on Megabus and Peter Pan is 4 million per year each. Chinatown operators in the northeast had much less than this in PM and ridership, but plenty of deaths. See the article I just posted concerning an accident with 15 fatalities.
You can use Google to find statistics just as I did.
No Frank.
That is a source, but it says nothing of the methodology or what is going into the numbers, which sound highly bogus.
Give it a rest Andrew. Use Google. Find the stat. Bunk the stat if you can. Otherwise, to use a Danism, stop your hand-waving.
Frank wrote:
Give it a rest Andrew. Use Google. Find the stat. Bunk the stat if you can. Otherwise, to use a Danism, stop your hand-waving.
I don’t see him taking your advice.
You can use Google to find statistics just as I did.
Since Aristotle and Plato, the rules of discourse – and esp. formalized rules of rhetoric – have been that the person making the claim provide the evidence, especially when asked.
That’s how it works.
DS
On February 26, 2007, Dan said: “I’m too lazy to search and link to them, but there have been several articles …”
On June 13th, 2007, Dan said: “I bill at $45/hr for research services.”
And when on a mobile device, I’m also too lazy. Anyone can search Google for school bus fatalities per passenger mile and find the source in the VERY FIRST RESULT.
You can tell me how things work, Dan, face-to-face when I see you in Portland. Until then, please don’t engage me unless I was talking to you, boy.
You can tell me how things work, Dan, face-to-face when I see you in Portland. Until then, please don’t engage me unless I was talking to you, boy.
Lad, you are cherry-picking and dissembling.
You can try to flap your hands, but you were asked for evidence directly. If you want to attempt to show equivalence, you can show equivalence by quoting.
Otherwise, your argument is invalid.
HTH.
DS
I was not cherry picking, but reviewing the first site that came up on that search, I believe they forgot to correct a second typo; I don’t think it was supposed to be per 100,000,000 passenger miles, not 100,000 as other sites list .02 per 100mpm.
Frank,
you are failing to establish an equivalence with your cherry-picked quotes. It is a false equivalence.
The quote-mining does not establish an equivalence to your failing to meet a burden of proof (established well over two millenia ago, and has been the standard of civil discourse for over a hundred generations). Well over a hundred generations. Not close. Nope. Not even close.
It is at minimum mendacious to pretend the quotes above show I refuse to meet my burden of proof, therefore it is OK for you to purposely fail to meet your burden of proof.
Especially the “billing” quote mine** which was an occurence of burden of proof that was clearly met. Toooootal failure to cast character in a bad light. Complete failure to mischaracterize.
Step up that game, son. Nope.
DS
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=163
Though O’Toole, you promote double standards all the time.
You want communism for roads, but cut throat capitalism for railroads!
Give it a rest, moron.
Frank are so ignorant that you can’t even see the road in front of your house?
Though Frank I know you’re not stupid, like O’Toole, Cox, & CPZ.
You’re just criminally minded.
Again: Give it a rest, moron.
the highwayman [sic] wrote:
Though Frank I know you’re not stupid, like O’Toole, Cox, & CPZ.
Why thank you! I appreciate being mentioned among people who I like and respect.
No problem CPZ, you’re all sleazy scum bags.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2018359203_apustourbusaccident.html
Typical Chinatown Bus operational accident leading to these closures.
“The five-member board, in a unanimous vote, said the driver, Ophadell Williams, had almost no sleep in the three days leading up to the March 12, 2011, accident except for naps he took on the bus while passengers were inside a Connecticut casino gambling.
“The bus was traveling at 78 miles per hour in a 50 mph zone of Interstate 95 while returning to New York’s Chinatown when it ran off the road, clattered along a highway guard rail, toppled over and crashed into the support pole for a highway sign. The pole knifed through the bus front to back along the window line, peeling the roof off all the way to the back tires. Besides those killed, 17 other passengers were injured, some severely.”
Typical Chinatown Bus operational accident leading to these closures.
Please tell us why this fatal crash was “typical?”
Indeed. It’s an aberration. But since it’s private, the statists will cherry pick it to wrangle more red tape from our bureaucratic masters on the Potomac. But mention the deadliest road accident in US history, the Yuba City bus disaster, and they’ll cry foul. Ironic that the worst bus crash in US history (in terms of lost life) was a GOVERNMENT-owned and GOVERNMENT-operated bus.
A surviving student stated that the bus was going too fast.
Sound familiar?
I remember that wreck (from news media reports) at the time. School bus transportation, be it on buses owned by the government (in particular the school district, at least in the state (Maryland) where I live) or private-sector contractors (some districts use their own buses, most contract with private firms, and a few use both) is a very safe mode of transportation, perhaps (in part) because the buses usually run the very same route every day, and do not usually go on long-distance trips (onto unfamiliar roads).
N.Y. Times article on the I-95/New England Thruway wreck in Bronx County, N.Y.: Driver Fatigue and Speed Caused Fatal Bus Crash, Investigators Say
NTSB press releases regarding the I-95 bus crash in Bronx County, N.Y:
Human Fatigue and Speed Cited by NTSB as Probable Cause of Motorcoach Crash that Killed 15 in New York City
Animation Simulations of New York City Motorcoach Crash Available in Broadcast Quality
From the News and Observer, Raleigh, North Carolina:
Federal sweep shuts down 3 North Carolina bus lines
Three North Carolina-based passenger bus companies were shut down Wednesday in what federal officials called the nation’s largest crackdown ever of unsafe bus operators.
In addition to bus companies in Rocky Mount and Greensboro, New York-based companies with routes to Charlotte were among 26 companies ordered out-of-service by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The federal sweep was the culmination of a yearlong investigation, spurred in part by a deadly crash involving Charlotte-based bus company Sky Express.