I don't here many saying it's not *possible* only that it is not practical and cost effective.

Sure, you want automated trains, we can do that, but remember that our rail road system is a patch work of private and public companies which runs on a regulation scheme that was largely fleshed out before the turn of the 20th century (over 100 years ago). Plus, the incentive for automation by the rail roads would be largely cost, unless the regulations are forcing them into it. The salaries of the engineer and conductor on a train are a pittance compared to the total operating costs of the train, so there is little incentive to automate. Just keep the human in the loop, it's cheaper in the short term. Rail Roads run on razor thin margins... So profit today is very important.

The reason we are having this "camera" discussion is more about political points than actually trying to help the system get safer. Cameras won't help anything, except the political fortunes of those suggesting them. The vast majority of fatal accidents involving trains will never be prevented by cameras OR automation because they have to do with vehicles being on the tracks at crossings when the train arrives. You might have great video of the accident, or get the breaks applied a few milliseconds sooner with automation, but neither will prevent people getting killed..

A light rail system is a whole different ball game from the common rail system. Sure, if you could build a whole new system that only had automated trains on it, automation would be easy because you could purpose build the automation systems into your infrastructure.

However, in this case, the problem is pretty complex and where I think it *could* be automated with sufficient effort and cost, I seriously doubt it's going to be cost effective. Railroads run on razor thin margins as it is, with huge equipment and infrastructure maintenance costs, so I don't think they want to fund this. Paying some guy to "drive" is not a huge cost overall, and if it lets them keep their existing infrastructure and limp along for now, that's what they will do.

SO.. Unless they mandate this by regulation, the railroads won't step up and do it on their own. It's not like the transition from steam to diesel where there was a huge gain in operating costs and efficiency and a huge drop in manpower needed. When it was real profit, they couldn't build locomotives fast enough.

Because the engineer's salary is a pittance compared to the automation costs and the liability risks of turning hundreds of tones of vehicle loos on the public roadways. Railroads have already gone to great lengths to reduce their labor costs already. They are already down to TWO persons on a freight train running from Point to Point, and I don't see them really gaining from removing another one.... Passenger trains will ALWAYS have at least some employees on them....

This isn't about passenger safety, it's about doing *something* that can get you political points. "See! Look, I supported the placemen of video cameras in ALL trains for the safety of all involved!" Never mind that video cameras don't really add all that much information about what the engineer actually did or why they did it, and in the vast majority of fatal accidents in which trains are involved would provide exactly ZERO help to investigators into the cause of an accident.

It would be better to have a video camera that recorded what the engineer sees than one that records what they do if you ask me. But I can tell you what the video will show in about 99% of fatal accidents... Vehicle is on the tracks and the train cannot stop in time to keep from hitting it. If you where looking at the engineer's actions it would be put the breaks full on an retard the throttle, and possibly turning on the sander, brace for impact.

But, but... Google can drive a car you know.....

Interesting but you forgot some stuff... Often trains travel without being able to stop within the distance the engineer can see, so putting all the above in some kind of complex system still doesn't prevent the most common accidents. There is no way you can keep some nutty driver from parking a bus full of people on the tracks or some crazy gravel truck trying to beat the train across the crossing.

People are acting like the automatic enforcement of speed limits is going to fix the main source of train accidents, and it's simply not. Yea, it might keep trains from coming off the tracks in a turn once and awhile, but this is a tiny fraction of accidents.

Yes, yes they do.

It means that the company that owns the wires that lead to my house (Oncore Electric delivery) is a different company than I buy my electric power from (TXU). I have the choice of retail electric providers, all of which pay Oncore for the use of the electric distribution network, but offer varying rate plans and terms.

I don't hear anybody suggesting that what we need is multiple pipes into my home, but competition for the service that comes over the pipes we already have. So, I suggesting that it's not a good idea to have the government *own* the infrastructure, but provide a regulatory framework where multiple providers can use the existing infrastructure while leaving it in private hands.

My druthers is for the government to stay the heck out of broadband infrastructure development, and discussing a regulation scheme where cooperatives similar to how we got telephone and electricity into rural areas if we really think we need to push broadband in the boonies.

As far as you know.... Unfortunately there are some (dare we say MOST) people out there which don't know enough to turn off such nonsense, not to mention ISP's (like Verizon) who actually open ports unbeknownst to the end user so they can remotely manage your router when you call them with a technical support issue...

We've had success with these types of infrastructure problems in the past using the cooperative approach. This was a regulatory thing and not direct government activity or take over to build and maintain this infrastructure. I suggest we stick with what's worked for Telecommunications and Electrification of rural areas in the past over the idea that local governments just do their own thing.

This approach keeps private investment and innovation flowing while providing incentives for the private sector and doesn't make local government the owner/manager of the infrastructure. It's also tried and true, we know how to historically make it work, idea that harks back to the 1930's.....

Like I've said in previous posts today... I'm willing to discuss regulations that make it possible for private industry to build out the infrastructure.... Just don't put government in the driver's seat...

Man, do YOU have the cart before the horse...

Of course I'm discussing the worst of the government, but I won't hesitate to make the blanket claim private companies are better at efficiency than just about ANY government effort. They have to be, or they won't survive very long. That's not to say there are not things that only the government can and should do, only that one must recognize that the use of government should be limited as much as possible.

You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that private enterprise is *always* bad, that they all pursue profits over ethical and moral concerns. This is not true. The vast majority of private companies are run by people with excellent ethical and moral standing, yet they make lots of money. Profit is NOT always made by taking unfair advantage of others. In fact, doing unethical and immoral things to one's customers is an excellent way of loosing said customers and ending up in jail (as you point out sometimes happens.)

No economic system is without it's problems, but letting the government take over parts of the economic systems of a country has historically been universally bad. Case in point? Venezuela perhaps? The government there has been slowing taking over all parts of the economy and the country has been in a rapid decline, despite HUGE amounts of income from oil. Other historical instances are Soviet Russia and related countries, where the people are still paying for being under total government control.

IMHO - I prefer capitalism's problems over the alternatives...

The "Verizon" problem was about link speeds... Verizon was asking for more money to provide a larger pipe into their network. It got worked out quickly...

How long does it take to build a road? I've lived in a house for 15 years and the local city has had plans since BEFORE I moved in to widen the main road though town from the two lane blacktop it had been for more than 40 years. Traffic was horrible, making it impossible to ever make a left turn out of my subdivision onto this road during daylight hours and had been that way since I moved in. Plans and money where around, but not until the last two years have we seen any progress.

I don't know about you, but waiting 15 years to get my Netflix fixed is not something I want to do.

Didn't I just say "in most cases" and you go try and claim I'm wrong by citing the cases where government IS the normally used solution? We didn't have the government take over Telcom, nor do we depend on it for Electric distribution and generation. Yes we highly regulate some industries, and perhaps internet service providers need better regulation, but we DON'T need to have a government take over of it.

So you want to let the government pick the winners and losers in the industry? Government has a horrible track record in this department and putting politicians in charge of yet another segment of the economy is only going to be asking for trouble. I see kickbacks, bribes and campaign money in the future if we do what you are suggesting.

Personally, I'd choose to avoid all this garbage, keep government smaller and cheaper and let the private sector take care of this. Now if you want to suggest REGULATION, I'm game for that, but not a government take over.