The test runs did not include PTC though. The entire point of requiring PTC is that railroads will not install it themselves because they don't think they need it.
My concern with saying trains should replace cars because they are safer is that trains don't do the same thing as cars and interstates do. Trains can't take me around town but cars are often used for that which skews the numbers. I would like to see the risk in micromorts [1] for travel from Seattle to Portland by car, plane and rail[2].
If I want to go to Portland from Seattle I have several choices. The top three from most to least likely for me are:
1) Drive my car down I-5.
2) Fly.
3) Take the train.
I suspect most people are in a similar situation and I think we can both agree that more people drive their cars to Portland than take the train in any given period of time.
I do not agree with your assumption that just putting more people on trains will magically save lives. Specifically I do not think that putting the people who drive to Portland on a train will necessarily save lives. This is for several reasons:
1) The existing trains do not carry anywhere near as many people as I-5 does so we must drastically increase the number of trains and possibly rails. This would drastically increase the chances of train on train collisions which are uncommon today (but still happen). There could be other issues here such as the availability of qualified operators.
2) Trains are much slower than driving or flying. The train to Portland takes 10.5 hours, by car it takes 3.5 and by plane is an hour in the air plus a couple hours to get to the airport and get through security so call it the same as driving. For trains to compete with this we would have to significantly increase speed which would increase danger.
I'm with you, I would love for there to be better rail options in the United States. I don't think we get there by just scaling up and ignoring the risks and problems. If rail companies can't safely operate their trains with the small amount of current utilization why would we expect it to get better (or even stay the same) with higher volumes? Changes must be made to a lot of aspects of railroads to increase ridership but safety is absolutely one of them.
e: From the linked study it looks like highway driving is one of the most dangerous forms of driving. My point stands that this is more complex than it looks and rail transit does not scale linearly.
My concern with saying trains should replace cars because they are safer is that trains don't do the same thing as cars and interstates do. Trains can't take me around town but cars are often used for that which skews the numbers. I would like to see the risk in micromorts [1] for travel from Seattle to Portland by car, plane and rail[2].
If I want to go to Portland from Seattle I have several choices. The top three from most to least likely for me are:
1) Drive my car down I-5.
2) Fly.
3) Take the train.
I suspect most people are in a similar situation and I think we can both agree that more people drive their cars to Portland than take the train in any given period of time.
I do not agree with your assumption that just putting more people on trains will magically save lives. Specifically I do not think that putting the people who drive to Portland on a train will necessarily save lives. This is for several reasons:
1) The existing trains do not carry anywhere near as many people as I-5 does so we must drastically increase the number of trains and possibly rails. This would drastically increase the chances of train on train collisions which are uncommon today (but still happen). There could be other issues here such as the availability of qualified operators.
2) Trains are much slower than driving or flying. The train to Portland takes 10.5 hours, by car it takes 3.5 and by plane is an hour in the air plus a couple hours to get to the airport and get through security so call it the same as driving. For trains to compete with this we would have to significantly increase speed which would increase danger.
I'm with you, I would love for there to be better rail options in the United States. I don't think we get there by just scaling up and ignoring the risks and problems. If rail companies can't safely operate their trains with the small amount of current utilization why would we expect it to get better (or even stay the same) with higher volumes? Changes must be made to a lot of aspects of railroads to increase ridership but safety is absolutely one of them.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort [2]: Note that 250 miles by car seems to include all forms of driving, not just driving on the freeway.
e: From the linked study it looks like highway driving is one of the most dangerous forms of driving. My point stands that this is more complex than it looks and rail transit does not scale linearly.