Green Line not safe?
By adamg - Fri, 05/30/2008 - 7:45am.
Herald: Critics blast T for missed 'warnings'.
The Outraged Liberal fumes:
Sadly, it has taken a death for the MBTA -- and the rest of the world for that matter -- to take a look at the Green Line. And what we are seeing should give real pause to the idea of expanding its reach. ...
Arborway happened to photograph Green Line car 3667, one of the cars destroyed in the Newton crash, at Reservoir last summer.
| 
| 
No love for the orange line?
Oh, Herald.
Oh please
The system has problems - so that means that we should deprive an entire underserved area of transit until we manage to fix the system and make it perfect for the already privileged.
I'm sure that exact line of thinking has been a big part of the 61 year delay.
Thats a yes!
We sure you damn hippie! Go back to Cambridge and look down your nose at people from your mini cooper!
A Stretch
The Green Line has problems, but most of them have to do with not enough speed.
This is a mighty large overreaction, IMHO. How's about we wait for the findings of the NTSB before we start calling for scrapping expansion plans?
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
The Full of Shit Liberal
"The outraged liberal" is more like "The Full of shit Liberal".
The track where the collision happened (and leading up to it) is STRAIGHT, and when a train is stopped letting people on/off, the rear lights blink. Which means all this bullshit TFoSL has been spouting about training, signals, speed, etc is pretty hollow.
I love the talk about "complicated vehicles". In case TFoSL hadn't noticed, the controls consist of "stop, go, open doors, close doors" with some extras like "plop some sand down for traction", the dinger, and the tooter, and the turn signals.
For which they get more than two months of training.
Maybe the reason everyone passes is because the T does a good job of training people for the relatively simple job. Yeah, maybe it should be higher than 70% to pass- but is TFoSL going to seriously argue that a wimpy test standard contributed to a gross error such as this, if it was operator error?
And "warning signs"? Try this on for size, TFoSL:
Don't Bother Him with the Facts
He's got an agenda to attach to the accident, just like the "too many warnings" bs:
BULLSHIT^google!
The differences between huntington Ave. and the planned route through Somerville are extreme in this regard. This line currently contains the commuter rail that I ride on now and again ... I think there is maybe ... maybe ONE or TWO street level crossings on the entire trip, in very much low traffic areas of Somerville by Washington Street. The rest is protected rail zone all the way.
Both "Outhouse Liberal" and the people quoted in the screed have one thing in common - an agenda to stop expansion of the MBTA because their lovely pet project is now complete and they don't want competition and do want to engage in demogogery. Mass backward HO! Gotta turn this place in to Detroit by 2050!
(Sticks fingers in ears)
na na na na na
I can't hear you
na na na na na
It's kind of blatant how much the OL seems to be ignoring reality in this case. I'm trying to wrap my mind around how the "same number... longer distances" argument could possibly have any relevance. Is longer bad because the drivers would get more tired? That hardly makes sense, because the drivers actually work a full day, not just one transit. Because the trains would bunch up? It's not like it'd be a foregone conclusion that a given train leaving Riverside would always go to Medford. They'd probably sort that out at North Station or something. So the trolleys going up to Medford would be bad why again?
There's something strange about this Robert Hedlund quote too...
looks like sour grapes after they put in the Greenbush route over his dead nimby..
No street crossings at all, actually
The Lowell Line is entirely separated from street traffic south of Canal Street in West Medford.
The only place in Somerville where a street crosses an active railroad at grade is Park Street, on the Fitchburg Line.
I stand corrected
That must have been the one that I was thinking of ... I take that line to Porter or out to Waltham sometimes.
So, just to review
The dozens of emergency personnel who responded and tended to the victims of this crash clearly did something wrong because a woman died. But the people who operate the train system that hosted this tragic crash obviously did nothing wrong because its so easy to operate that train system? I guess I'm not getting the standards here. The MBTA is clearly blameless for causing a death, but the EMTs and firefighters ARE clearly to blame? The death that makes the party responding to an incident is proof of their failure, but some meaningless variable when assessing the role of the party ultimately responsible for the incident.
No matter what happened here, the MBTA is responsible. They should be investigated and we should try to learn how to prevent this from happening again. No matter what was the cause of the accident, that remains true.
Reading Comprehension
The dozens of emergency personnel who responded and tended to the victims of this crash clearly did something wrong because a woman died.
I objected to the head investigator (who was not at the scene and had just arrived) declaring rescuers did "an excellent job"...where a victim died still trapped in the wreckage. It's insensitive, among other things.
But the people who operate the train system that hosted this tragic crash obviously did nothing wrong because its so easy to operate that train system?
I said that training standards are unlikely to be at blame for the accident, and dismissed TFoSL's claims that 2 months training for operating a LRV is insufficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man , more specifically 2a: "Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted."
Knee-jerk reactions
What was insensitive was your snarky attack on emergency responders who you felt there was ample evidence that they did wrong while you simultaneously absolve the people ultimately responsible for the accident without any evidence at all. Why do you assume training standards are unlikely to blame for the accident? Because someone you didn't like suggested they were? I guess jumping to judge someone is at fault without evidence is your domain and no one else's.
But right, its a "straw man" if I don't buy your own spin and rationalization. Actually, I'd say dismissing my argument as a straw man is a straw man in and of itself. It absolves you of responding to your inconsistent standards while refuting me with merely a wikipedia entry. Guess that's just an evolving standard or something. I mean, its not like its a double standard. Heavens no.
Wait a minute...
One person dies and the Green Line is suddenly a death trap? I'd be willing to bet more people die in car and bike crashes than in Green Line crashes.
individual accountability
not to mention the news we're reading that the conductor/driver was doing something with her cell phone at the time of the crash. Distracted driving, whether on the roads on the trolley tracks, is dangerous. If she was talking/texting and blasted through a signal, it's her own fault. Not the T.
I feel for her and her family, but if she's at fault for what happened then all I can do is shrug my shoulders and say that it is a relief that dozens of other people weren't killed.
We all see this kind of behavior daily... I saw a woman texting while walking her baby carriage in downtown Marblehead this week, and she walked RIGHT off the sidewalk and into the street. Her kid was sticking out into the intersection and almost became acquainted with a very large landscaping truck pulling up to see around the corner.
She was pissed at the truck driver and screaming at him, but ... dude. I would have been a witness for the defense if something had happened to the kid.
look up -- pay attention to the world around you. get off the damn phone. hang up your crackberry. personal accountability is key.
Do the words "still under investigation"
mean anything to you?
LINK PLEASE???
At this stage in the investigation there is about as much evidence that she was on a cel phone as there is that she was on drugs. In otherwords ... NONE. Both possibilities are BEING INVESTIGATED. That is not the same as what you are saying.
We haven't "heard she was on a cel phone", we have heard that "her cel phone records are being investigated". Are you next going to insinuate she was on drugs because they always drug test in these situations???
It may yet prove that she was on a cel phone/drugs/etc. We don't know that yet. Stick to the facts, please!
A top NTSB official said
That will be the easiest thing to determine if that's the case.
Here's your link
Feds Eye Possible Cell Phone Use In MBTA Crash
Note the headline doesn't say "Feds Eye All Possible Causes including cell phone use and/or drugs".
Also from the article:
So, there's a "report" that cell phone use may have played a role and it's enough of something to go on that they're analyzing all of the cell phones near the driver after the crash. My guess is one of the people on the second train noticed her using her cell phone before the accident and said something to that effect to an official.
While we will know more later, the fact is that there's conjecture and "reports" about cell phone use but not drugs. All that was said is that we're reading news stories on reported cell phone usage (that is true). We're not reading stories about drug use and while I'm sure that will be investigated post-mortem just to cover all the bases, it's incorrect to say that there's no discussion or reports of cell phone use being the potential cause.
I didn't say "no reports or discussion"
I said that it is under investigation. I suspect that her cel phone records would be queried regardless now that the NTSB has entered the scene. Such queries are routine.
I agree that it is entirely possible that cel phone use contributed to the situation - I disagree that it is an established fact or even a known contributing cause.
As a trained occupational and environmental health scientist, I hear such reports stemming from a traumatic situation and consider the strong possibility of recall bias. We have all seen T operators on the phone now and again - but does our memory serve us well in such situations? More often than not, no. She could have had a 20 second conversation about her dad bringing her dinner somewhere in Brookline and people may report "celphone use" because that is how human brains work.
As was said above, the cel phone records will settle it in an objective fashion - the rest is conjecture and unvalidated witness report.
No, really?
As a trained occupational and environmental health scientist, I hear...
You don't say.
Well, really, you do. Any time you feel the need to see yourself type or validate your opinion on anything related to, but not exclusively:
You're just jealous
You're just jealous, Kaz. It isn't everybody who can be the world's greatest expert in so many things. I bet you never even went to MIT.
When you're right, you're right
Hey, I've bought coffee in that monstrosity they call the Stata Center!
I snuck onto their nicely lit outdoor tennis courts one night, too!
But really, wasn't it Harvard, not MIT? Bah, it was probably both.
Yes it is still under
Yes it is still under investigation. and I do feel deeply for her family. Thank you to the posters who pulled up the links faster than I.
More often than not, if there is an accident nowadays, they never mention that cell phone records are being looked into unless there is a REASON to look into them. they didn't say they're investigating whether or not she was eating a sandwich, or if she was painting her toenails. they said they're investigating the cell phone records, and there's a reason for that.
i honestly hope that it wasn't her fault for being distracted by anything, anything at all. but unlike the Outraged Liberal, i'm not blaming the mbta entirely. I am pondering what the printed reports and discussions are saying about the topic. that is all.
Swirly, dear, i think by far you're the #1 reason why i very very rarely participate in discussing anything here on universal hub.
no matter what the topic, you just yell at everyone. and that really puts me off. it's just incredibly hard for anyone to have a discussion about anything because you just void your rheum in every possible direction, from outraged liberal back over here to me.
can't we just discuss things, fer chrissake? jeeeeesh.
Won't Play Dead for Head Patting
I just love the "Boston Nice" treatment - let's slime somebody, or inappropriately hang our agenda on a current tragedy or crisis, then attack anybody who comes at us with factual information as being "unwilling to discuss" or "nasty and impolite" or "unfairly questioning of The Order" or "mean because they don't nod their heads and reverently bend over".
Sorry Amusings, but I'm not going to play it that way. Where I grew up, people actually treat strangers with civil hospitality, yet consider it a civic duty to go BS point blank, without honey, pretense, or genuflection.
Huh?
When did anyone claim we were nice?
"Boston Nice"
"Boston Nice" = the expectation that you will support and will not challenge anything, no matter how ridiculous, particularly if you are expected to be a part of a geographically determined team.
Being cold or rude to "outsiders" is acceptable behavior, and even encouraged. Challenging your assigned heirarchy and its pronouncements makes you not nice, disrespectful, etc. - even if you are vastly more expert than the source and the consequences could be serious or fatal.
Need a shawl?
I imagine it might get cold up there on that cross you've put yourself on. I could bring you by some coffee or something.
See, I'm nice.
Coffee, Shawl?
Like a nice keffiyeh and a DD iced? Sure.
Just because
Just because you're right doesn't mean you can't be nice.
Unless ...
Unless the definition of "nice" is "never calls bs on anything".
I don't really have anything
I don't really have anything to add, except that the word "cel" makes me cringe.
Yeah
I found it amusing that the news outlets are putting up comprehensive lists of every MBTA-related accident ever (even the ones where car/truck drivers did stupid crap like try to cut off a train at an intersection) yet they don't seem willing to compare the accident rate with other modes of transportation like...oh...I don't know...cars.
The Green Line alone carries about 235,300 every weekday. 260 weekdays in a year * 235,300 = 61,178,000 trips a year without even factoring in weekends.
I'd say the accident rate is incredibly low.
Out of the loop...
I've been out of the Boston loop since school ended earlier this month. I was watching 'LOST' last night when I found out that there had been ANOTHER MBTA ACCIDENT
The signs have been there all along. Anyone who was shocked to learn that the Green Line was unsafe is living in a fantasy world. The MBTA had to have known. Anyone who rides the Green Line knows that it's one teeter away from complete chaos.
I questioned the Green Line back in January:
http://megorious.com/boston/eve-of-destruction
thumbs up charlie!
I remember that post and your photo. I thought the thumbs up charlie dude was a beautifully ironic touch to have been captured in the shot.
And... thanks a lot. Now the song "eve of destruction" is stuck in my head.
Can we close all the highways then, too?
Storrow Drive is a crumbling disaster-waiting-to-happen, and plenty of people have died there too.
How about 95/128? More people died on that road this week than on the T ... actually, it would be hard to find a major road that didn't see higher monthly mortality than the T sees in yearly mortality.
But that photo was rather striking ...
Maybe they should automate
Maybe they should automate the darn thing? Why do they still need drivers?
Crossings At Grade, Etc.
Unless the Green Line cars are tricked out with some sort of motion sensor technology, a driver is needed to keep the folks crossing the tracks from being run over.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
automation
probably works where the train lines are elevated and no one is walking across them, ever, unless they know how to do some funky levitation trix an'dat.
the rail system at some airports (i distinctly remember Hartsfield in Atlanta) has no human component. in that case it makes sense... on the greenline? not so much.
Monorail?
Maybe that's the answer! Forget the green line ... we need a monorail!
As Mr. Lanley says... or should I say sings...
"Well, sir, there's nothing on earth like a genuine, bona fide, electrified, six-car Monorail!"