GPS, Not PTC, Could Have Prevented Amtrak Crash

WASHINGTON - May 14, 2015 - PRLog -- WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 14,  2015): Tuesday's 100-mph (in a 50-mph zone) Amtrak crash, like the 2013 82-mph (in a 30-mph zone) commuter train crash, could have been prevented if Amtrak - by itself, and without waiting for track-owners’ cooperation - had simply installed its own GPS-based locator and speed-control system rather than waiting to install a more complicated and much more expensive Positive Train Control [PTC] system, says an MIT-educated engineer-inventor turned law professor.

        PTC is a complicated and expensive system which utilizes devices along sections of the tracks which transmit "cab codes" to antennas on the bottoms of train cars.

        Unfortunately, for it to work properly, there must be close cooperation and coordination between the many different entities which own the different tracks to which the devices are attached, and the owners of the various trains which may run on these many different tracks.

        Thus, although PTC is  sophisticated enough to permit varying the top speed in real time depending on a variety of factors including how close the train is to a track switch, something much simpler - based upon GPS tracking which is totally independent from and not reliant upon track owners - would have prevented these two horrible crashes.

        Automobile drivers, for less than $100, can purchase simple GPS-based navigation devices which tell them not only what road they are on, but also show their current speed in different colors depending upon whether or not they are exceeding the designated speed limit for that section of road.

        Surely the same technology could be easily and inexpensively employed to prohibit a train from exceeding the speed limit on designated sections of tracks, and especially around sharp curves which have a fixed upper-speed limit,  says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, noting that it is much easier to tell a train's precise location and speed since it can go only on designated rails.

        However, the main advantage of GPS-based systems is that they can be established by any railroad such as Amtrak for its own trains, and it does not require permission nor cooperation from the companies which own or control the many different tracks on which the trains travel.

        Today we already have devices which can not only automatically control the speed of trucks, but can actually permit them to be driven on major interstate highways without the need for human drivers.

        Similar devices could be used to control (or to at least limit) the speed of trains, says Banzhaf, noting that they could be far less sophisticated because they do not have to allow for lane changes along highways, drivers who suddenly cut in front to trucks, and other problems which occur on highways but not on train tracks.

        The fact that Congress has apparently given the railroads until the end of this year to install PTC does not mean that Amtrak isn't negligent for failing to have either a PTC or a similar GPS-based speed-liimiting devices in place on this busy rail corridor now, says law professor Banzhaf.

        It's reasonably well established that federal law sets only minimum standards, and that juries can still find that a defendant which was in compliance with all federal standards was nevertheless negligent or otherwise at fault, based upon the risks of an accident compared with the costs of preventing it.

        Trucks can use GPS-based computerized devices to control their speeds, even though the process is far more complicated than with a train, and a much smaller number of people are likely to be injured than when a truck - as compared with a large railroad train - travels at an unsafe speed.

        Banzhaf notes that many railroad claim that they cannot even meet the federal PTC standard by the end of 2015, and will probably seek an extension until at least 2020.

        But installing a simpler GPS-based system, like the kind already used in trucks and even on passenger cars, would be much less expensive, and could be installed and operational very quickly since it requires only devices on locomotives to keep track of the train’s position and speed, and prevent further power from being applied if the train begins to travel over a given speed limit.

        Such a simple and very inexpensive system - costing far less, for example, than equipping each train seat with a seat belt - could easily prevent these high-speed derailment problems, says Banzhaf.

JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D.
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School,
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,
Fellow, World Technology Network,
Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2000 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052, USA
(202) 994-7229 // (703) 527-8418
http://banzhaf.net/ @profbanzhaf