[flagged]
The 2015 law that required ECP brakes also required before they went into effect the government ask the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review the safety assumptions that the regulations had been based on and report whether or not those assumptions were correct, and revise or rescind the regulations accordingly.
NAS completed that report in early 2017 and it said that it was unable to conclude that ECP brakes were safer. There simply had not been enough actual tests to generate the data needed to reach a conclusion.
Given that NAS report it is hard to see how any administration could have justified not rescinding the regulation.
That being said, the regs in question only applied to certain hazard levels and the train that crashed did not meet that level because it didn't have enough cars with hazardous materials.
(b) Emergency Braking Application Testing.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an agreement
with the National Academy of Sciences to--
(A) complete testing of ECP brake systems during
emergency braking application, including more than 1
scenario involving the uncoupling of a train with 70 or
more DOT-117 specification or DOT-117R specification
tank cars; and
(B) transmit, not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results
of the testing.
(c) Evidence-Based Approach.--
(1) Analysis.--The Secretary shall--
(A) not later than 90 days after the report date,
fully incorporate the results of the evaluation under
subsection (a) and the testing under subsection (b) and
update the regulatory impact analysis of the final rule
described in subsection (b)(2)(A) of the costs,
benefits, and effects of the applicable ECP brake system
requirements;
(B) as soon as practicable after completion of the
updated analysis under subparagraph (A), solicit public
comment in the Federal Register on the analysis for a
period of not more than 30 days; and
(C) not later than 60 days after the end of the
public comment period under subparagraph (B), post the
final updated regulatory impact analysis on the
Department of Transportation's Internet Web site.
(2) Determination.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
(A) determine, based on whether the final regulatory
impact analysis described in paragraph (1)(C)
demonstrates that the benefits, including safety
benefits, of the applicable ECP brake system
requirements exceed the costs of such requirements,
whether the applicable ECP brake system requirements are
justified;
(B) if the applicable ECP brake system requirements
are justified, publish in the Federal Register the
determination and reasons for such determination; and
(C) if the Secretary does not publish the
determination under subparagraph (B), repeal the
applicable ECP brake system requirements.
[1]: https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/2017_casselton_BM...
Looks pretty biased to me, not to mention clueless to the inner working of NTSB, so it is safe to say that she "parrots" narratives.
https://www.vanityfair.com/contributor/bess-levin#intcid=inl...
Obama originally proposed rules for widening the definition of hazardous trains and requiring upgraded brakes. This version didn't get enacted. It was weakened after a lot of lobbying eg trains carrying oil and gas were no longer "hazardous".
Trump did remove this rule in 2018.
But we're in 2023 now when Biden was sworn in over 2 years ago. Did Biden or Buttigieg re-institute these rules? No.
This problem is beyond politics. Both parties serve corporate interests. Republicans just go a little further on the deregulation train (pun intended). Look at Biden and Congress united behind hobbling the rail workers strike. Those rail workers were wanting to strike in part due to safety issues.
Buttigieg is a McKinsey alum. He's part of the system that creates this problem. Don't think this is just a few bad apples. It isn't. It's a systemic problem.
https://twitter.com/JenniferHomendy/status/16263793610278584...
You're contributing to misinformation by repeating these false claims.
Any of us can buy railroad stocks and become - in your mind - wealthy. Perhaps the more important value being protected was, if the railroads stop working, many of us stop eating. Same reason we subsidized food production, fuel, etc. Our societies have grown too much to be able to go back to life without them, without huge numbers of deaths as we adjust.
He probably just hadn't noticed. It couldn't be that he allowed to rules changes to continue because some money flows towards him, his friends, or his party and his party's friends depended on maintaining those changes. Biden put a famously competent and experienced person in charge of Transportation and he didn't notice the change, so how could you expect Biden to?
It's a class conflict, not a partisan one.
You don't seriously think there haven't been many? The problem is that train companies, governments, and people who care about the environment classify and price costs and benefits differently, and government was paid to adopt train company calculus.
It's not that nobody ever thought of figuring out the costs or the benefits of this major, well-known proposed change.
Both parties hate the non-rich. One just hates it more and is way more obvious about it.
The underlying fact is that the Republican and Democratic Party are both constituted to represent their donors and that certain parties (rich individuals being the largest such party) enjoy the benefit of giving bi-partisan patronage.
Perhaps you could explain why you don’t think that’s a reasonable interpretation..?
Anyway https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...