Previous Entry | Next Entry

DC Metro Crash: The Real Tragedy

  • Jun. 24th, 2009 at 12:27 AM
news

Originally published at Durosia.com. You can comment here or there.

2009 DC Metro Accident: Originally from the AP (via Google)District of Columbia Fire and Emergency workers remove a victim from the site of a rush-hour collision between two Metro transit trains in northeast Washington, D.C. Monday, June 22, 2009. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)2009 DC Metro Accident: Originally from the AP (via Google)
District of Columbia Fire and Emergency workers remove a victim from the site of a rush-hour collision between two Metro transit trains in northeast Washington, D.C. Monday, June 22, 2009. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

If you're in the DC area, this news has been unavoidable the last couple of days.

If you're a commuter in the DC area who uses the Red Line of the Metro system, you're struggling through one of the worst times the system's seen. At least the worst time that's not related to tourists and security scares.

I worked from home on Tuesday so I wouldn't have to deal with the crazy problems caused by this terribly accident. Getting home Monday night, just a few hours after it happened, was a challenge. Not as much a challenge as it was for people actually on the trains involved... and far from as bad as those nine who didn't make it out alive.

That's a bunch of bad stuff right there. People dead. Transit disrupted. Expensive bit of commuter equipment destroyed.

The worst thing is that it's starting to look like this could have all been prevented.

I've held off commenting on all this until there was some small amount of actual fact coming through in the news reports. Some bit of investigation that pointed toward an actual cause. There were suppositions and insinuations of mechanical problems and driver error all over the place Monday night. People all up in arms over all sorts of things that had little basis in any facts connected with this particular DC Metro accident.

Now there are some facts and I'm rightly pissed off.

From the LA Times:

Debbie Hersman of the National Transportation Safety Board said the emergency brake was depressed, and the steel rails showed evidence that the brakes were engaged. Investigators also said the moving train had been in automatic mode, which means onboard computers should have controlled its speed and stopped it before it got too close to the stationary train.

This is a system failure. This crash should not have happened.

Back in 2004, there was a similar accident at the Woodley Park metro station, also on the Red Line. One train rolled backward down the track, building up enough speed to end up sitting on top of the front of the train that had stopped at the platform. Thankfully, the trains weren't full of people. But the main train involved in that accident was also one of these 1000 series trains--some of the oldest equipment in use in the DC Metro system.

That 2004 accident prompted a lot of attention from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

From The Roanoke Times:

Hersman told The Associated Press that the NTSB had warned in 2006 that the old fleet should be replaced or retrofitted to make it better able to survive a crash.

Neither was done, she said, which the NTSB considered "unacceptable."

"Unacceptable," indeed.

Metro (and the officials who fund it) knew this could happen--that it already had happened--and the major source of the problem wasn't dealt with.

From CNN.com:

There should be nine data recorders aboard the first train, which will aid the investigation a great deal if they aren't damaged, Hersman said. The recorders provide data on such things as speed, braking and emergency applications. She said there were no recorders on the rear train.

"We've recommended for years that WMATA either retrofit those cars or phase them out of the fleet. They have not been able to do that. And our recommendation was not addressed, so it has been closed in an unacceptable status," she said.

The facts, as they stand now, are these:

  • The train was in auotmatic mode
  • Auotmatic mode is supposed to keep trains a certain distance apart
  • The driver tried to apply the brakes
  • The structure of the old cars can not handle a collision without massive internal structural failure
  • Nine people are dead

This is nothing short of some sort of negligent homicide.

Unfortunately, since there were no "black box" type recording devices in the 1000-Series cars, we may never know exactly what happened.

All we know for sure, right now, is that this a tragedy that could have been prevented--if Metro had listened to the NTSB, if funding had been there to upgrade the cars, if those upgrade happened in a timely manner, if... if... if...

Comments

( 17 comments — Leave a comment )
[info]cchan8 wrote:
Jun. 24th, 2009 09:14 am (UTC)
When I heard the talk of possible "operator failure" I was very dubious. Now the facts are coming to light. The media will certainly not let Metro get away with any further negligence but it's sad that this is what it took.
[info]skunque wrote:
Jun. 24th, 2009 12:39 pm (UTC)
I understood the speculation about operator error because it was put in the context of past collisions in other transit systems where operators had been texting up to the crash. But given that it was broad daylight on an outdoor track it seemed less likely.

I can't imagine the kind of terror (both for her own life and others') when the operator pressed the brake and it failed work.

So is the idea now that the auto-pilot thing was working (thus sending signals to brake) but the brake itself failed? I would find it hard to believe that two things would malfunction at once, with no reports from other cars of auto system failures...
[info]cchan8 wrote:
Jun. 24th, 2009 01:00 pm (UTC)
It sounds to me that they are speculating that because it was in automatic mode, the driver was caught by surprise that it didn't slow down and maybe hit the emergency brake too late. The articles don't exactly say how far down the rails they found the evidence.

Like you, I was also thinking that an above-ground track and broad daylight would make it difficult not to notice the train in front.
[info]skunque wrote:
Jun. 24th, 2009 01:06 pm (UTC)
Ah, okay - I was confused as to why the focus on the brake maintenance being 2 months overdue? I guess maybe by the time the operator figured out the auto-mode wasn't working, there wasn't enough time to prevent the collision and if the brakes were crappy to start out with, then there's that much more speed the train hit with. Like, maybe if the brakes were in tip-top shape, the crash would've still happened but with less/no fatalities...?
[info]kittenofwrath wrote:
Jun. 24th, 2009 01:32 pm (UTC)
Thank you for posting this. It's truly disturbing. I wonder if there was one specific individual who had decided to keep the old malfunctioning trains running and whether he/she is feeling like they're responsible for 9 deaths now.
[info]american_arcane wrote:
Jun. 24th, 2009 02:17 pm (UTC)
With the funding difficulties Metro has had forever, it's an institutional failure. Part of those difficulties, though, is poor management of what funds there have been.

But the current general manager of Metro is taking things pretty hard, being that his big focus has been on safety and whatnot. I don't expect him to keep his job after this. (Mostly because someone's head has to roll and he's the most public figure that holds some responsibility.)
[info]eriss wrote:
Jun. 24th, 2009 01:57 pm (UTC)
So yeah, what about funding? Last I heard, Metro doesn't have a dedicated source of funds.
[info]american_arcane wrote:
Jun. 24th, 2009 02:12 pm (UTC)
Hopefully, this will help change that.

Maryland, Virginia and DC legislatures and Congress are equally responsible for allowing this to happen because of their budgetary quibbling.

Metro proper is ultimately culpable for poor management of what funds they do and have had. I much rather would have seen the trains upgraded instead of fancy LED signs everywhere that only work 3/4 of the time.
[info]br0d wrote:
Jun. 24th, 2009 02:53 pm (UTC)
This is just the worst and most recent in a long chain of administrative failures for WMATA because the authority over the system is nebulously divided amongst the tristate, meaning inadequate funding responsibility and inadequate accountability. I think it's time to federalize it. It's responsible for the transit and safety of a large number of federal workers and so it should itself be a federal authority.
[info]american_arcane wrote:
Jun. 24th, 2009 07:30 pm (UTC)
Indeed.

Funding of some sort needs to be standardized and steady. And having to get ridiculous approvals from multiple municipalities and Congress is just a bureaucratic hurdle that a transit system already strapped for cash can't afford to deal with. Putting it above the state jurisdiction would hopefully help that.

Incompetence, however, may rise to that new level... but at least it would be more obvious who's fault it is.
[info]qlipoth wrote:
Jun. 24th, 2009 03:28 pm (UTC)
I will begin this with: I don't know what I'm talking about. I think this is true of most of us, but few people admit it. But having read these articles, I have a comment:


"We told them to replace those cars" is all well and good, but were they provided (Either by the various government agencies involved, or by way of income from passengers) with the funds necessary to DO this? If they were slowly upgrading the fleet in accordance with the financial possibility of doing so, I can't find fault with the old trains still being on the tracks. You can't tell everyone to go get a BMW because they're safer, then say "I told you so" when they crash the Kia that they can afford. So where the funds available? It's looking like they were not.

[info]american_arcane wrote:
Jun. 24th, 2009 03:35 pm (UTC)
No they were not.

This is part of the ongoing problem.

The other part being that I'm of the opinion that they could have used what funds they did have much better. For example, instead of spending X thousands of dollars on a spiffy LED sign system that only works 3/4 of the time, I would have rather seen that money go into new train cars. Same for the money spent on aesthetic improvements at stations.

We're talking about decades of mis-managed funds when there weren't enough funds to begin with. Everyone's at fault here: Metro Management, Maryland, Virginia and DC governments and Congress (since they have to OK things, too, here in DC).
[info]qlipoth wrote:
Jun. 24th, 2009 03:47 pm (UTC)
While I once again don't know what I'm talking about, I'd be willing to lay down money that all of those LED signs cost less than one new train worth of cars. Probably less than one or two cars. So does the added utility of the 3/4 working signs worth more than the added safety of one new car? Someone decided it was.

As for aesthetic improvements, I'm sure they were intended to draw more people to use the system, and therefore make more money. Unfortunately, like most forms of advertising, it's impossible to tell if this was a good investment or not, there's just no way to compare.
[info]american_arcane wrote:
Jun. 24th, 2009 03:54 pm (UTC)
Well, if the trains actually ran on time, then those signs might be worth it. But they're not all that accurate, mostly because of the poor job the system does of tracking where trains are. (Oh, and with the amount of money Metro paid for the sign system, I'm pretty sure we could have gotten at least a couple of cars replaced... they've way over paid for a lot of things.)

And bringing more people in to the system hasn't been a problem--Metro ridership has been increasing pretty fast over the last bunch of years. So much so that more than a few places are at or above capacity during rush hour. And we won't even talk about what special events (like Reagan's funeral, Obama's inauguration or any number of protests) does to the system.

Everything that's been added has been added to an unsteady and problem-riddled foundation. I'm almost surprised that something this bad hasn't happened until now (especially with all the new info that's coming out).
[info]dmcindc wrote:
Jun. 24th, 2009 03:44 pm (UTC)
Another fact to come out today: The speed limit in that stretch is reported to be 59 mph, and it's also been reported that the train was traveling significantly faster than that limit.

Also, let's not forget about the four metro employees also killed between 2005 and 2006, and the pedestrians killed by metro buses too.

The Examiner has been trying to expose Metro's employee compensation practices in lieu of safety for some time now. Safety has simply not been a serious concern with Metro... until now. :(
[info]panthergirl wrote:
Jun. 25th, 2009 07:56 pm (UTC)
A question to ask your friends who have worked or do currently work in the computer field. Should computers be used in life or death situations? (This speaks to reliability issues...as MicroSchlock never ever gives a "blue screen of death" Oh No.....)
[info]american_arcane wrote:
Jun. 25th, 2009 09:54 pm (UTC)
It's all about the software.

NASA has some of the most stable code in the world--they kind of have to. I'd have no problem at all putting my life in the hands of computers running software like that.

Well, as long as you don't plug them into the defense grid and give them their own power source and vague instructions to "Save the planet" or something like that... ;)

Seriously, though, yes, the "automatic pilot" software needs to be looked at. As does all the equipment it controls.
( 17 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

November 2009
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930