Recently an Amtrak train traveling the busy northeast corridor route near Philadelphia derailed at a high speed, killing eight people and injuring more than 200. While experts weigh in over the speed of the train, the state of the engineer, and whether the locomotive was struck by a foreign object, many other people are now concerned about a different matter: the safety of trains in the United States. Read on to learn about the development of the train industry in the U.S., the rules and regulations that trains must follow, and considerations moving forward in light of the recent, horrific Amtrak crash.

Locomotives: The American Backstory

The first charter for a railroad in North America was granted to John Stevens in 1815. The same man also tested the first steam locomotive in the United States, nine years later in 1826. A railroad boom began in 1840, stemming from the northeast. However, this initial expansion was beset by unregulated practices and differing track gauges, which kept the lines from unifying. Individual owners of regional charters fought over territory. This chaos led to dangerous conditions for passengers and cargo traveling by rail.

As track mileage continued to expand rapidly, the rail industry achieved one of its greatest moments with the completion of the transcontinental railway in 1869 in Promontory Point, Utah. Starting in the 1880s and continuing through the 1920s, rail companies enjoyed greatest success. This was in part due to owners finally agreeing to standardize track gauge size and the development of a number of safety features that also improved efficiency. Ultimately, 1916 served as a peak year, with rail mileage reaching an all time high in the United States and stretching a total of 254,000 miles.

This expansion would come to a halt in the 1930s however, with the rise of individual automobiles and continue to stagnate throughout the 1940s and 50s following WWII. In the 1960s train companies began merging or going bankrupt, as passenger and freight numbers continued to dwindle. In 1971 Amtrak, a government supported system that dealt primarily with passenger traffic, was created. Even with government support however, the train network nationwide would likely have collapsed without a move towards deregulation in 1980. This move allowed the remaining companies to negotiate better rates and drop routes that were unprofitable.

This renaissance has continued into the present, as companies have merged into larger and larger entities. Freight has also returned to rail in large numbers, so much so that it is actually in danger of overwhelming the current system. Passenger travel has also increased, as people seek to avoid traffic and relax during commutes. The following video gives an overview of the history and development of railroads in the U.S.:

Trains By the Numbers

People

In the 2014 fiscal year, 30.9 million people rode Amtrak trains. During that same year 11.6 million passengers rode along the Northeast Corridor route, where the recent accident occurred. This was a 3.3 percent increase from the year before. In fact, this route is so popular that it actually accounts for 77 percent of combined rail and air travel between Washington DC and New York. These numbers would likely be even higher, except that Amtrak suffers from outdated infrastructure and has its efficiency hampered by freight trains using the same rails.

Freight

So exactly how much freight do these cumbersome trains move each year in the U.S.? In 2010, approximately 1.7 billion tons of freight were transported on rails, the last year with complete data. This accounted for 16 percent of the total freight shipped within the U.S. and equated $427 billion dollars. The industry is dominated by seven major carriers that employ 175,000 people. The number is expected to grow in the future, but is currently stagnant due to old infrastructure and insufficient investment.

Incidents

With all these people and things being moved by rail, the next questions is how likely are accidents like the one outside of Philadelphia? The answer is extremely unlikely. In fact, a person is 17 times more likely to be involved in a car accident than a train accident. While some of this can be explained by the obvious fact that most people travel in cars more than they travel in trains, the accident rate is also lower. There’s just .43 accidents per billion passenger miles for train travel versus 7.3 accidents per billion passenger miles for cars.

In addition, when rail accidents do occur, they usually do not involve passengers, as most rail traffic is moving freight. Thus, while 1,241 derailments occurred last year, there were few injuries. Furthermore, while the number of derailments may seem fairly high, it is less than half the number seen just thirty years ago. Most of the derailments that do still occur are a result of track conditions like the ones being blamed in the recent high profile crash. Experts worry that these are a result of underfunding, especially when it comes to Amtrak. This is the case even with ridership growing in the Northeast corridor route because Amtrak must spread its revenue across all its routes and many of them don’t make a profit.

Rules and Regulations

Benefits of Deregulation

As touched on earlier, the railroad industry actually experienced deregulation in the 1980s. The railroad industry wasn’t doing well, and needed to become more flexible in order to survive. Thanks to two separate acts passed in Congress, in 1976 and 1980 respectively, a collapse of the railroad industry was avoided. Basically both these acts provided greater flexibility to railroad companies to negotiate rates, change routes, and merge to stave off insolvency. While fears grew of monopolies, these acts were also designed to lower the cost on entry into rail travel and transport, which was supposed to prevent any one company from dominating the industry. Since these acts went into effect, the rail industry has enjoyed a strong comeback. Additionally, deregulating the rail industry may have also improved infrastructure, as the large companies that have come to dominate rail traffic can afford to reinvest in improving safety and the technology that guides their trains.

Thus, while the technology and knowledge exists to improve safety and prevent accidents like the one in Pennsylvania, everything ultimately comes back to money. In 2008, Congress passed a bill requiring trains to implement a system known as positive train control. This utilizes a number of technologies to sense how fast a train is moving and slow it down if necessary. However while this system was in place on the tracks going the opposite direction it was not yet in position on the tracks heading northbound towards Philadelphia. The accompanying video explains some of the safety measures in place, particularly positive train control:

There are other measures in place to alert the conductor and slow down the train as well. If the conductor does not alter the train’s trajectory in any way for a certain amount of time, bells go off in the cabin to alert him or her. Additionally, the train is also supposed to slow itself down, but it was unclear if these safeguards were initiated before the crash.

Money Troubles

However, in its 2008 decision, Congress required Amtrak to bid for the communications channels required to send and receive signals. For an already cash-strapped system that was also facing major budget cuts, this was a deadly requirement. Implementing this technology costs $52,000 dollars per mile and must be universally applicable to a variety of trains that use different technology. Nonetheless, despite all these challenges, the Amtrak system was actually one of the leaders and was one of the few on pace to complete the required installation by 2018.

Following the crash however, Congress vetoed a bill being pushed by President Obama that called for $1 billion dollars in additional funding for Amtrak. This funding is clearly needed not just because of this crash but also because of how Amtrak compares to foreign train systems. In the UK for example, this type of braking technology has been in place for nearly ten years. This is also true in other more train-centric countries such as France and Japan.

Shipping Oil

Along with recent concerns over rail safety in general, there are long standing worries over trains carrying oil. Due to the nation’s energy boom, trains are increasing being relied upon to transport oil. For example, in 2012 trains shipped more than 40 times the amount of oil they did just four years earlier, an amount which doubled again in 2013.  The video below documents the rise and danger of shipping oil by rail:

This increased traffic has also led to an increase in the number of accidents. In 2014 there were 141 incidents termed “unintentional releases” of oil. The year before, while there were less individual incidents, even more oil was spilled, about 1.4 million gallons. For some perspective, that amount was more than all the oil that had ever been spilled by train transport to that point. These spills and accidents can lead to massive explosions, deaths and contaminated ecosystems. The increasing threat is so troubling that some people are calling for more pipelines to be built, rehashing the Keystone Pipeline debate.

Thus, while all trains are facing tighter rules and regulations, those carrying oil and gas are facing the most stringent changes to protocol. In new rules outlined at the beginning of May, more durable containers are now required for transporting fuel in the event of a crash. Additionally, trains are required to go no faster than 30 miles an hour unless they have electronic brakes. This action was part of a joint announcement in conjunction with Canada. It was also in the wake of a number of crashes involving fuel shipments, including four this year alone. This has also rekindled the argument over lack of funding and overly tight timelines.

Conclusion

The crash of an Amtrak train along the nation’s busiest passenger rail route has raised fears over train safety. These fears are compounded by a rail industry facing budgets cuts and relying on outdated technology. However, the rate of crashes and derailments remain low, especially in relation to other types of transportation such as cars. Nevertheless, in the future more investment and infrastructure improvements must be made in order to prevent accidents, like the one outside of Philadelphia, from repeating themselves. Greater efforts must also be made and continue to be made to regulate the usage of trains in moving massive quantities of oil, which has proven very dangerous. The rail system is the unsung and often forgotten cog of the transportation system in the U.S. But, it only takes one accident to put concerns over its safety back on America’s one mind.

Resources

American-Rails: Railroad History: An Overview of the Past

The New York Times: Amtrak Says Shortfalls and Rules Delayed its Safety System

Washington Post: Trains and Carrying and Spilling a Record Amount of Oil

CNN: Amtrak Installs Speed Controls at Fatal Crash Site

Amtrak: News Release

Guardian: Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor

Center for American Progress: Getting America’s Freight Back on the Move

Vox: 4 Facts Everyone Should Know about Train Accidents

Hofstra University: Rail Deregulation in the United States

Guardian: Amtrak How America Lags Behind the Rest of the Developed World on Train Safety

Wall Street Journal: U.S. Lays Down Stricter Railcar Rules

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fatal Amtrak Derailment Casts Light on a Forgotten American Industry appeared first on Law Street.

Another day, another Uber controversy. It seems like the popular ride-sharing app will never see the end of its legal struggles. Some of the buzz is positive–Uber recently announced that it’s expanding and beefing up safety features. However, other recent headlines about the company cannot be considered anything but incredibly negative. For example, yet another rape accusation has come to light. Overall, as Uber continues to grow, so do safety concerns, and seemingly, safety features.

Read More: Uber Will Have a Rough Ride in 2015

A Philadelphia woman has come forward with allegations that she was raped by her Uber driver on February 6, and then essentially held captive in the car while he drove around for two hours following the assault. While she evidently brought the claims to the police, Uber claims that it didn’t learn about it until much later. A rep for the company told Philadelphia Magazine, who broke the story:

Our thoughts and prayers are with our rider. Upon learning of the incident, we immediately reached out to the Philadelphia Police Department to assist in their investigation and support their efforts in any way we can. As the investigation continues, the driver’s access to the Uber platform has been suspended.

New controversies for Uber aren’t just popping up here in the states. Two Uber drivers in Ottawa, Canada, recently pleaded guilty to operating unlicensed taxis. There have also been very high profile sexual assault allegations in France and India.

It’s in response to all of these developments, as well as others like them in the past and potential for more in the future, that Uber is launching new programs and initiatives focusing on safety. The additions to Uber’s safety measures will include things like incident response teams to investigate anything that may happen over the course of an Uber ride, and further review of things like quality assurance. The company will also expand its work with law enforcement, including in India where there will be a button programmed into the Uber app allowing riders to directly call law enforcement.

While some of these features seem promising, Uber still sometimes struggles to follow through, as evidenced by the United Nations Women’s partnership debacle from a few weeks back.

Read More: Uber’s New hiring Initiative: Trying to Win Back Women

Uber and UN Women announced a plan to work together to create jobs for female drivers and released a jointly signed letter on Uber’s website. However, after some backlash and safety concerns, UN Women pulled out of the agreement. Some of that backlash included a statement from the International Transport Workers Federation, which stated:

The creation of one million precarious, informal jobs will not contribute to women’s economic empowerment and represents exactly the type of structural inequality within the labor market that the women’s movement has been fighting for decades. Uber’s practices are defined by an aggressive informalization of an industry that was already deregulated three decades ago

It’s clear that Uber wants to make changes, but it’s certainly struggled to do so in the past. Perhaps it’s a side effect of being a young company that experienced a lot of growth very quickly, or just inherent to the nature of a business as informal as ridesharing. Either way, Uber needs to reform–and let’s hope that it sticks this time.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber Adds More Safety Features, But Will They Be Enough? appeared first on Law Street.

Bitcoin first started making headlines in 2009 and has continued to grow into one of the world’s most well-recognized, thorough, and usable cryptocurrencies. But with multiple legal controversies and the general public’s skepticism when it comes to something as new as “cryptocurrency,” it’s difficult to tell whether Bitcoin has much of a future. Read on to learn more about the currency and its future.

What is Bitcoin?

Bitcoins are widely known as a digital or cryptocurrency. Unlike conventional currencies that are regulated by central authorities in their respective regions (such as the Federal Reserve Bank for the United States Dollar), Bitcoin is border-less and managed by a cryptographically-secured peer-to-peer network. The demand for Bitcoins determines their value in the market, and their supply is determined by complex mathematical algorithms developed by the founder–a person who goes by the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. This supply generation process is called Bitcoin mining. So, Bitcoins are usually created by being “mined” by computers solving a complex string of processing problems, although one can now purchase existing Bitcoins.

Only fifty were created at the time of the cryptocurrency’s genesis and the maximum number of coins that can be issued is locked at 21 million. Just like the lowest value that the United States dollar can be divided into is one-cent pennies, a Bitcoin can at most be divided into eight decimal places. It gained prominence in April 2013 when its value spiked to $266 US Dollars compared to only $22 earlier that  same year. More than 10 million coins had been issued at that point at a total market value of $2 billion.

Courtesy of Idology.com.

Who likes Bitcoins?

Proponents of the cryptocurrency appreciate its purity in terms of supply and demand without any governmental interference. Bitcoins mitigate privacy concerns because they eliminate the need to enter information such as name and address for online transactions. For many tech aficionados, the cryptocurrency provides the thrill of following a new trend in the virtual world. Bitcoins are now being accepted by many platforms like WikiLeaks, restaurants, mobile payment applications, and retail apps that have partnered with major consumer brands like GAP and Sephora.

A federal district court recently ruled that Bitcoin is indeed a currency, given that it can be either used to purchase goods and services directly, or to purchase currency that can in turn be used to purchase goods and services. According to a study conducted by the European Central Bank, Bitcoins do not pose a risk to price instability given that their supply is capped at 21 million coins, and will not negatively affect  the economy as long as the government monitors it to ensure that its not being used for fraudulent purposes.

Who doesn’t like Bitcoins?

Opponents worry that the unregulated and anonymous nature of cryptocurrency lends itself to be used for illegal trade, tax evasion, money laundering, and investment frauds like Ponzi schemes. Dread Pirate Roberts, the owner of Silk Road, an online drug market in the deep web that is now shutdown, blatantly admitted that Bitcoin helped him win the war of drugs against the state.

Opponents also criticize Bitcoin’s algorithmic design for specifically inducing rise and fall in its value. But unlike traditional currencies, Bitcoin is not insured by the government in case it gets devalued enough to cause a major financial crisis in its market. Some claim that Bitcoin is being used more like a stock than a currency and that once the initial hype dies down its value will eventually decrease to nothing because it doesn’t have anything to offer except for its cool factor. Since Bitcoin is primarily digital (though coins are now available), it can be lost forever if a user loses his/her computer or account in which it’s stored.

What’s next for Bitcoin?

Bitcoin’s future is somewhat uncertain. While the cryptocurrency is still growing, there are many concerns that it’s not worth it. Detractors point out things like a possible Ponzi-style scheme involving Bitcoin in North Texas as indicative of the worthlessness of the currency. On the other hand, Bitcoin-based ventures have been growing, such as the development of startups like Coinffeine, which aims to create a new way to exchange Bitcoins. These are just a few examples of the ways in which Bitcoin is slowly breaking its way in into the mainstream, albeit with many setbacks.

Conclusion

Bitcoin. and other similar digital currencies, is just one of many interesting developments that has come about because of the internet. In essence, it’s a pretty revolutionary and fascinating idea, but whether or not it is actually good for the global economy remains to be seen. The potential for the use of Bitcoin as part of illegal activity though, should not stop people from using it for legitimate means. It’s only through incorporating online tools into the mainstream that it will become a genuinely useful and productive innovation.

Resources

Primary 

Bitcoin: Official Site

US District Court: Securities & Exchange Commission v. Trendon T. Shavers  and Bitcoin Savings & Trust

Additional

European Central Bank: Virtual Currency Schemes

Techland: Online Cash Bitcoin Could Challenge Government, Banks

Coindesk: Confirmed: Bloomberg Staff Are Testing a Bitcoin Price Ticker

CIO: In Kenya, Bitcoin :Linked to Popular Mobile Payment System

ParityNews: The Internet Archive Starts Accepting Bitcoin Donations

Webcite: In Bitcoin We Trust: The Berlin District Where Virtual Currency is as Easy as Cash

Readwrite: What’s Bitcoin Worth in the Real World?

Wire: Today’s Bitcoin Shows Why It’s Not Really a Currency

Fox Business: The Consumer Risks of Bitcoins

Slate: My Money is Cooler Than Yours

Washington Post: Imagining a World Without the Dollar

Social Science Research Network: Are Cryptocurrencies ‘Super’ Tax Havens?

The New York Times: Winklevoss Twins Plan First Funds for Bitcoins

Forbes: Goodbye Switzerland, Hello Bitcoins

Treasury Department: Application of FinCEN’s Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies

GAO: Virtual Economies and Currencies: Additional IRS Guidance Could Reduce Tax Compliance Risks

Forbes: IRS Takes a Bite Out of Bitcoin

The New York Times: New York and U.S. Open Investigations Into Bitcoins

TechCrunch: New York’s Financial Services Subpoenas Bitcoin Firms To “Root Out Illegal Activity”

Salome Vakharia

Salome Vakharia is a Mumbai native who now calls New York and New Jersey her home. She attended New York School of Law, and she is a founding member of Law Street Media. Contact Salome at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bitcoin: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

The difference between believing that the internet is vital to life and just accepting it as a useful tool is the difference between having government regulation and allowing the market to regulate it on its own. Nobody supports unwarranted government interference, but it would be unwise to think government involvement for the purpose of regulating industries is unnecessary. This brings me to the topic of Open Internet, also known as net neutrality.

In January, the US Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia changed several rules established in 2010 by the Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet Order. The Court’s decision rolled back the rules that disabled the blocking of legal content and enforced nondiscriminatory practices, but upheld the rule that enforced transparency. The Court’s decision terrified many people and left us wondering how open and free the internet will remain. Recently, an official document was leaked that may give insight to exactly where the FCC is headed in regulating net neutrality, and unfortunately the odds look like they’re in favor of major Internet Service Providers.

The leaked FCC documents show that the Commission is considering allowing major Internet Service Providers to give large, well known companies the option of paying for faster lanes through which their videos and other content travel. This amounts to deregulating the more equalizing practice of having all content from all companies travel the same internet lanes. This means that well established companies will have an extra advantage in supplying their content to their users. How is this harmful to small startups and new innovation?

In the age of faster is better, the ability to use a service faster is more likely to be chosen over a service that runs slower. For example, you can either choose wireless internet or dial-up. They both supply an internet connection, but when was the last time you heard the screeching sound of a dial-up connection?…. Exactly!  If the FCC follows through with this idea, small startups will not be able to compete against the financial strength of giants that have the resources to provide speedier service. In addition, these costs for faster internet lanes may be passed to consumers as companies work to maintain profits.

Another possibility that hasn’t been talked about is the larger companies’ ability to recreate the innovations of smaller, lesser known companies. For example, if Company X creates a new way to shop on the internet and the larger Company Z recreates this technology, Company Z would have the advantage of faster internet speed to their site over Company X.  Even though Company X created the technology, Company Z would benefit, leaving small startups asking “what’s the point in trying?”

With our economy’s strength and growth hinging on new innovation, it is counterproductive to have an unfair system that doesn’t allow companies both large and small to have the same service capabilities. This goes directly against the entrepreneurial spirit of our country and shows that lawmakers have gotten it wrong in their assertion that the internet is important but not vital.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Svilen.milev via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Leaked FCC Documents Signal Bad News for Startups appeared first on Law Street.