Every day, the United States becomes more dependent on the timely delivery of vital goods and materials carried on the nation’s rails. With that demand, the trains that haul these goods to all corners of the country are being subjected to ever-increasing pressure to satisfy consumer expectations. Fortunately, the U.S. rail industry and the multi-billion dollar infrastructure it supports is well positioned to capture the benefits of new technologies that will automate systems to improve safety and provide better value to consumers.
Yet, obstacles to the adoption and beneficial realization of automated systems remain. The first arises from groups that are applying pressure on lawmakers to pass crew size mandates that require at least two operators onboard, irrespective of technical needs. These laws are based on misplaced concerns about safety, particularly in the face of technological advancements like Positive Train Control (PTC), and understate the role that human error can play in railroad incidents, regardless of crew size.
The second obstacle is perhaps more challenging to overcome, because it plays on a fear of the unknown—the e ect of automation on employment. Indeed, the true animating principle for crew size mandates may not rest with safety at all. But, rather, is likely based in the misperception that railway automation, even where some form of human monitoring exists, will kill jobs in the railroad industry. While intuitively powerful, such arguments ignore economic precedent. Historically, the loss of some jobs through innovation also leads to job creation. Accordingly, creating a patchwork of state laws borne of that fear may ultimately disrupt the operation of the railroads that serve as a backbone of interstate commerce.
However, while news from the states is bad, a recent move by the Federal Railroads Administration (FRA) to rescind its train crew size Notice of Proposed Rule-Making o ers a clear path toward a uniform—and innovation friendly—posture. This is because, as the preeminent regulator of rail safety in the nation, the FRA’s pronouncement that there is no safety basis for a minimum crew size mandate, the reasoning of the now-rescinded NPRM, represents a solid example for states to follow, and potentially a case for negative preemption of the activity undertaken by the states to date.
This development, and the possibilities it ushers forth, are good news. Because, as goes the future of freight rail commerce in the United States, so goes the welfare of consumers and the many interdependent industries that rely on the goods it carries.
