CEI suggests DOT put the brakes on train two-person crew rule

The Transportation Department recently asked the public for comments on how to reduce the regulatory burden. One thought that the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) had was that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), a DOT agency, should get rid of a requirement instituted last year under the Biden administration that all trains have at least two operators at all times.

The FRA says the rule is needed to ensure that the trains are “adequately staffed” and have “appropriate safeguards” in place. But the rule cannot cite any data to back up the claim that single-operator trains are less safe. You’d think if the FRA had some, they’d bring it up.

A second crew member isn’t needed because the trains are largely automated already, as evidenced by the fact that there are existing single-crew train lines that are being grandfathered in under the Biden rule. In situations where at least one operator must be present, the trains use what are called “dead man’s switches” that halt the operation of the train if pressure isn’t continually applied. Thus, if the conductor slumps over dead, that itself stops the train and (one assumes) sends out an automated alarm.

In any event, in cases where a crash is a real hypothetical possibility if there aren’t sufficient engineers present on the train, the rail industry will staff appropriately simply to avoid the liability and bad PR that would follow from a crash.

The main purpose of this rule is to benefit railway worker unions by artificially increasing the employment of its members. The rule will block further automation of railways, prohibiting the industry from refining techniques to quickly and efficiently deliver cargo through remote operation. This prohibition will harm:

1) the industry, which faces competition in interstate commerce from trucking, shipping and now drone aircraft;

2) the reliability nation’s supply chain, which has faced several shocks in recent years due in part to antiquated technology and infrastructure; and

3) the broader public, which needs goods delivered quickly and efficiently.

The supply chain shock of 2020 was sparked by COVID-19 quarantine restrictions and exacerbated by the antiquated nature of much of the technology used by stakeholders in the supply chain. Lack of automation created delays up and down the chain, in turn creating shortages and price spikes. The crisis was a wake-up call to update and modernize all element of the chain.

If any transportation industry should be at the leading edge of automation, it is railways. Trains run on dedicated tracks not used by the public, giving them an edge in safety that trucking or aircraft cannot claim. Yet technological innovation for drone aircraft and self-driving cars continues apace while the rail industry is limited in the experimentation that it can engage in thanks to this rule.

The final rule can point to no specific data that single-operator or remotely-operated trains are less safe. Rather it posits that “the latest annual rail safety data reflects some troubling trends that point toward a need for heightened caution.” The rule notes, citing FRA data, that the rate for “all human factor incidents” increased from .95 accidents per million train miles to 1.34 between 2013 and 2022, a 41.1 percent increase. and that the percentage of train accidents attributed solely to human factors increased from 38.5 percent to 45.6 percent between 2013 and 2022.

The rule does not break down the data any further to indicate what the crew size was in these incidents, much less present any theory that larger crews would have prevented the accidents. Thus, not only does the rule fail to present a case that crew size was a causative factor in these incidents, if fails to even demonstrate any type of correlation between crew size and accident rates.

The FRA claims that the rule will “ensure risk mitigation” but concedes that it “does not have sufficient data to monetize those benefits.”

Here’s what we know broadly about crew size and safety: Up until the 1990s, most rail lines utilized three or more crew members. The overall rate of accidents of any type was 4.6 per million miles of railways traveled in 1991, according to FRA data. In the decades since, the standard crew size has shrunk down to one engineer and one conductor. Some trains have used just one engineer. The overall rate of accidents has steadily fallen since then, reaching 2.8 per million miles in 2024.

Further undermining the case for the rule is the fact that there are existing single-operator train lines. The rulemaking grandfathers in “Class II and Class III railroad with legacy one-person train crew.” This includes operations that haul hazardous materials. The rule further allows petitions for “special approval of one-person train crew operation not covered by the exception.” There are at least two existing train operations for which the FRA has already approved of one-person train crews.

The existing exceptions and the fact that the rule explicitly allows for further exceptions in the future again underscores that the two-person minimum serves no practical purpose. All that has been accomplished is to ensure that those railway operations with the most skilled lobbying operations in Washington will have a better chance at getting their exceptions granted, giving them a competitive edge over rival operations that lack lobbying muscle.

Some people in the current administration have taken the union’s side in this issue. Hopefully, others will look this Biden-era rulemaking and decide it was a bad idea.