Mandates before proven safety: How the Railway Safety Act ignores rail safety

The Washington Post’s recent piece on the Railway Safety Act underscores an essential point: safety legislation must be grounded in evidence, not fear or theory. Past and current versions of the Railway Safety Act would impose sweeping mandates that lack an evidentiary basis and could lock in technology at the expense of long-term safety improvements, both of which have the potential to stifle innovation and progress.

The Washington Post emphasizes that wheel-bearing sensors, which the Act would mandate, have already significantly reduced overheating accidents without any federal requirement. As the editorial board writes, “Regulation should be based on evidence, especially when…it could be costly.” The piece highlights that railroads are achieving results voluntarily through innovation and best practices, illustrating that prescriptive mandates are unnecessary and may even impose unnecessary costs.

The two-person crew requirement is also not evidence-based and exemplifies the dangers of rigid, one-size-fits-all mandates. Operators such as Norfolk Southern have implemented every improvement recommended after the East Palestine derailment. These voluntary measures demonstrate that accountability and adaptive, evidence-informed action can achieve real safety gains without imposing costly federal prescriptions.

As my colleague Sean Higgins noted in his analysis, mandates like this often ignore data on what actually improves safety. The Railway Safety Act would lock railroads into fixed operational rules that are practically guaranteed not to produce measurable benefits. It would also effectively prohibit the industry from experimenting with further automation or other advanced technologies that could enhance safety over the long term.

CEI agrees with The Washington Post editorial board’s perspective: regulation should be grounded in evidence, and policymakers should be wary of mandates that lock in current technology or operational practices. While The Washington Post emphasizes voluntary results and evidence-based regulation, CEI adds that rigid rules can unintentionally reduce long-term safety by freezing outdated systems in place and preventing the adoption of superior solutions that could emerge in the years to come.

Safety improves when operators are free to adopt better technologies and practices instead of being constrained by fixed statutory requirements. Policymakers should focus on practices and policies that actually make railways safer, rather than erroneously assuming that more regulation automatically equals more safety.