Protecting Affordability and Innovation: Keep Prescriptive Rail Mandates Out of Surface Transportation Legislation

Photo Credit: Getty

Dear Chair Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, Chair Cruz, and Ranking Member Cantwell, 

We are writing to oppose the inclusion of Railway Safety Act (RSA)–style mandates, or similar prescriptive rail regulations, in any surface transportation reauthorization legislation. 

Surface transportation bills are intended to modernize infrastructure, improve mobility, and support economic growth. As such, they are not an appropriate vehicle for resurrecting rail mandates that have repeatedly failed to advance through Congress on their own merits and have even been set aside by the committees of jurisdiction due to concerns about cost, feasibility, and unintended consequences. 

At a time when affordability dominates voter concerns and policymakers in both parties are focused on reducing costs across the economy, embedding RSA-style provisions in a must-pass transportation bill would amount to a vote against affordability. 

Higher costs without demonstrated safety gains 

RSA-style mandates would impose extensive new regulatory requirements on freight railroads and the broader supply chain without clear evidence of improved safety outcomes. That means higher operating costs, reduced flexibility, and higher prices for American consumers. 

Freight rail is a critical backbone of the U.S. supply chain. Increases in rail costs flow directly into the price of food, fuel, building materials, manufactured goods, and energy. Adding new regulatory mandates to surface transportation legislation would undermine stated goals of affordability, competitiveness, and economic stability. 

Prescriptive mandates undermine innovation 

Another problem with prior RSA proposals is they relied on one-size-fits-all statutory mandates rather than data-driven, risk-based regulation, including: 

  • Crew-size mandates that would freeze current practices regardless of evolving technology or operational needs, despite no evidence such mandates would have prevented past accidents. 
  • Overbroad hazardous material definitions that would effectively classify most freight trains as hazmat trains, vastly expanding regulatory reach over routine operations. 
  • Inspection requirements focused on minimum time thresholds rather than inspection quality or outcomes. 
  • Technology prescriptions that risk locking in existing systems while discouraging next-generation safety innovation. 

The rail industry’s most significant safety and efficiency gains have come through private investment, operational flexibility, and technological advancement. Rigid statutory mandates would impede that progress. 

A better approach 

Surface transportation reauthorization should focus on modernizing and streamlining transportation policy, including updating or eliminating statutory provisions that are outdated, duplicative, or misaligned with current technologies and operating realities. Rather than layering new mandates onto an already complex regulatory framework, Congress should use this legislation to reduce unnecessary burdens and ensure federal law reflects the modern supply chain. 

We urge Congress to keep RSA-style mandates out of surface transportation reauthorization and instead pursue policies that advance safety, affordability, and economic growth through flexibility, innovation, and sound governance. 

Sincerely,

Iain Murray 
Senior Fellow 
Competitive Enterprise Institute 

John Shelton 
Vice President of Policy 
Advancing American Freedom 

Phil Kerpen 
President 
American Commitment  

Kristen Walker 
Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Transportation Policy 
American Consumer Institute 

Brent Gardner 
Senior Vice President 
Americans for Prosperity 

Grover Norquist 
President 
Americans for Tax Reform 

Ike Brannon 
President  
Capital Policy Analytics 

Garrett Ballengee 
President and CEO 
Cardinal Institute for WV Policy 

Ryan Ellis 
President 
Center for a Free Economy 

Daniel J. Mitchell 
President 
Center for Freedom and Prosperity 

Russ Brown
President
Center for Independent Employees

Timothy Lee 
Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs 
Center for Individual Freedom 

David Ozgo 
Executive Director 
Center for Transportation Advancement (CT4A) 

The Honorable Ken Blackwell
Chairman
Conservative Action Project

Nick Loris
President
Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions (C3) Action

Matthew Kandrach 
President  
Consumer Action for a Strong Economy 

Steve Forbes 
Chairman and Editor-in-Chief – Forbes Media 
Co-Founder – Unleash Prosperity 

Rusty Brown 
Southern Director  
Freedom Foundation 

George Landrith 
President 
Frontiers of Freedom 

Cameron Sholty 
Executive Director 
Heartland Impact 

Mario H. Lopez 
President 
Hispanic Leadership Fund 

Andrew Langer 
President 
Institute for Liberty 

Tom Giovanetti 
President 
Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) 

Ian Adams 
Executive Director 
International Center for Law and Economics   

Seton Motley 
President 
Less Government 

Matthew Gagnon 
Chief Executive Officer 
Maine Policy Institute 

Charlie Sauer 
President 
Market Institute 

Patrick A. McLaughlin 
Research Fellow, Hoover Institution* 
Visiting Research Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation* 

Roslyn Layton 
Senior Fellow 
National Security Institute 

Pete Sepp 
President 
National Taxpayers Union 

John Tamny 
President 
Parkview Institute 

Daniel J. Erspamer 
Chief Executive Officer 
Pelican Institute for Public Policy 

Paul Gessing 
President 
Rio Grande Foundation 

Karen Kerrigan 
President & CEO 
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council 

Patrick Brenner  
President and CEO 
Southwest Public Policy Institute 

Ross Marchand  
Executive Director 
Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Jim Carter
Director, Center for American Prosperity (2021-23)
America First Policy Institute

 *Affiliation for identification purposes only