Railroad safety should not be left to contract negotiations

In a landmark move, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has finalized a rule mandating two-person train crews on major freight railroads across the nation. This development marks a crucial victory for organized labor and, most importantly, a significant step forward in bolstering rail safety.

The imperative for this regulation stems from a paramount concern: safety. The tragic derailment in Ohio back in February 2023, which left a scar on the community and raised nationwide alarms, underscored the pressing need for enhanced safety measures within the railroad industry. While the aftermath of that incident saw some improvements, including heightened trackside detectors, much remained to be done to address the root causes of such disasters.

Rail unions have fervently advocated for two-person crews, citing their indispensable role in ensuring the safe operation of trains, particularly as the length of trains continues to increase. Conductors play a multifaceted role, assisting engineers, maintaining vigilance, and serving as vital first responders in emergencies. Their presence in the cab of locomotives is not just a matter of tradition but a necessity in the modern context of extended train lengths and complex operations.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg aptly highlighted the need to break the cycle of attention followed by complacency in railroad safety. It’s a cycle that has allowed the industry lobby to stifle crucial safety provisions. The introduction of the two-person crew rule represents a decisive step in disrupting this pattern and prioritizing safety above all else.

Opponents of the regulation, notably the railroads, argue that crew size should be left to contract negotiations rather than regulatory mandates. However, safety cannot be subject to bargaining. The norm of two-person crews on major railroads is not arbitrary; it’s rooted in decades of experience and a recognition of the inherent risks involved in rail operations.

Critics also question the efficacy of two-person crews in enhancing safety, pointing to the lack of conclusive data. Yet, the absence of statistically significant evidence should not be misconstrued as evidence of safety. The precautionary principle dictates that we err on the side of caution, especially when lives and livelihoods are at stake.

The tragic incidents in Lac-Megantic, Canada, and Casselton, North Dakota, serve as grim reminders of the catastrophic consequences of inadequate crew sizes. The presence of conductors in those situations proved invaluable in mitigating the extent of the disasters. These incidents underscore the tangible difference that a second pair of eyes and hands can make in averting or minimizing tragedy.

While some states have taken proactive measures to mandate two-person crews, a federal standard is imperative to ensure uniformity and prevent regulatory arbitrage. The industry’s resistance to state-level regulations underscores the necessity of a cohesive federal framework to safeguard rail safety nationwide.

In conclusion, the new federal rule mandating two-person train crews is a pivotal advancement in prioritizing safety in the railroad industry. It’s a testament to the collective efforts of labor unions, safety advocates, and policymakers in advocating for measures that put lives and communities first. As we move forward, let us remain steadfast in our commitment to fostering a culture of safety and accountability within the railroad industry, sparing no effort to prevent future tragedies and safeguard our railways for generations to come.