In the aftermath of any tragedy, it is commonplace for people to want to take action to prevent a recurrence of the event. Such is the understandable case following the horrific train derailment that occurred in East Palestine, OH earlier this year, an incident that continues to leave its mark on the local community as questions persist regarding the ongoing environmental impact resulting from the spillage of hazardous materials during the wreck.
As congress continues to debate measures intended to improve overall rail safety, it is imperative that any proposed remedy consider the potential for unintended consequences. In the case of rail safety, and in particular the transportation of hazardous materials, any proposed remedy that moves greater amounts of hazardous materials off of rail transportation and onto the nation’s highway system could present new public safety challenges for communities and first responders alike.
Though it is easy to lose sight of the big picture in the wake of a high-profile event, it is important to consider that the transportation of hazardous materials on rail cars has been historically far safer than transportation on highways. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration, for the 12-year period between 1994-2005, hazardous materials emanating from railroad accidents resulted in 14 deaths while during the same period hazardous materials resulting from highway accidents killed 116 people.
Truck accidents have also been responsible for three times the amount of property damage as rail accidents since 2000.
These facts are relevant given that current debate over efforts to improve rail safety have centered largely on language within the proposed Railway Safety Act of 2023, which among other things empowers the Secretary of Transportation with considerable new authorities while also mandating and narrowing the scope and manner in which hazardous materials are transported on rail cars. The Senate Commerce Committee approved an amended version of the bill last week, largely along party lines.
As with any proposed regulatory changes, such mandates could have the unintended consequence of pushing more hazardous materials off of rail systems and onto the nation’s highways as distributors compensate for the regulatory changes while trying to accommodate consumers’ needs and deadlines.
If more hazardous materials are pushed onto the nation’s highway system, it opens the possibility that more citizens and first responders could be exposed to potentially dangerous incidents, given the higher frequency of truck-related accidents over rail accidents of a similar nature. This fact was rightly pointed out by Ranking Member Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who led Republican opposition to the bill. Sen. Cruz said, “Data clearly shows that on average transportation by truck consumes more fuel, carries a greater risk of an accident with a hazardous material release, and carries a greater threat to the traveling public than transportation by rail….the measure to quote improve rail safety may come at the expense of transportation safety overall.”
Police officers, usually among the very first responders to arrive on the scene of an accident, on average only spend a fraction of their police academy training on hazardous materials response. With law enforcement and public safety budgets strained and police departments facing a generational crisis in recruiting and retention, even an incremental rise in the frequency of highway accidents involving hazardous materials could pose significant challenges to communities and first responders.
All manner of first responders—from police officers to EMTs and fire personnel—respond valiantly to public calls for assistance every day—despite the dangers both seen and unseen—and calls involving hazardous materials are among the most challenging. Numerous examples illustrate the dangers posed to first responders attending to these incidents and the split-second decisions that can mean the difference between life and death or serious injury.
Any approach within efforts to improve upon rail safety standards should be viewed holistically, not reflexively, and take into account the potential for unintended consequences that could have adverse public safety outcomes, including those affecting our nation’s first responders. The ultimate goal is, as it should always be, enhanced overall public safety.
