Improving the safety of trucks and trains

In addition to sensational accident reports, the number of plane and rail accidents and fatalities has dropped dramatically over the last 40 years. However, road fatalities have increased in recent years, even taking into account the increase in the total number of drivers.

In an earlier article, I examined the role of professional practices and safety culture in reducing U.S. transportation deaths and injuries. However, public policy choices can also impact infrastructure and innovation in rail and trucking – two industries that compete in freight transport but each with different regulatory regimes.

Without the ridesharing trend, the increase in road deaths in recent years could have been even more pronounced. Ridesharing, for example, appears to have reduced alcohol-related crashes and is associated with a 5.4% reduction in traffic fatalities in the U.S., where the service is permitted. Based on conventional estimates of the statistical value of a life, ridesharing results in $6.8 billion in lifesaving benefits.

Importantly, rideshare drivers report employing the technical, social, and physical characteristics of a safety culture. Professional truck drivers also cultivate a culture of safety. However, there are a significant number of truck-related deaths, especially large commercial vehicles. For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation reports 533,796 crashes involving this vehicle category in 2021 and approximately 5,000 deaths.

One reason for the increase in road fatality rates, according to researchers, is the post-pandemic shipping boom, which has brought more vehicles, shipments and distribution centers to the market and, in turn, resulted in an increase in commercial trucking in cities, residential neighborhoods and mixed-use locations. , with pedestrians and greater traffic complexity.

Another reason for the high number of road fatalities may be the recent change in truck driver compensation models. Drivers may now see a reduction in their total mileage and payments due to the increased number of deliveries in cities and because they are now paid based on deliveries made rather than distance travelled. This may prompt drivers to increase their driving speeds to meet deadlines and deliveries on time.

Safety culture also matters. Some corporate owners focus on compliance, employee satisfaction, and cost reduction and litigation, while other owners and stakeholders may have different priorities.

Safety culture is influenced by technological innovations. Vehicles are increasingly equipped with intelligent systems and sensors that collect, report and deploy data based on traffic patterns, weather conditions and vehicle performance. These systems can help slow down drivers, reduce congestion, optimize routes and reduce risks. Another class of tools enhances predictive capabilities by analyzing data to identify potential problems, such as vehicle maintenance, before they lead to accidents.

Automation can also improve safety culture. Machines can now perform tasks prone to human error and can prevent accidents through real-time alerts and even computer interventions. This automation includes technologies such as collision avoidance systems, lane departure warning and adaptive cruise control, all of which improve situational awareness and prevent accidents.

Notably, over the past few decades, freight rail operators have invested billions of dollars in implementing positive train control (PTC) – a system of automated train safety functions – to improve safety and fuel efficiency. PTC offers valuable simulations for train operators to learn from. These technologies provide the intelligence necessary to coordinate intersecting rail lines, signal, switch, route and facilitate other essential rail communications. Additionally, they can provide analysis on defects, damaged rails, overheated bearings, equipment delays, rock slides, and other safety hazards. Importantly, PTC can stop the train when the system detects a life-threatening threat.

Both rail and transportation companies are pursuing automation to improve safety and efficiency, but adoption rates vary. These technologies are mediated by organized demand for labor. For example, the Federal Railroad Administration has imposed a minimum two-person train crew requirement even though the agency has not provided sufficient evidence that the rule improves safety. Likewise, the climate-friendly, autonomous “supertrucks” promised by the U.S. Department of Energy and private investors have yet to appear.

But just as technology promises to improve safety, so too may the design, use and ownership of infrastructure. The key characteristic of a mode of transport is its channel – such as a railway or road – and whether it is permanent and exclusive or public.

Consider the issue of a privately owned railway and a publicly owned road. A private railway controls which trains run on its tracks and takes responsibility for its maintenance, while a public road can be used by all motorists, regardless of whether they use large trucks, small cars or motorcycles. In this way, the railway can reduce the number of accidents by limiting access and using standard trains. Indeed, this concept underlies the “fixed guide” mass transit model. Moreover, such systems are becoming more and more automated because train movements can be programmed and controlled in advance.

It is worth noting that there are different security incentives for privately maintained infrastructure. For example, private owners are ultimately responsible for accidents that occur on their infrastructure, are insured against such accidents and therefore take measures to reduce them. This dynamic can be seen in part in improved freight rail safety, but also in continued private investment in building, maintaining and modernizing private infrastructure. Indeed, freight rail remains the top-rated U.S. infrastructure, as assessed by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

This rail experience contrasts with the economics and incentives of trucking. Trucking companies do not own highways; they may or may not contribute financially to road infrastructure in the form of taxes or gas tolls, and these fees vary depending on location, truck size, applicable regulations, and so on. Road economics are complex, and users of the largest vehicles do not necessarily incur maintenance costs, even if they cause more wear and tear on roads and bridges.

Moreover, trucks clog roads, competing for space with passenger vehicles. Private railways, meanwhile, enjoy relatively plenty of space on dedicated tracks, which are used to transport large, heavy and bulky items efficiently while avoiding cities and road delays.

Infrastructure and innovation are two elements that should be taken into account when creating safety policies on highways and railways. Although trucks and trains compete to deliver many of the same goods, they operate under different laws and regulatory authorities. These differences can create structural and distortive differences in prices, performance and competition. Regulations evolve over time to address problems, but can also quickly become outdated due to technological advances and foreign competition over which U.S. regulators may or may not have jurisdiction.

There are dozens of federal agencies that oversee specific elements of transportation in the US. These asymmetries become arbitrage points for competing industries. Trucking has relatively few regulatory requirements and ease of entry compared to freight rail, which must comply with many outdated common carrier regulations imposed over 150 years ago. Ironically, carpooling can reduce safety by forcing rail companies to transport dangerous cargo at a price below its true economic cost.

One idea to improve transport safety would be to adopt a single regulatory framework with the same rules for competing industries and a greater emphasis on reducing the number of accidents and fatalities. Rail and road transport regulations could build on a licensing and liability system to align incentives so that operators are responsible for the safety of their respective transport channels. Automation would be accelerated and irrational rules such as the two-person crew rule would be abolished. A move towards regulatory innovation would also increase the likelihood that transport prices will be set by market competition rather than regulators.