Freight rail is one of America’s great productivity success stories. From 1988 to 2020, rail productivity more than tripled—the industry produced 213 percent more output per worker in 2020 than it could 32 years prior, compared to just 90 percent productivity growth for the overall U.S. business economy over the same period. That performance reflects decades of sustained investment in technology. Now, as the next generation of rail innovation is ready to deploy, Congress has an important choice: support continued modernization, or allow regulatory inertia and special interests to erode one of the country’s most productive industries.

AI-Powered Track Inspection Improves Safety

One of the most promising recent advances in rail is automated track inspection. These systems use lasers and cameras to automatically measure track defects, collecting real-time data on rail conditions as trains travel across the network, allowing railroads to more quickly and accurately identify potential safety issues. Compared to periodic manual inspection, automated systems provide continuous, geolocated data that enables earlier detection of defects and more targeted maintenance.

Railroads have been seeking regulatory recognition of this progress. The Association of American Railroads has petitioned the FRA for a waiver from visual inspection frequency requirements as railroads deploy autonomous track geometry measurement systems, including locomotive-mounted sensors that continuously collect real-time data on rail conditions. These systems can detect defects earlier, support preventive maintenance, and increase the frequency of inspections far beyond what is feasible through periodic manual inspections. Pilot programs have had encouraging results: Norfolk Southern has operated freight trains under reduced visual inspection frequencies with no measurable degradation in safety outcomes. Meanwhile, several commuter railroads—including NJ Transit, SEPTA, and LIRR—have already received waivers to operate similar systems.

Despite this evidence, the FRA under the prior administration delayed or rejected waiver requests, in part out of a desire to prevent any job losses. So, the FRA proposed that waiver applicants should demonstrate their proposed changes would not eliminate jobs, effectively allowing employment concerns to override the agency’s core mandate. Congress should make clear that safety outcomes and improvements in productivity, not jobs, are the appropriate basis for FRA regulatory decisions. And it needs to remember that technologies like automated train inspection will boost productivity, which, by definition, will benefit consumers by lowering costs for all goods that involve rail shipping, either as inputs or final products.

Crew Size Policy Should Reflect the Technology That Exists Today

A similar misalignment between regulatory requirements and current technology characterizes the crew size debate. As technology such as positive train control systems has improved, and further advances in autonomous systems also look promising, it is possible to safely operated trains with less than two operators—again, something that would lead to lower prices for American consumers.

Opponents argue that reducing crew sizes would compromise safety. But the relevant safety technologies have changed substantially. Two-person crews are likely unnecessary because of automatic braking systems that prevent many collisions caused by human error. Positive train control already performs many of the safety functions that a mandatory second crew member ostensibly provides.

So, a proposed rule requiring two-person crews would limit rail innovation and the economic productivity that it generates. That is not a trade-off that serves the public interest.

The Broader Stakes: Productivity and Supply Chain Costs

The policy debate over crew sizes and track inspection waivers may appear narrow, but its consequences extend well beyond the rail industry. Freight rail moves roughly 40 percent of U.S. long-haul freight. When rail costs rise—or fail to fall as fast as technology would permit—those costs are distributed across the entire supply chain, by manufacturers and retailers, and ultimately by consumers.

Constraining innovation in rail to preserve specific job categories would protect a small number of workers at the expense of all Americans who benefit from efficient freight movement.

What Congress Should Do

Congress should take three steps:

1. Prohibit the FRA from using job-preservation as a criterion for evaluating safety waiver petitions.
2. Direct the FRA to act on the outstanding waiver requests for automated track inspection systems within a defined timeframe—the agency has a legal obligation to respond to these petitions and has failed to do so.
3. Block any legislative effort, including at the state level, to mandate two-person crews absent demonstrated safety evidence rather than regulatory presumption.

The Department of Transportation’s mandate is to protect safety and promote efficiency. An amazing array of new technologies has emerged with the potential to significantly improve not just freight rail, but also a host of other transportation modes. The U.S. government needs to do what many nations around the world are already doing by leaning into these technologies, not resisting them on behalf of special interests.