Youngkin right to veto phony ‘rail safety’ bill
Before Virginia’s legislative session came to a close on March 9, Gov. Glenn Youngkin had some important decisions to make. Of the legislation that crossed his desk, he took action on 84 bills, signing 64 into law, amending 12 and vetoing eight. Of those that were rightfully vetoed was a politically driven effort to mandate staffing on the freight rail network in the commonwealth, essentially mandating two-man crews on all operating trains, locomotives or light engines.
The two-person crew debate is not new, having touched the desks of governors across the country, including former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan. Not once, not twice, but three times did Hogan veto two-person crew mandates, echoing many of the points that Youngkin hit at in his veto messages: these mandates would create economic strain in the state and disturb the Mid-Atlantic’s complex rail network with no proven safety benefits.
Specifically, in his veto statement, Youngkin noted the harms of the legislation, stating “the proposed regulations would impose constraints on our supply chain, impeding our ability to manage inflation and cope with rising costs of living and doing business in Virginia. The economic repercussions pose a genuine threat to the stability of our economy.” With this veto the governor preserves the integrity of Virginia’s thriving rail industry, recovering supply chains and consumers across the state.
Youngkin was right about the economic costs and impact on our supply chain from these union-driven proposals. But further to the point, these crew size mandates seek to artificially set the requirements for what is needed to operate the freight network without any proven connection to rail safety.
As 19 state policy groups highlighted in a 2022 letter in response to the Federal Railroad Administration’s proposed rule on freight crew size, “there is no safety justification for requiring a two-person crew,” referencing a 2016 FRA study that conceded that it “could not provide reliable or conclusive statistical data to suggest whether one-person crew operations are generally safer or less safe than multiple-person crew operations.’” A few years later in 2019, the FRA once again recognized that “accident/incident data does not support a train crew staffing regulation.”
Notably, it is voices on both the left and right of the political spectrum who have echoed the concerns with forced crew-size mandates. For example, the Progressive Policy Institute’s Elliot Long confirmed the same notion, warning that “a patchwork of state proposals [on crew size mandates] is confusing and impractical to comply with.” Long further warned that if Virginia (and other states) passed this legislation, carriers along the east coast would be forced to track and comply with each state’s new laws, hiring new crew, and reorganizing shipping routes. Disruptions of this magnitude would inevitably burden the Mid-Atlantic rail network, and above all, the American consumer.
On the other side of the political aisle, the National Taxpayers Union asserts that government intervention like this places burdens on carriers, raises overhead costs and can affect shipping rates. Then, shipping rates trickle down to impact supply chain economics and the broader financial stability of railroads and shippers. As a result, shippers and customers would be forced to support added labor costs for a larger crew. Our nation’s supply chains are still in recovery mode from the pandemic, and with the cost of consumer goods and services already on the rise, Americans can’t take on another financial burden. Especially one that isn’t necessary.
A tip of the hat to Gov. Youngkin who, despite a crowded legislative agenda, used his veto to prioritize Virginia’s economic health and protect consumers from an increased financial burden, ensuring Virginia’s rail industry thrives for years to come.