Mr. DEMPSEY. Yes, Senator.

The first point I would like to make is that the railroad safety record is good both with respect to general freight operations and transportation of hazardous materials. The preliminary figures we have for 1979 indicate that last year the fatalities in railroad accidents were the lowest since recordkeeping began back in the last century. This year, 1979, was not unique. This record low carries on a downward trend in fatalities in all categories for the last 14 years. It is true, on the other hand, as has been noted, that train accidents have been going up. We hope 1979 will show a downward trend there, but the fact of the matter is over a period of years we have seen an increase in train accidents and that is disheartening.

The point I would like to underscore is that in terms of safety this trend is not nearly as significant as the decline in fatalities. You can see why that is so if you take a look at what is involved in a train accident. All that is required for an incident to be classified as an accident is that there be $2,900 in damage to railroad property; whether or not there are any injuries associated with the accident.

So that even a simple yard derailment at very low speed, which is not a serious matter generally, can result in costs that high. That is why train accidents, as they are called, accounted for only about 3.7 percent of our total fatalities in 1978. By far the largest number of train accidents are relatively insignificant. Over 60 percent involve less than $10,000 damage and only 22 on the other end of the scale involve as much as a half million dollars damage and only five in that year involved $1 million or more. Therefore the significant consideration I suggest in terms of important safety considerations is that the most serious accidents, that is, the ones that involve a serious hazard to life or limb, those kinds of train accidents remained relatively constant in recent years.

A word about hazardous materials. It's widely recognized that railroads represent by far the safest form of transportation for hazardous materials. That is why shippers choose railroads for about 70 percent of their business. The fact is that trucks which transport only 30 percent of hazardous materials are involved in 90 percent of all hazardous materials' accidents.

As to rail transportation, 1979 was a good year. We had not a single death due to hazard materials' accident, out of more than 1.1 million carloads of hazardous materials shipped. There were only 112 instances of releases from derailments. 1979 is not an unusual year. If you look at the last 10 years you will see in 5 of those 10 years there were no fatalities and in 3 of the other 5 years there were no more than one or two fatalities due to hazardous materials' accidents.

I don't mean to suggest we are satisfied. We are not. We have to pay constant attention to all aspects of railroading if these trends are to be continued and improved. We mention briefly some of the steps underway. First I think it's important to recognize that virtually all aspects of rail operations bear upon safety. Improvements in track and techniques are important in service and also in terms of improving safety. These steps are being taken.

For example, in 1979 our spending for capital improvements and maintenance reached an all-time high. That followed previous record highs in 1978, 1977 and 1976. These figures are particularly impressive, I suggest, when one considers that the investments were made in the face of continued chronically low industry earnings.

These expenditures should pay off particularly in terms of derailments, and preliminary figures for 1979 indicate that they are paying off. These show a decline in derailments of 18 percent during the first nine months of the year, a particularly heartening development.

There are a variety of programs underway, one of the most important was mentioned by Mr. Parsons, I believe, called Track Train Dynamics, now in its seventh year. Through that program, for example, there have been developed a set of guidelines for train handling which describe to the engineer the best manner of operating a train under a wide variety of conditions. We have developed a number of analytical models in this program to assess the probable behavior of new equipment. They resulted in extensive changes to equipment.

This program is an excellent example of how productive industry-government cooperative projects can be in terms of improved performance and therefore improved safety.

Another program discussed is one focused on tank car safety. I won't repeat what the others said about that program. It did result in new regulations designed to improve the performance and safety of tank cars. This should be complete by 1980 on the 112-114 cars. By that time there should be an end to the violent rupture of these types of tank cars.

A word about grade crossings. Mr. King referred to it in some detail. I won't want to repeat anything that he said. It's a very serious matter. We have, as he noted, about 1,000 people killed at grade crossings every year. There have been significant improvements. The number of fatalities has dropped about 52 percent since 1967, notwithstanding an increased exposure of about 40 percent. That has been because of a variety of programs by industry and government.

There is no single answer to grade crossing accidents. The overwhelming majority are due to error on the part of drivers. We have a number of cases in which drivers not only go right around a physical barrier that is there by virtue of protection, but actually drive into the side of moving trains. So that it's pretty clear to us that the main need here is for education. That is what we are undertaking in cooperation with the National Safety Council and state help, and of course the continued installation of grade crossing protection.

I think the next point I would like to emphasize is that there are no measures that can be taken that will make a revolutionary change in railroad safety. That is no surprise. The profit incentive to improve safety has always been there. The result is that the major problems have been dealt with, and the accidents and injuries and deaths that still occur have a wide variety of causes that are not susceptible to one-shot, simple solutions.

For example, the recently completed analysis of employee casualties revealed that the complete elimination of any one of the highest ranked safety problems would improve railroad safety by only a few percentage points. What then is the most promising approach to improving railroad safety?

First, continuation of the programs already in place, such as track-train dynamics and the test center out at Pueblo that operates under the cooperation of FRA and industry.

Second, a better use of FRA data to monitor trends and identify potential safety problems areas. We would welcome the opportunity to work with FRA in the formulation of safety and research action programs using these data.

Finally, what is not needed, in our judgment, is new regulations or legislation. This is because, as I have noted, there is no single problem that stands out that might be a suitable subject for regulation or legislation. Rather what is necessary is further development and analysis of data so as to identify a variety of useful steps. That can be done only in an environment of flexibility.

Regulations that do little for safety tend to deflect interest and attention away from new concepts that may emerge from research. Finally, we endorse continuation of FRA's safety research program. We think that is an essential element of improving safety in our industry.

I note in closing that we understand that there will be an administration bill dealing with matters of safety. We would hope we would be given an opportunity to comment upon that bill. We have not had an opportunity to examine it as yet. From what I hear of it, there will be some feature of it such as the expansion of the DOT's emergency authority that we would in all likelihood oppose. Thank you.

Senator PRESSLER. Thank you very much. I have just a few questions here you might be able to respond to.

First of all, you refer in your testimony to the statistics relating to employee injuries and various causes.

Has the industry begun to make any adjustments in equipment or changes in training as a result of these findings?

Mr. TAYLOR. We have just undertaken a rather extensive evaluation of employee casualty data to look at just what kind of research is needed in that area to augment the kind of research we have ongoing right now in the general area of human factor research. This includes locomotive cab design, and a study under way for some time now, evaluation of the effectiveness of safety programs and training of individual railroads.

These have already, and we expect will continue to result in improvements to equipment design, training and procedures. Senator PRESSLER. If you have additional comments to any of these questions later, you can submit them for the record.

Would you please state what you believe to be the top five priorities in the railroad safety area, and the reasons for these choices? It doesn't necessarily have to be five, maybe the top three, or the very top priorities you see.

Mr. TAYLOR. I am not sure I would come up with five in particular, but I certainly think that the continuation of the work in many of the areas that both Mr. Dempsey and the gentlemen from

FRA mentioned is important. Those would include such things as tank car research, and for example; the human factors research programs which I alluded to earlier.

Certainly, continuation of the work in Track Train Dynamics that has also been mentioned would certainly be in the top three in terms of priorities.

We could give you some additional information on that later, if you so desire.

Senator PRESSLER. All right. Do you have any recommendations as to whether any of the Federal Railroad Administration's funding could be more usefully reallocated to other parts of the Federal Railroad Administration's program?

If so, where do you believe this reallocation should take place? Mr. JOHNSTON. I guess we think in the activity of research. Senator PRESSLER. In the aggregate research?

Mr. JOHNSTON. In the activity of research.

Senator PRESSLER. In what way?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Those items that my colleague just mentioned earlier.

Senator PRESSLER. OK.

Mr. TAYLOR. I would say just to amplify on that a little bit, I believe both the FRA and the AAR need to direct more attention towards the human factors area in such-with such regard as the design of the so-called man-machine interface, employee training, and the motivational problems that sometimes are the root cause of these kinds of problems.

Senator PRESSLER. We thank you very much. If you have additional comments, we will be glad to place them into the record. We look forward to continuing to hear from you and work with you. Mr. DEMPSEY. Thank you, Senator.

[The statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. DEMPSEY, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN

RAILROADS

The Association of American Railroads welcomes the opportunity to comment here today on reauthorization of appropriations to carry out the purpose of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970.

My name is William H. Dempsey and I am president of the AAR. Appearing with me today are Dr. William J. Harris, vice president of Research and Test, and A. William Johnson, vice president of Operations and Maintenance.

The railroads which are members of the Association employ 94 percent of the workers, produce 97 percent of the freight revenues and operate 95 percent of the line-haul trackage in the United States.

With the permission of the Subcommittee, I will offer a brief oral summary of my comments, but I ask that our full statement along with its extensive documentation be included in the record.

I can say at the outset that the U.S. railroad industry supports the reauthorization for appropriations to carry out the purpose of the Federal Railroad Safety Act and we agree completely with the Subcommittee that railroad safety is one of the most important issues facing Congress today.

When viewed in perspective, I believe that this Subcommittee will agree that the railroad safety record-both in general freight and with respect to hazardous materials operations—is a good one. Preliminary 1979 figures from the Federal Railroad Administration indicate that total fatalities in railroad accidents last year were the lowest since record-keeping began in the last century. I emphasize that 1979 was not an anomaly. Last year was consistent with a downward trend for the past 14 years in railroad fatalities in all categories: passengers, employees, trespassers, and others (the preponderence of which are highway grade crossing fatalities). The fact is total fatalities have declined in 11 of the past 13 years. For example, in 1978 there was a

total of 1,646 railroad fatalities. When we deduct grade crossing accidents-which are almost always the fault of the motorist, and trespassers, the number of fatalities is reduced to 135. Last year, total fatalities dropped to 1,443. Again, when grade crossing fatalities and trespassers are separately considered, we have 123 fatalities. A complete breakdown of safety statistics is provided in Appendix A.

An understanding of the facts with regard to railroad safety requires first an understanding of the three major FRA accident categories: train incidents, nontrain incidents and train accidents.

A "train incident" now refers to an occurrence in which there was relatively little property damage (less than $2,900 to railroad equipment) but which resulted in death or injury. As a result of the changes in reporting criteria for injuries beginning in 1975, the total number of incidents is now disproportionately larger than in earlier years.1

A "non-train incident" relates to a fatality or an injury which occurs during the operation of a railroad but does not involve any movement of trains. Casualties in this category may involve standing rail equipment, maintenance-of-way activities or personnel working with tools and equipment in yards and repair shops.

"Train accidents" is the category which receives the most public attention. Such accidents may or may not involve injury or death. The reporting criterion is tied to financial loss. An accident is a "train accident" if it involves at least $2,900 damage to railroad property-whether or not it involved any injuries. Even a simple yard derailment-far less serious potentially than a truck tire blowout-can result in costs that are this high. In 1975 and 1976, the threshold was $1,750 and in 1977 and 1978, $2,300.

In 1978, the latest year for which there is completed data available, there were 11,277 train accidents. Approximately 43 percent of these accidents were caused by defects in track or structures, 19 percent by equipment problems, 25 percent by human factors and 13 percent by other factors. Deaths in this category totaled 61 (excluding grade crossings). Stated another way, train accidents accounted for only about 3.7 percent of total deaths. Reported train accidents statistics for 1975-1978 are provided in Appendix A.

Of those trains accidents, over 60 percent incurred monetary damages less than $10,000-significantly less than the price of one new freight car. Of the total accidents, only 402 involved damage of more than $100,000. Only 102 of that number involved damage of more than $250,000, 22 of that number involved damage of $500,000 or more and only 5 of that number involved damage of $1 million or more. Such a great difference between the most costly accidents and the cost of most accidents indicates that the vast majority of accidents are, indeed, not very serious in monetary terms.

Moreover-and more significantly—if the inflation factor is removed by applying 1975 dollars to the cost of accidents, and the level of traffic is considered, it can be seen that serious derailments-those involving the most property damage and the most serious threat of death and injury-have remained constant in recent years. I have not made this explanation for the purpose of criticizing the reporting standards. However, we have been disappointed in the past by FRA's limited use of these data to monitor trends, identify potential safety problem areas, and assist in the development and evaluation of safety program goals and priorities. The industry would welcome the opportunity to work with FRA in the formulation of safety and research action programs using these data. The railroad industry and the FRA have worked together to develop and improve the reporting system. We look forward to the opportunity for continued participation with FRA to develop further improvements which will permit more accurate determination of the causes and consequences of accidents.

The current FRA criteria and procedures for data collection are adequate to monitor trends and provide indications of potential problem areas which may require more detailed investigation. This data collection and analysis system on an industry-wide basis should not attempt to pinpoint the specific nature of each safety problem or to support in-depth analysis. Once the industry-wide system identifies potential problems that appear significant, then appropriate action should be taken, including notification of railroad representatives and recommendations for corrective action. In some cases, special studies may be appropriate, requiring the collection and analysis of detailed data. Such studies, conducted at the individual carrier level will more accurtatly determine such factors as accident frequency, severity,

1 After January 1, 1975, the FRA changed its reporting criteria which resulted in injuries and occupational illnesses being reported that had not previously been reported because they did not result in at least one day's lost time. All injuries requiring more than first aid must now be reported. Thus, current figures are not comparable with earlier ones.