Railroad safety has improved dramatically over the past 25 years
stansr...@gmail.com
American Railroads
Thursday September 29, 1:11 pm ET
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is a statement
from Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American
Railroads:
This report is not about safety, it is a bargaining strategy.
The nation's railroads are engaged in a round of bargaining with
their unions, including a coalition of seven unions led by the
Teamsters. That coalition represents less than half of the industry's
unionized work force. So in an effort to improve their position at
the bargaining table, the Teamsters have chosen to misrepresent the
industry's excellent safety record.
The facts show railroad safety has improved dramatically over the
past 25 years. Since 1980, the train accident rate has declined 64
percent; collisions have dropped by 80 percent; and derailments have
fallen by 67 percent.
Equally impressive is the dramatic improvement in employee safety.
The employee casualty rate has dropped 77 percent since 1980. In
2004, railroads recorded the lowest employee casualty rate in
history.
And the safety record continues to improve. According to Federal
Railroad Administration statistics, the train accident rate declined
12.2 percent and the employee injury rate 19.3 percent during the
first six months of this year compared with the same period last
year.
Similarly, the Teamsters misrepresent the facts about remote control
operations in railyards. A soon-to-be released report by the Federal
Railroad Administration will show that employee injuries and injury
rates are lower where RCL is used than when older technology is used.
The Teamsters' so- called study is nothing more than a one-side
collection of anecdotes about RCL. The facts show that railroad
employees are safer when the new technology is used.
Regarding hazardous materials, rail remains the safest way to
transport these products, sixteen times safer than trucks. In fact,
99.99 percent of all hazardous material shipped by rail arrives
safely. Transporting hazardous material by rail is 71 percent safer
today than it was in 1980.
The railroad industry's security plan has been widely praised by
experts both inside and outside the federal government. Rerouting
increases distances and transit times. It also increases switching
and dwell time in yards, and this increases the risk of an accidental
spill as well as the risk of a security breech. The Department of
Justice, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of
Transportation all agree: Rerouting hazardous material around cities
increases the risk and makes hazmat more vulnerable to terrorist
attacks.
We are disappointed that the coalition has resorted to irresponsible
and false characterizations of the nation's railroads, the safest way
to move goods and products across our country. The fact is that it is
safer to work in the railroad industry than it is to work in a
grocery store, the airline industry, the water transportation
industry, and the trucking industry.
Source: Association of American Railroads
***********************************************************
Stans Railpix railphotoexpress.com Store !!
http://www.cafepress.com/stans_railpix
Stan'S Railpix;-A-Rail-Photo-Gallery !!
http://www.trainweb.org/railpix
Will remain a FREE site with 1176 images posted.
***********************************************************
alv...@xx.com
> We are disappointed that the coalition has resorted to irresponsible
> and false characterizations of the nation's railroads, the safest way
> to move goods and products across our country. The fact is that it is
> safer to work in the railroad industry than it is to work in a
> grocery store, the airline industry, the water transportation
> industry, and the trucking industry.
> Source: Association of American Railroads
It sure as heck has improved but this last statement needs some
addition. The only skilled workers in the US that's not covered by
Workman's-Comp are long-shoremen and railroaders. To get money for
your injury you have to negotiate with the company's Claims Agent.
So guess what? Many injuries are handled very quietly "in house".
That's the main reason the record looks so good from the "outside".
Also the AAR is a collection of railroad operating officers, AAR is
the railroad's voice. No sweat, just thought you'd want to know.
But yeah, compared to farming or truck-driving railroading is...
"safer".
The gov't investigating injury reports and I was one of them, turned
out that my injury the previous year hadn't been reported by the RR.
The gov't didn't ask about the dozen others I'd had over the years.
Feeling like it wasn't any of the gov't's business anyway I didn't
offer any extra ammunition to shoot the SP with. It was already
mis-managed to the point of being on its knees. :)
The trainmasters being put in charge of "sales" was a big mistake.
Alvin in AZ
mr_class
Hence, fewer injuries and fatalities. As to injury rates, "figures don't lie
but liars figure."
I have first-hand knowledge of how railroads hide injuries.
Remote-control mishaps have been and are being hidden as well.
James Robinson
Railroads have been accused of "hiding" accidents and injuries for
decades. Since the accident rate has dropped to about 1/4 of what it was
only about 15 years ago, are you suggesting that the railroads are
really that much better at covering up accidents than they were a decade
ago, or do you agree that accidents and injuries have actually
decreased?
Since the reported fatality rate has dropped at about the same rate as
injuries and derailments, and since it's pretty hard to hide a fatality,
it is a good indicator that injuries are also dropping at about the same
rate.
As far as employment being lower, yes, that certainly would have an
effect, simply because there are fewer employees to get injured. It
does open up an interesting philosophical debate. Consider the
following hypothetical situation:
Railroad "X" has 1,000 operating employees, and reports 20 injuries a
year. As a result of a new labor agreement, they are able to cut their
workforce in half, to 500 employees, and are still able to move the same
number of cars the same distance, that is, they are able to produce the
same number of ton-miles. After the staff reduction, they have 12
injuries per year.
The result is that the number of injuries to perform the same amount of
work has dropped by 40 percent, but the risk of injury to the remaining
employees has increased by 20 percent. Which is better?
I agree that the ideal situation would have both rates drop, but that
isn't the question. The question is whether it is reasonable to trade
off fewer injuries in total against a higher risk for the remaining
employees.
