Images de page
PDF
ePub

The Secretary's letter of transmittal also mentions, seemingly as justification for this bill, that the bill is comparable to existing legislation governing the safety practices of our competitors. This is a plausible comparison, but it is one that does not take account of all the relevant facts.

Let us consider a truck company that is regulated by the Department in safety matters. The trucker has no rails and no roadbed to maintain. His right-of-way is maintained completely by public authority. He has no bridges to inspect or to rate. The bridges he uses are all maintained by public authority, and supported by taxpayers.

He has no signals to install or maintain. Traffic signals and signs are provided for him by the public. It is true that his vehicles must be inspected--but not nearly so thoroughly as are locomotives.

The superficial resemblance between safety regulation of the two kinds of carriers, therefore, disappears when these things are considered. The situation with respect to airlines and water carriers is closely similar.

Their "roadbeds," their "signals," and even their terminals are provided by the public. Adoption of this legislation, therefore, would not in fact put railroads on any parity in this respect with competing modes of transportation.

On the contrary, it would place under regulation vast areas of railroading which do not even exist in the case of other carriers. Railroads, I submit, are overregulated now-there is no need for this further regulation.

The railroad industry would welcome investigation of its safety practices by the Department or any other agency of the Government. It would cooperate actively in any such effort and would seek to enlist the equal participation of railway labor.

One example of our efforts at cooperation may be mentioned. In August 1967, the Department of Transportation announced a program to reduce grade crossing accidents. The next month the AAR Board of Directors met and unanimously resolved that the industry should tender its cooperation in research on the problem. This action was transmitted to the Secretary by the AAR's president.

In reply, the Secretary expressed his appreciation and said that the Federal Railroad and Highway Administrators would be in touch with us on the matter. We have since been told that a research plan is under discussion and that our cooperation may be needed in Junealmost a year later.

If careful analysis of railroad safety disclosed any area or areas of railroading where dangers exist that cannot be dispelled by labor and management, then there might have to be legislation to meet that need.

This bill exemplifies the wrong approach: It assumes an all-pervasive need without study or analysis and it prescribes all-embracing regulation as a remedy for something yet undefined.

The correct approach was stated by the National Transportation Safety Board in its first annual report dated March 15, 1968, where it said at page 6:

We believe the rail industry should immediately consider a review of its rules and voluntarily agree to adhere to specific minimum standards. If such voluntary methods should prove unsuccessful, then the alternative may be increased Federal regulation. However, in the first instance, we recommend that the Depart

ment examine the feasibility of the industry revising and amending its rules and observing them voluntarily.

Moreover, in Mr. O'Connell's letter to Mr. Lang of April 3 to which I have already referred, he said:

We believe that the primary responsibility for improved railroad safety should rest upon railroad management and labor.

I am in complete agreement with these statements. They advocate further study and that the industry be given an opportunity to voluntarily revise and amend its rules.

That is all the railroad industry wants, and we think it is a fair and reasonable request, and in this connection we urge and solicit the cooperation of the Department of Transportation with the Railroad Safety and Research Departments in a serious joint effort to improve railroad safety.

Such a program would be negated by the enactment of H.R. 16980. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very kindly, Mr. Menk, for coming and giving us the benefit of your views.

Due to the late hour, I have wondered whether you could come back next week?

Mr. MENK. Mr. Chairman, I could come back on Tuesday: I can't come Monday, and I can't come Wednesday. I have to make a speech. The CHAIRMAN. All right, that is what I had understood, time is pressing. If the committee desires to have you come back, we will let you know, then.

Mr. MENK. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I would hope that if they have questions, they would submit them in writing to you. They might wish to have you come back in, and if we do, we will let you know.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. I would like to join in inviting this gentleman back if possible, because I know that all of us would like to ask him questions. I know we don't have the time at this point, but I know we would all like to have the opportunity to ask him some extensive questions personally.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Well, if you could come back, then, Tuesday, we would be pleased to have you do so.

Mr. MENK. All right, thank you. I will be delighted.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We will have to adjourn, then, because the bell has rung for the day. We will adjourn until Monday morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Monday, May 27, 1968.)

FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR RAILROAD SAFETY

MONDAY, MAY 27, 1968

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Samuel N. Friedel presiding (Hon. Harley O. Staggers, chairman).

Mr. FRIEDEL. The meeting will come to order.

The hearing is a continuation of H.R. 16980, introduced by the chairman, Mr. Staggers, and related bills to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to establish safety standards, rules, and regulations for railroad equipment, trackage, facilities, and operations, and for other purposes.

Our first witness this morning will be Mr. H. C. Daulton, director of safety, Louisville & Nashville Railroad, speaking for the Association of American Railroads. Mr. Daulton.

STATEMENT OF H. C. DAULTON, DIRECTOR OF SAFETY, LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO., ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS

Mr. DAULTON. My name is H. C. Daulton, and I am director of safety for the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. I have held that position since February 16, 1965. I have been employed by the L. & N. since March 15, 1928, and have been directly connected with the safety department of that railroad since January 1, 1949.

I have been a member of the steering committee of the safety section of the Association of American Railroads since 1956. In 1961-62 I was chairman of the AAR Safety Section. I have actively participated in the affairs of the railroad section of the National Safety Council since 1949 and have served as general chairman of that section. At present I am a director of the National Safety Council and am a vice chairman of sections as well as a member of the executive committee of its industrial conference. These activities over the years have thrown me in close contact with the safety officers of the Nation's railroads. I am acquainted with what they and their railroads are doing to promote a safer place for their men to work and to eliminate needless suffering and death.

I am appearing here today in opposition to H.R. 16980. The statistical justification for the bill that has been advanced by its proponents is incomplete and misleading. Contrary to their assertions, railroad safety is not deteriorating.

Safety is akin to morals and is something that cannot effectively be controlled by legislation. Every railroad has safety rules which are guidelines for its employees to follow so that they may safely perform their duties. Yet with regularity the safety rules are violated and in many instances the man himself or his fellow employees are injured and property is damaged. In saying this I am not criticizing any one class of employee. All classes of employees and officials have a tendency to disregard safety rules at times simply because they are human beings.

Permit me to make some remarks about my own railroad-the L. & N.

In 1964 on the L. & N., we worked 1,665 yard switching crews per reportable injury to yard service employee. In 1967, we worked 2,831 yard switching crews per reportable injury.

In 1964, we operated 143,458 road train-miles per reportable casualty to trainmen. In 1967, that figure was 286,343 road train-miles per reportable casualty to trainmen.

In 1964, we operated 1,143 road trains per reportable injury to trainmen, and in 1967, we operated 2,442 road trains per reportable injury to trainmen.

In 1967 the L. & N. won the National Safety Council's top award for employee safety. For the first 3 months of this year the L. & N. had the lowest employee casualty rate among all railroads working more than 20 million man-hours per year.

The recent comments I have seen made by those who favor this bill seek to justify it chiefly by reference to train accidents. In his letter of April 3, 1968, to Mr. A. Scheffer Lang, Director, Federal Railroad Administration, Mr. Joseph J. O'Connell, Jr., chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, stated that there had been an increase in total train accidents, comparing 1961 with 1967. And, in his letter of April 29, to the Honorable Hubert H. Humphrey, President of the Senate, Mr. Alan S. Boyd, Secretary of Transportation, said:

In the past 7 years, the monthly average of train accidents has increased steadily from 341 in 1961 to an estimated 590 for 1967. One logical result of this increase in accidents has been an increase in casualty rates per million manhours worked during the same period.

The statements of Mr. O'Connell and Secretary Boyd that there has been an increase in the number of train accidents reported are correct so far as they go, but they do not tell the whole story.

Over the last 7 years fewer than 8 percent of the train accidents experienced by the railroads produced any reportable casualties. Attached to my statement is table A which bears that out.

To a safety man, such as accident category is in itself without major significance in determining whether safety is good or bad, improving or deteriorating. Safety is basically a matter of life and limb, and train accidents as such are obviously a poor guide to what is happening in the area of railroad safety.

In confining themselves to the discussion of train accidents only. the Secretary of Transportation and the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board are considering only one part of the picture, and, at that. a part that is not of great significance.

First, it is important to consider what train accidents are, what is their relation to railroad safety, and how railroad reporting requirements compare to those of other industries.

« PrécédentContinuer »