Colorado is poised to bolster its oversight of railways after Gov. Jared Polis signed a bill on Wednesday to hire new state safety inspectors, increase data collection and ramp up safety protocols. 

The measure, Senate Bill 162, builds on legislation passed last year that created the Office of Rail Safety and commissioned an initial report on rail regulations.

SB 162 seeks to equip the office with enforcement capabilities by hiring up to six state inspectors tasked with conducting at least two inspections per week, in addition to a data analyst, by 2028. The personnel will be paid for through new fees beginning in 2027 on Class I railroads, representing the largest commercial rail carriers, and passenger lines.

In Colorado, that will impact three rail companies — Union Pacific, Amtrak, and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway — according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Council Staff. Those three oversee a combined 3,000 miles of track throughout the state. 

While rail regulation and inspections are typically overseen at the federal level, more states have moved to take on enforcement responsibilities. Currently, around 30 states have some form of rail safety office similar to Colorado’s. Proponents say it’s part of plugging gaps caused by dwindling federal resources. 

“I don’t think we’re going to expect any additional resources federally for a long time, and certainly we’ve seen some resources in this space cut,” said Sen. Lisa Cutter, D-Littleton, a lead sponsor of SB 162. 

Other provisions of the law allow train crew members to communicate with first responders during emergencies after notifying the railroad dispatch. It also shields railroad employees and crew members from civil liability and damages when acting in good faith during an emergency. 

Additionally, the measure increases data reporting, including on train length, wayside detectors, blocked public crossing locations, and maintenance activities, and calls for more assessments on the state’s ability to respond to large-scale disasters. 

Cutter said the law is a win for workers and the environment. 

“I think at a time when corporations are being put ahead of individuals … I’m just really proud that we could do something that helps workers and the environment and the general well-being of everybody in Colorado,” Cutter said. 

Uinta Basin, mountain rail project put safety in spotlight 

The push for more rail oversight comes amid a major breakthrough last week for the stalled Uinta Basin Railway, a controversial proposal that would connect remote oil fields in Utah with the national rail network. 

The railway would utilize existing tracks through Colorado, with the potential to haul up to 350,000 barrels of waxy crude oil daily along the Colorado River and through several mountain communities. 

The proposal had been on pause following a lawsuit filed by Eagle County and a coalition of environmental groups seeking to kill the project. But a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling on May 29 sided with the federal agency that initially approved the proposal, clearing the way for the railway to move forward, though a lower appeals court must still rule on other aspects of the case. 

Rep. Elizabeth Velasco, D-Glenwood Springs, whose district would be part of the new railway, has lambasted the measure. Also a sponsor of SB 162, Velasco said the issue of rail safety takes on new urgency as the Uinta Basin project moves closer to fruition.

“We are definitely not ready to respond to a major oil spill,” Velasco said. “I think the risk to our communities is too great not to do anything.” 

There were over 12,400 train derailments in the U.S. between 2013 and 2023, according to an Associated Press analysis of accident reports submitted by railroads.

Colorado is also pursuing a major expansion of its passenger rail infrastructure. 

Plans to transform the Denver to Winter Park ski train into a year-round passenger line connecting to Steamboat Springs and Craig are chugging along. Polis last month finalized a deal with Union Pacific over the use of the Moffat Tunnel, which is key to the state’s ability to run passenger rail through northwest Colorado. 

Officials are planning to launch the new rail line in phases, with hopes of running daily passenger services between Denver and Granby by the end of 2026. A timeline for when a full

Denver to Craig route will be operational has yet to be set. A proposal for increased passenger lines up and down the Front Range is also in the works. 

“Colorado’s future relies on a strong passenger and freight rail system for the health of our economy, our environment, and for how we move people and goods across the state,” Polis said in a statement after signing SB 162. “This law helps ensure that as Colorado builds a

world-class rail system, safety will remain paramount.” 

The rail industry was skeptical of the measure, raising concerns over new fees when rail companies already pay into the state’s fixed utility fund. Some said the regulations and reporting requirements also go beyond what is required by the Federal Railroad Administration. 

“Safety is the foundation of everything we do, and we believe the safety and efficiency of rail infrastructure is not just critical to Colorado but each of the 23 states Union Pacific serves,” said Union Pacific spokesperson Mike Jaixen in a statement last month. 

“The Federal Railroad Safety Act reserves the power to regulate railroad safety for the federal government,” Jaixen continued. “While (the act) does not prohibit Colorado from inspection activities, it does prevent the state from introducing new or different reporting requirements, such as those introduced under Senate Bill 162.”

Lawmakers have maintained the state is within its rights when it comes to the law’s data collection provisions. Polis, in his statement, urged the public utilities commission, where the new rail safety office is housed, to take steps “to protect data that is proprietary, commercially sensitive, or security sensitive.”

Polis also clarified that Class I railways that are subject to the new fee will not have to keep paying into the state’s fixed utility fund. SB 162 doesn’t set a fee amount, instead leaving it to the public utilities commission to determine. 

Total annual fee revenue, however, cannot exceed $2.9 million. An earlier version of the bill capped the revenue at $4.8 million.