Witnesses at a Senate hearing on transportation innovation clashed over whether Automated Track Inspection technology is advanced enough to supplant human walkers examining railroad tracks, with one witness pushing for reduced visual inspections and another warning the technology covers only a fraction of required safety checks.

The exchange was prompted by questioning from Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., who asked witnesses to explain the limitations of ATI as Congress weighs changes to current inspection regulations.

R. Jefferies, a witness representing the railroad industry, said ATI can identify defects at rates far exceeding what a human eye can catch and argued that pilot programs demonstrated dramatic safety gains. He said the regulation under consideration would reduce visual inspections to once per week while allowing ATI to continuously monitor track.

ATI can identify up to 200% higher defects than the naked eye. And during those pilot programs, the safety outcomes were dramatic, a significantly higher safety result that occurred. And so when you look at what the regulation that's being contemplated right now is reducing visual inspections to once per week and letting ATI continuously inspect that track with

R. Jefferies at the hearing, saying the words quoted above. Captions from the auto-transcript.

Cole Scandalia offered a sharply different view, telling Kim that current regulations require inspectors to examine 23 total defect categories, but that ATI addresses only about 6 of them.

The hearing webcast at 54:12, as Cole Scandalia spoke.
The hearing webcast at 54:12, as Cole Scandalia spoke. U.S. Senate committee webcast (public domain)

current regulations require inspections to look at 23 total defect categories. ATI is primarily looking at track geometry issues, which encompasses about six of those categories. I mean, to Mr. Jeffrey's point, we're not surprised.

That ATI used well will increase safety again as I said in my my opening statement. We've called for it to be mandatory We think it's a really good tool with that said given the state of its capabilities at this hour what it can and cannot do We still believe strongly that the best way to deploy this technology is in keeping with the currently mandated visual inspection standards

Kim pressed Jefferies on specific gaps cited in Scandalia's testimony — including ATI's inability to detect problems with ballasts, rail wear, rail joint gaps, tie plate conditions, switch components, and vegetation obstructions. Jefferies acknowledged those limitations but maintained that a once-a-week walking inspection combined with continuous ATI monitoring struck the right balance.

I don't disagree that there are things that ATI doesn't detect. And that's, you know, for example, vegetation growth, et cetera. And that's why we think the balance is right to still have once a week individuals walking the track looking for those very things. And I think we should focus on the outcome. 2025, we had the lowest number of track-related incidents in the industry's history.

Kim said he remained uncomfortable with the direction of the proposed changes, expressing concern that potential safety tools could be removed before the data fully supported doing so.

The hearing webcast at 55:57, as Andy Kim spoke.
The hearing webcast at 55:57, as Andy Kim spoke. U.S. Senate committee webcast (public domain)

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that without achieving what we actually want to get to, that we would be potentially taking tools off the table at this important way. I agree with you. Let's let the data decide and guide our decisions. I just don't see that data right now just yet.

After Kim yielded back, Sen. Cynthia M. Lummis, R-Wyo., was recognized to question witnesses on autonomous trucking deployment.