In this area it would probably be worthwhile for the committee to invite our colleagues on the safety side of the department to give you better precision, but certainly in the development of regulations, there is a benefit-cost analysis process that is part of every regulatory process. While safety is paramount and is our number one priority at Transport Canada, the impact of safety measures, or any regulatory measures, on economic efficiency is all looked at as regulations are developed.
In the case of positive train control, we know it's applied in metro systems in many parts of the world. The system that has been mandated by the U.S. Senate is to focus on integrating positive train control on primarily freight rail lines in the U.S. where passenger rail or commuter rail is also operational. I think there's some discussion as to whether it's cost-effective beyond those tracks to mandate the requirement for positive train control on parts of the rail system where there is no passenger traffic currently. I think they're looking at that right now.
My understanding is that it's a fairly complex technical challenge to integrate positive train control into a system in which you have freight operations and passenger operations. The applications we know of around the world are probably more fixed on passenger-only metro services. What we certainly understand is that it's a very complicated question technically, and that's probably one of the reasons we've seen such a lag in the adoption of positive train control in freight operations.
We have people from our rail safety directorate sitting on committees in the United States and participating in the oversight of the development of these technologies. We have an integrated North American freight system, so our major carriers are going to be affected by the Senate ruling and the application in the United States. We will clearly have to look at it in Canada as well.