Colorado regulators order RTD to explain rail-safety staffing changes after reopening derailment case

Colorado regulators on June 10 ordered RTD to explain rail-safety staffing changes and submit organizational and risk documents within 30 days of the order’s effective date after reopening a corrective action plan tied to the 2022 Aurora light-rail derailment at Sable Boulevard and Exposition Avenue.

The order adds a formal deadline to a safety case the commission had already reopened over concerns that RTD was no longer following staffing commitments described in the post-derailment record. The case began after the Colorado Public Utilities Commission in 2022 ordered RTD to file a corrective action plan following the Sept. 21, 2022 derailment in Aurora.

At the June 10 meeting, commission staff told commissioners that RTD reported on March 31, 2023 that it had completed an evaluation recommending 17 additional supervisory positions: 14 field supervisors and three lead field supervisors. That recommendation also appears in RTD’s later notice of completed corrective actions in the derailment case, which said the added positions were meant to increase coverage and reduce operators’ span of control.

At the same meeting, staff said RTD later told regulators on Feb. 6, 2024 that it agreed to hire those 14 additional field supervisors and three lead supervisors and that the positions had been budgeted for 2024.

But staff also told commissioners that RTD’s later staffing numbers did not match those levels. According to staff’s presentation, RTD first provided incorrect figures on March 10, 2026, then submitted revised numbers on March 26, and the updated totals still did not align with the staffing levels previously discussed in the corrective action plan record. Staff also said RTD appeared to be considering reducing field-supervisor positions and eliminating the lead-supervisor role in favor of a management position.

The commission’s oral order on June 10 requires RTD to file:

• an explanation of why staffing levels were never increased as approved in the corrective action plan and reflected in RTD’s budget;
• an explanation of how RTD would remain compliant with other corrective-action items while reducing staffing levels;
• documentation showing those corrective-action duties are still being performed;
• a current organizational chart;
• the management-of-change risk assessment connected to the staffing reorganization;
• job descriptions for field and lead supervisors;
• information showing that all lead-supervisor duties would be retained in any replacement position;
• an explanation of whether revised responsibilities would impair supervisors’ ability to perform adequate investigations while ensuring public safety; and
• a workload analysis showing current and expected supervisory workloads after the staffing or position changes, according to the commission meeting record.

The dispute matters because those supervisor positions were part of the safety response to a derailment case regulators had previously treated as resolved. By reopening the plan, commissioners are treating RTD’s staffing choices as an active compliance issue with potential implications for operator coaching, accident investigation and other rail-safety functions.

What remains unresolved is the exact calendar deadline. Staff said on the record that RTD must respond within 30 days of the order’s effective date, but the written order number and effective date were not available in the records reviewed for this story. Until that written decision is posted, the precise due date cannot be independently calculated from the public record reviewed here.

The public meeting record reviewed for this story also does not identify a specific penalty. But the reopened corrective action plan keeps the derailment case under active commission oversight and requires RTD to defend whether the staffing changes would undermine required safety work. If the forthcoming filings show unresolved risk or noncompliance, commissioners could take further action in the reopened proceeding, though no specific sanction was identified in the record reviewed for this story.