Baltimore residents want trains rerouted

[tree68]

  They can get the nitrogen from other fertilizers such as urea, DAP, amonium nitrate or NFS.

SS Grandcamp.

Murrah Federal Office Building.

Yep.  It's safe stuff.

 

[StillGrande]

I would be interested in the reroute proposal for the trains that serve the industries using or making the chemicals in the nearby industries that would allow rail service without relocating the industries as well.  Since the industries are nearby, how exactly is the railroad supposed to route their shipments around the area?

Also telling, and pointed out before, it definitely seems the owner's complaints are focused more on the trains rolling by rattling his home than the hazardous materials.  Perhaps he should focus some ire at the developer for putting homes so close to the tracks or the local jurisdiction for zoning residential property in such proximity to a known hazard.  Maybe he can sue and have a giant concrete wall built between his property and the rail line.  Maybe the city can run a new commuter line on the abandoned tracks. 

[bobwilcox]

Oltmannd, sounds like you would fit right in in that neighborhood.  The substances that they were most concerned about were chlorine and anhydrous ammonia. So you're saying that all cities should send their water to the source of the chlorine to be treated? And how shall we bring farm fields to the fertilizer plant?

 LA has moved away from chlorine to purify their water.  Why can't other cities do the same thing?  Farmers are looking for a source on nitrogen when the use anhydrous ammonia.  They can get the nitrogen from other fertilizers such as urea, DAP, amonium nitrate or NFS.

 

[Tharmeni]

The point made earlier about hazardous materials going to trucks and getting even closer to the public was rammed home yesterday when I was less than a mile behind a truck that rolled off I-75, fell onto the street below and exploded.  The I-75 bridge is severely damaged and the highway may be closed for months as a new bridge is constructed.

Besides hampering (big time) my daily commute (there are no real good alternatives to I-75 along the west coast of Florida), I just wonder what the public reaction would be this morning if the accident had involved a hazardous load on the CSX juice train line which is a mile to the west?

Likely it would be "full disclosure" of  hazmat materials, lower restircted speeds or maybe we should even reroute all hazmat train loads off any tracks near the public?!?!

More than 12 hours after the truck accident, the state police say they still do not know officially what the truck was carrying.  There is little of it left to examine.

 

[Tjsingle]

Man is this interesting... This has been going on forever, now the swing bridge would sovle this but guess what CSX doesn't control it! Now what should happen is better saftey on the trains, and CSX runs there trains very fast near baltimore from what i've seen, and if the residents have a problem they should move, there is no way that CSX can or will reroute the trackage or trains, the tracks aren't in the best place at all, and well the saftey record with CSX isn't the best, so maybe the tracks should be traveled slower? I can see why the residents are afraid of the trains going by with chemcials. And also have you seen gas trucks? There is no way of knowing how much HAZMATS there are going in and out of the area

 

This Song is prefect for this issue

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87yq372R4Ts

 

Tjsingle

[BaltACD]

When the Pres is in the area....ALL freight train movements are suspended until the Pres leaves the area.

Correct.  They don't want any road crossings blocked that might stop a motorcade or delay access.

Dave H.

The motorcade line is more the reason than hazardous materials.  After all, CSX has a line a couple of miles from the White House and trains run regularly there whether the President is home or not. 

However, at State of the Union address time all operations are suspended for a period of time.

[StillGrande]

When the Pres is in the area....ALL freight train movements are suspended until the Pres leaves the area.

Correct.  They don't want any road crossings blocked that might stop a motorcade or delay access.

Dave H.

The motorcade line is more the reason than hazardous materials.  After all, CSX has a line a couple of miles from the White House and trains run regularly there whether the President is home or not. 

[TomDiehl]

Too many for me to live close to the tracks.

Paul 

 

Exactly the point several people made in the comments to that article. Were the trains "rolling by and rattling the windows" when he looked at the property? Did he see the railroad tracks that close to the home he was about to buy? Sounds more like he's trying to blame the railroad for his own poor judgment.

The issue is hazmat carried by trains, not trains themselves.  Looking at the track doesn't tell you anything about hazmat loads. I agree if the complaint is about noise then yes the purchaser can see the tracks and reasonably be expected to understand the noise issue.  But I don't know how he can easily know about the hazmat problem.

Paul 

Direct cut-and-paste from the article:

"In Baltimore, an old industrial port city where neighborhoods sprouted along rail lines, many residents see the dangers first-hand.

Bryan Peterson's South Baltimore home rattles when rail cars and their hazardous chemicals roll past in the middle of the night, coming and going from Locust Point factories and terminals."

The statement "and their hazardous chemicals" looks to be added as an afterthought, since noone would care if his house was "rattled" by the freight cars passing by. Then they quote statistics for HAZMAT rail shipments nationwide, but no mention of how often it happens on this line. Again, too small a number for anyone to care?

I wonder how long railroads have been hauling hazardous materials? Especially in view of their common carrier status. If his home was near the Interstate, would he expect all truck shipments of HAZMAT to be rerouted?

It also sound like he's not too far from the "Locust Point factories and terminals," and they're in "an old industrial port city where neighborhoods sprouted along rail lines."

Sounds like an even stronger case for his poor judgment rather than the "evil railroad."

Sorry, still no sympathy for his stupidity.

Title of article is "Deadly cargo rolls on",

opening paragraph "Tankers filled with deadly chemicals are likely to continue to roll through Baltimore and other major cities despite new federal rules initially aimed at reducing the risk of catastrophic accidents or terrorist threats by sending much of the cargo through less-populated areas."

The main thrust of the article is the hazmat.

He may have been ignorant about the danger, but that's not the same as stupid.

I still think he has valid concerns and grievance.

No, the stupidity comes from complaining about it after he didn't do his homework, just like you didn't in your answer. If he didn't know before buying the house, how does he know now what's in those cars?

The main thrust of the article is alarmist reporting. How many of those cars rolling by contain hazardous materials? This figure is significant in assessing the risk, if any, this traffic poses to any neighborhood. All the article stated was the number of cars nationally that transport HAZMAT, no figure on how may don't, or mention of percentages. Also no mention of how long these type materials were being transported on this line before those houses were built. On top of that, the article mentions two highly dangerous materials that are transported by rail, but don't mention of these roll over the line in question.

Trucks transporting HAZMAT are all around us daily. Should these be routed on highways through low population areas, too? I see at least one truck a week on the Interstate placarded 1.1D. And yes, I know what that means.

[n012944]

. 

The telling part was when the railroads suspended shipments while the president was at the football game. 

 

 

When Air Force One lands at a commercial airport, all takeoff and landings by other aircraft are suspended until the aircraft is taxied to a safe spot.  Under your reasoning, all landing and takeoffs should stop around any city of size, since they are too "dangerous" to do around the president.

I believe the article refers to suspending hazmat shipments not all trains. 

Paul 

Paul 

When the Pres is in the area....ALL freight train movements are suspended until the Pres leaves the area. 

 

 

Well then by the logic of IRONROOSTER they must all be stopped!!!

[IRONROOSTER]

But I don't know how he can easily know about the hazmat problem.

Stand facing tracks.

Open eyes (had to include that one since the guy in the article obviously misses stuff)

If a big round tubular thing goes by with orange, red, white or green "stickers" on the corners, there's hazmat.

That wasn't that hard, was it?  And if you look at the colors and write down the numbers, you'll know exactly whats in the cars too.

Since there are probably 50 or 60 chemical plants or refineries within a 50 mile radius of Baltimore there are probably chemical cars all over the place.  Unless he is proposing moving ALL that industry to someplace else, he will always see chemicals cars coming by his house.

Just up the road from him is Wilmington.  Headquarters of the Dupont company.  They have been shipping gunpowder and dynamite by rail since the mid 1800's. 

Dave H.

     

Not everyone knows what hazmat marking are, so they might not recognize them even if they were there when such a train passed by. Plus no one stands around for days by a house they are thinking about buying to see what dangers may pass by. Of course with hazmat it's what passes by further away as well, so standing by the house doesn't work either.

But I guess your point is: don't live or work within a couple of miles of the tracks and, if you do, you deserve to die when the hazmat incident occurs.

Paul

[IRONROOSTER]

Too many for me to live close to the tracks.

Paul 

 

Exactly the point several people made in the comments to that article. Were the trains "rolling by and rattling the windows" when he looked at the property? Did he see the railroad tracks that close to the home he was about to buy? Sounds more like he's trying to blame the railroad for his own poor judgment.

The issue is hazmat carried by trains, not trains themselves.  Looking at the track doesn't tell you anything about hazmat loads. I agree if the complaint is about noise then yes the purchaser can see the tracks and reasonably be expected to understand the noise issue.  But I don't know how he can easily know about the hazmat problem.

Paul 

Direct cut-and-paste from the article:

"In Baltimore, an old industrial port city where neighborhoods sprouted along rail lines, many residents see the dangers first-hand.

Bryan Peterson's South Baltimore home rattles when rail cars and their hazardous chemicals roll past in the middle of the night, coming and going from Locust Point factories and terminals."

The statement "and their hazardous chemicals" looks to be added as an afterthought, since noone would care if his house was "rattled" by the freight cars passing by. Then they quote statistics for HAZMAT rail shipments nationwide, but no mention of how often it happens on this line. Again, too small a number for anyone to care?

I wonder how long railroads have been hauling hazardous materials? Especially in view of their common carrier status. If his home was near the Interstate, would he expect all truck shipments of HAZMAT to be rerouted?

It also sound like he's not too far from the "Locust Point factories and terminals," and they're in "an old industrial port city where neighborhoods sprouted along rail lines."

Sounds like an even stronger case for his poor judgment rather than the "evil railroad."

Sorry, still no sympathy for his stupidity.

Title of article is "Deadly cargo rolls on",

opening paragraph "Tankers filled with deadly chemicals are likely to continue to roll through Baltimore and other major cities despite new federal rules initially aimed at reducing the risk of catastrophic accidents or terrorist threats by sending much of the cargo through less-populated areas."

The main thrust of the article is the hazmat.

He may have been ignorant about the danger, but that's not the same as stupid.

I still think he has valid concerns and grievance.

[dehusman]

When the Pres is in the area....ALL freight train movements are suspended until the Pres leaves the area.

Correct.  They don't want any road crossings blocked that might stop a motorcade or delay access.

Dave H.

[dehusman]

But I don't know how he can easily know about the hazmat problem.

Stand facing tracks.

Open eyes (had to include that one since the guy in the article obviously misses stuff)

If a big round tubular thing goes by with orange, red, white or green "stickers" on the corners, there's hazmat.

That wasn't that hard, was it?  And if you look at the colors and write down the numbers, you'll know exactly whats in the cars too.

Since there are probably 50 or 60 chemical plants or refineries within a 50 mile radius of Baltimore there are probably chemical cars all over the place.  Unless he is proposing moving ALL that industry to someplace else, he will always see chemicals cars coming by his house.

Just up the road from him is Wilmington.  Headquarters of the Dupont company.  They have been shipping gunpowder and dynamite by rail since the mid 1800's. 

Dave H.

[TomDiehl]

Too many for me to live close to the tracks.

Paul 

 

Exactly the point several people made in the comments to that article. Were the trains "rolling by and rattling the windows" when he looked at the property? Did he see the railroad tracks that close to the home he was about to buy? Sounds more like he's trying to blame the railroad for his own poor judgment.

The issue is hazmat carried by trains, not trains themselves.  Looking at the track doesn't tell you anything about hazmat loads. I agree if the complaint is about noise then yes the purchaser can see the tracks and reasonably be expected to understand the noise issue.  But I don't know how he can easily know about the hazmat problem.

Paul 

Direct cut-and-paste from the article:

"In Baltimore, an old industrial port city where neighborhoods sprouted along rail lines, many residents see the dangers first-hand.

Bryan Peterson's South Baltimore home rattles when rail cars and their hazardous chemicals roll past in the middle of the night, coming and going from Locust Point factories and terminals."

The statement "and their hazardous chemicals" looks to be added as an afterthought, since noone would care if his house was "rattled" by the freight cars passing by. Then they quote statistics for HAZMAT rail shipments nationwide, but no mention of how often it happens on this line. Again, too small a number for anyone to care?

I wonder how long railroads have been hauling hazardous materials? Especially in view of their common carrier status. If his home was near the Interstate, would he expect all truck shipments of HAZMAT to be rerouted?

It also sound like he's not too far from the "Locust Point factories and terminals," and they're in "an old industrial port city where neighborhoods sprouted along rail lines."

Sounds like an even stronger case for his poor judgment rather than the "evil railroad."

Sorry, still no sympathy for his stupidity.

[BaltACD]

. 

The telling part was when the railroads suspended shipments while the president was at the football game. 

 

 

When Air Force One lands at a commercial airport, all takeoff and landings by other aircraft are suspended until the aircraft is taxied to a safe spot.  Under your reasoning, all landing and takeoffs should stop around any city of size, since they are too "dangerous" to do around the president.

I believe the article refers to suspending hazmat shipments not all trains. 

Paul 

Paul 

When the Pres is in the area....ALL freight train movements are suspended until the Pres leaves the area. 

 

 

[IRONROOSTER]

. 

The telling part was when the railroads suspended shipments while the president was at the football game. 

 

 

When Air Force One lands at a commercial airport, all takeoff and landings by other aircraft are suspended until the aircraft is taxied to a safe spot.  Under your reasoning, all landing and takeoffs should stop around any city of size, since they are too "dangerous" to do around the president.

I believe the article refers to suspending hazmat shipments not all trains. 

Paul 

Paul 

[IRONROOSTER]

Too many for me to live close to the tracks.

Paul 

 

Exactly the point several people made in the comments to that article. Were the trains "rolling by and rattling the windows" when he looked at the property? Did he see the railroad tracks that close to the home he was about to buy? Sounds more like he's trying to blame the railroad for his own poor judgment.

The issue is hazmat carried by trains, not trains themselves.  Looking at the track doesn't tell you anything about hazmat loads. I agree if the complaint is about noise then yes the purchaser can see the tracks and reasonably be expected to understand the noise issue.  But I don't know how he can easily know about the hazmat problem.

Paul 

[Railway Man]

The harder (read "more expensive") the FRA makes it for the RRs to handle hazardous stuff the more:

1. Traffic will shift to truck where it will be

 a) in closer contact with even more people

 b) more likely to be involved in a disaster

2. Expensive goods made from the chemicals will be

3. Time spent on trains will increase - increasing the risk of disaster.

 The answer is to get the chemical industry to stop shipping hazardous stuff as much as possible.  Most of this junk is intermediate-step-in-some-process goo.  Better they go all the way from raw materials to final product in one place instead of shipping stuff all over creation.

IMHO opinion the routing and speed limit regs (30 mph dark, 50 mph signalled) proposed by the FRA are borderline stupid.  The tank car strength rule isn't too bad as long as it's matched by similar requirements on other modes.

Reality + truth + practicality = above.

RWM

[tdmidget]

Oltmannd, sounds like you would fit right in in that neighborhood.  The substances that they were most concerned about were chlorine and anhydrous ammonia. So you're saying that all cities should send their water to the source of the chlorine to be treated? And how shall we bring farm fields to the fertilizer plant?

[tree68]

We've shifted from the era when people wanted the railroad "downtown" to where they want it anyplace but.  So many towns owe their very existance to the railroad.  The station was the literal center of town. 

As is usually the case, however, those calling for change don't offer any solution other than "somewhere else."

[oltmannd]

The harder (read "more expensive") the FRA makes it for the RRs to handle hazardous stuff the more:

1. Traffic will shift to truck where it will be

 a) in closer contact with even more people

 b) more likely to be involved in a disaster

2. Expensive goods made from the chemicals will be

3. Time spent on trains will increase - increasing the risk of disaster.

 The answer is to get the chemical industry to stop shipping hazardous stuff as much as possible.  Most of this junk is intermediate-step-in-some-process goo.  Better they go all the way from raw materials to final product in one place instead of shipping stuff all over creation.

IMHO opinion the routing and speed limit regs (30 mph dark, 50 mph signalled) proposed by the FRA are borderline stupid.  The tank car strength rule isn't too bad as long as it's matched by similar requirements on other modes.

[miketx]

. 

The telling part was when the railroads suspended shipments while the president was at the football game. 

 

 

When Air Force One lands at a commercial airport, all takeoff and landings by other aircraft are suspended until the aircraft is taxied to a safe spot.  Under your reasoning, all landing and takeoffs should stop around any city of size, since they are too "dangerous" to do around the president.

 Sat on the runway for over 2 hours last year in PHL waiting on Bush to take off so we could go- (an extra 2 hours on top of a 10 hour flight)  the whole airport was shut down- were people steamed. Stupid.

Sorry to contribute to this getting further off topic, but if memory serves me well, Bill Clinton was on a runway or taxiway somewhere getting a haircut on Air Force 1 and it shut the whole airport down.

[matthewsaggie]

. 

The telling part was when the railroads suspended shipments while the president was at the football game. 

 

 

When Air Force One lands at a commercial airport, all takeoff and landings by other aircraft are suspended until the aircraft is taxied to a safe spot.  Under your reasoning, all landing and takeoffs should stop around any city of size, since they are too "dangerous" to do around the president.

 Sat on the runway for over 2 hours last year in PHL waiting on Bush to take off so we could go- (an extra 2 hours on top of a 10 hour flight)  the whole airport was shut down- were people steamed. Stupid.

[matthewsaggie]

I read the article, and the reporter seemed mostly to stick to the facts. I have no sympathy for Mr. Peterson. He knew, or he must have seen that the tracks were there before he bought his house. Then to make his point he had the Baltimore Sun's photographer take a picture of him while he was standing on the CSX's tracks; it's too bad a CSX police officer, or any police officer, didn't come by and arrest him for trespassing.

The point is there is not much that can be done to reroute hazardous materials to different railroads to totally prevent them from being transported through populous cities. For example if you ship a toxic chemical from the "Chemical Coast" of New Jersey to Columbia, SC, to the best of my knowledge there is no routing on a single railroad to ship it and totally avoid heavily populated cities. 

The comments that appeared after the article seemed to be reasonable, and the people who posted them seemed to be very well informed.

Even better, I would like to see someone here come up with a route between the NJ chemical coast and Columbia SC, with the following criteria:

 1) It can use more then one RR, as it seems that the people opposed use the argumant that the RR's simply don't want to share the traffic.  2) it needs to avoid as many populated areas as possible, also give an estimate of the number of people it will effect on the new route and what cities.  3) it needs to stay on "quality track", not 10 and 20 MPH branch lines (safety, you know) 4) calculate the mileage of your route compared to that of the CSX and NS for the direct single line route.

 Let's see what a route would look like- and in my opinion how un-reasonable it will be. In other words what people in towns get increased risk so other people and towns get reduced risk. Lacking a RR atlas, alas, I can't do it myself.  

 

[n012944]

. 

The telling part was when the railroads suspended shipments while the president was at the football game. 

 

 

When Air Force One lands at a commercial airport, all takeoff and landings by other aircraft are suspended until the aircraft is taxied to a safe spot.  Under your reasoning, all landing and takeoffs should stop around any city of size, since they are too "dangerous" to do around the president.

[TomDiehl]

Too many for me to live close to the tracks.

Paul 

 

Exactly the point several people made in the comments to that article. Were the trains "rolling by and rattling the windows" when he looked at the property? Did he see the railroad tracks that close to the home he was about to buy? Sounds more like he's trying to blame the railroad for his own poor judgment.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I read the article, and the reporter seemed mostly to stick to the facts. I have no sympathy for Mr. Peterson. He knew, or he must have seen that the tracks were there before he bought his house. Then to make his point he had the Baltimore Sun's photographer take a picture of him while he was standing on the CSX's tracks; it's too bad a CSX police officer, or any police officer, didn't come by and arrest him for trespassing.

The point is there is not much that can be done to reroute hazardous materials to different railroads to totally prevent them from being transported through populous cities. For example if you ship a toxic chemical from the "Chemical Coast" of New Jersey to Columbia, SC, to the best of my knowledge there is no routing on a single railroad to ship it and totally avoid heavily populated cities. 

The comments that appeared after the article seemed to be reasonable, and the people who posted them seemed to be very well informed.

[Murphy Siding]

     You bring up an interesting thought.  How, exactly, would/could we force the government to do a better job in the transportation industry, whether it's the FRA, FAA,NHSS ((?) National Highway Safety Something or other)? 

[IRONROOSTER]

This appears to be another case of the federal government closing off the local governments efforts to regulate safety.  By making it part of the FRA, who then basically give responsibility to the railroads, there is no effective oversight.  Unfortunately, the public has no way to accurately assess the danger except through serious incidents involving hazardous materials  Since these occur too frequently, rerouting appears to be the only safe choice. 

     Isn't it in the best interest of the federal government, to regulate interstate commerce?  If you let each state,county, city and municipality start making and enforcing it's own rules, what would you have?  If you let Baltimore  limit what can be shipped there, what stops a state line Iowa, for example, from prohibiting shipment of certain items through it's state?

The telling part was when the railroads suspended shipments while the president was at the football game.  Personally given the dangers, I would try to live and work at least a couple of miles from any track.  But for many people that's not an option.

Paul 

Wouldn't you guess that a majority of the people in the US live or work within a couple of miles of a railroad track?  Wouldn't you also want to live a couple of miles away from an airport, a highway, a navigatable river, a pipeline, a port, etc...?

      Seems like it might be easier, to just make sure the railroads are as safe as possible.

  

Ah, but are they? or is the federal gov't letting them off the hook? Is this like lead poisoning from China where the federal gov't said we had enough inspectors but really didn't?  Like the beef fiasco.  And on and on... the federal gov't doesn't have a good track record recently on protecting the citizens.  I agree the railroads should be made as safe as possible, but I don't think that is happening.  And of course your point about the airports, highways, etc. is well taken.  All of those should be as safe as possible - but are they?  As you say, it's hard/impossible for everyone to avoid all of these all the time, that's why people get upset.

Paul