n012944 BTW, it is not about what the railroads want. As long as the FRA ok's DOT-111 to transport any kind of hazmant, the railroads must accept the cars under their common carrier obligations.
BTW, it is not about what the railroads want. As long as the FRA ok's DOT-111 to transport any kind of hazmant, the railroads must accept the cars under their common carrier obligations.
The RRs do want to be compensated for carrying Haz Mat. However the STB would not allow the RRs to charge extra for carrying these materials
schlimm And why is safety of innocent bystanders to be belittled, simply because it might require the rails to use safer tank cars? The FRA has already declared the DOT-111 cars to be unsafe to transport flammables (chlorine, etc. are not in that category). There was also a derailment in Cherry Valley, IL involving a DOT-111 tank car that killed a woman. If the rails want to transport dangerous substances (which they did not transport when originally chartered and built) in a careless manner now, perhaps they need to aquire a much wider RoW as a buffer zone?
The cars are not owned by the railroads. Your beef is with the owners/leasing companies, (or with the FRA, AAR, DOT or one of those alphabet agencies).
It's like blaming Ford becuase the U-Haul trailer behind it broke down.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
schlimm The FRA has already declared the DOT-111 cars to be unsafe to transport flammables (chlorine, etc. are not in that category).
The FRA has already declared the DOT-111 cars to be unsafe to transport flammables (chlorine, etc. are not in that category).
If the FRA had declared the cars unsafe, they would not be handling flammables. The NTSB is not the FRA and the NTSB does not have regulatory power.
An "expensive model collector"
As long as we choose to live in a representative democracy, we are going to have to live with grandstanding politicians.
I live by the BNSF mainline in suburban Minneapolis near Northtown and there isn't a day that goes by without haz mat cargo being shipped on this line. Some of my neighbors are far more concerned about train whistles than haz mat cargo. I am all for safety in handling and transporting cargo. I want my local fire department able to respond promptly and and correctly to fires and other accidents involving haz mat cargo.
I,however, are sick of politicians grandstanding ! They only want to get re-elected not solve problems. Does this Alderman want haz mat on rails or the Kennedy Expressway during rush hour in back of a school bus??
CSSHEGEWISCH BaltACD mudchicken Ban the Chicago Aldermen. (Better Solution) Ban Chicago from the Union as a public nusiance Excuse Me! Why is it that people treat representative government as a problem to be minimized or eliminated?
BaltACD mudchicken Ban the Chicago Aldermen. (Better Solution) Ban Chicago from the Union as a public nusiance
mudchicken Ban the Chicago Aldermen. (Better Solution)
Ban the Chicago Aldermen. (Better Solution)
Ban Chicago from the Union as a public nusiance
Excuse Me! Why is it that people treat representative government as a problem to be minimized or eliminated?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Wonder if the Chicago water department receives its chlorine by rail.
Falcon48 The last link I included in my earlier post will bring up an STB decision on a UP Declaratory Order petition. It discusses the obligation of a railroad to transport haz mat in greater detail.
The last link I included in my earlier post will bring up an STB decision on a UP Declaratory Order petition. It discusses the obligation of a railroad to transport haz mat in greater detail.
Transport Canada has mandated exactly this obligation (as follows) to Canadian railroads recently, as a result of the Lac Megantic wreck. 'Report what Hazmat you are shipping via rail to the communities en route. FTI.'
FWIW
Charlie
Chilliwack, BC
Lac Megentic
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Reading the article again, it seems to me the motivation is not granstanding but added pressure on the STB or FRA take the next logical step and to ban nationwide the use of DOT-11 tank cars specifically from transporting highly flammable liquids, since the regulators have already declared those cars hazardous.
Murphy Siding If I understand it correctly, a railroad cannot refuse a hazmat shipment. Can a railroad refuse a hazmat shipment, if it's not in a tank car that the railroad deems *safe enough*?
If I understand it correctly, a railroad cannot refuse a hazmat shipment. Can a railroad refuse a hazmat shipment, if it's not in a tank car that the railroad deems *safe enough*?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
narig01Local communities want some assurance that what travels thru their community will not destroy their town /city. They look at tank trucks with four different placards on this side. See the one with skull and crossbones (poison or toxic) and worry. Many times without understanding the markings. They just see the tank and the placard. Sometimes they just see the tank car like the ones owned and used by Cargill or ADM. The ones they use for cooking oil. What happens when we have a wreck involving a train full of corn oil and it burns? (Yes it will burn, not easily) . Currently it is rated as a not regulated substance. Some of this comes down to communication and education. Not just knee jerk reaction and complaint (something some people are all to good at) .Yes there is a federal preempt but in our country laws can be changed giving local communities a say. Trucking has to deal with route restrictions in local communities. Who is to say railroads might not have to deal with restrictions.
Right now, hazardous transportation materials laws governing trucking and railroads are different - states and localities have some power to regulate truck routings, subject to veto by the Fed regulators, while they don't have that ability with rail shipments. That makes some sense, because trucks are rather easier to rerooute than railroad traffic (and the operating measures needed to reroute rail haz mat traffic can actually create more hazards than it addresses). The underlying rationale for preemption in this area is that haz mat has to move. If states or localities could ban the movment of haz mats, then they would either end up foisting the stuff on other states and localities or it wouldn't move at all.
With railroads, there is an additional consideration, often cited by the regulators. While spectacular accidents sometimes happen on railroads, they regard rail transport of haz mat to be much safer on the whole than motor transportation. As such, they don't want to push more of this traffic to motor carriage. This isn't necessarily to the advantage of the railroads, because there is some haz mat traffic they would rather not move (see the UP Declaratory Order decision attached to my last note).
narig01Yes there is a federal preempt but in our country laws can be changed giving local communities a say. Trucking has to deal with route restrictions in local communities. Who is to say railroads might not have to deal with restrictions.
All this grandstanding will amount to nothing. Assume the local pols follow through on their bluster. By the time it dies down, how much will taxpayers at all levels of government pay out in wasted staff time and legal fees?
Chicago politicians are proving they are more than just a local public nuisance. They are a national menace.
schlimm Murphy Siding Does a local entity have the power to pass a local law that governs something over which the federal government essentially has jurisdiction? If so, couldn't the alderman just get all railroad traffic through his district banned? The interstate commerce clause in the US Constitution would seem to override a local ordinance. The aldermen understand that (certainly Burke does) but they are citing the federal ruling on the DOT-111 tank cars as hazardous. Chances are this will result in banning those cars from most hazmat use nationwide. The other arguments about trucks, etc. seem irrelevant.
Murphy Siding Does a local entity have the power to pass a local law that governs something over which the federal government essentially has jurisdiction? If so, couldn't the alderman just get all railroad traffic through his district banned?
Does a local entity have the power to pass a local law that governs something over which the federal government essentially has jurisdiction? If so, couldn't the alderman just get all railroad traffic through his district banned?
The interstate commerce clause in the US Constitution would seem to override a local ordinance. The aldermen understand that (certainly Burke does) but they are citing the federal ruling on the DOT-111 tank cars as hazardous. Chances are this will result in banning those cars from most hazmat use nationwide.
The other arguments about trucks, etc. seem irrelevant.
The short answer to Murphy Siding's question is that local rail haz mat bans like this are preempted by Federal law. This was already litgated and decided in connection with efforts by the District of Columbia to ban certain rail haz mat traffic (chiefly "toxic by inhalation" chemicals) from passing through the District. See the following links:
Preemption under Interstate Commerce Act:
http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readingroom.nsf/WEBUNID/178745734E46DEAB85256FF80063DD06?OpenDocument
Preemption under Federal Railroad Safety Act:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7228387985618720973&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
With respect to Schlim's note, if the FRA or PHMSA (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration) were to ban DOT-111 tank cars as hazardous, or prohibit them from transportating certain trafffic, those prohibitions would, of course, be effective. But they haven't done that - at the moment they are simply considering the need for further regulations. A state or locality can't ban rail transportation of haz mat that's currently permissible under Federal law. In fact, railroads generally have a federal obligation to handle this traffic, even if they don't want to do so. See the following link:
http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/ReadingRoom.nsf/WEBUNID/5E59A6C2D2A853A2852575D2004B8A7B?OpenDocument
Probably more than you never wanted to know.
"We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!"
Gov. William J. Le Petomane
Good luck with that.......
cacole Probably just political grandstanding to gain public support when election time comes around.
Probably just political grandstanding to gain public support when election time comes around.
Does the ordinance also ban tanker trucks with hazardous cargo from traversing the Interstate and other 4 lane highways and other streets in Chicagoland? Doubt it. Easy target to shoot down because it is too selective and it interferes with Interstate Commerce. Plus, look at all the taxes paid by railroads in town, and how many people must be employed by them. All they have to say is that the will be making interchanges at Peoria, E. St. Louis, etc. eliminating jobs and abandoning property they don't downgrade. The tax mongers will right there to clean up their own mess.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
I'm sure that a Federal judge (even at 219 S Dearborn) will void that ordinance shortly after it's enacted, as also mentioned in the story.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-railroad-tank-cars-met-20131212,0,5724650.story
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.