New Railroad Safety Fee in Minnesota

[Euclid]

I wonder what limitations there are on imposing such fees. 

When I learned of the Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx imposing a requirement for railroad companies to notify city officials about the approach of oil trains, I immediately expected that this would lead to charging the railroads to help the notified officials do something about the risk.  There is no point in being warned about a danger if you can’t do anything about it. 

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/minnesota-imposes-safety-fee-on-railroads/article_f2d0658a-5e53-5e89-82bb-2148d1275306.html

[tree68]

Euclid

There is no point in being warned about a danger if you can’t do anything about it. 

Your average 25 member volunteer fire department is going to be overwhelmed by a 3,000 gallon home delivery fuel truck, no matter how much training they have.  Half a dozen 30,000 gallon tankers, well...

Several recent fires in apartment complexes under construction have overwhelmed career-staffed fire departments with plenty of resources for fighting plain old Class A fires.  

$2.5M will provide a whole lot of classroom training, some firefighting foam and maybe some foam delivery devices.   Just one airport-style "crash truck" is going to run a cool million.

In the end, the fire departments will do exactly what they do now - stand back and watch it burn.  But at least they'll be properly trained.  Which they probably already are, if they've had the usual hazmat training.

It's a nice token action, but in the end that's about the size of it...

[dehusman]

Railroads already send local fire department first responders to a fire safety training center at the AAR center in Pueblo (at railroad cost).  In addition they have mobile training cars that can be sent out to various locations to train first responders about railroad tank car hardware.

[doghouse]

tree68

Euclid

There is no point in being warned about a danger if you can’t do anything about it. 

$2.5M will provide a whole lot of classroom training, some firefighting foam and maybe some foam delivery devices.  

 

If it makes that far.

[Dakguy201]

This is so much whistling into the wind by Minnesota.  At the end of the day in the event of a major oil or ethanol train incident, a fire department may work to evacuate the area and contain the borders of the fire; but their main activity is going to be stand back and watch it burn.

[aricat]

Yes I agree with you DAKGUY201 that this is feel good legislation, however,what Minnesota and other states really need to do is insure a proper response to incidents when they occur. I live near the BNSF mainline in Coon Rapids Minnesota. Some of the houses in this suburb are less than 100 feet from the tracks. This has been a wet spring but sometimes during dry springs grass fires can start from passing trains and put houses at risk. I have seen multi-jurisdiction responses to these grass fires and these grass fires would be nothing like responding to an oil fire.

People buy houses close to railroad tracks. There is risk to buying near railroad tracks and you should know these risks before you buy. People blame railroads for noise and a myriad of other things but take no responsibility for buying near railroad tracks. CP Rail even talks about risk to homeowners on its website. The railroad has been here longer than the houses. I bought a house near a railroad track because I'm a railfan. I have one neighbor who told she didn't realize that a railroad ran behind her house when she signed the papers!

[Euclid]

I think Minnesota can just help themselves to some revenue because they have the oil railroads over a barrel. Since so much of this oil train issue is based on perception of a dangerous transportation process, the railroads cannot risk the bad image of pushing back against a new safety fee.  There is great potential for costly overregulation to flow from this perception, so the industry has to walk softly. 

If the state can suddenly take 2.5 million, why can’t they make it 5 million? If they can base it on the danger of oil trains, why not the danger of other hazmat? Why not base it just on the danger of trains in general?

If you broaden the concept of safety fees to all train risk, every state in the union can levy the fees.

[henry6]

It is a shame so much of this falls on the railroad's shoulders and in their pockets when it is the oil and gas companies who created the problem and is allowing everybody from the car manufacturers to the railroads to the first responders and the people to pay for it.

[Euclid]

henry6

It is a shame so much of this falls on the railroad's shoulders and in their pockets when it is the oil and gas companies who created the problem and is allowing everybody from the car manufacturers to the railroads to the first responders and the people to pay for it.

Actually, the end uses are the only ones who will pay for it.  The railroads will pass the fee on to the oil companies in the cost of transportation.  The oil companies will pass it on to the consumers as the cost of production.  We will pay at the pump and in increased cost of everything made from oil.      

[cacole]

This will eventually have the same effect as all the fast food employees pushing for a $15 minimum hourly wage -- prices will go up, fewer people will be hired, and we will all end up paying more for everything we purchase.

[schlimm]

And when people have more disposable income to spend, sales go up as do new hires.

[BaltACD]

cacole

This will eventually have the same effect as all the fast food employees pushing for a $15 minimum hourly wage -- prices will go up, fewer people will be hired, and we will all end up paying more for everything we purchase.

Chicken Little's have been crying that the employment world would end ever since the first minimum wage law was enacted in 1938 for that exorbitant 25 cents an hour.  I suspect the employed population of the country is somewhat higher today than it was in 1938; unemployment is well below the 15% that existed in 1938 - 1938 population 129M - 2014 population is estimated at 317M.

[Murphy Siding]

     Is a state government allowed to impose taxes on an entity involved in interstate commerce, without permission from the federal government?  If not, why isn't every state latching onto a cash cow?

[PNWRMNM]

Murphy,

IIRC the states can not impose such taxes, fees, or whatever else they try to call it. Only question is will carriers have to take them to court or will logic and common sense prevail now that the pols have the headlines they want.

Mac

[desertdog]

In the interest of fairness, I'm wondering what plans the State of Minnesota has for taxing every vehicle that passes through the state carrying any type of hazmat.  They could set up ports of entry and reap a fortune on everything from fertilizer to antifreeze.

John Timm

[Anonymous]

henry6

It is a shame so much of this falls on the railroad's shoulders and in their pockets when it is the oil and gas companies who created the problem and is allowing everybody from the car manufacturers to the railroads to the first responders and the people to pay for it.

Or is it the insatiable demand of Americans for petroleum products that has created the problems?  If the demand is not there, the evil oil and gas companies would not have a market for their products and, therefore, would not have an incentive to produce and ship petroleum.

[Euclid]

Sam1

If the demand is not there, the evil oil and gas companies would not have a market for their products and, therefore, would not have an incentive to produce and ship petroleum.

I wonder if the railroads enjoy the oil hauling business, or would prefer to refuse to haul evil oil if they were allowed to. 

[MidlandMike]

Euclid

I wonder if the railroads enjoy the oil hauling business, or would prefer to refuse to haul evil oil if they were allowed to. 

BNSF is double-tracking the Northern Transcon thru the Bakken Oil Field faster than they ever did on the Southern Transcon.  They say you spend the most money on the ones you love.

[ericsp]

PNWRMNM

Murphy,

IIRC the states can not impose such taxes, fees, or whatever else they try to call it. Only question is will carriers have to take them to court or will logic and common sense prevail now that the pols have the headlines they want.

Mac

The second part of your question cracks me up.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

PNWRMNM

Murphy,

IIRC the states can not impose such taxes, fees, or whatever else they try to call it. Only question is will carriers have to take them to court or will logic and common sense prevail now that the pols have the headlines they want.

Mac

That would be a most interesting legal point regarding the property taxes that railroads have been paying to various government entities over the decades.