From Carl Prine and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
The shortest distance to avoid a terrorist attack isn't a straight line. That's what an increasing number of cities are thinking: They won't be targets if they reroute dangerous gases and explosives around metropolitan areas.
In 2005, a federal judge upheld Washington, D.C.'s ban on particularly deadly rail shipments on CSX tracks through the capital. While the ban is being appealed, nearly a dozen other cities and the state of California are watching to see if legislation they've drafted can become law, too.
"It's only going to take one attack, just one attack and none of this will be an issue," said Fred Millar, an architect of the district's rail rerouting plan who consults for labor unions, environmental organizations and city governments. "If you want to avoid a disaster in your city, tell the railroads to reroute the chemicals around it."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_487291.html
Dave
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
How much do you want to bet that "they" didn't think about that.
Many cities have dedicated truck routes to keep trucks in defined corridors away from residential neighborhoods and downtown. Now someone thinks that they can apply the same to railroads. I'm with Tree68, it's WAY TOO EASY do drive a truckload right to the target. Remember, it was only a small to medium sized straight truck parked on the street that brought down the building in Oklahoma City.
If a city wants to relocate tracks, that city should pay at least 90% of the cost. No federal or state grants allowed. Then let the voters decide.
Well, then they better shut down all the natural gas lines.
A little perspective, please.
spokyone wrote:If a city wants to relocate tracks, that city should pay at least 90% of the cost. No federal or state grants allowed. Then let the voters decide.
LOL
If a RAILROAD wants to REVITALIZE tracks, that RAILROAD should pay at least 90% of the cost. No federal or state grants allowed. Then let the OWNERS decide.
sorry couldn't help myself. Your post just made me think about DM&E.
TheAntiGates wrote: spokyone wrote: If a city wants to relocate tracks, that city should pay at least 90% of the cost. No federal or state grants allowed. Then let the voters decide.LOLIf a RAILROAD wants to REVITALIZE tracks, that RAILROAD should pay at least 90% of the cost. No federal or state grants allowed. Then let the OWNERS decide. sorry couldn't help myself. Your post just made me think about DM&E.
spokyone wrote: If a city wants to relocate tracks, that city should pay at least 90% of the cost. No federal or state grants allowed. Then let the voters decide.
Oooohhhh! At first I thought you were talking about NS.....
....and BNSF......
....and UP......
...et al.....
..but NOOOOOO, poor ol' AG is engendered with an unholy obsession of the DM&E....
If only AG's fantasy about the predecessors to those aforementioned railroads having also paid at least 90% of their construction costs, then at least he'd have a leg to stand on with his DM&E bashing.
AG, you're legless.
dsktc wrote: From Carl Prine and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:The shortest distance to avoid a terrorist attack isn't a straight line. That's what an increasing number of cities are thinking: They won't be targets if they reroute dangerous gases and explosives around metropolitan areas. In 2005, a federal judge upheld Washington, D.C.'s ban on particularly deadly rail shipments on CSX tracks through the capital. While the ban is being appealed, nearly a dozen other cities and the state of California are watching to see if legislation they've drafted can become law, too. "It's only going to take one attack, just one attack and none of this will be an issue," said Fred Millar, an architect of the district's rail rerouting plan who consults for labor unions, environmental organizations and city governments. "If you want to avoid a disaster in your city, tell the railroads to reroute the chemicals around it."http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_487291.htmlDave
One thing to keep in mind here. If US mainlines are an equivalence of the US Interstate Highway System, then most cities would have a railroad bypass akin to a three digit Interstate bypass.
Lyon_Wonder wrote:In some communities the motive to build a railroad bypass is to get rid of grade crossings and cut down on crossing accidents. Here in central Illinois, Springfield constructed a bypass along it's south side in the early 1990s that is used by both NS and KCS. The perceived need for security just adds another incentive for communities to push this issue.
Do you happen to know the break down of who paid for what with this bypass? Was it mostly paid for by the city, or did the railroads have to chip in?
rrnut282 wrote:How much do you want to bet that "they" didn't think about that. Many cities have dedicated truck routes to keep trucks in defined corridors away from residential neighborhoods and downtown. Now someone thinks that they can apply the same to railroads. I'm with Tree68, it's WAY TOO EASY do drive a truckload right to the target. Remember, it was only a small to medium sized straight truck parked on the street that brought down the building in Oklahoma City.
Think about trucks delivering gasoline. Gasoline is about as hazordous as it gets and their is a gas station near you.
There are significant differences between trucks and railroads. If you are going to worry about terrorists driving a truck into a metropolitan area and then exploding it, well, the terrorists would have to be able to procure the hazmat first. If a train is trundling through a metropolitan area, the bad guys only have to figure out how to cause extreme damage - they don't need to procure the hazmat because it is already where they want it.
And while gasoline may cause quite an explosion, there is little cause for concern beyond the immediate blast area. For many chemicals, the problem is not the explosiveness, but the airborne pollution.
futuremodal wrote:If only AG's fantasy about the predecessors to those aforementioned railroads having also paid at least 90% of their construction costs, then at least he'd have a leg to stand on with his DM&E bashing.AG, you're legless.
Legless? I think you've become totally detached.
If the other poster wants to play "let them pay as they go", in angst against the nimbys then lets level the playing field completely, and treat RR's the same way. One good turn deserrves the other.
As for your speculation that i was trying to favor the other railroads you list ,FM you are baseless as well as toothless . I was just making an "anti-anti-nimby" rant, nothing more
Datafever wrote: There are significant differences between trucks and railroads. If you are going to worry about terrorists driving a truck into a metropolitan area and then exploding it, well, the terrorists would have to be able to procure the hazmat first. If a train is trundling through a metropolitan area, the bad guys only have to figure out how to cause extreme damage - they don't need to procure the hazmat because it is already where they want it.
I'd have to say this same arguement would hold true for hazmat material in a truck too. Wouldn't it?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding wrote: Datafever wrote: There are significant differences between trucks and railroads. If you are going to worry about terrorists driving a truck into a metropolitan area and then exploding it, well, the terrorists would have to be able to procure the hazmat first. If a train is trundling through a metropolitan area, the bad guys only have to figure out how to cause extreme damage - they don't need to procure the hazmat because it is already where they want it. I'd have to say this same arguement would hold true for hazmat material in a truck too. Wouldn't it?
Perhaps, but I dare say that it would be more difficult to determine in advance exactly what route a truck was going to take. And I would think that getting access to a truck to plant explosives would be more difficult than it would be to gain access to a train.
But your point is well taken anyway.
bobwilcox wrote: rrnut282 wrote: How much do you want to bet that "they" didn't think about that. Many cities have dedicated truck routes to keep trucks in defined corridors away from residential neighborhoods and downtown. Now someone thinks that they can apply the same to railroads. I'm with Tree68, it's WAY TOO EASY do drive a truckload right to the target. Remember, it was only a small to medium sized straight truck parked on the street that brought down the building in Oklahoma City.Think about trucks delivering gasoline. Gasoline is about as hazordous as it gets and their is a gas station near you.
rrnut282 wrote: How much do you want to bet that "they" didn't think about that. Many cities have dedicated truck routes to keep trucks in defined corridors away from residential neighborhoods and downtown. Now someone thinks that they can apply the same to railroads. I'm with Tree68, it's WAY TOO EASY do drive a truckload right to the target. Remember, it was only a small to medium sized straight truck parked on the street that brought down the building in Oklahoma City.
Isn't that my point? Why worry about RR's which require specific knowledge to operate and/or bypass the fail-safes built into the system when it's much easier to (learn how to )drive a truck. By the way, the nearest gas station is about 1.7 miles away. It would have to be a big boom to break out the windows of my house. One year from now, I'll have a 100M gallon/year ethanol plant .25 miles away on the other side of the mainline. What, me worry?
Poppa_Zit wrote:This writer's last "save-the-world-from-itself" effort was to outlaw selling gasoline within 50 miles of a populated area.
Sounds like he's a Greenpeace recruit in the making.
The G is fully aware of such "opportunities." The U.S. Open golf tournament was held in Chicago in 2003, at Olympia Fields country club. Along the western edge of the course runs the former IC mainline (density 5 -- now CN, also used by NS, Amtrak and Metra electric trains) on a high fill. The golf course used to have its own train station, and there is a Metra station within 200 yards of the clubhouse, which has a 15-acre footprint. There were in excess of 60,000 people a day attending that golf tournament.
I am told over 60 percent of the hazmat that moves through Chicago via rail passes that location. Any hazardous materials shipments on that line that week were run at night, when the area was empty of spectators. And during the day, the trees on the fill and adjacent to the tracks were filled with federal agents wearing full camo and carrying automatic weapons. The G wanted to make sure that some sicko didn't use this international event as a stage to "make a statement."
Of course, once the event was over, the security level in the area was lowered back to normal levels.
Datafever wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: Datafever wrote: There are significant differences between trucks and railroads. If you are going to worry about terrorists driving a truck into a metropolitan area and then exploding it, well, the terrorists would have to be able to procure the hazmat first. If a train is trundling through a metropolitan area, the bad guys only have to figure out how to cause extreme damage - they don't need to procure the hazmat because it is already where they want it. I'd have to say this same arguement would hold true for hazmat material in a truck too. Wouldn't it? Perhaps, but I dare say that it would be more difficult to determine in advance exactly what route a truck was going to take. And I would think that getting access to a truck to plant explosives would be more difficult than it would be to gain access to a train.
Seems pretty easy to me. All the terriorists would have to do would sit outside a chemical factory that is shipping the hazmat that they want to use. As the trucks leave they have someone with a fake police car pull over the truck and make the driver get out. Once the truck is pulled over it is very easy for a terrorist to take control and take the truck to a target of choice.
Bert
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 wrote: Datafever wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: Datafever wrote: There are significant differences between trucks and railroads. If you are going to worry about terrorists driving a truck into a metropolitan area and then exploding it, well, the terrorists would have to be able to procure the hazmat first. If a train is trundling through a metropolitan area, the bad guys only have to figure out how to cause extreme damage - they don't need to procure the hazmat because it is already where they want it. I'd have to say this same arguement would hold true for hazmat material in a truck too. Wouldn't it? Perhaps, but I dare say that it would be more difficult to determine in advance exactly what route a truck was going to take. And I would think that getting access to a truck to plant explosives would be more difficult than it would be to gain access to a train. Seems pretty easy to me. All the terriorists would have to do would sit outside a chemical factory that is shipping the hazmat that they want to use. As the trucks leave they have someone with a fake police car pull over the truck and make the driver get out. Once the truck is pulled over it is very easy for a terrorist to take control and take the truck to a target of choice.Bert
Here's a novel idea, stop me if you've heard it, but let's say we kill the pricks before they have the chance to blow up a cyanide tank car or truck.
Now I realize this may involve some proactive decisions, but I am confident that if we kill the terrorists before they kill us we won't have to worry about any of this. We could hold a Barbra Streisand concert in the middle of Houston with a million tanker cars all around have the greatest day of our lives!
Just a thought from yours truly.
Datafever wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: Datafever wrote: There are significant differences between trucks and railroads. If you are going to worry about terrorists driving a truck into a metropolitan area and then exploding it, well, the terrorists would have to be able to procure the hazmat first. If a train is trundling through a metropolitan area, the bad guys only have to figure out how to cause extreme damage - they don't need to procure the hazmat because it is already where they want it. I'd have to say this same arguement would hold true for hazmat material in a truck too. Wouldn't it? Perhaps, but I dare say that it would be more difficult to determine in advance exactly what route a truck was going to take. And I would think that getting access to a truck to plant explosives would be more difficult than it would be to gain access to a train.But your point is well taken anyway.
Trucks can be realitively easily hijacked and stolen at any truck stop and most any commodity that is transported will eventually pass through any truck stop. Hazmat placarding, while giving emergency personnel an idea of what they are facing, also give terrorist an insight of what to hijack without having to have any inside information.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Datafever wrote:Perhaps, but I dare say that it would be more difficult to determine in advance exactly what route a truck was going to take. And I would think that getting access to a truck to plant explosives would be more difficult than it would be to gain access to a train.
Good point, and by the same token it's easier for the alarmists to finger point against a RR with a fixed plant .
My local community recently passed a "no thru truck" ordianance, allowing local deliveries inside the city limits only.
I think that is aimed more towards noise and congestion than it is a matter of safety, but it still parallels the spirit of the 'all non essential freight must detour around' idea, so I don't think the trucks are being ignored completely in this matter.
Great idea. We could invade a Middle Eastern country.
But we've already done that.
solzrules wrote: Here's a novel idea, stop me if you've heard it, but let's say we kill the pricks before they have the chance to blow up a cyanide tank car or truck. Now I realize this may involve some proactive decisions, but I am confident that if we kill the terrorists before they kill us we won't have to worry about any of this. We could hold a Barbra Streisand concert in the middle of Houston with a million tanker cars all around have the greatest day of our lives! Just a thought from yours truly.
dsktc wrote: Great idea. We could invade a Middle Eastern country.But we've already done that.Dave solzrules wrote: Here's a novel idea, stop me if you've heard it, but let's say we kill the pricks before they have the chance to blow up a cyanide tank car or truck. Now I realize this may involve some proactive decisions, but I am confident that if we kill the terrorists before they kill us we won't have to worry about any of this. We could hold a Barbra Streisand concert in the middle of Houston with a million tanker cars all around have the greatest day of our lives! Just a thought from yours truly.
One mideast country isn't enough. We'll need to dispatch a few more before we see real results regarding terrorism. Once the funding source is nuked, those of the Satanic mindset will have nothing but rocks to throw, and that'd be the end of that.
BTW - Any chance we could get Rosie O'Donnell to sing a duet with Babs for the *climantic ending*?
Carl Prine is wrong. If I recall correctly a Federal Appeals Court judge overturned an earlier District Court judge's ban on CSX trains running through Washington, DC with hazmat materials.
The rest of the country recently got a taste of what a ban on CSX freight trains running through Washington, DC would be like, even trains that don't carry hazardous materials. When the bridge over the Anacostia River was closed for repairs CSX was forced to reroute many of its trains from the via circuitous routes over its own lines as far west as Cincinnati while a few trains detoured over the NS H Line (formerly the Norfolk & Western Shenandoah Division) and the NS B Line, Manassas - Riverton Jct., VA. These detors were expensive and time consuming so just think what would happen if CSX had to permanently reroute all of its freight trains with hazardous material around Washington, DC.
Hi Sol,
I am still laughing. I share your logic, truly admire your ability to cut through the BS, and greatly appreciate your humor. Keep it up Big Guy.
Mark
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.