http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-railroad-tank-cars-met-20131212,0,5724650.story
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.
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.
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.
Probably just political grandstanding to gain public support when election time comes around.
Unlikely, given that O’Shea got 61% of the vote when first elected in 2011 and Burke has been in the council since 1969, winning his last race unopposed.
Good luck with that…
“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
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:
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 sim
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.
Local 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.
Maybe restrict them to running only on the railroad tracks? [:-^]
I doubt that any communities are happy with the fact the haz mats passes through them, whether by truck or rail, and there’s probably nothing anything anyone can do or say which will make them happy about it.
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
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?
Probably not. The reason I say “probably not” is because the regulators, when they have articulated a railroad’s common carrier obligations, sometimes suggest that a railroad can refuse shipments for “safety” reasons. But I’m not aware of a single case where a railroad has actually been permitted to refuse a haz mat shipment for “safety” reasons where the shipment was fully compliant with Federal haz mat rules. To the contrary, there are a number of cases, primarily involving spent nuclear fuel, where the regulators basically say that a railroad can’t refuse on safety grounds a shipment that complies with Federal haz mat rules. That rationale would appear to apply to use of a tank car that fully complies with Federal haz mat rules for the shipment. The spent nuclear fuel cases also stand for the proposition that a railroad can’t require a shipper to pay for special handling that goes beyond Federal requirements (special train service in the spent nuclear fuel cases).
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.
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.
Ban the Chicago Aldermen. (Better Solution)
Ban Chicago from the Union as a public nusiance
Lac Megentic