In today’s New York Times:
"A bill is moving forward in Congress that would take important and much-needed steps to protect Americans from terrorist attacks. But it may not address one of the most glaring vulnerabilities: chemicals traveling by rail. The House has voted to include restrictions on rail transport of deadly chemicals, but the Senate has not.
"If Congress is serious about protecting against terrorism, it will include the House provision in the final bill.
“If terrorists attacked a chlorine tank as it traveled through downtown Washington, or another city, it could produce a toxic chemical cloud that would put the lives of hundreds of thousands of people at risk. Terrorism experts agree that rail cars filled with chemicals are an easy target. And the recent attacks on trains in Europe, and the use of chemicals in attacks in Iraq, should put America on notice about the seriousness of the threat.”
The complete editorial is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/opinion/04mon2.html?
Dave
Unfortunately, here in the good ol’ US of A trains are such an afterthought when it comes to HOMELAND SECURITY. It wouldn’t take much, wouldn’t you agree?
Dave, thanks for the post.
“…is to require railroads to route dangerous chemicals away from densely populated areas…There are plenty of rail lines that bypass populated areas, and it is not difficult to reroute individual cars.”
The editorial contains the above facts. If they are true, then the conclusion is reasonable. However, I question the facts.
The assumption that there are equivalent “by-pass” routes around most major cities is bad. Most major population centers in the US grew up around, or at least with, the RRs, so the main lines tend to run right through the middle of the cities. Where the RRs did build “short-cuts” around the downtown areas, suburban sprawl has pretty much covered up these routes with population, as well. And, were true alternate routes exist, they often are lower quality lines and dark territory. After Graniteville SC, the push was on to move hazardous traffic on “bright” territory. The law will tend to push the traffic back onto the secondary mains.
While it is true that it is not difficult to force alternate routes for individual cars, the new routes, since they will no longer correspond with the major traffic flows for the lanes in which these cars move, will result in additional handling and longer trip times, increasing the number of times the cars are cut and coupled and increasing the amount of time the cars spend outside of their loading and unloading terminals.
The longer and more complicated trips will increse the cost of moving hazardous chemicals, tipping the truck/rail balance in favor of moving more by highway - which is already known to be a less safe way to move stuff.
The editorial alluded to the notion that the opposition was mostly idealogical w.r.t gov’t regulation. That’s ridiculous. If RRs had a good way to reduce overall exposure to risk by rerouting, they’d be all for it!
The idea is well intentioned, but the devil, as usu
So true, so true. Ideas are wonderful if we would just stop to consider what other unintended consequences might result. I think of the “Quick Fix that Backfires” type, for example.