I’d hope to hell she was BSing, but unfortunately…
That’s really swell of you, Chessie.
Umm, don’t we kinda need government dictates when it comes to protecting our country from the terrorists? Or should every airline, every port operator, etc., only do as much security-related precautions as they* feel* like doing? :rolleyes:
As for the pathetic “added travel time increases the chances of a leak or an accident,” I’m sure it does, to some infinitesimal degree. And if it’s not infinitesimal, then we’ve got bigger worries here. If we can’t afford the risk of trains operating for an extra hour out in the boonies, then we certainly can’t afford the risk of them operating for any hour in heavily populated areas. (Duh.)
Now, for the quintessence of the Bush Administration position on domestic terror precautions:
And he nails the dismount! One must balance the risk of tens of thousands of deaths against CSX’s bottom line, and it’s a slamdunk for CSX. Sweet dreams, D.C.!
They have to go through somewhere. The backyard of people in DC is as good as the backyard of anyone else in the country. Those tens of thousands of deaths are only important when they live in DC, I guess. Pretty soon the only people at risk for anything will be living in the sticks.
If they divert away from DC, whose town will get them next? If you want to stop all shipment, fine. Unless there is a rail line in the boonies, this cargo will still have to go through some populated area. Why is the lives of those in DC worth more then someone elses somewhere else?
Let’s see, in the unlikely event of a terrorist attack on a chemical train, we can expect hundreds of politicians to be gassed. This is a problem, how?
Rail yards typically coexist with urban areas because it simply makes sense. The product has to end up there eventually for routing to the end user. According to the Chlorine Institute, Cl products and their derivatives amount to 45% of GDP, so Cl is going to be pretty much wherever you are, so let’s move it efficiently. WRT to placarding of tank cars, do you want me and my fire/hazmat friends to dick around when a rail incident takes place because we couldn’t readily identify the commodity involved, thereby creating a public health exposure risk of greater magnitude?
Are you making a really lame and obvious joke, or are you actually unaware of how much of our country’s societal infrastructure is centered in Washington?
You mean like stock exchanges, bank headquarters, and other things? Look, I’ll lay $100 that terrorists don’t blow up a chemical train anywhere in the US in the next 100 years. This whole thing is utter fearmongering bullshit.
Actually, chlorine is horribly toxic, and was a notorious weaponized chemical in World War I. The effects will dissipate pretty rapidly, but anyone close enough to see the wreck is screwed, anyone within a fair distance of it will get injured, and anyone with respiratory problems is in big-time danger for a pretty long distance.
In other words, chlorine isn’t anything you want to mess with. Want a small taste of what it will do to you? Buy some pool chlorine in powder form, take off the top, put it on the floor, and stand over it and breathe. You won’t be happy.
That doesn’t change the fact that RTF is advocating giving the dick to other people for the benefit of others when the risk is already shared.
What are you talking about? The way the story was formulated, the idea was to route the gas shipments through the country rather than the city. I don’t know much about rail lines - it’s possible that that’s not feasible because there’s not enough lines out in the middle of nowhere - but if it’s possible, it’s obviously the reasonable thing to do. An accident in a rural area will affect far fewer people than an accident in the city. It’s simple math, and the equation you’re drawing only works if one rural life is worth several lives of city-dwellers.
I’m a rural dweller. I take it that my life isn’t worth the lives of city dwellers? It is to me.
Incidentally, I live in Carlisle, PA, the crossroads of the Northeast. The PA Turnpike and I-81 are 2 minutes away, I-83 is 20 minutes away, Route 11 is virtually on my porch, and I-80 and I-84 are just a hop down 81 from here. Consequently we are positively overwhelmed with truck traffic here. I accept that I am at greater risk than most for all kinds of stuff- traffic accidents, chemical spills, air pollution, and the like. And that’s fine, because I benefit from the products that the trucks are carrying.
DC benefits from the products the trains carry, and they should bear the risks like the rest of the people that benefit bear the risks. Why should they be exempt, why should they be able to give the dick to people further down the line? They shouldn’t.
Your life isn’t worth the lives of the several city dwellers that would be exchanged for it, since (this is kind of the defining characteristic of urban areas) there’s more people in a given area of the city.
It’s despicable of you to suggest that saving your life is worth giving up several strangers’ lives.
Incidentally, I live in Carlisle, PA, the crossroads of the Northeast. The PA Turnpike and I-81 are 2 minutes away, I-83 is 20 minutes away, Route 11 is virtually on my porch, and I-80 and I-84 are just a hop down 81 from here. Consequently we are positively overwhelmed with truck traffic here. I accept that I am at greater risk than most for all kinds of stuff- traffic accidents, chemical spills, air pollution, and the like. And that’s fine, because I benefit from the products that the trucks are carrying.
DC benefits from the products the trains carry, and they should bear the risks like the rest of the people that benefit bear the risks. Why should they be exempt, why should they be able to give the dick to people further down the line? They shouldn’t.
[/QUOTE]
Your life isn’t worth the lives of the several city dwellers that would be exchanged for it, since (this is kind of the defining characteristic of urban areas) there’s more people in a given area of the city.
It’s despicable of you to suggest that saving your life is worth giving up several strangers’ lives.
Airman, I think what people are saying is not that city people’s lives are worth more than rural people’s lives, but that in the event of some disaster if the train is on a rural line less people altogether will be affected than if it’s near a city. What with there being more people concentrated in a city, and all. It’s not city people > rural people, it’s more people > less people.
Incidentally, I might be getting wound up a little too tight her, so let me say that I have nothing at stake here, but lots of people do, and writing them off for the greater good is damn shame of a thing to do, especially when it’s extraordinarily unlikely that anything catastrophic will ever happen. The stuff has apparently been going through DC for years with no issue, now it’s an issue?
This seems to be a textbook case of fearmongering.
In my experience, this is really what the political divide between rural and urban often boils down to - country-dwellers simply believe that they are worth more than city-dwellers. That’s why they will defend the electoral college - which amounts to more than one vote if you live in a small state. Same here - Airman Doors thinks it’s fine if saving his live means sacrificing the lives of many more people. Because one country-dweller like him is worth several city-dwellers.
What are the last two points supposed to mean, FTR? If the cars didn’t have the clear, MANDATED placards saying what was in them, would this be cast as “Bush wants to kill firefighters by keeping deadly genocidal chemicals secret?” And so what if stuff passes through a city that’s not used there - welcome to the real world, where goods are shipped to far-off markets, passing through other places. The last two points are almost complete non sequiters.
~
I’m not going to post my wild-assed speculations as “facts”, but I’m going to post some facts about rail freight in general, to show that there could be other things here that come into play.
First off, a large number of major chemical plants are captive to a single rail line - even in the East. If the chlorine is going to a captive plant, then CSX will not suffer any losses at all in re-routing its cars. They could send their cars from Boston to Richmond via Utah, and still make a profit. Why? Because if the plants are captive, then the STB will let them charge whatever the market will bear. In reality, they would trade off to a competitor and zig-back to the plant, I mean, no one would go that far out of the way - but the principle is the same. They might very well not lose a cent by re-routing.
Second, it sounds nice to say “just send it through the country”, but rail shipments don’t work like trucks. There are ordained numbers of trains, numbers of cars, and weights of cars that can travel on certain routes at certain times. Right now in the East, rail traffic is pretty freaking bad for freight - some power plants are down to less than 10 days of coal, because they can’t get the rail deliveries scheduled. There have also been coke shipment problems as well…basically, it’s not just a matter of saying “send it around the city”. There are certain key bridges and sections of track all across the country, marked in red on a map on a wall at work, where the volume and weight of rail traffic is severely limited due to poor track conditions. There are also portions marked where no hazardous materials can be shipped, due to poor traffic conditions. The two overlap quite a bit.
Third, can CSX send it around the city? Will they have to pay trackage rights to a competitor, and how much will that be? Who will compensate them for additional costs on their contracts? Sure they can, they’ll just claim “force majeure”, and send the bill to the shipper. They do it all the time with coal shipments, when anything pops up that causes a serious enough disruption. Yes, I know that force majeure is supposed to mean “acts of God”, but as far as the industry goes, the government is God. Rail lines have used force majeure successfully for bad track conditions on their own tracks. That one can be debated endlessly in board rooms, but it’s a fact of life.
In short, there are legitimate reasons why CSX wouldn’t really care that much about profits, but might care about the simple ability to get the product to where it needs to go, safely. We can also argue the point of what makes Washington so special, anyhow? Why are the lives of the people of, oh, Olathe, Kansas less special? And yet, look on a rail map - BNSF and UP both have major, key arteries through Olathe. Prevent trains with hazardous chemicals from going through Olathe, and you’ve effectively cut off whole States from easy access to hazardous freight - hazardous freight which has very legitimate uses in products we all use every single day. Seriously, take a look at a major freight rail line map anyways, and look at the East. It’s pretty scary just how few rail lines go to key locations.
Just some points people might want to consider on the issue…it’s a very complicated issue, in reality, and a summary from a news report or blogs is not really telling the whole story here. I’m not going to say that CSX can or cannot deliver chlorine safely and economically to the people that need it by routing around Washington, because I have no freaking idea. To determine that sort of thing is something I typically would pay about $75-$125k to get a complete surface transportation analysis and legal and environmental review (as well as permitting review) on. Unless there was specific study which is publically available done by an unbiased source on this issue, I wouldn’t be to quick to take a side here.
