dean_martin
03-19-2005, 12:30 PM
AAR News
DOJ, DHS, DOT, Key Congressional Leaders
Oppose Hazardous Material Ban;
Ban would “increase exposure to possible terrorist action”
WASHINGTON, March 2, 2005 ― The U.S Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Transportation, along with three key congressional leaders, have weighed in on the side of CSX Transportation and the railroad industry in opposition to the District of Columbia’s ban on the transportation of hazardous materials.
The federal agencies and congressional leaders say the ban makes it more dangerous to transport hazardous materials because it increases the time and distance the materials must travel. They made the case in separate filings in federal court and before the Surface Transportation Board, where CSXT is challenging the District ordinance.
The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security said the DC law would “result in a dramatic increase in the total miles over which such materials travel and the total time the materials are in transit,” and “increase their exposure to possible terrorist action.”
“The D.C. Act would negatively affect the United State’s interest in national security, public safety, public health, and a strong economy,” wrote DOJ and DHS attorneys in a brief filed with the federal court. “The risks associated with the transportation of hazardous materials correspond to the amount of time in transit."
DOT agreed.
“The risk to the nation of transporting hazardous material is minimized by permitting railroads to carry such cargo on routes where time in transit will be minimized,” wrote DOT. “As a general matter, that is accomplished by using the shortest route having the best quality of track.”
When local governments ban hazardous materials from their communities “they shift the risk to others,” added DOT. “It raises everyone’s risk and clogs the transportation system.”
U.S. Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) and chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said rerouting trains “away from the District of Columbia adds hundreds of miles and days of transit times to the transportation materials. Alternative routings increase the number of times a car must be handled and the time a car sits in a yard. Longer distance and transit times and increased handling and “dwell” times are factors that tend to decrease safety and security.”
U.S. Rep. Tom Davis, (R-VA) and chairman of the congressional committee with jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, also weighed in, noting that the District’s actions “carry their own security concern and increase the risk of transporting hazardous materials.”
The District’s ordinance would, “for the sole purpose of avoiding D.C., generate an additional 1.9 million car miles” a year for CSX, more than doubling the route, said U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL), who serves on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
More than 20 organizations have filed statements in support of CSXT at the STB. Others supporting the railroad included the National Industrial Transportation League, the Sulfur Institute, the American Chemistry Council, the Edison Electric Institute, the National Mining Association and the Fertilizer Institute. The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security brief was filed in support of CSXT in U.S. District Court. Reps. LaTourette, Davis and Brown filed their comments with the STB.
My comments:
We were all told that after Sept. 11th, we as individuals would run into more inconviences, delays and perhaps even invasion of privacy issues. The debate over whether to ban hazardous materials transportation through D.C. has highlighted 2 issues for me:
1) In identifying potential terrorist targets, should our government prioritize oppurtunity over high-profile targets, and
2) Should large corporations with strong political ties be immune from the extra inconvenience, cost, frustration, etc. that we as individuals must endure in several aspects of our lives including flying, banking, access to certain information and even places, etc.
We might debate the merits of banning hazmat in D.C. and we might debate whether my issue 2 (which admittedly is subjective) is even relevant to the discussion. But, I don't think you can deny that our government has sided with the railroad industry in deciding that opportunity outweighs high-profile targets in assessing terrorist risks. My commentary: I guess it was easier to take out the Towers than to take out a train hauling hazardous materials through the midwest.
Please note that the press release posted is from the Association of American Railroads and of course is slanted in their favor, but no matter how much spin you put on it...Oh, and CSX's home office is in Jacksonville, FL.
DOJ, DHS, DOT, Key Congressional Leaders
Oppose Hazardous Material Ban;
Ban would “increase exposure to possible terrorist action”
WASHINGTON, March 2, 2005 ― The U.S Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Transportation, along with three key congressional leaders, have weighed in on the side of CSX Transportation and the railroad industry in opposition to the District of Columbia’s ban on the transportation of hazardous materials.
The federal agencies and congressional leaders say the ban makes it more dangerous to transport hazardous materials because it increases the time and distance the materials must travel. They made the case in separate filings in federal court and before the Surface Transportation Board, where CSXT is challenging the District ordinance.
The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security said the DC law would “result in a dramatic increase in the total miles over which such materials travel and the total time the materials are in transit,” and “increase their exposure to possible terrorist action.”
“The D.C. Act would negatively affect the United State’s interest in national security, public safety, public health, and a strong economy,” wrote DOJ and DHS attorneys in a brief filed with the federal court. “The risks associated with the transportation of hazardous materials correspond to the amount of time in transit."
DOT agreed.
“The risk to the nation of transporting hazardous material is minimized by permitting railroads to carry such cargo on routes where time in transit will be minimized,” wrote DOT. “As a general matter, that is accomplished by using the shortest route having the best quality of track.”
When local governments ban hazardous materials from their communities “they shift the risk to others,” added DOT. “It raises everyone’s risk and clogs the transportation system.”
U.S. Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) and chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said rerouting trains “away from the District of Columbia adds hundreds of miles and days of transit times to the transportation materials. Alternative routings increase the number of times a car must be handled and the time a car sits in a yard. Longer distance and transit times and increased handling and “dwell” times are factors that tend to decrease safety and security.”
U.S. Rep. Tom Davis, (R-VA) and chairman of the congressional committee with jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, also weighed in, noting that the District’s actions “carry their own security concern and increase the risk of transporting hazardous materials.”
The District’s ordinance would, “for the sole purpose of avoiding D.C., generate an additional 1.9 million car miles” a year for CSX, more than doubling the route, said U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL), who serves on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
More than 20 organizations have filed statements in support of CSXT at the STB. Others supporting the railroad included the National Industrial Transportation League, the Sulfur Institute, the American Chemistry Council, the Edison Electric Institute, the National Mining Association and the Fertilizer Institute. The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security brief was filed in support of CSXT in U.S. District Court. Reps. LaTourette, Davis and Brown filed their comments with the STB.
My comments:
We were all told that after Sept. 11th, we as individuals would run into more inconviences, delays and perhaps even invasion of privacy issues. The debate over whether to ban hazardous materials transportation through D.C. has highlighted 2 issues for me:
1) In identifying potential terrorist targets, should our government prioritize oppurtunity over high-profile targets, and
2) Should large corporations with strong political ties be immune from the extra inconvenience, cost, frustration, etc. that we as individuals must endure in several aspects of our lives including flying, banking, access to certain information and even places, etc.
We might debate the merits of banning hazmat in D.C. and we might debate whether my issue 2 (which admittedly is subjective) is even relevant to the discussion. But, I don't think you can deny that our government has sided with the railroad industry in deciding that opportunity outweighs high-profile targets in assessing terrorist risks. My commentary: I guess it was easier to take out the Towers than to take out a train hauling hazardous materials through the midwest.
Please note that the press release posted is from the Association of American Railroads and of course is slanted in their favor, but no matter how much spin you put on it...Oh, and CSX's home office is in Jacksonville, FL.