Homeland Security - Targets vs. Opportunity [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Homeland Security - Targets vs. Opportunity



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.

piece-it pete
03-20-2005, 04:40 PM
Howdy!

It seems to me like the fundamental assumption under this complaint is accurate: more miles traveled increases the odds of something bad happening, even accidents! Even if their 1.9 million additional miles traveled estimate is inflated by a factor of two that's a heck of a lot of miles. Add additional handling and pow! Hope not.

The rail system in general I view (with some distaste) as an almost quasi-government agency. However I recognize their financial value and neccessity. A couple of years ago, when they restructured, the estimated cost to the overall economy that year was 1-2% of GDP!! (on top of another 1% lost that year due to the UPS strike). I felt the impact (a kind of chaos) in my job duties at the time, even though we did not use railroad frt directly (swamped the trucking system). Mighty. And mightily important. And good, old fashioned well-paying high benifit blue collar jobs too.

I'd guess that bombing a railroad is much easier than the Twin Towers, even if getting inside info on what's shipping where might be hard (even before 9-11).

Where the emphasis on security should be, that's a tough one.

I defer to the Feds. At least on Federal policy and guidance & support to the States, when it comes down to judgement calls on intelligence matters.

I know, I know, but Iraq was a worldwide beaurocratic failure, in fact, imho. Even if not, what can we do? I'd even defer to a Democrat President on these things, being as someones' got to be in charge, although I've got to admit I understand your concern regarding the "other" guy :) .

Pete

dean_martin
03-20-2005, 08:21 PM
Howdy!

It seems to me like the fundamental assumption under this complaint is accurate: more miles traveled increases the odds of something bad happening, even accidents! Even if their 1.9 million additional miles traveled estimate is inflated by a factor of two that's a heck of a lot of miles. Add additional handling and pow! Hope not.

The rail system in general I view (with some distaste) as an almost quasi-government agency. However I recognize their financial value and neccessity. A couple of years ago, when they restructured, the estimated cost to the overall economy that year was 1-2% of GDP!! (on top of another 1% lost that year due to the UPS strike). I felt the impact (a kind of chaos) in my job duties at the time, even though we did not use railroad frt directly (swamped the trucking system). Mighty. And mightily important. And good, old fashioned well-paying high benifit blue collar jobs too.

I'd guess that bombing a railroad is much easier than the Twin Towers, even if getting inside info on what's shipping where might be hard (even before 9-11).

Where the emphasis on security should be, that's a tough one.

I defer to the Feds. At least on Federal policy and guidance & support to the States, when it comes down to judgement calls on intelligence matters.

I know, I know, but Iraq was a worldwide beaurocratic failure, in fact, imho. Even if not, what can we do? I'd even defer to a Democrat President on these things, being as someones' got to be in charge, although I've got to admit I understand your concern regarding the "other" guy :) .

Pete

Hey Pete - this case was resolved on the basis of federal preemption of state and local laws. The federal government has preempted the field with a statute that says state and local laws on the same subject matter as the Secretary of Transportation's regulations are void. This doctrine means that a judge or jury cannot decide the merits of the case. In other words, the pros and cons of either side's positions are not analyzed. There is no debate. The Secretary's railroad regulations were promulgated in 1973, but that doesn't matter.

Congress can step in or the Secretary of Trans. can revise, withdraw or modify existing regs but that's unlikely.

It may not be feasible to re-route hazmat around D.C. I just find it interesting that the gov't agreed with CSX on a train being hit in the boonies versus one being hit in our nation's capital, especially in light of the fact that anti-US terrorists systematically hit statement targets (or die trying). I'm not sure what DC argued to support the ban, but I do keep up with what the railroad industry is doing. You are absolutely right about the industry being quasi-governmental. Nobody has ever been able to call the railroad on safety issues until Spitzer recently went after them in New York.

Check out www.csx-sucks.com. And, search the NYTimes site for Walt Bogdanich's series of articles on railroads. BTW, I've accumulated a ton of stuff related to safety at RR crossings myself that may raise a few eyebrows.

hifitommy
03-21-2005, 06:49 AM
http://tinyurl.com/4yx2z (http://tinyurl.com/4yx2z)

shokhead
03-21-2005, 07:03 AM
Railroads? They are here already. They've been in Mexico and taken Mexican sir names,blended in are and are coming across the fricken open border that nobnody seems to want to do something about. I'm thinking what in the heck is Fox getting,not to be bothered by them as long as he doesnt protect his side?

dean_martin
03-21-2005, 07:37 AM
http://tinyurl.com/4yx2z (http://tinyurl.com/4yx2z)

hifitommy, where have you been? Woochifer posted seeking input on the Ortofon high output MCs over on the analog board. I recall that you often recommend them. I thought you might add a little insight to the discussion.

piece-it pete
03-23-2005, 08:09 AM
I'm still OK with the routing, to me it makes perfect sense. I'll bet we're much more likely to have an accident than a terrorist incident.

The rail system, well, as far as crossings and the like I got something of an education in GB.

Over there, the rails are completely fenced in, and when the "gates" (full fences) are "open" they actually swing 90 degrees and fully close off the rail entrance.

Great! Except...

They have a man full time in a little booth to do it. This guy gets full union wages and benefits for doing almost nothing. How does that impact cost of living?

And I want to put in a little plug for the fun factor. Growing up I not only walked the rails all the time but also jumped trains. Once I even rode a flatbed out over the Mississippi. Smart? Well, I climbed trees and rock outcroppings too, like many boys. Particularly some of the outcroppings could be very dangerous. Heck, I don't know.

If there is neglegence in crossing maintenence/systems there should be criminal charges.

I'm tempted to say we should de-regulate the rail system. Chaos and union-busting would insue, but the long term would probably be good - why does it generally cost less to ship cross-country on a truck? It doesn't make sense to me.

If the terrorists were smart (I really don't think many of them are) they'd skip the population centers and blow up a container at sea. THAT would shake things up.

Pete