Who's in charge here? BigOil and Rail lobbies skirt regulation

Congress extends deadline for railroads to install anti-derailment technology

The deadline was December 31st, but only 31 percent of locomotives have positive train control

By Andrew J . Hawkins     October 29, 2015  The Verge

Thanks to intense lobbying by the railroad industry, Congress approved a bill that would extend the deadline by at least three years for implementation of Positive Train Control, an automated braking technology that experts believe provides a needed check on human error and prevents deadly derailments.

Seven years ago, after a train collision killed 25 people in Los Angeles, Congress ordered railroads nationwide to install positive train control by the end of 2015. Since then, a number of derailments occurred that could have been avoided if the trains involved had the technology available. Experts estimate that the system could have prevented 145 rail accidents that killed 288 people and injured 6,575 since 1969. "But we can't let this drag on indefinitely."  But the railroad industry has been dragging its feet ever since Congress approved the mandate....   more here

Audit finds railroad safety lacking during high oil traffic

By MATT VOLZ     10/29/15    Fire Engineering

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Montana's oversight of railroad safety falls short at a time when volatile crude oil train traffic from the Bakken region, already high, is only expected to increase, a new audit found.

Montana has no active rail safety plan and employs only two inspectors to cover the vast state, the Montana Legislative Audit Division report released Wednesday said. In addition, there is a lack of statewide emergency planning and hazardous-material response capability should an oil spill occur, the report found.

That's a potentially precarious situation with a new crude oil transfer station in North Dakota coming online that should boost oil traffic crossing Montana from about 10 trains a week to up to 15 cars per week. One out of every five Montanans lives in an evacuation zone for an oil-train derailment, which is within a half-mile of a rail line, the report said.

Trains carrying Bakken crude have been involved in fiery derailments in six states in recent years. In 2013, a runaway train hauling crude from the Bakken derailed and exploded in downtown Lac-Megantic, Quebec, killing 47 people.....    more here

How's this for a spill response plan??

Come on baby light my fire

Ned Rozell     10/29/15    Anchorage Press

On a clear day last spring, fire sizzled on water at Poker Flat Research Range in the Chatanika River valley.

There, scientists were spilling crude oil in a manmade water basin and torching it from above. A series of similar test burns were part of a team effort between university scientists and researchers with the oil and gas industry.

On that April day, an orange flame hissed on the surface of a body of water 300-feet square and six inches deep. Black smoke rose and drifted with the wind.

After a few minutes, the smoke faded from black to white to invisible. The fire burned itself out. An air horn sounded.....

.... Burning oil at the site of an ocean spill is not a new idea. Officials executed it at the Deepwater Horizon spill of 2010. For varying reasons, that burn removed very little of the spilled oil. And even though the Poker Flat experiment was efficient (one expert on scene estimated that more than 90 percent of the 50 gallons was burned), no one there thought burning was the perfect answer.

Ian Buist of SL Ross Environmental Research of Ottawa, an expert on oil spill behavior and how to deal with it, said at Poker Flat that burning is not often feasible, especially if the response is not quick and oil has spread too far.  ....   more here

For Big Railroads, a Carload of Whistleblower Complaints

For Big Railroads, a Carload of Whistleblower Complaints

By Stuart Silverstein and Brian Joseph     October 21, 2015   FairWarning

As both a veteran railroad worker and union official responsible for safety, Mike Elliott became alarmed when he learned of trouble-plagued train signals in his home state of Washington.

Signals, he said, at times would inexplicably switch from red to yellow to green – potentially creating confusion that could lead to a crash. Elliott raised that and other signal issues repeatedly with his managers at BNSF Railway Co. But eventually, Elliott concluded that “these guys are running me around in circles.”

So Elliott, 57, of Tacoma, Wash., pressed his concerns with the Federal Railroad Administration, summarizing the matter in a January 2011 letter. The FRA investigated, and discovered 357 safety violations, including 112 signal system defects.

 Speaking up for safety, though, only made matters worse for Elliott at BNSF, where he already had clashed with managers. Within weeks the company fired Elliott from his job as a locomotive engineer – an act that a federal jury this summer ruled was illegal retaliation by BNSF against a whistleblower.

The June 30 decision by the Tacoma jury, which awarded Elliott $1.25 million but is being appealed, spotlights the unjust punishment that critics say sometimes is meted out to railroad workers who report injuries or safety problems. These critics, including plaintiff lawyers and union officials, along with others who have examined railroad practices, say the harsh treatment reflects old, hard-line management tactics that persist in corners of the industry…..

…. an administrative law judge in 2013 ruled against Union Pacific, declaring: “The actions by Union Pacific have been so egregious in this case, and Union Pacific has been so openly blatant in ignoring the provisions of [federal law], that I find punitive damages are necessary to ensure that this reprehensible conduct is not repeated.” …..

…. Joseph C. Szabo, who headed the FRA from 2009 until this January, said industry supervisors often are under “immense pressure” to curb costs by moving trains quickly out of rail yards. That, in turn, translates into pressure on rank-and-file workers “to ignore safety protocols and to just get the damn train out of town.” That’s why, Szabo said, it’s “critically important” that railroad workers are “very comfortable in doing the right thing without any fear of retribution.” ….   More here

Other News:

WHAT TO LOOK FOR AS CONGRESS SETS A SIX-YEAR AGENDA FOR DANGEROUS GOODS TRANSPORT  - Bloomberg

 

Dayton says oil-by-rail shipments through Twin Cities puts thousands of Minnesotans at risk

Grand Forks Herald

- ‎Oct 21, 2015‎

In the letter to BNSF president and CEO Carl Ice, Dayton says nearly 100,000 more people are within the ½ mile evacuation zone of crude oil rail shipping routes in Minnesota now that BNSF is shipping Bakken crude oil along a rail line through downtown ...

Railroads to miss PTC deadline, threaten shut-down

Dr. John Tunn, FRA

Railroads warn they will miss deadline for safety system, stopping cargo in its tracks

October 19, 2015 | By Jennifer A. Dlouhy    Fuelfix.com

 

 WASHINGTON — Railroads are pushing Congress to extend a deadline for installing safety technology on trains that carry cargo as well as commuters, warning that oil, gasoline and other goods moved by rail could be stopped in their tracks without extra time.

At issue is Positive Train Control, a communications system that is meant to coordinate the movement of trains nationwide, preventing collisions and derailments. Congress mandated railroads use the technology in 2008, after a commuter train’s fatal crash in California killed 25 people.

But most U.S. railroads are on track to miss a Dec. 31 deadline for adopting the complex technology.
Some safety advocates say the industry has moved too slowly to roll out PTC, more than four decades after federal accident investigators first recommended such train control systems.

But installing the vast satellite-based system across multiple railroads — and ensuring the trains, towers and signaling boxes effectively communicate with each other — has proved challenging. Some PTC components had not been developed before Congress mandated the system. And delays were exacerbated by a 13-month federal moratorium on the installation of new communication poles in rights of way to transmit radio signals.

“You cannot purchase PTC systems off the shelf at Best Buy,” said Michael Melaniphy, president of the American Public Transportation Association, which is pushing Congress for more time. Otherwise, Melaniphy warned reporters Monday, “there will be a transportation crisis in this country with severe economic consequences.”...

..... That crude-by-rail traffic and the transportation of other commodities “could grind to a standstill” without at least three more years to install the system — and up to two more years for testing and validating it — said the association’s president, Ed Hamberger.

Major U.S. freight railroads, including BNSF, CSX and Norfolk Southern, have said they will shut down many operations on Dec. 31 to comply with the deadline and avoid hefty fines for flouting it. Because railroads will begin shutting down services weeks earlier, they need a clear signal from Congress before the end of October, Hamberger said.

Norfolk Southern says major coal export terminals, chemical complexes, crude oil receivers and power plants likely would lose service.....  more here

 

Grays Harbor Oil Trains Would be Severely Under-Insured

Grays Harbor Oil Trains Would be Severely Under-Insured

Railroad under-insurance leaves taxpayers and governments on the hook for billions.

 

By Eric de Place  October 19, 2015    Sightline Institute

 

This article is part of the series The Northwest's Pipeline on Rails

 

Oil train derailments—and the catastrophic fires that often result—are distressingly common features of contemporary North American life. No fewer than 10 crude oil-bearing trains have derailed and exploded since the summer of 2013. The risks to life and limb are plain enough. Less understood is the risk that these oil trains pose to taxpayers, governments, and public budgets.

No railroad in North America carries anywhere close to a level of insurance proportional to the financial risks of hauling oil. It’s a problem that is most pronounced with the small and regional railroads that often transport oil on the last leg of its journey from well to terminal. And it’s a problem that is acute in the Pacific Northwest, where a radically under-insured company called Genesee & Wyoming (G&W) aspires to enlarge its already significant role in crude oil movements.

G&W’s huge insurance gap poses a direct financial risk to taxpayers.

G&W’s Portland & Western line is permitted to haul 12 trains worth of oil per week through Columbia County, Oregon, to a terminal on the Columbia River near Clatskanie. Plus, if Washington regulators approve three proposed oil terminals in Hoquiam, Washington, the firm’s Puget Sound & Pacific line could haul roughly 17 trains weekly through Grays Harbor County to the port.

Yet G&W is severely under-insured against the threat of oil train derailments and fires. Officials estimate that the total cost for rebuilding and cleaning up Lac-Mégantic, Quebec—a small town of only about 6,000 residents that was hit by a major oil train fire in 2013—is a staggering $3 billion over the next decade.

But the costs of an oil train derailment could be even greater than that. Sightline’s review of regulatory proceedings, actuarial findings, and legal settlements finds that a reasonable worst-case scenario oil train derailment in a Northwest city could cost $5 billion or more.¹

Original Sightline Institute chart, available under our free use policy.

G&W carries at most $500 million in liability insurance to cover its entire suite of railroad holdings—of which the two Northwest lines comprise only a small fraction. In fact, even liquidating the firm’s total net worth of $2.1 billion in bankruptcy to pay for damages might not be sufficient to cover the cost of a mishap.

G&W’s huge insurance gap therefore poses a direct financial risk to taxpayers—especially those in Northwest communities such as Grays Harbor County, Washington, and Columbia County, Oregon.

And G&W is no stranger to oil train explosions. In fact, the company’s tracks hosted the second-ever catastrophic oil train derailment and explosion in November 2013 when a 90-car crude oil train derailed on a trestle near Aliceville, Alabama. The damaged rail cars erupted into fireballs and spilled substantial quantities of oil into a wetland.

Oil train derailment and river contamination, Aliceville, AL (2). Photo by John L. Wathen, used with permission.

Adding insult to injury, G&W refuses to disclose its insurance coverage levels to the public or government regulators. Decision-makers therefore have no way to evaluate the financial risks posed by the construction and operation of oil train facilities, such as the three proposed for the Port of Grays Harbor.

Not only are insurance levels wildly inadequate to the risks, but the industry obstructs public understanding of even basic information about railway liability exposure.

In the course of studying railroad insurance shortfalls, Sightline Institute contacted G&W’s corporate offices directly. A representative of the firm told us that they would not disclose information about their insurance coverage for major catastrophes. Sightline also attempted to contact the Environmental Manager of the Columbia Pacific Bio-Refinery in Columbia County, Oregon, a facility that currently receives crude-by-rail from G&W, but we received no response to multiple emails and phone calls.

We examined published documents about the railroad. As a publicly traded company, G&W must disclose certain kinds of financial information to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Sightline reviewed G&W’s SEC filings and other legally required disclosures, but we were unable to identify to identify any relevant disclosures that would shed light on railroad liability insurance levels.²

Sightline reviewed dozens of publicly-available materials, including regulatory proceedings, testimony to Congress and federal agencies, government research reports, legal briefs, media accounts, and more. We conclude that large “class 1” railroads like BNSF—North America’s dominant rail hauler of crude oil—may have somewhere in the range of $1 to $1.5 billion in insurance coverage while smaller railroads like G&W almost certainly have much less. For example, a 2009 report from the US Department of Transportation that examines insurance, security, and safety costs for railroads quotes representatives of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association saying, “Class II and III railroads… only maintain $10 to $100 million in coverage.”³
G&W may have more coverage than most small railroads: as much as $500 million worth, according to one industry media account in 2013. Yet Sightline was unable to corroborate this figure, and based on our research, we believe it likely represents an upper-end estimate of the firm’s coverage.

Sightline is hardly alone in failing to uncover hard numbers on railroad insurance levels. Even the US Transportation Department acknowledges that the federal government is unable to confirm insurance data with the railroad companies or their insurers.

The acute lack of information is a serious problem for an industry hauling explosive crude oil through cities and towns. It means that communities are blind to financial risks that could bankrupt them, risks that are foisted upon them by railroads.

In its 2014 Draft Regulatory Impact Assessment, a study prompted by the spate of alarming oil train explosions, federal regulators characterized insurance limitations as a “market failure.” Yet more than a year later, there are still no plans to correct it.

Railroad expert Fred Millar contributed research and analysis to this article. 

¹ Sightline’s estimates of railroad accident costs may be far too low. In 2013, Union Pacific petitioned the Surface Transportation Board for a declaratory order requiring shippers of Toxic-by-Inhalation-Hazardous material to indemnify UP against all liabilities, other than those resulting from UP’s negligence or fault. The petition was eventually rejected, but Assistant Vice President for Finance and Insurance Warren B. Beach gave testimony regarding the difficulty railroads face in insuring hazardous cargo: “UP had commercial liability insurance totaling $1 billion as of 2008,” and that although typical maximums are around $1 billion, “in 2012 UP was able to purchase $1.2 billion of commercial liability insurance… the potential loss from a single terrorist attack involving release of hazardous materials in a heavily populated area can reach hundreds of billions of dollars. Thus, even if UP could double or triple its coverage, it would not come close to covering the potential loss for a truly catastrophic event.”

² The nearest information pertains to self-insured retentions and casualties and insurance coverage, an unrelated (and much smaller) type of policy that railway companies carry. According to G&W’s SEC filings in 2014, the firm’s liability policies had self-insured retentions of up to $2.5 million per occurrence. (A self-insured retention is an amount that must be paid by the insured party to the claimant before the insurance coverage begins. Since it is paid to the claimant, it differs slightly from a deductible.) We also know that G&W paid $41.5 million in 2013 and $38.5 million in 2013 for Casualties and Insurance coverage. Unfortunately, insurance experts like Daniel Roddy at HMBD Insurance Services assured us that there is no way of estimating total insurance coverage based on monthly payments or self-insured retentions without much more information and the help of underwriters.

³ The report states that “while $1 billion is more than sufficient to cover losses from ‘routine’ [Toxic Inhalation Related]-related incidents, it is well short of the $5 to $6 billion that Class I railroads estimate would be necessary in a ‘nightmare scenario.” Estimated costs from a catastrophic crude oil train derailment in an urban area are similar. Representatives from ASLRRA also explained that “small railroads cannot afford premiums for ‘meaningful’ amounts of insurance coverage… Class II railroads would likely be content with $200 million in coverage and Class III carriers would likely be satisfied with $100 million in coverage…While there is sufficient capacity within the rail insurance market to satisfy this demand, many short line haulers simply do not have the cash-flow to pay for such insurance coverage.”

 

Sightline is a community-supported resource and can’t do this work without you!

Please make a donation today and help keep them running.

 

Did the DEIS's properly address your scoping comment??

by Arnie Martin,   Citizens for a Clean Harbor

The draft Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for the Westway Expansion Project and the Imperium Terminal Services Expansion Project [crude oil terminals] in Grays Harbor, were published Aug 31, 2015,  starting  the  60-day public comment period. The comment period starts August 31, 2015 and ends October 29, 2015.

The scoping comments made 2 years ago were to be a guide for the Department of Ecology in writing the Environmental Impact Study (EIS).

Now is the time to go back and look at the scoping comment(s) you submitted back in 2013/2014.

1. Review your scoping comments (comments are in Volume 2, Appendix A). 

    a.       Search for your comments by expanding the “Appendix A” list by clicking on the “+” to its left, then clicking on “Index of Comment Submissions Sorted by Commenter Name”, then scroll down to your name.

    b.      Carefully review your comment(s).

2. Were your concerns addressed in the draft EIS?

    a.       Search (using your exact words in the scoping comment – or a subset of those words) to find what the DEIS says in response to your comment.

    b.      Using “Ctrl” – “Shift” – “F” is the best way to find something buried in the text of the Volume 1.

3. Were your concerns adequately resolved?

    a.      Has the DEIS put in requirements that would have the project proponents change their plans to reduce the effects of the problem addressed in your comment?           

    b.      Does the DEIS just add some words that say that occurrence is “very unlikely” or “highly unlikely”. 

    c.      Does the DEIS simply have a sentence that states: “Compliance with the applicable regulations and permits described above is expected to reduce impacts on land and shoreline use. There would be no unavoidable and significant adverse impacts.” ?

    d.      Does the DEIS fail totally to mention your concerns?

    e.      Be aware that the studies used to prepare the DEIS are included in volumes 2 and 3.

4. Responding to the DEIS

    a.       If you don’t believe that such comments adequately address the concerns you raised in the scoping comment, call their attention to the comment, using the comment submission number assigned to your comment. 

    b.      Point out the inadequacy of their DEIS, relative to your scoping comment. They will have to respond to your comment, and modify the DEIS text for incorporation into the Final EIS.

  

Both Draft EISs are available on the Ecology website, www.ecy.wa.gov/GraysHarbor. In addition to the draft documents, the website also has links to fact sheets in English and Spanish. These fact sheets summarize key issue areas, the environmental review process, and the Westway and the Imperium [ now REG] expansion projects. The website has information on submitting comments and a link to the online comment form.

Comments that do not identify a specific project will be considered for both projects. All comments are valued equally.  Comments can be submitted:

By mail at:
Westway and Imperium Terminal Services Expansion Projects EISs
c/o ICF International
710 Second Street, Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98104

Online at: https://public.commentworks.com/cwx/westwayimperiumcommentform/

Bill could shield oil train spill response plans from disclosure

Oil burns at the site of a March 5, 2015, train derailment near Galena, Ill.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/economy/article39495555.html#storylink=cpy

House bill could shield oil train spill response plans from disclosure

Six-year transportation bill includes section on oil trains
Obama administration supports public notifications of oil spills, etc.
Future transportation secretary could be empowered to protect data

By Curtis Tate     McClatchyDC  Oct 16, 2015

WASHINGTON-   A House of Representatives bill unveiled Friday could make it more difficult for the public to know how prepared railroads are for responding to oil spills from trains, their worst-case scenarios and how much oil is being transported by rail through communities.

The language appears in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s six-year transportation legislation, which primarily addresses federal programs that support state road, bridge and transit projects. But the legislation also includes a section on oil trains.

The U.S. Department of Transportation is working on a rule to require railroads shipping oil to develop comprehensive spill response plans along the lines of those required for pipelines and waterborne vessels. It would also require them to assess their worst-case scenarios for oil spills, including quantity and location.

The House bill would give the secretary of transportation the power to decide what information would not be disclosed to the public.

The secretary would have discretion to withhold anything proprietary or security sensitive, as well as “specific response resources and tactical resource deployment plans” and “the specific amount and location of worst-case discharges, including the process by which a railroad carrier determines the worst-case discharge.”

The House bill defines “worst-case discharge” as the largest foreseeable release of oil in an accident or incident, as determined by the rail carrier.

Four major oil train derailments have occurred in the U.S. since the beginning of the year, resulting in the release of more than 600,000 gallons, according to federal spill data.....

.... In May, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a bill that would require railroads operating in the state to plan for their worst-case spills.

In April, BNSF Railway told state emergency responders that the company currently considers 150,000 gallons of crude oil, enough to fill five rail tank cars, its worst-case scenario when planning for spills into waterways. A typical 100-car oil train carries about 3 million gallons.

Washington state requires marine ships that transport oil to plan for a spill of the entire cargo.....

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/economy/article39495555.html#storylink=cpy

more here

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/economy/article39495555.html#storylink=cpy

Vancouver firefighters oppose oil terminal at port- media links

 

 The Port of Vancouver, looking east from Terminal 5

Incredible testimony from the firefighter union at the Port of Vancouver. The ILWU president also testified against oil in front of a packed house opposed to oil.

Vancouver firefighters oppose oil terminal at port

KOIN-  Port of Vancouver terminal would be nation's largest oil-by-rail terminal

Firefighters: Oil train terminal would put too many lives at risk KGW - video

Vancouver firefighters union opposes oil terminal at port

The Columbian- It cites threats to public safety posed by project proposed at Port of  Vancouver

All stories mentioned the impending release of the DEIS on the 24th of November.

Oil hauls thought to be overtaxing rail system

Oil hauls thought to be overtaxing rail system

By Ralph Vartabedian    Los Angeles Times    October 12, 2015 

The only sign of trouble aboard a Norfolk Southern train hauling roughly 9,000 tons of Canadian crude in western Pennsylvania last year was a moderate sway in the locomotive as it entered a bend on the Kiskiminetas River.

The first 66 cars had passed safely around the curve when the emergency brakes suddenly engaged, slamming the train to a stop. The conductor trudged back nearly a mile through newly fallen snow to see what had happened.

Twenty-one cars had derailed, one going through the wall of a factory. Four tank cars were punctured, sending 4,300 gallons of crude pouring out of the wreckage.

The cause of the accident in North Vandergrift was identified as a failure in the rails -- not aging or poorly maintained tracks, but a relatively new section laid less than a year earlier.

The February 2014 crash fits into an alarming pattern across North America that helps explain the significant rise of derailments involving oil-hauling trains over the last three years, even as railroads are investing billions of dollars in improving the safety of their networks. A review of 31 crashes that have occurred on oil trains since 2013 puts track failure at the heart of the growing safety problem.

Track problems were blamed in 59 percent of the crashes, more than double the overall rate for freight-train accidents, according to a Los Angeles Times analysis of accident reports. Investigators and rail-safety experts are looking at how the weight and movements of oil trains may be causing higher-than-expected track failures.

The growing number of trains hauling crude oil from Canada and the Northern Plains are among the heaviest on the rails today, many extending more than 100 cars in length and weighing 19,000 tons or more.....

.... Of the 31 crashes involving crude or ethanol since 2013, 17 were related to track problems and 12 a mix of other causes. The cause of the two other crashes remains unclear. The count is based on final or preliminary government and railroad investigations that were collected by the Times under the Freedom of Information Act or in U.S., Canadian and railroad company filings.

Weight, oil sloshing and cold temperatures are among the issues that might be exacerbating the problem, according to rail-safety experts.

Investigators at Safety Transportation Board Canada, which is examining the eight accidents that have occurred in that country, are beginning to suspect that the oil trains are causing unusual track damage.

Setting the Record Straight on Oil Trains

A map displayed by Senator Cantwell shows the route traveled by oil trains that enter Washington near Spokane.

Setting the Record Straight on Oil Trains

Confronting the facts about a rickety industry.

Eric de Place  and Ben Stuckart on October 8, 2015   Sightline Institute

Sightline Editor’s note: The Seattle Times recently published a guest opinion regarding oil trains. It contained some unfortunate errors. Sightline Policy Director Eric de Place and Spokane City Council President Ben Stuckart penned this response.

On September 13, the Seattle Times published an opinion piece by Richard Berkowitz attacking, among other things, advocacy groups, communities worried about oil trains, and research published by Sightline Institute. Unfortunately, his article dismisses the threats that oil trains pose to Northwest cities—and it fails to confront the facts about a rickety, born-yesterday industry.

Here’s a fact: new projects could induce as many as 100 loaded crude oil trains per week to transit Washington. That number, first published by Sightline Institute, comes directly from adding up the industry’s own figures in publicly available permitting documents.

Here’s another fact: no fewer than 10 oil trains have exploded in North America in the last two years, killing 47 people in one instance. That’s why some have taken to calling them “bomb trains.”

Newcomers to our rail system, these oil trains play no part in moving the cargo that makes the Northwest economy tick. Far from boosting commerce, oil trains threaten to derail it. Consider the case of Cold Train, a Quincy, Washington company that, until recently, shipped refrigerated fruits and vegetables. The company went bust after its goods were crowded off the rails by coal and oil trains.

The owners of the now-defunct company are suing BNSF, but it’s already too late for the workers who lost their jobs.

“New projects could induce as many as 100 loaded crude oil trains per week to transit Washington.”

Terry Whiteside, who represents the Wheat and Barley Commissions for many western states, says that “the huge increase in Bakken oil movements and doubling of coal movements have contributed to the worst service meltdown in two decades affecting all commodity movements in the northern tier.” A Cargill executive said much the same thing to the Seattle Times in a 2014 story headlined, clearly enough, “Oil trains crowd out grain shipments to NW ports.”

Coal and oil trains are a problem not only for farmers; they are also a nightmare for on-street traffic congestion. If new oil and coal terminal plans come to fruition, they could create enough train traffic to shut down street crossings in eastern Washington by an average of two to four hours every day. In Seattle, those delays are likely to be shorter—perhaps averaging two hours a day—but they will impact at least eight major streets, including arterials in Sodo critical for freight movement.

 

Again, Sightline arrived at these figures simply by adding up what the project backers themselves say in their permit applications and factoring in estimated train speeds. Moreover, these vehicle delay findings have been corroborated by two independent traffic consulting firms, Parametrix and Gibson.
Yet worsening traffic is hardly oil trains’ worst insult: they can, and do, kill.

The first one seemed like a freak accident. An oil train derailed and exploded in a Quebec village, incinerating 47 people. But then it kept happening: train after train loaded with crude oil wobbled off the rails and blew up, their towering infernos now well documented across the internet.

Seattle, Spokane, and many other Northwest cities are directly in harm’s way. Seattle Assistant Fire Chief A.D. Vickery says, “There’s no department in the world that could deal with a scenario like Quebec or the most recent one in West Virginia. We simply don’t have the economic resources to add additional firefighters, specialized apparatus, and a number of things that would be required to deal with a significant incident.” It’s a sentiment echoed by fire chiefs around the region.

Berkowitz makes light of the risks of oil trains, but in truth they well illustrate the stakes now facing the Northwest. In just the last few years, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia have seen serious proposals for two new oil pipelines, 10 new or expanded coal export terminals, 14 oil-by-rail facilities, and at least six new natural gas pipelines. If we permit them, these proposals will reshape the economy of our state, from Spokane to Whatcom County—clogging our rail lines, worsening our traffic congestion, and physically endangering our communities. These are weighty decisions that require careful scrutiny—not the plainly false and misleading rhetoric that Berkowitz offers.

 

*** Sightline is a community-supported resource and can’t do this work without you!

 

Please make a donation today and help keep them running.