Is Train Cargo Confidentiality Agreements Necessary?

[Shady]

Are you guys purposely being obtuse?

[GostHacked]

The railroads aren't public roads - aren't we talking about the railroads ?

But many rail lines run right through major population centers. The rail line may not exactly be public, but if the train tracks are located a stones throw from my house, I may have concerns about the materials being moved via rail.

What if the material in the rail cars that blew up at Lac Megantic was kept secret? How would you approach putting out a fire when you are not sure what the material is? Water could make it worse, foam could make it worse. What if there was radioactive material on that same train?

That's right, you don't need to know.

[Shady]

But many rail lines run right through major population centers. The rail line may not exactly be public, but if the train tracks are located a stones throw from my house, I may have concerns about the materials being moved via rail.

What if the material in the rail cars that blew up at Lac Megantic was kept secret? How would you approach putting out a fire when you are not sure what the material is? Water could make it worse, foam could make it worse. What if there was radioactive material on that same train?

That's right, you don't need to know.

Wasn't it already stated that first responders etc have that information?

[GostHacked]

Wasn't it already stated that first responders etc have that information?

From the article that does seem to be the case. But if the information is held in the locomotive, and the locomotive is not accessable, what do you propose happens then? And the manifest is not always given to the authorities in a timely manner, in which time is of the essence in a disaster. they do not seem to be required to give advanced warning of the types of materials and how they are shipped.

[guyser]

Are you guys purposely being obtuse?

Lets see....

ob·tuse

adjective

adjective: obtuse

1.

annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

"he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"

synonyms:

stupid, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, ignorant, simpleminded, witless; More

Im guessing it isnt 'us' that is. Just a hunch but go check post 18 to see who is.

[eyeball]

Live close to trains at all? Corrupt politicians and corrupt corporations absolutely LOVE secrecy.

No but as a fishermen I had to rely on honest open governance.

Now if they have the ability to hold secret what is in train cars, what about tractor trailer trucks out there on the same roads with us? Is that truck next to me holding radioactive materials? Should I be worried?

We should always be worried when the words governments and confidentiality are used in the same sentence.

Edited May 7, 2014 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Is there a sense that there materials being transported that are "illegal" to transport?

No, the sense is that just about anything governments tell us is untruthful.

[Michael Hardner]

But many rail lines run right through major population centers.

Ok - you have given up the 'public roads' angle, so I will ask my previous question again: given your objection to intrusion into private affairs, especially government intrusion - why do you care about this so much?

The rail line may not exactly be public, but if the train tracks are located a stones throw from my house, I may have concerns about the materials being moved via rail.

"If that terrorist lives a stone's throw from my house, I may have concerns about the materials being moved via email."

What if the material in the rail cars that blew up at Lac Megantic was kept secret?

Your position does not appear to me to be at all principled. It doesn't matter to me but I thought I would point it out.

[Big Guy]

There are federal laws on what can be transported by rail and where it can be done. There is a limit to the kind of materials. If you plan to react in a certain manner if/when you know that it is being shipped near to you then you would have to assume that the worst possible scenario would exist and that the most dangerous material is on every train.

If you cannot accept that condition then the problem is not in the divulging of the manifest but the legislation and the laws governing cargo through populated communities. I believe that to be the responsibility of the federal government - not the railways.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Big Guy

[Shady]

Ok - you have given up the 'public roads' angle, so I will ask my previous question again: given your objection to intrusion into private affairs, especially government intrusion - why do you care about this so much?

"If that terrorist lives a stone's throw from my house, I may have concerns about the materials being moved via email."

Your position does not appear to me to be at all principled. It doesn't matter to me but I thought I would point it out.

Maybe you'll have better luck than me prying some consistency from them. All I got was personal attacks.

[eyeball]

The railroads aren't public roads - aren't we talking about the railroads ?

We're talking about right-of-ways across public lands.

Maybe we should call them right and responsibility-of-way's to better capture what we would be able to talk about if we had the same access to all the data the government has access to. It always comes back to that doesn't it?

It always will until...you know...

[dre]

Yes these agreements are necessary.

Why do you even bother?

[Michael Hardner]

We're talking about right-of-ways across public lands.

Do you think that it should be treated differently ? So, freight lines going through downtown Toronto would be ok if there were no level crossings ?

I still think it's weird for somebody to want to keep the government out of private business in some cases but not others - even as the rationale (security and safety) is exactly the same.

If we're going to make a moral argument, then fine - but people have been complaining about the railroad since before there was a Canada; in fact, complaining about the railroad made Canada.

[guyser]

Do you think that it should be treated differently ?

I do.

Heres an analogy.

I can buy fireworks without a licence. To get the really good ones that are much larger I need a licence

Why?

[Shady]

I do.

Heres an analogy.

I can buy fireworks without a licence. To get the really good ones that are much larger I need a licence

Why?

That's a terrible analogy. Terrible.

[Shady]

Do you think that it should be treated differently ? So, freight lines going through downtown Toronto would be ok if there were no level crossings ?

Exactly. You're rightly pointing out the absurdity of their argument.

[Michael Hardner]

I can buy fireworks without a licence. To get the really good ones that are much larger I need a licence

Why?

The analogy is more like this: I don't need a license to light fireworks on my lawn, but I do for the sidewalk in front of my house. Such a rule would make no sense.

Anyway, I'm harping on consistency here. If you want the government to intervene on your behalf for the purpose of safety, then fine. The railroads have a pretty strong stranglehold on these things, but ok - if you can get enough interest to lobby the government on this then you can make changes.

It's the inconsistency I don't understand.

By the way, a bunch of municipalities in Ontario took it upon themselves to pass "no trainwhistle" bylaws in the 80s or 90s. I worked for a railroad at that time. The towns and cities had no jurisdiction, nor any way to enforce these laws, but they did it anyway.

What do you think happened ? The train engineers blew the whistles more than ever in those towns, and there was no way to do anything about it.

[On Guard for Thee]

First of all I think this attempt to compare the trunk of someones car to a train car is mot even worth discussing. For starters how would we ever police that so why would we even try. Trains should be much easier to regulate: they are scheduled and they run on well known routes, and they are regularly tasked with transporting dangerous goods. I know from years in the aviation business that the TDGR regs are very tight and carry heavy penalties for non conformity. The railroad doesn't seem to have such tight controls. The stuff that blew up in Lac Megantic was not what was stated on the manifest. Woe be it to somebody in an aircraft that does that. Manifests of air cargo are kept on file so if a plane goes down the first responders know what extra hazards await them. I can't see why trains don't do the same.

[dre]

I still think it's weird for somebody to want to keep the government out of private business in some cases but not others - even as the rationale (security and safety) is exactly the same.

I cant imagine why you would think thats wierd. In some cases people have the right to know what a private entity is doing, especially if theres a potential public health risk. Especially since where trains are concerned theres a fair ammount of derailments that result in the cargo being dumped onto whatever community happens to be beside the tracks.

What on earth is so hard to understand about that? All you need to wrap your mind around it is a tiny bit of common sense. And while some rail beds are private some of them are not, and these trains often pass across public land.

[guyser]

The analogy is more like this: I don't need a license to light fireworks on my lawn, but I do for the sidewalk in front of my house. Such a rule would make no sense.

Not at all.

The idea is one of harm, the firework you can legally possess and set off is minor. (the trunk) To be able to use the really big ones, one must have a licence(the train)

Anyway, I'm harping on consistency here. If you want the government to intervene on your behalf for the purpose of safety, then fine. The railroads have a pretty strong stranglehold on these things, but ok - if you can get enough interest to lobby the government on this then you can make changes.

The govt is the one who has to pass the rules, otherwise left to rail people none would be implemented.

If we do not know what is transported then how can we know if its harmful or not?

It's the inconsistency I don't understand.

By the way, a bunch of municipalities in Ontario took it upon themselves to pass "no trainwhistle" bylaws in the 80s or 90s. I worked for a railroad at that time. The towns and cities had no jurisdiction, nor any way to enforce these laws, but they did it anyway.

What do you think happened ? The train engineers blew the whistles more than ever in those towns, and there was no way to do anything about it.

Could have charged them with excessive noise.

The Railway Saftey Act is pretty specific.

[eyeball]

Do you think that it should be treated differently ? So, freight lines going through downtown Toronto would be ok if there were no level crossings ?

No. Eliminating level crossings wouldn't change a thing.

I still think it's weird for somebody to want to keep the government out of private business in some cases but not others - even as the rationale (security and safety) is exactly the same.

Yes but you seem to be of two minds on what constitutes private and public business and somehow always manage to sound exasperated when people can't find it within themselves to simply trust the government.

If we're going to make a moral argument, then fine - but people have been complaining about the railroad since before there was a Canada; in fact, complaining about the railroad made Canada.

I realize that in a lot of cases railways became surrounded by settlements as opposed to railways suddenly pushing their way through them but the risks of living near railways have changed too. Managing risks costs money ergo reduced profits ergo lobbying government to make the world safe for capitalism. Morality or a lack thereof in all this should be self-evident.

[GostHacked]

Ok - you have given up the 'public roads' angle, so I will ask my previous question again: given your objection to intrusion into private affairs, especially government intrusion - why do you care about this so much?

You are using the notion of a citizens right to privacy as the same as a private business that deals with the public and offers a product or service to the public which needs to fall into some guidelines/regulations/inspections depending on the product or service they are offering.

"If that terrorist lives a stone's throw from my house, I may have concerns about the materials being moved via email."

If there is a suspicion of terror like activity, present probable cause, get a warrant, do the wiretap and proper investigation. What's the problem here? Procedures need to be followed here, and procedures need to be followed there.

One one case the government might be spying on me for terror activity. Saying I do not have a right to privacy. But yet when it comes to large corporations and the materials they use/transport, suddenly confidentiality is the call of the day.

[GostHacked]

Exactly. You're rightly pointing out the absurdity of their argument.

The absurdity is that he threw out a red herring. How can you argue against that?

[TimG]

As it now stands, citizens of communities across Canada have no idea of the cargo that is travelling through our towns, villages and cities.

This statement is false. All transport carrying hazardous goods must be clearly labeled on the container/vehicle and on the shipping documents. Here is a reference to the required labels:

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType272/Production/safetymarks.pdf

If a train is transporting goods that are not classified as a hazardous materials then no one has any need to know what is in it.

This entire story is nothing but a local politician grandstanding about something he knows nothing about.

Edited May 7, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

What on earth is so hard to understand about that? All you need to wrap your mind around it is a tiny bit of common sense.

Why is a chemical spill different than a chemical attack in this case?