The Gooey Kablooie
07 Sunday Jul 2013
Written by Jo Bossart/ParrySounds.com in Parry Sound, Reflections, Safety
Fans of Calvin and Hobbes will remember that Calvin’s favourite bedtime story was ‘Hamster Huey and the Gooey Kablooie’. Well it seems we’ve seen a big, and by all reports, a ‘gooey’ kablooie.
I have been asked by several individuals why I haven’t been ‘commenting’ on the recent series of rail misadventures.There have been so many ‘accidents’ that is seems surreal. It’s sort of like the weather. Why spend too much time on what you can’t change. Changes start with a desire to change. And from what I have seen the Town of Parry Sound isn’t ready to change. The reasons in support of the status quo range from apathy, an honest romantic notion of trains chugging across Canada opening up a vast wilderness, to a sense that trains drive Canadian economy. A ‘What’s good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA” way of thinking. Mostly though it’s apathy. People reason its not that bad and they don’t think they can do anything about it. Much like the vague sense people have regarding weather and climate change.
Well Lac-Mégantic has provided us with a real-life definition of ‘that bad’. A train with more than seventy cars of crude oil exploded in town, killing residents, burning down many buildings and polluting the local river. Check in with www.cbc.ca for updates.
This is no tornado, earthquake or some other ‘Act of God’. This is an ‘Act of Commerce’.
Rail cars carrying bulk crude oil roll through Parry Sound day and night. Heading south they carry crude oil. Heading north I suspect they are empty, traveling west to be refilled.
Considering just the southbound track in Parry Sound, the rail cars pass through four street crossings (two gated), go over four bridges/trestles, and in the process cross the Seguin River. Pollute the river and you pollute Georgian Bay, killing wildlife and the local economy. The potential for misadventure is remarkably high. And as we have seen in Lac-Mégantic it’s more than a ‘theoretical’ risk.
As a member of Parry Sound’s Rail Safety Committee I’ve been told that we have a plan in place to handle a rail emergency. Does it include rebuilding half the town? Is it perhaps worth the time and effort to develop in parallel a plan that eliminates the possibility of a Lac-Mégantic type disaster?
But, until the town, including residents, council and staff decides to get off of its apathetic ass nothing will happen.
Rolling, Rolling, Rolling – Keep Them Tankers Rolling.
Ahh – the romance of the rails.
No comments
July 7, 2013 at 8:03 pm
Probably the most important message about crude travelling through the community is to realize that we all make choices and the railroad only hauls the goods that are demanded by the consumer. No one wants a dump in their backyard, but they have no problem generating trash. We must take responsibility for the fuel we consume both directly and indirectly.
July 8, 2013 at 9:59 am
You make several reasonable points that might benefit from additional reflection. Garbage dumps in the neighbourhood are not what people want to see. But it can depend on what type of a garbage dump, in particular how it’s designed, managed and maintained. The same is true of the rail industry.
I agree that the rail industry is a national asset and a critical service. I am developing a concern about how it is operated. Is it operated for maximal corporate profitability or for both the shareholder and the community that it impacts hourly? A veteran of big business I am too aware of how corporations cut corners whenever possible to eke out a little, sometimes much, more profit. The Canadian railways have done a reasonable but certainly not great job in terms of safety. Too often they oppose and obstruct suggestions that would improve community safety and comfort because it might set a precedent they don’t want to deal with, or more importantly it impacts profitability.
China is now facing the environmental and social consequences of business expansion with very limited regulation. Tainted milk, adulterated pharmaceutical raw materials, and smog represent a very short list of the products of commercial production without conscience. Meeting expectations that are kept artificially low really is ‘gaming’ the system.
Yes Canadians expect more, and in many cases are willing to accept the costs associated with more. And more socially conscientious business practices can be good business as evidenced by many companies, with Costco as a good example in the retail sector.
Many segments of Canadian industry, notably the automobile sector, are subject to regulations that consistently raise the bar in terms of efficiency and safety. The auto industry at one point seriously opposed any mandatory safety improvements (seat belts, air bags). The railways not so much, perhaps because they largely dictate the safety agenda by leveraging their monopoly position and the ignorance of the Canadian public regarding rail operations.
But things change and I suspect the rail industry will be dragged along kicking, screaming and claiming eminent right as well as national security
issues with an eventual investment in technologies, procedures and logistics that will benefit both them, the communities they too often abuse, and the environment.
July 17, 2013 at 3:28 pm
The problem I see is that is that in articles about Lac-Mégantic is that there is an underlying assumption that the rail industry is void of regulation and safety measures when nothing could be further from the truth. The regulation, safety procedures and culture of safety in the Canadian rail industry is substantial. When it fails, each and every accident of any type on rails is thoroughly investigated and followed up with regulatory consequences by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. ( http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/rail/index.asp ). Developing a comprehensive understanding of current systems in place and how well they are working (and why) is key to being able to develop strategies for improvement. It is one thing to be of the opinion that safety needs to be improved; it is another to find ways to do it.
It will be interesting to read the possible changes come up with for preventing accidents such as the one in Lac-Mégantic; I honestly don’t think further regulation is going to improve anything.
July 18, 2013 at 8:44 am
Every industry is subject to regulation. What matters is how they work with the regulations. Are regulations something worth only cursory attention? Are they embraced or are they tolerated? Are they to be limited by lobbying to restrict new regulations and to limit inspection and enforcement.
I am reminded of other ‘industries’ that are subject to regulation and presumably have no less ‘ethical’ employees.
How often do we hear the arguments that go something like, “guns don’t kill, people kill” and “if guns are restricted then only criminals will have guns”? These types of arguments and considerable lobbying is used to limit even simple regulations that might keep guns out of the hands of ‘troubled’ individuals and prevent children from unintentionally killing or harming others. I don’t believe the people in this industry are any less ethical than the average population, they just are motivated to ensure profits grow by constantly increasing sales and limiting expenses.
What about the Church abuse scandals? It might be argued that they are more ethical than the average population. Why did they permit these abuses to continue? In fact they were largely subject to no regulations, it was assumed that they would self regulate. Why didn’t they ? They were aware of the situation and yet chose to ‘sweep it under the rug’. Many people were scarred by these abuses. And in the process the Church has been forced to come forward and face their sins, essentially becoming regulated.
As a 30+ year veteran of the pharmaceutical industry i am too aware of the abuses of my industry; lying, cheating and obfuscating at a scale that is almost unimaginable. The industry has paid billions in fines and more abuses are being reported weekly. And this is in an industry subject to far more regulation than that faced by the railways. But like the railways the pharma industry is subject to only limited inspection. Trains don’t kill, it’s the companies that operate the trains that kill, through neglect, cost cutting and a refusal to make appropriate, often unregulated, investments in improving safety.
One last point. I was told by a town official that a few years ago the town contacted the railways for a little bit of help and consideration. The town was doing some work under one of the railway crossings that ran through the middle of town. The town asked if the railways could lower the speed of their trains for a couple of weeks while the work was being done and the ground was properly compacted and stabilized. The town was told by the railways that they would be willing to consider the request if the town would compensate them to the tune of $50,000 for operational losses related to these slowdowns.
Yes continue to tell the world about how the railways are already regulated. But regulations are only as good as the commitment of the railways to follow them without inspection, and the willingness of the railways to continually improve safety practices.