(The following story by Mike Sprague appeared on the Whittier Daily News website on May 21.)
LOS ANGELES — A spate of recent derailments and rail accidents around the Whittier area and elsewhere has triggered a virtual trainload of state legislative proposals all aimed at improving safety along California’s rail lines.
In recent months, state lawmakers from Whittier and other areas have introduced at least a half-dozen bills that seek to address rail safety issues. Other proposals are on the way.
Among the changes being sought, lawmakers want states to have more control over rail safety traditionally the domain of the federal government – more money to build bridges at rail crossings and increased penalties for obstructing or disrupting train travel.
“I think they are all part of the process of sending a message to the railroads that they need to be more proactive in terms of safety,’ said Councilman Ron Beilke of Pico Rivera, where a 14-year-old boy was hit and killed by a train in January while walking across a rail crossing.
Most of the bills were prompted by recent train incidents, including a March 8 derailment in Industry and an October 2004 derailment in the unincorporated area near North Whittier that demolished or damaged at least two homes, but caused no injuries.
In June 2003, railroad officials deliberately derailed a runaway Union Pacific freight train that then plowed into a neighborhood in Commerce, destroying several homes. No one was injured.
Some railroad officials argue the slew of state proposals comes at a time when, nationally, train accidents are on the decline.
“The facts prove otherwise trends in rail safety are good,’ said Lena Kent, a spokeswoman for Burlington Northern Santa Fe.
“The number of accidents has decreased over the past 10 years and has leveled off nationally. Moreover, Department of Transportation Secretary (Norm) Mineta recently announced a rail safety initiative that recognizes the overall improvements and positive trends in rail safety,’ she added.
But others, like state Sen. Martha Escutia, D-Whittier, believe it’s time to overhaul a rail safety system that gives the federal government nearly all of the regulatory powers while leaving state and local governments on the sidelines.
“A new balance must be struck that restores a local role in all aspects of railroad safety in order to prevent accidents, if possible, and limit their consequences when they do happen,’ Escutia said.
She has introduced Senate Joint Resolution 13, which lobbies the federal government to give California more power to regulate the railroads.
Patrick Berdge, staff counsel for the California Public Utilities Commission, said Escutia’s resolution might be the most important among the new wave of state rail safety proposals.
“The joint resolution sort of sums it up. This is what we need the most. We need reform of the federal Railroad Safety Act so states can be involved,’ he said.
Federal law now limits what states can do in terms of regulating rail safety. States can only pass such laws in order to eliminate local safety hazards.
However, federal courts have ruled that existing federal regulations already allow for local safety hazards to be addressed and corrected, although that does not always occur in real- life situations, Berdge said.
He cited the case of the Dunsmuir track in Northern California the sharpest curve and steepest grade in the state. When California sought to regulate that stretch of tracks, the federal courts threw out the state’s regulations.
“The federal district court said (improvements) could be all accomplished with federal regulation,’ Berdge added.
Railroad officials are lukewarm about the prospect of giving states more regulatory powers. They fear having to deal with an added layer of regulators.
“We’re concerned about the creation of a plethora of regulations in the various states we operate in,’ said John Bromley, spokesman for Union Pacific.
“If there’s a conflict between federal laws and the state in attempting to regulate the same thing, there will be problems,’ he added.
One such overlap could be created by SB 578, also recently introduced by Escutia. The bill would require railroad companies to provide to the state Office of Emergency Services and state and county safety agencies information on what sorts of hazardous materials are being hauled on trains.
Bromley said the bill could pose a “huge administrative burden.’
“It would be very difficult to predict in a timely fashion when X, Y and Z (chemicals) would be moving through a local community,’ he said.
A more controversial proposal is SB 419 by state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, which would prohibit any transport of hazardous materials by rail through urban areas.
Bromley said railroads would have a difficult time complying with Simitian’s proposal because trains often deliver these materials to urban areas. Often, there are no other routes by which to deliver them, he added.
“Freeways often have a bypass,’ he said. “Railroads have to go through the town.’
Meanwhile, state Assemblymen Rudy Bermudez, D-Norwalk, and Dario Frommer, D-Glendale, recently introduced two rail safety bills and announced plans for a third.
AB 158 would order the Public Utilities Commission to create a railroad safety task force to study safety, while AB 1067 makes obstructing a railroad track a felony. It also doubles the amount of money in the state budget for grade separations.
Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe support both bills.
“We’ll have a study to detail everything we need to do to make our railroads come up to the level of expectation,’ Bermudez said of the task force AB 178 would create. “We’ll get it in a format that will be used to make laws to enforce it.’
The two lawmakers also want increased spending on rail bridges, from the $15 million now earmarked in the budget to $30 million.
Bermudez conceded that $30 million is not a lot of money, considering the work needed.
“I’d be happier if we got to $60 million, but $30 million is tremendously a lot better than $15 million,’ he said.
While the spurt of new bills could result in over-regulation if all of them are approved, even railroad company officials say some of the proposals could improve rail safety overall.
“If nothing else, (the bills) bring more attention to railroad safety issues,’ said Bromley. “It gives us the opportunity to tell people what we’re doing, and at the same time it focuses us on community concerns.’