Ethanol Trains to Revere

Guilford Rail System changed its name to Pan Am Railways in 2006. Discussion relating to the current operations of the Boston & Maine, the Maine Central, and the Springfield Terminal railroads (as well as the Delaware & Hudson while it was under Guilford control until 1988). Official site can be found here: PANAMRAILWAYS.COM.

Moderator: MEC407

Re: Ethanol Trains to Revere

Postby bostontrainguy » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:08 pm

Boston Globe article:

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog ... m_content=

Note last paragraph:

The same activist groups that rallied against Global are now trying to get communities to push Governor Deval Patrick to pass a law that would ban these types of proposals altogether, and keep similar plans from being presented by fuel companies in the future.
bostontrainguy
 
Posts: 952
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:14 am

Re: Ethanol Trains to Revere

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:24 pm

bostontrainguy wrote:Boston Globe article:

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog ... m_content=

Note last paragraph:

The same activist groups that rallied against Global are now trying to get communities to push Governor Deval Patrick to pass a law that would ban these types of proposals altogether, and keep similar plans from being presented by fuel companies in the future.


So...criminalizing thoughtcrime now?


These are the same people who are going to scream the hardest for lowering the gas tax when we end up locally having some of the most expensive gas prices in the nation from lack of regional distribution facilities.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7244
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Ethanol Trains to Revere

Postby frrc » Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:40 pm

Aren't the people in the photograph in the article Trespassing on RR tracks ?

:(
Avatar: Self Portrait, Railroad Office
Renaissance Restorations LLC
Leominster, MA 01453

My Sites: Architectual Restorations
User avatar
frrc
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 11:31 am
Location: Leominster, MA

Re: Ethanol Trains to Revere

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:48 pm

frrc wrote:Aren't the people in the photograph in the article Trespassing on RR tracks ?

:(


Ah, but their petition to ban thinking about enforcing railroad trespassing laws retroactively takes care of that nasty business! :wink:
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7244
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Ethanol Trains to Revere

Postby BM6569 » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:39 pm

On their facebook group, they say they find it disturbing that first responders don't know what cargo is being transported in rail cars. As if they would lose sleep watching a train go through their town not knowing what's in each boxcar and gondola. lol

And I asked about the people standing on an active rail line. Here's their response: "They moved out of the way as the trains came through."
User avatar
BM6569
 
Posts: 1257
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:19 pm
Location: Hebron, Maine

Re: Ethanol Trains to Revere

Postby b&m 1566 » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:51 pm

bostontrainguy wrote:Boston Globe article:

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog ... m_content=

Note last paragraph:

The same activist groups that rallied against Global are now trying to get communities to push Governor Deval Patrick to pass a law that would ban these types of proposals altogether, and keep similar plans from being presented by fuel companies in the future.



I can't understand why Pan Am and/or Norfolk Southern never petitioned the STB for Declaratory order on this matter. Doesn't federal law preempted any state law and or local ordnance when it comes to interstate commerce?
b&m 1566
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 2:09 am
Location: Hudson, NH

Re: Ethanol Trains to Revere

Postby Sir Ray » Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:31 am

b&m 1566 wrote:
bostontrainguy wrote:Boston Globe article:

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog ... m_content=
Note last paragraph:
The same activist groups that rallied against Global are now trying to get communities to push Governor Deval Patrick to pass a law that would ban these types of proposals altogether, and keep similar plans from being presented by fuel companies in the future.


I can't understand why Pan Am and/or Norfolk Southern never petitioned the STB for Declaratory order on this matter. Doesn't federal law preempted any state law and or local ordnance when it comes to interstate commerce?


It wasn't that the rail aspect was prohibited by the new law; instead Global was essentially banned from improving and expanding it's facilities at the location due to the amendment added to the state budget.
From the Boston Magazine link above:
"Sponsored by Senators Anthony Petruccelli, Sal DiDomenico, and Patricia Jehlen, the wording of the amendment said that facilities such Global’s, within a half-mile of 4,000 or more residents, and accepting 5,000 or more gallons of ethanol per week, should not receive a Chapter 91 license if they apply."
What does a Chapter 91 license cover?
The Public Waterfront Act MGL Chapter 91 and its regulations require a Chapter 91 waterways license or permit for any activity located in, under, or over flowed tidelands, filled tidelands, Great Ponds and certain non-tidal rivers and streams located throughout the Commonwealth.
These projects and activities include but are not limited to: construction of docks, piers, wharves, floats, retaining walls, revetments, fill, dredging, beach nourishment, pilings, culverts, bridges, dams and some waterfront buildings, if on filled lands or over the water, that are located in any one of the four geographic areas described below.

Since Global would have been constructing new facilities in a tidal zone, they needed a license. Now, a legal case could have been made by Global that they were entitled to that license (since they applied well before this new law was passed), but apparently they felt it wasn't worth the effort to continue.
Sir Ray
 
Posts: 2016
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: The Industrial Northeast

Re: Ethanol Trains to Revere

Postby bostontrainguy » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:06 am

But the tracks, a mini-yard, and old oil racks were already there. What if they just upgraded the existing facilities without announcing the ethanol trains?
Wouldn't they have been able to improve their facilities just in case they might want to use them at some future date?
bostontrainguy
 
Posts: 952
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:14 am

Re: Ethanol Trains to Revere

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:08 pm

bostontrainguy wrote:But the tracks, a mini-yard, and old oil racks were already there. What if they just upgraded the existing facilities without announcing the ethanol trains?
Wouldn't they have been able to improve their facilities just in case they might want to use them at some future date?


No. Because the improving-facilities part is where the state is emptying its entire arsenal. They attacked the trains from a flank outside the STB's jurisdiction by attacking the source of the business. But by attacking the source of the business, by the First Law of NIMBY Warfare the offensive must continue until the enemy has been routed on every front. It doesn't stop at trains...they want to build a brick wall around Global to prevent it from ever doing anything. They want the trucks off the road (City of Boston is already tightening that noose). They want the ships to stay far out of the harbor. If they succeed at pinning Global in, they will continue to seek concessions until Global is driven out of town entirely. Because there is ALWAYS a new "Won't Somebody Think About The Children?!?!" scare to invent about a perceived enemy.

And when Global finally gives Greater Boston the one-fingered salute they will then commence idle discussion of the palatial casino and all the filthy lucre tax revenue they'll never end up building or collecting on the site and complaining that the price of fuel in Boston has mysteriously skyrocketed and demanding that the Legislature slash the gas tax.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7244
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Ethanol Trains to Revere

Postby b&m 1566 » Fri Jul 26, 2013 3:30 pm

So now what? I know Newington, NH and Portland, ME have been mentioned for alternative locations but I image it is much to early to get anymore details on these alternative locations.
b&m 1566
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 2:09 am
Location: Hudson, NH

Re: Ethanol Trains to Revere

Postby gprimr1 » Tue Aug 06, 2013 9:47 pm

Amazing. I'm no expert, but it seems that the ethanol would have brought good paying jobs to the area.
-Greg Primrose
Moderator: General Discussion: High Speed Rail Amtrak
"I'm leaving on a jet train, don't know when I'll be back again. Bags are packed and there ready to go."
Ave Atque Vale
User avatar
gprimr1
 
Posts: 3849
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Towson Maryland

Re: Ethanol Trains to Revere

Postby Hux » Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:29 pm

BM6569 wrote:And I asked about the people standing on an active rail line. Here's their response: "They moved out of the way as the trains came through."


Damn shame.
Hux
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:46 pm

Ethanol Foes At It Again

Postby GP40MC1118 » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:04 am

Chelsea Collabrative folks posted this to the STEP Yahoo Groups
list today:

STEP friends, *
> I am writing to ask for your *help* and provide you with an update on the
> NO Ethanol campaign. *The campaign is NOT OVER.*
> Last year, we were successful in getting the State Legislature to pass
> legislation that would deny Global Oil’s chapter 91 license – a permit
> necessary for upgrading their property to accept the ethanol trains. Upon
> passage, Global withdrew its proposal. Since there was no longer an impetus
> to stop the trains, the *Governor did not approve the legislature’s
> language*. He amended it to require yet another study (this time
> conducted by MEMA) and a two year moratorium on trains transporting ethanol
> to facilities along the Chelsea Creek. The Governor sent that amended
> language back to the legislature for their approval. It has not been
> approved, so presently *THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING ANY ETHANOL TRAINS*.
> We have been advocating for passage of new legislation that would call for
> a 10 year moratorium on ethanol trains to Chelsea Creek oil terminals. The
> legislation is being introduced and voted upon next week by the House of
> Representatives.
*We NEED your ACTION TODAY. *
1. Please email me your interest in signing onto a letter
(attached) of support to be sent to the State Legislature asking them to
pass this new ethanol legislation.

2. Please call the Speaker of the House and state your support for
the ethanol legislation. (617)722-2500
Below is a link to the new amendment.
Thank you for your help in stopping these trains.
best,
Roseann

> Amendment to the House Budget (Number 392)

> https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/Hou ... iginalText
2b

>> Last year, we were successful in getting the State Legislature to pass legislation that would deny Global Oil’s chapter 91 license – a permit necessary for upgrading their property to accept the ethanol trains. Upon passage, Global withdrew its proposal. Since there was no longer an impetus to stop the trains, the Governor did not approve the legislature’s language. He amended it to require yet another study (this time conducted by MEMA) and a two year moratorium on trains transporting ethanol to facilities along the Chelsea Creek. The Governor sent that amended language back to the legislature for their approval. It has not been approved, so presently THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING ANY ETHANOL TRAINS. We have been advocating for passage of new legislation that would call for a 10 year moratorium on ethanol trains to Chelsea Creek oil terminals. The legislation is being introduced and voted upon next week by the House of Representatives.
GP40MC1118
 
Posts: 3314
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:06 pm

Re: Ethanol Foes At It Again

Postby GP40MC1118 » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:06 am

Also got this off the Chelsea Collaborative webpage:

Sign the Petition to Stop the Ethanol Trains
Posted on: April 23, 2013

Sign the petition "Stop Ethanol Trains through Densely Populated Neighborhoods" to prevent flammable, explosive trains from traveling through Chelsea to Global Oil's facilities in Revere.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/685/875/ ... -through-d

Related Program(s)
Chelsea Green Space & Recreation Committee
Chelsea Collaborative
318 Broadway Chelsea, MA, 02150
(617) 889 6080
GP40MC1118
 
Posts: 3314
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:06 pm

Re: Ethanol Foes At It Again

Postby bostontrainguy » Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:31 pm

GP40MC1118 wrote:Also got this off the Chelsea Collaborative webpage:

Sign the Petition to Stop the Ethanol Trains
Posted on: April 23, 2013

Sign the petition "Stop Ethanol Trains through Densely Populated Neighborhoods" to prevent flammable, explosive trains from traveling through Chelsea to Global Oil's facilities in Revere.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/685/875/ ... -through-d

Related Program(s)
Chelsea Green Space & Recreation Committee
Chelsea Collaborative
318 Broadway Chelsea, MA, 02150
(617) 889 6080


But it looks like they never reached their goal and the voting is over.

"THIS PETITION IS CLOSED"
bostontrainguy
 
Posts: 952
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:14 am

PreviousNext

Return to Pan Am Railways (formerly Guilford Rail System)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests