Amidst wishes for Memphis to have more control over its railroad circulation, City Council member Carol Chumney is proposing a bill that would force train companies to acquire transportation permits before going into Memphis.
Chumney was suppose to propose her bill at Tuesday's regular City Council meeting, but due to delays from Homeland Security representatives the City Council pushed the proposal to the next regular meeting date.
A transportation permit would force rail carriers to tighten their security policies and regulations whenever they transport material through Memphis. This request, Chumney said, came out of a concern over the safety of Memphians, which many are University of Memphis students.
Trains carry hazardous chemicals and Chumney said about 100,000 people could potentially get hurt at once if train materials ever accidentally spilled. She also added Homeland Security concerns.
"It's gotten into some terrorist activity too," she said referring to other security concerns surrounding rail transportation.
In Memphis, Canadian National has a rail line that borders Southern Avenue across the street from the Southern parking lot. Down the street, trains stop by the Norfolk Southern's rail yard west of The University.
On several occasions, students have voiced distress over the frequent train stops and Chumney's bill, which emphasizes more safety for students, would add to Memphis' railroad battle.
Recently, some Memphians and council members supported the city either operating its own rail yard or having more authority over where the rail yard would be located. However, last week, Norfolk Southern said the city's proposals would limit the rail yard company's ability to reach customers.
Despite a Homeland Security committee passing a bill to force rail transportation companies to review their safety policies, Chumney's recent bill proposal has met similar reaction from rail carrier executives.
"They're not for it, of course," she said. "They don't want anything that limits what they do."
Chumney contacted Union Pacific, the largest U.S. railroad network, and Canadian National in February, and executives at both companies did not show support for the bill. Like Norfolk Southern said, both Union Pacific and Canadian National also said it would affect their overall ability to reach customers.
"We need uniform national laws and regulations because we cannot manage interstate commerce with unique requirements in every location," wrote Joseph Bateman, the senior assistant vice president of government affairs at Union Pacific, in a letter to Chumney in February. "Local routing bans are not only unlawful but would force shipments over longer routes."
Gordon Trafton, the senior vice president for the U.S. region at Canadian National, also cited revenue concerns, which he said would only worsen if laws are placed to control where rail traffic can go.
"Any permitting restrictions or limiting of times we are allowed to operate will pose an unacceptable burden on our ability to provide service to our customers," Trafton wrote to Chumney in February.
Trafton said regulating rail circulation would waste away several of the investments Canadian National has had in Memphis. He referred to the $35 million facility at Frank C. Pidgeon industrial park and the more than 500 people employed in Memphis.
Besides hurting their economic gain, executives added that trains are still the safest form of transportation despite recent speculations.
Trafton said more than 99 percent of shipments containing hazardous materials make it to their destinations without an accident and releasing their content.
"Rail movement is 16 times safer than truck movement," Bateman wrote Chumney.
