UP wants to nix inspections...

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]Railroad wants to nix U.S. inspection[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+1]Files for waiver to have safety check on Mexican side only[/SIZE][/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]Posted: January 11, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

[/SIZE][FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]

[FONT=Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif]By Jerome R. Corsi
[SIZE=-1]© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com [/SIZE][/FONT]

Union Pacific is asking the Federal Railroad Administration to allow a train that regularly originates in Mexico to undergo safety inspections south of the border and enter without any checks in the U.S.
The FRA has scheduled a waiver hearing on the matter Feb. 7 in Laredo, Texas,
The United Transportation Union, a broad-based labor union headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, opposes the move.
"Already at war with many of its customers over poor service and escalating prices, Union Pacific now is seeking authority to avoid safety inspections on U.S. soil and run trains from Mexico as far as 1,500 miles through and into major U.S. metropolitan areas," the union says.
Paul Thompson, the UTU international president, has gone on record objecting to the plan.
"It's as if 9/11 never occurred, and public safety and national safety must take a back seat to increased profits and bigger executive bonuses," he said. "If Union Pacific succeeds in avoiding safety inspections on U.S. soil, many of those trains will be interchanged, without appropriate U.S. safety inspections, to other railroads, such as CSX and Norfolk Southern, as part of their 1,500-mile trip through dozens of U.S. cities."
James Barnes, a spokesman for Union Pacific, told WND the railroad is seeking a waiver to inspect the train in Mexico for only one of the many trains that Union Pacific runs across the border at Laredo.
"We are seeking approval to permit a single run-through train that originates in Sanchez or the classification yards in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, that interchanges with the Union Pacific at Laredo, Texas," he said.
"If approved, the waiver would recognize the inspections and brake test at the Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, rail facilities. The test is presently being performed by agents of Kansas City Southern de Mexico Railroad, which are U.S. contractors, certified in FRA regulations."
The UTU's Paul Thompson disagrees.
"The Union Pacific wants the train safety inspections to be performed in Mexico, where U.S. safety regulations have no force and need not be followed, and where the level of safety training and commitment is unknown," he said.
Thompson further argues a drug war has been raging in Nuevo Laredo.
"It is too dangerous for Americans to set foot in Nuevo Laredo," Thompson said. "Union Pacific says with a straight face that mechanical safety inspections of trains can be performed safely in Mexico, but even its own officials won't travel there. Nor will FRA officials even visit the facility where these inspections allegedly will be performed by who knows whom, under unknown conditions, and with no U.S. federal safety oversight."
Union Pacific's Barnes explained to WND the waiver is being sought on an "inter-modal" train that carries containers with auto parts being delivered to a location in the Midwest. Barnes said this train was a "run-through" where the individual cars are all headed to the same destination.
When asked by WND, Barnes did not know if the containers originated in Mexico or were being brought in from China via the Mexican port of Lázaro Cárdenas.
Barnes told WND the waver was being requested to avoid "duplicate train or locomotive inspections at the U.S./Mexico border at Laredo.
Barnes claimed that main problem was congestion at the U.S. border.
"Presently, these redundant inspections are performed on every train that enters at the U.S./Mexican border at Laredo, Texas," he said. "This not only generates enormous traffic congestion, involving the blocking of numerous road crossings for the city of Laredo and creating safety concerns for the general public, it also inhibits rail capacity and constrains any attempt to provide on-going efficiencies for U.S. suppliers."
Barnes was asked if the congestion problem cited by Union Pacific suggested the waiver might be intended to serve as a precedent for a general waiver on the U.S. safety inspection requirements at Laredo.
"No," he said, repeating that the waiver was being sought only for the "run-through" inter-modal train.
The UTU's Thompson notes that in 2004, the FRA rejected a similar request by Union Pacific for a waver of inspection requirements on U.S. soil in favor of inspections in Mexico. Thompson argues "public safety and national security demand the FRA again reject this waiver request."
Thompson sharply criticized Union Pacific economics.
"America should not be rolling the dice on public safety and national security to benefit an already highly profitable railroad able to pay its chairman $25 million annually and hand out $1 million year-end cash bonuses to top executive," he said. "Public safety and national security should not take a back seat to corporate profits. It is that simple and that urgent."
Barnes counters by explaining that all Union Pacific trains are available for inspection by Border Patrol and Homeland Security within the U.S. and that the procedures, including the safety inspection in Mexico, are designed to be in full compliance with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations.
"Our goal is to streamline the inspection process without hampering safety," Barnes told WND. "We have a very robust security system and a very robust inspection process in place. We are just trying to make sure that we are able to provide fluidity and efficiency for U.S. shippers." The UTU is an AFL-CIO affiliate representing about 125,000 active and retired railroad, bus, and mass transit workers in the U.S. and Canada.

[/FONT]

 

Wonder how the new Congress will respond, being that they're supposedly going to implement all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including increased rail security.

 

Thats going to fly like a brick!:thumbs_down:

 

Nevermind that illegals already hop aboard these trains and ride them through the border. Maybe that's what labor-short UP is hoping for, increasing illegal immigration.

 

Its bad enough now, a carload here, a carload there... imagine they could stuff enough drugs and human cargo one one train to fill an 86' box. We'd be swamped.

 

This is all part of the NAFTA superhighway project and the "Security and Prosperity Partnership." I don't know if any of you have heard of these things, and it is a potentially a political topic. Do a web search for either of these items, and see what you find.

The NAFTA superhighway isn't as "hush hush," as the SPP, so I'll give you a summary.

The NAFTA superhighway is going to be the largest highway ever built, 12 lanes wide IIRC, with two to four rail lines running right down the middle of it, owned by a Spanish company, that is basically the I 35 corridor, from Texas to Canada. There will be a MEXICAN customs office in Kansas City, which is why these trains want a 1500 mile exemption, as that would put them in K.C.

I've read quite a bit about this, and the KCS article in Trains magaizne a few months back re inforces everything I've read about it. The real plan and goal is to build massive deep sea ports in Mexico(the ports are already being built), unload almost ALL containers in Mexico, which would bypass ANY American security issues until the containers arrive, if ever, in K.C. It would also allow MEXICAN trucks into the U.S. unchecked, in massive amounts.

There are BIG problems with this plan, mostly the Mexican trucking part of the plan. To say Mexican trucks are junk is an understatement, and the Mexican drivers don't have insurance, don't get drug tested(and if they drug tested most Mexican drivers, there wouldn't be any), and almost NONE of the Mexican trucks can comply with U.S. laws, nor do they have much intention of doing so. The problems I've mentioned with the trucks don't even begin to take into account security concerns.

I have various comments on this plan, but I'll keep those to myself. Let's just say that I'm confident that most Americans would be horriffied if they knew about this plan.

 

The NAFTA superhighway begins construction this year in Texas, so I've heard. However, this is a MASSIVE undertaking. It is going to require whole towns be moved, and massive eminent domain by government. So it will probably take a while. The funny thing about this is that is is going to be a toll road, and for trucks(container trucks especially), it's going to be about 45 cents a MILE. This is on top of the normal trucking costs, which is around 90 to 120 an hour to run.

The SPP is even worse than the NAFTA superhighway, but these two projects both have the same goals. Unfortunately, very FEW congressman seem to know about it, and only four or five have come out and voiced opposition to it. The SPP is being done WITHOUT ANY congressional oversight, as it is trying to change "regulations" and not laws, even though in many cases changing the "regs" is the exact same thing as changing the law.

 

I’m sure the article doesn’t report all the details, but I think we might want to read what it does say a little closer. I’m not so sure that UP’s proposal is so out of line.

It appears to me that all they are asking is to waive duplicating a safety inspection and brake test that is already being performed on the Mexican side of the border. Nothing is said about customs inspections.

“Union Pacific is asking the Federal Railroad Administration to allow a train that regularly originates in Mexico to undergo safety inspections south of the border and enter without any checks in the U.S.”

And

“If approved, the waiver would recognize the inspections and brake test at the Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, rail facilities. The test is presently being performed by agents of Kansas City Southern de Mexico Railroad, which are U.S. contractors, certified in FRA regulations.”

And

“If Union Pacific succeeds in avoiding safety inspections on U.S. soil, many of those trains will be interchanged, without appropriate U.S. safety inspections, to other railroads, such as CSX and Norfolk Southern, as part of their 1,500-mile trip through dozens of U.S. cities.”

You mean that these cars will travel that far in the U.S.? mg: How about we keep in mind that 95%+ of these cars are from US roads. Of course, they may have completely fallen apart during their turnaround trip into Mexico. Maybe they drank the water.

I think we may be mixing the safety inspection issue with Customs/Security inspections. In fact, the article says:

“Barnes counters by explaining that all Union Pacific trains are available for inspection by Border Patrol and Homeland Security within the U.S.”


The article does quote the UTU guy a lot. He said:
“The Union Pacific wants the train safety inspections to be performed in Mexico, where U.S. safety regulations have no force and need not be followed, and where the level of safety training and commitment is unknown.”

And

“Nor will FRA officials even visit the facility where these inspections allegedly will be performed by who knows whom, under unknown conditions, and with no U.S. federal safety oversight.”


Why wouldn’t FRA reps visit the facility to check on the procedure? It’s pretty easy to verify what the test consists of, who is doing it (he apparently thinks the UP guy is lying about the KCSM people doing the inspections), and under what conditions. The UP guy says:

“...the procedures, including the safety inspection in Mexico, are designed to be in full compliance with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations. “

That’s really pretty easy to review prior to starting, and to spot check during operation.



At the risk of making this post too long, I’d like to address some of the posts in the thread in this same post.

It’s a safety check we’re talking about. DHS still has their guys checking the cars as they come across the bridge.

What message? Aren’t we talking about a safety and brake check? Even so, maybe I’m wrong, but do you think they open every container that comes across the border and go through the contents? Do you think they open every freight car and check the cargo? How about autoracks, do they open all the trunks and verify nothing was put inside?

Okay, maybe I’m way out of touch with what is going on in the country, but does it sound reasonable to many of you here that some Spanish company is going to build a 4 track rail line from Mexico to Canada? Really? A Mexican customs office in KC??? You do realize, don’t you, that Customs checks goods coming into a country, not what’s going out?

You did read the article, right? At the beginning it says: “The FRA has scheduled a waiver hearing on the matter Feb. 7 in Laredo, Texas.”

At the risk of being chastised by the moderators, I think that if you really believe this you have your tinfoil beany adjusted too tight.

Best regards

Ed

 

I WISH I had my tinfoil beanie adjusted too tight.

ALL of the things I mentioned ARE being planned. What good does it do to check goods AFTER they are 1500 miles into the country, or check a trains brakes LONG after it gets into the U.S. Do we find out the brakes are bad when it destroys a major American city?

This is a commentary by Congressman Ron Paul, one of the only opponents of the two porjects I've mentioned.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst103006.htm

Every article I've read on this, other than those put out by government agencies, are saying the SAME thing, and it does NOT matter what end of the policital spectrum the author of the article is on.

On top of that, when I see articles about how railroads and trucking companies are actually mirroring everything I've read about these two "projects," I believe it is time to start worrying.

 

I might suggest that you try going back and rereading the original article. The brakes are to be checked before entering the U.S.

Regards

Ed

 

I could be reading it wrong, but all I see according to the article is them asking for is to recognize the safety and brake check that is currently done in Nuevo Laredo, and not duplicate it as soon as the train crosses the bridge into Laredo.

Not sure how much traffic crosses daily. But again, they are only asking for waiving the requirement on one train, not all. I would assume that if it works out they would ask to expand it to other trains.

Go right to the source, www.spp.gov

One of the best pages to start on at that site is this one:
http://www.spp.gov/myths_vs_facts.asp

Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP):

Myth vs. Fact

Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.
Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.

Myth:The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.
Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.

Myth: The SPP is being undertaken without the knowledge of the U.S. Congress.
Fact: U.S. agencies involved with SPP regularly update and consult with members of Congress on our efforts and plans.

Myth: The SPP infringes on the sovereignty of the United States.
Fact: The SPP respects and leaves the unique cultural and legal framework of each of the three countries intact. Nothing in the SPP undermines the U.S. Constitution. In no way does the SPP infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.

Myth:The SPP is illegal and violates the Constitution.
Fact: The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies. Indeed, the SPP is an opportunity for the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico to discuss common goals and identify ways to enhance each nation’s security and prosperity. If an action is identified, U.S. federal agencies can only operate within U.S. law to address these issues. The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP. If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.

Myth: The SPP will cost U.S. taxpayers money.
Fact: The SPP is being implemented with existing budget resources. Over the long-term, it will save U.S. taxpayers money by cutting through costly red tape and reducing redundant paperwork. This initiative will benefit the taxpayers through economic gain and increased security, thereby enhancing the competitiveness and quality of life in our countries.

Myth:The working groups and SPP documents are a secret and not available to the public.
Fact:The SPP’s initiatives and milestones with timelines can be found by clicking the Report to Leaders link at www.spp.gov. The Web site contains a section to enable interested persons to provide input directly to the various working groups.

Myth:The SPP seeks to lower U.S. standards through a regulatory cooperation framework.
Fact: The framework will support and enhance cooperation and encourage the compatibility of regulations among the three partners while maintaining high standards of health and safety.Enhanced cooperation in this area will provide consumers with more affordable, safer, and more diversified and innovative products. Any regulatory changes will require agencies to conform to all U.S. administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.

Myth: The SPP is meant to deal with immigration reform and trade disputes.
Fact: Immigration reform is a legislative matter currently being debated in Congress and is not being dealt with in the SPP. Likewise, trade disputes between the United States, Canada, and Mexico are resolved in the NAFTA and WTO mechanisms and not the SPP.

Myth: The SPP will result in the loss of American jobs.
Fact: The SPP seeks to create jobs by reducing transaction costs and unnecessary burdens for U.S. companies, which will bolster the competitiveness of our firms globally. These efforts will help U.S. manufacturers, spur job creation, and benefit consumers.

Myth: The SPP will harm our quality of life.
Fact: The SPP improves the safety and well-being of Americans. It builds on efforts to protect our environment, improves our ability to combat infectious diseases, such as avian influenza, and ensures our food supply is safe through the exchange of information and cooperation ─ improving the quality of life for U.S. citizens. Americans enjoy world class living standards because we are engaged with the world.

Myth:The SPP creates a NAFTA-plus legal status between the three countries.
Fact:The SPP does not seek to rewrite or renegotiate NAFTA. It creates no NAFTA-plus legal status.


Regards

Ed

 

recent news...request withdrawn...

Stolen off the UTU newswire:


http://www.utu.org/worksite/print_news.cfm?ArticleID=33035

UP withdraws Laredo waiver request

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Union Pacific Railroad told the Federal Railroad Administration Jan. 25 that it is withdrawing its waiver request seeking permission to perform mechanical safety inspections in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico -- rather than the U.S. -- on trains headed north across the border.

As a result, the FRA has canceled the public hearing scheduled for Feb. 7 in Laredo, Texas.

The UTU and other rail labor organizations collaborated to generate -- on safety grounds -- substantial opposition from congressional and state lawmakers to UP’s waiver application.

Public safety and national security are at issue.

As the UTU made clear, Nuevo Laredo is a lawless Mexican own beset by drug-gang warfare, killings and kidnappings -- so dangerous that neither the FRA nor UP officials would venture into Nuevo Laredo to inspect the facilities where the mechanical safety inspections were to take place.

Had the waiver been approved, trains from Mexico, carrying who knows what, would have been able to travel up to 1,500 miles into the U.S. before receiving a mandatory mechanical safety inspection on U.S. soil by trained carmen. This would have meant trains originating in Mexico could have traveled to Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Kansas City and St. Louis without having had a mechanical safety inspection on U.S. soil.

In exposing the Union Pacific plan as self-serving for the sole purpose of boosting profits, the UTU worked closely with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen and others in rail labor.

Specifically, UTU National Legislative Director James Brunkenhoefer and Alternate National Legislative Director James Stem collaborated with Brunkenhoefer’s counterpart at the BLET, John Tolman.

Also working to educate lawmakers and regulators were UTU Texas State Legislative Director Connie English and BLET Stae Legislative Chairman Terry Briggs, who provided considerable detail on the Laredo operation; and numerous other state legislative directors.

Brunkenhoefer said, "When unions coordinate efforts, our team is much stronger and more effective. The Laredo waiver process, and the sunshine it focused on a tremendous potential for significant degrading of rail safety, is an excellent example of the benefits of union collaboration."

January 26, 2007