Citizens Guide to Spokane’s Proposition 2: To ban rail shipment of coal and oil through Spokane
Download the full Policy Brief.
Key Findings
- Proposition 2 would impose $1.2 million in weekly fines on rail companies moving energy products through Spokane
- Proponents point to oil train accidents in other parts of the country and say the measure is needed to protect public safety in Spokane
- Opponents note the ballot measure is likely unconstitutional and would be nearly certain to face expensive, taxpayer-funded legal challenges, and may actually damage the environment
- Energy is not stationary – it must be delivered to the consumer. How energy is delivered is the very question Proposition 2 seeks to change
- To avoid fines, companies would likely shift oil and coal shipments from rail cars to more dangerous and less environmentally-friendly semi-trucks
- Trucks emit 4.5 times as much nitrogen oxide per ton-mile traveled and 6.7 times as much particulate matter per ton-mile traveled than rail cars
- Hazardous-substance rail accident rates have fallen 66 percent since the year 2000
Introduction
Voters in the city of Spokane will decide this November whether to adopt a first-of-its-kind measure that seeks to prevent oil and coal shipments by rail through the core area of the state’s second largest city.
City of Spokane Proposition 2 will appear on the ballot with the following language;
Ordinance No. C-35515, proposes that the Spokane Municipal Code be amended regarding the prohibition of oil and coal shipment by rail. Shall the Spokane Municipal Code be amended to make it a class 1 civil infraction for any person or entity to allow a rail car that it owns to ship uncontained coal and some types of oil by rail through the downtown Spokane core, or within 2,000 feet of a school, hospital, or the Spokane River?
____ YES
____ NO
Proponents point to oil train accidents in other parts of the country and in Canada to argue the measure is needed to protect public safety in Spokane. They also say passage of Proposition 2 would reduce the availability of fossil-burning fuels throughout the world.
Opponents of Proposition 2 argue the measure is unconstitutional, and say it would have a devastating economic impact on the community and the state. Opponents also point to the potentially harmful impact the measure could have on the environment and local roadways.
Download the full Policy Brief.