Please don't misinterpret what I wrote. I generally don't identify with the "it isn't zero risk so it can't be allowed - especially near me" attitude, with a few exceptions where the risk of an individual action is of something so catastrophic that the country or worse is endangered. But there's nothing wrong with minimizing risk, and current rules for labeling and shipping crude would do a fair job of that if followed. Upgrading the tank cars is good too, given that other deficiencies have been known for years. Federal and other investigations show that the rules are not being followed in enough cases to raise speculation about whether they're EVER followed. That leaves the railroads in a hard place.

Railroads are still mostly common carriers. That means if somebody presents a shipment and says it's OK to go, and is willing to pay the quoted rate, the railroad generally has to move it. Contracts can modify that somewhat, especially in terms of rates if you're shipping a large amount of traffic in solid blocks or trains, minimizing the railroad's switching and handling expense. But that doesn't change the basic requirement for the railroad to carry what's shipped.

If you built your house (or bought a house) close to a railroad, just like with freeways, you have to accept that the railroad might affect you. The risk isn't zero, and will never be. At minimum, it'll be noisy and occasionally (those burning GEs...) smoky. The rules are intended to minimize risk, and the railroad really doesn't want to explode a tank car in your back yard anyway - it's not good business, among other things. So shippers and railroads need to follow the rules and normal good operating/maintenance practices, and have suitable plans/arrangement for dealing with the rare emergencies.

If you want to argue that we shouldn't be using oil - that's a philosophical and climate change issue not a railroad issue, so I would prefer that it go to a more suitable venue. I am pretty sure that much of the opposition to moving oil by train, as with opposition to moving coal especially for export, is related more to opposition to use of fossil fuels in general than to the safety (or lack of it) of the rail shipment. I consider myself somewhat of an environmentalist - not a Sierra Clubber, but not bowing to the Kochs either - but I also accept the realistic need for using fossil fuels, hopefully as a temporary thing, and therefore the need to move them from where they are found to where they are processed and used, and that both the use and the transport should be done is the safest and most efficient manner reasonably available. Trains (including trains full of - hopefully rule-abiding - Bakken crude) happen to be the most efficient and effective way of moving some crude at this time. They also allow some refineries to substitute domestic for imported crude - a Good Thing for several reasons, I think. The bigger issue - should we be using this stuff for fuel at all - needs to be considered and regulated otherwise, not by interfering with lawful railroad operations.