The South Coast Air Quality Management District votes to require rail yard owners and operators, including BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad, to aggressively reduce lung-irritating nitrogen-oxide emissions through 2050.
Imo, it’s kind of a necessary evil. I’m not blind to the fact that rail yards cause a lot of pollution and make things worse for the marginalized groups living near them. The exact same thing is true, however, of truck shipping and highways. Pound for pound, freight rail causes a lot less emissions pollution (IIRC it’s an order of magnitude more efficient than trucks), and it’s easier to convert to electric or hydrogen than converting our national truck fleet. I think a better alternative would be investing in building out the rail network to support moving freight traffic outside of denser residential areas. We could also look at distributing the freight rail traffic more evenly across the city to keep from causing any outsize impacts in one community, and help move goods closer to their destination so that trucks just serve as last mile connections.
Imo, it’s kind of a necessary evil. I’m not blind to the fact that rail yards cause a lot of pollution and make things worse for the marginalized groups living near them. The exact same thing is true, however, of truck shipping and highways.
I don’t have hard data, but I would imagine the pollution around roads caused by trucking has a lower impact than the pollution around rail yards and railways simply because of the concentration.
Pound for pound, freight rail causes a lot less emissions pollution (IIRC it’s an order of magnitude more efficient than trucks),
I agree, but the use cases are different for where the emissions occur and in what concentration. Idling locomotives can park near homes and idle for upwards of 30 hours (source)
and it’s easier to convert to electric or hydrogen than converting our national truck fleet.
It doesn’t matter how easy it is if rail companies don’t get off their butts and make the conversions. From the article:
“Train emissions — about 70% of all rail yard pollution — have remained largely unchanged over the past decade, partly because the rail industry has not purchased new locomotives with cleaner engines, according to the air district.”
With this regulation in place, it can act as in incentive for rail companies to make the exact changes you’re advocating for. Clearly without the regulation, rail companies aren’t. Look at the outsized positive impact CARB regulations have had on automobiles with regard to efficiency and emissions nationwide. Because California had a higher bar that companies had to reach to operate in California, the entire nation has benefited. I see as the start of CARB for rail, and that would be a good thing.
Imo, it’s kind of a necessary evil. I’m not blind to the fact that rail yards cause a lot of pollution and make things worse for the marginalized groups living near them. The exact same thing is true, however, of truck shipping and highways. Pound for pound, freight rail causes a lot less emissions pollution (IIRC it’s an order of magnitude more efficient than trucks), and it’s easier to convert to electric or hydrogen than converting our national truck fleet. I think a better alternative would be investing in building out the rail network to support moving freight traffic outside of denser residential areas. We could also look at distributing the freight rail traffic more evenly across the city to keep from causing any outsize impacts in one community, and help move goods closer to their destination so that trucks just serve as last mile connections.
I don’t have hard data, but I would imagine the pollution around roads caused by trucking has a lower impact than the pollution around rail yards and railways simply because of the concentration.
I agree, but the use cases are different for where the emissions occur and in what concentration. Idling locomotives can park near homes and idle for upwards of 30 hours (source)
It doesn’t matter how easy it is if rail companies don’t get off their butts and make the conversions. From the article:
“Train emissions — about 70% of all rail yard pollution — have remained largely unchanged over the past decade, partly because the rail industry has not purchased new locomotives with cleaner engines, according to the air district.”
With this regulation in place, it can act as in incentive for rail companies to make the exact changes you’re advocating for. Clearly without the regulation, rail companies aren’t. Look at the outsized positive impact CARB regulations have had on automobiles with regard to efficiency and emissions nationwide. Because California had a higher bar that companies had to reach to operate in California, the entire nation has benefited. I see as the start of CARB for rail, and that would be a good thing.