- cross-posted to:
- california
- cross-posted to:
- california
cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/12054951
Archived copies of the article:
You must log in or register to comment.
This is probably going to be a tremendous L. We don’t ship enough by freight rail, and diverting more freight onto trucks is only going to produce much more pollution, not only because trucks are significantly less carbon efficient than trains, but they also produce breathtakingly bad microplastic pollution in the form of tire dust. California is already working on transitioning all freight locomotives to use hydrogen or pure electric engines by 2030. Let’s not footgun that by just transferring all of that traffic onto big ass diesel trucks.
Rail yards have historically produced massive amounts of pollution, and coupled with RedLining have subjected specific marginalized groups to that pollution. From the article these new regulations looks like *anti-*NIMBY. As such, I’m for it.
The regulation appears to cover trucks in certain situations too, so a switch to trucks wouldn’t necessarily mean avoiding rail bypasses these new regulations.
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.
