Out in the Southwest, railroad companies want to build more railroads to meet demand. But many landowners and environmental groups are opposed to it because they think its bad for the environment.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1221/p01s02-ussc.html


Now, I think America needs to build more railroad tracks. The Interstate Highway system is a mess with all the traffic jams and non-stop construction. Moreover, America needs to drastically reduce its dependency on foreign oil and one way to do this is by transporting more goods by railroads instead of trucks. The Environmental Groups that are opposed to additional railroads seem to forget that relying on Diesel Trucks and the oil is also bad for the environment. Plus, railroads can be electrified and don't have to rely on coal engines.

So the question for debate is
Are the Environmental Groups being reasonable?
Are the Environmentalists' stance on railroads contradicting their support for the environment?

Are the Environmental Groups being reasonable?

It is reasonable to bring up the questions regarding rail safety and reliability, also the questions regarding right-of-way for more stretches of tracks and the land needed for rail yards.

I grew up just a block away from a roundhouse and an area of about a dozen tracks. That does take land and even after conversion to diesel from coal, it wasn't exactly a pristine natural area. So there are environmental concerns for this type of development, as there are concerns for any type of development.

But what if these new trains were to be electric? Wouldn't that reduce the environmetal impacts of fossil fuel exhaust? Well, that depends on how the electricity is generated. If the power comes from coal-fired electrical generating plants, from which over half of our electricity in the US comes, then the major environmental impact is from the power plants. So really it comes down to figuring out how to make electricty with a minimum of environmental impact.

Side note: A diesel train is actually electric in the final drive. Watch out for this, as some might claim a diesel train is technically electric. It's a little electrical generation plant that uses fuel oil instead of coal and has wheels.

Right-of-way for railroads is a very old issue, one that was addressed in the 19th century as rail transport was a huge need for the industrialization and urbanization of the US. Long-haul truck transport overshadowed rail in the era of cheap petroleum, yet rail survived and does promise to be a major solution to transportation in the coming era of greater efficiency and less environmental damage. The right-of-way issue has to do with property rights and, as an almost automatic deal, public lands. The same can be said for Interstate right-of-way and other big projects such as mines and military maneuver areas. This last example is a current concern in Colorado as Fort Carson expresses desires to expand to the east and south, possibly taking up a million acres in the process.

However, someone has to ask the tough questions. I think this is a reasonable thing to do before putting any plan into action.

Are the Environmentalists' stance on railroads contradicting their support for the environment?

This seems to be suggesting that tolerance for highway building should equate into tolerance for railroad building. There is a difference and a consistency.

Highways are used by everyone, while railroads are private enterprises. One can argue that the goods that railroads transport are used by everyone, and that the Interstate highway system was originally meant for national defense. Nevertheless, highways are public assets while railroads are private, with the exception of mass human transport such as the Metro in DC. Ergo, the environmental groups asking the tough questions are justified in doing so, even if these groups tolerate highways. Unconcern for the environment tends to happen in private enterprise, and that tendency needs oversight somehow.

The concerns about highway environmental impacts do exist though. Development has been famously foiled to protect a jumping mouse in Colorado, a sore spot with many who want to further development. The impacts of deicing mixtures are a concern among environmental groups, as these groups are also against the paving of the road up to the top of Pikes Peak. So if consistency is looked for, it will be found. It's not like highway development is okay and railroad development not okay. Neither are okay, but compromises have to be found.

Bottom line: Environmental groups want this, developers want that, and the solution is somewhere between.

Regarding the use of fossil fuels for railroads, right now no matter how railroads are done, fossil fuels will be required. To the environment it doesn't matter where the fossil fuels come from or where they are burned, as we all share common ground, water and air. The ultimate challenge is to figure out alternatives to fossil fuels.

Well, that goes into a whole different line of thought, so I'll skip it.

Before we get to your debate questions I must tell you a few things about trains:

Electric trains do not do long haul work. They can't pull huge loads. The pull people. Light rail. You're thinking of employing heavy rail which requires (currently, mostly) diesel engines, usually 2 to 4 of them. Trains don't generally go to Home Depot or Costco so you'll still have trucks on the road. So you're not going to save us from foreign fossil fuel. Add to that that most electricity is made with oil...

Most importantly the cost per pound is cheaper in the short term via the road than via a rail. The cost to lay track and maintain it is very high. The cost to maintain the road is 0 for the haulers - the Government pays that cost. If Amtrak has taught us nothing it should be that the US Government can't run a railroad. However on the whole the roads are pretty good.

The reasons listed above are WHY you see so few long haul trains. Especially in densely populated areas. It simply isn't cost effective especially if there's no infrastructure down. If you wanted to start a hauling company you almost certainly wouldn't choose rail as your delivery method and if you did you wouldn't build it you'd use what was already there.

So Are the Environmental Groups being reasonable? Trains are dirty. Tracks breed filth. I think they may be onto something.

And Are the Environmentalists' stance on railroads contradicting their support for the environment? Not at all. Electricity isn't currently much of an option. Electricity isn't some panecea to ward off the use of fossil fuels anyway. It takes fossil fuels to make electricity (for the most part).

Let me add here that I like trains. I commute daily. I think there should be an increase in train based hauling I just think that some of your premises are off and that there needs to be more consideration made for what rail does to the environment.

I would rather not see a railyard going into an area such as this if at all possible (from a cursory googling it looks gorgeous).That said, I'm not familiar enough with the region to know if there could be any alternatives.

The problem here seems to be that this is 'public' land -- which the state then leases out to private interests.

(Ideally) If the area in question were privately owned, the environmental groups could pool their money to buy the land and refuse to sell to the rail company - or collaborate with the existing landowners - or some other solution I haven't thought of.

As it stands the situation is complicated, with a governmental body of some sort forced to make a utilitarian decision on this. This is unfortunate...

---
Union Pacific is claiming to have measures in place on the pollution front.



I am kind of skeptical of this, and, the ability of the government agencies tasked with stopping, or cleaning up, the sort of messes that can and do often result from moving freight. (I'm assuming here that Union Pacific will be hauling industrial chemicals or something equally dangerous. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

With the potential consequences in mind, I don't think the environmental groups are being unreasonable in opposing this.

You cant stop progress you dodo, that’s what they should have said to the hippie tree huggers

Just kidding I am a devout environmentalist in many regards.

To me its like those that claim to know stuff, like entropy, then you show them a pic of Jupiter’s giant red spot, I just hope the earth does not develop on of those...

Anyways back to the subject.

Are the Environmental Groups being reasonable?

Yes and no. Yes for being pro environmental, no for not having an alternative ready, for that is what will keep green thought alive. Far be it from me to state environmental collapse would bring the same to the economy its just that interaction of matter and energy has not interfered with natural selection enough to make its point. There needs to be green alternatives and plans, and cooperation should be sought over direct competition. Again this is still the only planet we can live and and currently it has to support a rather enormous and growing population of people.

Are the Environmentalists' stance on railroads contradicting their support for the environment?

Environmental science is sort of new, and of course it does hold people in its ranks that hold environmental care in a tone that may not be full of fact but rather emotion, I think both need to be taken into account for. Another aspect is that not to many alternative lifestyles exist outside of technology that for the most part is very non green shall I say, another aspect again is we are not going in any direction to change this in a pace I would accept. Overall we could all still have the same reality, but simply make it green, it would not be an impossible change but for the most part it is progress, population growth and demands and of course behavior overall or the perception of such that is the main roadblock. Simply put more energy in any system is going to have its impact, and its just a matter of time before we see this more and more, plus stuff with the toxic label is bad for human health, like cancer bad.

Not IMO. Lets face it you have to move the materials one way or the other. The trains may be diesel buy so are the TRUCKS and I will be willing to bet the trains haul more tonnage with less pollution than any fleet of trucks.



Seems like one group against the other. Some hate traffic congestion and pollution others hate anything that changes the land anywhere. Still others stop us from oil drilling so we are more dependant on foreign oil and it costs more. We need a national strategy that ignores the idiots or we are in real trouble going forward.

Are the Environmental Groups being reasonable?

Not in the slightest. The conservative nature of yesteryear has been replaced for no developement anytime, anywhere syndrome. It is terrible. This attitude also confuses issues with regard to technology and development and maintaining the status quo vs new expansion. You'd be surprised how many people cannot distinguish between the two.

Realistically environmentalists should get companies to sign contracts stating bare minimums both in terms of emissions, effluent discharges and construct a long term land use package. This way everyone understands where the limits are. That is reasonable. Their approach in your example is not.

Are the Environmentalists' stance on railroads contradicting their support for the environment?

Yes on multiple levels. As stated earlier, trucks lead to increased road congestion. It requires less energy to move bulk by train saving both fuel and decreasing emissions. In an era of contracting oil supplies this makes alot of sense. More importantly, development of failing infrastructure needs to take place if the job issue is to be addressed. Much of the rail system has been abandoned in favour of trucks.

The model for most environmental groups is to limit developement. Sometimes it is does so constructively and other times not so much. This time they missed the boat.

Tangent examples of negected development leading to complications are visible in the eastern US. There hasn't been a serious repair of water services in decades on their major cities. Leaks, gross wastages from the leaks, and disrupted service and a drying water table are challenging water availability. Repeat for electricity, without rotating brownouts. Repeat for heating supplies which thankfully were not tested by a milder than normal winter. Speaking as an utility investor it is a great time to be investing because there is so much that has been neglected for so long now.

Personally I think the environmentalists should be fined and told to get a day job because here they are just stirring the pot.

Are the Environmental Groups being reasonable?
No, but then reasonableness has not been a hallmark of the environmental groups over the last two decades or so...

While I will agree that willy-nilly laying track everywhere isn't a good idea, neither is it an idea that the railroads support. It is, however, a simple fact that expansion of our rail system is required if we want our economy to continue to grow, even if only to grow enough to maintain our current standards of living in light of population increases.

More than 40% of our intercity freight goes by rail. That is more than any other mode. More than one third of our electricity depends on the railroads for its generation. So this is a very significant matter.

Are the Environmentalists' stance on railroads contradicting their support for the environment?
Yes and no. It is not contradicting the absolutists, but it is quite possible to expand our rail system without wrecking the environment. Unless you consider moving a single clod of dirt out of it's Mother defined spot as wrecking the environment.

Now, for some corrections and education:

Railroads in the North America do not "rely on coal engines." The Age of Steam ended decades ago. 99.99% of American rail freight is hauled by diesel-electrics.

I grew up just a block away from a roundhouse and an area of about a dozen tracks.
Roundhouses are essentially a dead matter. Done, history. As for an 'area of about a dozen tracks', have you seen a truck stop recently? Lotsa land...

Electric trains do not do long haul work. They can't pull huge loads.
FLAT OUT WRONG, on both counts. Switzerland's rail system is 100% electrified. The Milwaukee Road's trackage across the Rocky Mountains was electrified. The Viriginian Railroad pulled drag freights of coal over the Appalachian Mountains on an electrified line.

Add to that that most electricity is made with oil...
Again, erroroneous. Coal produces just under half of US electricity, with petroleum coming in fifth place with a whopping 3% of our electricity. http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html

Most importantly the cost per pound is cheaper in the short term via the road than via a rail.
Again, erroneous. It depends on what's being shipped, where its coming from, and where its going. Livestock are much cheaper to ship by truck than train, while coal is so much cheaper by train. Intermodal is the direction much of our transportation is going, and as noted in the article, more intermodal means more intermodal yards. Considering how much railroad trackage and yards were abandoned in the past, increasing our current system by 50% will barely put as much track into service as we had during the height of the railroads.

The cost to lay track and maintain it is very high. The cost to maintain the road is 0 for the haulers - the Government pays that cost.
While you are correct that laying and maintaining track ain't cheap, you are wrong about the cost to trucks. The truckers still pay, aickel (or more) per mile travelled, but they don't have the benefit of being able to manage the spending of their infrastructure dollars.

If Amtrak has taught us nothing it should be that the US Government can't run a railroad.
Amtrak isn't a railroad, it is a passenger rail service. Amtrack doesn't own a lick of track outside of its own yards. When you ride the Acela in the Northeast Corridor, you aren't riding on Amtrak rails..., you're on CSX and Norfolk Southern rails.

I suggest folks look into the Green Goat locomotives that UP is using in SoCal and Texas yards to get the scoop on diesel emissions...

Simply put, this looks like a case of NIMBYism.

Actually- the "idiots" that we need to start ignoring are the major corporations that back, well, anything, because, most likely they are lying and will cost the taxpayers money later in cleanup after they have left- thre needs to be personal jail time and consequences for corporate gross polluters- every single person on the board of Exxon should have done hard time, 15-20 years minimum, for what they did to the Prince William sound- and they have not personally suffered one small thing for their responsibility-

and this is the problem with ANY developement in America- total lack of responsibility by the developer- they can pretty much do anything they want, file bankruptcy, close the biz, and leave the tab to the taxpayers.

That being said- I believe railroads are the answer to sound developement of Alaska- roads to follow later after the usual growth that happens around rural railroads.

My main complaint is the herbicides they use on the tracks- since we hunt for food- this stuff makes it into our food sources.

Enviromentalists can be 'idiots" without a clue to what REALLY happens in an "enviroment" - but sometimes, especially the more moderate variety- are lumped into the PETA groups to demonize them. However- some of the BEST enviromentalists are "end user" groups- like Ducks Unlimited- which preserve habitat for birds in a really great effort.

Railroads are awefully dirty and nasty, and make land values plummet around them (frequently, not always)- so the "Nimbys" have a very valid point- they stand to lose money because of the railroads actions- and need to be made whole if that is the case- and the railroad needs to have a comprehensive and enforcable set of enviro-regulations to make sure they don't do the traditional spoiling of the enviroment.

Ted- it appears that Enviromentalists can be great partners for industry- for instance, as much as conservatives have hated Greenepeace, the fishing industry allied themselves with them, and all the resource industry of the Sound, in order to fight the oil companies and logging companies when they were activelyt despoiling the enviroment and destroying spawning habitat. This led to "buffer zones" against salmon bearing stream banks- blamed on enviros, demanded by the fishing industry.

In this case- the enviro-s are being reasonable. Most SUCCESFUL enviromental groups demand 0 developement in areas that are pristine- like ANWR (though the rhetoric on both sides is pure propaganda)

Radical groups like Greenpeace have 0 chance, with thier resources, of taking on big industry- they need allies- and it is usualy the poeple living in the area that are thier allies- and there is the best argument- if the locals don't want it- why force it?

Yup, and undoubtedly Union Pacific will take advantage of this opportunity in Arizona to dump a bazillion tons of toxic waste in the yard, then file bankruptcy and close the biz, just because they're irresponsible corporate polluters. Yup, that's exactly the way a 130+ year old company worth billions is going to behave.

Remember, pretty much everything humans do involves trade-offs. Do you know WHY the railroads use herbicides on the tracks?

What do you base this on?

You're sort of nitpicking. The OP was (near as I can tell) thinking third rail electric, not diesel electric. At the end of the day a diesel electric and a truck aren't far off.

As for Amtrak, it's a rail road. You can call it a jaz fusion guitarist if you like but it's a railroad. Like the Long Island Rail Road, Metro North Rail Road. You're correct Conrail, CSX, et al own the tracks. The fact that Amtrak is a failure lies with USGov not with the tracks.

Now if you are correct and rail is so great for hauling; why has the US forsaken it? The reason is it isn't cost effective.

You're probably right on the NIMBY to a large extent. Sarah Silverman has a great line where she mocks rail travel : Why would I want to look at poor people's back yards on my vacation?

You have heard of the superfund- right? Super contaminated sites? Though our own goverment is one of the main villians here- there are hundreds of companies- ESPECIALLY mining concerns, and also places like Ketchican pulp- that dumped mega tons of toxins, and the taxpayers pay the price, while the principles have no sanction, no downturn in thier life, at all, ever!

I base my comment on railyards and railways by simple observatiion- almost any city in America, the dirtiest place in town is the railyard- I mean, duh!

Maintenance is cheaper with herbicides- costs more money to manually remove the vegatative matter. Especially bad during the insane growing season up here, with 18 hours plus daylight- alder especially is a problem, since it is really a tree.

I am not prepared to trade off the safety of my children for a railyards profit- sorry.

I realize that the OP was "thinking third rail electric, not diesel electric", although most electrified railroads don't use third rail systems, they use catenary systems, i.e. overhead wires. That's what Switzerland uses, that's what the Milwaukee Road used, etc, etc. I also realize that a diesel-electric locomotive and a truck aren't that much different, but then, I've done my share of truck driving and railfanning.... Which is one reason why I suggest that anybody interested in the future of railroads investigate the Green Goat locomotives, as well as other new technologies that the railroad industry is deploying.

Sorry, but Amtrak is a different kettle of fish from BNSF, UP, NS, CSX, CP, KCS, and CN, not to mention the scores of smaller North American railroads. However, I erred in claiming that it doesn't own any track outside of its own yards. I wonder though, by what measure do you claim Amtrak is a failure?

We haven't forsaken it. 25% of the nation's freight, by value, is hauled by railroads. 40+% by ton-miles. (1 ton hauled 1 mile = 1 ton-mile). Just the Class 1 railroads did more than 1.696 trillion ton-miles in 2005. Definitely not "forsaken." Even our passenger railroads are hauling bods. Amtrak hauls more passengers annually than all but 7 of our airlines. Our transportation mix has changed, but not as much as you think.

Sarah is an elitist, and an idiot to boot. Some of the most magnificent scenery in the West can't be reached by cars, and unless you've got big bucks to fly or charter your own plane, you aren't going to see it except by train or by hiking in. Mind you, if I want to get someplace quickly, I'll generally fly, but if I lived in the NorthEast Corridor, the trains are a viable alternative.

Oh, and to answer Silverman's question, "Perhaps so you can learn something, starting with humility."

Before we “blame” all our problems on the baaaaaaad “corporations” – typical of the left lets remember the JOB of government is to regulate and control commerce and insure a level playing field for corporation to compete under. To the extent that government does this correctly we get positive results. When government is corrupted by corporations or just plain stupid we get negative results.

You lost me on Exxon. How do they “pollute” and where was the regulators and inspectors to protect us? Overall I do agree that violators should be punished and laws (passed by Republicans) now allow for Corp. execs getting jail time for serious infractions.

You statement about developers is off the mark. Where I live the “developer” must present a plan and an environmental impact statement which is scrutinized forever before he can even start. Once started he is subject to inspection every step of the way and on completion. If this is not done where you live then look for government CORRUPTION and let’s put these dopes IN JAIL. Corporations like individuals will often do what coasts less unless they are restricted by laws and regulations. We need a government at all levels immune to corruption and competent enough to protect us and our environment. We don’t have this everywhere today unfortunately.

1. Not now, not ever.
2. Of course. But if far left wingers like self proclaimed "environmentalists" didn't have double standards, they'd have none at all.

Yup. And unlike pretty much everybody who's ever posted here, I've worked on air quality research, acid rain research, and Superfund. So yeah, I've heard of it....

Gee, the GOVERNMENT established Ketchikan Pulp... perhaps you should also consider what your state government has to say about KP's Ward Cove Mill site.

The Ward Cove Mill Site can be safely occupied and used for commercial and industrial activities and has been given "conditional closure" status, or "No Further Remedial Action Planned." At this writing, sixteen tenants currently hold on-site leases for various uses.

Hmmm, but you are willing to trade the safety of the railroad employees, as well as everybody else within hundreds of yards, even miles, (including your kids) because you would either restrict the use of herbicides (thereby putting the roadbed's integrity at risk, raising the chance of derailments), or if the railroad decides to manually deal with the problem, force their maintenance costs so high that significantly more traffic goes to trucks.....

Ever see what an 18-wheeler does to a minivan...

I tend to agree with you so lets pass some laws. The Republicans have and now lets see what the Dems do. My bet is not much will get done. And while you seem to blame Corporation for everything lets remember it the government that, over the past 50 years, has been a MAJOR polluter.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POLLUTION
Congressional Record Online
Hon Paul Ryan of Wisconsin in the House of Representatives
Saturday, October 28, 2000

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record an article written by former Senator Robert W. Kasten, Jr. The Honorable Bob Kasten served in both the House of Representatives (1975-81) and the Senate (1981-93).
Mr. Kasten writes to remind us of the fact that the Federal Government is the largest polluter in the United States. He brings to our attention anecdotes from the states, which illustrate the states' difficulties enforcing local environmental laws on the federal government. He writes about the federal government's lack of accountability in cleaning up its own toxic waste sites and its attempts to push cleanup responsibility and costs to local levels of government and to private landowners.
According to a Boston Globe article last year, ''federal agencies have contaminated more than 60,000 sites across the country and the cost of cleaning up the worst sites is officially expected to approach $300 billion, nearly five times the price of similar destruction caused by private companies.'' In contrast, private Superfund site clean up is estimated at a fraction of the federal government at $57 billion. The article goes on to say that the EPA Inspector General has found that, federal agencies are increasingly violating the law, with 27 percent of all government facilities out of compliance in 1996, the latest year figures available, compared to 10 percent in 1992.

Department of Energy and Department of Defense environmental clean up budgets are routinely last priorities in the appropriations processes. For example, this year I worked to cut construction funding in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill for the doe's National Ignition Facility (NIF)--a bottomless money pit that the GAO has determined to be mired in waste and technological difficulties—and suggested that this funding be transferred to the doe's waste management account, where I believe the money could be put to better use.
The final appropriations bill increased the Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management fund by $490 million dollars. In comparison, the NIF project, which is 100 percent over budget and 6 years behind schedule, was appropriated $130 million for FY 2001. The NIF boondoggle was granted nearly one-third of the total increase of the environmental clean up budget. Clearly the federal government has other agendas than the environment.
We need to look more closely at Federal Government's own environmental problems. The State and Federal Government can work together to modernize environmental laws, streamline the bureaucratic process, and focus less on punishment and more on figuring out the best way to reach high environmental standards and compliance.
http://www.adti.net/environment/congressRe...ryan102800.html



And when they aren’t doing it they are allowing it to happen.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=9567






I agree. Railroads, like any business should be responsible for any pollution they create and the penalties should be sever for violation. The trick is to get the government to actually go after polluters. I have read that 45% of our “public” water supply does not meet federal standards. Now why is that?