17
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
17 points (100.0% liked)
Los Angeles
911 readers
2 users here now
Welcome to /c/LosAngeles, the ultimate online forum for everything related to the City of Angels! This bustling community is designed for Angelenos, tourists, and dreamers alike, to discuss, discover, and engage with all things LA. From the glittering Hollywood Walk of Fame to the city's eclectic food scene, the stunning beaches of Santa Monica to the vibrant art of the Getty, this community shines a spotlight on the vast cultural, social, and physical landscapes of Los Angeles.
Our threads span a wide spectrum of topics, including local events, restaurant recommendations, traffic tips, historical discussions, and insightful exchanges about life in LA's numerous neighborhoods. Whether you're looking to swap stories about surviving the 405, share your sunset photos from Griffith Observatory, or ask for advice about navigating LA's dynamic job market, /c/LosAngeles is your community. Join us and immerse yourself in the diverse and ever-evolving narratives that make up this vibrant, sprawling city we call home.
Related Communities:
Nearby Communities:
- California
- Bakersfield, CA
- Bay Area, CA
- Burbank, CA
- Fresno, CA
- Long Beach, CA
- Los Angeles, CA
- Oakland, CA
- San Diego, CA
- San Jose, CA
- San Francisco, CA
- Sacramento, CA
- Santa Clarita, CA
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.