Topic # 2: EPA truck and train diesel regulation

[gabe]

During the presidential debate--please don't turn my topic into a political debate, other than to comment upon the wisdom of the policies in question--I remember President Bush responding to a question regarding what he has done for the environment.

He responded by noting he had decreased the pollution caused by large diesel locomotives. This really got me thinking.

Question: I know that, through the Tier Standards, diesel locomotive pollution is meeting tougher regulation and has to meet certain enhanced requirements. I have heard of nothing like this for truckers, and Bush's response seemed to indicate truckers are not facing such increased regulation. Is this the case?

Comment: Assuming the truth of the premise in my question, don't we have this all wrong?

Assume for a moment that we care nothing about trains and only care about maintaining the environment while allowing business to function. Wouldn't the right move to cause less pollution be to not increase rail pollution regulation at all and increase trucker regulation?

That may sound crazy at first. But, I don't think it is. In terms of pollution per ton/per mile, railroads have to cause infinitely less pollution than truckers. Accordingly, allowing railroads to operate more efficiently would allow them to haul more freight than truckers, resulting in a national transportation system that causes less pollution. Also, I have seen EPA studies showing train lines cause much less damage to the environment than an interstate highway.

I certainly am willing to admit that my limited knowledge of this subject could cause me to get this wrong; but, it seems to me that regulating train emissions hurts rather than helps the environment. It gives truckers an advantage causing more trucks--which pollute considerably more than trains--to be on the road and requires more highway construction--which is more harmful to the environment than rail lines.

Comments?

Gabe

P.S. If this regulation also applies to barge traffic, I double my argument.

[Anonymous]

Heavy-duty diesel trucks are subject to increasingly stringent envirionment regulations. A Google search will give many references such as this: http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.html#y2007

[oltmannd]

I think it was during the Clinton admin that the RR exhaust regs came about. There were some significant discussions between the govt, builders and RRs at that time to figure out a way to implement some regs that were workable, would reduce emissions, and, wouldn't be so costly as to cause modal shift - which even give specifically cleaner truck engines, would result in a net increase in pollution.

Up to that point, the RRs had sucessfully used the "more efficient = less pollution" arguement. But, for some reason, likely a "fairness" consideration, the govt made it clear that some regulation was inescapable.

Generally, the regulations didn't give the RRs too much heartburn, and they all the RRs to keep the high moral ground on this issue.

[dwil89]

Its an interesting discussion..As a long stack or Piggyback Train rolls past my vantage point, I often bring up the point that those three locomotives pulling that train could not possibly be throwing out as much pollution as all the trailers on the train if they were all on the road running with 50 truck engines, instead of 3 Locomotive engines......Dave Williams http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nsaltoonajohnstown

[TH&B]

Trains have the potential of being very low poluters, but in practice they are not as clean as they could be. Locomotives are often old, switching can also get wastefull like pulling out 30 loaded hoppers with hand brakes and air not blead off properly, just to dig out 4 or 5 cars with a pair of old GPs or double swichtig every day etc.... Leaving engines idle for long periods, dragging trains around with a minimum brake application, even pulling trains down a hill by applying some brake because a minimum will stop or slow the train too much and the dynamics don't work because the engines are old; and a general who cares it's not my fuel bill employees have.

So the new engines pulling long trains are efficient but they have to overcome all the ineficientcies of other trains. Modern electric locomotives and more precisely controlable brakes and modern "clean" electricity can make a train way more "Clean", so clean that no other modes exept bicyles and roaler blades polute less in imisions, unless the biker or blader farts alot, hehehe.

Trucks on the other hand are sometimes owned by the driver who conciously tries to maintain and use fuel conservatively and more often opperates newer equipement.

Rails might be cleaner by nature but they sure could clean up alot more.

[Anonymous]

It is my opinion that EPA regulation of locomotive emissions (along with the emissions from farm tractors, drilling equipment, et al) is a complete waste of time and resources, since such pollution is statistically insignificant compared to the emissions of autos and trucks. Pollution regulations should be relegated to those areas of localized impact, and be fostered on those sources that are the most significant. I don't know of any John Deere tractors making a quantifiable contribution to the smog of LA or Houston. All such pinprick regulations do is to add to the artificial costs of U.S. production.