This issue has become, unfortunately, an essentially political one in the US, rather than a science-based matter, even though the Clean Water Act, EPA and other environmental programs/safeguards began under President Nixon. Different times.
Equally unfortunate, in terms of advancing the discussion, are the crude interjections as above.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Remember this the EPA wants to Regulate CO2 gas we Create CO2 Gas when we Breathe. They also want to stop Mehtane Gas reation. So Basically when a Cow farts the EPA wants to stop that from Happening.
Remember this is the Same people that think Breathing and Farting are harmful to the enviroment. THese are things people have been doing for YEARS.
henry6 I think the progess that has been made in identifying pollution problems and the need and the ways to correct or improve them is good. So continuing events, programs, manufacturing, drilling, whatever, that cause these problems is not progress and those wanting to impliment corrections and preventions to these programs are not wrong. They want progress in doing things safely, environmentally safe, and not disregard or evade the progress we've made in these areas. The rehtorical question is who is impeding progress. those rejecting the identification and use of environmental safegards and other safety factors or those who are stopping those who don't want to use these safeguards?
I think the progess that has been made in identifying pollution problems and the need and the ways to correct or improve them is good. So continuing events, programs, manufacturing, drilling, whatever, that cause these problems is not progress and those wanting to impliment corrections and preventions to these programs are not wrong. They want progress in doing things safely, environmentally safe, and not disregard or evade the progress we've made in these areas.
The rehtorical question is who is impeding progress. those rejecting the identification and use of environmental safegards and other safety factors or those who are stopping those who don't want to use these safeguards?
(My emphasis in blue added to Henry's quote)
What makes you so sure that anything that someone labels an envrionmental safeguard is actually a safeguard? Almost any new regualtion can be imposed as a so-called safeguard. And there are a lot of motivations to impose regulations as safeguards when they are actually not necessary. That is impeding progress of economic development, not advancing the progress of cleaning up the envionment.
I think the progess that has been made in identifying pollution problems and the need and the ways to correct or improve them is good. So continuing events, programs, manufacturing, drilling, whatever, that cause these problems is not progress and those wanting to impliment corrections and preventions to these programs are not wrong. They want progress in doing things safely, environmentally safe, and not disregard or evade the progress we've made in these areas. The rehtorical question is who is impeding progress. those rejecting the identification and use of environmental safegards and other safety factors or those who are stopping those who don't want to use these safeguards?
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
I edited one of the posts because of an observation posted in the RA's, quite rightly. So, I also felt it was prudent to cull others which addressed the comment, and then went on to say that those who were questioning the post needed thicker skins. Read, "sliding well off topic."
We are down to two mods for the next while, people who have other commitments and lives. Please do us, and each other, the courtesy of using the Reports of Abuse to keep from polluting your own discussions with irrelevant intrusions. Thank-you.
Crandell
I think it is an error to regard the plaintiff as just California, kookie, environmentalist fringe groups. On the contrary, this movement is in the driver’s seat. And if they can make their case in California, they can make it in the rest of the country. Some version of this is already happening in every state. I am not sure what Henry was referring to when he spoke of progress, but the progress the plaintiff wants is to reduce the consumption of everything. Stopping environmental pollution is not much more than a pretext when you consider what they are really after in the big picture. And their objective is on very fertile ground these days.
MC,
By chance did you make it to any of the committee meetings? I attended a few with Bill Farquhar, who was with North (San Diego) County Transit district.
I can well imagine how wires over yards and COFC/TOFC facilities would be a royal PITA. There are a couple of changes in technology that could greatly ease the problem. One is the research that's been done on batteries for hybrid locomotives (though haven't heard much from GE recently) and going hand-in-hand with that are AC drives which work very nicely with a constant voltage source as a battery. I know that's not a new idea, but it is a lot more practical now than when the North Shore was using battery-electrics.
While the proposed electrification would likely have reduced local emissions from rail operations, it would have been a heck of a lot of money. There were (and probably still are) a lot of ways to get more reductions in emissions for the amount of money that would have been spent.
- Erik
OK. My statement wasn't specific to this topic but generic to America's bent for being against everything. Somebody always finds a way to be against anything and everything. And if the are disgruntled enough they bring a law suit either to stop progress or to make it happen.
Of course I have never met a gruntled person.
You'll have to define "Progress"...
Is it progress to allow polution?
Is it progress to put a stop to all polution?
If I were updating the decor of my living room and I cut the Rembrandt oil painting from the frame and replaced it with a crayon drawing by my grandchild... is that "Progress"? (Be careful what you say about MY grandchild! )
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
No...what progress are the plaintiffs preventing? Doesn't matter. In the US there always about half the people who don't want progress for some reason or another. Or they just don't understand.
Henry,
What progress are the plaintiffs seeking?
Mac
Has anyone calculated the cost of not having any kind of progress?
Paul_D_North_Jr erikem: travelingengineer: Two environment organizations propose reduction of diesel head-end railyard idling and electrifcation of urban trains, so as to ameliorate the presence of lead, cadmium, nickel and other toxic elements. SCE proposed electrifying the trackage in the LA basin circa 1990, and the Southern California Regional Railroad Authority held several meetings in 1991-1992 about the feasibility of doing so. The committee came up with a figure of $4 billion, with about half that cost for improving overhead clearances to allow the use of 50 kV catenary. Needless to say, this was a non-starter. - Erik Gee - if that's such a great idea, then why don't those environmental groups - or the state - pay for it ? Only about $160 per man, woman, and child - and that's even before inflation since then ( x 2 ?). $4 or even $8 Billion isn't so much when compared to California's perennial budget deficit, and is mere "chump change" when compared to some of the ARRA / "stimulus" fund uses, bank bail-outs, HSR proposals, etc. (Note that wiring all those rails would be a partial step towards HSR anyway . . . ). Almost all of the work would be done and stay in California - what's not to like ? - Paul North.
erikem: travelingengineer: Two environment organizations propose reduction of diesel head-end railyard idling and electrifcation of urban trains, so as to ameliorate the presence of lead, cadmium, nickel and other toxic elements. SCE proposed electrifying the trackage in the LA basin circa 1990, and the Southern California Regional Railroad Authority held several meetings in 1991-1992 about the feasibility of doing so. The committee came up with a figure of $4 billion, with about half that cost for improving overhead clearances to allow the use of 50 kV catenary. Needless to say, this was a non-starter. - Erik
travelingengineer: Two environment organizations propose reduction of diesel head-end railyard idling and electrifcation of urban trains, so as to ameliorate the presence of lead, cadmium, nickel and other toxic elements.
SCE proposed electrifying the trackage in the LA basin circa 1990, and the Southern California Regional Railroad Authority held several meetings in 1991-1992 about the feasibility of doing so. The committee came up with a figure of $4 billion, with about half that cost for improving overhead clearances to allow the use of 50 kV catenary. Needless to say, this was a non-starter.
- Paul North.
Pilferage of the copper wire prior to getting the electricity hooked up would double the cost, and pilferage of the wire after electrical hook up would reduce the population so far as to quadrupple the cost per person remaining.
And then they're going to need to build additional power plants and high tension lines to supply the electricity to run the trains -- but the enviromentalists are against all power lines and power plant construction, so you're right back to square one.
erikem travelingengineer: Two environment organizations propose reduction of diesel head-end railyard idling and electrifcation of urban trains, so as to ameliorate the presence of lead, cadmium, nickel and other toxic elements. SCE proposed electrifying the trackage in the LA basin circa 1990, and the Southern California Regional Railroad Authority held several meetings in 1991-1992 about the feasibility of doing so. The committee came up with a figure of $4 billion, with about half that cost for improving overhead clearances to allow the use of 50 kV catenary. Needless to say, this was a non-starter. - Erik
Erik: Also forgotten was what happens in the ports plus the unrealistic concept of outfitting the yards and COFC/TOFC facilities plus the miles of backtracks and industrial leads under wire. (I was there while that study was going on and escorted several groups over my territory.) Raising every bridge and overhead structure to 24'-6" above top of rail to accomodate heavy rail catenary would cost so much and cause so much disruption, that anyone with a stick of common sense would back off.
Why didn't these holier than thou buffoons sueAQMD while they were suing everybody else? The lawsuit is in California beause of the hopelessly liberal courts there. (Never mind that the US Supreme Court just told the California 9th Circuit Court to shut up and quit legislating from the bench in another enviro-whacko case)...If the enviros lose, hope they get assessed the court costs and railroad legal fees.
The Supreme Court's recent 9-0 decision which threw out a multi-state suit against several electric utilities may be a factor in this new suit. It looks like an attempt to sidestep EPA regulations regarding emissions.
travelingengineerTwo environment organizations propose reduction of diesel head-end railyard idling and electrifcation of urban trains, so as to ameliorate the presence of lead, cadmium, nickel and other toxic elements.
diningcar A question I have is: Who is paying the lawyers for all of these groups who use "enviorment" in their title? My guess is it is we the taxpayers who make the lawyers available to sue over any thing that can be remotely considered an enviormental issue. If they win the lawyers participate in the settlement I suppose, but if they don't my guess is we taxpayers pay them. Anyone have specific answers?
Anyone have specific answers?
In this instance, if BNSF and/ or UP would lose, then they would pay for those lawyers, plus their own; if they win, then they have to pay only their own lawyers - the environmental groups have to absorb their own legal fees. The taxpayers pay for the environmental group' lawyers in those cases only when a government entity is the polluter and the group is successful (plus the costs for the government's lawyers, of course); if the case is settled, again it's all open to negotiation, but payment of some or all of the fees seems common.
Diningcar said: "...How good are whose lawyers?
A question I have is: Who is paying the lawyers for all of these groups who use "enviorment" in their title..."
I cannot speak to the Enviro whackos who want to return our technically advanced society to pre industrial times as in:
http://www.merriam-webstercollegiate.com/dictionary/luddite
[quote user="henry6"]
How good are whose lawyers?
A question I have is: Who is paying the lawyers for all of these groups who use "enviorment" in their title? My guess is it is we the taxpayers who make the lawyers available to sue over any thing that can be remotely considered an enviormental issue. If they win the lawyers participate in the settlement I suppose, but if they don't my guess is we taxpayers pay them.
Actually, you need to imagine at least 2 tractorr units on each rail car... maybe 3 or 4!
I caught this story on NorthJersey.com. I left a comment saying that the next time folks look at a freight train they should imagine a tractor unit in front of every car. THEN imagine what the pollution would be like! Idiots! I'll tell you, one of these days "Atlas" is going to shrug and it won't be pretty.
They do go after the Railroads I can tell you this the People of California better like Walking and also better like not having CRAP on the shelves because this will be the Starw that causes the OTR industry to STOP SERVING THEM. Tehy will all STOP COMING in there or if they do come in there it will cost them 25 bucks a mile to do so from the Shipper.
[Edited for content by selector]
Well, here's one "activated" link to it - maybe not the shortest, but the best I could do:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jCbK7oMF67z4dECNP4pVKujAYVFg?docId=a4b47c3c2592496baf3ad5d2179e9a05
Short version is that since diesel exhaust usually consists of gas + small solid particles, they're going after the particulate portion - because that's supposedly what causes the most diseases, etc. - under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (which governs disposal of hazardous solid waste). As someone observed int he article, that's a pretty clever and innovative scheme of attack.
So far the PR battle advantage is to the environmental groups, which got off the 1st salvo today, as yet unanswered by the railroads. But that's not to say that the railroads don't have a worthwhile defense - they haven't had their turn at bat yet.
My - I thought the Clean Air Act had a blanket exemption for transportation equipment exemptions - if so, I would anticipate that will defeat this suit. If not, then the truckers better look out, too - they'll be next.
It's California!
Both the UP, and BNSF folk may be glad that pl;acing someone in Stocks ( for public humiliation) is no longer a legitimate punishment.
But since it is California; Do they still allow Flogging, or Keel Hauling as punishment, or just a quick Drawing & Quartering for violations [real or suspected] of their Environmental Rules?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.