How probable is the success of the just-announced lawsuit against UP and BNSF for permitting hazardous waste emissions in 16 CA railyards? 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. The URL is too long to paste here, but you’ll find the news article on AP. Maybe one of you guys, who do NOT have IE9, can add the hyperlink of the URL, instead of the plain text version. Thanks.
[2c] 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?
Well, here’s one “activated” link to it - maybe not the shortest, but the best I could do:
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 [2c] - 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.
- Paul North.
How good are whose lawyers?
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]
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.
Actually, you need to imagine at least 2 tractorr units on each rail car… maybe 3 or 4!
[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.
Anyone have specific answers?
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
FTL: "…Definition of LUDDITE
: one of a group of early 19th century English workmen destroying laborsaving machinery as a protest; broadly : one who is opposed to especially technological change
— Luddite adjective…"
[soapbox]This why so much of our mineral wealth is now locked up by the Gov’t in the Western States. ( I’ll quit now and back away, so I won’t get this Thread Locked.[:'(]
[banghead]
Most of the environmental-type laws have provisions to the effect that if the plaintiff (environmental group) “substantially prevails”, then the losing defendant(s) have to pay “reasonable” attorney’s fees to the plaintiff’s lawyers; if the group loses, they and their lawyers get nothing (unless a judge feels that they did some public good by bringing their suit anyway . . . [:-^] ); in settlements, this is a matter for negotiation, and can go either way. The typical “loser pays all” rule of Federal courts hasn’t been extended to environmental cases. And the expert scientific witness fees can dwarf those of the lawyers, too !
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.
- Paul North.
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
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.
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.
[:-,] 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.
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.
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
[(-D]
Has anyone calculated the cost of not having any kind of progress?
Henry,
What progress are the plaintiffs seeking?
Mac
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.