I used to live in Riverbank Cal, and see nothing wrong with the trains going through town. People in Riverbank need to realise that Riverbank is a railroad town. If they don’t like it they can move to east Oakland cal.
A city or state (cannot) impede interstate rail traffic thru a tax per car or per train or other restrictions that unreasonable impede the operation of interstate rail shipments and the railroads handling them. This is well established by case law including when the State of Nebraska attempted to levy a tax on each railcar passing through the State. If they don’t like those railcars trucks are no answer. It takes 3-4 trucks to equal the loading capacity of one railcar. Today’s locomotives emit a lot fewer toxic emissions that trucks as well.
Not 7 cents per car - Under the proposed agreement, Cooperstown Quarry will pay seven cents for every ton of rock extracted from the quarry to the city. That amounts to around $4 million over the life of the project.
This is a pure case of NIMBY-ism (Not In My Back Yard), the people of this county don’t want freight trains rumbling through their communities. “Environmental impact” concerns are a typical NIMBY tactic citizens use against any project that threatens their community. Now I am not suggesting that all NIMBY campaigns are bad, just think how you would feel if some corporation chose your neighborhood as the site for their new toxic waste incinerator! Even the most die-hard fan of Ayn Rand would become an "anti-Capitalist, environmentalist NIMBY under those circumstances! In this particular case however I fail to see how the county has a real case, the railroad line through the area was built decades ago and was in plain sight to everyone who purchased property in the area. It seems awfully presumptuous for the community to assume that train traffic should accommodate the sensibilities of pampered suburbanites!
Once more the so called environmentalists use the wrong part of their body to think. which uses more fuel a100 car freight train oer 200 trucks. which takes longer to go though town, a 100 car freight or 200 trucks. Some trucking company won this round. Get rid of these stupid trains, put it on the road.
Those “168,000 lb Michigan specials” are not far off the mark. Michigan allows “sleds”, which are exactly as Mr Guse describes. They have 11 axles: steer axle, two drive axles on the tractor, and 8 axles on the trailer. The max weight I see on the MDOT website is 156,800 lbs based on axle weight ratings and tire size. They do run those in Michigan, mostly hauling coil steel to Detroit from Indiana mills. Such trucks would need a permit in California, and anywhere else for that matter.
This agreement sets a bad precedent. Before long, everywhere that doesn’t want trains rolling through their town will be doing this. Wait til the good burghers figure out that 10 train starts instead of 20 will mean trains twice as long. They’ll be crying about how long the trains are tying up their crossings. This is what happens when people don’t understand how they get the products they use every day.
Maybe the railroad and mine should offer the city a choice. Pony up some transportation funds to match the 4 million the railroad will have to pay plus a similar amount from the mine and with 12 million in hand plus whatever they can get from the feds in grants, they should be able to build a by-pass around the main city streets in the name of congestion relief and to the happiness of city, railroad and mine.
Otherwise they should call the city’s bluff which, after all is said and done, could result in the City spending a lot more than 4 million, just in legal fees.
Like the tick(the city) telling a dog( the RR) "You Stink ! "