Long Freight Trains: Ensuring Safe Operations, Mitigating Adverse Impacts (2024)
Chapter: 6 Environmental Impacts
6
Environmental Impacts
This chapter reviews the railroad industry’s contention that long trains reduce fuel consumption and therefore greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and it describes the limitations of current research on the matter. The chapter then covers potential increases in motor vehicle emissions, building on the analysis of highway-rail grade crossings in Chapter 5. The chapter closes with a brief discussion of changes in freight rail service and the likelihood of a shift in freight to or from trucks.
Potential environmental benefits of long trains are based on their ability to reduce the industry’s consumption of diesel fuel by reducing the number of trains. However, it is possible that long trains have indirect effects that worsen environmental conditions by increasing the pollutants emitted from motor vehicles if, for instance, long trains increase motor vehicle congestion and disrupt travel at highway-rail grade crossings or if changes in rail service patterns associated with long trains encourage shifts of freight to trucks. Conversely, if long trains reduce crossing blockage and increase rail efficiency to lower shipping rates (such that freight is attracted from trucks), the net result could be reduction in fuel use and emissions.
LONG TRAINS AND LOCOMOTIVE FUEL CONSUMPTION
Rail transport, whether for passengers or freight, is one of the most fuel-efficient and therefore climate-friendly transport modes, producing only 2% of the U.S. transportation sector’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2022. GHG emissions from the rail sector have also been decreasing, falling 16%
between 2018 and 2022.1 The Class I railroads maintain that operating longer trains reduces fuel burn and therefore reduces GHG emissions.2 While railroads have substantially increased fuel efficiency, the role of long trains in the reduction of fuel consumed is not clear.
Industry Position on Train Size and Fuel Consumption
To support the position that running longer trains reduces fuel usage and thus GHG emissions, two railroads presented analysis based on their own operations. One railroad used a Fuel Burn Report in which fuel efficiency was calculated based on the impact of a train with a restricted length of 7,500 ft.3 The estimated increased fuel use from running longer trains amounted to 22%. Given that running trains with less horsepower per gross ton-mile is proven to reduce fuel burn,4 the 22% increase appears to come more from reduced horsepower per gross-ton. Another railroad presented a study comparing winter operations using shorter trains to operations over the rest of the year using longer trains.
LONG TRAINS AND MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS
If long trains do affect the frequency and duration of highway-rail grade crossing blockages, they can have an indirect effect on the air pollution emitted from motor vehicles.5 Cars and trucks increase their GHG emissions when they idle while waiting for a crossing and any associated motor vehicle congestion to clear. GHG emissions may also increase if motor vehicles travel farther to avoid a grade crossing or if people switch from walking or biking to an automobile because blocked crossings disrupt the pedestrian or bicycle network. Other pollutants, such as particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, can also be associated with increased motor vehicle fuel consumption.6
As described in Chapter 4, the railroads maintain that long trains reduce the frequency and total daily duration of blocked crossings, but there are no publicly available data to confirm this claim. In addition, the
___________________
1 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2024. “Fast Facts: U.S. Transportation Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1990–2022.” EPA-420-F-24-022. May. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-05/420f24022.pdf.
2 Class I presentations to the committee, January, March, and April 2023.
3 Norfolk Southern used 70-day waybills from November 22, 2020, to January 30, 2021, and an Operating Plan Developer (OPD) tool to conduct the analysis.
4 Cetinich, J. 1975. Fuel Efficiency Improvement in Rail Freight Transportation: United States. Federal Railroad Administration.
5 Ibid.
6 California Air Resources Board. 2020. “Truck Versus Train Emission Analysis.” September 23. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/truck-vs-train-emissions-analysis.
impact of long trains on blocked crossings and motor vehicle congestion will be location specific. Therefore, it is possible that long trains may reduce motor vehicle congestion, idling, and emissions for one railroad,7 but the opposite may be the case for another railroad. For example, in a study of the environmental impacts of constructing grade separations at highway-rail crossings, Caltrans analyzed 18 crossings and found that a grade separation would reduce the annual metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted by motor vehicles from, depending on the crossing, 107 to 5,059 tons.8
Impacts on motor vehicle emissions can also happen when railroads shift the location of operations or utilize infrastructure differently. Concentrating activity in one location or shifting it away from a location that already suffers from motor vehicle congestion will also have localized impacts on motor vehicle emissions.9 A study of the environmental impacts of the merger that formed the Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway (CPKC) found increased rail traffic would also increase motor vehicle emissions from idled vehicles at blocked crossings and from increased local truck traffic accessing the rail terminal.10
LONG TRAINS AND FREIGHT MOVED BY TRUCK
According to the Association of American Railroads (AAR), transporting freight by rail instead of truck reduces GHG emissions by up to 75%.11 Therefore, it is important to ascertain whether the Class I railroads are operating in a way to encourage or discourage freight traffic to shift from truck to rail. The evidence is mixed.
The 2023 merger of the Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern Railways to create CPKC could result in an overall decrease in emissions due to the expected diversion of freight from truck to rail transportation and the resulting removal of a projected 64,000 trucks per year from
___________________
7 Norfolk Southern presentation to committee, January 20, 2023.
8 Caltrans. 2016. “Railroad Grade Crossings Report to the Legislature.” https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/legislative-affairs/documents/railroad-grade-crossing-evaluation-report-v9-6-14-2016-a11y.pdf. Analysis assumptions included the following: Passenger trains are 700 ft, freight trains are 5,000 ft, freight speed is 15 mph, frequency between 5 a.m. and 11 p.m. was evenly distributed, gates are in down position 30 seconds before and 10 seconds after trains clear the crossing, used current passenger timetables.
9 See, for example, AECOM. 2015. “Technical Memorandum: Benefit Cost Analysis of the Willmar Rail Connector and Industrial Access Project.” May 28. https://www.dot.state.mn.us/ofrw/willmar/15docs/04BCATechM.pdf.
10 Surface Transportation Board (STB). 2023. “STB Issues Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed CP/KCS Merger.” January 27. https://www.stb.gov/news-communications/latest-news/pr-23-02.
11 AAR. n.d. “Freight Rail & Climate Change.” Updated February 2024. https://www.aar.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/AAR-Climate-Change-Fact-Sheet.pdf.
the highways.12 Despite increases in emissions from blocked highway-rail grade crossings and local truck traffic accessing rail terminals, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) concluded that the merger would result in a net reduction in emissions.13
On the other hand, since 2019 and the advent of long trains and Precision Scheduled Railroading, STB has intervened twice to require the Class II railroads to meet their common carrier obligations.14 There have also been concerns that the Class I railroads are reducing service.15 In addition, moving freight by long train implies reduced service frequency, because certain locations will receive fewer trains per day or week.
___________________
12 STB. 2023. “STB Issues Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed CP/KCS Merger.” January 27. https://www.stb.gov/news-communications/latest-news/pr-23-02.
13 Ibid.
14 STB. 2022. “STB Continues Emergency Service Period for Foster Farms; Directs Service Commitments and Reporting.” July 1. https://www.stb.gov/news-communications/latest-news/pr-22-35; STB. 2023. “STB Grants Preliminary Injunction; Orders BNSF Railway Company to Transport 4.2 Million Tons of Coal for Navajo Transitional Energy Company, LLC.” June 23. https://www.stb.gov/news-communications/latest-news/pr-23-11.
15 STB. 2019. “Oversight Hearing on Demurrage and Accessorial Charges.” Docket No. EP 754 (Day 1). Washington, DC: Surface Transportation Board. https://www.stb.gov/audio-meeting/oversight-hearing-on-demurrage-and-accessorial-charges-docket-no-ep-754-day-1; STB. 2019b. “Oversight Hearing on Demurrage and Accessorial Charges.” Docket No. EP 754 (Day 2). Washington, DC: Surface Transportation Board. https://www.stb.gov/audio-meeting/oversight-hearing-on-demurrage-and-accessorial-charges-docket-no-ep-754-day-2.
