BNSF Might Abandon Los Angeles Rail Gateway Over Lawsuit

A $500 million rail undertaking that will serve the Port of Los Angeles, and positively the Port of Lengthy Seaside too, is on the verge of being scrapped.

Over a decade within the making, the Southern California Worldwide Gateway (SCIG) is the BNSF Railway undertaking to construct a brand new rail yard close to the Port of Los Angeles that was supposed to really scale back air pollution from worldwide delivery associated actions across the ports.

Nevertheless, the town of Lengthy Seaside, together with different litigants, sued for an injunction in opposition to the undertaking, claiming it’s detrimental to West Lengthy Seaside residents and the environmental affect report on the undertaking doesn’t comply with the California Environmental High quality Act, in accordance with a Press-Telegram Information article.

Apparently, the decide agreed. Lengthy Seaside received the lawsuit.

The undertaking appeared to many like an excellent factor for the Los Angeles space, each when it comes to environmental affect and port actions.

The proximity of this massive rail yard to the ports may assist with the congestion the Ports of Los Angeles and Lengthy Seaside have struggled with within the wake of megaships and service alliances (together with different components like chassis shortages and labor strife).

However how would it not truly assist scale back air pollution or lower the damaging environmental affect of delivery across the ports?

In response to one other Press-Telegram Information article:

BNSF and Los Angeles officers asserted that SCIG would result in improved environmental situations by eliminating the necessity for harbor truckers to haul rail-bound freight all the way in which to BNSF’s Hobart Yard, which is 24 miles north of the Port of Los Angeles in Commerce.

Mission plans additionally included environmentally-friendly applied sciences resembling low-emission locomotives and electrical cranes.

So much less air pollution from trucking cargo from the ports paired with environmentally-friendly rail actions was how a constructive impact on environmental affect within the space was to be achieved. In truth, the declare is that the area’s air high quality could be significantly improved.

That there could be an financial benefit to the undertaking appears apparent to all.

In truth, and funnily sufficient, that article additionally quotes Lengthy Seaside Metropolis Lawyer Charles Parkin lamenting the concept of BNSF scrapping the undertaking altogether:

“My solely remark is, this could be unlucky,” he mentioned of the opportunity of BNSF abandoning the proposed rail yard. “We belief there may very well be mitigations that will enable that undertaking to go ahead,” he mentioned.

What sort of mitigations would make Lengthy Seaside pleased to drop the injunction and permit the undertaking to maneuver ahead? The article did embrace an concept of what the town would need:

Lengthy Seaside officers contended the undertaking ought to embrace buffers and different measures, resembling grants for residence air-filtration methods and double-pane home windows, to guard residents’ well being.

Whereas the well being of the area is necessary, so is the well being of the neighborhood residents close to the proposed rail manner.

It’s unclear what the additional price of offering all that Lengthy Seaside desires for his or her Westside residents and neighborhoods, however it’s apparent that BNSF doesn’t see a manner they’ll transfer ahead with the undertaking in the event that they meet all of the calls for.

Moreover, BNSF objects to the implications of the courtroom ruling.

A Progressive Railroading article shares BNSF’s view on the lawsuit:

After reviewing California Superior Court docket Choose Barry Good’s ruling, BNSF officers are “troubled by what the choice represents and unsure whether or not transferring ahead with the undertaking is possible right now,” mentioned BNSF Government Vice President and Chief Advertising Officer Steve Bobb in a press launch.

“We’ll talk to Port of Los Angeles officers, however it’s not clear whether or not or how the undertaking may very well be constructed beneath the framework set by the choice,” Bobb mentioned.

…

“With this resolution, California sends a transparent sign to firms occupied with investing within the state that their enterprise isn’t welcome, no matter how inexperienced it will likely be or the way it will assist the regional and state financial system,” mentioned Bobb. “It units a chilling precedent for not solely the rail business, however the whole items motion sector, which employs greater than 1,000,000 Californians.”

What do you concentrate on this undertaking and the ruling in opposition to it? Share your ideas within the feedback part under.

Supply: UC Weblog