1. Introduction
In the U.S., major freight railroads are making record investments in infrastructure, with more than a dozen new rail yard facilities built or proposed during the past few years across the country in anticipation of increased international trade [
1]. Part of the railroads’ impetus in these investments is the Panama Canal expansion, expected to be completed in 2015, which will allow the world’s largest container ships, for the first time, to pass through the Canal. Many ports are expanding their operations or even dredging their harbors so that they can be competitive in attracting the larger ships, especially from Asia, once the new locks on the Canal are finished [
2]. In response, the largest freight railroad companies are building or expanding major rail facilities both near ports and further inland to handle the transfer of containers filled with goods, made mostly in China and other Asian countries, between one mode of transportation (e.g., trucks) to another (e.g., trains)—a process referred to as “intermodal” rail [
3]. Ports and rail operations are expanding in other countries, as well, in anticipation of mega-container ships and increased trade potential [
4].
Intermodal rail facilities employ significant amounts of diesel-fueled equipment, including line-haul (cross-country) locomotives, switch engines (which stay in the rail yards), cranes, and yard equipment. After arriving from Asia on ships, containers most often are trucked by heavy-duty diesel trucks emitting diesel particulate matter or moved by trains with diesel-fueled locomotives to their destinations. Concerns about the health effects of exposure to diesel exhaust emissions have been raised for decades [
5]. In 2002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) diesel assessment stated that “long-term (
i.e., chronic) inhalation exposure is likely to pose a lung cancer hazard to humans, as well as damage the lung in other ways depending on exposure [
6]”. In 2012, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, went further by classifying diesel engine exhaust as “carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), based on sufficient evidence that exposure is associated with an increased risk for lung cancer [
7]”. A recent study estimated that 6% of all lung cancer deaths in the U.S. and United Kingdom are related to diesel exhaust exposure, including in the workplace and general population [
8].
Some rail yards in the U.S. were built decades (or even a century) ago; others were built more recently or within the past 30 years. Today, many residents live in close proximity to many of these older yards, raising concerns about exposure to traffic-related air pollution, including from diesel-fueled trucks hauling containers in and out of rail yards. A recent study in the southeastern United States found that rail yard emissions led to increases of particulate matter and black carbon (as a marker for diesel emissions) [
9]. A study of a rail yard in northern California found emissions of particulates, sulfur dioxide, metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [
10]. Meanwhile, the body of research evidence is growing that shows adverse health effects from living or going to school in close proximity to traffic-related air pollution. These include effects such as reduced lung function in exposed children [
11], increased asthma prevalence and incidence [
12,
13,
14]; effects in pregnant women [
15] and their offspring (e.g., premature births [
16]); harmful effects in adults and the elderly including possibly cognitive decline [
17] and heart attacks [
18]; and more.
Because of such studies and concerns raised by residents and community groups, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has developed guidelines for siting new residences, schools, day care centers, playgrounds, and medical facilities (
i.e., sensitive receptors) near certain types of operations, including highways and rail yards, among others. The guidelines state the following about rail yards:
“We recommend doing everything possible to avoid locating sensitive receptors within the highest risk zones at ports and rail yards… Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard. Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches”.
The CARB guidelines operate in only one “direction” when land use decisions are made. They suggest how far away schools and other “sensitive receptors” (e.g., facilities for children, the elderly and the ill) should be located from ports/rail yards/highways. But they do not make recommendations for land use decisions that would site new highway, port or rail facilities near these same types of sensitive land uses, such as schools. The guidelines specify that one should avoid siting a school near a rail yard, but are silent on whether it is acceptable to site a rail yard in close proximity to a school, with CARB deferring to local government authorities on that issue. Thus, railroads are able to claim that the CARB guidelines do not pertain to them when siting new intermodal facilities in California.
Community-based groups and residents in California have been calling for stricter regulations on locomotive and rail yard pollution for nearly 10 years [
20]. Although California has been more active than other states in trying to reduce diesel exhaust from rail yards, in that state only
voluntary agreements have been negotiated between the freight railroads and CARB to reduce diesel particulate matter pollution [
21], with CARB arguing that Federal laws protect the railroads from state regulations. Language in a 2005 agreement required CARB to produce a HRA for each of the 18 major rail yards in the state, based on emissions inventories provided by the major freight railroads. In CA, these railroads include only BNSF and UP, which are the two largest freight railroads in the country. CARB completed the last of the rail yard HRAs in 2008 [
22].
The state’s largest rail yards are located in southern California, and these have been the focus of significant attention by residents, environmental and community organizations and a community-academic collaborative called THE Impact Project [
23,
24], all calling for a reduction in diesel emissions to protect public health [
25]. Some of the community-based groups in southern California have held educational rallies to inform others about the diesel cancer risks [
26] and have called for stricter regulation of diesel locomotives and for rules on rail yard emissions [
27]. Members of these groups express concern about disproportionate impacts and “environmental justice” (EJ), which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines as:
“... the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”
Many investigators have conducted EJ research, examining whether specific groups are more highly exposed to pollution when compared to other racial/ethnic/income groups [
29,
30,
31]. Some studies in California have looked at environmental justice and air toxics [
32]; EJ and drinking water contamination [
33]; and the disproportionate presence of liquor stores in certain neighborhoods [
34].
This is the first published study, to our knowledge, to assess issues of race and income near California’s 18 major rail yards and to determine if residents are correct about their perceived claims of disproportionate impacts for lower-income and minority residents living near the facilities. The authors review the HRAs for the state’s 18 major rail yards and analyze the demographics of residents living near them, which were not examined by CARB staff, in order to assess potential racial and economic disparities. Ten years ago, an analysis was commissioned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to support its locomotive engine rule. That analysis investigated the populations living in close proximity to a representative sample of 37 U.S. rail yards, including three yards in California [
35].
We also review news media and trade journal articles to determine whether environmental justice and disproportionate impacts, as well as proximity to homes and schools, are considerations in the siting of new rail yard facilities around the country, and we offer some alternatives for what might constitute “environmentally just” siting.
Overall, our objectives in this paper are to:
Describe the number of California residents who live in the zones of highest diesel cancer risk near existing rail yards in the state and determine if there are racial/ethnic and income disparities among them;
Determine through a review of the news media and trade journals whether new or expanding rail yards are taking into consideration the proximity of schools and homes to the newly proposed sites, as well as the potential for disproportionate impacts; and
Offer insights into what makes an intermodal rail yard unique in terms of industrial facilities and what types of considerations are needed to help ensure that rail yard siting or expansion takes community, public health and environmental justice concerns into account.
3. Study Methods
As published, the HRAs contained no analysis of demographic information about residents living in the vicinity of the rail yards. We employed Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to study the demographics of residents facing high calculated diesel cancer risks in close proximity to the 18 rail yards, and we compared them to demographics of the entire county in which the residents live. To accomplish this, we examined each HRA’s estimates of population exposure, as well as cancer risk isopleths (contours) showing areas where residents are at greater risk of exposure to diesel particulate emissions (DPM) and diesel cancer risk as calculated by CARB. For cancer impacts, CARB plotted total risk isopleths for facilities in the HRAs at potential cancer risk intervals of 1, 10, 25, 50, 100, 250, 500,
etc. in a million. We selected the 100 in a million risk as our definition of impacted nearby residents, because most (but not all) rail yards had residents living within that risk isopleth. At higher risk levels (250 or 500 in a million), some rail yards had few residents within the isopleths. In doing this, we were able to have consistent risk levels to compare across most of the 18 rail yards.
Figure 1 shows an example of an isopleth (contour) from an HRA. Using the isopleths and maps in the HRAs, which we digitized, we focused on the race/ethnicity and annual incomes of residents within isopleths that had high cancer risks (which we defined as “100 or more chances in a million”) and compared them to the same variables within the county of residence. We retrieved and analyzed data from the 2000 census at the census block group level to look at race, ethnicity and income levels, in an effort to determine if there were diesel cancer risk disparities and environmental justice concerns at any of the 18 major rail yards in California. Where needed (
i.e., when isopleths crossed two or more counties), we apportioned the results between two counties. Finally, we extracted and used the estimates provided by Ethington and colleagues [
47] for these same characteristics for the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility and Dolores Railyard in 1980 for our case study, which involves a rail facility proposed in 1982 [
48], built in 1986, and proposed for expansion in 2005. Ethington
et al. used the 1970–1980–1990 correspondence tables published by the California Department of Finance in 1996 [
47] to reassign the census variables from the first two censuses to 1990 Census units, and we then used spatial analysis tools inside ArcGIS
TM (ESRI, Redlands, California, USA) to assign these totals to 2000 Census units.
Using a two-sided Pearson’s chi-square test, we tested whether the proportion of non-white residents in a given risk isopleth was equal to the proportion of non-white residents in the county in which the rail yard was located (“population proportion”). White was defined as non-Hispanic white. To further understand racial/ethnic differences, we calculated the proportion of African-American (non-Hispanic Black or African American) and the proportion of Hispanic residents in an isopleth and graphically compared these values (along with their 95% confidence intervals) to the corresponding population proportions. Next, we used a two-sided Pearson’s chi-square test to test whether the proportion of low income households (<$30,000/year) in each isopleth was equal to the population proportions. We plotted these estimated proportions by rail yard, along with their 95% confidence intervals. For 16 of the 18 rail yards, we used 100 in a million risk isopleths. No demographic data was available in the 100 in a million risk isopleth for UP Roseville and UP Mira Loma, likely due to the small number of residents in these small isopleths. Instead, we used a 50 in a million risk isopleths for these rail yards.
Many of these 18 rail yards were sited decades ago, so it is difficult to determine whether the existing rail yards were built first or if the community might have settled there before the yard was built. One of the rail yards, the Union Pacific ICTF, was proposed in 1982 [
48] and opened in 1986, so we were able to examine the demographics around that yard using Census data for 1980. In 2005, Union Pacific announced that it wanted to expand its existing ICTF [
49], so we also examined more recent demographics using 2000 Census data.
Finally, we conducted a review of the news media and key industry trade journals from 2009 to the present to identify new intermodal rail facilities proposed to be built or recently constructed in the U.S. We reviewed the articles to determine if any of the rail facilities that were recently built or proposed to be built are sited in close proximity to homes and schools or adjacent to neighborhoods that are lower-income and minority.
5. Results
At just the three highest priority rail yards in CA coupled with the four combined rail yards in Commerce, more than 167,000 residents had an estimated diesel cancer risk of greater than 100 in a million,
Table 2. With regard to race/ethnicity, 17 of the 18 yards had a statistically significantly
higher percentage of non-white residents in the high risk cancer isopleths near the rail yard than the population percentage in the respective county (p < 0.0001). Of these, 16 had demographic data for the 100 in a million isopleth risk zone and one (UP Mira Loma) only for the 50 in a million ispopleth risk zone. For UP Roseville, using a 50 in a million risk isopleth, the percentage of non-white residents was statistically significantly
lower than the population percentage in the County (23%
vs. 38%,
p < 0.0001).
Our analysis found that the percentage of Latino residents in close proximity to a rail yard was generally much higher than the corresponding population percentage in the respective county, while the pattern was less consistent for African-American residents,
Figure 4. For several rail yards (e.g., BNSF Hobart) the percentage Latino in the 100 in a million risk isopleth was extremely high (BNSF Hobart: 97%), resulting in a percentage African-American in the risk isopleth that was lower than the population percentage African American in the county (BNSF Hobart: percentage in the 100 in a million risk isopleth was 0.3% while population percentage in the county was 9.4%). For UP Oakland, the percentage Latino in the 100 in a million risk isopleth was similar to the population percentage (100 in a million risk isopleth: 19%, county: 19%), but the percentage African-American in close proximity was strikingly higher than the population percentage in the respective county (100 in a million risk isopleth: 64%, county: 14%). For UP Roseville, the percentages Latino and African-American were lower in close proximity to the rail yard than the corresponding population percentages (50 in a million risk isopleth: 12%, county: 14%; and 50 in a million risk isopleth: 2%, county: 8%, respectively). See
Table S1 for County population percentages non-white and
Table S2 for demographic details and 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 4.
Estimated proportion
1 of African American or Hispanic/Latino
2 residents living in close proximity to rail yards, where proximity is defined by a 50 in a million risk isopleth or 100 in a million risk isopleth, compared to the corresponding population proportions in the county in which the rail yard is located,
Table S1. The rail yards are listed in decreasing order of population percentage non-white in the County,
3 Table S2.
Figure 4.
Estimated proportion
1 of African American or Hispanic/Latino
2 residents living in close proximity to rail yards, where proximity is defined by a 50 in a million risk isopleth or 100 in a million risk isopleth, compared to the corresponding population proportions in the county in which the rail yard is located,
Table S1. The rail yards are listed in decreasing order of population percentage non-white in the County,
3 Table S2.
1 Point estimates are plotted along with 95% confidence intervals, though for most isopleths the sample size is large enough that the confidence intervals are very narrow and not visible at this scale. 2 We use Latino and Hispanic interchangeably in this paper. 3 UP ICTF is the only rail yard in the state that also has a high percentage of Asian/Asian Pacific Islanders in the nearby population, compared to the percentages in the county, which is not reflected in this figure.
With regard to income, as shown in
Figure 5, the estimated percentage of low income households in the 100 in a million risk isopleth was higher than the population percentage of the county for 14 of the 16 rail yards (
p < 0.0001 for the 11 rail yards where the 95% confidence intervals did not overlap with the population proportion, p = 0.04 for BNSF Watson, p = 0.15 for BNSF Commerce Eastern, and p = 0.37 for BNSF Sheila). For example, near UP Mira Loma (based on 50 in a million risk isopleth), the percentage of low income households in close proximity to the rail yard was 81%
vs. 34% in the county; near UP Oakland the percentage of low income households in close proximity to the rail yard was 66%
vs. 26% in the county. Only two rail yards (UP City of Industry and UP Roseville) had a smaller proportion of low income households in close proximity to the rail yards than in the County as a whole (
statistically significantly lower, p < 0.0001).
Figure 5.
Estimated proportion 1 of low income households (<$30,000/year) living in close proximity to rail yards, where proximity is defined by a 50 in a million risk isopleth or 100 in a million risk isopleth, compared to the corresponding population proportions for the county in which the rail yard is located, with the rail yards listed in decreasing order of population proportion non-white in the County.
Figure 5.
Estimated proportion 1 of low income households (<$30,000/year) living in close proximity to rail yards, where proximity is defined by a 50 in a million risk isopleth or 100 in a million risk isopleth, compared to the corresponding population proportions for the county in which the rail yard is located, with the rail yards listed in decreasing order of population proportion non-white in the County.
1 Point estimates are plotted along with 95% confidence intervals, though for most isopleths the sample size is large enough that the confidence intervals are very narrow and not visible at this scale.
5.1. Which Came First, Siting of the Rail Yards or the Lower-Income Minority Populations Living in the Area? A Brief Case Study
Site selected for the Union Pacific ICTF in the 1980s. Many of the California rail yards were sited decades ago, making it difficult to determine whether the existing rail yards were built first or if the community might have settled there before the yard was built. One California rail yard, however, the UP ICTF, was approved and constructed within the past 30 years [
49], so we conducted a demographic analysis of the population near that yard based on the 1980 census. Our results show that the nearby residents at the time the facility was debated and then approved were predominantly lower-income and minority,
Figure 6. The figure shows that the estimated population percentage near the proposed UP ICTF based on 1980 Census data was only 32% White, while the White population percentage in Los Angeles County at that time was 53%,
Figure 7. To look at it another way, at the time the rail yard project was approved, 68% of the nearby population was minority compared to 47% in the County as a whole. In addition,
Figure 6 shows that the population percentage for African-Americans in the 1980 census was 25% near the proposed UP ICTF, higher than the percentage of African-Americans (12%) in Los Angeles County,
Figure 7.
Figure 6.
Demographics of the population in west Long Beach in close proximity to the ICTF rail yard, 1980 Census data a,b.
Figure 6.
Demographics of the population in west Long Beach in close proximity to the ICTF rail yard, 1980 Census data a,b.
a Race/ethnicity percentages listed in decreasing order. Demographics by race/ethnicity listed in order of highest percentage. b We used the 100 in a million diesel cancer risk isopleths for this calculation. The footprint of the ICTF has not changed since 1980, so to be consistent with our other analyses we considered “in close proximity” to the ICTF to be residents living within the current ICTF 100 in a million isopleth.
Figure 7.
Demographics of the population in Los Angeles County, 1980 Census data.
Figure 7.
Demographics of the population in Los Angeles County, 1980 Census data.
In
Figure 6 and
Figure 7 there are large differences between the area near the proposed UP ICTF and the County in the demographic category called “some other non-Hispanic race alone” from the 1980 census. Because the census at the time did not differentiate among Asians and Pacific Islanders, the large number of Filipino, Thai, Samoan, Tongan and other Asian Pacific Islanders living in west Long Beach in 1980 were combined into this generic category.
The analyses showed that median income in the area of west Long Beach near the proposed UP ICTF, according to the 1980 Census, was $8,616 while the median income for Los Angeles County residents as a whole was more than twice this amount, $19,486. Thus, when the ICTF was built in 1986, the nearby community was also significantly lower-income than Los Angeles County as a whole.
In summary, at the time that the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach—and the railroad (at the time, Southern Pacific, today Union Pacific)—made the site selection for the ICTF, the demographic data were clear that the rail yard facility would be constructed adjacent to a working class/working poor community of color. The community was established in the location before the UP ICTF was built.
Issues of race and income of nearby residents were not mentioned in comments and letters submitted when the environmental impact reports were being prepared, but some residents of a nearby mobile home park (which still exists) raised concerns about future air pollution from the rail yard. The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in 1986 concluded that: “Air quality impacts of the ICTF on adjacent residential areas are anticipated to be insignificant [
48]”. Just 22 years later, CARB estimated that the UP ICTF was one of the four most polluting rail yards in the State of California, creating an estimated diesel cancer risk of greater than 100 in a million for more than 33,540 nearby residents,
Table 2.
Proposed UP ICTF expansion, 2005. In 2005 Union Pacific announced that it wanted to expand the ICTF [
49]. By that time, the population demographics had changed somewhat both near the ICTF and in Los Angeles County, but remained predominantly people of color, when compared to the County of Los Angeles as a whole (
Figure 8 and
Figure 9). In the 2000 census, only 11% of the residents living near the rail yard were White compared to 31% of Los Angeles County residents. In other words, the population around the ICTF when Union Pacific proposed to expand its rail yard in 2005, was 89% minority, compared to 69% of the County as a whole. The Union Pacific ICTF also has a significantly higher percentage of Asian Pacific Islanders near the yard, compared to the County as a whole (compare
Figure 8 and
Figure 9). For the area near the proposed UP ICTF, Asians/Asian Pacific Islanders comprised 28% of the nearby population in 2000, compared to 12% for the County.
Figure 8.
Demographics of the population in west Long Beach in close proximity to the ICTF rail yard, 2000 Census data and in Los Angeles County as a whole at the time that the railroad announced that it wanted to double its capacity; 2000 census data.
Figure 8.
Demographics of the population in west Long Beach in close proximity to the ICTF rail yard, 2000 Census data and in Los Angeles County as a whole at the time that the railroad announced that it wanted to double its capacity; 2000 census data.
Figure 9.
Demographics of the population in Los Angeles County at the time that Union Pacific announced it wanted to expand the UP ICTF rail yard, 2000 census data.
Figure 9.
Demographics of the population in Los Angeles County at the time that Union Pacific announced it wanted to expand the UP ICTF rail yard, 2000 census data.
A decision has not yet been made on expansion of the UP ICTF expansion project. The possible expansion is still being discussed by a Joint Powers Authority of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and is in the early environmental review process [
49].
5.2. Construction of New Intermodal Facilities in the U.S. and Health/Environmental Concerns Raised by Residents
By reviewing the news media and industry trade journals, we identified multiple new intermodal rail facilities proposed to be built or recently constructed in the U.S. We looked at examples from the four largest Class I freight railroads in the country: Union Pacific (UP) (case study above); BNSF; CSX; and Norfolk Southern (NS). We discovered that siting rail yards close to homes and schools (a public health concern) or in lower-income minority communities (a public health and EJ concern) is not an historic artifact that ended decades ago; it is continuing today at some, although not all, new or proposed rail yards. Some examples where residents have raised questions about siting decisions, in addition to the UP ICTF already described, include:
A proposed BNSF intermodal facility in Wilmington, CA (part of the City of Los Angeles) that would be located within 1,000 feet of schools, a daycare center and a housing complex and that would bring in thousands of trucks a day to the yard, which is four miles from the local ports; emissions and truck traffic would again impact the lower-income minority community of west Long Beach. The project, called the Southern California International Gateway (BNSF SCIG) was proposed in 2005 and had several iterations of an environmental impact report (EIR) between then and its final EIR in 2013 [
50]. The location of this proposed rail yard is immediately south of the UP ICTF. Community residents and others raised public health and environmental justice concerns about building another rail yard in the same vicinity as the ICTF and in close proximity to homes and schools [
51,
52], urging that the rail yard be sited on-dock at the industrial ports rather than adjacent to a residential community. The Long Beach Unified School District [
53] and others, including public health experts, also raised concerns about both of the proposed rail yards and their proximity to schools. Although BNSF Railway argues that the new rail yard would reduce regional pollution [
54], an environmental report issued by the Port of Los Angeles on the project, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) stated that the impacts of localized air pollution from the rail yard:
“... would fall disproportionately on minority and low-income populations because the census block groups adjacent to the point of impact (the eastern edge of the Project site) constitute minority populations, and ... all or parts of [the adjacent] census tracts ... constitute low-income populations.”
In 2013 the BNSF SCIG was approved by the Port of Los Angeles Harbor Commissioners and the City of Los Angeles [
56]; there are multiple lawsuits against the project [
57,
58]. The new rail yard, if constructed, would be the second BNSF intermodal facility within 20 miles of the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach. BNSF’s Hobart Yard,
Figure 10, located in Commerce, is the largest intermodal rail facility in the U.S.
Figure 10.
BNSF Hobart Yard, Commerce, CA with downtown Los Angeles in the background. Photo courtesy of Angelo Logan.
Figure 10.
BNSF Hobart Yard, Commerce, CA with downtown Los Angeles in the background. Photo courtesy of Angelo Logan.
Selected other rail yard proposals or recently completed projects are described below:
A Norfolk Southern (NS) rail yard newly constructed in Alabama that is immediately adjacent to an elementary school [
59];
A NS rail yard that is expanding by buying homes near its yard in a Chicago community called Englewood, home to mostly African-Americans [
60];
A CSX rail yard proposed in Baltimore, Maryland, that is estimated to bring 30–40 future trucks a day through a residential community [
61]; and
A NS rail yard proposed in a small town in Tennessee in close proximity to an elementary school, which prompted the following sketch,
Figure 11, in a local newspaper as an indication of residents’ concerns [
62].
Figure 11.
Sketch by Marihelen Ballard, Strawberry Plains, Tennessee, of a school in close proximity to a freight train traveling to a rail yard; reprinted with permission of the Jefferson County Post in New Market TN.
Figure 11.
Sketch by Marihelen Ballard, Strawberry Plains, Tennessee, of a school in close proximity to a freight train traveling to a rail yard; reprinted with permission of the Jefferson County Post in New Market TN.
The health concerns of residents near intermodal rail facilities are not limited to the U.S. In New South Wales, Australia, residents have raised concerns and protested plans to build a large intermodal rail facility at Moorebank to serve Port Botany (
Figure 12). Port Botany is the second largest port in Australia, located 12 miles south of Sydney, with Moorebank being 22 miles southwest of Sydney. Residents in nearby Liverpool say they are concerned about truck traffic congestion, diesel emissions and noise that may come with the new intermodal rail yard [
63].
Figure 12.
Australian residents in Liverpool protest proposal to build a freight terminal in nearby Moorebank, New South Wales (NSW).
Figure 12.
Australian residents in Liverpool protest proposal to build a freight terminal in nearby Moorebank, New South Wales (NSW).
Photo courtesy of Jim McGoldrick, Liverpool, Australia.
6. Discussion and Conclusions
Analyses by the California Air Resources Board, as estimated in the Rail Yard Health Risk Assessments, demonstrate that living in close proximity to rail yards with high levels of diesel exhaust emissions conveys a higher risk of cancer from diesel exhaust exposure than living a greater distance away from the source of pollution. The analyses allowed CARB to estimate differences in health risks among the rail yards, by drawing isopleths at various distances away from the yards to indicate differing risk levels. Besides distance, the isopleths took into account the direction and speed of the wind. Through that work, CARB was able to identify a number of yards in California that present particularly high diesel cancer risks for nearby residents. CARB also identified the City of Commerce as having seriously impacted residents, with four rail yards in one small community. We conclude that the siting of rail yards near sensitive receptors is a significant public health concern.
Our research utilized the CARB isopleths, 2000 Census data and GIS techniques to demonstrate significant diesel exposure disparities by race and income among residents living in close proximity to most of the 18 major freight rail yards in California where CARB has estimated high diesel cancer risks. We conclude that the location of existing or newly proposed rail yards in lower-income (working class/working poor) communities of color is a significant public health and environmental justice concern.
The analysis commissioned by EPA to support its locomotive engine rule investigated the populations living in close proximity to a representative sample of 37 U.S. rail yards, including three yards in California [
64]. The EPA study found a large number of rail yards around the country with disproportionate impacts from diesel particulate matter at rail yards. For example, the EPA analysis states that “in Chicago the population living adjacent to the Barr Rail Yard, which has the greatest exposure to diesel emissions from that yard, is 97 percent African American, while the general metropolitan area of Chicago is only 18 percent African American [
65].
Rail yards were also a topic of discussion by the Goods Movement Work Group (Work Group) for U.S. EPA’s National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (NEJAC), which issued a report in 2009 [
66]. The Work Group report concluded that “environmental pollution from the movement of freight is becoming a major public health concern at the national, regional and community levels,” and its report cited a U.S. EPA Inspector General’s report on the need to reduce air pollution for populations living near large diesel emission sources such as major roadways, rail yards, and ports, which are likely to experience greater diesel exhaust exposure levels than the overall U.S. population, exposing them to greater health risk [
67].
In addition, Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) are a relatively new public health tool to assess impacts of proposed projects or policies [
68]. The first HIA of an intermodal rail facility was recently published by the National Center for Healthy Housing; it examined the potential impacts of an expanded CSX rail facility to be constructed near the Port of Baltimore [
69].