(The following report from The Wall Street Journal appeared on the Times Herald-Record website on June 2.)
NEW YORK — A new CSX Corp. radio ad declares that even the most fuel-efficient hybrid car can’t compete with a train, which “can move a ton of freight 423 miles on a single gallon of fuel.”
“Too bad we can’t all drive a train,” the announcer says before urging listeners to visit CSX’s Web site to learn about the Jacksonville, Fla., company’s “commitment to protecting the environment.”
Railroad companies, long a target of environmentalists who blame them for everything from deforestation to toxic spills, are marketing themselves as the ultimate eco-friendly, low-fuel-consuming industry.
With fuel prices at record highs and worries about global warming reaching critical mass, U.S. companies of all stripes are touting their green credentials. That list includes plenty of businesses that wouldn’t normally be associated with the environmental movement, like oil companies or mining outfits. But the juxtaposition for trains is among the starkest.
Early in the 20th century, steam-powered trains, fueled by coal, cast off trails of embers that often ignited and denuded the surrounding landscape. Train accidents and cargo spills still taint perceptions of railroad companies. Earlier this month, a Burlington Northern Santa Fe train partially derailed in Lafayette, La., and began leaking hydrochloric acid. Several thousand people were forced to evacuate. (Accidents involving trains carrying hazardous material have been declining slightly over the past decade, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.)
Freight trains now use much cleaner and more fuel-efficient diesel engines, and railroad companies are testing new engines that the industry is touting as “ultralow-emission.” Many environmentalists acknowledge that the railroads have a powerful argument, given that freight trains burn far less fuel than trucks and can help reduce highway congestion.
“In general, train transportation is much more fuel efficient than trucking, and we should be doing more of it,” says Colin F. Peppard, transportation policy coordinator for Friends of the Earth, an environmental advocacy group.
Several rail companies are rolling out their own statistics to make the case that the switch to trains is good for the environment. Norfolk Southern Corp. is running a series of environmentally themed television spots and has a “carbon footprint analyzer” feature on its Web site that allows customers to measure the environmental advantages of shipping by freight rather than truck.
Union Pacific Corp.’s Web site touts the company’s “cleaner and greener” fleet of locomotives and argues that if 25 percent of truck freight were diverted to rail, there would be “nearly 800,000 fewer tons of air pollution” by 2025.
Much rides on this approach. For the first time in decades, railroad stock prices have been rising, and business is booming. By one estimate, the railroad industry will need to expand its capacity by 88 percent in the next quarter-century, as highways get even more congested, fuel prices rise and more shippers decide to use trains to move their products. What’s more, railroads — which used to carry mainly raw materials such as coal and timber — are now increasingly transporting consumer goods from ports to cities.