Pretty sure their point is that, in aggregate, trains are a much more fuel efficient and cost effective than transporting the same goods a comparable distance in trucks. The amount that some people burn idling is insignificant in comparison to these savings over longer distances and higher volumes of goods transported. Given this, the transportation companies are unlikely to switch away from rail transport any time soon.

Honestly, your problem is just shitty planning by your local community if you can get trapped without means of escape while freight moves through, and they are suggesting you guys might want to invest in building a way around this with some of that fancy bridge, overpass or tunnel technology we have these days. Why would anyone else involved inconvenience themselves and others that rely on the rail to do business, just because your locality refuses to address an issue that just impacts you and the folks that live around you?

This is like arguing against having an electric grid anywhere, just because you frequently lose power in hurricanes when trees knock down the power lines, while ignoring the fact your town could literally just bury them, as they do to address this problem in many other places.