 |
Re: I bought a home next to the train, and I want it stopped NOW!
Author: mook
Date: 11-30-2015 - 16:30
It goes beyond noise, though that certainly is an issue. I'd be surprised if Metrolink had not already planned to build or improve sound walls. But NIMBY is more than that. There's the "nuisance" (disturbs me even if it's not loud enough to exceed noise exposure criteria; I could argue that about a freeway several miles away from me, which is clearly audible with windows open but way below any abatement criteria, and it's the basis for innumerable lawsuits over airports and landing/takeoff patterns), and in more recent times air pollutants (diesel exhaust particulate matter is a known carcinogen in California, and whole diesel exhaust is a likely hazardous air pollutant per EPA, and it'll be a long time before Metrolink replaces all of its older locomotives with Tier 4).
The way to deal with it is to do a EIR, which it looks like Metrolink plans to do now. That way, you can publish the results of all your studies documenting what level of impact there will be (could be very minor), detail what mitigation is reasonable and feasible, and make overriding considerations findings for the remainder. EIRs cost a lot of money and take some time to produce (though if they've already done some of the studies for a ND the time and cost might be reduced - but did they originally claim exemption instead?), but if done properly and if the mitigation is installed per commitments (be careful how you word those!) they pretty much insulate you from NIMBY lawsuits that can't show actual physical damage or some egregious bollix of the process.
Private railroads don't need to do a EIR or EIS unless they get land, or need a permit or get money from, some government agency, but publicly-owned railroads do in some cases - lawsuits have been decided both ways depending on the circumstances. It's the public agency involvement that pulls in the CEQA/NEPA connections. Where the railroad IS the public agency, it becomes a grey area, but if the railroad is heavily involved with local politics (...Metrolink...) it may decide to go ahead with the environmental work even if, technically, it doesn't have to (might end up cheaper than dealing with the lawsuits, and with interference by other politicians).
The way to deal with it is to do a EIR, which it looks like Metrolink plans to do now. That way, you can publish the results of all your studies documenting what level of impact there will be (could be very minor), detail what mitigation is reasonable and feasible, and make overriding considerations findings for the remainder. EIRs cost a lot of money and take some time to produce (though if they've already done some of the studies for a ND the time and cost might be reduced - but did they originally claim exemption instead?), but if done properly and if the mitigation is installed per commitments (be careful how you word those!) they pretty much insulate you from NIMBY lawsuits that can't show actual physical damage or some egregious bollix of the process.
Private railroads don't need to do a EIR or EIS unless they get land, or need a permit or get money from, some government agency, but publicly-owned railroads do in some cases - lawsuits have been decided both ways depending on the circumstances. It's the public agency involvement that pulls in the CEQA/NEPA connections. Where the railroad IS the public agency, it becomes a grey area, but if the railroad is heavily involved with local politics (...Metrolink...) it may decide to go ahead with the environmental work even if, technically, it doesn't have to (might end up cheaper than dealing with the lawsuits, and with interference by other politicians).
