Passenger Trains > Conflict of interest in study of Brunswick rail project

Conflict emerges in study used by foes of Brunswick rail project
Portland Press Herald
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
by Chris Chase, Coastal Journal Staff

The engineer who concluded that noise levels would be
excessive at the site in Brunswick has plans for a residential
subdivision nearby.


> BRUNSWICK — A study that found noise levels from an Amtrak
> maintenance and storage building would exceed federal limits in the
> surrounding neighborhood was conducted by an engineer who has
> submitted plans to build a nine-lot residential subdivision next to
> the site of the proposed project.
>
> Charles Wallace of Resource Systems Engineering prepared the noise
> study pro bono for the Brunswick West Neighborhood Coalition, which
> opposes the project and wants the Federal Railroad Administration to
> conduct a full environmental impact statement before approving it.
> Wallace’s study disagreed with the findings in an environmental
> assessment performed by the Northern New England Passenger Rail
> Authority, which found that noise levels from the $12 million
> facility would be below legal limits.
>
> “In all cases, at one or more of the operating levels of the train,
> it will exceed all standards at some level,” Wallace said during a
> Sept. 26 public hearing on the proposed facility. “It will be
> excessively exceeded if you go against a (Department of Environmental
> Protection) standard or a town standard. There is absolutely no
> questions scientifically – not politically, but scientifically – that
> there will be a severe impact from a layover facility located in this
> neighborhood.”
>
> The rail authority, which operates Amtrak’s Downeaster service
> between Brunswick and Boston, wants to build a 655-foot-long building
> between Church and Stanwood streets about one-half mile from the
> Amtrak station to serve as a maintenance and overnight storage
> facility for up to three trains. Although the site has been used as a
> rail yard in the past, it has had limited use in recent decades and
> the residential neighborhood has grown around it.
>
> The Federal Railroad Administration is reviewing whether to accept
> the New England rail authority’s environmental assessment, which
> found no disproportionate effects from the project, or order a more
> detailed – and time-consuming – environmental impact statement.
>
> Wallace acknowledged at a Brunswick Town Council meeting that he has
> submitted plans for a subdivision abutting the site of the proposed
> facility. He filed initial sketch plans for the nine-lot residential
> subdivision with the Brunswick Planning Board in 2011, and they were
> approved in November of that year.
>
> Named Village Crossing, the proposal is a follow-up to a similar plan
> submitted by Wallace in 2005 for 17 condominiums in the same area,
> which the Planning Board also approved. Village Crossing would extend
> Parker’s Way – the road that runs adjacent to the train tracks – and
> form a new cul-de-sac, with the housing lots extending at angles
> outward...

Link to full story:

Conflict emerges in study used by foes of Brunswick rail project



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/14 08:37 by GenePoon.

The tracks were there first. Build someplace else if you don't like the noise.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Charles Wallace of Resource Systems Engineering
> prepared the noise
> study pro bono for the Brunswick West
> Neighborhood Coalition

That's impressive - that Mr Wallace took it upon
himself to do a study that likely would've cost
the government millions of dollars for free!

Did Mr Wallace work hundreds and hundreds of
hours or are million dollars studies simply
overpriced?

Or maybe without political kickbacks and pay-
offs, the costs of such a study reflects a 90%
discount which Mr Wallace was much more able
to foot?

/Mitch

Mgoldman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GenePoon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Charles Wallace of Resource Systems Engineering
> > prepared the noise
> > study pro bono for the Brunswick West
> > Neighborhood Coalition
>
> That's impressive - that Mr Wallace took it upon
> himself to do a study that likely would've cost
> the government millions of dollars for free!
>
> Did Mr Wallace work hundreds and hundreds of
> hours or are million dollars studies simply
> overpriced?
>
> Or maybe without political kickbacks and pay-
> offs, the costs of such a study reflects a 90%
> discount which Mr Wallace was much more able
> to foot?

...or did he do a self-serving half-fast job?

NEPA is complicated, but clear in the requirements.

An environmental study as prescribed by the law requires experts in several disciplines (e.g., air quality, water quality, various kinds of wildlife, noise and vibration, traffic). If the work is challenged, credentials in that specific discipline (not engineering, etc. in general) will be thoroughly questioned. Depending upon the project, a study of Environmental Justice may be required thanks to the use of freeway construction for social engineering in the 50s-60s. I have had to go into very detailed explanations (several - many pages) of the how and why of railroad location in order to prove that it had to be built where we said that it had to be built.

A large number of these people are freelancers or work for small specialty businesses that subcontract to the big engineering companies. Most I know are ordinary working folks who do not fit the stereotype I have seen described here (no BMW, no mansion, no yacht). The work has to be thorough and completely documented because there is a good chance that it will wind up in court, where some opponent group will hire someone to be their expert (or find one who will support their position for free such as Mr. Wallace) and claim that the people who worked on the study are Incompetent Boobs.

The work has to be technically correct yet understandable to the Public At Large. That takes a lot of work. There have been times that I have spent much of a day and occasionally more than a day explaining some element of rail operation here. When working on something similar for a NEPA document, the same explanation may take a couple of weeks because it has to be understood by the general public (kind of like at USA Today level of reading), illustrated for the general public, and stand up to the scrutiny of the experts that the opponents of the project hire and the experts of the regulatory agencies.

Once each discipline has finished its work, it is compiled into a comprehensive document (also not a simple chore because of the wide range of lay to expert audience). There must be public meetings to describe the project and the study work. This requires experts in setting up public meetings (venue, publicity, setup, facilitating). If it isn't done right, opponents will sue, claiming that they didn't have a chance to comment. Public comments are solicited at the meetings. As well, draft documents are printed and circulated to be available for comment. After the comment submission deadline, every comment must be addressed. If all of the homework has been done, it may be as easy as responding from available information (because some folks don't read or listen and will ask something that is answered in the draft or at the meetings). If the public comes up with a question that the original work didn't consider (homework not all complete) then there must be additional work to answer that question. If there are any questions beyond that, they wind up in court. It should be as easy as sorry, you missed the comment deadline but it doesn't work out that way, so the folks that did the work wind up defending it.

The only study work that I have been involved in that involved kickbacks was in a foreign country. We lost the job because we didn't participate in that.

TAW

Thomas, thank you for a complete and fascinating answer.

Thomas: Great reply!

Yes, thank you Thomas for that great description. I watched closely as our local sanitation sewer district dealt with designing and locating a new sewage treatment plant in our community, and I saw them go through all the processes you described. You should be thankful you are in the railroad business and not the sewage treatment business! After one public meeting, I really felt sorry for the engineering people who were trying to explain to the angry crowd that the facility had to be located near our town and not out in rural west Texas because this is where the sewage was generated.