Who didn’t think it would come to this? The Environmental Protection Information Center, Friends of the Eel and Californians for Alternatives to Toxins, as well as two Marin County environmental groups, today announced their intention to file an amicus brief in the City of Novato’s lawsuit against the North Coast Railroad Authority.
The environmental groups’ brief does not open new issues but focuses on three legal issues raised by the City’s writ: (1) the application of CEQA’s statute of limitations; (2) NCRA’s failure to consider the environmental impacts of the “whole project,” and its adoption of an unlawful pattern and practice of segmenting environmental review; and (3) NCRA’s inappropriate reliance on inapplicable exemptions from CEQA.
According to the brief, the groups have a collective interest in protection and restoration of the natural environment and resources currently being harmed by the actions of the NCRA as well as sharing a strong commitment to the purposes and procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act. Among the resource issues, the brief says, are the Eel River’s threatened steelhead and salmon fisheries, possible toxic chemical releases from the rail operation, and rail’s potential connection to other destructive industries such as gravel mining.
The case goes to trial Dec. 12. And this is yet another demonstration of the fact that even if the NCRA does win the case, it still loses. Because it has irretrievably pissed off not only the County of Marin — the richest county in the United States of America — but some truly fearsome enviro orgs, ones that aren’t known to walk away from a fight. And the NCRA has no plans and no budget for taking on such a fight — a fight that anyone with half an interest in the subject knew was inevitable.
Still think that the trains will return by 2011?
UPDATE: And now comes word that the County of Marin voted to join Novato’s lawsuit today. More as it comes.
This article appears in Holiday Gift Guide 2007.
Last I heard, it goes to trail on the 11th, not the 12th.
Historically it has always been separated in to North and South segments.
Number of trains, They have historically had 114 just passenger trains per week. Plus add much longer freight trains, think 100+ at times. How is 32 freight trains, up to 60 cars, earth shattering? It’s not.
Why should they add an environmental review for every possible project, that could use the train? That can work with passenger trains, but not with wide ranging estimates for freight.
I’ve thought of doing a Thermodepolymerization plant up here. IE convert just about anything in to oil. Does that mean NCRA should have to do an EIR on that possibly too?
NCRA is on legal ground regarding it’s exemptions. On one hand NCRA is hated for being so slow, and the other for not bowing to every group and their whims.
Also, crossings, it has never been the responsibility of the railroad to upgrade the crossings. It has been that of the city, state, fed etc.
You’re kind of missing the point here in multiple ways at once, Cap.
Then why, as per the lawsuit and every public meeting of the NCRA that’s taken place in Humboldt County, does the NCRA insist that it needs to entire line operational to be financially viable?
Obviously they shouldn’t have to. But they should be up-front about what sort of freight projections they do have. When the NCRA tells the California Transportation Commission that it has plans to ship 1,000 containers per day out the Port of Humboldt Bay, in addition to untold amounts of gravel, and all by 2011, then those numbers should be taken into account. That would be Marin’s contention, anyway.
That’s right. Some people think that the authority is government boondoggle and a terminal waste of public funds, and others think that what it’s trying to accomplish is totally undesirable. Some people think both.
Don’t like it? I don’t know what to tell you, except that this is grown-up world and you have to deal with them both.
Believe me, if Marin County doesn’t want to pay for railroad crossing upgrades, it’s not going to pay for them. Their assemblymember made sure of that in the bill that Schwarzenegger vetoed. Think he’s going to go away?
The main thing you’re missing is that this is a public agency, and one whose mission statement has become unpopular almost completely across the board.
When everything existed in cloud cuckoo land, no one got pissed except the taxpayer league types who saw millions of public dollars poured down the drain. But now it’s started to impinge on the reality-based community, here and in Marin, and people are saying “Enough.”
“Then why, as per the lawsuit and every public meeting of the NCRA that’s taken place in Humboldt County, does the NCRA insist that it needs to entire line operational to be financially viable?”
Bull, not every public meetings, have said that. The operator said he can operate the southern end profitable without the gravel deal at Island Mountain. For instance, if your review the video of the meeting that we both went to in Eureka, they state that the southern end was looked at as being viable even if nothing north of willits ever happened.
“That’s right. Some people think that the authority is government boondoggle and a terminal waste of public funds, and others think that what it’s trying to accomplish is totally undesirable. Some people think both.
Don’t like it? I don’t know what to tell you, except that this is grown-up world and you have to deal with them both.”
Some people think the railroad is needed. I resent your continuing to refer to me as a child or child like thoughts. I’ve been to many places, around the world. As a citizen of the area the railroad affects, I have a right to voice my opinion, and try and get things to the way I think is best.
My point is NCRA has a small staff, not everything can be done, at least at a drop of the hat. NCRA was never funded properly in the 1st place.
“Believe me, if Marin County doesn’t want to pay for railroad crossing upgrades, it’s not going to pay for them. Their assemblymember made sure of that in the bill that Schwarzenegger vetoed. Think he’s going to go away?”
Who then pays? NCRA doesn’t have enough money to implement quite zones.
Funny thing is, most letter to the editor, and Novato’s own newspaper penned an opinion, questioning Novato’s lawsuit. So I have to question the “unpopular almost completely across the board.” Unpopular, yes.
My thing is you keep saying I’m missing the point, when I read the southern newspapers everyday. I see the opposition.
That’s from the lawsuit. That’s where Marin is coming from. You’re saying that NCRA has magically changed its mind all of a sudden? Based on…?
Yes, I know. I don’t deny that, or that it’s valid. You have no idea how much it will cost to reopen the railroad, or where that money will come from, or what it will do once it gets here, or how to deal with the people who don’t want what you want, but you think it’s needed. That’s fine.
You’re an interest group like any other. Except that — sorry to say it — you’re much smaller and weaker, largely because you haven’t answered the above questions and you get mightily stewed at anyone who asks them. But they’ve got a right to exist as much as you do. This is a public asset we’re talking about.
I don’t know, Cap. You seem like a nice guy. I don’t quite know how to ram it through your skull that your cause is already lost. So I have to watch you continue to embarrass yourself by waving that flag and spitting on the sane folks. It’s like an Alfred Hitchcock movie where Grandpa died 10 years ago but the family’s still thinking about what to make him for dinner.
You see the opposition?
OK, dude: So you’ve got NCRA Counsel Chris Neary versus the County of Marin, the City of Novato, EPIC, Friends of the Eel, etc. You’ve got Marcus Brown versus this guy.
You’ve got an empty bank account versus the geology of the Eel River Canyon. You’ve got a rotten dock versus the Ports of Ensenada and Prince Rupert. You’ve got John Woolley versus Arnold Schwarzenegger.
You a betting man, at all?
Review the meeting. I just did, before responding. About 19 minutes in.
Spitting on the Sane folks? I haven’t yet seen a time line of rail banking/rails to trails VS rails with trails. In order to have a discussion, this also has to be solved.
I haven’t yet seen a viable plan to replace timber, port, etc with living wage jobs.
Despite all the high priced lawyer’s even you have hinted that NCRA could win this lawsuit. I have simply presented reasons it may do so. It isn’t enough that a person/group thinks it has reason to do a lawsuit. It has to prove it.
Majority of the people at the NCRA meeting were pro rail and at a good turn out. The sad is the little turn out, of down South.
[…] under: NCRA, Railroad I point out this article, because the top concern is traffic again, and yet they are jumping on the bandwagon of Novato’s Lawsuit against NCRA. Enabling the railroad with both freight and passenger will help traffic, cut pollution. The lawsuit […]
Emphasis on “viable.” No, you haven’t.
But even if it wins, it loses. That’s a teaser for this week’s “Town Dandy”!
Thanks Hank for reasonable and metered response to Lawrence.
BTW – Didn’t see any mention of the NCRA in the CTC’s latest round of funding:
Northern Calif. garners $ 840M for freight routes
” The guidelines give a range of $640 million to $840 million, or 26-28 percent, to Northern Cali fornia, where Sacramento, San Joaquin Valley and Bay Area offi cials banded together to lobby for a menu of $857 million in projects. The list includes a $325 million truck-train terminal at the Port of Oakland and $315 million worth of improvements to Union Pacific tracks between Richmond and Martinez, each to be half privately funded, along with opening rail tunnels through Donner Pass to allow double- stacked container cars.”
Railfans on the NCRA
Yes, that Altamont Press board is an interesting place.
Hank, have you seen a viable plan to replace the port, timber?
Replacing the port? You mean jobs at the port? Dude, we’re talking one to two ships a month, right? For one thing, they’re still getting the ships. For another, there’s not a whole lot of people who depend on them.
Lost timber jobs is a bigger deal, of course. A big huge massive deal. I happen to think the county has it right with Prosperity. At least I’ve never seen a plan that made more sense.
This quote from the just released Redwood Marine Terminal Feasibility Study says a lot:
“There is concern about the adequacy of a restored North Coast rail infrastructure to efficiently service high volume and time sensitive intermodal container markets beyond California. ? These concerns include: sufficient train bypass sidings; frequency of weather disruptions; number of grade level crossings; ability to accommodate 7,000 to 8,000-foot unit trains; movement of trains including night traffic through Eureka and other communities along the rail corridor. In addition, there is concern over interaction with other rail traffic (freight and passenger rail traffic) and if priority will be given to intermodal container trains. ? Potential port users would be concerned about the ability of the local and regional rail system to accommodate the surge of import intermodal rail traffic at the same time as handling the return flow of export containers by rail for loading on the ship. Each call by a 6,000 TEU transpacific container ship that discharges and loads all its cargo at Humboldt Bay (3,000 import and 3,000 export containers) would generate 24 unit trains (12 import trains and 12 export trains assuming 250 containers per unit train).”
“Replacing the port?”
How can you replace something that does not exsist?
“Each call by a 6,000 TEU transpacific container ship that discharges and loads all its cargo at Humboldt Bay (3,000 import and 3,000 export containers) would generate 24 unit trains (12 import trains and 12 export trains assuming 250 containers per unit train).””
Now that assumes that the trains are double decker, and that you have the sidage needed for such long trains. Since the tunnels are not tall enough and the sidages arent long enough this assumption is false. You should assume more cost or more trains. Or both.