Impact assessment highlights noise, not vibration

Note: “Impact Unpacked” is a series on the findings of a draft environmental statement from regulators on the proposed merger between the Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern railways. This article is the second of the series.

WASHINGTON — While most topics analyzed by the STB’s recently released draft environmental impact statement were classified as minor, temporary or localized concerns, one issue is likely to be pervasive across the multinational freight route: noise. The Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) concluded it would be a big deal.

“OEA does not expect that the Proposed Acquisition would cause individual trains on those rail lines to become substantially louder or to become audible in places where they are not currently,” the report said. “However, the projected increase in rail traffic from the Proposed Acquisition would make rail-related noise more frequent, which would result in a higher day-night average noise level at many receptors.”

As with many issues highlighted by the document the concern is great in Southeast Iowa, where companies expect the biggest jump in train traffic as a result of the merger, an average increase of 14.41 trains per day by 2027.

Thousands of Iowans can expect noisier days from train traffic

The assessment is primarily interested in the impact on noise-sensitive receptors like schools, places of worship, retirement communities, libraries, hospitals and residences, where ambient background noise is typically (and ideally) low.

Regulators identify an “annoyance threshold” for noise, defined as the point when a noise level increases by at least 3 dBA from a passing train, and brings the daily average loudness levels to at least 65 dBA, combined with existing background noise. For reference, that’s about as loud as a typical conversation, on average throughout the day.

Currently, the OEA identifies 373 noise-sensitive receptors at that threshold from Muscatine to Ottumwa. Post merger, that number would climb to 1,020 as traffic more frequently raises the volume.

Of the four counties identified as the most adversely effected by noise, three are in Iowa: Clinton, Scott and Muscatine. The fourth is Orange County, Texas.

“OEA’s analysis found that the Proposed Acquisition would result in adverse noise impacts at a total of 6,307 (additional) receptors,” the impact statement said. “Many of those receptors are near at-grade crossings where there are higher noise levels and a generally higher density of receptors.”

Regulators less concnerned by vibration

While vibrations from passing trains can be an annoyance, it is often overshadowed by sound, which travels further and affects more people.

Still vibrations were an area of concern for many stakeholders along the tracks, not as a nuisance but as a possible source of property damage.

“Last month we spent $200,000.00 on tuck pointing due to the vibration from the trains,” read one public comment on the environmental impact from a Muscatine resident. “Large pieces of the facade fell off the building. Increasing the volume of train traffic will have a detrimental effect on infrastructure along the riverfront and possibly further into downtown.”

Regulators, however, said vibrations were not a major concern.

“Most modern buildings without plaster have a vibration threshold of 0.5 inches per second, while some historic buildings that are particularly susceptible to vibration damage have a lower threshold of 0.12 inches per second,” the impact assessment said. “Vibrations caused by passing trains are generally not nearly strong enough to cause damage to even the most susceptible buildings.”

Disruptive sound has implications for environmental justice

For every aspect of the environmental report, OEA takes a second consideration in the context of environmental justice, evaluating whether changes will have a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged groups like minority populations, low-income areas, and American Indian tribes.

The sole item reviewers considered a potential environmental justice issue was noise.

“Noise from the projected increased rail traffic would be the only type of impact that could potentially result in high and adverse impacts on EJ populations,” the document said. “Impacts other than noise from increased rail traffic would not be above generally accepted norms, and thus do not warrant an evaluation.”

In the big picture, transportation officials said the merger would not have major environmental justice impacts. Of 165 census block groups deemed to experience adverse noise impacts, as many as 51 may constitute environmental justice groups, according to the impact assessment.

“Although OEA determined that noise would affect certain EJ populations, noise impacts would not be disproportionately borne by those EJ populations,” the packet said. “Most receptors that would experience adverse noise impacts are located in non-EJ populations.”

The picture changes, however, at a local scale. For some communities, including Washington, Columbus Junction and Muscatine, the report said most adversely affected receptors were, in fact, located in EJ block groups. The same is true for around 20% of communities impacted by the merger.

“For some communities … most of the adversely affected receptors are located within EJ block groups,” the packet said. “However, for the vast majority of communities … most of the adversely affected receptors are located in non-EJ block groups.”

Based on the other 80% of communities, OEA concluded that environmental justice was not a top concern with the proposed merger.

“Although the Proposed Acquisition would affect low-income populations and minority populations, including Native American tribes, impacts on those populations would be similar to or less than the impacts experienced by non-EJ populations,” the impact statement said.

Some mitigation measures suggested

The Office of Environmental Analysis has suggested some mitigation measures to the railways to reduce the noise impact of traffic jumps from a merger.

The list includes basic rail maintenance, lubricating some curves in the tracks, and “promptly respond(ing) to community inquiries concerning the establishment of quiet zones and assist(ing) communities in identifying measures, methods, or technologies that may enable those communities to establish quiet zones.”

That said, quiet zones may not be a fix-all.

For one, the OEA said it would be impossible to completely negate a merger’s noise impacts.

“Even if the Board imposes these mitigation measures, however, OEA expects that the Proposed Acquisition would result in unavoidable adverse noise impacts,” the statement said.

For another, the zones are expensive investments, requiring $250-$350,000 of infrastructure per crossing to ensure they remain safe without blaring horns before trains come through. Communities in southeast Iowa have already signaled hesitation about the price point at previous meetings with railway and government officials.

The rail companies have already stated plans to help maintain quiet zones in communities that already have them, according to the packet’s voluntary mitigation measures.

“Applicants will fund the improvements necessary to allow any potentially affected community with an existing Quiet Zone to maintain that designation should the increase in merger related train traffic cause that community to fall out of compliance with FRA regulations,” the voluntary measure reads.

Still, the applicants have yet to commit to any new quiet zone projects. None of the 25 capital improvements planned to facilitate merger traffic include quiet zones. Some state officials don’t expect them to change that plan in the future barring a funding boost.

“They’re a private business whose goal is to make a profit,” Iowa DOT Railroad Crossings Program Manager Kris Klop said in an April meeting with Washington community representatives. “If they’re constantly doing these types of projects, that kind of cuts into their bottom line, that’s the realistic consequence.”

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com