[ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]
Hon. Mayor and councilmembers, et al.
Under "Quiet Zone Progress" it seems that justice was served when the railroads were required to pay the city $10,000 for each property within 100 feet of the tracks for mitigation measures for railside residents.
However, the environmental impact study of the Federal Railroad Aministration determined that there was a"severe" impact of horns on residents 660' of the trains. It would seem fair to consider protection for residences within that range.
Years ago, I recall that the Surface Transportation Board of one state required compensation be paid directly to the residents for damages of increased trains.
Certainly, with plans for vastly increased commuter and freight traffic there should not be additional housing built within those limits and those existing without current noise abatement measures should be protected and compensated.
It has been pointed out repeatedly that the train engineers have the discretion to blast the horns in emergencies and, even with quiet zones, the burden will be upon the residents to prove that the train drivers didn't see a pussy cat on the tracks!
The engineers have testified before the boards, have written letters and have generally made it clear that they want electrification and grade separations as the ultimate safety measure. They state that leaning on the horn is ingrained in their heads - they don't want to have to curb their natural instinct to push that button, especially only in certain places where confusion will set in. There is also the question of liability. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Reprimands have been made along the Caltrain tracks when the engineers don't blow the horns loud enough (within 96 to 110 dbs.) Presently, the gates are activated by the horns in stations and if not loud enough the gates will not operate.
Gate arms have come down and damaged vehicles which have stopped dead suddenly from unexpected illegal intrusion into their path by pedestrians, bicyclists, other side street vehicles including stretch buses out of the bus and transit hub on Merrill. To this end I would recommend that everyone read the vehicle code carefully. It is not legal to suddenly step, ride or drive into traffic.
The time to challenge the increased air/ noise polluting trains and horns was when the illegitimate baby bullet was horn (with its parent (the bullet train of high speed rail in a coma). As stated before it should have been aborted at its conception. Increasing and racing 79 mph heavy diesel locomotives through unfenced, unseparated, congested cities required an e.i.r. The railroad failed to do this, the cities embraced the perceived added service and the railside residents have been the sacrificial lambs This illustrates the case for grade separations where funding is available.
There have been numerous requests for the unearthing of the petition filed by the residents and this is a request for the El Camino Real Visioning Committee to obtain a Noise Contour Map of the city required by the state of California for its Noise Element of the General Plan. This shows in red a line along the railroad tracks in other cities. Development in Menlo Park along the east side of El Camino will back up to the railroad and be severely impacted by its inherent pollution.
Arlinda Heineck points out that the city council must request this noise contour map. I know that the Dumbarton residents have also requested that all the Caltrain noise studies be obtained. (Noise 101 follows). Perhaps the city is able to send someone to the classes in Santa Clara Feb 19-20, '08.
This should be the number one priority immediately. Not next year or the one after. It is clear that when it comes to the railroad our city staff and management doesn't want to go there. Will this city council exert its power and demand answers and mitigation for the main line?
Margaret Petitjean, Menlo Park
Citizens for Noise Abatement
Homeowners Against Loud Trains (H.A.L.T)
Halt Outrageous Railroad Noise (H.O.R.N)
attached mail follows:
http://www.olmstedfalls.org/quietzone.html Received on Sun Feb 17 13:31:54 2008
[ Home ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ] [ 05/06 Archive ]
Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council@menlopark.org email address. The posting process is automated and can cause formatting issues when viewed from the website. File attachments sent to this address can be viewed as a link from the main message body. Please note the City Council is also copied on each correspondence. This site can be viewed by the public and sorted by subject, date, author or message thread. The email address of the sender is not disclosed for security purposes. It is the City's practice to remove SPAM (Unsolicited Bulk Email) email from the Council email log. If you believe your email has been removed in error, please contact the City at ccin.log@menlopark.org.