Sunday, October 30, 2005

In Oct. 30th Letters to the Editor Sun Herald

Michael Barefield maintains the tracks could be moved without displacing homes. Too bad he is living in La La Land. The GOVERNMENT funded a study in 2000 at taxpayer expense http://makingtracks.org/. According to the engineers, who one can only hope knew what they were talking about considering the obscene amount of money they received, the median of I-10 is not suitable for railroad tracks 1.) It isn't big enough and 2.) The interstate curves too abruptly and railroad tracks have to go in a mostly straight line, with only gentle curves.He also maintains it wouldn't coast the federal government a dime to relocate the CSX rails there, not true! While the federal government already owns the land and would not have to purchase it CSX has no intention of relocating out of the goodness of their hearts, on the contrary they expect the government to foot the bill for the new rails.

He is also completely ignoring the land that would have to be purchased and the homes that would have to be destroyed in order for the railroad to create spurs to its customers on the coast (you know that industrial park he mentions).He does mention building overpasses and underpasses, but neglects the fact that they could be built at the railroads present location and achieve the same thing. "The trains could cross Mississippi without ever blowing a whistle or reducing speed for crossings." Why everyone is so determined to ignore the possibility of building overpasses or underpasses at the railroads present location is beyond me as this would prevent traffic from having to wait for trains to cross, prevent train-vehicle accidents, avoid delays in commerce and prevent anyone’s home from being destroyed in order to relocate the train.

Perhaps a better question to ask is why the powers that be will not tell anyone where they want to relocate the rails too. They just reply with a vague North of the Interstate, when questioned. Could it be because they fear the huge outcry from the residents who would lose their homes if they choose the route the government study favored? Could it be because they fear the huge outcry from taxpayers when they discover what the cost would be to take these peoples homes away from them by eminent domain?

No comments: