Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> I~ '" <br /> - <br /> ( <br /> , <br /> I ... Mr.Richard M.Johnson <br /> Page 2 <br /> February 7, ~996 <br /> I Up to 6 trains per day wait at a standstill over this area for <br /> clearance orders. A grade crossing would allow only a ~o minute <br /> period of time in which a standing train can block the crossing. This <br /> I would affect train operations unacceptably. <br /> Grade crossings are difficult areas to maintain track geometry and <br /> would increase maintenance costs on this district. <br /> I The initial costs of building a grade crossing would include <br /> construction of grade crossing surface, approximately $35,000, and <br /> I signal construction expense of approximately $~OO,OOO for flashing <br /> light signals with half roadway gates. These costs would be borne by <br /> the roadway authority. <br /> , Finally, under the public safet~ initiative regarding Highway-rail <br /> Crossing Elimination and Consolldation, sponsored by the U.S. <br /> Department of Transportation, all state DOT's and railroads have been <br /> encouraged to attempt to close up to 25 percent of existing at-grade <br /> I crossings. The establishment of a new grade crossin~ to replace this <br /> bridge will be opposed by the railroad. The Cornmissloner of <br /> Trans~ortation, whose approval is re9Uired to establish a new grade <br /> crosslng, will consider this factor In his decision. <br /> I ... Again, the CP Rail System is in favor of retaining a grade separation <br /> at Cleveland Avenue. <br /> I Sincerely, <br /> ~tJ.~ <br /> I Charles W. Anderson <br /> Engineer of Public Works <br /> CWA:cbd <br /> , mc: G U Mentjes <br /> E E Howard <br /> E N Peck <br /> I P J Nugent <br /> D T Koerner <br /> J C Thomas <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I . <br /> I <br /> ---.-------- <br />