Laserfiche WebLink
<br />10 Road crossing signals will be excessive and disruptive to an otherwise quite azea. We <br />moved from Clifton to be away from the noise of the tracks, now you are planning to allow <br />them in our backyazd. In Clifton there was vegetation and numerous trees to absorb the <br />sound. Here there is none of that. Can the rail road be bermed? Can you require mature <br />landscaping to be put in place to buffer the sound? <br />The proposed crossings at10 Road and at R Road will restrict vehicular access by <br />emergency vehicles and school busses. If 10 Road is blocked, the only way to access the <br />upper 10 Road area is to proceed to 8 Road, then north to R Road, then east to 9 Road, then <br />north to T Road and east to 10 Road. In time-critical situations, this will unacceptably <br />increase the response time of emergency vehicles to upper 10 Road. This intersection has <br />low visibility, is very curvy. <br />And I am concerned that the trains will take Ionger than the allotted time to cross <br />these roads. How will this time factor be dealt with? How much time aze they allowed to <br />block an intersection? Maintenance Road or access road, is it 12 feet wide or 20 to 24 feet <br />wide, what will be required to control the dust since there will be water pipeline along this rail, <br />will it be used to suppress the dust? How will we be able to access BLM lands on both sides of <br />the rail line? The trails and the existing roads? <br />Consideration should be given to measures which will reduce or eliminate noise and <br />view problems and emergency response issues. Screening the track on the north side using <br />foliage and/or berms or lowering the track into the ground may reduce the view and noise <br />problems. Constructing grade separated crossings at 10 Road and R. Road will eliminate <br />the noise associated with the crossing signals and the approach horns of the trains and will <br />eliminate emergency vehicle response problems by keeping the roads open. <br />We expect that the CAM response to these measures will be that the expense is not <br />justified by the limited number of trains (we understand that CAM proposes 1.9 trains per <br />day). We also understand that CAM has requested permits to explore for additional coal <br />reserves in the azea of the mine. Our expectation is that the number of trains will increase <br />over time and that the impacts will increase with them. It will be difficult and more <br />expensive to retrofit the crossings later. CAM is spending a considerable amount of money <br />on this railroad spur and the spur should be constructed to minimize the impacts initially. <br />Sincerely, <br />~~. <br />j ." <br />~t_- <br />Debby LoekelJ <br />1 <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />LJ <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />