> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sal Sunshine > Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:49 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: WHAT WILL FAIRFIELD IOWA LOOK LIKE BY > THE END OF 2007? > > On Jan 27, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Rick Archer wrote: > > > I agree with you, except for the train whistles point. That's an > > inconvenience to many, and especially to the financially > > disadvantaged, who tend to live nearer the tracks. It would enhance > > the quality of life in the town to silence those whistles. > > Rick, that's misleading. The *only* people pushing it are hard-core > TMers,
I'm not pushing it, but I'm in favor of it. I'm not a hard-core TMer, as you know. >everybody else is fine with it, including long-time home owners > living right next to the tracks. I know people who live near the tracks who aren't fine with it, so "everybody" is too absolute a term. > It's no better or worse than whistles > anywhere else in the US. There's nothing inherent about FF that makes > the whistles louder. True, but many communities have installed the equipment to eliminate the whistles. They must have had their reasons, and from what I've read, they were happy with the decision. > Masquerading as somehow protecting the poor, when > the TMO has a history of caring less about anyone not wealthy, is > really dishonest. Anyone of those TMers pushing this knew when they > bought their houses that they were near the tracks. And they could > easily move. For me it's not a TM issue. If TMers are pushing it, that's coincidental. Or maybe they're fussy. I don't care. Train whistles are not a life or death issue for me. I just think that silencing them would be one more thing which would enhance the quality of life here. Of course, if we wait long enough and alternative energies really take off, so that we stop burning coal, there will be very few trains coming through, so the issue will be moot. > > A few years ago when this came up, at least one of the city council > members went to a lot of trouble to get information (a lot more trouble > than anyone who was pushing it, as far as I knew) and they were given a > very thorough and fair hearing from the Council who then voted. It was > determined that the huge inconvenience and expense to nearly the entire > town, including many closed streets that everyone uses, would not be > worth whatever the benefit in noise reduction might be. I'm sure you > remember that. I do, but from what I understand of the current effort, the expense wouldn't be that great. Bill Blackmore is coming up with some clever ideas for covering it. And only one or two seldom-used streets would be closed.
