This issue seems amusing to me because I don't really see how the city or
the residents have any bargaining power over the railroad and the Inquirer
doesn't really present the concerns that the railroad has to deal with.
Definitely neither "Fair" nor "Balanced." But then, that's the Inquirer.
The railroad was there before the park was (the tracks date back to the
1800s) and that the railroad is under no obligation to allow anyone to cross
its tracks. I've heard people advocating the installation of "pedestrian
crossing gates" to protect the public from the freight trains that use that
corridor. The problem probably comes down to money. Generally the railroad
has to pay for the upkeep of such equipment and I can understand why CSX
isn't interested in another piece of physical plant to maintain. If they do
allow access, as soon as somebody gets killed by walking across the tracks,
some lawyer will sue CSX for not protecting the public who were crossing
their tracks.
Law suits are the simple crux of the matter.
The City could have as many grade crossing as they wanted as long as the City was willing to accept the Liability and Indemnify CSX for any "accidents" which happen at the crossings.
Just as it is NOT possible to "protect" pedestrians from the two to three
tons of steel in an automobile while they cross the street -- stop signs,
traffic lights, pedestrian signals or not (think 34th and Walnut) --
"protecting" the public from 90 tons of locomotive can only be accomplished
by either installing a Cop there 24/7 or prohibiting the access.
The big difference is that the body of "liability" Law in the United States
today has allowed the City and State to avoid any kind of financial
responsibility for traffic "accidents," while viewing a corporation, such
as CSX, as "deep pockets," ripe for a Class Action Law suit.
Railroads in general view grade crossings dimly and are working to eliminate
as many as possible these days. Amtrak is closing the last of its crossings
on the Main Line with their projects to increase speeds between Harrisburg
and Philadelphia both for safety and cost reasons. SEPTAs position on grade
crossings is that a township generally cannot open a new grade crossing
without closing an older one first, even on suspended branches that haven't
seen a train in 20+ years! Another benefit of living in this sue-happy
society of ours.
This is the position of EVERY traffic safety organization. Grade Crossings
are inherently accidents waiting to happen. In legal terms they are what
is called an "attractive nuisance." Lawyers love them. Instant revenue.
The public routinely ignores ALL aspects of rail safety. One need only look
at the well-worn paths AROUND the fences installed along the Main Line at
stations to "prevent" people from crossing the tracks.
I've gotta side with the railroad on this one, as much as I like parkland
and think that a railroad isn't the best use for the bank of the river. I
would rather see the railroad continue to haul the garbage, however, than
the hundreds of trucks that would fill the expressway if the trains no
longer operated.
Of course, the "optimal" solution to the problem is the same thing as was
done with I95 in Old City... burry it.
But that was never considered by the proponents of the Riverside park ...
it would simply have made the cost prohibitive.
T.T.F.N. William H. Magill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
