OnTRRAAC Newsletter - January 09, 2009

The Official TRRAAC.com Email News Update

For Your Neighbors and You to Share

TRRAAC’s response to the Franklin & Marshall/Lancaster General Hospital Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), Volume II –of 12/18/08

By now you should have received the most recent FAQ from F&M and LGH. We'd like to apprise you of some highly pertinent information that has not been publicized by the Project Partners:

PennDOT DID NOT APPROVE F&M’S REQUEST FOR $9.2 MILLION, BECAUSE THE PROJECT WAS NEITHER 'READY TO GO' NOR DID IT CONTRIBUTE THE SAME LEVEL OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS OTHER COMPETING PROJECTS. THIS LACK OF FUNDING COULD DELAY OR HALT THIS PROJECT AS IT NOW STANDS.

To clarify a number of issues raised in the FAQ…

· First and foremost, please keep in mind TRRAAC's primary concern: We need an independent evaluation of TRRAAC's alternative site. TRRAAC asked LGH/F&M to fund this, but the request was denied. In addition, TRRAAC asked LGH/F&M for a copy of the original engineering report for ALL the alternative sites reviewed by Gannett Fleming. This request was also denied.


· After Gannett Fleming rejected TRRAAC's first two suggested alternative locations, we hired a senior railroad engineering consultant with R.L. Banks and Associates. A former Norfolk Southern engineer, he visited the Dillerville Rail Yard, spoke with representatives at the June 19th meeting and examined documents to determine other site feasibility. He recommended a feasible alternate site configuration for the rail yard. TRRAAC would like that site configuration to be INDEPENDENTLY evaluated.

· In August 2008 TRRAAC met with PennDOT officials in Lancaster. They listened to our concerns, and saw the current and proposed sites. We asked them to consider funding an independent evaluation of all potential rail yard sites.

· On December 11, 2008, TRRAAC members met in Harrisburg with PennDOT’s grant coordinator. He informed us that PennDOT did not approve F&M’s request for $9.2 million, because the project was neither 'ready to go' nor did it contribute the same level of economic development as other competing projects. At that time, we repeated our request that PennDOT or the Governor’s office fund an independent study of TRRAAC’s alternative site configuration.

· Because many residents objected to the restrictive and biased format of the June 19 Public Meeting, the Manheim Township Commissioners asked F&M and LGH to participate in a second meeting in Manheim Township on November 13. At that meeting, attendees were allowed to ask questions ONLY about the remediation of the dump. F&M’s attorney rejected all other questions.

· When attendees asked that another public meeting be held to allow them to ask questions on all aspects of the rail yard project, LGH remained silent and F&M’s Keith Orris asked that any questions not related to the remediation be sent to him in writing.

· In the FAQ document, the Project Partners propose holding small “living room meetings” rather than the large open public meetings that most area residents have clearly said that they prefer. Large public meetings, without topic restrictions, allow everyone to hear the same questions and concerns expressed, and answers provided, without any bias. This format also allows for a greater variety and more open exchange of ideas than "living room" meetings permit.

· It took several months and repeated requests by TRRAAC's environmental engineer to get from F&M the results of the impulse noise studies, which were received by him only hours before the November 13 meeting. These results are still being challenged as an inadequate analysis of the rail yard noise we will actually live with after project construction.

· In a December 9 meeting, LGH executives advised TRRAAC that, due to concerns they heard at the 11/13 meeting, they were pursuing a second opinion about the dump remediation and potential health consequences. In a December 17 follow-up meeting, no results of that second opinion were reported, but the following day, one of those LGH executives signed the FAQ, which includes an impending remediation schedule. When will the results of that second opinion be made public?

· The projected cost of this project has now crept up to $46 million! The well-endowed F&M and highly profitable LGH plan to contribute only $6 million each, and Norfolk Southern only $2 million. Your hard-earned taxpayer dollars ($32 million in local and federal tax dollars) will be used toward the controversial cleanup of an old dump and rail yard relocation. We believe TRRAAC's alternative site configuration will be much less expensive.

What can you do?

1. Call the Governor's office and PennDOT and urge them to fund an independent evaluation of TRRAAC's alternative site. (If you haven’t done so yet, now’s the time!! If you’ve already done so, do it again!!) Call the Office of Public Liaison at (717) 787-5825. Email PennDot’s Eric Madden at emadden@state.pa.us and Denise Pyers at dpyers@state.pa.us.

2. Phone or email F&M and LGH and insist that, in the spirit of openness and transparency, they agree to hold a third Public Meeting, moderated by an independent party, in which the attendees may ask questions on any aspect of the project. In addition, ask for firm responses as to WHY Gannett Fleming determined TRRAAC’s alternative site configuration not feasible.

Contact Jan Bergen of LGH at (717) 544-1115. Email: jlbergen@LancasterGeneral.org

Contact Keith Orris of F&M at (717) 291-3868. Email: KEITH.ORRIS@FANDM.EDU

3. Donate money to TRRAAC to enable them to continue their legal, environmental and community awareness efforts.

4. Get involved with TRRAAC. Volunteer your time.

And here’s what no one but TRRAAC wants you to know:

Norfolk Southern has the power to alter agreements once they have taken possession of land for a rail yard. They can expand their activities in terms of hours of operation, numbers of diesel locomotives and rail cars, AND in land use. If they find that they do not have enough land AFTER they have built a rail yard, they have the ability to secure any additional land needed to achieve what they consider to be optimal operation through eminent domain. In this case, they could actually expand onto property even closer to our neighborhoods AFTER the rail yard is built.

The time has come for action from those neighborhoods which will be most disturbed by the continuous coupling noise, safety, pollution and a decline in quality of life and property values that a nearby rail yard could cause. To date, a relatively small group of neighbors has been carrying the weight of opposing this location for the good of all the neighborhoods. Although TRRAAC has received many donations from concerned neighbors – some of whom desire to remain anonymous - we can no longer depend on just these neighbors to carry the burden that should be shared by everyone. It is just not fair to expect some to contribute all the time, effort and funds while others sit back idly and watch, expecting others to cover for them.

If you choose to do nothing, and the rail yard goes in as F&M and LGH plan, it will be too late for recourse. You will not have any ‘say’ when there are hazardous material spills that cause evacuations, nor when the rail yard debris and trash leach onto our properties, nor when a child wanders onto the tracks. Complacency and inertia now may well lead to irrevocable damage to our health, our quality of life and our property values.

Please act now, before it's too late.

TRRAAC
P. O. Box 4155
Lancaster, PA 17604-4155