[RP TownTalk] Cafritz mailing

[Alan K. Thompson]

CSX Policy:

New Crossings:

The railroad, in its commitment to employee and public safety, is firmly
opposed to the establishment of any grade crossing. Both federal and state
government policies discourage the creation of new grade crossings. In
seeking to carry out this policy, both the U.S. Department of
Transportation and state agencies have adopted programs to eliminate grade
crossings by constructing bridges or by diverting traffic to existing
overhead, subgrade or at-grade crossings. CSX fully supports these policies
and programs. We strongly urge you to find an alternate means of access –
examine the prospect of providing a bridge – instead of applying for a
grade crossing.

Full story at
http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/customers/non-freight-services/propertyreal-estate/grade-crossing-policy/

Alan

On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Bruce Wernek <bruce.wernek at verizon.net>wrote:

> A possible alternative would be to build an at grade crossing.  Given the
> funding problems associated with a bridge over the RR tracks, it may be
> easier to convince CSX that an at grade crossing is the only viable option.
>
> Bruce
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: towntalk-bounces at riverdale-park.org
> [mailto:towntalk-bounces at riverdale-park.org] On Behalf Of Joe Kelly
> Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2012 12:39 PM
> To: towntalk at riverdale-park.org
> Subject: [RP TownTalk] Cafritz mailing
>
> The recent mailing soliciting support for the Cafritz Property addresses
> the matter of a CSX crossing as if it were a done deal. It is time that
> all of us take the blinders off about that part of the proposal. There
> are four possible sources of funding: the developer, the University of
> Maryland, the county, and the state.
>
> Contrary to popular belief, Jane and Calvin Cafritz are not going to
> pull out their personal checkbook to build this development. To make
> their vision come true, they will need to amass a group of investors. To
> do that, they must provide an estimated rate of return on the
> investment. The Cafritzes cannot possibly agree to funding the bridge
> before they line up their investors because costs would be too high to
> be attractive. Attempting to secure the money from investors later in
> the process would be even more difficult. If the return on investment
> comes as promised, why would investors spend more after their initial
> investment? If the returns don't materialize, why would investors spend
> money on a losing bet?
>
> The university, which owns the land on the east side of the tracks, is
> not in the business of developing land to enrich other parties. Any
> construction project the university undertakes currently must guarantee
> full capacity immediately after the ribbon-cutting ceremony. A bridge
> that does not benefit the university directly would not be considered a
> wise use of the school's money. The best the developer can hope for is
> favorable terms to buy or lease the university's land. It's foolish to
> think that the university will donate a dime to actual construction.
>
> County Executive Baker recently stated that the county is facing a $100
> million budget shortfall. That, coupled with the waiver of Real Property
> taxes that he proposes as a way to promote developments like this, would
> indicate that county financing is extremely unlikely.
>
> The state faces similar budget woes. The legislature would not approve
> funding any bridge or tunnel that would benefit a single development.
> With five vehicular crossings within three miles of the site, it's a
> good bet that SHA considers the area well enough served.
>
> In conclusion, citizens, officials, and developers alike need to
> consider what this development will be like without a CSX crossing
> because IT WILL NEVER BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE TO BUILD THAT BRIDGE. The
> current R-55 zoning has been, and will continue to be, the proper use
> for the land.
>
> Happy New Year, same as the old year(s).
> --
>  Joe Kelly
>  mrjoekelly at operamail.com
>
> --
> http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm... Fastmail...
>
> _______________________________________________
> TownTalk mailing list
> To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
> TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org is for automated subscription
> processing
> only
> http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk
>
> For more information about Riverdale Park, visit
> http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info
>
> _______________________________________________
> TownTalk mailing list
> To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
> TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org is for automated subscription
> processing only
> http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk
>
> For more information about Riverdale Park, visit
> http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20120101/0daae708/attachment.html>