http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Put stop to idling trains

   All the local (or even state) laws in the world can’t do much to stop a train from idling for hours or days on end when its owner feels like letting it idle. That’s because interstate trains are governed by interstate commerce law. Still, the situation described in Sunday’s Gazette story, in which people living near the tracks in Rotterdam Junction are prisoners in their own homes when the wind is blowing right, must somehow be addressed. It’s more than a smelly inconvenience, it’s a health threat.
   Diesel exhaust contributes to atmospheric smog, aggravates asthma and other respiratory illnesses, and is classified as a “likely carcinogen” by the Environmental Protection Agency. So there’s no excuse for allowing a train (or any other vehicle) that’s not actually in use, to sit more than a few minutes with its engine running. And running. And running.
   Even if there were no people living in the immediate vicinity whose quality of life and health would be jeopardized by breathing the high concentrations of toxic fumes generated by such a vehicle, it’s inexcusable.
   While the EPA is finally getting around to regulating the emissions — new rules were proposed this year — they give the locomotive owners too long — seven years — to comply. The technology that would enable the engines to be turned off and on without problems is available now, and costs only $5,000 to $20,000 per engine. The fuel savings would allow costs to be recovered in just three years.
   While there has been some voluntary cooperation on this issue between the rail lines and local governments, this is obviously an issue that the federal government needs to address. Local politicians who have had little success seeking relief on their own should ask their congressional representatives for help. And the EPA should speed up the compliance schedule for its new regs.  

  
  
  

We have the same problem in our western area of town, near Thousand Acre/Youngs Road.  I have also tried to deal with and appeal to the railroads good senses, but they apparently have none.  It is one of those issues that frustrates me as all of my efforts are fruitless and thats what I have to tell the residents living in the area.

Quoted Text

Still, the situation described in Sunday’s Gazette story, in which people living near the tracks in Rotterdam Junction are prisoners in their own homes when the wind is blowing right, must somehow be addressed. It’s more than a smelly inconvenience, it’s a health threat.

Here we go again...what was their first, the railroad tracks or the homes? Who would purchase a home near railroad tracks? And if they did, didn't they think of this before?

Good point Bumble, but do they HAVE to idle the engines near homes?  In D'burg this wasn't a problem years ago and the houses were there then.  Why do they have to do it now?

I was under the impession that they always did. And if they always DIDN'T, than you are right.....why now?

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

ROTTERDAM
Study looks at Junction water tank options
Expandable design most affordable
BY JUSTIN MASON Gazette Reporter

   Building an expandable water tank at the town wellheads in Rotterdam Junction would be the most affordable option in the short run, but would annually cost roughly $2,000 to operate, a private engineering study found.
   The expandable ground-level tank design advocated by the town would require “jockey pumps” for evening low-flow conditions and “fire pumps” for periods of excessive usage to reach the necessary high water elevation, the Barton & Loguidice study determined. Such an option would also require an emergency generator to keep water flowing in the event of a power failure.
   Although the ground-level tank would cost about $39,200 to maintain over a 30-year period, the study found it to be the cheapest alternative to construct at $1.37 million. Constructing a raised tank on the town-owned land off Main Street in Rotterdam Junction would cost about $290,000 less but couldn’t be expanded in the future.
   Other options include constructing a tank on private land off Iroquois Street or on town-owned land off Rynex Corners Road. Both options were estimated to be significantly more costly.
   Supervisor Steve Tommasone said the town is reviewing the results of the study and will soon schedule a new informational meeting with the 577 users in water districts 3 and 4, who will ultimately pay for the tank through bonding. He said a firm decision needs to be reached in the next couple of months to ensure the tank is in place by fall 2008.
   “I’m very confident that what we do there will be a long-term benefit,” he said. “We will not be put into a position that we’ll need to buy a new tank later on.”
   Rotterdam Junction’s decadesold tank off Leggerio Lane is partially buried in the ground and shows nearly 10-foot cracks in its cement cover. Because of the tank’s location near the train tracks, public works officials have found it difficult to maintain.
   The aging tank is also about 60,000 gallons short of the volume needed to support the area’s daily usage. Town officials fear a failure of the existing tank or pumps could present a dangerous situation for residents.
   “There’s a problem here,” Tommasone said of the old water tank. “It needs to be resolved, and it needs to be resolved quickly.”
   The study estimates Rotterdam Junction will need a water tank with about 310,000 gallons of storage to meet projected usage levels within 50 years. Added with the amount of water needed for fire fighting purposes, the study advised the town to build a tank with at least 500,000 gallons of capacity.

  
  
  

This is another issue I can't believe is STILL lingering.  Do you know how long this new water tank has been being discussed?  I've been to at least two Town Board meetings at the Junction firehouse (we know how often it occurs out there, right?) alone and we need ANOTHER informational meeting for the residents?  That's almost laughable...but again, it's not very funny.  I can appreciate bureaucratic machinations as much as anybody but why is every important issue addressed what seems to be perpetually without any action?

It's an issue involving a water problem and they'll probably need at least 2 more studies b4 any decision will be made and that will take a couple of years more.

Although I agree with the sentiment that this water tower issue has been discussed and studied for some time. But I also know that this is probably the first time a town board has addressed it. It is also a major major undertaking and a very costly one. We tend to critisize the local government for being slap happy with developments and that they should err on the side of caution, and yet continue to critisize when they DO move cautiously before they do make a decision. I guess it's a damned if you do and a damned if you don't.

It's a matter of how long is too long. The water tower could fail at any time then where would the people in the junction be?

This water tower could have failed long before anyone actually took a close look at it and addressed the problem and no one was concerned. I personally  never new there was a problem until this present town board brought it to light and THEN it became an issue.

I think the real hold up with this issue is how much money it's going to cost the water district to replace the tower. It's not going to be a cheap fix.

NOT CHEAP for sure!! And a major undertaking!!! But I agree...it definately needs to be done...soon!

The water main break on Altamont Ave is going to cost a nice chunk of change too when all the work finally gets done next spring.

My opinion: the water tower should already be done with the facts that have been known.  This is overdue.  I don't accept the delay.