Inclusion: Some commenters mention that they were poorly informed or involved. Maybe they were not given the opportunity to participate; or information was presented in a way that eluded them.
Examples:
“I expected to hear a discussion whereby proponents and opponents would be given an opportunity to voice their opinion ones on this issue. Although the displays were somewhat helpful, it seems as though a discussion would have allowed me to better understand this project. Will there be another opportunity where, perhaps, a panel will discuss everything and allow open comment/question?” – SP4 (Community Voice)
Response: The public engagement process will continue through design and construction and will provide numerous opportunities to obtain information, ask questions and allow comments.
“I have lots of unanswered questions about the purchase of my location. Do I move? Do I stay? What will be value of my location now? Will it go up or down? Will this help us serve more people? I wish the plans were more up to date. I hope someone will help me and my group know the best way to move forward.” – SP23 (Community Voice)
Response: To provide uniform and equitable treatment for persons displace by projects such as this one, Congress passed the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and amended it in 1987. The law provides not only for just compensation but also for relocation assistance for displaced persons. A land acquisition public meeting will be held during the next phase of the project to answer questions such as these.
“My house is one of the properties that would be affected by plan 2A. I do think 2A is the best option of the available options at this time. That’s not my issue. My issue is what happens to the, not even just the property owners but the owner-occupied homeowners, what happens with them. You know, everyone uses very loose terms like “long.” How do you define long? What is long — six months, six years? What does that mean? And even though we all had plans about what we were going to do before July 1st or whenever that article came out in the paper, do those plans get discarded because why would you invest more money in a house that’s going to be torn down? And you have no idea for real how the appraisal process works when you’re overdeveloped for an area, but how do you not do stuff to your house when it’s not accessible. It’s not handicapped accessible. I am for the plan, but I’m not liking the situation at all. I understand the process isn’t finished yet, but it seems like even when the process is finished, if this is approved in December, no one knows when or if they’re funded for property acquisition, which is not at all helpful if you’re a property owner. That’s about it. No, it’s not. I’m worried, I’m so worried about the appraisal process, I really am. I cannot stress that enough. Now I’m finished.” -SP24 (Community Voice)
Response: To provide uniform and equitable treatment for persons displace by projects such as this one, Congress passed the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and amended it in 1987. The law provides not only for just compensation but also for relocation assistance for displaced persons. A land acquisition public meeting will be held during the next phase of the project to answer questions such as these.
Unaddressed/unacknowledged concerns: Some commenters’ questions appear to be overlooked, or answered in an incomplete manner.
Examples:
“I’m more concerned about the 19th street/grand line. I’ve lived there for the last 6 years. There’s no safety gate at this crossing. South Grand is a very busy intersection, having grandkids I can’t allow them to even venture out the front door because of traffic trying to beat the light signal, which only encouraged drivers to speed up, instead of slowing down. My other concern is hiring local workers for whatever site selected. You would have to include people with backgrounds, because the entire city of Springfield include underachievers and such.” – SP10 (Community Voice)
Response: An underpass will be constructed at the South Grand crossing of the 19th Street tracks. This will eliminate the safety concerns associated with the existing at-grade crossing.
“1) the information is not complete. Like most government projects you get the sugar coating and reality doesn’t come until it’s too late to change. 2) The cost to taxpayers is way out of line simply to cut a few minutes off travel time. 3) Instead of speed we all need to slow down and realize what damage we are doing to the earth and when it’s done, what next?” -SP37 (Community Voice)
Response: Comment Noted – Standard Response Letter sent as Reply
Disregarding valid issues brought on by the project: This land acquisition for this project is large, and effects different types of people who themselves and their property are in different situations. It is quite plausible that some people whose land are taken will benefit from this acquisition. However, it is also possible that people will experience different negative effects from this project as well such as loss in property value. Do these people get compensated, acknowledged or just tossed to the side to deal with the repercussions themselves?
Examples:
“We own 2 houses on the block of houses that are being left on the north 10th street. The 5 houses on the block will be inconvenient to get to and hard to rent or sell. We would like them to be included when buying property for the trains.” – SP21 (Community Voice)
Response: Based on preliminary analysis it does not appear that the houses on the west side of 10th Street between division and reservoir streets would need to be acquired for the Springfield Rail Improvements Project.
Suggestions: People may make suggestions that they may realize after the answer that the design and process has already been chosen and put into place based on the responses given. It is interesting to note that some of the responses to the concerns people had give people the idea they do really have a say so. However, if you evaluate the difference of tone specifically when it comes to suggestions, either they say they already “had a decision against the proposal” or “we will pass this on”. Is this giving people a false sense of power? For some people, what is the purpose of coming to this meeting if suggestions, and concerns don’t matter, and many questions are also cannot be answered. Is it possible that it is just a part of the government policies that the city/ project managers provide a platform for people to feel like they have a say so in the project when they really don’t as a requirement for federal funding.
- Learn about the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Grant
Examples:
“10th street must be moved now or it will never happen. Not only will this eliminate another set of tracks but it will open a north/south corridor for a roadway on the east side of town. There presently is no north/south road between 11th and 13th street.” -SP29 (Community Voice)
Response: Relocating the 10th Street corridor was considered among the preliminary screening alternatives and was eliminated because of high costs and environmental impacts.
“Basically, I see (the meeting) as a requirement by statute to comply with the information or to comply with what’s legally required, and I say that because I am concerned with all of the input that has been given. It seemed to have very little impact in changing the decision. The decision had already been made by the people in authority, by the people making the decision. And as a resident of Randall Court, which is very close to the Ash Street grade separation, we will be, the people in that neighborhood, will be directly impacted both with the grade separation in terms of a problem that could be created with the lack of proper drainage, which is a common problem in the city in other areas where we have grade separation, but there’s also a problem with the upper level in terms of the impact it is going to have on properties located close and near that particular area, and it is going to have an adverse impact on the aesthetics and could very well deter the easement going in and out of Randall Court on Ash Street because of the length that that separation is going to reach. So I see this as having a very negative impact in that area and not going to be beneficial to the residents who live there, which consists of a large number of senior citizens. They also are going to be locked into their properties, many too old to consider new mortgages, and they are going to be stuck in the area whether or not they like the outcome of the grade separation or the problem that I think would be created. So I see it as having an adverse impact on the entire area, and we are strongly opposed to the grade separation. You’re also going to be closing other streets in that immediate area on Wirt Street which is the street next to the railroad track on 19th street. So I have a real problem with it, and I also am concerned about this information just appearing on the grade separation for Ash and 19th Street. I wonder why this information was not made available earlier so we could have addressed it, but I also believe there needs to be a meeting with the people in that area so they can have a clear understanding as to what is going to take place, the direct impact it’s going to have, and they would be able to ask and get answers to questions that they have regarding this project. So those are some of my concerns, and as you can tell, I’m not very happy so far with how this is taking place.” -SP40 (Community voice)
Response: Input from the advisory group meeting and from the public meetings, along with comments received from the public on the project website, were an integral part of the study process. They assisted the study team in developing the purpose and need, identifying and screening alternatives and, and selecting the alternative that best achieves the project purpose and need at the lowest cost and impacts. The recommended alternative will not cause an increase in rail traffic on 19th Street adjacent to Randall Court. The underpass at Ash Street will eliminate traffic delays and noise at that crossing. It should also reduce the difficulty in accessing Ash Street from Randall Court when trains are present since they will no longer block the crossing. The Ash Street underpass has been shown as a part of the project at all of the public meetings and at the public hearing. A land acquisition public meeting will be held during the next phase of the project. Congress passed the Uniform Relocation dn Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and amended it in 1987 to provide uniform and equitable treatment for persons displaced by projects such as this one. The law provides not only for just compensation but also for relocation assistance to displaced persons.
How does this make people feel?
People feel upset and respond in an upset way, people are confused, lost, and some in a state of panic. Some might think are not important feel small.
When people get a uniformed response that is not the least bit tailored to their individual situation, they probably feel unimportant. It isn’t a good feeling to know that something is going to affect you in this huge of a way and the people doing it can’t even give you a concrete answer as to what will be happening. How would you feel if you were given a one-size-fits-all response about your home, or land you consider a precious or valuable investment, or how about your conditions of living in terms of noise etc.?
- Responses to comments as well as response letter templates are included at the end of the public hearing document for review.
Citation
US Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration. 2012. “Chicago to St. Louis Volume II – Appendix F–Public Hearing Documentation”. Washington, DC: Federal Railroad Administration. Retrieved October 29 , 2017 (https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L03995).