COMMISSION WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT ) OF TRANSPORTATION, ) ) Petitioner, )DOCKET NO. TR-961002 ) VOLUME 4 vs. ) Pages 415 - 554 ) BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE ) RAILROAD, ) ) Respondent. ) ----------------------------------) A hearing in the above matter was held on September 9, 1997 at 6:30 p.m., at Winlock City Hall, 323 NE First Street and at 7:00 p.m. at Olequa Senior Center, 119 SW Kerron Street, Winlock, Washington, before Administrative Law Judge C. ROBERT WALLIS. The parties were present as follows: BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, by REXANNE GIBSON, Attorney at Law, 110 - 110th Avenue NE, Suite 607, Bellevue, Washington 98004. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, by DEBORAH L. CADE, Assistant Attorney General, 905 Plum Street, P.O. Box 40113, Olympia, Washington 98504. THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STAFF, by ANN E. RENDAHL, Assistant Attorney General, 1400 South Evergreen Park Drive Southwest, P.O. Box 40100, Olympia, Washington 98504. Cheryl Macdonald, CSR Court Reporter APPEARANCES (Cont'd.) THE CITY OF WINLOCK, by MARK C. SCHEIBMEIR, Attorney at Law, 299 NW Center Street, P.O. Box 939, Chehalis, Washington 98532. I N D E X WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS PENNINGTON 422 MIELKE 425 MCCROSKEY 428 PRATT 431 KING 432 NYBERG 434 LATSCH 436 BARROWS 437 VANASSCHE 439 EDWARDS 441 444 LRZYK 445 STEARNS 447 CORNELIUS 449 M. KROLL 453 J. KROLL 455 BROOKS 457 VAIL 458 MEYER 460 SHELDON 462 FULLER 463 GARRISON 465 V. WITTE 466 SKAGGS 469 JOHNSTON 471 FUDGE 473 BRENEMAN 475 FENSTERMAKER 479 COOK 480 NIXON 482 GIVENS 485 JOHN 489 CRASE 492 SHUDER 495 R. WONG 500 R. BOSWELL 502 RICHARDS 504 STONE 511 BROWN 513 GREEN 514 520 MILLMAN 521 526 I N D E X (Cont'd.) WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS SOUSHEK 531 GIBERSON 532 BROSEY 534 ALLISON 536 FEHL 537 STINSON 541 OLSON 544 C. WONG 546 W. WITTE 547 BROKAW 549 P R O C E E D I N G S JUDGE WALLIS: Let's convene this public hearing, please. For the benefit of the record, we are conveneD at the city hall in the city of Winlock pursuant to the notice. By agreement among counsel, we have determined to open the hearing here because the notice issued was to convene the hearing at this time and place for taking the public testimony. I understand that arrangements have been made to advise people that we will be taking up at or perhaps before 7:00 at the senior center in the city of Winlock. Is that correct, Ms. Rendahl? MS. RENDAHL: That's my understanding. JUDGE WALLIS: And do you have anything to add in terms of the circumstances that have led us to be here at this time and place? MS. RENDAHL: My understanding that we became aware yesterday that the crowd -- that the number of people who wished to testify would exceed the capacity in this room, and given the notice requirements in the statute concerning grade crossing closures and that a public notice was issued announcing this location as the place for the public hearing, it's determined we should start up the hearing here but for practical purposes reconvene at a larger location which was the senior center. So that's my understanding of the circumstances. JUDGE WALLIS: Anyone care to add to that? MS. CADE: No. JUDGE WALLIS: Let the record show that there is no response. Let me ask at this time if there's any person present in this room who wishes to give testimony as a member of the public regarding this proceeding at this time? Again, let the record show that there is no response, and let us recess this hearing to the senior center, and we will convene there as soon as we are reassembled. Thank you all. (Hearing recessed at 6:35 p.m.) JUDGE WALLIS: Let's be on the record, please, for our evening session. This is continued from the session that we opened a short while ago in city hall. We are now convened at the senior center in the city of Winlock in order to hear testimony from members of the public. We've introduced the cast of characters who are involved in this, and explained the process and now we're going to begin receiving testimony from members of the public. And I'm going to hand the microphone to Ms. Rendahl so that she can call the first person to the stand. MS. RENDAHL: Thank you, Mr. Wallis. My name is Ann Rendahl. I'm an assistant attorney general and I represent the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission staff. The first potential witness I have on the list is John Pennington. Would you like to step to the podium. FROM THE AUDIENCE: He just left on the ambulance. Whereupon, JOHN PENNINGTON, having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein and was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. RENDAHL: Q. Would you please state your full name and spell your last name for the record. A. John Edward Pennington, P E N N I N G T O N. Q. Are you testifying today on your own behalf or as a representative of a business or organization? A. I'm speaking as a representative of the 18th legislative district of which Winlock is a part of. Q. Would you give your professional address then. A. Professional address would be Post Office Box 69, Carrolls, C A R R O L L S, Washington 98609. Q. Thank you. Why don't you go ahead and make your statement. A. Thank you. Mr. Wallis and guests, thank you for joining us in Winlock and we wish it were under a little bit better circumstances. I am state representative John Pennington and since 1994 I represented the 18th legislative district and currently serve as speaker pro tem of the House of Representatives, and I have had the pleasure of representing this community in that time. I ask you today to keep open this railroad crossing that you obviously probably crossed in order to get to this heavily used senior center. Many individuals in this community tonight are going to share with you reasons very different and varied reasons why this crossing should remain open, but what I would like to do is to basically ask you to keep it open for one main reason. That is the preservation of what I believe remains left of small town America, communities such as Winlock, Washington. In what I see is seemingly a request to adopt higher speeds and fewer stops, places like Winlock, Washington end up being tossed aside. It seems like or at least the pulse of this community is that places like Winlock have too few of people to care or that the economy is just too small to matter. Yesterday, I helped to lead over 100 of my constituents up to Olympia to protest on the Capitol steps asserting their First Amendment privilege. These people in this community do not need this fight right now. I represent 22 communities in the 18th legislative district, and I have unfortunately spent most of my time in Winlock in the past three years. And that is because of everything from unwanted prisons and boot camps to massive tire piles that need clean-up and massive legislative attention. I'm not here because I'm up for re-election or any political gain. This community has stood behind me by over 70 percent each election. I'm here because I think it's the right thing to do. I've walked this community for four straight years now and I know most of these people by first name. I think I certainly can accurately reflect their beliefs when I say that they don't ask for a lot. They have never asked me to go to Olympia and to get a port project to bring back to this district or this community. They don't ask me for special legislation. All this community has ever asked for is to be left alone, and I believe that that's what they're asking now. Burlington Northern and Winlock have coexisted quite well now for 100-plus years. We too care about safety just like Burlington Northern, the safety in the dispatch time of a police officer to a crime scene on the other side of the tracks, the safety that would be the transportation of a heart attack or a stroke victim across the tracks and to the nearest hospital or unneeded and unwanted congestion. If what I hear is true, and I haven't confirmed it, that there hasn't been an accident on that tracks since 1988 or since the crossing arms were put into place, I just can't understand why these constituents of mine have to continue to fight and defend their small town. This economy is far too fragile and these people work far too hard to have to fight this right now, so I respectfully ask you to postpone this closure. Thank you. JUDGE WALLIS: Let's see if there are any other questions for you. It appears that there are not. Thank you very much for testifying. MS. RENDAHL: Tom Mielke. Whereupon, THOMAS MIELKE, having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein and was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. RENDAHL: Q. Good evening. Would you please state your full name and spell your last name for the record. A. Thomas M. Mielke, M I E L K E. Q. Are you testifying today on your own behalf or as a representative of a business or organization? A. I'm testifying as a state representative for the 18th district. Q. Please go ahead and make your comments, but please first give me your professional address. A. 25106 Northeast Dublin Road, Battleground, Washington. Q. Please go ahead. A. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for coming to Winlock today and hearing the true heartfelt feelings of the community in regards to the railroad. I serve on the -- as vice chair of transportation committee, and I see a lot of facts and figures, and I see a lot in money that we spent on this study, and it's a shame when I see these numbers. We have spent $461,000 in the study to see the safety of this railroad, and yet it boils down to a community discussion such as we have here as far as need and cause. The other thing that really bothers me is I'm wondering if it's the agenda of the federal government who is going to be paying the same $550,000 to close the railroad as they have a program now in which they want to remove as many crossings as possible. This crossing has a very good safety record. I would say it's second to none. The community here has tolerated the railroad which has slowly raised the bed until we have a clearance problem that exists today. The transportation system seems to be speaking with a forked tongue. On one side we talk mass transit. We talked about moving people from one place to another, but in this case here we want to zoom through this town at 8O miles per hour thus shaking the buildings. I think that we're not ready for this 110-mile-an-hour train from what I see, and what we're trying to perform the railroad beds alone would not handle speeds over 80 miles an hour. There's no need for the 110-mile-per-hour train when we should have it stopping here to serve the community as a mass transit. These people are taxpayers of the state which contribute $16,000 a day to support Amtrak that goes north and south through the state of Washington. It has matching federal dollars also. The additional $1.2 billion it's going to take to rebuild this railroad bed to accommodate a high speed rail is impractical and the people are not ready for it. I don't feel that this step one in omitting this railroad crossing is going to help the people of Winlock. Thank you. JUDGE WALLIS: Are there questions for Representative Mielke? It appears not. Thank you very much. FROM THE AUDIENCE: Yes, there is. Who is -- JUDGE WALLIS: Let's be off the record. (Discussion off the record.) MS. RENDAHL: Next person is John McCroskey and the next person after that is Arthur Pratt should he wish to testify. Whereupon, JOHN MCCROSKEY, having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein and was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. RENDAHL: Q. Would you please state your full name and spell your last name for the record. A. It's John P. McCroskey, M C C R O S K E Y. Q. And will you be testifying on your own behalf or as a representative of a business or organization? A. I'm testifying today as a sheriff. Q. Okay. Would you please give us your professional address. A. 360 Northwest North Street, Chehalis, Washington 98532. Q. Please go ahead and make your comment. A. Well, I appreciate the Department of Transportation's concern with railroad safety, and I only hope that the same engineers are considering the safety of our freeways in the same manner because we're having a difficult time getting the pits fixed out there as well. You know, railroad and small towns go back a long ways. Before there were big cities there were small towns, and some of them built up around railroads and they were codependent on each other. The railroad wouldn't have been there if there weren't people and the people wouldn't have been there if there weren't railroads and there was a long history and a long tradition. I know others have testified about the safety concerns probably today. I won't address too much about that. You'll probably hear more about that. I know others have studied time and the response and all the things that have been mentioned as far as safety goes, but it seems to me in this county right now there are several railroad-related issues going on, and they involve speed limits. They involve noise, and they involve the closing of this crossing. And the one thing that I hope that isn't going on that I've seen to this date, and forgive me if I offend anybody, I seem to be doing that very often lately, but is an arrogance on the part of the railroad to even talk to people about how it affects them and what other options might be available. I'm not pointing fingers or blaming, but sometimes I believe these are formalities or exercises in futility. This is a place for us to vent, but really decisions have been made. Nothing is going to change and, you know, really we could have all saved ourselves a lot of time. But the bottom line is this, I believe, notice. As I said, the cities and the railroad have a long history. We are no longer just a small town and a railroad. There are now big urban areas that receive a lot more attention than we receive. We don't seem to get the same consideration. It seems now, though, clear that where the railroad and the city -- not just this city but all small towns in America had a relationship and needed each other, right now the city of Winlock needs the railroad and they need them to make an adjustment, a change, and I think it's time, and it would really be nice, to see the railroad spend that money, make that adjustment to benefit the citizens not only of Winlock but of south Lewis County. Thank you very much. JUDGE WALLIS: Are there questions? It appears not. Thank you very much. MS. RENDAHL: Arthur Pratt and the next person is Nita Millman. Whereupon, ARTHUR PRATT, having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein and was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. RENDAHL: Q. Would you please state your full name and spell your last name for the record. A. Arthur Pratt, P R A T T. Q. And are you testifying here today on your own behalf or on behalf of a business or organization? A. For business Art's Body Shop. Q. Could you state the name again. A. Art's Body Shop. Q. What is the address of Art's Body Shop? A. Post Office Box 206, Winlock. Q. Please go ahead and make your statement. A. Okay. I'm against the idea of closing the track. By moving all the traffic to the other end of town going to really create more of a hazard. Trying to save a hazard but by moving it to the other end you tie up a lot of traffic because a lot of coming and going on that end also. And so I've been here since '81 and I seen them raise the railroad twice, the railroad bed itself, and the highway up twice, and so kind of put the blame on the town of Winlock making that a hazard. The town has nothing to do with it. They didn't raise it. So I feel lower the railroad track back down, be safe again, and don't cause no pain to the rest of the town and therefore make it all better all the way around. Thank you. JUDGE WALLIS: Are there any questions? It appears not. Thank you very much. MR. SCHEIBMEIR: Ms. Millman will be called tomorrow in testimony. MS. RENDAHL: Anna King and the next person after that is Theda Williamson. Is Anna King here? Whereupon, ANNA KING, having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein and was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. RENDAHL: Q. Evening. A. Evening. Q. Would you please state your full name and spell your last name. A. Anna King, K I N G. Q. And are you testifying here tonight on your own behalf or on behalf of a business or organization? A. For myself. Q. And what is your home address? A. 303 Cherry, Winlock, Washington. Q. Please go ahead and make your statement. A. I cross that track many times a day to get prescriptions for elderly people, pick up their mail, get their groceries, take them to the doctor. I cross that track more than the train going the other way, and it's just -- we love the track. I mean, we love the track where it's at. We do not wish it would change. The railroad is big business, and all we have is the love of small town. Let's keep it that way. Thank you. Any questions? JUDGE WALLIS: It appears not. Thank you very much. MS. WILLIAMSON: I would like to defer to the next person. What has been said has covered what I was going to say very nicely. MS. RENDAHL: I assume you're Ms. Williamson. MS. WILLIAMSON: That's right. MS. RENDAHL: The next person on the list is Dorsey Sawyer. Do you wish to make a comment? She said maybe. Okay. The next person I understand is Phoebe Laakso. And the next person after that would be Ralph Nyberg or Carl Latsch. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. RENDAHL: Q. Good evening. A. Good evening. Q. Would you please state your full name and spell your last name for the record. A. Phoebe R. Laakso, L A A K S O. Q. And are you testifying tonight on your own behalf? A. My behalf and Olequa Senior Center. Q. And for the senior center could you give the address? A. What's our address? Q. We'll take it as a given. A. Thank you. Q. And why don't you go ahead and make your statement. A. Good evening, and thank you very much for coming all of you and giving me the privilege to speak. For many years I've lived in this town and I worked uptown and I've worked here and I've crossed this track many, many times and I've done like Anna has, taken the seniors here and there, and we need this crossing. We absolutely need it. Many of our elderly, they still feel like they can walk, but the extra blocks would be such an inconvenience for them that they really need this crossing right through the center of town, so we're hoping that the railroad will reconsider, listen to all the people tonight and keep the crossing open for us. Thank you very much. JUDGE WALLIS: Thank you. Are there questions? Again, it appears not. Thank you very much. MS. RENDAHL: Does Ralph or Edna Nyberg wish to testify? FROM THE AUDIENCE: No. MS. RENDAHL: Is Carl Latsch here? The next person is Nettie Barrows. Whereupon, CARL LATSCH, having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein and was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. RENDAHL: Q. Good evening. Would you please state your full name and spell your last name for the record. A. Good evening. My name is Carl R. Latsch, L A T C S C H. Q. Are you speaking on your own behalf or on behalf of a business or organization? A. On my own behalf and the center. Q. Why don't you give your home address. A. My home address is Post Office Box 542, Ryderwood, Washington. Q. Why don't you go ahead and make your statement. A. Thank you. I've lived in Ryderwood since 1992. Been coming up here to the center for four years, enjoy it, and the time I've been coming in there's been an ambulance call here twice, and it concerns me as a senior and all the other people that come here, our ambulance and our fire department is on one side of the track and our EMT are usually on the other side of the track. And it concerns me because to come around you're looking at seven to 14 minutes. Our life is worth more than that. Thank you. JUDGE WALLIS: Are there questions? Appears not. Thank you very much for testifying. MS. RENDAHL: Nettie Barrows, and the next person, does Virginia Grigsby wish to testify? Whereupon, NETTIE BARROWS, having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein and was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. RENDAHL: Q. Good evening. A. Good evening. Q. Would you please state your full name and spell your last name for the record. A. Nettie Arlene. I forget my last name. Q. Barrows? A. Barrows. Thanks, whoever it was. My husband left me. Q. It's a little nerve wracking up there. Are you testifying tonight for yourself or for an organization or business? A. No. Just myself and my family. Q. Why don't you give us your home address. A. It's 1205 Southwest Mayer. Q. Is that here in Winlock? A. Winlock, yes. Q. Please go ahead and make your statement. A. Well, I've lived here almost 20 years, and I find that it's a nice little town, and I've been here before. In fact, I picked berries out near here one time. I remember that one. And I have -- I'm a little fearful of trains but I know we have to have them, and I like to ride on them, but I also feel that we need to think about our young people, our children, our older people that have to make journeys, maybe walking up town and back, and I feel that we need to think about them, and I don't want to see it closed at all. In fact, I had a very -- I said what I thought in my own way, and I just feel that we should keep that one open, especially because we have older people that used to walk up and down there and I'm an older person, too, and I can walk up and down there, too, and I don't like to have that train always saying you have to go down to the next one. No way. So, anyway, I'm just glad to be here and glad to be part of it. JUDGE WALLIS: Thank you very much. Are there questions? No. MS. RENDAHL: Is Virginia Grigsby here and does she want to testify? MS. GRIGSBY: I don't care to. MS. RENDAHL: The next person is -- does Helmi Laakso wish to testify? MR. LAAKSO: No. MS. RENDAHL: Neville Vanassche. And the next person who indicated was Gene and Diane Edwards. Whereupon, NEVILLE VANASSCHE, having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein and was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. RENDAHL: Q. Good evening. A. Good evening. Q. Would you please state your full name and maybe spell both of your names for the record. A. Neville Vanassche, N E V I L L E, V A N A S S C H E. Q. Thank you. Are you here testifying for yourself or for a business or organization? A. Myself. Q. What is your home address? A. 403 Southwest Canyon Loop, Winlock. Q. Please go ahead and make your statement. A. My concern with the crossing being closed, along with most of the others in the community, is a safety factor, and because of the way the town is split up, such a long distance to the other crossings, and I'm sure they've been looked at by you people and you can see the congestion problem there would be, with traffic backing up trying to use just the one crossing to the north, and I don't know if this is proper at this time, but there's this talk of all these accidents. I've heard of the one accident that happened before the reroute signs were put up and no trucks have hung up on that crossing since the reroute signs were put up. I've never seen any record of any other accidents. JUDGE WALLIS: There is a record of accidents that's been introduced into evidence and I'm going to suggest that you talk with the DOT representatives. They may have a copy of that with them and otherwise could see that you see a copy of that. Are there any questions for Mr. Vanassche? It appears not. Thank you very much. MS. RENDAHL: Do Gene or Diane Edwards wish to speak? Next person is Esther -- excuse me if I don't pronounce your name correctly -- Lrzyk. Whereupon, ALVIN EDWARDS, having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein and was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. RENDAHL: Q. Good evening. Would you please state your full name for the record and spell your last name. Before you go ahead, I'm just going to ask you and other witnesses to wait until I finish speaking before you talk so the court reporter can take down everything. It's hard for her to get it when we both speak at the same time. A. Sure. Q. Please go ahead and spell your name -- state your name and spell it. A. Alvin E. Edwards, E D W A R D S. Q. Thank you. Are you here tonight on your own behalf or on behalf of a business or organization? A. Just myself and wife. Q. And please give us your home address. A. 300 Cedar Court, Winlock. Q. Please go ahead and make your statement. A. Okay. My wife and I traveled with the federal government for 36 years. We lived in some of the largest cities in the world and it is for that reason that we settled in Winlock, to get away from the hustle, the bustle, the wear and tear of every day life. We moved 31 times in our career and we determined that this would be the last time we would move, but now I'm somewhat disheartened because, unfortunately, we live on the east side of town and the paramedics and the fire station is on the west side of the track. Now, I've been here only two years but I have observed the trains come and go. I've heard how many there are. I've heard the noise they make and I've put up with that because the town is a delightful place to live. Our savings are invested in our home. I can imagine that if we have to defer to the Fir Street crossing and we close Walnut Street crossing that the fire truck trying to get to my home in a given situation may be delayed up to 10, maybe 15 minutes, and all they can do when they get to my house is shake my hand and say, We're sorry, because they will never get there in time to stop that fire. On the other hand, my wife has a heart condition. It would be disastrous for the paramedics