|
August 13, 1929
<br />
<br />At a regular ~eeting of t~p City Oouncll August 13th. there were present:
<br />
<br />Messrs-- Vernon Broo~s,.J.C.~Dunford, E.W. Maupin, J~.,
<br /> Arthur Mayo, J. R. Stewart, Archibald 0gg,
<br /> 6'
<br /> Also the Oity Manager.
<br />
<br />The minutes of the regular meeting July 23rd. were read and were approved.
<br />
<br /> The following communications were read from the City Manager:
<br /> let. "! respectfully call
<br />your attention ~o the fact that the Belt Line Rs~llroad has removed the safety g~tes from the
<br />crossing at Glasgow St. and the Belt Line. These gates were installed on April 1st, 1911. M~.
<br />Williamson, Supt. of the Road, informed me they were discontinued on advice of the Belt Line
<br />Attorney because the Road was suffering heavy losses at this time, and in addition, he did noJL
<br />feel they were n~cessary. I talked the matter over with him twice and also talked to the City
<br />Attorney about it. I have had complaints from people who use this thoroughfare claiming that
<br />the crossing is dangerouaa~d should be protected with gates.
<br />
<br /> I have written to Mr. sharer, President of the Belt Line, and have had conference
<br />with Mr. Williamso~ and Mr. Parke~ of the Railroad and I told them it was necessary that I
<br />bring the matter to your attention, as u~der Seotlon 394 of the City Code the question of the
<br />operation of safety gates was placed in the hands of the City Council. I understand from Mr.
<br />Williamson tkat when these gates were put in operation on April 1st, 1911, they were not put
<br />in by ordinance of the City but the R~ilroad installed them for public safety. According to
<br />my judgment, the crossing as it is being operated at present, is not sa~e. t believe the
<br />gates should either be restored at once or that something be done to offer better protection
<br />at this point.
<br />
<br />Attached you will find copy of a letter from Mr. ~hafer on the subject."
<br />
<br />Mr. Frank C. Eanrahan,
<br />City Manager, City of Portsmouth,
<br />Portsmouth, Virginia.
<br />
<br />"Norfolk, Virginia, August 12, 1929.
<br />
<br />Dea~ Sir:-
<br />
<br /> With reference to' conference held in your office on Friday, August 9th, 1929, ~e-
<br />garding the removal of safety gates~from Glasgow St. crossing and Belt Line Railroad.
<br />
<br /> ~ On~A~=il 1, 1911, these gates were put in operation account of heavy traffic over -
<br />the crossing, Glasgow St. being-the .principte t~roughfare from Western Branch Magisterial Dis
<br />trict t~ ~he City of P°x~smcuth, and almost Constant useof s~me by our trains which was oc-
<br />casioned by the operation of our POrt Norfolk Joint Yard, which is located just north of Glas-
<br />gow St.
<br /> On September 26,1913, this Oompany purchased a fifty (50) foot strip of land be-
<br />tween Weste~ Branch Road and High Street~ and constructed a road on the extreme west side of
<br />same so as to provide a direct outlet for the traffic to and from High Street which was hard
<br />surfaced. As soon as this ~oad was completed, traffic over Glasgow Street started to decrease.
<br />
<br /> On Jauua~y 6, 1929, our Port Norfolk Joint Yard was abolished, account of the Penn-
<br />sylvania Railroad moving their terminals to L~ttle Oreck, thus Causing our movements ove~ this
<br />crossing to decrease approximately sixty per cent.
<br />
<br /> On Febraary 1, 1929, we dispensed with the services of gate tenders at Glasgow St.
<br />crossing a~d removed the gates, after watching the operation and movements over ~he crossing,
<br />instructions being issued at that time, amd are still in effect,.~o all.of our train, crews
<br />requiring them to see that the crossing was fully protected before cars were shoved over same;
<br />a member of the crew t~ ~t~ c~ossing, anon pulling trains over.same~the engineman must see
<br />that the crossing is cIea~.bef~re engine OSstructs crossing.
<br />
<br /> Since the removal of the gates there has not been-~a single accident at that cross-
<br />ing, nor h~s my a~tention been called to a near-accident
<br />head end of our Port Norfolk yard-where the speecl
<br />per hou~r, and the view of the crossingbeing umobstructed, makes ~e a s~e c~ssing to ope-
<br />~ate o~e~ in our present m~e~.
<br />
<br />12:01 A. M. to 8:00 A. M.
<br /> 8:00 A. M. to 4:00 P. M.
<br /> ~:00 P. M. tolt:00 P. M.
<br />
<br /> On receipt of your letter dated July 3ist, we had a check made of the traffic moving
<br />over the crossing from 12:Gl A. M. August ~th, to 12:01 A. M.
<br /> VEHI~E$~'
<br /> Au . th-
<br /> ~' West
<br />
<br /> Au&asr 7th, which was as follows:
<br /> TP~INB
<br /> , , +rthsou h
<br />
<br />10~ 9~ ~ ~9
<br />
<br />Aug. 5th-
<br />
<br />12:01 A. M. to 8:00 A.M. 3.0. 25 19 ~ 38
<br />8?0 A. M. to ~:00 P.M. ~ E ~ 35
<br />~;00 P. M. tolt:00 P.M. ,, ~5
<br /> 165 16~ 68 108
<br />
<br />12:01 A. M. to 8:00 A.M. ~3 37 19 33
<br />8:00 A. M. to 4:00 P. ~. 9~ 108 11 36
<br /> :oo tolS:OO 47
<br />
<br />
<br />
|