by Robert Stewart

    A proposed plan by the Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) and Burlington Northern–Santa Fe railroad to build a viaduct over the railroad tracks on the western edge of Utica is raising some eyebrows and some objections in the community.
     The NDOR held a public information meeting on May 25 to gauge response and gather information from the public in regard to the proposal.
     Steven McBeth, planning and location studies engineer for the NDOR, fielded questions from Utica citizens during the meeting which lasted from 5 to 7 p.m.
     He said the questions ranged from the general– queries regarding clarification on what construction of the structure would entail, to the specific– questions about right-of-way acquisition and the necessity of closing the three existing railroad crossings in Utica.
     "(There were) just a whole variety of questions about the project. I think for the most part just to get an understanding," he said.
     The proposed viaduct would be located on the 80F link between Highway 34 and I-80. The NDOR offered five alternative construction plans for the structure, four for building the viaduct on the west side of town and one for building it on the east.
     According to literature handed out at the meeting, the goals of building the viaduct would be to reduce the interaction between cars and trains, improve safety, reduce the delays caused by traffic waiting for trains to pass through the crossings and to enhance emergency vehicle access.
     One concern of the proposal is allowing access for emergency vehicles coming from the Utica Volunteer Fire Department, located on the south side of the railroad tracks, to the north side without having to deal with delays caused by trains passing through town.
     But some citizens did not think the trains posed that large of a problem.
     "I spent 20 years on the fire department and out of that 20 years I waited for four trains," said Chris Reiger.
     Trains do cause delays for others in the community, however.
     "The viaduct would be great for the school," Ray Naber said.
     Centennial schools, located on the south side of the tracks, would benefit from the viaduct in that it would allow students uninterrupted access to school. Naber said he had experience with delays caused by trains when driving buses for the school.
     Others attending the event had questions about finances, how the viaduct would impact property tax and where the money for construction would come from.
     "I'm not against it (the viaduct)," said Dave Cradick. "Taxes are my main concern. If it's going to raise my house taxes another $500 a year, then I'm concerned."
     "You've got to justify the cost before you go out and spend the money," Rieger said.
     McBeth said that should the proposal come through, financing would come from the state and Burlington Northern through a variety of avenues.
     "We would use a fund that the railroad contributes to, the train mile tax, five to 10 percent would be a direct contribution from the railroad. There is some federal railroad money that would be available to us to be used on this project," he said.
     The part of the proposal that concerned most at the meeting was the intent to shut down all three of the crossings in Utica. The crossings are located at L-80F, D Street and E Street.
     "It's all based on safety," McBeth said. "State regulations say that if we're going to build a viaduct we need to close two or more crossings."
     "The viaduct might be good, but I think they need to keep one crossing open," Rieger said.
     "I'd like to see one (crossing) stay open downtown just for the locals," Randy Dvorak agreed.
     McBeth said leaving even one crossing open would hinder the success of the viaduct.
     "We feel like if this is a legitimate project we need to close all three crossings and encourage people to use it (the viaduct) rather than encourage people to use the one crossing that's open," he said.
     Dennis Richters disagreed.
     "What I see the state doing is saying it's all or nothing," he said. "They're saying it's a safety issue and I disagree with that strongly. I contend that it's a Burlington Northern issue."
     Naber also took issue with the railroad citing the lack of sidewalks at the current crossings which were built 20 years ago and damage to a section of concrete on the L-80F crossing that occurred some time ago and has yet to be repaired.
     "It's (the crossing) been broken for months. This is how the railroad's treated us," he said.
     Naber said he had hopes for the proposal, but saw the refusal to leave one crossing open as a deal-breaker for many citizens.
     "If they had the one crossing open I think the community might accept that, but if they don't I think it's a lost cause," he said.
     Richters agreed with this assessment.
     "I can't believe that the town would go along with cutting itself in half," he said.
     McBeth explained that no permanent decisions had been made yet and it was possible that the proposal could be changed or abandoned altogether.
     "Right now we don't have a project. What we have is a study and the study could stop," he said.