Letters to the Editor: Jan. 20, 2022

Brightline’s many at-grade crossings are a safety risk for the Treasure Coast

A bit of history about Brightline.

Before Fortress Investment bought Florida East Coast Rail, two studies of high-speed rail in Florida (2003 and 2009) determined the best route from Orlando to Miami was south along I-95 or the Turnpike. The feds agreed to give Florida $2 billion in startup capital for Florida high-speed rail. In 2011, newly elected Gov. Rick Scott refused the money, stating he was saving taxpayer dollars. However, he was well aware of the plans to expand FEC freight capacity and add passenger service.

True high-speed rail goes 125 mph and faster; tracks must be totally fenced to reduce pedestrian access and cannot cross any streets at grade (street) level. Amtrak’s Acela train has pedestrian bridges and total fencing, and the trains tunnel under or bridge over all streets.

Like no other U.S. railroad, Brightline is “higher” speed rail approved for 110 mph through the Treasure Coast. Just imagine cars racing through our streets at 100 mph, or even 70 mph, as Brightline does from Miami to Palm Beach. The FEC route has more at-grade crossings per track mile than any other train system in the country. No one should be surprised at the more than 50 deaths involving Brightline trains during the short time it has been operational.

In 2014, the lead Federal Railroad Administration Engineer stated, “Trespassing is an epidemic on this corridor.” But since the speed is not 125 mph, the standard high-speed rail safety features are not required.

A study for the state legislature of all Florida rail systems highlighted the problems inherent in the Brightline corridor and recommended a number of increased safety features including pedestrian bridges and fencing. They aren’t required by the Florida Department of Transportation.

Imagine what the future holds for our Treasure Coast communities.

Susan Mehiel, Vero Beach

Political discussions must blend ‘the old’ with ‘the new’ to reach parity

A Jan. 13 commentary by educator R. Bruce Anderson advocated for younger-generation citizens having a more profound influence on legislative matters whether it pertained to local, national or international matters. He eloquently proceeded to denounce the historical fact that our founding fathers were mature men, some well into their fifth decade of life, and that younger men who fought for independence were prohibited from governing. Therefore, not a good model to allow to endure.

It has been universally acknowledged that individuals gradually reach maturity at somewhat different rates; that learning and decision-making result from lifetime \encounters and endeavors .Accordingly, the "older generation" has a prior perspective which includes traditions exemplifying the sense of belonging to something greater than one's self. Each subsequent generation inevitably will evolve influenced greatly by rapidly evolving science and technology, and seek transformation.

Ultimately, the concept of blending "the old" with "the new,” accompanied by much discussion, dissension and upheaval which is being witnessed today, must be permitted in order to reach parity. Compromise must be promoted, reached and agreed upon.

As the article alluded to, age restrictions to serve public office require change. As postulated, senior age politicos inevitably become "out of touch" with the current needs of the populace they serve, although no specific age limit was suggested.

Yes, there may be the need to change the dynamics of election procedures … term limits.

Elected officials retaining unlimited terms in office may indeed become rigid in their beliefs and increase party affiliations in order to retain their positions, steadfastly increasing lifetime retirement benefits, rather than "crossing the aisle" viewing and considering the prioritized needs of the citizenry they pledged to serve. Any such adjudication would be necessarily applied regardless of age.

Gary S. Weiner, Port St. Lucie

Biden’s speech on voting rights likened opponents to segregationists

The news media have a whole lot of control in what we know or don’t know about what is happening in this country by what they include or don’t include in their articles. Recently the Associated Press wrote about President Biden’s “fiery” speech on voting rights. What the AP neglected to mention was Biden’s statement comparing people who don’t agree with him as supporting the behavior of Bull Connor or George Wallace and, approving of segregation and Jefferson Davis. That’s pretty fiery in my opinion — from a different perspective.

And Biden was the moderate candidate who was going to bring us together. The Associated Press can’t be blamed for their reporting because the liberal media is very careful to present Biden in a good light, and he sure needs their help.

Apparently the simplistic and decisive labels are contagious. I know a number of honest, decent, patriotic Americans who voted for Donald Trump. They were concerned about job loss and putting food into their children's mouths. Trump talked about jobs, and the loss of American jobs to other countries. Hillary Clinton talked about breaking glass ceilings and dismissed the concerns of working people as “deplorable.”

To my deplorable commercial fishermen, trucker, welder, day-care worker grandkids, remember this country runs on your backs, and you should be proud of your contributions. Ignore the dismissive remarks “if you don’t agree with me and didn’t vote the way I did then you are …,” (fill in the blanks).

Diana Starr Daniels, Vero Beach

This article originally appeared on Treasure Coast Newspapers: Letters to the Editor: Jan. 20, 2022