Comment EI-14017
Received or sent (printed as 9/30/2008)
The Honorable Anne K. Quinlan, Acting Secretary Surface Transportation Board 395 E Street, SW Washington, DC 20423 Re: STB Finance Docket No. 35087 Canadian National Railway Company and Grand Trunk Corporation – Control – EJ&E West Company Dear Ms. Quinlan: I am a resident of Wayne, Illinois and strongly object to Canadian National Railway Company’s Proposed Action. I will be drastically harmed by it. We decided to move to Wayne two years ago because we like the open, natural area and the local life style. In order to enjoy my free time and allow my family to live outside the city, I rather put up with a long daily commute and all its inconveniences and additional costs. Since our move, the economy deteriorated and property values dropped. If CN’s proposal is implemented, also our quality of life will be significantly impacted in a variety of ways. The proposed increase of trains from 4 to 24 per day would be dramatic for Wayne. With several at-grade railroad crossings and the proposed train length of 8,000 – 12,000 feet two crossings could be blocked at a time by one single train and once every hour day and night. That will cause a devastating delay of needed emergency responses by police, fire department and medical personal. Of course, it will also change the daily local traffic patterns and could significantly increase the times for local errands. In all likelihood increased blockages at the railroad crossings close to the center of Wayne will divert more traffic to Stearns Road, which also intersects with the EJ&E rail line in question. Efforts to relief the local traffic by extending Stearns Road via a bridge across the Fox River, which is in construction at this time, would be significantly undermined by the increased rail traffic and its associated road blockages at the at-grade crossing. Such an adversely impacted traffic project funded by the public hand should be adequately discussed in the DEIS, but is not. Also, why were traffic calculations only done for average daily trips (ADT), and not for rush hour times? I have to cross two at-grade railroad crossings to get to the Metra station in Bartlett and experienced how easily an unexpected freight train blocking a crossing adds to my commute time and can cause the missing of a passenger train. As a commuter working in downtown Chicago and using the Metra system I am very concerned about the potential disruption of the Metra services by the proposal. Not only cars can be delayed, but freight trains can and will also delay and stop existing suburban commuter rail service. The proposed STAR Line development which would better service the suburban communities will be disrupted. While parts of the DEIS conclude that EJ&E would reach capacity and interfere with Metra’s trains under the CN operating plan, other paragraphs conclude that the implementation of the STAR line will not be precluded. Simply the offer to “work with Metra to explore all options” and to continued discussions does not guarantee a solution and cannot be accepted as an adequate mitigation. These impacts will affect a wide commuter circle. The increase in frequency and length of trains together with the sounding of the train horns will cause increased noise and vibrations, which can severely impact our environment. In fact, it may lead to the need for establishments of Quiet Zones. But in order to fulfill the Federal Railroad Administration Quiet Zone requirements, very expensive safety improvements have to be installed. The cost for these would mainly fall on our community and the taxpayers. Another environmental concern is the adverse impact to air quality due to carbon emissions by vehicles stopped at railroad crossings. These impacts must be adequately addressed and should be mitigated. Nearly all of us are dependent on our own water wells that are fed from a shallow aquifer. Therefore, I am extremely concerned about our water quality and the proposal to increase the daily train car loads of hazardous material traveling through our village from 21.1 to 265.5. In addition, all of the tracks in our area are single ones, which seems to me to potentially increase the risk of train accidents. An accident causing a hazardous spill could have disastrous consequences not just to the directly impacted neighborhood, but hazardous material could get into the groundwater and aquifer. In my opinion more studies are needed to evaluate and better address the potential impacts that could occur from a spill and how to mitigate them. All local tracks are only one lane and at-grade. If CN comes up with only 5% to max 50% of the costs for grade separations as mitigation measure, who will pay the difference? Is the federal or state government prepared to help fund these? The difference of the needed funding has to be identified or this mitigation measure is not an adequate one. The DEIS assumes adverse property value impacts only within 250 feet of the line. While indeed the residential areas closest to the line will be most affected, a reduction of home and property values can also be expected in a greater distance from the tracks and should not be ignored. Who will want to live in a community where short ways can take a long and unpredictable time due to blockage of crossings by freight trains? Who wants to risk that police, fire department and medical aid will be delayed in an emergency? Who wants the continued noise and vibration by the long trains, and increased safety risks? Canadian National’s narrow statement of purpose clearly is only based on their private profits and advantages. There are no alternatives reviewed. The proposal would alone in our small community - undermine public commuter services, - undermine publicly funded street and bridge construction, - reduce significantly our existing quality of life, - cause multiple safety risks, - reduce the value of our properties, and - leave the burden of mitigation costs to taxpayers and unprepared communities. I strongly urge the STB to deny the proposed acquisition of the EJ&E line by CN. Sincerely, Fabrizio Busi
Submitted by: Fabrizio Busi · Wayne, IL
The Board publishes this comment in its environmental-comment table for this proceeding. It is quoted here as printed; nothing is inferred from it, and it states the commenter's own position in their own words, not this record's.
Permanent address docketyard.org/d/FD-35087/comment/EI-14017 · back to the docket sheet