Comment EI-14136
Received or sent (printed as 9/30/2008)
I am a citizen of Wayne, Illinois and vehemently object to CN's Proposed Action. The Risk and Damage Assessment fills over 1000 pages of analysis of the health, safety, environmental and property risks. I have no new data nor explosive exposes. I will, however, beseech you to conscientiously perform your oversight responsibilities. We are in the midst of a financial meltdown which is the result of our government leaders" and governmental overseers not living up to their professional, and yes moral responsibilities. Please live up to yours. Oversight should not mean hiding behind a mountain of data nor should it be strictly a statistical exercise. I implore you to consider the qualitative consequences as well as the quantitative impact. The path of the EJ&E Railroad purchase is through a historically rural and suburban geography. We have not created an infrastructure that is designed to cope with being severed - one side of town from the other side of town - by a rail track that can block vehicles not just of inconvenienced folks but of police, fire department, and ambulances. The areas of Chicago that currently bear this rail traffic have had decades to create an infrastructure which protects their citizens and minimizes their inconveniences. Certainly there are many more people in a large city like Chicago that are impacted by rail traffic, but these urban areas have geometrically more financial resources to create solutions to these challenges. While the rural and suburban locations have far fewer people that are impacted it is also true that the impact they do feel, including safety and security, is likely to be a very long term if not permanent situation. If the calculus is to weigh body count of the urban area to the rural/suburban body count I would suggest that a time factor be included in the calculations. An underpass or overpass may ameliorate an urban rail crossing's impact, but for financial reasons that solution may never be available to the rural population. Fewer people may impacted per occurrence in a rural setting, but chances are much higher that these occurrences will continue to occur. Often as citizens we are asked to compromise our comforts or our conveniences for the "greater good." These compromises become less palatable when the cost includes safety and security issues. As citizens we have to balance our personal desires with regards to those of our neighbors, or community members, or residents of our state, or even the citizens of our country; but to trade off the safety and security of our families and our neighbors' families for the sole benefit of a profit-making company based in a foreign country is egregious. No benefit accrues to those of us that are impacted. Again, please fulfill your responsibility of oversight. Do not be stampeded into a hasty decision based on CN's timetable so some executives can earn a healthy year-end bonuses. Thank you. Daniel Engstrom"
Submitted by: Daniel Engstrom
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-14136 · back to the docket sheet