Comment EI-14238
Received or sent (printed as 9/30/2008)
As a Village of Plainfield resident, I have some serious concerns over the intended use of the railroads that run through the village as proposed in docket #35087. My concerns are as follows: - The majority of the railroad crossings are atwo-lane roads. (One lane in each direction.) - A significant increase in the number of trains from 16 to 42 per day. This is almost triple the number of trains that currently run through the village on a daily basis. - A possible maximum length of 10,000 feet per train. This is approximately 2 miles. At an average speed of 30 miles per hour, this would take 4 minutes per train across each crossing point. A thirty second buffer on each side to allow for the train crossing gates to lower and raise would increase this to a 5 minute backup of traffic at each railroad crossing. - When taking the three points above into consideration, this potentially amounts to about 3.5 hours of traffic stoppage per day. This means that about 14.6% of each day at each crossing would be closed to traffic. This does not include the extra time that it would take for traffic congestion created by previous railroad crossing stoppages to clear. There is also a main truck route that crosses the railroad at Rt 126 and again at Route 30 (via 143rd Street). School buses and some trucks are required to stop a train tracks regardless of the state of the railroad protection gates (being up or down). I believe that this is a relatively conservative estimate of time. I am not calculating rush hour" traffic scenarios, as well as giving the trains the benefit of the doubt that they are going to be travelling at 30 miles per hour. - CN (The Canadian National Railroad Corporation) will reap quite a few benefits from this docket. Whereas for the Village of Plainfield and its residents, there is not only a lack of benefits, but a significant deterioration in the quality of life through increased traffic and noise pollution. - Increased traffic will affect the residents of the Village of Plainfield in the following ways: - Increased travel times (for commuting, transporting children to school, shopping, etc.) - Increased air pollution (increase in the number of idling cars and trucks standing in traffic, and increased exhaust from a larger number of trains). - Increased Air pollution (derived from a larger number of freight trains traversing the area, as well as more cars and trucks idling in traffic). - Increased fuel cost (as travel times increase due to traffic, a greater amount of fuel will be consumed by those same vehicles.) - Increased time cost (as a result of spending more time in traffic - more residents will have less time to spend with their families, hobbies, and entrepreneurial endeavors.) - Decrease in visitors to Plainfield (more people will avoid the area if there is a significant traffic increase. This will affect families, and businesses, such as restaurants, gas stations and stores that rely on location and drive-by business). - Decrease in housing prices (more people will move away for a better quality of life, as well as having fewer people move into the village.) Again the benefits in this docket are all for CN and the Village of Plainfield and its residents will be the recipients of the disadvantages. The points above should be sufficient to state why I oppose the docket in its current form. However, instead of giving only negative refutes, I would like to suggest an alternative that would allow it to be a win-win situation: - CN (Canadian NationalRailroad Corporation) should pay for overpasses/underpasses at ALL railroad crossings in Plainfield. There should be a minimum of 25% of the contracts used to be earmarked to Plainfield-based construction companies. This would eliminate a significant amount of traffic, as well as stimulate the local economy. This would be the only real benefit for the Village of Plainfield. For residents that live in “significantly affected” areas, such as with 200 yards of the railroad, CN would offer to purchase their house (at a slight percentage above market rate) so that they could move to away from the increased air and noise pollution. Also, in the future, if CN increases either the length or quantity of trains, then it would pay a "use tax" to the Village of Plainfield for each train that is over the maximum count of 42 per day, or over the maximum length of 10,000 feet. I believe that with the saving that CN will reap from using this railway as an alternative route, it will be able to afford these concessions. I do not work for a construction company, nor do I live within 200 yards of a railroad, so neither of the above stipulations has a direct affect on me. Thanks, Robert Ryan Parkinson"
Submitted by: Robert Ryan Parkinson · Plainfield, 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.
STB Finance Docket 35087 Comment - Robert Parkinson.doc ↓
Permanent address docketyard.org/d/FD-35087/comment/EI-14238
File docketyard.org/document/f1235c22ce839d171d08965bd4d715d8a9e9473dd315cff117cc8057a0386d43.bin · back to the docket sheet