Comment EI-16255
Received or sent (printed as 1/8/2009)
In researching the status quo option for CN it appears that the STB did in fact receive the following confirmation from CN that their merger with WC was providing the fluidity" as projected by CN and The fact that CN will retain the trackage rights and will offer them to all other Railroad will clearly fill the vacuum they appear to create. It is unfair to the citizens of Chicago and Chicagoland to have the STB create a finding that falsely shows that Interstate Commerce via railroad will use the CN tracks now and in the near term future. Only if CN had applied to abandon their tracks would the environmental impact be valid. Chicago's McCormick Place will likely repurpose their basement once CN abandons those tracks. Is it the valid purpose of the STB to create the environment for CN to profit via a real estate transaction. The potential McCormick Casino will be proposed to consume the space currently used by CN's ROW. The STB has ignored the facts that CN presented that 90% of their cargo will not land in the Chicago area. The CREATE project will benefit all the citizens equally. By the STB actions CN is positioned NOT to participate financially but CREATE will in fact increase the value of their trackage within the ARC. How does the STB ignore the prior promises by CN or other railroads. The WC purpose had a stated purpose and need which CN clearly has ignored once the EJ&EW option presented itself. The fact is the WC and IC rail map show the option of routing the China traffic via Madison WI and then connecting to existing CN own tracks in Western IL then continuing via IC track to Memphis. IF 90% of the CN freight could traverse via the existing route why in the world would the STB ignore this option. Clearly my prior comments documented this option. The professionalism exhibited by the STB is flawed by not exploring this option and many of the other seriously submitted comments."
Submitted by: Richard Burkhart · Deer Park, 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-16255
File docketyard.org/document/6ad651c1e7d47fb1976151325208519f52e19fb58bde5bf99b2f259ddb0c8b54.bin · back to the docket sheet