Comment EI-9616
Received or sent (printed as 9/2/2008)
The EIS for the proposed Canadian National Railway Acquisition of the EJ&E Railway was conducted in 6 months -- as apposed to the standard 18 months. WHY? Were other EIS's of this complexity affecting this many people also done in 6 months? If not, why not? Is infrastructure already in place on the existing CN line with regards to Emergency Response Time? Hazardous Materials? Grade Separations? If so, is it (are they) equal to the current infrastructure along the EJ&E line. If it is not equal, why not? Shouldn't it be equal? If it is determined that infrastructure along the EJ&E should be equal to that of the existing CN line, then appropriate mitigation should be proposed in this acquistion and put in place before any changes in rail traffic take effect. Can positive train control be enforced as part of this acquisition? What is the capability of fire response time for hazardous materials along the current CN line? Is it the same as the capability of fire response time for hazardous materials along the EJ&E line? If not, why not? Should it be the same? If so, changes should be implemented along the EJ&E as part of the acquisition and put in place prior to any changes in rail traffic take effect. How are the communities along the current CN line being effected by externalized costs? How will the communities along the EJ&E be effected by externalized costs? How do the costs and effects on the communities compare to each other? What is the socioeconomic effect on the existing CN line? What will the socioeconomic effect be on the EJ&E line? How to these socioeconomic effects compare to each other? In comparing the existing CN rail line with the EJ&E: Which rail has the better set of grade crossings? Which is better equipped for hazardous material response? Which is better able to handle noise/vibration issues? How do they compare as far as the effects on their communities' social justice? Economic justice? Effects of trains on their environment? Does the existing CN rail line already have better grade crossings to handle heavy freight traffice VS. grade crossings along the EJ&E? Does the existing CN rail line already have better hazardous material response equipment VS. the EJ&E? Does the existing CN rail line already have the capability to handle noise & vibration issues VS. the EJ&E? If so, then why make the proposed changes in rail traffic? Can those changes be justified without making both rail lines equal as part of the acquisition (at CN's expense) prior to any proposed changes in rail traffic take effect? Regarding the proposed action in moving and increasing rail traffic from the existing CN lines to the EJ&E, the DEIS does not compare emergency response times, hazardous material response equipment, grade crossing delays, noise and vibrations, effects of trains on the environment, social justice, or economic justice.
Submitted by: Diana Spatoulas · Lake Zurich, 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-9616 · back to the docket sheet