Comment EI-24802
Received or sent (printed as 7/13/2016)
Part 2of 3 GLB is also lost on the concept of what a bypass is. A bypass takes an item, in this case trains, and prevents them from reaching another place, in this case Chicagoland. GLB is using Chicagoland Statistics to justify their proposal and is failing to acknowledge the huge size of the Chicago Megatropolis Area. Their plan also simply moves existing trains from one part of Chicagoland into another; there is no bypass of Chicagoland. The KJR and TPW lines can be a true bypass; they are uniquely positioned to allow all trains coming from Southern Illinois to be moved into Iowa or Indiana. Thus this route accomplishes the task of preventing trains from reaching Chicagoland, the function of a bypass. These lines are also near enough to Chicagoland; the trains coming from the north can also be funneled south to the Peoria area, using existing class one tracks, and then moved east and west using existing class one tracks. Peoria is only 167 miles from Chicago. This route would add only 4 hours onto a train’s travel time (assuming a 40 mph speed which is significantly lower then the proposed 70mph GLB route). GLB currently claims it takes 30 hours to get through Chicago. This is a saving of 26 hours for traffic from the north and it also accomplishes the goal of bypassing Chicagoland. The KJR and TPW lines can and should be made into a true Chicago rail bypass. The proposed GLB line does not bypass Chicagoland, it simply moves trains from one location to another. The next advantage of using the KJR and TPW lines is GLB can build their proposed 15,000 acre rail yard in truly unpopulated areas. This rail yard would also have the potential to actually be successful in this area, as it would be located away from the existing railyards in Chicago. The problem with the GLB plan is why would a railroad choose to use the new GLB yard when they can move just a few more miles north into Chicago and use their own yard? Located in Southern Illinois this yard could service an entirely new customer base and some existing railroads might be enticed to move operations to this area of the country. As it stands the GLB rail yard is too close to existing established yards. Railroads have no incentive to move operations there. Another advantage, that GLB claims to have with their railyard is better climate, GLB claims that their line would not be as affected by weather in Kankakee as the railyards are in Chicago. Kankakee is only 60 miles from Chicago; it has the same or worse weather than Chicago. Chicago has on average 28.5 snowy days per year and 37.1 inches of snow on average yearly. By contrast Peoria, 167 miles from Chicago, averages 19.9 snowy days and 24.6 inches of snow per year (CurrentResults.com). Based on these statistics, a railroad could consider Peoria to have a more attractive climate and as a result may wish to move operations to a new rail yard with a more preferred climate. Yet another rail yard advantage is that there are some non-prime farmland areas along the Mississippi River and along the KJR line that the proposed rail yard could be built on and not harm Prime Farmland. Finally, these lines have existing rail crossing in place and any roads that needed to be closed where closed years ago when these lines were first constructed. There would be little need for towns and counties to revise emergency response plans and routes. There would be little impact on current roadways as they were built or revised with the existing rail line in place. The new GLB line requires hundreds of new rail crossings, revisions to and the closings of many roads and a whole new population based to adjust their ways to accommodate the new line. These lines also have already established how farmers operate around them. GLB expects a whole new farm base to have private rail crossings and split fields. These lines have already solved these issues.
Submitted by: Dennis Scheppler · Mount Prospect, 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-35952/comment/EI-24802 · back to the docket sheet