Comment EI-24940
Received or sent (printed as 7/14/2016)
Dave Navecky, DEA project manager for the environmental impact statement of the STB concerning the GLB RR proposed route: Land owners in Porter County, IN, were recently notified of the intentions of the GLB RR to build a rail line that would pass through our county. Soon after that there were notifications of a scoping meeting to be held in the county to voice our comments and objections to the proposed route. And, more recently, we were given the opportunity to write the STB and explain our position and problems with this project. This letter is my effort to explain the myriad of problems I foresee as the result of the proposed rail line. I am one of the land owners whose property is crossed by the route which has been suggested, although I have just learned that the STB has asked the GLB RR to propose an alternative route which will only be done by late Aug. As it is, my letter is in response to the first route, but some of the criticisms would apply to any attempt to build a rail line in proximity to Porter County. My land, as is all of that in Porter county, was originally part of the Kankakee River wet lands and, as such, required extensive drainage with tiling systems to allow farming on this soil. The water, drained from my land flows South via Crooked Creek to the Kankakee River in the Southern part of the county. I should note that the proposed rail line parallels the Kankakee River from its origin just to the South of South Bend, IN, to its termination in IL. It is hard to imagine that the railroad would not disrupted this system at multiple points along its route and thus seriously disrupt the agriculture in the area. The difficulties inherent in building across this former marshland are enormous, expensive and risk returning this quite productive farm land to its original, undrained, state. Aside from its agricultural impact, the consequence to plant and animal life in the area would be quite hard to anticipate. Besides the more general concerns just expressed, I have some more specific concerns about the impact and consequences for my property. The route proposed bisects my farm, going across a field with a soil of very high organic content (70%). The soil is humus which has also been called muck. Because of its high compressibility and large creep coefficient this soil is extremely problematic on which to build. The problems to be encountered are detailed in a 2009 report from the department of civil engineering of Purdue University done in conjunction with the US Department of Transportation. This document is attached. Rail lines in the area which intersect this proposed route were built 50 to 100 years ago and have had numerous derailments. I suspect the recent derailments in the Columbia River valley between Washington and Oregon result from similar considerations. A derailment with an accompanying fire present a major hazard for my fields, which have a high muck composition, in that, an underground “muck fire” could be initiated. This would render the land and the railroad potentially unusable for years. A second reason for concern is that the Columbia Pipeline has a 30 inch high compression gas pipeline running East West across this field which would be a risk in a muck fire or derailment. A breach of this line could result in a gas explosion with a kill radius of 600 yards according to the company. My concern is heighten by the fact that Columbia Pipeline was unaware of this rail project when contacted. My other major concern is related to the potential disruption of the medical transport system. I have extensive experience in this area being a cardiovascular surgeon who helped found the emergency room at Porter County Hospital, prior to serving a year in Vietnam where I was responsible for the care of injured Army infantrymen in a combat zone. There, speed was essential in treating injuries and combat wounds and it is no different here in treating civilian injuries, especially involving hemorrhage and blunt force trauma. Another, more recent issue is the speed with which patients with heart attacks and strokes can be treated at hospitals with access to modalities which allow doctors to prevent ischemic injury from arterial clots. In these instances time is of the essence and the possibility that traffic will be blocked for even minutes could be critical. There are already multiple railroad crossings that must be negotiated from many locations in Porter County to reach the hospital, and the proposed route will compound the problem that medical emergencies will not have timely treatment of life threating situations. In ending this letter I suggest that the entire route be filmed by a drone- mounted camera in order to obtain an adequate perspective of what the proposed route of the railroad will mean to the communities that are involved. Hopefully, this could be done well before your recommendations will be voted upon. Today, I just learned of another proposed route submitted by Bob Cauffman, President of RAILED, to the STB for consideration. I am not familiar enough with this proposal to make any comments except to say that it eliminates the problem for Porter County. Sincerely, Martin J O’Neill MD
Submitted by: Dr Martin O'Neill · Valparaiso, IN
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-24940
File docketyard.org/document/8a911e87c46b042162766ee078a70a89be0da2c71970e494c68d991712503a6f.pdf · back to the docket sheet