Comment EI-25058
Received or sent (printed as 7/15/2016)
Mr. Navecky, I live in Bradford Township adjacent to the land where the proposed GLB railroad may run. I am a concerned citizen as I feel this railroad will NOT have a positive impact to our community. The impact I foresee is higher taxes, lower home value, noise pollution, safety hazards loss of prime farmland. Have other option such as the existing rail line that is not in use, or CREATE project been explored. we already have two bridges that pass over the old railroad that cannot be used and are currently closed at the overpass. Our township does not have the funds to repair these bridges. I also foresee higher costs for our township to maintain our roadways (plowing as they will have to go around the closed roads). How about the building of the GLB rail, I assume this will require heavy equipment whereas several country roads have weight limits. Who will pay to maintain rail crossings? Who will cover the cost to train our local Volunteer Fire department? The proposed GLB rail route is also immediately adjacent to a limestone gravel pit. Will the rail vibrations have a negative impact on the Pit? will the blasting at the pit have an impact on the Rail? Lastly - My husband and myself build out in the country for the peace and quite the country has to offer, along with hunting, hiking and other recreational activities. If I wanted to live where I could listen to a train fly by every 10 minutes I would be living in the city. I beg of you to please take careful consideration of all concerns and alternate options available when making your decision that could possible ruin our prime farmland, and our community. Thank you, Diane Herr & Mark Herr
Submitted by: Dian Herr · Save our Farmland · Clinton, WI
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-25058 · back to the docket sheet