Comment EI-25387
Received or sent (printed as 9/29/2016)
To: The Surface Transportation Board From: Andrew Corbus Date: September 29,2016 RE: Application and Kankakee County Concerns Application It has now been around a year since you first heard about the GLBT plan to construct a new rail line. Yet, there has not been any formal application made to the STB. And on the expectation of an application, the STB has begun an environmental analysis that is being conducted with many unanswered questions that would be expected to be addressed in a formal application. Could you please address the following questions regarding application: • Is there a point at which you will require an application? • Is it possible to complete a draft EIS without an application? • How will the EIS process be altered based on the content of the application? (One would belief the application would make a case for the economics and business arraignments regarding the proposal. These items would have significant influence on what material would be contained in the draft EIS.) As a taxpayer, I would like to see the application fees paid to offset at least a small portion of the hours that you and many cooperating agencies are investing in the EIS. I also think it is reasonable for the public to be aware and make comment on the information contained in the application, that has up until now been withheld. Kankakee County Concerns As a resident of Kankakee County, the September 20, 2016 response leaves some unanswered questions. There still remains no plan or detailed description of the projected use of the Railport area. Since the size of the proposed Railport is so much larger than any other in the country, it is more than justified to request a detailed usage plan for this land. I would formally request that you seek an answer from GLBT so that informed comments can be added to the EIS. Also, when route alternatives were added to the Kankakee River Crossing, it was strange that no alternative outside of the Kankakee River State Park were offered. The other alternatives seemed to serve no purpose but to list alternatives to appease the STB. I ask that you please ask GLBT for an alternative outside of the Kankakee River State Park, or a specific reason one was not considered. This in important park to our community, and there are alternative routes that should be considered. While I understand that the STB is doing what they have been charged to do, I have deep concerns about the amount of information and opposition this project has received, all without an application. I believe it is in the best interest of the STB and the people of the communities affected by this proposal for the STB to adopt a “No build” stance at this point, or at a minimum require, and publish, an application. Sincerely, Andrew Corbus acorbus@gmail.com (815) 953-9700
Submitted by: Andrew Corbus · bourbonnais, 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-25387 · back to the docket sheet