Comment EI-32072
Received or sent (printed as 6/23/2022)
Dear Sirs, I'm writing to you concerning the proposed Canadian Pacific and Santa Fe rail merger. I live next to CP’s rail line in Princeton, Iowa. When I moved here, I knew living here would take some “gettting used to”. But that’s okay. I’ve become accustomed to the rail traffic and have learned it’s the price you pay for the privilege to live next to the Mississippi River. I have no problem with the rail line the way it is now. That being said, I have to say this merger could bring catastrophic environmental, economic, and cultural ramifications. Running crude along this river will always be a roll of the dice. I've witnessed derailments in the past and fully expect to see them again. I don’t need to tell you what dumping oil in this river will do ecologically. It’s not a matter of “if” but “when” it happens. Touting a past safety record will offer little comfort when that time comes. Adding the additionally proposed traffic will cut people off from their own communities. People identify with these river towns. It’s their culture and in many cases, their very livelihood. A road runs along here that's designated a “scenic highway” and called the “Great River Road”. Let me suggest: What great river? All you're going to see are miles and miles of rail cars. I’m not against CP’s merger efforts. There has to be alternative routes that mitigate environmental and economic impacts, and also won’t sandwich communities against the river, isolating them from emergency services. I’m sure there are bean counters that will tell you. “Well, there’s still going to be public access a given percentage of the day”. Well guess what. They don’t live here. We know what it’s like now and have a pretty good idea of what to expect by the numbers we’ve been given. It just doesn’t work. The Mississippi River is a national treasure that belongs to everyone. It can’t always be about dollar signs for some big corporation. Dan Allison
Submitted by: Daniel Allison · Princeton, IA
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-36500/comment/EI-32072 · back to the docket sheet