Comment EI-32091
Received or sent (printed as 7/16/2022)
I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed CP rail expansion. As a Davenport, Iowa resident, I live approximately 5 miles from the railroad tracks and can hear the trains’ loud, lengthy whistles at any hours of the night. The effects of an additional 14 trains per day along the Mississippi River from Clinton, Iowa to Muscatine, Iowa will be immediate and profound. Traffic backups will be exacerbated along the crossings, impeding everyone’s ability to get to their destinations in a timely manner, safety will be compromised as most of the crossings are not guarded, and the noise from the whistles can be heard day and night even many miles from the tracks. All these effects combined will contribute to a lower quality of life for the many residents living in this area. Please require the railroads involved with this merger to re-route this portion of their merged railroad lines off the Mississippi River. An editorial written by CP management in the QC Times this past spring told Quad City residents who will be affected by this merger to “take one for the team.” In the article, CP extolled the energy savings benefits of this merger for the country (and CP-Santa Fe Railroad) but did not feel compelled to mitigate the negative effects that will be experienced daily by those of us who live here. In fact, CP’s strategy appears to be to negotiate separate deals with each community, thereby weakening a unified opposition to this project. If the railroad is not willing, at their expense, to construct overpasses and implement stringent noise controls at all major crossings along this route, they shouldn’t be allowed to move this project forward. Sincerely, Michelle Javornik
Submitted by: Michelle Javornik · Davenport, 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-32091 · back to the docket sheet