freight services are of great help, but a grudge is a great disaster.

Casey Jones,

The easiest way to answer most of your questions is to simply ask you to put yourself in the place of being the person who owned the railroad... if you owned the railroad and it was you money invested and all of these employees worked for you and you needed to keep them gainfully employed and turn a profit then what kind of business decisions would you or any of us make?

If the state or the county or the city of Aurora came to you as the owner of this railroad and said we expect you to pay for bridges or underpasses at all of the hundreds of locations where public roads have requested crossing easements across your property... how would you reply knowing each of these bridges or underpasses cost tens of millions of dollars?

After you get done with a little sole searching the real frank and honest answers will become painfully obvious if you really think about the situation as if you owned the rail road.

The public has a right to demand access across the railroad property. Simply understanding the laws of physics and it becomes readily apparent why the vehicle traffic must yield to trains rather than vice versus plus the trains really are entitled to the right of way since they are operating on their own property. If the public has an overwhelming desire to get over or under this barrier it is fully possible thru an overpass or underpass, just be comfortable with the fact that the legal precedent was established over a hundred years ago that the public has to pay for such construction not the rail road.

And it really is only fair if you think about it... what if the city came to any one of us and said they were going to build a bridge or an expressway over our house (go to some parts of New Jersey if you think this can't happen) and the city expected us to pay for it... what would you say? Thants pretty much what I thought! So how does the property rights of a homeowner differ from the property rights of a railroad then?

Ken on June 19, 2008 4:47 PM

First funny one: Zoning for trains. Maybe many forget the history of Chicago, but it was built on catering to the trains.

__________________________________________________________________

Hi Ken, Please don't mistake my question as naivete on my part - I was trying to use an analogy but it apparently fell flat. I know the rails are Federal and they have been/and most likely will continue to be the backbone of transportation, etc.

I also know that people who build next to rivers, airports, and train tracks have no guarantee's and are taking a "gamble" to build or buy next to them.

More to the point, my question has to do with the use of existing tracks. If CN acquires this line can they do anything they wish? Can they decide that high speed (bullet) trains are the way to go? Can they decide that instead of 20 trains a day this line is better suited for 30-40? Can they conceivably tie up many crossings over 50% of the time? All I was asking is: are there any limits whatsoever to what a rail line can do, or do they fall under the Federal guideline where we have no authority?

If your answer is simply that people who build next to tracks are s.o.l. you are missing my point (not hard to do I might add, I was always a C student in writing).

"The D204 plan right now is a left turn over the railroad tracks at Montgomery Road"

Tragedy, that is a false statement. 204 doesn't dictate which route the buses take, that is left to the bus company. They route the buses the safest way possible.

All the buses currently turn left at Keating, which is a 3 way stop at Normantown, cross the tracks and continue to Eola then continue north. I travel that way daily and have yet to see a bus make a left turn at Montgomery.

Try to keep the anti 204 spin out of this, you only make yourself look foolish posting convoluted rhetoric as fact.

Ken, let’s talk about those funny ones.

Funny one #2: Should you ever need to take an ambulance trip you will learn that the unit is dispatched to a certain hospital based on your location and the location of the unit transporting you; they cannot deviate. So just because there are two hospitals in the area doesn’t mean that you will go to one over the other based on a random event (i.e. a train at the crossing.) Additionally, in many of the more established areas there are several train crossings that go over/under the tracks; in this area all of the crossings are at grade.

Funny one #3: Currently the EJ&E transports 10/50 carloads of hazardous materials along those lines each year. After the acquisition that number will rise to 170/480. (Percentagewise a jump of 1700%/960%) Again, the argument here is not whether this is better or not, but rather is the area equipped to handle the accidents that will occur. Simply put, the areas where the EJ&E route through simply do not have the services in place to handle the cleanup and containment; nor does CN want to pay for these services.

In that case we have a foreign company which will adversely affect several communities along these tracks. None of these communities will see a benefit from this purchase; as their will be no stops along this line, nor a station or yard of any kind. Instead, the local communities receive all of the adverse affects, at the MUNICIPALITIES’ cost. With the final nail in the coffin being the loss of a commuter rail line which is sorely needed in this community. Simply put, CN is a bad neighbor.

It is a shame that the StarLine was not made a higher priority. The city is taking the only option it has to fight a losing battle. It is also the politically easiest option. Chicago controls all of Illinois and what Chicago wants it gets. In addition, there is no balance in state nor federal congressional seats, so there is no chance of an 11th hour rescue.

So why not talk about saving energy and public safety. Assure the StarLine is in the final solution, along with over and underpasses in key ares that have the most population. For example, Aurora-Naperville has nearly 300,000 residents, and potential gridlock of traffic - especially exacerbated by D204 increasing the number of students crossing RR tracks by thousands on buses, along with their parents, and student drivers via a ludicrous plan to build a school on the other side of the tracks from most of its students and far from where the students live. That's a reality coming in about 18 months.

So where's the Plan B - the plan if the CN acquisition goes through as planned? Plan B should be to build an overpass/underpass at the busiest streets of the future. Example 95th street to Eola, where thousands of bussed students will pass. The D204 plan right now is a left turn over the railroad tracks at Montgomery Road. Not very safe. I am sure their solution will be to get teenagers up even earlier than 5:30 AM, or postpone their travel until after the parents have left for work. No problem - we pay more for less - that fits the D204 program.

So Naperville and Aurora - get busy on plan B because you cannot stop plan A. Mayor Daley is dumping a problem on the suburbs and wants us to pay for the required improvements. We already know CN has few plans to assist in funding over/underpasses.

I have to admit, there are some funny ones on this thread.

First funny one: Zoning for trains. Maybe many forget the history of Chicago, but it was built on catering to the trains. Downstate Quincy almost got the railyards, but Chicago put up a better fight for them. The rail owners, as has been pointed out before, let the roads cross their tracks, not the other way around. The fact that people built close and bought close to said tracks is not their problem either. Along this line of thought is the fact that CN or any other owner of any rail does not have to take the road using public into account, or the people who live along the tracks. Railroads have federal authority, and do not answer to individual towns.

Second funny one: People waiting for emergency services because of trains. Funny how Downers Grove does not have this problem with all the grade crossings they have. Seems they were able to get police, fire, ambulances, etc. to where they need to go. How many stories do you read about people dieing there because a train stopped them? If you look around, you might find fire districts on both sides of the tracks, and also find that many Naperville ambulances can go to Edwards without crossing those tracks.

Third funny one: Hazardous materials being a big problem. Stories about trains derailing and releasing hazardous materials are big new because they are so rare. Hazardous material already is going through the populated areas; the new routing would put them in less populated areas. Bringing this up is akin to saying no jets should fly over the city because sometimes they crash.

Bottom line is that any lawsuit is a waste of taxpayer's money, and will make CN reluctant to spend money in areas that they had to fight lawsuits.

Let’s debunk some inaccuracies here:

By Anonymous on June 18, 2008 3:37 PM, you said: “These trains would be operating along the same right of way and they alone would generate their own huge increase in rail traffic along these lines”

Yes, they will be in the same right away, but more importantly, they would be on the same track. Today there is only a single track. If CN makes the acquisition they will construct another parallel track. Additionally, they have already stated that they will NOT allow the star line use, paid or otherwise, of their tracks. While some may say, well, install another track. It’s worth noting that the EJ&E land does not support three lines in many areas.

By Anonymous on June 18, 2008 3:37 PM, you said: “Who was complaining about noise or interrupted traffic or public safety during all the years Star Line has been on the drawing board? No one. Not a peep.
Last time I checked, a passenger trains didn’t carry hazardous materials. Nor do passenger trains 2 miles long. Nor do they carry the weights that freight haulers do. Nor do they run at 60 MPH. These freight trains will be 2 miles long, carry hazardous materials, run at 40 MPH, and will increase traffic on the lines by 400%. I don’t know about you, but I would hate to be in ambulance waiting for the slow freight train to pass on my way to Copley hospital, but perhaps you’re different than I.

By Anonymous on June 18, 2008 3:37 PM, you said: “Yet now the actual owners of the rail line want to use their property and business asset more efficiently and everyone is up in arms.”

No one is trying to limit what CN can do, just the manner in which they do it in. They MUST take into account public safety.

Ted,

It would be interesting to take a DB meter to the tracks, the freight trains are about 10-20 x louder than the quiet little commuter ones.

Bubo

Do railroads have any regulations similar to land zoning requirements? i.e. land is regularly zoned for certain purposes: commercial, residential, etc. Along with the zoning are stipulations as to future development. If a parcel of land is zoned as multi family does this mean someone could buy the land and build a 50 story apartment building? Probably not - there are still approvals required.

similar to this land analogy (I know it's a stretch!) just because a railroad exists does it mean that CN can buy the rails and begin running 15-20 freight trains per day simply because they now own it?

Joe, I don't disagree with you about planning and the fact that the tracks have been there for years, but given the fact that this particular track has had ~3-4 trains per day for many years it could have resulted in people viewing this only as an occasional nuisance rather than what is in store for them with CN.

Ted,

Yes the lawsuit will only prove to be costly and unproductive and yet another distraction.

Let's look at another side of this story. Let's talk about the Star Line. First off it doesn't exist. It is just an idea that has never gotten off the ground, mostly because of the question of funding. But we have known about this idea for years and years. These trains would be operating along the same right of way and they alone would generate their own huge increase in rail traffic along these lines.

Who was complaining about noise or interrupted traffic or public safety during all the years Star Line has been on the drawing board? No one. Not a peep.

Who on any of the governmental agencies who are supposed to "think all of this through" for the benefit of the taxpayer" identified all of these grade level crossings as a cause for concern or did anything about it? No one. Not a peep.

Yet now the actual owners of the rail line want to use their property and business asset more efficiently and everyone is up in arms. Pretty shallow and knee jerk thinking going on here if you ask me.

Rather than doing all this political posturing and playing into the whines of those who are complaining it would be a lot more productive if the city council rolled up their sleeves and started taking a hard look at what it is going to remedy the problem. It will cost a bunch of money. It will take time. The sooner we get started working on a solution the better off we all will be. The city council can go ahead and waste time and money fighting a loosing battle, but in the end it will only delay the start date of what inevitably will need to be done.

Response from Ted:

Excellent points about the Star Line. Why aren't those concerned about increased traffic sounding off? Just to be devil's advocate for a moment, there's a difference between freight and passsenger traffic. Freight trains are longer and move slower than passenger trains and more likely to block grade crossings for longer periods of time. Second, with passenger trains you don't have the same concerns about safety as with freight -- the hazardous materials moving through the area on the additional freight trains.

I think we should mention that the current infrastructure (at grade crossings E.G.) was never intended to support this volume of train traffic. Where it is an inconvenence to wait for a train presently it will be more than a major hassel if CN is allowed to do this. Hey, I don't dislike trains but you can't run this type of operation through urban areas that were never built to support it. It's like trying to force more water through a tiny pipe, it won't work! Upgrade the crossings and I'll go along with it and it's incumbant on CN to do exactly that (not the taxpayers). If anyone disagrees please consider yourself of a loved one in critical condidtion in an ambulance stuck waiting for one of these NEVER ENDING road blocks.

I think the city is trying to do the right thing here by representing its residents who have concerns about what will happen after the acquisition. But I think the city council knows its an uphill battle, that the feds are going to approve the merger, and that a lawsuit will only prove to be costly and unproductive.

I would venture a guess that the railroad was there before anyone else built anything next to it like a developer (and before people bought those homes) or a school district.

As someone said, the city's are at fault for planning too little too late and trying to hang their hat on the idea that "Oh, we'll never need that" or "Oh, it will never get that bad". People do a piss poor job of planning ahead for some reason.

Maybe we can learn from Europe where sound walls made of cement are the norm in town and eliminate most of the noise. In the countryside it is earth embankments above the height of the wheels.

Making the trains run on overhead electric in Metro areas also gets rid of the air pollution, reduces noise and cuts down on the bleeding of the US for foreign oil. Oil is running out, the only question is when?

It would be cheaper and faster to build a giant parking deck at the existing Rt 59 station and let people park their cars there or have a roof to stand under when its raining while waiting for a buss.

If the towns built houses on the rail lines it was a terrible decision and unfortunately the chumps that bought the houses are going to pay for it.

I suspect that the real issue with needing a commuter line in this location is that all of the developers (and smart investors like Denny H) bought a lot of land in Plainfield, Oswego and the surrounding area and want to have a train station for their sales brochures.

Follow the money

It sort of disheartens me that among the potential causes for action you listed -- hindrance of emergency vehicles, slowing of school buses, and commuter delays -- you left out the one that is of the greatest importance to local residents: just a general hit to our quality of life.

Given that it sounds like overpass crossings will be be few and far between, it means wasted time taking junior to soccer practice, wasted time trying to shuttle our kids 5 miles to Waubonsie High (oh my, did I just say that?), wasted time trying to go visit my Mom in Oswego. Just wasted time for all of us.

And for those of us who live within earshot of the train line (Paul Lehman are you listening?), it already seems like the line is frequently used. The noise from passing trains can often be heard, and the volume level is not insignificant. To increase it by 4x will, yet again, be another ding on our quality of life. Golly, let's build a new high school right next to it! (Mark Metzger are you listening?)

Hey Hollywood Casino, where are you in this issue? I don't think I'll ever come your way again! After all, I might get stuck waiting for a train. Time to step up, Hollywood!

This development is BAD for our area. It is good for Mayor Daley, though. He gets to re-route trains out of Chicago and into our communities. I'm sure he's tickled.

Hey, where's my STAR line??????? (Dick Durbin are you listening?)

Freight Train is the most efficent use of fuel for shipping. It is good for prices and good for the environment. CN/EJE and the Feds should pay for some under/overpasses AND close some grade crossings for the sake of safety. If the suit is part of a bargaining process to get $$ for safety measures, then I suppose I can support it.

If it is part of a NIMBY (not in my backyard) issue, then these folks should suck it up and the city should not participate. The train tracks were there before their houses were built.

That said, I have a feeling it's more about bargaining.

The city (Naperville) approved the measure that will cost $10,000.00 to join the Regional Answer(?)to Canadian National. What right has the Naperville City Council to stick it's nose (interfere) with private enterprice and it's busines of commerce. Has the city Council run out of issues, problem dealing direct with city business that it has extend themselves into private enterprise? (and spent tax money, my money) What erogence. This is a RailRoad. The tracks have beed there perhaps 90 years and now it's a problem. What about Burlington Northern freight that rummbles through the middle of Naperville, perhaps 11 time per day. Polution? Congestion? Just plain noise. What's the alternative, stop the acqusition, and shift all that trafic, commerce to trucking and realy polute the region with desil fumes. City council, please "tender your own back yard."
Joseph Rucys

The nuisance did not move to us. We moved to the nuisance. The railroads have been here for over a hundred years. This was remote farmland when the railroad was first built. Over the years the city, county, and state have had to ask for easements across the private land owned by the railroad to build roads needed as urban growth crept further and further west.

We, the people, need and want these easements. We, the people, need and want to avoid delay at railroad crossings. The railroad is a business and must operate as a business. Increasing the capacity and utilization of a business asset is a sound business move. If we want to go over or under the railroad we need to wake up and accept the fact that we, the people are going to have to pay for these improvements. There is actually a part of us that should be grateful and thankful just that the railroad has to provide public easements across their tracks... just think of the consequences if they were not required to do so!

Of course the federal government is going to approve this. This involves interstate commerce. This involves free trade. This will actually help get trucks off the interstate. Just because the EJ&J was not utilized as much in the past is no excuse for all of the city, county, and state authorities to sit by and do nothing for decades, never asking or thinking or realizing that this railroad had a terrific untapped potential. Urban planning and traffic planning throughout the State of Illinois has always been too little, too late. Roads are never widened in anticipation of a need, only after traffic comes to a standstill. Look at Rt 59! This road should have been widened years ago, probably at least 10 years ago. No one knows if or when it will be widened. By the time it is widened to 3 lanes it will be too little too late and by the time the project is complete it will already be at full capacity again.

People don't want to hear the bad news. People don't want to accept the bad news. The reality is that none of this is the railroad's fault. If any one of us owned the railroad we would do exactly the same thing. The blame falls 100% on lack of vision and foresight of every municipality that now is trying to figure out how to pay for what will be needed.

Will the city council proceed to waste another huge sum of money trying to fight a battle they can't win and which is already lost? You bet! And the city council members all know it going in. Yet they can't help themselves. Not one of them has the testicular fortitude to stand up and just be honest and tell the squeaky wheel people what they don't want to hear. So they take the easy way out, spend a fortune on lawyers, and when all the dust settles they will strongly proclaim they did all that was possible and then blame the court and the judicial system for the final outcome.

When I die I am going to go beyond being an organ donor. I've decided to leave my spine for the Naperville City Council. You can all get together and decide who's the most needy recipient on my behalf. I know it won't be easy narrowing the list down, just do your best.