WASHINGTON — The Surface Transportation Board will examine the impact of changes in the amount of traffic on rail lines, and at yards and intermodal facilities, as well the impact of capital improvements such as double-tracking and new sidings, as part of Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Canadian Pacific-Kansas City Southern merger.
The board announced on Friday that it issued the Final Scope of Study for the environmental impact study, outlining the areas to be reviewed in that portion of the merger proceeding. Topics such as land use, recreation, and geology will not be included, the board said in the document released Friday, because no comments were received on these areas during initial screening by the STB’s Office of Environmental Analysis.
The topics determined to be within the scope of the environmental review process will be examined in a total of 13 areas, each of which includes a number of specific facets. Those areas include matters such as freight and passenger rail capacity and safety; grade crossing safety and delay; noise; air quality and climate change; natural resources; and mitigation measures. A complete list of the areas to be examined, along with details, is available in the document released by the STB.
More information on the environmental review process is available at the STB’s website for the merger’s environmental impact statement.
Hmm..Semi’s get a pass again….there is no limit to how many diesel trucks pass over our highway system each day…If the count goes up each day, no biggie here! Score 1 for the trucks, 0 for a railroad that wants to make more money by running more trains. Oh, my mind is running in overdrive now….(pun intended).
Oxford definition from Google search for environmental
1. relating to the natural world and the impact of human activity on its condition.
“acid rain may have caused major environmental damage”
2. relating to or arising from a person’s surroundings
Agree with Gerald here. “Topics such as land use, recreation, and geology will not be included.” Per defintion these are potentially environmental issues but not being covered since no concerns were raised by anyone. I was a bit surprised that recreation was not brought up because I thought it was possibly Dubuque that was concerned about fact that a new park and possibly concert/festival site between train line and the BIg Muddy could have issues with increased train counts.
Dubuque or anywhere else, it’s the railroad’s business how many trains it runs. Two a day or two an hour or any other number. Dubuque or anywhere else, deal with it.
I frequently watch trains in Chicago suburbs. Or ride the Hiawatha to get there. Amazing that very frequent trains (freight, passenger) pass through extremely nice suburbs, right through the business district or right past expensive homes, apartments or condos. No one complains. No one calls it an environmental problem. But go to a less prosperous area, people blame the railroad’s frequency of traffic for their neighborhood issues.
Charles: You said, “Let’s say the train count is 30 freights plus Amtrak. Amtrak wants to add a train pair, CSX wants to add five freights. Is that an environmental issue? Of course not. ……The railroad and the diesel fumes are already there…… .(edit mrw)……How is a merger any different?”
If 30 freights emit X amount of fumes, how can (you did NOT say THE SAME AMOUNT, I agree) the fumes emitted are more for a fact, and not “just fumes ALREADY there” (ed. mrw). This would constitute a legit STB environmental concern……IF…… the STB is asked to PERMIT additional traffic. The devil is in the details. STB does NOT have to consider how many trains a day any one RR runs on their rails.
Last part of your comment, well again. “Merger” involves two RR’s. Addition of Amtrak on an existing route is somewhat different. The issue before the STB is not exactly a merger, OR more like an increase of trains per day (exceptions noted: Amtrak will be permanent rather than freight traffic up and down, AND rules that can apply to Amtrak priority). But then again that extra freight (NOT STB asked for) might be a “hot shot” that will certainly have dispatch priority.
Just saying. mrw0218221455
Only noise, air quality, and natural resources seem to be environmentally pertinent. The other issues certainly should be considered but not as environmental factors (unless the STB is greatly expanding the definition of such).
Environmental reviews have long since expanded to any issue that anyone brings up, be the issues legitimate, frivilous, or somewhere in between.
This would be like, say a railroad, pick a railroad, any railroad. OK, CSX across New York State. Let’s say the train count is 30 freights plus Amtrak. Amtrak wants to add a train pair, CSX wants to add five freights. Is that an environmental issue? Of course not. The railroad and the diesel fumes are already there. How is a merger any different? Train counts may go up or down on CP-KCS, but that can be any railroad any day.
The key to your statement is in the statement from the STB about what is not being covered and why, which I quote here: “Topics such as land use, recreation, and geology will not be included, the board said in the document released Friday, because no comments were received on these areas during initial screening by the STB’s Office of Environmental Analysis.” That means all other areas to be covered under the Environmental Review have been brought up in comments from interested parties. It’s as simple as following the paperwork.
I am not arguing that those issues should not be covered in the STB review, but rather that they should not have been considered environmental issues. For some time, people have been calling certain concerns environmental rather than properly classifying them.