Congressman Dan Lipinski jumps aboard...

Congressman Dan Lipinski jumps aboard Canadian National deal

There are 120 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Aug 20, 2008, titled Congressman Dan Lipinski jumps aboard Canadian National deal. In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

Canadian National Railway's bid to buy the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway gained momentum this week as a key congressman joined a coalition of suburban leaders throwing their support behind the controversial ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last
Give it up CN RR

Crystal Lake, IL

#102 Aug 25, 2008
Not a railroader wrote:
<quoted text>
John, you protest that we have not given any proof, when the actual fact is that if you read many of the threads you will find some of us quoting facts and figures from Government sources. What you present is personal opinion without any data to back up your claims. You claim to "know" the volume of traffic that CN will run in 10-15 years, yet you don't so us a study or data to back up your claims. Without citing those studies or data all you say is just personal opinion and conjecture. However, I will continue to cite the studies that the STB did on this issue. They heard comments and requests of the people and did some of the long range studies, which by the way contradict some of your predictions.
Here, start with this fairly generic article about rail carriers from the financial side. They state 88% increase nby 2035. This re research is fun, there is so much to choose from. RITA is a great place to look over the stats as well. Lots on crashes at crossings, deaths at crossings, hm accidents, yard accidents, tonnage increases. Just don't have to much time right now. I'll drag em out again for ya tho. Keep watching.
Bill-Elgin

Geneva, IL

#104 Aug 25, 2008
JBChitown wrote:
<quoted text>
John, sorry, I couldn't help myself, but allow me to point 'Not a Railroader' in the right direction...
Not...you only need to take a look at Prince Rupert Ports own website to see what kind of future traffic we're speaking of. Allow me to quote a snippit from Prince Rupert own website:
"The surging Asian trade is projected to increase container volumes by 300 per cent into North America by 2020. To meet this demand, plans are underway to rapidly expand capacity. Phase 2 expansion of the Prince Rupert Container Terminal, projected to begin construction in early 2009, will quadruple the terminalís capacity to two million TEUs by 2012. A second container terminal, now in its design stages, has Prince Rupert on course to handle up to 5 million TEUs by 2020."
And just who is handling all this traffic? Why that would be CN rail...THE ONLY RAIL LINE WITH ACCESS TO PRINCE RUPERT PORT.
You claim no facts and figures are presented, however I don't believe you've done your homework.
If a big increase will be occurring, we should build overpasses now, several reasons. When the US government runs out of funding,(near future) it might be a long time to get anything built. I would rather our overpasses be the last ones built before funding runs out then the first ones never built because the funds ran out. 2; They will cost less now. 3; It would help the local economy. 4; Even though the overpasses are not quite at the "needed" threshold yet, they will be. 5; Even if the traffic does not increase that much, they are better off with overpasses that are open 24/7/365. That's better then they got now. OK Congressman Lipinski, talk is cheap, get federal money earmarked and get these overpasses built!
Not a railroader

Papillion, NE

#105 Aug 25, 2008
Give it up CN RR wrote:
<quoted text>
Here, start with this fairly generic article about rail carriers from the financial side. They state 88% increase nby 2035. This re research is fun, there is so much to choose from. RITA is a great place to look over the stats as well. Lots on crashes at crossings, deaths at crossings, hm accidents, yard accidents, tonnage increases. Just don't have to much time right now. I'll drag em out again for ya tho. Keep watching.
Glad you are back trying to back up your points with statistics. Now the conversation can begin. One thing that you should compare while you look at the stats on accidents and that is the relative rates for CN and the EJ&E. This information I have posted before shows that CN is a much safer railroad. Yes I do agree that more trains means more potential exposure to HazMat. But if the trains are run over much better maintained tracks you could have a lower chance of exposure to a HazMat incident than if you have few trains on a poorly maintained track.
Not a railroader

Papillion, NE

#106 Aug 25, 2008
JBChitown wrote:
<quoted text>
John, sorry, I couldn't help myself, but allow me to point 'Not a Railroader' in the right direction...
Not...you only need to take a look at Prince Rupert Ports own website to see what kind of future traffic we're speaking of. Allow me to quote a snippit from Prince Rupert own website:
"The surging Asian trade is projected to increase container volumes by 300 per cent into North America by 2020. To meet this demand, plans are underway to rapidly expand capacity. Phase 2 expansion of the Prince Rupert Container Terminal, projected to begin construction in early 2009, will quadruple the terminalís capacity to two million TEUs by 2012. A second container terminal, now in its design stages, has Prince Rupert on course to handle up to 5 million TEUs by 2020."
And just who is handling all this traffic? Why that would be CN rail...THE ONLY RAIL LINE WITH ACCESS TO PRINCE RUPERT PORT.
You claim no facts and figures are presented, however I don't believe you've done your homework.
Very good, I'm glad to see that we are dealing with facts and figures. However one thing that you should mention is that not all of the container traffic that comes into the Prince Ruppert (PR) port will travel to, or through, Chicago. Traffic bound for Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City will likely not even come into the US. In addition some of the traffic would have destinations West of Chicago, i.e. Minneapolis. Other traffic would be interchanged with other railroads before it ever got to Chicago. So while PR is planing to have that added capacity it does not automatically translate into all of it coming through Chicago. Good point however.
Give it up CN RR

Crystal Lake, IL

#107 Aug 25, 2008
Not a railroader wrote:
<quoted text>
Glad you are back trying to back up your points with statistics. Now the conversation can begin. One thing that you should compare while you look at the stats on accidents and that is the relative rates for CN and the EJ&E. This information I have posted before shows that CN is a much safer railroad. Yes I do agree that more trains means more potential exposure to HazMat. But if the trains are run over much better maintained tracks you could have a lower chance of exposure to a HazMat incident than if you have few trains on a poorly maintained track.
CN wast recently chastized for their safety and maintenance by Canadian officials. Don't make me find the article. It might be misconstrued as sensationalizing. John
Dave

United States

#108 Aug 25, 2008
Bill-Elgin wrote:
<quoted text>If a big increase will be occurring, we should build overpasses now, several reasons. When the US government runs out of funding,(near future) it might be a long time to get anything built. I would rather our overpasses be the last ones built before funding runs out then the first ones never built because the funds ran out. 2; They will cost less now. 3; It would help the local economy. 4; Even though the overpasses are not quite at the "needed" threshold yet, they will be. 5; Even if the traffic does not increase that much, they are better off with overpasses that are open 24/7/365. That's better then they got now. OK Congressman Lipinski, talk is cheap, get federal money earmarked and get these overpasses built!
What part of NO do you not understand, YOU don't need them! UP west has 3 times more trains then you would ever have and we do just fine. Yes to CN, not one penny for overpasses that are not needed!
Give it up CN RR

Crystal Lake, IL

#109 Aug 25, 2008
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>What part of NO do you not understand, YOU don't need them! UP west has 3 times more trains then you would ever have and we do just fine. Yes to CN, not one penny for overpasses that are not needed!
Dave, I've noticed your kind of mad all the time. Loosing the debate?
JBChitown

Chicago, IL

#110 Aug 25, 2008
Not a railroader wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good, I'm glad to see that we are dealing with facts and figures. However one thing that you should mention is that not all of the container traffic that comes into the Prince Ruppert (PR) port will travel to, or through, Chicago. Traffic bound for Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City will likely not even come into the US. In addition some of the traffic would have destinations West of Chicago, i.e. Minneapolis. Other traffic would be interchanged with other railroads before it ever got to Chicago. So while PR is planing to have that added capacity it does not automatically translate into all of it coming through Chicago. Good point however.
There's a very good article from a few months ago entitled 'Prince Rupert Casts a Wary Eye on Chicago'...it is a very interesting read and nicely ties the Prince Rupert Port expansion to CN's acquisition of the EJ&E (and ultimately Ruperts success). Why? becuase a large amount of these goods are destined for Memphis via thr EJ&E. The article was written and published in Canada...no local spin.
CN cares

Crystal Lake, IL

#111 Aug 25, 2008
Here is a current example of the way CN is as a neighbor.
We can assume the future issues will be handled in similar manner.
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews...
Not a railroader

Papillion, NE

#112 Aug 25, 2008
Give it up CN RR wrote:
<quoted text>
CN wast recently chastized for their safety and maintenance by Canadian officials. Don't make me find the article. It might be misconstrued as sensationalizing. John
Yes I read those articles several months ago. Part of their problem is that they took over the government run BC rail or I should say government rundown BC rail. That has caused them a lot of problems. I don't say that they don't have problems or room to improve. But their safety record (accident rate) here in the US is a big improvement over the EJ&E's. And their accident rate has been getting better over the last 10 years.
CN is NO friend

Crystal Lake, IL

#113 Aug 26, 2008
Not a railroader wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I read those articles several months ago. Part of their problem is that they took over the government run BC rail or I should say government rundown BC rail. That has caused them a lot of problems. I don't say that they don't have problems or room to improve. But their safety record (accident rate) here in the US is a big improvement over the EJ&E's. And their accident rate has been getting better over the last 10 years.
Don't count on CN to do anything but take legal action. That is the REAL CN.'Do it our way or we'll take ya to court'.
Dave

United States

#114 Aug 27, 2008
Give it up CN RR wrote:
<quoted text>
Dave, I've noticed your kind of mad all the time. Loosing the debate?
You guys are going to cost everyone a lot of money! Not to mention traffic congestion that would have been reduced, and wear and tear on the roads that also would be reduced by CN. Now Bridgebuilder Bill is talking about overpasses even if the CN deal falls through. What ever happened to stop, look, listen, and obey the signal. Most accidents are multi track with people cutting around a signal gate by a stopped train not seeing a second train approaching. This would not happen on the CN with only one track.
just wondering

Downers Grove, IL

#115 Aug 28, 2008
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>You guys are going to cost everyone a lot of money! Not to mention traffic congestion that would have been reduced, and wear and tear on the roads that also would be reduced by CN. Now Bridgebuilder Bill is talking about overpasses even if the CN deal falls through. What ever happened to stop, look, listen, and obey the signal. Most accidents are multi track with people cutting around a signal gate by a stopped train not seeing a second train approaching. This would not happen on the CN with only one track.
Part of the Ej&E would be double tracked and CN could add another track with the right away. You can bet on that. An increase from 5 to 20 trains is bad but doubling that to 40 is realistic.
Mundelein Resident

Chicago, IL

#116 Aug 28, 2008
Not a railroader wrote:
<quoted text>
Right Of Way (ROW) is land that the railroad owns and can use for tracks, and equipment they need to run the railroad. No the railroad does not need approval from regulators to build second (or third, or even fourth tracks) in their ROW.
Actually the EJ&E mainline is 120 miles long. The balance of the 198 miles are on branch lines that are such low density lines they don't need to be double tracked. In addition the 12.78 miles from Waukegan to Leithton (Mundelein) are not projected to see an increase in trains per day beyond the current low density of 3.2 trains/day, so the only about 107.22 miles are impacted by increased traffic. CN is using most of the 19 miles of construction to connect existing sidings so that with 19 miles of new double track they gain approximately 25 miles total (19 new + 6.1 miles of existing sidings) of double track. This would bring the EJ&E's double track total up to approximately 51.9 miles. By my calculation (based upon an archived timetable) this will have all but 5.8 miles of the EJ&E's western subdivision (Joliet to Gary) double tracked, and 48% of the main line affected by the purchase double tracked (up from about 25% today).
I attended the public meeting in Mundelein. According to the maps displayed, rail road traffic would increase by 15 trains along this route. That would be a grand total of 20 trains per day! 20 TRAINS A DAY GOING THRU MUNDELEIN! THAT WOULD BE ON AVERAGE A TRAIN AN HOUR. Currently, the traffic congestion at 60/83/ Diamond Lake Road is HORRIBLE NOW with only five trains A DAY! Can you imagine the hell hole it would become if there were 20 trains at this crossing? People CAN NOT get our of their subdivisions as it is NOW, forget about ever leaving your home if they put in the 2nd track and increase the railroad congestion to 20 trains a day. How ironic that some are promoting the CN deal saying it would reduce rail congestion! Yeah for whom? It would cause both traffic and rail congestion here in LAKE county. And what about the homes in the way of the 2nd track? Does anyone know how much right of way is needed for a 2nd track?
Bill-Elgin

Geneva, IL

#117 Aug 28, 2008
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>You guys are going to cost everyone a lot of money! Not to mention traffic congestion that would have been reduced, and wear and tear on the roads that also would be reduced by CN. Now Bridgebuilder Bill is talking about overpasses even if the CN deal falls through. What ever happened to stop, look, listen, and obey the signal. Most accidents are multi track with people cutting around a signal gate by a stopped train not seeing a second train approaching. This would not happen on the CN with only one track.
What have you got against overpasses? They save lives, time, and are convenient. I can tell you because I know, I have to go over the EJ&E several times a day,(on an overpass) and you don't even notice it. These overpasses would benefit everyone weather the CN buys the EJ&E or not. This is OUR MONEY, Illinois is 45th out of 50 on federal dollars returned over dollars sent from Illinois to the federal government. We are subsidizing other states! Lets get this money earmarked for these overpasses!
Bill-Elgin

Geneva, IL

#118 Aug 28, 2008
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>You guys are going to cost everyone a lot of money! Not to mention traffic congestion that would have been reduced, and wear and tear on the roads that also would be reduced by CN. Now Bridgebuilder Bill is talking about overpasses even if the CN deal falls through. What ever happened to stop, look, listen, and obey the signal. Most accidents are multi track with people cutting around a signal gate by a stopped train not seeing a second train approaching. This would not happen on the CN with only one track.
One more point, just because the towns along the UP and BNSF don't have overpasses does not mean other towns should lower their safety standards to your town's low level. If Barrington wants to be safe and improve their traffic problems, they should push to get earmarks. If they don't, they might end up with the CN and no overpasses. Once that happens, it will be much harder to get the money.
Bill-Elgin

Geneva, IL

#119 Sep 10, 2008
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>You guys are going to cost everyone a lot of money! Not to mention traffic congestion that would have been reduced, and wear and tear on the roads that also would be reduced by CN. Now Bridgebuilder Bill is talking about overpasses even if the CN deal falls through. What ever happened to stop, look, listen, and obey the signal. Most accidents are multi track with people cutting around a signal gate by a stopped train not seeing a second train approaching. This would not happen on the CN with only one track.
I just found out Glen Ellyn has a little known one-lane tunnel under the UP, big enough for emergency vehicles! HOW DARE YOU oppose over/underpasses for other towns! Easy for you to oppose money for overpasses, YOUR emergency responders will not be held up! Overpasses first, politics second!
Dave

United States

#120 Sep 10, 2008
Bill-Elgin wrote:
<quoted text>I just found out Glen Ellyn has a little known one-lane tunnel under the UP, big enough for emergency vehicles! HOW DARE YOU oppose over/underpasses for other towns! Easy for you to oppose money for overpasses, YOUR emergency responders will not be held up! Overpasses first, politics second!
I was unaware of the tunnel, I talked to a police officer and he confirmed it exists and told me the location. The facts still stand that we have 3 times the trains you will ever have, and you don't need overpasses. Why do you NIMBYS think you have special rights? Yes to CN. No to NIMBYS.
Bill-Elgin

Geneva, IL

#121 Sep 12, 2008
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>I was unaware of the tunnel, I talked to a police officer and he confirmed it exists and told me the location. The facts still stand that we have 3 times the trains you will ever have, and you don't need overpasses. Why do you NIMBYS think you have special rights? Yes to CN. No to NIMBYS.
I am not a NIMBY, and not 100% pro-CN. But I do want more of our money to come back to help infrastructure and jobs here. Anytime we can build a bridge at 5 cents on the dollar, and a railroad will pay the maintenance, it is a good deal. Also, if Illinois does not get it's share of a shrinking pie, Alaska and others will gladly eat up our share.
Ed south side Chicago

United States

#122 Jun 18, 2010
Lipinski sold us out. There are more trains than ever even in the city.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Canadian National Railway Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News South Milton residents regrouping to oppose int... (Mar '15) Aug '17 Norbert of Norview 3
E. Hunter Harrison Earns $29,281 PER DAY !!! (C... (Feb '07) Jul '17 Not a Hunter fan 168
Let's hear from CN Employees (Mar '09) May '17 Dave 18
Spadina coach yard limited edition print (Apr '17) Apr '17 Joe 1
News The CNR viaduct in Port Hope, Ont. was built in... (Mar '17) Mar '17 Pierre Berton was... 1
Diversity is White Genocide (Nov '16) Mar '17 Thomas 2
News CSX to Hire Hunter Harrison as CEO (Mar '17) Mar '17 Thomas 1
More from around the web