Join the discussion on the following article:
BNSF challenges order keeping it from using Wisconsin track
Typical of tree huggers. We couldn’t stop you from building it so now that it’s done we’ll try to stop you from using it just so we can say we won. The ‘swamp masters/tree huggers’ will be the first to whine about Walmart not having favorite IMPORTED herbal tea when BNSF is late delivering it.
Complete utter foolishness on the part of the city and the NIMBY’s fighting this. No common sense at all as their action will not change the NUMBER of trains operating through, but the double track will actually allow less idle time and reduce air pollution and fuel burned due to removed congestion. As Pogo would say, the treehugger’s has met their enemy and they is it…LOL!
Tree-huggers and NIMBY’s two species of “do-gooders” that are never satisfied with anything. They’ll bawl about too many trains while bawling about too many trucks on the highways!
I just shake my head about these idiots here in Canada & the USA! I agree with the other 3 comments 100%
The injunction is pre-empted by federal law and the city cannot stop track use for interstate commerce purposes if the state permits, which pre-empt city zoning bylaws, are legal.
Just another nail in the coffin of democracy. Small but vocal interest groups have learned how to game-the-system to alter or change what they, and only they, feel needs to be changed. Eventually the system breaks and you really won’t like what comes next.
I would think someone trying to make oil shipments safer would rather have 2 or 3 tracks everywhere to minimize the odds of collisions.
Is this John Scott once of Greenfield Village?
Screw the “wet lands!”
When I helped build a rail line through a wetlands area, we had to construct 3 acres of new wetlands for every acre we filled in. Seems to me with a ratio like that, the tree-huggers would be saying, “come on build some more”.
Why does this take court action? Can’t they just contact the state, find out the permits are real, and be done?
Our hard earned tax dollars at work. Yes, wet lands need protected, but if BNSF has already completed the
required work with the state, what’s the problem?
Since it looks like they are bridging part of this fill, how does that endanger the wetlands. They are not damming the waterway. I guess someone needs their “15 minutes of fame”.
The logic is ridiculous. They can build the double track which, supposedly, would be doing the damage, but they can’t use it once any “damage” has been done? Really?
Still, maybe the judge was looking for a way to appease local interests without actually doing anything effective. After all, at this point, there’s no point in preventing BNSF from using the track, the city wouldn’t have standing to challenge it given that it can’t prove further “harm”.
With coal traffic down, this might be a good place to park a few unit trains.
It amazes me how afraid people are of oil trains, yet seem un phased by chlorine, amonia, hydrocloric acid, the tank cars that are long and have a flamable placard say “Do Not Hump” I think people are born with out a brain sometimes. Or how about box cars loaded at military bases with ammo? Finally what logic is there when they claim 2 tracks somehow will in crease the train counts? I don’t think BNSF is sending 50 to 100 extra trains via the coalfields and via Sioux City to Fremont and over. They basically will go on the same track they already have been going on now however they will actually be able to get by more quickly as there will be a second track. Also so they don’t seem to care that cp sends oil trains through the same freakin town where my there is 2 tracks! Wow what a concept. Hoping the government steps in soon and says to these NIMBYS that the national economy is more important and world economy then weather or not they can enjoy their cheese with their WHINE!!!
If I bought a huge mansion along an interstate that was built in the 50s and they wanted to add another lane I would not go hey you can’t do that it will add to the traffic! Why, I am smart enough to know when you buy a house near airports, roads, and railroad tracks you may hear planes, cars, and trains! So your property values are fine with one track, but not two? That has no logic unless track 2 was built in your kitchen!
If I were BNSF, I would make it a point to ensure any traffic that might be delayed would be that originating or terminating in Wisconsin until such time as the city of La Crosse gets its act together.