Transportation articles lead to speculation

I wanted to comment on some articles that recently ran in the Herald. The "Hidden hazards" articles relative to the hazards posed by railroad tanker cars transporting crude oil and other hazardous materials really hit home. I have sat at railroad crossings while very long trains with numerous tankers Block crossings for long periods of time. These trains run through densely populated suburbs blocking major intersections. I have often wondered, given the possibility of a major catastrophe of a derailment and subsequent fire or explosion, why there is opposition to the keystone pipeline which wouldn't run through major population centers. The excuse given is opposition by environmentalist. I find it much more likely that the railroads hauling all of that crude oil really don't want to lose the revenue. While environmentalist might not like the pipeline, I would think they would strongly oppose tanker cars running through densely populated areas subject to large loss of life and property in the event of a derailment. Just wondering!

Another article that caught my eye was the "Lively Boulevard reconstruction from Devon to Thorndale in Elk Grove Village." The article said that the state is expected to pay 80 percent of the cost and the village 20 percent. Does the state normally pay for road construction on roads and streets in villages and towns that are not state roads? I doubt it. In recent articles regarding the extension of Route 53 through Lake County, a project that has been on the drawing board for more than 20 years, is an extension of a major freeway and certainly deserve state funding there is no mention of state funding at all. If I understand it correctly, it would have to be funded by tolls on all of

Rout 53/I-355 and taxes imposed on Lake County residents. The proposed Illiana tollway on the other hand would require major state funding. That project though is being pushed by some big name politicians. Just wondering!

Spencer Brooks

Barrington