Valid reasons to vote against Rt. 53 plan

A referendum on extending Route 53, with little dissemination of information, doesn't constitute a valid opinion vote. If it's "yes," a hot-button issue slipped through the cracks without information really available to the public. If it's "no," enough people understand the ramifications of keeping this black hole alive, sucking money and energy and time away from doable, valid projects. If it hadn't been built for more than 50 years, how is today better? Stimulus money? Don't think so. We can't fill potholes, bottlenecks remain, lights are synchronized to mostly turn red on approach. At a conservative $1.86 billion in 2001, it's hard to imagine the cost today. (That was the cost in the governor's report; the cost the public heard was $780 million to $820 million. Now that's honest!) Putting this road back on the map won't solve traffic congestion (never was the intent, as said by an authority in an IDOT/Toll Authority traffic study). Think we have flooding problems now, put massive amounts of pavement through wetlands and WE'VE GOT FLOODING! And what about the hostages? The people, in the right-of-way, who haven't been able to sell? Like the CN decision, protocol isn't relevant. Public concern, protection is an annoyance. Environmental impacts - how will a proper study be accomplished now that the EJ&E is purchased? Opponents to the CN-EJ&E merger know the uphill battle it is to have valid review of a major project. CN is now challenging the few mitigation commitments they made. The Environmental Impact Study for Route 53 was so flawed it was a useless waste of time and money. The informed public comments, through many years, have been decidedly opposed, but guess what? They didn't say the right thing, so . . . here we are, again - with less information than ever. Extending Route 53 isn't affordable fiscally, humanitarianly and environmentally. Vote "no."

Cheryl Doros

Grayslake