SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT
    Decision Information

Docket Number:  
FD_35087_8

Case Title:  
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY AND GRAND TRUNK CORPORATION--CONTROL--EJ&E WEST COMPANY

Decision Type:  
Decision

Deciding Body:  
Entire Board

    Decision Summary

Decision Notes:  
DECISION FOUND THAT THE VILLAGE OF BARRINGTON HAS NOT PRESENTED NEW EVIDENCE OR SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WARRANT THE REQUESTED ADDITIONAL MITIGATION AND THEREFORE DENIES THE REQUEST.

    Decision Attachments

145 KB


Approximate download time at 28.8 kb: 99 Seconds

Note:
If you do not have Acrobat Reader, or if you have problems reading our files with your current version of Acrobat Reader, the latest version of Acrobat Reader is available free at www.adobe.com.

    Full Text of Decision

46650 SERVICE DATE – DECEMBER 21, 2018

EB

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

 

DECISION

 

Docket No. FD 35087 (Sub‑No. 8)

 

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY AND GRAND TRUNK CORPORATION—CONTROL—EJ&E WEST COMPANY

 

Digest:[1] The Village of Barrington, Ill., has requested that the Board reopen this proceeding to require Canadian National Railway Company to fund a grade-separated crossing at U.S. Highway 14 in the Village of Barrington as a condition of the Board’s 2008 approval of the carrier’s acquisition of EJ&E West Company. The Board finds that the Village of Barrington has not presented new evidence or substantially changed circumstances that warrant the requested additional mitigation and therefore denies the request.

 

Decided: December 20, 2018

 

On August 8, 2018, the Village of Barrington, Ill. (Barrington), filed a petition to reopen this proceeding to require Canadian National Railway Company to provide funding for a grade-separated crossing in Barrington at U.S. Highway 14 (U.S. 14). This is Barrington’s fourth petition to reopen requesting the same relief. Barrington’s current petition is primarily based on a June 12, 2018 incident in which a stopped freight train blocked four at-grade crossings in Barrington, requiring ambulances to detour around the blockage. Barrington argues that the June 12 incident demonstrates that the current mitigation imposed to facilitate emergency service response is insufficient. For the reasons discussed below, Barrington’s petition will be denied.

 

BACKGROUND

 

In December 2008, the Board approved the acquisition of control by Canadian National Railway Company and Grand Trunk Corporation (collectively, CN) of EJ&E West Company, a wholly owned, noncarrier subsidiary of Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company, subject to environmental and other conditions. Canadian Nat’l Ry.—Control—EJ&E W. Co. (2008 Final Decision), FD 35087 et al. (STB served Dec. 24, 2008), aff’d sub nom. Vill. of Barrington v. STB (Barrington I), 636 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The approval was subject to, among other conditions, an initial five-year monitoring and oversight period to allow the Board to monitor the impacts of the transaction.[2] As part of the Board’s oversight, CN submitted monthly reports on its operations and quarterly environmental reports so that the Board would be kept apprised of the implementation and effectiveness of the mitigation conditions.

 

Prior to the approval of the acquisition, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.  4321-4370h, the Board’s Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA)[3] prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) examining the potential environmental effects of the transaction, including an extensive analysis of the transaction’s potential impact on traffic congestion and safety at the 112 highway/rail at-grade crossings along the EJ&E rail line. Based on CN’s estimates for projected train traffic on the EJ&E line for the year 2015, OEA recommended highway/rail at-grade crossing mitigation for eight of 13 “substantially affected”[4] crossings and found a grade separation to be appropriate mitigation for two of those crossings. The crossing at U.S. 14 did not meet the Board’s criteria for a “substantially affected” crossing, as any traffic issues would primarily be the result of preexisting conditions. See 2008 Final Decision, slip op. at 45 & n.101.

 

The Board also considered the effect of the proposed transaction on emergency service providers in the communities located along the EJ&E line. See id. at 48-49. In the Final EIS, OEA determined that 14 fire protection and hospital facilities might be substantially affected by the acquisition, and the Board ordered mitigation to communities containing seven[5] of the affected fire protection and hospital facilities, including Barrington Fire Department’s Station No. 1 and Barrington’s Advocate Good Shepherd Hospital, to minimize impacts on emergency response providers that the Board determined may be substantially affected by the transaction. Id. at 48, 77; (see EIS 2-49 to 2-65, Dec. 5, 2008, FD 35087 (Final EIS)). The Board required CN to “install a real-time video monitoring (CCTV) system with video cameras at appropriate locations so that the movement of trains can be monitored and reasonably predicted.” 2008 Final Decision, slip op. at 48. The Board imposed this requirement on CN through Mitigation Condition No. 18 (MC 18), which identified U.S. 14 and the three other crossings in Barrington, all of which are at-grade, as locations that would receive video monitoring as part of the mitigation for emergency service providers. Id. at 77.

 

In April 2010, CN filed a petition to reopen the proceeding for the limited purpose of modifying MC 18 to allow CN to install its own web-based system, Active Crossing System (ACS), instead of CCTV. Barrington notified CN that it did not object to the replacement of CCTV with ACS. (CN Pet., Ex. A, Apr. 23, 2010, Canadian Nat’l Ry.—Control—EJ&E W. Co., FD 35087 et al.) The Board granted CN’s petition and modified MC 18 to require CN to implement ACS. See Canadian Nat’l Ry.—Control—EJ&E W. Co., FD 35087 et al., slip op. at 3-4 (STB served Aug. 30, 2010).

 

In one of its three previous requests to reopen this proceeding, Barrington raised, among other things, the effectiveness of ACS, the impacts of longer and slower trains on emergency services, and the impacts of trains that could block all four Barrington intersections. (See Barrington Pet. 24, Nov. 26, 2014; Barrington Surreply 21-23, Jan. 5, 2015.) The Board denied the request to reopen, finding that Barrington had presented neither new evidence nor changed circumstances that warranted reopening. See generally Canadian Nat’l Ry.—Control—EJ&E W. Co. (May 2015 Decision), FD 35087 (Sub‑No. 8) (STB served May 15, 2015), recons. denied (STB served Nov. 4, 2015). With respect to Barrington’s concerns regarding the functionality of ACS, the Board suggested that Barrington should work with CN to resolve those issues, noting that CN had indicated a willingness to “determine if there are practical improvements that can be made to ACS.” May 2015 Decision, slip op. at 8 n.24.

 

The Board has also denied Barrington’s three previous petitions seeking reopening and funding for a grade separation; and for those decisions for which Barrington sought judicial review, the courts have affirmed the Board’s determinations.[6] Most recently, in its October 2017 Decision, the Board denied Barrington’s petition to reconsider the Board’s April 2017 Decision, which denied reopening. Barrington appealed the Board’s October 2017 Decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which denied Barrington’s petition for review on June 11, 2018. Barrington III, 892 F.3d at 273.[7]

 

Despite these prior Board decisions and court rulings, in its current petition to reopen this proceeding, filed on August 8, 2018, Barrington asserts, based primarily on the June 12, 2018 blockage incident, that the Board’s mitigation has failed to address the 2008 transaction’s impacts on emergency service responders and once again asks that the Board require CN to provide funding for a grade separation at the U.S. 14 crossing.

 

PRELIMINARY MATTER

 

Barrington filed its petition to reopen on August 8, 2018, and CN filed a reply on August 29, 2018. At that time, briefing was complete, and this case was ripe for decision. Following CN’s reply, however, the Board received additional filings from the parties. By motion filed September 14, 2018, Barrington requested leave to file a response to CN’s reply. In a reply filed on October 4, 2018, CN requested leave to reply to Barrington’s September 14 reply, should it be accepted by the Board. On October 15, 2018, Barrington filed a motion for leave to file a reply in response to CN’s October 4 reply.

 

Under 49 C.F.R.  1104.13(c), a reply to a reply is not permitted. However, in the interest of a more complete record, the Board will grant Barrington’s and CN’s requests and accept their respective replies into the record. See City of Alexandria, Va.—Pet. for Declaratory Order, FD 35157, slip op. at 2 (STB served Nov. 6, 2008) (allowing a reply to a reply “[in the interest of compiling a full record”).
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;text-indent:0in;page-break-after:avoid'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>DISCUSSION<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;page-break-after:
avoid'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;page-break-after:
avoid'><i style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Standard for Reopening.</span></i><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Under 49&nbsp;U.S.C. &nbsp;1322(c) and
49&nbsp;C.F.R. &nbsp;1115.4, the Board may reopen a proceeding because of
“material error, new evidence, or substantially changed circumstances.”<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>The alleged grounds must be <span
class=GramE>sufficient</span> to lead the Board to materially alter its prior
decision.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>If a party has presented no
new evidence, changed circumstances, or material error that “would mandate a
different result,” then the Board will not reopen.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><u>See</u> <u>Montezuma Grain v. STB</u>, 339&nbsp;F.3d
535, 541-42 (7th Cir. 2003); <span class=SpellE><u>DesertXpress</u></span><u>
Enters.—Pet. for Declaratory Order</u>, FD&nbsp;34914, slip op. at 6-8 (STB
served May&nbsp;7, 2010).<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;page-break-after:
avoid'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;page-break-after:
avoid'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;background:white'>Further, to
be <span class=GramE>sufficient</span> to warrant reconsideration, “new
evidence” must be evidence that was not reasonably available to the party when
the record was previously developed.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span></span><u><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>See</span></u><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
10.0pt'> <u>Toledo, Peoria&nbsp;&amp;&nbsp;W. Ry. v. STB</u>, 462&nbsp;F.3d
734, 753 (7th Cir. 2006) (finding that evidence reasonably available before the
Board issued its decision is not new evidence); <u>accord</u> <u>Friends of
Sierra R.R. v. ICC</u>, 881&nbsp;F.2d 663, 667 (9th Cir. 1989); <u>Can. Nat’l
Ry.—Control—Ill. Cent. Corp.</u>, 6&nbsp;S.T.B. 344, 350 (2002) (“‘[N]<span
class=SpellE>ew</span> evidence’ is not newly presented evidence, but rather is
evidence that could not have been foreseen or planned for at the time of the
original proceeding.”).<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span></span><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none'><i style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Barrington’s
Argument.</span></i><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'><span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Barrington alleges
that new evidence and changed circumstances warrant reopening the Board’s <u>2008&nbsp;Final
Decision</u> to modify the mitigation at the U.S.&nbsp;14 crossing—specifically,
to require a grade separation—to address adverse impacts of the 2008 control
transaction on emergency service providers.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
</span>Barrington bases its request primarily on a June&nbsp;12, 2018 incident
in which a train stopped due to a mechanical failure and blocked all four
crossings in Barrington for 52&nbsp;minutes.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
</span>As a result of the blockage, two emergency response vehicles needed to
make detours to reach Advocate Good Shepherd Hospital.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(Barrington Pet.&nbsp;9, Aug.&nbsp;8, 2018.)<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Barrington argues that the June&nbsp;12
incident “demonstrates clearly the remedial failure of mitigation intended to
eliminate emergency response delays in the community.”<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(<u>Id.</u> at 1.)<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Barrington also criticizes CN’s
implementation of ACS, detailing delays and various other alleged failures.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(<u>Id.</u> at 8-9.)<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>However, Barrington ultimately argues that,
even if ACS worked as intended, neither it nor any “technology solution” would
provide the appropriate mitigation to help first responders avoid delay in
Barrington.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(<u>Id.</u> at 16.)<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Barrington also identifies longer trains and
increased delays at crossings as contributing to the problem, citing train
length data and calculations of emergency medical response delays due to
stopped trains at three of the intersections in Barrington in 2016 and 2017,
including the U.S.&nbsp;14 crossing.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(<u>Id.</u>
at 23-29.)<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Instead of ACS, Barrington
asks that the Board “require mitigation relief of a majority railroad-funded
grade separation at U.S. Highway&nbsp;14.”<a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn8'
href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='mso-special-character:footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA'>[8]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(<u>Id.</u> at 29.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;page-break-after:
avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>As discussed below, Barrington
has not presented any new evidence, nor changed circumstances, that would “mandate
a different result” from the one the Board reached in the <u>2008&nbsp;Final
Decision</u>.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Montezuma Grain</u>, 339&nbsp;F.3d
at 542.<a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn9' href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-special-character:footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA'>[9]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><i
style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Barrington’s Evidence and Arguments for
Reopening and Imposition of a Grade Separation Are Not New and Do Not
Demonstrate Substantially Changed Circumstances.</span></i><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Barrington relies primarily on the June&nbsp;12,
2018 blockage incident, claiming that only a grade separation would provide the
necessary relief to ensure that emergency responders have unimpeded access to
Advocate Good Shepherd Hospital in Barrington.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
</span></span>While the June&nbsp;12 train stoppage occurred after Barrington’s
previous challenges,<a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn10' href="#_ftn10"
name="_ftnref10" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='mso-special-character:footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA'>[10]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a>
it is the same type of occurrence that the Board already explicitly considered
and, therefore, does not constitute new evidence or changed circumstances.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Indeed, to a considerable extent,
Barrington’s current petition merely reiterates its previous arguments for a
grade separation, which the Board already addressed in its previous decisions.<span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'> </span></span><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><span style='mso-spacerun:yes'></span><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'>Barrington’s petition focuses heavily on a train that
blocked all four crossings in Barrington last June.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(<u>See</u> Barrington Pet.&nbsp;1-2, 9-17,
21-22, 29, Aug.&nbsp;8, 2018.)<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>However,
that incident is an example of what Barrington argued might occur—and what the
Board considered—in the original decision approving the transaction in 2008 and
then on reconsideration in 2015. <span style='mso-spacerun:yes'></span>The
Board initially considered the effect of CN’s acquisition on emergency service
providers 10&nbsp;years ago in its EIS and <u>2008&nbsp;Final Decision</u> and
imposed reasonable mitigation to alleviate that effect.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><u>2008&nbsp;Final Decision</u>, slip op. at
48-49; (Final EIS&nbsp;2&#8209;49 to 2&#8209;65).<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>The Board noted that commenters had “raised
concerns about how grade-crossing cameras can help emergency responders and the
people they are attempting to help if the cameras were to show, for instance,
that all area crossings are blocked.”<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><u>2008&nbsp;Final
Decision</u>, slip op. at 49.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>The Board
also noted that the Final EIS explained that EJ&amp;E was an active rail line,
and that the emergency service providers’ dispatching process “included the
possibility that a crossing could be blocked.”<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
</span><u>Id.</u><span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>The Board then
explained that the purpose of the CCTV mitigation was to “provide the emergency
dispatchers with better and more timely information so that they can either
take pre-planned alternative routes or dispatch services from alternative
facilities when appropriate.”<a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn11' href="#_ftn11"
name="_ftnref11" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='mso-special-character:footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA'>[11]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Id.</u><span style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>In Barrington’s
November&nbsp;2014 petition to reopen the Board’s <u>2008&nbsp;Final Decision</u>,
Barrington argued that trains capable of blocking all four of the Barrington
crossings simultaneously make it “imperative from a public life safety
standpoint that grade separation mitigation be granted for the U.S. Highway&nbsp;14
crossing,” and stated that a stopped train “blocking
all four of the crossings in Barrington for an extended period of time” had
already occurred after CN’s acquisition of EJ&amp;E.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(Barrington Pet.&nbsp;24, 26.)<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>CN responded that “[t]he Board already
considered and addressed those arguments, imposing mitigation conditions for
the benefit of first responders,” referring to the revised MC&nbsp;18 that
required CN to implement ACS.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(CN
Reply&nbsp;21, Dec.</span>&nbsp;<span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>16, 2014.)<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>In its January&nbsp;2015 surreply, Barrington
detailed its issues with ACS and argued that ACS did not adequately mitigate
the effect of the 2008&nbsp;transaction on emergency responders.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(<u>See</u> Barrington Surreply&nbsp;21-23,
Jan.&nbsp;5, 2015; <u>see also</u> <u>id.</u> at 23 (quoting Barrington
Surreply, V.S. Jim Arie&nbsp;2).)<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'></span><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Barrington’s
arguments in its most recent petition echo those that it made in its
November&nbsp;2014 petition and January&nbsp;2015 <span class=SpellE>surreply</span>
challenging the Board’s 2008&nbsp;determinations.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>As in 2014, Barrington argues that public
safety requires a grade separation at U.S.&nbsp;14.<a style='mso-footnote-id:
ftn12' href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-special-character:footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA'>[12]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span></span>And though Barrington again argues
that flaws in ACS make it unusable, (Barrington Pet.&nbsp;8-9, Aug.&nbsp;8,
2018), it also argues that even if ACS worked perfectly, neither ACS nor any
technology solution would be sufficient mitigation because those solutions do
not prevent delays to Barrington’s emergency responders, (<u>id.</u> at 16, 28;
Barrington Reply&nbsp;5, 10, Sept.&nbsp;14, 2018; Barrington Letter&nbsp;1,
Sept.&nbsp;18, 2018).<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'>These arguments are
the same as those Barrington presented and the Board considered in 2008, 2014,
and 2015.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>In its <u>May&nbsp;2015 Decision</u>,
the Board confirmed that ACS was the appropriate mitigation.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>The Board noted Barrington’s argument that
the ACS technology is ineffective and inaccurate, but the Board highlighted
that “Barrington consented to the use of ACS technology.”<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><u>May&nbsp;2015 Decision</u>, slip op. at&nbsp;8&nbsp;n.24
(citations omitted).<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>The Board also suggested
that Barrington should work with CN to resolve the functionality issues that
Barrington had alleged about ACS:<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>“To
the extent that Barrington has suggestions for a more effective technology, we
encourage Barrington to discuss this issue with CN, which has indicated a
willingness to ‘determine if there are practical improvements that can be made
to ACS.’”<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Id.</u> (quoting CN Reply
to Surreply&nbsp;20&nbsp;n.34, Jan.&nbsp;26, 2015).<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Barrington chose not to appeal the Board’s <u>May&nbsp;2015
Decision</u></span> (nor, apparently<span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>,</span> did it choose to work with CN)<span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Barrington’s
arguments and evidence concerning train lengths are likewise the same as those presented
in its previous filings.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Barrington
argues that increased train lengths contribute to the problem of emergency
response delays because longer trains can block all four Barrington crossings
at the same time.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Barrington claims that
the four crossings in Barrington span 5,918&nbsp;feet, and before the
2008&nbsp;transaction, the average train was only 2,760&nbsp;feet in
length.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(Barrington Pet.&nbsp;25-26,
Aug.&nbsp;8, 2018.)<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Barrington also states
that, based on its observations, during selected months over the past several
years, train lengths have increased, peaking in April&nbsp;2016 at an average
train length of 8,000&nbsp;feet, with 19% of trains over 10,000&nbsp;feet long.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(<u>Id.</u> at 27.)<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'>Barrington’s evidence regarding train length does not
constitute new evidence or changed circumstances.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>First, Barrington’s observational data of CN
train lengths, <u>see</u> <u>id.</u>, is the exact same data in the same chart
that Barrington presented to the Board in its January&nbsp;2017 reopening
petition.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(<u>Compare</u>
Barrington&nbsp;&amp;&nbsp;Ill. Dep’t of Transp. Pet. to Reopen&nbsp;15 <u>with</u>
Barrington Pet.&nbsp;27, Aug.&nbsp;8, 2018.)<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
</span>Moreover, in preparing the Draft EIS, OEA calculated that the average
train length would be 6,829&nbsp;feet by 2015, almost 1,000&nbsp;feet <i
style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>longer</i> than the distance between the
four crossings in Barrington.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(<u>See</u>
Draft EIS&nbsp;4.3&#8209;16.)<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Therefore,
the potential for a train to block all four crossings was reflected in the
record before the Board in 2008.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'>Of the evidence provided by Barrington in its current
petition, only the 2017&nbsp;emergency medical response delay calculations
could possibly be considered new because the calculations were not available
until after Barrington’s January&nbsp;2017 petition to reopen and could
arguably be considered different than evidence that the Board has considered
previously.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(<u>See</u> Barrington
Pet.&nbsp;24, Aug.&nbsp;8, 2018 (providing data regarding 2016 and
2017&nbsp;emergency medical response delays).) While this data could be
classified as new, the Board has considered emergency response delay repeatedly.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>The evidence regarding such delays in 2016 is
clearly not new—it was available when Barrington filed its January&nbsp;2017
petition.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><u>See</u> <u>Toledo, Peoria
&amp; W. Ry.</u>, 462&nbsp;F.3d at 753 (finding that evidence reasonably
available before the Board issued its decision is not new evidence).<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>As discussed below, however, even if the
Board were to find that the 2017&nbsp;medical response delay evidence is new,
the Board finds that this evidence does not warrant a different outcome.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><u>See</u> <u>infra</u> p. 10.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none'><i style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Even
If Barrington’s Evidence and Arguments Could Be Considered New Evidence or
Changed Circumstances, None Mandate a Different Result.</span></i><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>The Board previously considered impacts of
blocked crossings on emergency response vehicles and imposed reasonable and
appropriate mitigation.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>The June 12 incident,
accordingly, would not have changed the Board’s <u>2008&nbsp;Final Decision</u>—it
is exactly the type of incident the Board considered in 2008 and why the Board
imposed the CCTV, and later ACS, mitigation.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
</span>This mitigation was designed to help address this situation, although
Barrington has indicated that it has not used it since 2015.<a
style='mso-footnote-id:ftn13' href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-special-character:footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA'>[13]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>In fact, the June&nbsp;12 incident highlights
why the Board imposed emergency response mitigation in Barrington and why it once
again encourages Barrington to work with CN to successfully adopt and use the ACS
improvements.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Based
on the June&nbsp;12, 2018 incident, Barrington argues that ACS is insufficient
mitigation because it still does not allow the most direct routing to the
hospital and that “any alternative routing or hospital destination&nbsp;.&nbsp;.&nbsp;.
is an inferior alternative because it automatically adds an unacceptable level
of extra time.”<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(Barrington Mot.&nbsp;3,
Sept.&nbsp;14, 2018 (emphasis omitted).)<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
</span>For this reason, Barrington asserts that a grade separation is “the only
reasonable and feasible solution” that can address its emergency response
situation.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(Barrington Pet.&nbsp;29,
Aug.&nbsp;8, 2018.)<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>However, the Board’s
<u>2008&nbsp;Final Decision</u> already rejected this fundamental premise of
Barrington’s argument.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>The Board
acknowledged in 2008 that crossings in Barrington may, on occasion, be blocked (as
they had been before the approval of the acquisition) and, in response, imposed
mitigation in the form of CCTV to provide information to Barrington’s emergency
dispatchers.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><u>2008&nbsp;Final Decision</u>,
slip op. at 48-49. <span style='mso-spacerun:yes'></span>The Board’s imposed
mitigation, CCTV and later ACS, is specifically designed to minimize the impact
of such a situation, should it occur, even though it may not eliminate it.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'>Indeed, MC&nbsp;18 was never intended to provide Barrington
with “one failsafe unimpeded route”<a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn14'
href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='mso-special-character:footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA'>[14]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a>
to Advocate Good Shepherd Hospital, especially when a failsafe, unimpeded route
did not exist in Barrington even before the 2008&nbsp;acquisition of control by
CN.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Nor was MC&nbsp;18 “intended to
eliminate emergency response delays in the community.”<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(Barrington Pet.&nbsp;1, Aug.&nbsp;8, 2018.)<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Instead, the Board ordered CN to install CCTV
cameras, and later ACS, to provide Barrington’s and other communities’
dispatchers with “better and more timely information so that they can either
take pre-planned alternative routes or dispatch services from alternative
facilities when appropriate.”<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><u>2008&nbsp;Final
Decision</u>, slip op. at 49.<a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn15' href="#_ftn15"
name="_ftnref15" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='mso-special-character:footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA'>[15]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-layout-grid-align:
none;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;page-break-after:
avoid'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Barrington
also argues that ACS does not adequately mitigate the acquisition’s effect on
emergency response providers.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>First,
Barrington argues that errors and difficulties with the user interface render ACS
unusable.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Second, Barrington argues
that, even if ACS worked perfectly, it would still be insufficient because
“there is no technology solution that can really help first responders avoid
delay in Barrington.”<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(Barrington
Pet.&nbsp;16, Aug.&nbsp;8, 2018 (emphasis omitted).)<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;page-break-after:
avoid'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops:369.0pt'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Both
arguments are fatally flawed, however, because Barrington has not used ACS in
almost four years and cannot, on the present record, demonstrate that ACS is
insufficient mitigation.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>In the <u>May&nbsp;2015
Decision</u>, the Board acknowledged Barrington’s difficulties with ACS, and
encouraged Barrington to work with CN to improve the technology, as</span> CN
had indicated a willingness to “determine if there are practical improvements
that can be made to ACS.”<span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'><span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><u>May&nbsp;2015
Decision</u>, slip op. at 8&nbsp;n.24. <span style='mso-spacerun:yes'></span>Despite
the Board’s suggestion, there is no evidence that Barrington has ever attempted
to work with CN to utilize and improve ACS.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
</span>It appears, rather, that Barrington has refused to use the technology or
to work with CN in achieving improvements.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
</span>In November&nbsp;2016, CN offered a new version of ACS to Barrington,
but Barrington did not accept the offer.<a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn16'
href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='mso-special-character:footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA'>[16]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(<u>See</u> Barrington Mot., Ex.&nbsp;7, at
1, Sept.&nbsp;14, 2018.)<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Rather than determine
if CN’s improved ACS provided a better solution, Barrington chose not to access
the system altogether.<a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn17' href="#_ftn17"
name="_ftnref17" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='mso-special-character:footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA'>[17]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>As it
did in 2015, the Board again acknowledges Barrington’s claims regarding the difficulties
with ACS. <span style='mso-spacerun:yes'></span>Although CN updated ACS in
2016, Barrington never attempted to use the new version.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Therefore, Barrington cannot demonstrate that
ACS is insufficient if it has not attempted to use the updated ACS system.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>The Board continues to encourage Barrington
to address its concerns with ACS by working with CN, which states that it
remains willing to work with Barrington and its emergency responders on
improving ACS or developing other communication measures.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(CN Reply&nbsp;3, Aug.&nbsp;29, 2018.)<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>If Barrington agrees to implement the updated
ACS and it can later demonstrate that ACS is not working as intended, the Board
could consider whether further action is required. <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Barrington’s
arguments and evidence concerning train lengths likewise do not require a
different result.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>As noted above, in
imposing mitigation to address the potential effects on emergency services in affected
communities, OEA and the Board considered average CN train lengths that could
block all four crossings in Barrington simultaneously.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(<u>See</u> Draft EIS&nbsp;4.3&#8209;16.)<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Similarly, Barrington’s emergency medical
response delay calculations in 2016 and 2017 that it asserts are the result of
longer trains also do not require a different result. <span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'></span>The Board in 2008 predicted increases in the
number and length of trains and the resulting blockages as part of its
assessment of the effect of the transaction on emergency services when it decided
to impose related mitigation measures.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(<u>See</u><i
style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'> </i><u>id.</u>; <u>see also</u> </span>Draft
EIS&nbsp;4.3&#8209;1 to 4.3&#8209;53, 4.3&#8209;59 to 4.3&#8209;60, 4.3&#8209;75,
App. E;<span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Final EIS&nbsp;2&#8209;52, 2&#8209;54, 2&#8209;57.)<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Barrington’s estimates showing that delays
have in fact occurred in 2016 and 2017 are not unexpected and do not change the
Board’s analysis because Barrington has chosen not to use the mitigation the
Board imposed since early 2015.<a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn18' href="#_ftn18"
name="_ftnref18" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='mso-special-character:footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA'>[18]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;text-indent:0in;page-break-after:avoid'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>CONCLUSION<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;text-indent:0in;page-break-after:avoid'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Barrington’s
petition to reopen will be denied.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>The
Board’s mitigation condition of CCTV, and later ACS, was reasonable in 2008 and
remains reasonable today.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Barrington has
not presented any new evidence or changed circumstances that would require
reopening this proceeding to impose a grade separation.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Barrington’s current arguments also fail because
Barrington has not even attempted to use the Board-imposed mitigation since well
before the Board’s last decision addressing this same issue.<a
style='mso-footnote-id:ftn19' href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" title=""><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-special-character:footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA'>[19]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:0in;
mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;page-break-after:
avoid'><u><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>It
is ordered</span></u><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'>:<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:0in;
page-break-after:avoid'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;page-break-after:
avoid'>1.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>The Village of Barrington’s <a
name="_Hlk480453242">August&nbsp;8, 2018 petition to reopen </a>is denied.</p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;page-break-after:
avoid'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;page-break-after:
avoid'>2.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Barrington’s motions for leave
to file replies to CN’s August&nbsp;29, 2018 and October&nbsp;4, 2018 replies
are granted.</p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;page-break-after:
avoid'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;page-break-after:
avoid'>3.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>CN’s motion for leave to file
a reply to Barrington’s September&nbsp;14, 2018 reply is granted.</p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan lines-together;page-break-after:avoid'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;page-break-after:
avoid'>4.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>This decision is effective on
its date of service.</p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:0in;
page-break-after:avoid'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;page-break-after:
avoid'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black'>By the Board, Board Members
Begeman and Miller.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

<div style='mso-element:footnote-list'><![if !supportFootnotes]><br clear=all>

<hr align=left size=1 width="33%">

<![endif]>

<div style='mso-element:footnote' id=ftn1>

<p class=MsoFootnoteText><a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn1' href="#_ftnref1"
name="_ftn1" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><span style='mso-special-character:
footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:
EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA'>[1]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></span></a><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>The digest constitutes no part of the
decision of the Board but has been prepared for the convenience of the
reader.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>It may not be cited to or relied
upon as precedent.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Policy Statement
on Plain Language Digests in Decisions</u>, EP&nbsp;696 (STB served Sept.&nbsp;2,
2010).<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

<div style='mso-element:footnote' id=ftn2>

<p class=MsoFootnoteText><a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn2' href="#_ftnref2"
name="_ftn2" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt'><span style='mso-special-character:footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-theme-font:
minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>[2]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></span></a><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'> <span style='mso-spacerun:yes'></span>The
oversight period was ultimately extended until January&nbsp;23, 2017.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Canadian Nat’l Ry.—Control—EJ&amp;E W. Co.</u>,
FD&nbsp;35087, slip op. at 5 (STB served Dec.&nbsp;17, 2014) (with Board Member
Begeman dissenting).<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

<div style='mso-element:footnote' id=ftn3>

<p class=MsoFootnoteText><a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn3' href="#_ftnref3"
name="_ftn3" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt'><span style='mso-special-character:footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-theme-font:
minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>[3]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></span></a><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>OEA
was known as the Section of Economic Analysis when the environmental review was
prepared.<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

<div style='mso-element:footnote' id=ftn4>

<p class=MsoFootnoteText><a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn4' href="#_ftnref4"
name="_ftn4" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt'><span style='mso-special-character:footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-theme-font:
minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>[4]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></span></a><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'> <span style='mso-spacerun:yes'></span>OEA
designated rail crossings as “substantially affected” if a crossing met or
exceeded at least one of three threshold criteria, based on rail and car
traffic projections for 2015:<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span></span><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>(1)&nbsp;crossing
level of service (LOS) (where a crossing was at or over capacity and would be
reduced to a Crossing LOS of E or F as a result of the transaction);
(2)&nbsp;effects on queue length (where a transaction-related queue length
would block another roadway that would not otherwise be blocked); and
(3)&nbsp;total amount of delay for all vehicles stopped at a crossing (where a
crossing would experience more than 40&nbsp;hours of total transaction-related
vehicle delay in a 24-hour period).<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(EIS&nbsp;4.3-8
to 4.3-10, July&nbsp;25, 2008, FD&nbsp;35087 (Draft EIS).)<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

<div style='mso-element:footnote' id=ftn5>

<p class=MsoFootnoteText><a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn5' href="#_ftnref5"
name="_ftn5" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt'><span style='mso-special-character:footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-theme-font:
minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>[5]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></span></a><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Of
the 14&nbsp;emergency service facilities that OEA determined might be
substantially affected by the acquisition, one of the facilities had a
grade-separated crossing within three miles of its location, and six of the
facilities were in communities that entered into negotiated agreements with
CN.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><u>2008&nbsp;Final Decision</u>,
slip op. at 48.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>As a result, the Board
did not impose mitigation to minimize potential impacts on those
facilities.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Id.</u><o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

<div style='mso-element:footnote' id=ftn6>

<p class=MsoFootnoteText><a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn6' href="#_ftnref6"
name="_ftn6" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt'><span style='mso-special-character:footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span
class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-theme-font:
minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>[6]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></span></a> <span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'></span><u>See</u> <a name="_Hlk529348291"><u>Canadian
Nat’l Ry.—Control—EJ&amp;E W. Co.</u>, FD&nbsp;35087 (Sub&#8209;No.&nbsp;8)
(STB served Nov.&nbsp;8, 2012), <u>aff’d sub nom</u> </a><span class=SpellE><span
style='mso-bookmark:_Hlk529348291'><u>Vill</u></span></span><span
style='mso-bookmark:_Hlk529348291'><u>. of Barrington v. STB</u> (<u>Barrington&nbsp;II</u>),
758&nbsp;F.3d 326 (D.C. Cir. 2014)</span>; <u>May&nbsp;2015 Decision</u>;<span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'> </span><a
name="_Hlk528830518"><u>Canadian Nat’l Ry.—Control—EJ&amp;E W. Co.</u> (<u>April&nbsp;2017
Decision</u>), FD&nbsp;35087 (Sub&#8209;No.&nbsp;8) (STB served Apr.&nbsp;26,
2017), <u>recons. denied</u> (<u>October&nbsp;2017 Decision</u>) (STB served
Oct.&nbsp;30, 2017), <u>aff’d sub nom</u> </a><span style='mso-bookmark:_Hlk528830518'><u><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Village
of Barrington, Ill. v. STB</span></u></span><span style='mso-bookmark:_Hlk528830518'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'> (<u>Barrington&nbsp;III</u>),
892&nbsp;F.3d 252 (7th Cir. 2018)</span></span><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>.</span></p>

</div>

<div style='mso-element:footnote' id=ftn7>

<p class=MsoNormal><a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn7' href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7"
title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-special-character:
footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-theme-font:
minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>[7]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>A detailed background of Barrington’s
previous actions before the Board can be found in Board’s <u>April&nbsp;2017
Decision</u>, slip op. at&nbsp;14, and in <u>Barrington&nbsp;III</u>,
892&nbsp;F.3d at 257-66.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoFootnoteText><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

</div>

<div style='mso-element:footnote' id=ftn8>

<p class=MsoFootnoteText><a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn8' href="#_ftnref8"
name="_ftn8" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><span style='mso-special-character:
footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:
EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA'>[8]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></span></a><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Barrington did not state a dollar amount in
its current request, but Barrington has previously requested that CN provide
between $37.5&nbsp;million and approximately $60&nbsp;million of funding.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(<u>See</u> Barrington &amp; Ill. Dep’t of
Transp. Pet.&nbsp;6, Jan.&nbsp;10, 2017 (requesting $37.5&nbsp;million, or 58%
of the total cost); Barrington Pet.&nbsp;9, Nov.&nbsp;26, 2014 (requesting “$47&nbsp;million,
an amount which is equal to 79% of the total project cost”); Barrington Mot.&nbsp;15,
Nov.&nbsp;14, 2011 (“[T]he Board should&nbsp;.&nbsp;.&nbsp;. require CN to pay
the full cost of a grade separation at U.S. Route&nbsp;14.”).)<o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

<div style='mso-element:footnote' id=ftn9>

<p class=MsoFootnoteText><a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn9' href="#_ftnref9"
name="_ftn9" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-special-character:
footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-theme-font:
minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>[9]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Barrington does not allege material
error in the Board’s <u>2008&nbsp;Final Decision</u>.</span></p>

</div>

<div style='mso-element:footnote' id=ftn10>

<p class=MsoFootnoteText><a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn10' href="#_ftnref10"
name="_ftn10" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-special-character:
footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-theme-font:
minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>[10]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><u>See generally</u> <u>Barrington II</u>.</p>

</div>

<div style='mso-element:footnote' id=ftn11>

<p class=MsoFootnoteText><a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn11' href="#_ftnref11"
name="_ftn11" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-special-character:
footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-theme-font:
minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>[11]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the Board’s <u>2008 &nbsp;Final Decision</u>
in <u>Barrington I</u>, stating that “[t]he environmental impact statement
identified which emergency responders would be ‘substantially affected’ and
proposed specific measures to mitigate the impact on them[,]” and that “NEPA
requires nothing more.”<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>636&nbsp;F.3d at
672.</span></p>

</div>

<div style='mso-element:footnote' id=ftn12>

<p class=MsoFootnoteText><a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn12' href="#_ftnref12"
name="_ftn12" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-special-character:
footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-theme-font:
minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>[12]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(<u><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Compare</span></u><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Barrington Pet.&nbsp;24, Nov.&nbsp;26, 2014 (“[I]t is imperative from a public
life safety standpoint that grade separation mitigation be granted for the U.S.
Highway&nbsp;14 crossing.”) <u>with</u> Barrington Pet.&nbsp;29, Aug.&nbsp;8,
2018 (“</span>For the sake of public safety, the Board should order the only
reasonable and feasible solution to address this critical emergency response
situation in Barrington.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>The STB is
respectfully requested to require mitigation relief of a majority
railroad-funded grade separation at U.S. Highway&nbsp;14 and the CN rail
line.”) <u>and</u> Barrington Letter&nbsp;2, Sept.&nbsp;18, 2018 (“Barrington
needs one failsafe unimpeded route to that hospital—and such a route requires a
grade separation at U.S. Highway&nbsp;14.”).)</p>

</div>

<div style='mso-element:footnote' id=ftn13>

<p class=MsoFootnoteText><a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn13' href="#_ftnref13"
name="_ftn13" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-special-character:
footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-theme-font:
minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>[13]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(<u><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>See</span></u><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'> Barrington Surreply, V.S. Jim
Arie&nbsp;3, Jan.&nbsp;5, 2015 (“Because the ACS system provides insufficient
and useless data (and is error prone), I made the decision not to use it at all
because it is counter-productive to operational efficiency and patient
safety.”); <u>Id.</u>, V.S. Dave Dorn&nbsp;5 (“Because the [Barrington Police] Department
can’t rely on the system or the data being accurate, we cannot ask our officers
to use it in their decision-making when determining the most efficient call
routing.”).)<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span></span></p>

</div>

<div style='mso-element:footnote' id=ftn14>

<p class=MsoFootnoteText><a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn14' href="#_ftnref14"
name="_ftn14" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-special-character:
footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-theme-font:
minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>[14]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(<span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Barrington Letter&nbsp;2, Sept.&nbsp;18,
2018.)</span></p>

</div>

<div style='mso-element:footnote' id=ftn15>

<p class=MsoFootnoteText><a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn15' href="#_ftnref15"
name="_ftn15" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-special-character:
footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-theme-font:
minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>[15]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>In the future, i<span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>f Barrington decides to work
with CN and use ACS again, it should measure ACS’s performance against the
Board’s intent in imposing MC&nbsp;18, not against whether ACS <span
class=GramE>entirely eliminates</span> emergency response delays due to rail
traffic.</span></p>

</div>

<div style='mso-element:footnote' id=ftn16>

<p class=MsoFootnoteText><a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn16' href="#_ftnref16"
name="_ftn16" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-special-character:
footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-theme-font:
minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>[16]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>When CN updated ACS to the new system in
2016, CN notified Barrington of the change and informed Barrington that the
updated version required new login credentials.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
</span>(CN Reply, V.S. Jim <span class=SpellE>Kvedaras</span>&nbsp;3-4,
Aug.&nbsp;29, 2018.)<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Barrington
acknowledged receipt of the notice but never requested the new
credentials.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(<u>Id.</u> at 4.)</p>

</div>

<div style='mso-element:footnote' id=ftn17>

<p class=MsoFootnoteText><a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn17' href="#_ftnref17"
name="_ftn17" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-special-character:
footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-theme-font:
minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>[17]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Even following the June&nbsp;12, 2018 incident,
Barrington’s Village President stated that “[t]he Village has absolutely no
interest in [ACS].”<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(Barrington Mot.,
V.S. Karen <span class=SpellE>Darch</span>&nbsp;7, Sept.&nbsp;14, 2018.)<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>When CN noted that Barrington’s Assistant
Chief of Police expressed interest in ACS after the incident, (<u>see</u> CN
Reply&nbsp;7, Oct.&nbsp;4, 2018), Barrington filed a verified statement to
reiterate that, in fact, Barrington did not have any interest in ACS, (<u>see</u>
Barrington Mot., V.S. John Burke, Oct.&nbsp;15, 2018).</span></p>

</div>

<div style='mso-element:footnote' id=ftn18>

<p class=MsoFootnoteText><a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn18' href="#_ftnref18"
name="_ftn18" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-special-character:
footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-theme-font:
minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>[18]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>The Board further notes that, in 2008, OEA
determined in the EIS that 2015 represented the limit of what was reasonably
foreseeable <span class=GramE>with regard to</span> projected rail traffic on
the EJ&amp;E line as a result of the acquisition, recognizing that forecasting
traffic projections for time horizons beyond 2015 would be speculative.<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>(Draft EIS&nbsp;2-27.)<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span></p>

</div>

<div style='mso-element:footnote' id=ftn19>

<p class=MsoFootnoteText><a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn19' href="#_ftnref19"
name="_ftn19" title=""><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span style='mso-special-character:
footnote'><![if !supportFootnotes]><span class=MsoFootnoteReference><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-theme-font:
minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:
AR-SA'>[19]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>If the parties would like assistance in their
discussions about using and improving ACS, the Board’s Rail Customer and Public
Assistance Program (202-245-0238; <u>rcpa@stb.gov</u>) is available to
stakeholders to facilitate informal, private-sector resolution, without
litigation, wherever possible.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span></p>

<p class=MsoFootnoteText><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>

</div>

</div>

</body>

</html></p>]