Volume IAREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance‐of‐Way Association ARRA America...

U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Railroad Administration

June 2012

Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Tier 1DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Volume I

prepared by:

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail i Tier 1 DEIS

List of Acronyms

AAR Association of American Railroads

ADT Average Daily Traffic

AREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance‐of‐Way Association

ARRA America Recovery and Reinvestment Act

ASLRRA American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association

BCS Biological Stream Characterization

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Information System

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CMAP Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

CN Canadian National Railroad

COSIM Carbon Monoxide Screen for Signalized Intersections

CTA Chicago Transit Authority

CWS Community Water Supplies

dBA Decibels (A‐weighting)

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

EA Environmental Assessment

EDR Environmental Data Resources

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EJ Environmental Justice

EJ&E Elgin, Joliet, & Eastern Railway

EO Executive Order

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GIS Geographical Information System

HC Heritage Corridor

HSR High‐Speed Rail

ICC Illinois Commerce Commission

IDOA Illinois Department of Agriculture

IDOT Illinois Department of Transportation

IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

IHPA Illinois Historic Preservation Agency

INAI Illinois Natural Areas Inventory

INHS Illinois Natural History Survey

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail ii Tier 1 DEIS

INPC Illinois Nature Preserves Commission

IPCB Illinois Pollution Control Board

ISTP Illinois State Transportation Plan

KCS Kansas City Southern Railroad

LOS Level of Service

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund

MWRRI Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MP Milepost

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAJPTC North American Joint Positive Train Control Program

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NIRC Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad

NS Norfolk Southern Railroad

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPS National Park Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRI Nationwide Rivers Inventory

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

OMP O’Hare Modernization Program

Pb Lead

PEM Palustrine Emergent

PM Particulate Matter

PPV Peak Particle Velocity

PSS/PFO Palustrine Scrub‐Shrub Forested

PTC Positive Train Control

PUB Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom

R Riverine

RCRA Resource and Conservation Recovery Act

RID Rock Island District

RMS Root Mean Square

ROD Record of Decision

ROW Right‐of‐Way

SCAL St. Charles Air Line

SIU Section of Independent Utility

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

TR Township Range

TRRA Terminal Railroad Association

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail iii Tier 1 DEIS

UP Union Pacific Railroad

USC United States Code

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

USEPA US Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VHT Vehicles‐Hours Traveled

VMT Vehicle‐Miles Traveled

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail i Tier 1 DEIS

VOLUME I Table of Contents

S.0 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 0‐2

S.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 0‐2

S.2 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................... 0‐4

S.3 Alternatives Considered .................................................................................... 0‐5

S.4 Summary of Impacts ........................................................................................... 0‐8

S.4.1 Land Use/Socioeconomic Impacts ........................................................ 0‐8

S.4.2 Energy ....................................................................................................... 0‐9

S.4.3 Agriculture ............................................................................................. 0‐10

S.4.4 Cultural Resources ................................................................................ 0‐10

S.4.5 Natural Resources ................................................................................. 0‐11

S.4.6 Air Quality ............................................................................................. 0‐13

S.4.7 Noise and Vibration .............................................................................. 0‐13

S.4.8 Water Quality ......................................................................................... 0‐13

S.4.9 Wetlands ................................................................................................. 0‐14

S.4.1S Utilities .................................................................................................... 0‐15

S.4.11 Visual and Aesthetic Quality Impacts ................................................ 0‐15

S.4.12 Special Waste ......................................................................................... 0‐15

S.4.13 Section 4(f)/6(f) and Parklands ............................................................ 0‐15

S.4.14 Indirect and Cumulative ...................................................................... 0‐17

S.4.15 Travel Benefits ....................................................................................... 0‐18

S.4.16 Transportation Impacts ........................................................................ 0‐20

S.5 Summary of Potential Mitigation .................................................................. 0‐23

S.6 Implementation Plan ........................................................................................ 0‐26

S.7 Comments and Coordination .......................................................................... 0‐28

S.8 Springfield Rail Improvements Project Tier 2 Summary (Volume II) ... 0‐28

S.8.1 Springfield Background ....................................................................... 0‐28

S.8.2 Springfield Purpose and Need ............................................................ 0‐29

S.8.3 Springfield Alternatives Considered .................................................. 0‐31

S.8.4 Summary of Springfield Impacts ........................................................ 0‐33

S.8.5 Summary of Mitigation ........................................................................ 0‐35

S.8.6 Springfield Preferred Alternative ....................................................... 0‐35

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1‐1

1.1 Tiering Process ..................................................................................................... 1‐1

1.2 Anticipated Decisions ........................................................................................ 1‐2

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ..................................................................... 2‐1

2.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 2‐1

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail ii Tier 1 DEIS

2.1.1 History ...................................................................................................... 2‐1

2.1.2 Midwest, Statewide, and Regional Planning Context ........................ 2‐3

2.1.3 Existing and Future Conditions ............................................................ 2‐4

2.2 Purpose .................................................................................................................. 2‐7

2.3 Need ....................................................................................................................... 2‐7

2.3.1 Travel Time, Frequency, and Reliability .............................................. 2‐8

2.3.2 Safety ....................................................................................................... 2‐11

2.3.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 2‐11

2.4 Major Authorizing Laws and Regulations ................................................... 2‐13

2.4.1 Permits, Licenses, and other Regulatory Requirements .................. 2‐13

3.0 ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................... 3‐1

3.1 Tier 1 Alternatives Screening Process ............................................................. 3‐1

3.1.1 Alternatives Screening and Selection Process ..................................... 3‐1

3.1.2 Tier 1 Screening Objectives and Criteria .............................................. 3‐2

3.2 No‐Build Alternative ........................................................................................ 3‐11

3.2.1 Passenger Rail Service under the No‐Build Alternative .................. 3‐12

3.2.2 Annual Ridership Estimates ................................................................ 3‐16

3.2.3 Purpose and Need Assessment of the No‐Build Alternative .......... 3‐17

3.3 Build Alternatives ............................................................................................. 3‐18

3.3.1 Program Elements for the Proposed High Speed Rail Corridor .... 3‐18

3.3.2 Annual Ridership Estimates ................................................................ 3‐20

3.3.3 Purpose and Need Assessment of the Build Alternatives ............... 3‐21

3.3.4 Alternative Route Screening for Chicago to Joliet ............................ 3‐22

3.3.5 Alternative Route Screening for Springfield ..................................... 3‐38

3.3.6 Alternative Route Screening for Alton to St. Louis .......................... 3‐45

3.3.7 Tier 1 Build Alternatives from Chicago to St. Louis ......................... 3‐52

3.4 Costs ..................................................................................................................... 3‐60

3.4.1 Capital Costs .......................................................................................... 3‐60

3.4.2 Maintenance Costs ................................................................................ 3‐63

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................... 4‐1

4.1 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................ 4‐1

4.1.1 Development Patterns ............................................................................ 4‐1

4.1.2 Existing Land Use Description by County .......................................... 4‐2

4.2 Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice Community Characteristics .. 4‐7

4.2.1 Demographics .......................................................................................... 4‐7

4.2.2 Economics ................................................................................................. 4‐7

4.2.3 Environmental Justice ........................................................................... 4‐10

4.2.4 Community Services and Facilities ..................................................... 4‐11

4.3 Energy .................................................................................................................. 4‐12

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail iii Tier 1 DEIS

4.4 Agriculture .......................................................................................................... 4‐13

4.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 4‐14

4.5.1 Historic Architectural Resources ........................................................ 4‐18

4.5.2 Archaeological Resources .................................................................... 4‐21

4.6 Natural Resources ............................................................................................. 4‐21

4.6.1 Geology and Soils .................................................................................. 4‐21

4.6.2 Ecological Resources ............................................................................. 4‐24

4.6.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................. 4‐38

4.6.4 Natural Areas ......................................................................................... 4‐39

4.7 Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 4‐41

4.7.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 4‐42

4.7.2 Ambient Air Quality ............................................................................. 4‐45

4.8 Noise and Vibration.......................................................................................... 4‐48

4.8.1 Noise Descriptors .................................................................................. 4‐48

4.8.2 Vibration Descriptors ............................................................................ 4‐48

4.8.3 Existing Setting ...................................................................................... 4‐50

4.9 Water Quality/Resources ................................................................................. 4‐52

4.9.1 Surface Water ......................................................................................... 4‐52

4.9.2 Drainage Basins ..................................................................................... 4‐53

4.9.3 Water Quality ......................................................................................... 4‐57

4.9.4 Special Status Streams .......................................................................... 4‐60

4.9.5 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 4‐67

4.10 Floodplains ......................................................................................................... 4‐68

4.11 Wetlands ............................................................................................................. 4‐76

4.12 Utilities ................................................................................................................ 4‐80

4.13 Visual and Aesthetic Quality .......................................................................... 4‐80

4.13.1 Guidance ................................................................................................. 4‐80

4.13.2 Application of FHWA Guidance ......................................................... 4‐80

4.13.3 Visual Quality of the Study Area ........................................................ 4‐81

4.14 Special Waste ..................................................................................................... 4‐85

4.15 Section 4(f)/6(f) and Parklands ....................................................................... 4‐89

4.16 Safety and Security ........................................................................................... 4‐93

4.16.1 Rail Operations Safety and Security ................................................... 4‐93

4.16.2 Crossing Safety ...................................................................................... 4‐94

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................................................. 5‐1

5.1 Land Use Impacts ................................................................................................ 5‐1

5.1.1 No‐Build Alternative .............................................................................. 5‐1

5.1.2 Alternative A ............................................................................................ 5‐1

5.1.3 Alternative B ............................................................................................ 5‐5

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail iv Tier 1 DEIS

5.1.4 Alternative C ............................................................................................ 5‐6

5.1.5 Alternative D ............................................................................................ 5‐7

5.1.6 Summary of Land Use Impacts ............................................................. 5‐8

5.1.7 Mitigation ................................................................................................. 5‐9

5.2 Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice Community Impacts .............. 5‐9

5.2.1 Methods for Evaluating Impacts ........................................................... 5‐9

5.2.2 No‐Build Alternative ............................................................................ 5‐10

5.2.3 Alternative A .......................................................................................... 5‐10

5.2.4 Alternative B .......................................................................................... 5‐12

5.2.5 Alternative C .......................................................................................... 5‐13

5.2.6 Alternative D .......................................................................................... 5‐15

5.2.7 Summary of Socioeconomic and Community Impacts ................... 5‐16

5.3 Energy .................................................................................................................. 5‐17

5.3.1 Energy Consumption during Construction ....................................... 5‐17

5.3.2 Energy Consumption during Operation ............................................ 5‐17

5.4 Agriculture .......................................................................................................... 5‐18


5.4.2 Build Alternatives ................................................................................. 5‐18


5.5.1 Historic Architectural Resources ........................................................ 5‐21





5.7 Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 5‐36



5.8 Noise and Vibration.......................................................................................... 5‐44

5.8.1 Operation Noise Impact Criteria ......................................................... 5‐44

5.8.2 Operation Vibration Impact Criteria .................................................. 5‐47

5.8.3 Noise Impacts during Operation ........................................................ 5‐49

5.8.4 Vibration Impacts during Operation .................................................. 5‐51

5.8.5 Noise Impacts during Construction ................................................... 5‐52

5.8.6 Vibration Impacts during Construction ............................................. 5‐53

5.8.7 Mitigation during Construction .......................................................... 5‐54

5.8.8 Mitigation during Operation ............................................................... 5‐56




5.10 Floodplains ......................................................................................................... 5‐63



Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail v Tier 1 DEIS

5.11 Wetlands ............................................................................................................. 5‐65



5.12 Utilities ................................................................................................................ 5‐67



5.13 Visual and Aesthetic Quality Impacts ........................................................... 5‐67



5.14 Special Waste ..................................................................................................... 5‐71



5.15 Section 4(f)/6(f) and Parklands ....................................................................... 5‐72



5.16 Safety and Security ........................................................................................... 5‐94



5.17 Permits ................................................................................................................. 5‐96

5.18 Construction Impacts ........................................................................................ 5‐97



5.19 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts ................................................................... 5‐98



5.20 The Relationship between Local Short‐Term Uses and Man’s

Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long‐Term

Productivity ................................................................................................................ 5‐100

5.21 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ..................... 5‐101

5.22 Summary of Impacts and Costs .................................................................... 5‐102

5.23 Potential Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 5‐103

6.0 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS .............................................................................. 6‐1

6.1 Service Development Plan ................................................................................ 6‐1

6.1.1 Intercity Travel Options ......................................................................... 6‐1

6.1.2 Service Levels and Frequency ............................................................... 6‐7

6.1.3 Capital Costs .......................................................................................... 6‐31

6.1.4 Ridership and Revenue Forecast ......................................................... 6‐35

6.2 Travel Benefits ................................................................................................... 6‐42


Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail vi Tier 1 DEIS


6.3 Impacts to Freight Rail Service ....................................................................... 6‐44



6.4 Impacts to Commuter Rail Service ................................................................. 6‐45



6.5 Impacts to Rail Service During Construction .............................................. 6‐48



6.6 Impacts at Highway‐Rail Grade Crossings .................................................. 6‐48



6.7 Impacts to Vehicular Traffic During Construction..................................... 6‐49



6.8 Station Access and Parking ............................................................................. 6‐50



7.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ....................................................................................... 7‐1

7.1 Continuation of Current Investment ............................................................... 7‐1

7.2 Development of Staged Improvements .......................................................... 7‐2

7.2.1 Process ...................................................................................................... 7‐2

7.2.2 Staged Improvements – Additional Service ........................................ 7‐3

7.2.3 Staged Improvements – Additional Infrastructure ............................ 7‐4

7.2.4 Staged Improvements – Environmental Documentation .................. 7‐5

8.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................................................... 8‐1

8.1 Agency Coordination .......................................................................................... 8‐1

8.1.1 Federal Agency Coordination ............................................................... 8‐1

8.1.2 State Agency Coordination .................................................................... 8‐2

8.1.3 Tribal Coordination................................................................................. 8‐3

8.1.4 Agency Coordination Meetings ............................................................ 8‐4

8.2 Public Coordination ............................................................................................ 8‐5

8.2.1 Public Open Houses ................................................................................ 8‐6

9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................. 9‐1

10.0 DISTRIBUTION OF THE TIER 1 DEIS ................................................................. 10‐1

11.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 11‐1

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail vii Tier 1 DEIS

APPENDIX A. Alternative Exhibits

APPENDIX B. Prime Farmlands

APPENDIX C. Threatened and Endangered Species

APPENDIX D. Special Waste

APPENDIX E. Potential Grade Separation Crossings and Protection Measures

APPENDIX F. Agency Coordination

APPENDIX G. Federal Register Notice of Intent

List of Exhibits

Exhibit S.0‐1. Program Location .............................................................................................. 0‐3

Exhibit S.3‐1. Build Alternative Alignment Sections between Chicago and St. Louis .... 0‐7

Exhibit S.6‐1. Staged Improvements .................................................................................... 0‐27

Exhibit S.8‐1. Existing Railroad Corridors .......................................................................... 0‐30

Exhibit 2.0‐1. Program Location ............................................................................................. 2‐2

Exhibit 2.1‐1. Existing Track Configurations ........................................................................ 2‐6

Exhibit 3.1‐1. Map of Overall Study Corridor for the Alternatives Screening ................. 3‐4

Exhibit 3.3‐1. Initial Range of Chicago to Joliet Alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) 3‐23

Exhibit 3.3‐2. Initial Range of Chicago to Joliet Alternatives (Alternatives 4A – 4E) ... 3‐24

Exhibit 3.3‐3. Initial Range of Chicago to Joliet Alternatives (Alternatives 5A – 5D) ... 3‐25

Exhibit 3.3‐4. Initial Range of Chicago to Joliet Alternatives (Alternatives 6A – 6D) ... 3‐26

Exhibit 3.3‐5. Initial Range of Springfield Alternatives (Alternative 1) .......................... 3‐39

Exhibit 3.3‐6. Initial Range of Springfield Alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3).............. 3‐40

Exhibit 3.3‐7. Initial Range of Springfield Alternatives (Alternatives 4 and 5).............. 3‐41

Exhibit 3.3‐8. Initial Range of St. Louis Alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 2) .................. 3‐46

Exhibit 3.3‐9. Initial Range of St. Louis Alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 4) .................. 3‐47

Exhibit 3.3‐10. Build Alternative Alignment Sections between Chicago and St. Louis 3‐54

Exhibit 4.2‐1. Illinois Metropolitan Statistical Areas ........................................................... 4‐8

Exhibit 4.4‐1. Prime Farmland (1 of 3) ................................................................................. 4‐15



Exhibit 4.5‐1. NRHP and NRHP‐Eligible Resources within 250 Feet of Alignments ... 4‐20

Exhibit 4.6‐1. Physiographic Units ....................................................................................... 4‐22

Exhibit 4.6‐2. Ecoregions (1 of 3) .......................................................................................... 4‐25



Exhibit 4.6‐5. Ecological Provinces (1 of 3) .......................................................................... 4‐29



Exhibit 4.6‐8. Nature Preserves and Prairie Remnants ..................................................... 4‐33

Exhibit 4.6‐9. Nature Preserves and Prairie Remnants ..................................................... 4‐34

Exhibit 4.6‐10. Nature Preserves and Prairie Remnants ................................................... 4‐35

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail viii Tier 1 DEIS

Exhibit 4.6‐11. Hines Emerald Dragonfly............................................................................ 4‐40

Exhibit 4.8‐1. Typical A‐Weighted Sound Levels .............................................................. 4‐49

Exhibit 4.8‐2. Typical Levels of Ground‐Borne Vibration ................................................. 4‐51

Exhibit 4.9‐1. Drainage Basins (1 of 3) ................................................................................. 4‐54



Exhibit 4.9‐4. Outstanding Resource Value Streams ......................................................... 4‐62

Exhibit 4.9‐5. Biologically Significant Streams ................................................................... 4‐63

Exhibit 4.9‐6. Aquatic Features (1 of 3) ................................................................................ 4‐64



Exhibit 4.9‐9. Water Supply Resources (1 of 3) ................................................................... 4‐69

Exhibit 4.9‐10. Water Supply Resources (2 of 3) ................................................................. 4‐70

Exhibit 4.9‐11. Water Supply Resources (3 of 3) ................................................................. 4‐71

Exhibit 4.10‐1. 100 Year Floodplain Crossings (1 of 3) ...................................................... 4‐73



Exhibit 4.11‐1. National Wetland Inventory Crossings (1 of 3) ........................................ 4‐77



Exhibit 4.13‐1. Illinois Scenic Byways .................................................................................. 4‐84

Exhibit 4.14‐1. Special Waste (1 of 3) ................................................................................... 4‐86



Exhibit 4.15‐1. Section 4(f) Resources................................................................................... 4‐92

Exhibit 5.5‐1. Potential Impacts to the Lockport Historic DistrictExhibit 5.5‐2. Potential

Impacts to Joliet Steel Works ......................................................................... 5‐23

Exhibit 5.5‐2. Potential Impacts to Joliet Steel Works ........................................................ 5‐24

Exhibit 5.5‐3. Potential Impacts to Hamilton Park ............................................................. 5‐25

Exhibit 5.5‐4. Potential Impacts to Dwight Chicago and Alton Railroad Depot ........... 5‐27

Exhibit 5.5‐5. Potential Impacts to Bridge over Market Street ......................................... 5‐28

Exhibit 5.5‐6. Potential Impacts to Lincoln Courthouse Square Historic District .......... 5‐29

Exhibit 5.5‐7. Potential Impacts to Susan Lawrence Dana House ................................... 5‐30

Exhibit 5.5‐8. Potential Impacts to Route 66, Girard to Nilwood .................................... 5‐31

Exhibit 5.6‐1. Endangered Species (1 of 3) ........................................................................... 5‐37



Exhibit 5.8‐1. Noise Impact Criteria for High Speed Rail Programs ............................... 5‐46

Exhibit 5.8‐2. Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed by Criteria ...................... 5‐48

Exhibit 5.15‐1. Potential Impacts to Hoyne Park ................................................................ 5‐76

Exhibit 5.15‐2. Potential Impacts to Summit Park .............................................................. 5‐77

Exhibit 5.15‐5. Potential Impacts to Hamilton Park ........................................................... 5‐80

Exhibit 5.15‐7. Potential Impacts to Vogt Woods Park ...................................................... 5‐83

Exhibit 5.15‐8. Potential Impacts to Midlothian Meadows ............................................... 5‐84

Exhibit 5.15‐9. Potential Impacts to St. Mihiel Reservation .............................................. 5‐85

Exhibit 5.15‐10. Potential Impacts to Pilcher Park ............................................................. 5‐86

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail ix Tier 1 DEIS

Exhibit 5.15‐11. Potential Impacts to Hickory Creek Preserve ......................................... 5‐88

Exhibit 5.15‐12. Potential Impacts to Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie ..................... 5‐89

Exhibit 5.15‐13. Potential Impacts to Funks Grove/Stubblefield Nature Preserve ........ 5‐90

Exhibit 5.15‐14. Potential Impacts to Edward R. Madigan State Park / Railsplitter Park

………………. ........................................................................................................................... 5‐91

Exhibit 5.15‐15. Potential Impacts to the Interurban Trail ................................................ 5‐93

Exhibit 6.1‐1. Rail to Rail Crossings – Chicago to Joliet (Build Alternative Section 1) . 6‐11



Exhibit 6.1‐10. St. Louis Area Intercity Passenger Routes ................................................. 6‐26

Exhibit 6.1‐11 Railroads in the St. Louis Area ..................................................................... 6‐27

Exhibit 7.2‐1. Staged Improvements ...................................................................................... 7‐6

List of Tables

Table S.4‐1. Summary of Impacts and Costs ......................................................................... 0‐8

Table S.4‐2. Comparison of Land Use and Environmental Justice Impacts between Build

Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 0‐9

Table S.4‐3. Annual Energy Consumption (billions of BTUs) ............................................ 0‐9

Table S.4‐4. Prime Farmland Soil Impacts by Alternative ................................................ 0‐10

Table S.4‐5. Summary of Potentially Impacted Historic Architectural Resources ........ 0‐11

Table S.4‐6. Acreage of Impact to Natural Resources by Alternative ............................. 0‐12

Table S.4‐7 Noise and Vibration Impacts (Number of Sensitive Receptors) ................... 0‐13

Table S.4‐8. 100‐Year Floodplain Impact by Alternative .................................................. 0‐14

Table S.4‐9. NWI Wetland Impact by Alternative ............................................................. 0‐15

Table S.4‐11. Special Waste Sites by Alternative ................................................................ 0‐15

Table S.4‐10. Visual Resource Impact Summary ................................................................ 0‐16

Table S.4‐12. Potential Number of Section 4(f) Resources Impacted ............................... 0‐17

Table S.5‐1. Potential Mitigation ........................................................................................... 0‐23

Table S.8‐1. Predicted Crashes .............................................................................................. 0‐31

Table S.8‐2. Vehicle Delays .................................................................................................... 0‐31

Table S.8‐3. Horn Blowing ..................................................................................................... 0‐32

Table S.8‐4. Displacements and Access Changes ............................................................... 0‐32

Table S.8‐5. Environmental Impact Summary of Alternatives 2A and 2B ..................... 0‐33

Table S.8‐6. Summary of Noise Impact Results .................................................................. 0‐34

Table S.8‐7. Mitigation ........................................................................................................... 0‐35

Table 2.1‐1: Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor – Existing Track Configuration ............ 2‐5

Table 2.3‐1. U.S. Transportation Accident Rates for Land‐Based Modes (2006) ............. 2‐9

Table 2.3‐2: Fatality Rates by Mode (2006) .......................................................................... 2‐11

Table 3.1‐1. Design Elements of the Program Alternatives ................................................. 3‐3

Table 3.1‐2. Tier 1 Objectives and Screening Criteria ........................................................... 3‐5

Table 3.2‐1. Summary of Approved and/or Completed Rail Design Elements, Features,

and/or Improvements Considered Part of the No‐Build Alternative ...... 3‐13

Table 3.2‐2. Travel Times by Transportation Mode between Chicago and St. Louis .... 3‐16

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail x Tier 1 DEIS

Table 3.2‐3. Annual Ridership Data for Each Mode of Transportation between Chicago

and St. Louis under the Existing and No‐Build Alternative Conditions 3‐16

Table 3.3‐1. Travel Times by Transportation Mode between Chicago and St. Louis .... 3‐20

Table 3.3‐2. Annual Ridership Data for Each Mode of Transportation between Chicago

and St. Louis .................................................................................................... 3‐21

Table 3.3‐3. Summary of Chicago to Joliet Tier 1 Screening .............................................. 3‐36

Table 3.3‐4. Summary of Springfield Tier 1 Screening .......................................................... 43

Table 3.3‐5. Summary of Alton to St. Louis Tier 1 Screening ............................................ 3‐50

Table 3.3‐6. Proposed New Right‐of‐Way for each Build Alternative by Section .......... 3‐58

Table 3.3‐7. Summary of Station Improvements ................................................................. 3‐59

Table 3.4‐1. Capital Cost for each Build Alternative Section ............................................ 3‐63

Table 3.4‐2. Capital Cost for each Build Alternative Section ............................................ 3‐63

Table 4.2‐1. Environmental Justice Populations ................................................................. 4‐11

Table 4.2‐2. Community Facilities ........................................................................................ 4‐12

Table 4.3‐1. Existing Annual Passenger‐Miles of Travel and Energy Consumption .... 4‐13

Table 4.5‐1. NRHP and NRHP‐Eligible Resources within 250 Feet of Alignments ...... 4‐18

Table 4.5‐2. Previously‐Identified Archaeological Sites .................................................... 4‐21

Table 4.6‐1. INPC Protected Areas within Study Corridor .............................................. 4‐41

Table 4.7‐1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards ...................................................... 4‐43

Table 4.7‐2. Attainment Status1 ............................................................................................ 4‐44

Table 4.7‐3. Criteria Air Pollutant Monitoring Data .......................................................... 4‐46

Exhibit 4.8‐2. Typical Levels of Ground‐Borne VibrationTable 4.8‐1 Existing Noise

Levels ................................................................................................................ 4‐51

Table 4.8‐1 Existing Noise Levels .......................................................................................... 4‐52

Table 4.8‐2 Existing Vibration Levels ................................................................................... 4‐52

Table 4.9‐1. Drainage Basins* ................................................................................................ 4‐53

Table 4.9‐2. 303(d) Listed Impaired Waters in the Study Corridor ................................. 4‐58

Table 4.10‐1. Major 100‐year Floodplain Streams within Study Corridor ...................... 4‐72

Table 4.11‐1. Acreage of Wetland Types within the Study Corridor .............................. 4‐76

Table 4.13‐1. Landscape Regions, Units, and Visual Survey Locations .......................... 4‐82

Table 4.14‐1. Environmental Databases ............................................................................... 4‐85

Table 4.14‐2. NPL Sites ........................................................................................................... 4‐89

Table 4.15‐1. Potential Section 4(f) Properties within 250 Feet of Alignments .............. 4‐90

Table 4.15‐2. Potential Section 6(f) Properties within 250 Feet of Alignments .............. 4‐93

Table 4.16‐1. At‐Grade Rail‐Rail Crossings ......................................................................... 4‐95

Table 4.16‐2. Summary of Highway‐Rail Crossings .......................................................... 4‐96

Table 5.1‐1. Buildings Potentially Displaced by Alternative A .......................................... 5‐4

Table 5.1‐2. Buildings Potentially Displaced by Alternative B .......................................... 5‐6

Table 5.1‐3. Buildings Potentially Displaced by Alternative C .......................................... 5‐7

Table 5.1‐4. Buildings Potentially Displaced by Alternative D .......................................... 5‐8

Table 5.1‐5. Comparison of Land Use Impacts between Alternatives .............................. 5‐9

Table 5.2‐1. Alternative A Geographic Distribution of Low‐income and Minority

Populations ...................................................................................................... 5‐12

Table 5.2‐2. Alternative B Geographic Distribution of Low‐income and Minority

Populations ...................................................................................................... 5‐13

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail xi Tier 1 DEIS

Table 5.2‐3. Alternative C Geographic Distribution of Low‐income and Minority

Populations ...................................................................................................... 5‐14

Table 5.2‐4. Alternative D Geographic Distribution of Low‐income and Minority

Populations ...................................................................................................... 5‐15

Table 5.2‐5. Comparison of Socioeconomic and Community Impacts between Build

Alternatives and Sections ............................................................................... 5‐16

Table 5.3‐1. Annual Passenger‐Miles of Travel (millions) ................................................ 5‐17

Table 5.3‐2. Annual Energy Consumption (billions of BTUs) .......................................... 5‐18

Table 5.4‐1. Prime Farmland Soil Impacts by Section ....................................................... 5‐19

Table 5.4‐1. Prime Farmland Soil Impacts by Section (continued) .................................. 5‐20

Table 5.4‐2. Prime Farmland Soil Impacts by Alternative ................................................ 5‐20

Table 5.5‐1. Potentially Impacted Historic Architectural Resources ............................... 5‐21

Table 5.5‐2. Summary of Potentially Impacted Architectural Resources ....................... 5‐22

Table 5.6‐1. Acreage of Impact to Natural Resources by Section .................................... 5‐33

Table 5.6‐2. Acreage of Impact to Natural Resources by Alternative ............................. 5‐33

Table 5.6‐3. State Threatened and Endangered Species Recorded within the Existing and

Proposed ROW ................................................................................................ 5‐35

Table 5.7‐1. Estimated Annual Operational Emissions of Key Criteria Air Pollutants in

Nonattainment Areas1 .................................................................................... 5‐41

Table 5.7‐2. Predicted CO2 Emissions for Key Alternative Transportation Modes within

the Study Corridor .......................................................................................... 5‐44

Table 5.8‐1. Land Use Categories and Metrics for High Speed Rail Noise Impact Criteria

........................................................................................................................... 5‐45

Table 5.8‐2. Ground‐Borne Vibration Impact Criteria for Human Annoyance ............. 5‐49

Table 5.8‐3 Noise Impacts1,2 (Number of Sensitive Receptors) ......................................... 5‐50

Table 5.8‐4. Comparison of Ground Vibration Impact Curves ........................................ 5‐51

Table 5.8‐5 Vibration Impacts1,2 (Number of Sensitive Receptors) ................................... 5‐52

Table 5.8‐6. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ................................. 5‐53

Table 5.8‐7. Construction Equipment Vibration Impact Distances ................................. 5‐54

Table 5.9‐1. Summary of Surface Water Crossings by Section ......................................... 5‐59

Table 5.9‐2. Summary of Surface Water Crossings by Alternative .................................. 5‐60

Table 5.9‐3. Special Status Stream Impacts by Section ...................................................... 5‐61

Table 5.9‐4. Special Status Stream Impacts by Alternative ............................................... 5‐62

Table 5.9‐5. Well Crossings by Alternative ......................................................................... 5‐63

Table 5.10‐1. 100‐Year Floodplain Impacts by Section ...................................................... 5‐64

Table 5.10‐2. 100‐Year Floodplain Impacts by Alternative ............................................... 5‐64

Table 5.11‐1. NWI Wetland Impacts by Section ................................................................. 5‐65

Table 5.11‐2. NWI Wetland Impact by Alternative ........................................................... 5‐66

Table 5.13‐1. Visual Resource Impact Summary ................................................................ 5‐68

Table 5.14‐1. Special Waste Sites by Section ....................................................................... 5‐72

Table 5.14‐2. Special Waste Sites by Alternative ................................................................ 5‐72

Table 5.15‐1. Potential Section 4(f) Resource Uses by Section .......................................... 5‐73

Table 5.15‐2. Potential Number of Uses of Section 4(f) Resources by ............................. 5‐74

Section and Alternative .......................................................................................................... 5‐74

Table 5.16‐1. Rail‐Rail Crossings to be Modified ............................................................... 5‐95

Table 5.22‐1. Summary of Impacts and Costs ................................................................... 5‐102

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail xii Tier 1 DEIS

Table 5.23‐1. Potential Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 5‐103

Table 6.1‐1. Travel Times and Costs by Mode of Transportation ...................................... 6‐2

Table 6.1‐2. Chicago–St. Louis Intercity Passenger Rail Service Representative Travel

Times – Southbound ......................................................................................... 6‐8

Table 6.1‐3. Trains per Day ‐ Chicago to Joliet (Section 1) ................................................ 6‐10

Table 6.1‐4. Trains per Day ‐ Chicago to Joliet (Section 2) ................................................ 6‐13

Table 6.1‐5. Chicago‐St. Louis Train Operations on the UP Joliet Subdivision (Joliet to

Bloomington) ................................................................................................... 6‐13

Table 6.1‐6. Chicago‐St. Louis Train Operations on the UP‐Springfield Subdivision

(Bloomington to Ridgley) ............................................................................... 6‐15


(Ridgley to Godfrey) ....................................................................................... 6‐16


(Godfrey to WR Tower) .................................................................................. 6‐16

Table 6.1‐9. Chicago to St. Louis Passenger Vehicles ........................................................ 6‐31

Table 6.1‐10. Annual Ridership – Existing (2010) .............................................................. 6‐36

Table 6.1‐11. Annual Ridership – 2030 No‐Build Alternative .......................................... 6‐37

Table 6.1‐12. Annual Ridership – 2030 Build Alternatives – Existing (100%) Fare ....... 6‐38

Table 6.1‐13. Annual Ridership – 2030 Build Alternatives – 150% Fare ......................... 6‐39

Table 6.1‐14. Annual Ridership – 2030 Build Alternatives – 200% Fare ......................... 6‐40

Table 6.1‐15. Ticket Revenue Forecasts (in 2010 dollars) .................................................. 6‐42

Table 7.1‐1. Expected Timetable after Completion of Current Program .......................... 7‐1

Table 7.2‐1. Expected Timetable after 303/304 Upgrade ..................................................... 7‐3

Table 8.2‐1. Areas of Concern ................................................................................................. 8‐6

Table 8.2‐2. Alternative Evaluation Criteria ......................................................................... 8‐8

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail xiii Tier 1 DEIS

Volume II Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1‐1

1.1 Tiering Process ‐ Overview ............................................................................... 1‐1

1.2 Tier 1 Alternatives in Springfield .................................................................... 1‐1

1.3 Anticipated Decisions ........................................................................................ 1‐5

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE SPRINGFIELD RAIL IMPROVEMENTS

PROJECT .................................................................................................................................... 2‐1

2.1 Project Purpose .................................................................................................... 2‐1

2.1.1 Chicago to St. Louis High Speed Rail ................................................... 2‐1

2.1.2 Springfield Rail Improvements Project ................................................ 2‐1

2.2 Project Need ......................................................................................................... 2‐5

2.2.1 Chicago to St. Louis Need ...................................................................... 2‐5

2.2.2 Springfield Rail Improvements Project Need...................................... 2‐5

2.2.3 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................. 2‐14

2.3 Project Background ........................................................................................... 2‐14

2.3.1 Springfield Rail Improvements Project .............................................. 2‐15

2.4 Major Authorizing Laws and Regulations ................................................... 2‐16

2.5 Scoping ................................................................................................................ 2‐16

3.0 ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................... 3‐1

3.1 Tier 2 Alternatives Screening Process ............................................................. 3‐1

3.1.1 Tier 2 Screening and Selection Process ................................................. 3‐1

3.2 No Action – No Build Alternative .................................................................... 3‐4

3.3 Action – Build Alternatives ............................................................................... 3‐5

3.3.1 Alternative 1 ............................................................................................. 3‐5

3.3.2 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................... 3‐11

3.4 Springfield Tier 2 Screening of Alternatives ............................................... 3‐17

3.4.1 Safety ....................................................................................................... 3‐17

3.4.2 Congestion .............................................................................................. 3‐18

3.4.3 Livability and Commercial Activity ................................................... 3‐18

3.4.4 Lifecycle and Capital Costs .................................................................. 3‐19

3.4.5 Operational Issues ................................................................................. 3‐24

3.4.6 Impacts to Existing Development ....................................................... 3‐24

3.4.7 Impacts to Social and Economic Resources ....................................... 3‐24

3.4.8 Tier 2 Screening ..................................................................................... 3‐25

3.5 Alternatives Carried Forward ......................................................................... 3‐26

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail xiv Tier 1 DEIS

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................... 4‐1

4.1 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................ 4‐1

4.2 Socioeconomic and Community Characteristics ........................................... 4‐3

4.2.1 Population and Population Distribution ............................................. 4‐3

4.2.2 Racial Composition ................................................................................. 4‐4

4.2.3 Economics and Employment ................................................................. 4‐4

4.2.4 Income and Wages .................................................................................. 4‐6

4.2.5 Environmental Justice and Title VI ....................................................... 4‐8

4.2.6 Transportation Network ...................................................................... 4‐13

4.2.7 Communities, Facilities, and Services ................................................ 4‐16

4.3 Energy .................................................................................................................. 4‐21


4.4.1 Project Area – 10th Street Corridor ...................................................... 4‐23



4.5.1 Geology and Soils .................................................................................. 4‐28

4.5.2 Ecological Resources ............................................................................. 4‐32

4.5.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................. 4‐34

4.5.4 Natural Areas ......................................................................................... 4‐37

4.6 Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 4‐37

4.6.1 Air Quality Conformity ........................................................................ 4‐37

4.6.2 Ambient Air Quality ............................................................................. 4‐38

4.7 Noise/Vibration ................................................................................................. 4‐39

4.7.1 Noise and Vibration Impact Criteria .................................................. 4‐39

4.7.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 4‐44


4.8.1 Surface Water Resources ...................................................................... 4‐50

4.8.2 Water Quality ......................................................................................... 4‐53

4.8.3 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 4‐53

4.9 Floodplains ......................................................................................................... 4‐55

4.10 Wetlands ............................................................................................................. 4‐55

4.11 Special Waste ..................................................................................................... 4‐56

4.11.1 SProject Area – 10th Street Corridor .................................................... 4‐59

4.12 Special Lands ..................................................................................................... 4‐60

4.12.1 Section 4(f) Resources ........................................................................... 4‐60

4.12.2 Section 6(f) Lands .................................................................................. 4‐61

4.13 Public Health, Safety and Security ................................................................ 4‐63

4.13.1 Rail Operations Safety and Security ................................................... 4‐63

4.13.2 Crossing Safety ...................................................................................... 4‐64

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail xv Tier 1 DEIS

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................................................................. 5‐1

5.1 Land Use Impacts ................................................................................................ 5‐2

5.1.1 No‐Build Alternative .............................................................................. 5‐2

5.1.2 Alternatives 2A/2B ................................................................................ 5‐19

5.2 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ................................................ 5‐19

5.2.1 Displacements ........................................................................................ 5‐19

5.2.2 Public Services/Facilities ...................................................................... 5‐25

5.2.3 Community Impacts ............................................................................. 5‐26

5.2.4 Economic Impacts ................................................................................. 5‐38

5.3 Energy .................................................................................................................. 5‐41



5.5 Agriculture .......................................................................................................... 5‐47

5.6 Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 5‐47

5.6.1 Conformity ............................................................................................. 5‐47

5.6.2 Local Air Quality ................................................................................... 5‐47

5.6.3 Construction Impacts ............................................................................ 5‐48

5.7 Noise/Vibration ................................................................................................. 5‐49

5.7.1 Noise and Vibration Projections ......................................................... 5‐49

5.7.2 Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment ........................................... 5‐52

5.7.3 Construction Noise Impact Assessment ............................................ 5‐57

5.7.4 Noise and Vibration Mitigation .......................................................... 5‐57


5.8.1 Surface Water Impacts .......................................................................... 5‐59

5.9 Utilities ................................................................................................................ 5‐60

5.10 Visual and Aesthetic Quality .......................................................................... 5‐61

5.11 Special Waste ..................................................................................................... 5‐61

5.12 Special Lands ..................................................................................................... 5‐61

5.13 Public Health, Safety and Security ................................................................ 5‐63

5.14 Permits ................................................................................................................. 5‐64

5.15 Construction Impacts ........................................................................................ 5‐65

5.16 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts ................................................................... 5‐65

5.16.1 Indirect Impacts ..................................................................................... 5‐65

5.16.2 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................. 5‐67

5.17 Other Impacts ..................................................................................................... 5‐68

5.17.1 Railroad Operations .............................................................................. 5‐68

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail xvi Tier 1 DEIS

5.17.2 Reduce Train Horn Blowing ................................................................ 5‐68

5.18 The Relationship Between Local Short‐Term Uses and Man’s

Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long‐Term

Productivity ........................................................................................................ 5‐69

5.19 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ....................... 5‐69

5.20 Transportation Impacts .................................................................................... 5‐70

5.20.1 Service Development Plan ................................................................... 5‐70

5.20.2 Capital Cost ............................................................................................ 5‐70

5.20.3 Travel Benefits ....................................................................................... 5‐71

5.20.4 Additional Impacts to Rail, Air and Bus Service .............................. 5‐71

5.21 Mitigation Actions ............................................................................................ 5‐71

5.22 Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................ 5‐72

6.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .................................................................... 6‐1

6.1 Agency Coordination .......................................................................................... 6‐1

6.1.1 Federal Agency Coordination ............................................................... 6‐1

6.1.2 State Agency Coordination .................................................................... 6‐2

6.1.3 Local Governments ................................................................................. 6‐2

6.2 Technical Committee .......................................................................................... 6‐3

6.3 Public Involvement Activities .......................................................................... 6‐3

6.3.1 Stakeholder Interviews ........................................................................... 6‐3

6.3.2 Stakeholder Advisory Groups ............................................................... 6‐4

6.3.3 Communications, Outreach, and Engagement ................................... 6‐4

6.3.4 Public Open Houses ................................................................................ 6‐5

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................... 7‐1

8.0 DISTRIBUTION OF THE DRAFT EIS ...................................................................... 8‐1

9.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 9‐1

APPENDICES

Appendix A Correspondence

Appendix B Special Waste

Appendix C Newsletters

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail xvii Tier 1 DEIS

List of Exhibits Exhibit 2‐1A. Project Location ................................................................................................ 2‐2

Exhibit 2‐1B. Project Area Location ........................................................................................ 2‐3

Exhibit 2‐2. Existing Railroad Corridors ................................................................................ 2‐4

Exhibit 2‐3. Existing Tracks on 3rd Street ............................................................................... 2‐8

Exhibit 2‐4. Location and Magnitude of Crossing Delays ................................................ 2‐10

Exhibit 2‐5. Springfield’s Medical District .......................................................................... 2‐12

Exhibit 3‐1. Alternative 1A ...................................................................................................... 3‐7

Exhibit 3‐2. Alternative 1B ....................................................................................................... 3‐8

Exhibit 3‐3. Alternative 1C ...................................................................................................... 3‐9

Exhibit 3‐4. Passenger Station on 3rd Street ......................................................................... 3‐12

Exhibit 3‐5. Alternative 2A .................................................................................................... 3‐13

Exhibit 3‐6. Alternative 2B ..................................................................................................... 3‐14

Exhibit 3‐7. Passenger Station on 10th Street ....................................................................... 3‐19

Exhibit 4‐1. Existing Land Use ................................................................................................ 4‐2

Exhibit 4‐2. Economic Activity Centers ................................................................................. 4‐7

Exhibit 4‐3. Census Blocks with Minority Populations > 50 Percent ................................ 4‐11

Exhibit 4‐4. Roadways ........................................................................................................... 4‐14

Exhibit 4‐5. Bus Routes ........................................................................................................... 4‐15

Exhibit 4‐6. Neighborhood Associations .............................................................................. 4‐17

Exhibit 4‐7. Community Facilities ......................................................................................... 4‐18

Exhibit 4‐8. Bike Trails ........................................................................................................... 4‐20

Exhibit 4‐9. National Register Sites ...................................................................................... 4‐22

Exhibit 4‐10. Physiographic Divisions ................................................................................. 4‐29

Exhibit 4‐11. Bedrock Geology .............................................................................................. 4‐30

Exhibit 4‐12. Underground Mining ...................................................................................... 4‐31

Exhibit 4‐13. Noise and Vibration Locations ....................................................................... 4‐45

Exhibit 4‐14. Watersheds ....................................................................................................... 4‐51

Exhibit 4‐15. Streams and Floodplains ................................................................................ 4‐52

Exhibit 4‐16. Wells and Aquifers .......................................................................................... 4‐54

Exhibit 4‐17. NWI Mapped Wetlands .................................................................................. 4‐57

Exhibit 4‐18. Parks .................................................................................................................. 4‐62

Exhibit 5‐1. Alternative 2A and 2B – Key Map ..................................................................... 5‐3

Exhibit 5‐1A. Alternative 2A ................................................................................................... 5‐4

Exhibit 5‐1B. Alternative 2A ................................................................................................... 5‐5

Exhibit 5‐1C. Alternative 2A ................................................................................................... 5‐6

Exhibit 5‐1D. Alternative 2A ................................................................................................... 5‐7

Exhibit 5‐1E. Alternative 2A ................................................................................................... 5‐8

Exhibit 5‐1F. Alternative 2A .................................................................................................... 5‐9

Exhibit 5‐1G. Alternative 2A ................................................................................................. 5‐10

Exhibit 5‐1H. Alternative 2A ................................................................................................. 5‐11

Exhibit 5‐1I. Alternative 2A ................................................................................................... 5‐12

Exhibit 5‐1J. Alternative 2A ................................................................................................... 5‐13

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail xviii Tier 1 DEIS

Exhibit 5‐1K. Alternative 2A ................................................................................................. 5‐14

Exhibit 5‐1L. Alternative 2A ................................................................................................. 5‐15

Exhibit 5‐2A. Alternative 2B ................................................................................................. 5‐16

Exhibit 5‐2B. Alternative 2B .................................................................................................. 5‐17

Exhibit 5‐2C. Alternative 2B .................................................................................................. 5‐18

Exhibit 5‐3A. Adverse Travel Alternative 2A ..................................................................... 5‐29

Exhibit 5‐3B. Adverse Travel Alternative 2A ..................................................................... 5‐30

Exhibit 5‐3C. Adverse Travel Alternative 2A ..................................................................... 5‐31

Exhibit 5‐4A. Adverse Travel Alternative 2B ..................................................................... 5‐34

Exhibit 5‐4B. Adverse Travel Alternative 2B ...................................................................... 5‐35

Exhibit 5‐4C. Adverse Travel Alternative 2B ...................................................................... 5‐36

Exhibit 5‐5. Underpass – 10th St. ........................................................................................... 5‐39

Exhibit 5‐6. Underpass Separation – 19th St. ....................................................................... 5‐40

List of Tables

Table 1‐1. Summary of Springfield Tier 1 Screening ............................................................ 1‐3

Table 2‐1. Number of Trains Through Springfield ............................................................... 2‐6

Table 2‐2. Springfield At‐Grade Crossings and Grade Separations ................................... 2‐7

Table 2‐3. Springfield Illinois ICC Accident Data for all Years (1955‐2010) ...................... 2‐7

Table 2‐4. Springfield Illinois ICC Trespassing Incidents, 2000‐2010 ................................ 2‐7

Table 2‐5. Business Types along 3rd Street and 10th Street Corridors ................................ 2‐13

Table 3‐1. Tier 2 Objectives and Screening Criteria .............................................................. 3‐2

Table 3‐2. Tier 2 Alternatives ................................................................................................ 3‐10

Table 3‐3. Predicted Crashes .................................................................................................. 3‐17

Table 3‐4. Vehicle Delays ........................................................................................................ 3‐18

Table 3‐5. Horn Blowing ......................................................................................................... 3‐19

Table 3‐6. Annual and Lifecycle Cost Assumptions ........................................................... 3‐20

Table 3‐7. Present Value of Annual and Lifecycle Costs (Millions) ................................. 3‐21

Table 3‐8. Capital Cost for Each Alternative ....................................................................... 3‐22

Table 3‐9. Number of Existing At‐Grade Street Crossings and Grade Separations ...... 3‐24

Table 3‐10. Additional Right‐of‐Way ................................................................................... 3‐24

Table 3‐11. Displacements and Access Changes ................................................................. 3‐25

Table 3‐12. Summary of Springfield Tier 2 Screening ........................................................ 3‐27

Table 4‐1. Land Uses Within the Project Area ...................................................................... 4‐1

Table 4‐2. Populations and Households ................................................................................ 4‐3

Table 4‐3. Population by Racial Composition (2010) ........................................................... 4‐4

Table 4‐4. Labor Force Estimates for 2010 .............................................................................. 4‐4

Table 4‐5. Employment by Industry Category for Sangamon County for 2009 ............... 4‐5

Table 4‐6. Major Employers in Sangamon County (November 2009) ................................ 4‐6

Table 4‐7. Median Household Income .................................................................................... 4‐8

Table 4‐8. Minority Population and Poverty Level ............................................................. 4‐9

Table 4‐9. Environmental Justice Populations ..................................................................... 4‐12

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail xix Tier 1 DEIS

Table 4‐10. Neighborhood Associations along the Project Area ....................................... 4‐16

Table 4‐11. Significant Property Count in the 10th Street Corridor (1) .............................. 4‐24

Table 4‐12. Air Quality Monitor Data for Springfield, Illinois (2007‐2009) .................... 4‐38

Table 4‐13. FTA Land Use Categories .................................................................................. 4‐40

Table 4‐14. FTA Ground‐Borne Vibration and Ground‐Borne Noise Impact Criteria . 4‐43

Table 4‐15. Ground‐Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria for Special Buildings 4‐43

Table 4‐16. FTA Construction Noise Criteria ..................................................................... 4‐44

Table 4‐17. Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Measurement Results ....................... 4‐46

Table 4‐18. Summary of Existing Vibration Measurements (1) ......................................... 4‐49

Table 4‐19. CERCLIS Sites ..................................................................................................... 4‐59

Table 4‐20. Hazardous Materials Sites within Project Area (10th Street Corridor) ........ 4‐60

Table 5‐1. Environmental Impact Summary of Alternatives 2A and 2B ........................... 5‐1

Table 5‐2. Residential and Commercial Displacements .................................................... 5‐21

Table 5‐3. Miles of Rail Traffic Through Residential Neighborhoods ............................. 5‐26

Table 5‐4. Maximum Adverse Travel for Enterprise Street ............................................... 5‐32

Table 5‐5. Grade Separations ................................................................................................. 5‐37

Table 5‐6. Properties of Architectural Significance within the Area of Potential Effect‐

10th Street Corridor (1) .............................................................................................................. 5‐44

Table 5‐7. Summary of Noise Impact Results ..................................................................... 5‐53

Table 5‐8. Alternatives 2A and 2B Land Use Category 2 Vibration Impact Summary. 5‐55

Table 5‐9. Alternatives 2A and 2B Land Use Category 3 Vibration Impact Summary. 5‐56

Table 5‐10. Potential Resources Not Qualifying for Protection Under Section 4(f) ...... 5‐63

Table 5‐11. Predicted Crashes ............................................................................................... 5‐64

Table 5‐12. Number of At‐Grade Street Crossing for each Alternative .......................... 5‐68

Table 5‐13. Horn Blowing ..................................................................................................... 5‐69

Table 5‐14. Capital Cost for each Alternative ..................................................................... 5‐71

Table 5‐15. Mitigation Actions .............................................................................................. 5‐72

Table 6‐1. Public Response Summary ‐ Alternative Which Best Addresses

Accommodating Increasing Rail Traffic ................................................................................. 6‐9

Table 6‐2. Public Response Summary ‐ Factors Considered in Alternative Selection .. 6‐10

Charts

Chart 4‐1. FTA Project Noise Impact Criteria ..................................................................... 4‐41

Chart 4‐2. Increase in Cumulative Noise Exposure Allowed by FTA Criteria………..4‐42

SUMMARY

Summ

ary

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-1 Tier 1 DEIS

S.0 Summary This Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) addresses the proposal by the

Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) to improve high‐speed rail (HSR)

passenger service between Chicago, Illinois and St. Louis, Missouri (a distance of

approximately 284 miles), including the rail lines through Springfield, Illinois (Exhibit

S.0‐1). This Tier 1 DEIS (Volume I) for the Chicago to St. Louis High‐Speed Rail (HSR)

Corridor Program has been prepared by IDOT and the Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1500‐1508).

For this program, IDOT and FRA are using a tiered environmental process, a phased

environmental review used in the development of complex projects. Under this process,

the Tier 1 EIS (Volume I of this document) addresses broad, corridor‐level issues and

alternatives. Tier 2 environmental documents (Volume II of this document is one such

Tier 2 document) address individual component projects of the Selected Alternative

carried forward from the Tier 1 study at site‐specific detail. Concurrently with this Tier

1 study, IDOT and FRA are conducting a Tier 2 analysis for the Springfield Rail

Improvements Project. The Tier 2 Environmental Evaluation for the Springfield Rail

Improvements Project has been incorporated into this Tier 1 DEIS as Volume II.

S.1 Background

For more than two decades, IDOT has pursued improvements to passenger rail service

between Chicago and St. Louis. The Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor is part of the

Midwest Regional Rail Initiative program’s intent to develop and implement a 21st‐

century regional passenger rail system.

In January 2003, IDOT, FRA, and FHWA completed an EIS for the Chicago to St. Louis

HSR Corridor. The Selected Alternative from the EIS included the provision of three

daily round trips along the existing Chicago to St. Louis Amtrak route, with 110‐mile per

hour high‐speed rail service south of Dwight, Illinois. Proposed improvement included

12 miles of double track, 22 miles of freight sidings, station enhancements, one grade‐

separated crossing, and enhanced warning devices at 174 crossings. No action was

selected between Chicago and Dwight. FHWA and FRA issued a Record of Decision

(ROD) in January 2004, allowing improvements in the Dwight to St. Louis portion of the

corridor to be advanced. Section 2.1.3 discusses the projects that have advanced based

on the 2004 ROD.

Exhibit S.0-1. Program Location


In 2011, an Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed and a Finding of No

Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued for proposed track improvements from Joliet to

Dwight. These improvements include upgrading approximately 36 miles of existing

track and associated crossings to accommodate 110 mph high‐speed rail passenger

trains, the addition of six miles of double track, approximately two miles of new side

track, and about 12 new turnouts.

S.2 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the proposed Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor Program is to enhance

the passenger transportation network in the Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor by

improving high speed passenger rail service, resulting in a more balanced use of

different corridor travel options by diverting trips made by automobile and air to rail.

The existing transportation network consists of highway (automobile and bus), air, and

passenger rail travel. Currently, nearly all trips made annually within the Chicago to St.

Louis HSR Corridor are accomplished through automobile and air travel, with only one

percent by passenger rail. Enhancements to passenger rail service would include

reduced travel times, improved service reliability, increased frequency of trips, and

increased capacity. Increased use of passenger rail would result in an overall

improvement in traveler safety in the corridor, as well as a reduction in air pollutant

emissions and energy consumption.

The need for the Chicago to St. Louis High‐Speed Rail Corridor Program is based on the

following:

Because of inadequate rail capacity and deficiencies in the existing rail

infrastructure, there is currently a modal imbalance within the corridor. Rail travel

represents only 1.3 percent of the 51 million annual person trips within the Chicago

to St. Louis corridor, while automobile travel comprises 97.5 percent of these trips.

The other two modes, air and bus, comprise only 1.1 percent and 0.2 percent,

respectively. By 2030, it is projected that 62 million annual trips will occur in the

Chicago to St. Louis corridor with 96.6 percent consisting of automobiles, 1.5

percent air, 1.7 percent rail, and 0.2 percent bus. As a result, the modal imbalance is

projected to remain largely the same in 2030.

Between 2007 and 2010, on‐time performance for rail passenger service between

Chicago and St. Louis ranged from 38 percent to 75 percent. For air travel, 15 to 20

percent of flights in the corridor arrive late.

The single track between Joliet and St. Louis cannot accommodate existing and

projected freight and passenger train traffic resulting in travel time delays and the

inability to increase passenger rail service.

The new Joliet Intermodal Terminal will double the number of freight trains using

the Chicago to St. Louis corridor from six to 12. The number of freight trains is


projected to increase to 22 by the year 2017, which could affect the performance and

capacity for high‐speed passenger rail.

From 2007 to 2010, rail passenger ridership between Chicago and St. Louis has

increased 34 percent. (Over this same period, ridership on the state‐supported

trains between Chicago and St. Louis increased by 72 percent.)

Automobile and bus travel between Chicago and St. Louis is limited primarily to

I‐55. Travel by this one route can often be unreliable due to traffic congestion,

weather, roadway construction, and accidents, which can substantially increase

travel times.

Automobile travel, which represents 95.5 percent of the trips within the corridor, is

the least safe mode of transportation when compared to air, rail, and bus travel.

Therefore, there is a need to provide safer alternative modes of transportation along

the corridor.

Although air travel has the shortest travel times and is the safest mode of

transportation, additional travel time must be considered for passage through

airport security and travel to and from the airport. In addition, air travel is

vulnerable to weather conditions, which can result in major delays and cancelled

flights. Also, there is currently no direct air service from the central part of the

corridor to St. Louis, and air travel provides little service to intermediate

destinations.

In addition to these corridor‐wide needs, the large number of grade crossings in

Springfield results in issues specific to that portion of the study area, including safety,

vehicle, and pedestrian delays. These needs are detailed in Volume II, Springfield Rail

Improvements Project Tier 2 Environmental Evaluation.

S.3 Alternatives Considered

An extensive alternatives screening process was conducted that led to the selection of

five alternatives to be evaluated in this Tier 1 DEIS: a No‐Build Alternative and four

HSR Build Alternatives (A, B, C, and D).

The No‐Build Alternative includes the continuation of intercity passenger service

between Chicago and St. Louis along with the planned passenger rail improvements

that will allow for limited HSR service between Joliet and St. Louis. The limited HSR

service between Joliet and St. Louis will begin following completion of several upgrades

to the existing tracks that were approved by a 2004 ROD (Dwight to St. Louis

improvements) and 2011 EA/FONSI (Joliet to Dwight improvements). The limited HSR

service resulting from these improvements will include up to three daily passenger

round trips at speeds up to 110 mph between Joliet and Alton, with the remaining

portions of the corridor allowing speeds of up to 79 mph. One additional non‐HSR daily

passenger round trip will continue to operate between Chicago and St. Louis, and one

non‐HSR Texas Eagle daily passenger round trip will continue to operate between


Build Alternative. The estimated travel times between Chicago and St. Louis for the No‐

Build Alternative are expected to be between four hours and 30 minutes to four hours

and 45 minutes. This would allow the No‐Build Alternative to provide travel times that

are up to one hour and 12 minutes faster than the existing conditions.

The four Build Alternatives being evaluated would utilize different routes in three areas:

between Chicago and Joliet, through Springfield, and between Alton and St. Louis. The

proposed Build Alternative routes would utilize combinations of the existing passenger

rail (Amtrak) route and other proposed new intercity passenger routes that primarily

follow other existing rail lines. In general, the proposed improvements would include

double tracking along the entire length of the corridor in addition to improvements to

railroad crossings, signals, and stations. In developing these four Build Alternatives, the

corridor was divided into the following seven sections (Exhibit S.3‐1):

Section 1 – Existing Route from Chicago to Joliet

Section 2 – Proposed New Route (i.e., Rock Island Route) from Chicago to Joliet

Section 3 – Existing Route from Joliet to Springfield

Section 4 – Existing Route through Springfield

Section 5 – Proposed New Route through Springfield

Section 6 – Existing Route from Springfield to Alton

Section 7 – Existing Route from Alton to St. Louis

The four Build Alternatives were then comprised of various combinations of these

sections as follows:

Alternative A (Sections 1, 3, 4, 6, 7)

Alternative B (Sections 1, 3, 5, 6, 7)

Alternative C (Sections 2, 3, 4, 6, 7)

Alternative D (Sections 2, 3, 5, 6, 7)

All of these Build Alternatives would include eight daily round trips allowing for 110

mph intercity passenger service for the entire route between Chicago and St. Louis. The

overall travel times for these Build Alternatives between Chicago and St. Louis would

range from three hours and 51 minutes to four hours and 10 minutes for an overall

travel time decrease of up to one hour and 47 minutes over existing conditions.

§̈¦§̈¦

§̈¦§̈¦

§̈¦

§̈¦

§̈¦§̈¦

§̈¦ ¡s

§̈¦¡s¡s

§̈¦§̈¦¡s

§̈¦

¡s

¡s

§̈¦

¡s¡s

¡s¡s§̈¦

§̈¦")

§̈¦§̈¦§̈¦

¡s§̈¦

")

§̈¦

§̈¦

§̈¦

§̈¦

¡s

¡s

ST.CHARLES

ST.LOUIS

ST.LOUIS CITY

JEFFERSON

Arlington HeightsElgin

ChicagoNapervilleAurora

JolietMoline

MorrisPeru Wilmington

KankakeeDwight

GalesburgPontiac

Peoria

Bloomington

Normal

Lincoln Champaign

DecaturSpringfield

TaylorvilleMattoon

Carlinville

LitchfieldEffingham

Vandalia

Alton

Centralia

OGLE

WILL

LASALLEBUREAU

HENRYGRUNDY

MERCER PUTNAM

MCLEANTAZEWELLFULTON

CHAMPAIGN

LOGAN

PIATT

STARK

KNOX

MARSHALL

LIVINGSTON

WARREN IROQUOISPEORIA WOODFORD

CARROLL

KANEDEKALB

COOK

ROCKISLAND

KENDALL

KANKAKEE

FORD

MENARD

MASON

DEWITTSCHUYLER

BROWN

DOUGLAS

CASS

CUMBERLAND

CALHOUN

CLAY

JERSEY EFFINGHAM

GREENE

CLINTON

WABASHEDWARDSWASHINGTON

RICHLAND

DUPAGE

WHITESIDE LEE

MCDONOUGH

VERMILION

MACON

SANGAMON

EDGARMORGAN

CHRISTIAN

MOULTRIESCOTT

COLES

SHELBY

MONTGOMERYMACOUPIN

CLARK

CR�AW�JASPER

BOND

MADISON

FAYETTE

ST.CLAIR WAYNE

MONROE JEFFERSON

LAW�R�E�N�C�E

MARION

108

267

45

3052

51 24

45

51

136

58

36

50

52

34

290294

88

94

57

80

55

80

355

5539

74

57

72

55

55

70270

64

70

57

88

80

LegendSection 1

Section 2

Major RoadCounty Boundary

Municipality

Section 3

Section 4

Section 5

Section 6

Section 7

Springfield

Springfield

Leland Grove

Jerome

Grandview

Southern View

Exhibit S.3-1. Build Alternative Sections between Chicago and St. Louis


S.4 Summary of Impacts

Table S.4‐1 summarizes the impacts and costs for each of the Build Alternatives. The

No‐Build Alternative would not result in any impacts to the resources listed in the table.

Table S.4‐1. Summary of Impacts and Costs

Resources Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Buildings Displaced 134 189 213 268

New Right‐of‐Way 336‐352 ac 372‐373 ac 394‐410 ac 430‐431 ac

Prime Farmland Soils 1,645 ac 1,643 ac 1,655 ac 1,652 ac

Historic Sites 7 6 6 5

Archaeological Sites 0 0 0 0

Forest 183.0 ac 181.3 ac 200.0 ac 198.3 ac

Prairie Remnants 232 ac 232 ac 232 ac 232 ac

Protected Natural Areas 16.3 ac 16.3 ac 16.6 ac 16.6 ac

Critical Habitat – Hine’s

Emerald Dragonfly3.7 ac 3.7 ac 0 0

Noise Sensitive

Receptors 218 685 342 809

Vibration Sensitive

Receptors 272 305 252 285

Surface Water 203 203 191 191

Special Status Streams:

Biologically Sensitive

Streams #/ft 6/1,136 6/1,136 6/1,136 6/1,136

Illinois Natural Areas

Inventory Streams #/ft 6/946 6/946 6/946 6/946

Nationwide Rivers

Inventory Streams #/ft 3/554 3/554 3/554 3/554

Navigable Waterways

#/ft 8/959 8/959 7/095 7/905

Wellhead Protection

Areas 2 2 2 2

Floodplains #/acres 36/72.7 36/72.7 43/77.9 43/77.9

Wetlands #/acres 52/41.3 52/41.7 65/46.4 65/46.3

Special Waste Sites 179 195 260 276

Section 4(f) Properties 8 8 12 12

Costs (millions) $4,693‐$4,978 $4,895‐$4,939 $4,163‐$4,448 $4,365‐$4,409


S.4.1 Land Use/Socioeconomic Impacts

Table S.4‐2 shows the number of displacements and the acreage of right‐of‐way that

would be needed for each alternative. Alternative A would result in the fewest

displacements (134) and acres of new right‐of‐way (336‐352) while Alternative D would

result in the most displacements (268) and acres of new right‐of‐way (430‐431). Potential

impacts by each alternative to low‐income and minority populations (i.e., environmental

justice populations) were also evaluated. As indicated in Table S.4‐2, Alternatives C and

D would potentially result in greater impacts to low‐income and minority populations

than Alternatives A and B.

Table S.4‐2. Comparison of Land Use and Environmental Justice Impacts between

Build Alternatives

Build

Alternative

Number of

Buildings

Potentially

Displaced

Proposed New

Right-of-Way

(Acres)

Census Tracts

with

Populations

Below Poverty

Line (>50%)

Census Block

Groups with

Minority

Populations

(>50%)

Alternative A 134 336‐352 3 38

Alternative B 189 372‐373 3 44

Alternative C 213 394‐410 10 83

Alternative D 268 430‐431 10 89

S.4.2 Energy

Table S.4‐3 presents the annual energy consumption by mode and alternative.

Table S.4‐3. Annual Energy Consumption (billions of BTUs)

Alternative Rail Automobile Bus Air Total

Existing (2010) 199 22,754 69 411 23,433

No‐Build (2030) 354 27,558 93 692 28,697

A, B, C, or D 572 27,143 83 628 28,426

The results in Table S.4‐3 show that the total energy consumption from intercity

passenger travel under the No‐Build Alternative would be higher than the Build

Alternatives. Although the Build Alternatives would result in an increase in energy

consumption compared to the No‐Build Alternative with regard to rail transportation,

all of the other three modes would experience a decrease, thereby, resulting in an overall


net decrease in energy consumption. This overall net decrease could be attributed to a

shift in ridership from the other three less energy efficient modes to rail.

S.4.3 Agriculture

Table S.4‐4 presents the impacts to prime farmland soils for each Build Alternative. As

indicated in the table, the total acres of impacts between all the Build Alternatives only

varies by only 12 acres with Alternative B resulting in the fewest impacts with 1,643

acres and Alternative C resulting in the greatest impacts with 1,655 acres. Because all of

the Build Alternatives would follow the existing railroad tracks, no farms would be

bisected by any of the alternatives. The increase in train traffic along the corridor could

result in increased delays at railroad crossings, as farm vehicles would be required to

stop more frequently for trains crossing roadways.

Table S.4‐4. Prime Farmland Soil Impacts by Alternative

Alternative Existing ROW

Acres Impacted Proposed New ROW

Acres Impacted Total Acres Impacted

A 1,336 309 1,645

B 1,321 322 1,643

C 1,297 358 1,655

D 1,282 370 1,652

S.4.4 Cultural Resources

In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, each

alternative was evaluated for potential impacts to historic architectural and

archaeological resources. A file search was conducted to identify any properties within

the study corridor that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of

Historic Places (NRHP). Table S.4‐5 shows the number of NRHP listed/eligible

architectural resources that would be potentially impacted by the program alternatives.

Alternative A would impact the most historic architectural resources (7) while

Alternative D would impact the least (5). More detailed field surveys for potentially

eligible properties that are not currently listed on the NRHP and the determination of

effects will be conducted during Tier 2 studies.


Table S.4‐5. Summary of Potentially Impacted Historic Architectural Resources

Section Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

1 2 2 ‐ ‐

2 ‐ ‐ 1 1

3 3 3 3 3

4 1 ‐ 1 ‐

5 ‐ 0 ‐ 0

6 1 1 1 1

7 0 0 0 0

Total 7 6 6 5

With regard to known archaeological resources, potential impacts were considered

where proposed improvements (construction activity) would physically impact the

property on which the resource lies or would be immediately adjacent to the

construction activity such that temporary impacts could result. Because the resources

lay belowground, noise, vibration, and visual impacts were not considered.

One site, 11MP4, located adjacent to Section 6 in Macoupin County is adjacent to an area

were construction activities would occur. As a result, all four Build Alternatives would

potentially impact this one archaeological resource. Further evaluation will be required

during Tier 2 studies to determine if the construction would have an adverse effect on

the resource. In addition, Tier 2 studies will include a survey of potential archaeological

resources in all areas to be disturbed.

S.4.5 Natural Resources

S.4.5.1 Forests, Prairie Remnants, and Illinois Natural Areas

Each Build Alternative was evaluated for potential impacts to natural resources such as

forest, prairie remnants, and protected natural areas. Table S.4‐6 shows the impacts to

these resources for each alternative. With regard to impacts to forest, Alternative B

would result in the fewest impacts (181.3 acres) while Alternative C would result in the

greatest impacts (200.0 acres). All of the Build Alternatives would impact 232 acres of

prairie remnants. They would also result in nearly the same impacts to protected

natural areas (16.3 to 16.6 acres). There are five natural areas located within the

construction ‐limits of the Build Alternatives: Hickory Creek Barrens Nature Preserve

(0.3 acres), Funks Grove Nature Preserve (0.9 acres), Thaddeus Stubblefield Grove

Nature Preserve (7 acres), Hitts Siding Prairie Nature Preserve (0.6 acres), and Funks

Grove Land and Water Reserve (7.9 acres), and have potential to be impacted by the

alternatives considered.


Table S.4‐6. Acreage of Impact to Natural Resources by Alternative

S.4.5.2 Threatened and Endangered Species

As indicated in Table S.4‐6, Alternatives A and B would impact approximately 3.7 acres

of USFWS designated Critical Habitat for the federally endangered Hine’s emerald

dragonfly. Analysis of the impacts to this habitat will be addressed in more detail in the

Tier 2 environmental documentation. In addition to the potential direct loss of Critical

Habitat for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly, the only other notable impact to the species

could be the potential increase in train‐dragonfly collisions due to the increase in the

number of round trips associated with several of the alternatives. It is anticipated,

however, that this potential increase would have a minimal overall impact on the

species.

Based on the IDNR EcoCat database and coordination with USFWS and IDNR, there are

no other Critical Habitats or known habitats or populations of other federally listed

species located within the study corridor that could be impacted by any of the program

alternatives. However, this Tier 1 level of documentation did not include detailed

fieldwork to identify potential habitats and/or populations of threatened and

endangered species. Therefore, conclusions about impacts to listed species or their

habitat cannot be made at this time. Further coordination with USFWS and IDNR will

continue during the Tier 2 stage.

Species listed as threatened or endangered by the state, which have recorded

occurrences within the existing or proposed right‐of‐way based on the Natural Heritage

Data Base are included in Chapter 5, Table 5.6‐3 and Exhibits 5.6‐1 through 5.6‐3. Most

of the records for state listed species occur in Sections 3 and 6. Since these sections are

included in all the Build Alternatives, there is little difference in the species records for

each alternative. All of the species listed in Table 5.6‐3 are present in the right‐of‐way of

Alternatives A and B, with the exception of Mead’s milkweed, which is only known for

Section 2. All species listed in Table 5.6‐3 are also present in the right‐of‐way of

Alternatives C and D, with the exception of the leafy prairie clover, which is only known

for Section 1.

Alternative Forest Prairie Remnants

Protected

Natural

Areas

Designated Critical

Habitat (Hines

Emerald Dragonfly)

A 183.0 232 16.3 3.7

B 181.3 232 16.3 3.7

C 200.0 232 16.6 0

D 198.3 232 16.6 0


S.4.6 Air Quality

The proposed improvement would impact the counties of Cook, Will, and Grundy in the

northeastern Illinois nonattainment area, and the counties of Jersey, Madison, St. Clair,

and St. Louis in the St. Louis nonattainment area. While the proposed program would

increase diesel locomotive emissions, these increases would be offset by decreases in

regional mobile source auto vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and modest increases in

average driving speeds. The program‐generated net increases in predicted annual

pollutant emissions, from high‐speed rail passenger service, in nonattainment areas

would all be below general conformity de minimis threshold values. Pursuant to the

General Conformity Rule, EPA considers project‐generated emissions below these de

minimis values to be minimal. Such projects do not require formal conformity

determinations. With regard to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the Build

Alternatives would reduce CO2 emissions by 22,200 tons/year versus the No‐Build

Alternative. As a result, the program is not anticipated to result in significant adverse

impacts to public health related to air pollutants and air toxics or contributions to GHG

emissions.

S.4.7 Noise and Vibration

As indicated in Table S.4‐7, Alternative A would impact the fewest noise sensitive

receptors (218) while Alternative D would impact the most (809). With regard to

vibration, Alternative C would impact the fewest sensitive receptors (252) while

Alternative B would impact the most (305).

Table S.4‐7 Noise and Vibration Impacts (Number of Sensitive Receptors)

Alternative Number of Noise Sensitive

Receptors* Number of Vibration Sensitive Receptors

A 218 272

B 685 305

C 342 252

D 809 285

*Train noise impacts were evaluated based on projected noise level increases relative to

baseline (No‐Build Alternative) conditions at noise‐sensitive receptors. Therefore, no impacts

are identified for the No‐Build Alternative.

S.4.8 Water Quality

S.4.8.1 Surface Water

Alternatives C and D would result in the fewest surface water crossings (191) while

Alternatives A and B would result in the most crossings (203).


S.4.8.2 Special Status Streams

All of the Build Alternatives would result in the same impacts to Biologically Sensitive

Streams (six crossings/1,136 feet), Illinois Natural Areas Inventory Streams (six

crossings/946 feet), and Nationwide Rivers Inventory Streams (three crossings/554 feet).

With regard to Navigable Waterways, Alternatives A and B would cross eight

waterways (959 feet) while Alternatives C and D would cross seven waterways (905

feet).

S.4.8.3 Wells Crossings

All of the Build Alternatives would cross the same number of Wellhead Protection Areas

(2) and Non‐Community Water Supply Well Setbacks (5).

S.4.8.4 Floodplains

Table S.4‐8 shows that Alternatives A and B would have the least impacts to floodplains

(36 crossings and 72.7 acres) while Alternatives C and D would have the greatest

impacts (43 crossing and 77.9 acres). The number of perpendicular crossings are similar

between all of the Build Alternatives (29 and 30).

Table S.4‐8. 100‐Year Floodplain Impact by Alternative

Alternative

Number of

Floodplains Crossed

Number of

Perpendicular

Crossings

Total Floodplain

Impact (Acres)

A 36 30 72.7

B 36 30 72.7

C 43 29 77.9

D 43 29 77.9

S.4.9 Wetlands

For this Tier 1 level of analysis, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping was used

to determine potential wetland impacts. Field investigations were not conducted to

verify this information. Therefore, wetland delineations will need to be conducted

during the Tier 2 environmental documentation. The wetland communities that would

be impacted by the program alternatives are palustrine (i.e., freshwater) emergent

(PEM), palustrine forested/scrub‐shrub (PFO/PSS), palustrine unconsolidated bottom

(PUB) (i.e., ponds), and riverine (i.e., rivers). Table S.4‐9 shows that Alternatives A and

B would have the least total impacts to wetlands (52 wetlands totaling approximately 41

acres) while Alternatives C and D would have the greatest impacts (65 wetlands totaling

approximately 46 acres). Out of all the wetland communities impacted, PFO/PSS

wetland communities would have the greatest impacts.


Table S.4‐9. NWI Wetland Impact by Alternative

Alternative

Riverine

Acres/# of

Wetlands

PUB

Acres/# of

Wetlands

PEM

Acres/# of

Wetlands

PFO/PSS

Acres/# of

Wetlands

Total

Acres/# of

Wetlands

A 9.0/7 1.9/8 8.8/12 21.6/25 41.3/52

B 9.5/7 1.9/8 8.7/12 21.6/25 41.7/52

C 12.2/14 2.2/10 10.1/13 21.9/28 46.4/65

D 12.2/14 2.2/10 10.0/13 21.9/28 46.3/65

S.4.10 Utilities

The Build Alternatives would require the relocation of utilities in the corridor. The

estimated cost to relocate these utilities has been included in the program cost estimates.

S.4.11 Visual and Aesthetic Quality Impacts

Table S.4‐10 on the following page shows the relative visual impacts to each of the

landscape units along the Build Alternatives. Most of the landscape units would have

minor/negative impacts from all of the Build Alternative except for the Chicago, Joliet,

and Springfield areas, which would have moderate impacts.

S.4.12 Special Waste

A database search was conducted to identify special waste sites that may be impacted by

the program. Table S.4‐11 shows that Alternative A would potentially impact the fewest

number of sites (179) while Alternative D would impact the most sites (276).

Table S.4‐11. Special Waste Sites by Alternative

Alternative Number of Special Waste Sites

A 179

B 195

C 260

D 276

S.4.13 Section 4(f)/6(f) and Parklands

This section identifies the potential for program activities to impact resources protected

by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and Section 6(f) of the

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 such as public parks, recreation

areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic properties.


Table S.4‐10. Visual Resource Impact Summary

Landscape Unit

No-Build Alternative

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Chicago Area

Joliet Area

Will County

Grundy

County

Livingston

County

McLean

County

Bloomington‐

Normal Area

Logan County

Sangamon

County

Springfield

Area

Macoupin

County

Madison

County

St. Louis Area

Major Moderate

Minor/Negligible


For this Tier 1 analysis, potential impacts were considered when any portion of a Section

4(f) resource was to be acquired by the program or would physically abut the existing or

proposed right‐of‐way limit. These impacts do not represent an official determination of

Section 4(f) “use”. Historic resources were not included as potential Section 4(f)

properties for this analysis because a determination of adverse effect would need to be

conducted, which will not occur until the Tier 2 stage, along with official determination

of Section 4(f) “use”. Table S.4‐12 shows that Alternatives A and B would result in the

least impacts to Section 4(f) properties (8) while Alternatives C and D would impact the

most (12).

Table S.4‐12. Potential Number of Section 4(f) Resources Impacted

Section Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

1 4 4 ‐ ‐

2 ‐ ‐ 8 8

3 3 3 3 3

4 0 ‐ 0 ‐

5 ‐ 0 ‐ 0

6 1 1 1 1

7

Total 8 8 12 12

Only one Section 6f) property, the I&M Canal Trail, may be impacted by Alternative A

or B (Section 1). Coordination with IDNR and NPS will be required during the Tier 2

study to determine whether these impacts constitute a conversion of protected uses

under Section 6(f) of the LWCF.

S.4.14 Indirect and Cumulative

It is anticipated that the program would result in negligible indirect impacts for the

following reasons:

The program would utilize existing rail corridors and train stations and, therefore,

would not result in the development of new access or train stations in areas that

previously did not have any passenger rail service.

It is anticipated that the increased ridership would have a minimal effect on

inducing development around the existing train stations, which are already located

in developed/urbanized areas. Any induced growth that may occur would be

limited to the built‐up areas in the immediate vicinity of the train stations and would

likely include small restaurants and/or retail shops that would be attracted by the

increase in transit passengers and potential customers. Any potential growth that

may occur would be controlled by the local, state, and federal agencies that would be


responsible for approving such development and permitting the impacts to any

regulated resources that may be impacted.

With regard to natural, cultural, agricultural, and socioeconomic resources, it is

anticipated that the program would result in negligible cumulative impacts for the

following reasons:

Because the Chicago‐St. Louis High‐Speed Rail Program would involve primarily

the addition of a second track that would parallel the existing track, the majority of

the impacts would be within the existing right‐of‐way and in previously disturbed

areas.

Any new impacts outside of the existing track’s footprint and right‐of‐way would be

relatively narrow, linear, and distributed over a long distance (i.e., 284 miles). As a

result, the impacts to any given resource (e.g., natural, cultural, agricultural, or

socioeconomic) within any given area (e.g., ecosystem, watershed, community) is

expected to be relatively small and would have a negligible cumulative effect when

added to any other project impacts in those areas.

The vast majority of the study corridor has been, currently is, and will continue to be

farmland. The remaining study corridor is mostly comprised of highly developed

urban areas that would not contribute to cumulative impacts. The only areas that

may be experiencing land use changes that could contribute to cumulative impacts

would be the suburban areas associated with the major metropolitan areas such as

Chicago, Springfield, and St. Louis.

The most notable known projects that would result in cumulative impacts along the

study corridor when added to this program are the high‐speed rail improvements from

Dwight to St. Louis associated with the 2004 ROD and the high‐speed rail improvements

from Joliet to Dwight associated with the 2011 EA/FONSI. Although minimal, the

cumulative negative impacts associated with these projects would primarily be limited

to prime farmland, vegetation/habitat, wetlands, and streams that are located along the

existing railroad corridor. With regard to air quality, these projects are expected to

provide an overall cumulative benefit. The high‐speed rail facility is expected to

provide service to motorists who would otherwise travel between Chicago and St. Louis

by automobile. This shift in travel mode is expected to reduce overall vehicle emissions.

These projects would also result in a cumulative benefit of removing automobiles from

congested roadways and improving safety by shifting automobile travelers to a safer

mode of transportation.

S.4.15 Travel Benefits

S.4.15.1 No‐Build Alternative

Travel Time, Frequency, and Reliability

Existing passenger rail travel time between Chicago and St. Louis ranges from five hours

and 20 minutes to five hours and 57 minutes. Under the No‐Build Alternative,


passenger rail travel time is expected to range from four hours and 30 minutes and four

hours and 45 minutes.

Rail communication and signal systems would continue to be upgraded under the No‐

Build Alternative, which would improve some of the reliability and on‐time

performance issues. However, the limited capacity (i.e., the single track through most of

the corridor) would continue to affect reliability and on‐time performance and limit the

ability to add additional trains through the corridor.

With limits on travel time, passenger rail capacity, and reliability that remain with the

No‐Build Alternative. Ridership in 2030 is forecast to be approximately 1.1 million

passengers with the No‐Build Alternative, an increase of over 400,000 passengers

compared to existing conditions.

Safety

Overall passenger safety in the corridor would increase in that the passenger miles

traveled by rail in the corridor is expected to rise to 203 million passenger miles from the

existing 114 million passenger miles. To the extent that this increase represents a

diversion from automobile travel, the safety risk to travelers would decrease in that rail

travel is safer than automobile travel.

However, fewer passengers are expected to divert under the No‐Build Alternative

compared to the Build Alternatives, which would have overall travel times that are

expected to be substantially shorter than automobile travel times.

S.4.15.2 Build Alternatives

Travel Time, Frequency, Reliability

Rail passenger travel time between Chicago and St. Louis would decrease from a range of

four hours and 30 minutes to four hours and 45 minutes, to three hours and 51 minutes to

four hours and 10 minutes. The Build Alternatives could therefore result in an additional

35‐ to 39‐minute travel time savings compared to the No‐Build Alternative.

With the Build Alternatives, three additional passenger round trips would be operated

daily.

The Build alternatives would include the addition of a second track through most of the

corridor (Dwight to St. Louis), rail‐to‐rail grade separations, and added capacity north of

Joliet, as well as associated signal improvements. These features would address the

reliability‐related issues due to train interference that are not addressed by the No‐Build

Alternative.

Safety

Overall passenger safety in the corridor would increase in that the annual passenger

miles traveled by rail in the corridor is expected to rise to 328 million passenger miles

(Year 2030) from the existing 114 million passenger miles. This is 125 million passenger

miles greater than with the No‐Build Alternative. To the extent that this increase


represents a diversion from automobile travel, the safety risk to travelers would

decrease in that rail travel is safer than automobile travel. Annual passenger miles by

automobile are projected to decrease by 118 million passenger miles compared to the

No‐Build Alternative.

With additional trains operating in the corridor, the possibility of train collisions is

increased. However, the installation of a positive train control signal system would

mitigate this risk.

Additional Travel Benefits

Improvements to passenger rail service improve its competitiveness with other modes of

travel. When compared to the other transportation modes, the Build Alternatives would

provide more access to intermediate markets along the corridor except for automobile

travel, which currently provides access along the entire corridor via the interstate

interchanges. Between Chicago and St. Louis, the Build Alternatives would provide

improved access to nine intermediate markets via the train stations while air and bus

travel currently provides access to only two markets (Bloomington/Normal and

Springfield). With regard to trip service, the Build Alternatives would provide for safe

use of cell phones and internet access for diverted automobile drivers. As for air travel,

although cell phone and internet access is available at airports, there are more

restrictions/limitations regarding their use during flight. With regard to cost and

service, Build Alternatives would provide higher quality service than bus travel and rail

service under the No‐Build Alternative at a lower cost than air travel.

S.4.16 Transportation Impacts

S.4.16.1 Freight Rail Service Impacts

The No‐Build Alternative includes conditions as exist in 2012, plus the completion of

construction of track upgrades, capacity improvements, and signal improvements

between Joliet and St. Louis per the 2004 ROD improvements and 2011 Dwight to Joliet

EA. IDOT and UP have coordinated extensively on these changes so that the projected

freight, as well as the No‐Build Alternative’s intercity passenger service, can operate

with improved reliability relative to existing conditions.

Implementation of the Build Alternatives may require some freight train scheduling

modifications to prevent conflicts with passenger rail service proposed for the Build

Alternatives. The increased frequency of passenger trains will further restrict rail time

available for freight movements. Since high‐speed operations will occur primarily

during the daytime, coordination with the host railroads would be required to

determine if the routing of freight trains could occur outside of the peak intercity

passenger periods. Ultimately, the freight carrier would have to agree to such a shift.

S.4.16.2 Commuter Rail Service Impacts

Commuter rail service in the Chicago area currently operates on Sections 1 (Metra

Heritage Corridor) and 2 (Metra Rock Island District). No other commuter rail service

operates in the corridor. Metra has no plans for changing or expanding the existing


service along Metra’s Rock Island District, used by Alternatives C and D. There is also

no intercity passenger service currently operated via the Metra Rock Island District. For

Alternatives A and B (using Metra Heritage Corridor north of Joliet), Amtrak service in

the No‐Build Alternative would remain largely similar to the current service, with the

operation of five Amtrak round trips. Metra does have plans to expand service along

the Metra Heritage Corridor, possibly adding six trains per day and adding a new

station between Lemont and Lockport. The assumed capacity improvements for the

high speed service will be developed further in the Tier 2 process to provide appropriate

additional capacity, but not for the additional commuter service. Further improvements

(crossovers, segments of new trackage, etc) could be developed and analyzed to support

the future additional commuter rail service.

Implementation of the Build Alternatives would not result in changes in the number of

commuter trains operating daily. Impacts from the Build Alternatives could result in

additional intercity passenger trains operating, potentially affecting commuter rail

service.

S.4.16.3 Impacts to Rail Service during Construction

Under the No‐Build Alternative, construction would be limited to regular maintenance

activities, and improvements as planned by the 2004 ROD improvements. Therefore,

impacts to railroad operations would be minimal.

In general, construction activities for the Build Alternatives would affect rail traffic by

reducing operating train speeds through the construction zones, adding to rail travel

time and, in turn, cost. This would occur when adding new siding tracks, double‐tracks,

and connection tracks. The other impact would be schedule adjustments for existing

operations to create windows of opportunity for temporary shutdown of rail operations

on selected track sections, such as when the new turnouts are being placed for the

passing sections and new sidings, or when there is a potential safety risk, such as during

the construction of a flyover. During construction, there may be track outages that

would interrupt intercity passenger rail service. As necessary, bus service would be

provided along the corridor to replace intercity passenger rail service lost during

construction.

S.4.16.4 Highway‐Rail Grade Crossings Impacts

Based on the 2004 ROD and 2011 EA, at‐grade highway‐rail crossings through most of

Sections 3 through 7 (Joliet to East St. Louis) will be upgraded to provide four‐quadrant

gates and roadway configuration/approach improvements based on crossing

diagnostics. Under the No‐Build Alternative, no further modification to grade crossing

warning devices in the study corridor would be made.

Under the Build Alternatives, most crossings in the corridor would require some type of

improvement to accommodate the upgraded service. For example, where additional

tracks are to be added, crossing surfaces, gates, and other equipment must be modified.


The Build Alternatives would increase vehicular delay at highway‐rail grade crossings

for the following reasons:

Additional intercity passenger rail service: Gate down time would increase

because the number of passenger trains operating in the corridor would increase

from 10 per day to 18 per day.

Increase in advance warning time: All crossings will be equipped with constant

warning time. Currently, crossing gates are activated approximately 20 to 30

seconds prior to a train reaching the grade crossing. For high‐speed passenger

trains, crossing gates would be activated sooner, possibly up to 90 seconds before a

train reaches the crossing. This increase in time would cause additional vehicular

delay for motorists using the highway‐rail grade crossing. As part of

implementation of the 2004 ROD improvements, coordination with the Illinois

Commerce Commission is underway to determine the length of time required for the

gates to be activated before a train reaches a crossing.

The combination of additional trains and longer gate down times would increase the

amount of time that a crossing is blocked by approximately 20 minutes per day.

Every highway‐rail crossing in the study corridor was evaluated for its suitability for

grade separation. Potential grade separation locations were identified based on setting

(urban or rural) and their predicted exposure factor, a function of train and vehicular

volumes. At the conclusion of this evaluation, 101 crossings were identified in the study

corridor for potential grade separation, which would be evaluated further during Tier 2

analysis.

S.4.16.5 Impacts to Vehicular Crossings during Construction

Vehicular traffic would be temporarily affected at locations where grade crossings

would be separated, modified, or improved. While the exact construction zones are not

known at this time, temporary lane closures or roadway closures would be required to

construct some of the proposed improvements. The grade crossing improvements

would, at a minimum, require traffic to slow down as it passes through the construction

zone while new warning devices and other improvements are installed. In some cases,

temporary diversion of traffic to adjacent crossings could be required. Construction of

grade separations would be staged to minimize street closures.

Where impacts to vehicular traffic exists, emergency services, schools, businesses, and

other activities requiring vehicular access would be affected by potential delays or

detours. However, construction related impacts on vehicular traffic would be

temporary. Traffic maintenance planning would be coordinated with schools and

emergency service providers.


S.4.16.6 Station Access and Parking Impacts

The Build Alternatives could potentially involve proposed parking expansions and

station improvements to accommodate the increase in ridership. It is anticipated,

however, that there would be no access or traffic congestion problems associated with

the Build Alternatives.

Potential new stations will be evaluated in suburban Chicago (between Chicago and

Joliet) and St. Louis (between St. Louis and Alton). If this program moves forward, the

potential location for these stations would be evaluated in Tier 2 studies. However, it is

assumed that the location of new stations would be located immediately off of the

highway (e.g., I‐294 in Chicago and I‐270 in St. Louis).

S.5 Summary of Potential Mitigation

Table S.5‐1. Potential Mitigation

Impact Mitigation

Land Use Long Term ‐ IDOT will implement the provisions of the State of Illinois Relocation Assistance Plan in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act as mitigation measures where ROW acquisitions and land use changes occur.

Cultural Mitigation measures will be determined based on the more detailed impact determinations from Tier 2 studies.

Natural Resources

Short Term ‐ Avoidance, minimization, and best management practices implementation will reduce adverse impacts.

Long Term – Coordination will continue through the Tier 2 level with the Illinois Nature Preserves Commission regarding the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of any impacts to prairies. Coordination will continue through the Tier 2 level with the USFWS and INDR regarding the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of any impacts to state and federal threatened and endangered species in the study corridor.


Table S.5‐1. Potential Mitigation Actions (continued)

Impact Mitigation

Construction Air Quality:

Short Term ‐ State and local regulations regarding dust control and other air quality emission reduction controls will be followed during construction. Noise and Vibration: Short Term:

Perform all construction in a manner to minimize noise and

vibration;

Use newer equipment with improved noise muffling, and

periodic inspection;

Perform independent noise and vibration monitoring to

demonstrate compliance with the noise limits, and

modify/reschedule activities if maximum limits are exceeded at

residential land uses;

Avoid hauling and unloading operations through residential

neighborhoods to the greatest extent possible;

Construction lay‐down or staging areas should be selected in

industrially zoned districts;

Turn off idling equipment;

Minimize construction activities during evening, nighttime,

weekend, and holiday periods;

Comply with all local noise and vibration ordinances and

obtain all necessary permits and variances;

When possible, limit the use of construction equipment that

creates high vibration levels, such as vibratory rollers and

hammers, operating within 130 feet of building structures;

Require vibration monitoring during vibration‐intensive

activities;

Restrict the hours of vibration‐intensive equipment or activities

such as vibratory rollers so that impacts to residents are

minimal.

Water Quality/Erosion Control:

Short Term ‐ BMPs will be utilized to protect water quality. Runoff from construction sites must be diverted from directly entering streams during and after construction. Any impervious areas resulting in a small reduction in recharge area will be mitigated using stormwater retention/detention basins.

Floodplains Mitigation measures will be determined based on the more detailed impact determinations from Tier 2 studies.


Table S.5‐1. Potential Mitigation Actions (continued)

Impact Mitigation

Wetlands Long Term ‐ A conceptual wetland mitigation plan will be developed to compensate for unavoidable impacts. Coordination with the USACE, the USFWS, and the IDNR will be required to determine specific mitigation requirements to adequately compensate for wetland losses pending final design to quantify actual wetland impacts.

Noise and Vibration Long Term

Wheel treatments;

Rail treatments;

Vehicle treatments;

Building insulation;

Noise barriers;

Maintenance‐

Rail grinding on a regular basis, especially on rails that

tend to develop corrugations;

Wheel truing to re‐contour the wheel and remove wheel

flats. This can result in a dramatic vibration reduction.

However, significant improvements can be gained from

simply smoothing the running surface. Install wheel‐flat

detector systems to identify vehicles that are most in need

of wheel truing;

Implement vehicle reconditioning programs, particularly

with components such as suspension systems, brakes,

wheels, and slip‐slide detectors;

Relocation of Special Trackwork;

Ballast Mats;

Resiliently Supported Ties;

High Resilience Fasteners;

Floating Slab Trackbed.

Visual and Aesthetic Quality

Long Term ‐ Views from trains into private spaces would be a positive visual impact and views of trains and new rail lines would be considered a minor adverse visual impact. IDOT will determine potential ways to help reduce minor impacts, such as planting vegetation screens or providing aesthetically pleasing features as part of the HSR design.

Special Waste Mitigation measures will be determined based on the more detailed impact determinations from Tier 2 studies.

Special Lands Mitigation measures will be determined based on the more detailed impact determinations from Tier 2 studies.


S.6 Implementation Plan

The Tier 1 DEIS presents several improvements along the Chicago to St. Louis corridor

to meet the purpose and need of the program. The size and scope of this type of

regional program rarely becomes implemented at once, requiring the anticipation of

incremental steps with which to logically advance the program. Therefore, an

implementation plan has been developed to help guide the identification and selection

of staged improvements within the corridor. Ahead of any future projects, should

federal funding be utilized, Tier 2 NEPA documentation must also be completed to

assess the environmental effects and document measures to avoid or to minimize and

mitigate impacts.

Before additional improvements along the corridor can be built, Tier 2 Project Level

NEPA documents will be prepared for the specific projects being implemented using

federal funds. Following the process outlined in the implementation plan, expected

ridership demands will initiate the need for modeling simulations to determine the

improvements necessary.

The following is a list of anticipated Tier 2 Project Level NEPA studies. The list is

organized from north to south. Logical termini for the projects are based on the extent

of major infrastructure improvements and station locations. Intermediate termini will

be identified using train operation modeling where additional improvements are

necessary to support service level increases (Exhibit S.6‐1). The sequence of construction

will be based on the results of train traffic modeling. The scope of each Tier 2 document

may change depending on future funding and implementation decisions and additional

design.

Chicago to Joliet – This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document will include additional

track, sidings, culvert and bridge improvements, signal improvements, commuter

rail station improvements, High Speed Rail station improvements, rail flyovers, rail

connections and a parallel structure across the Chicago River at 21st Street to improve

capacity and reliability for identified incremental service additions.

Joliet to Springfield ‐ This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document will include

additional track, sidings, culvert and bridge improvements and roadway grade

separations to improve capacity and reliability for identified incremental service

additions.

Springfield ‐ This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document is part of the overall Chicago

to St. Louis Tier 1 DEIS (included as Volume II).

Springfield Flyover ‐ This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document will include new

track alignment and a railway flyover structure to separate the UPRR and NSRR at‐

grade crossover to improve capacity and reliability along the corridor.

Exhibit S.6-1. Staged Improvements


Springfield Flyover to St. Louis Area ‐ This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document will

include additional track, sidings, culvert and bridge improvements and roadway

grade separations to improve capacity and reliability for identified incremental

service additions.

St. Louis Area ‐ This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document will include new

doubletrack approaches to an increased capacity Mississippi River crossing to

improve capacity and reliability for identified incremental service additions. The

Tier 2 Level NEPA document will evaluate alternatives for an increased capacity

Mississippi River crossing. A new double track connection to the Merchants bridge

will also be include to provide redundant access in the system for the Mississippi

River crossing and to provide construction staging and future maintenance routes.

Station Improvements – Tier 2 Project Level NEPA documents will include High

Speed Rail station improvements at Joliet, Dwight, Pontiac, Normal, Lincoln,

Carlinville and Alton. These improvements include pedestrian grade separation

structures to provide access to both platforms and to avoid pedestrians crossing

tracks at‐grade, additional parking requirements and additional station capacity

requirements for identified incremental service additions.

S.7 Comments and Coordination

The environmental process for the Chicago to St. Louis High‐Speed Rail Corridor

Program Tier 1 DEIS began in February 2011. A scoping coordination letter describing

the program and requesting comments and attendance to upcoming scoping meetings,

held on March 1st and 3rd, 2011, was forwarded to the state and federal resource agencies

in February 2011. The agency scoping letter responses and cooperating agency

responses are located in Appendix F. The Tier 1 Chicago to St. Louis High Speed Rail

Environmental Impact Statement Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal

Register on February 14, 2011, and a copy is located in Appendix G. In March 2011, an

initial round of public meetings was held within the corridor to introduce the study to

the public, to explain the EIS process and timeline, and to get input. After these

meetings, the study team spent the next several months developing alternatives. In late

October and early November 2011, a second round of public meetings was held in the

cities of Joliet; Bloomington; Springfield; Carlinville; and Alton.

Section 8 of this document summarizes agency coordination that has occurred at this

early phase of this program as well as public coordination and comments relative to the

Tier 1 DEIS.

S.8 Springfield Rail Improvements Project Tier 2 Summary (Volume II)

S.8.1 Springfield Background

Multiple alignment options are available for the HSR corridor through Springfield. In

addition, the existing and projected rail traffic on the three north‐south corridors


through Springfield causes vehicle traffic congestion, safety risks and other problems.

These problems are primarily related to the multiple at‐grade crossings in the three

north‐south corridors. The crossings block vehicle traffic, increase risk of crashes and

require trains to blow horns. Concurrent with the Tier 1 analysis, the Tier 2 analysis

through Springfield analyzes alternatives for enhancing UP rail line capacity and to

accommodate and reduce the effects of the increasing high‐speed passenger and freight

train traffic on the on the three north‐south rail corridors in the City.

The north limit of the Springfield project is the south right‐of‐way line of Sangamon

Avenue. The structure over Sangamon Avenue would not be affected by any of the

Springfield alternatives and provides an easily recognized project limit for the public.

The south project limit is the north right‐of‐way line of Stanford Avenue. The track

arrangements and rail operations are the same for all alternatives at this point, and it

provides an easily recognized project limit for the public. The project includes an

evaluation of vehicle congestion, public safety and other problems along all three of the

north‐south rail lines through the City.

S.8.2 Springfield Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Springfield Rail Improvements Project is to enhance rail line capacity

to accommodate and reduce the effects of the increasing high‐speed passenger and

freight train traffic on the three north‐south rail corridors that pass through Springfield:

the Union Pacific (UP), Norfolk Southern (NS), and Canadian National (CN)/Illinois &

Midland (I&M) (Exhibit S.8‐1). The purpose includes reducing rail line effects by

improving safety, reducing congestion, and enhancing community livability and

supporting commercial activity.

Based on the need for the Springfield Rail Improvements Project, the following goals

and objectives were established.

Provide a route through Springfield that achieves the purpose of the Chicago to St.

Louis High Speed Rail Program.

Enhance rail line capacity and provide for future capacity needs to accommodate

growing passenger train traffic.

Improve safety and reduce congestion by reducing the number of at‐grade street

crossings in the study area with a focus on those streets with the highest traffic

volumes.

Improve livability and commercial activity by reducing train horn noise throughout

the City and reducing the barrier effect of the rail lines on neighborhoods,

Downtown and the Medical District.

Minimize rail operational issues, impacts to existing development, lifecycle and

capital costs, and impacts to social and economic resources due to the

recommended alternative.


Exhibit S.8‐1. Existing Railroad Corridors


S.8.3 Springfield Alternatives Considered

Two alternatives, later refined to five sub‐alternatives, were carried from the Tier 1

screening to Tier 2 screening for additional analysis.

Alternative 1 – Double track the existing 3rd Street corridor to accommodate UP freight &

passenger (HSR) traffic. This alternative includes three sub‐alternatives, each of which

includes an alternative specific combination of grade separations and grade crossing

closures.

1A – Double track UP on 3rd – grade separation at passenger station.

1B – Double track UP on 3rd – some grade separations on UP corridor only.

1C – Double track UP on 3rd – some grade separations on all corridors.

Alternative 2 – Relocate UP freight and passenger (HSR) traffic to the 10th Street corridor.

This alternative includes two sub‐alternatives, each of which includes an alternative

specific combination of grade separations and grade crossing closures.

2A – Relocate UP to 10th – some grade separations on 10th and 19th.

2B – Relocate UP to 10th – grade separation or closure of all crossings on 10th south

of North Grand Avenue, some grade separations on 19th.

The alternatives were compared as to how well they achieve the project purpose and

need, primarily related to safety, traffic delays, horn noise, lifecycle costs and number of

at‐grade street crossings. They were also compared as to number of residential and

commercial displacements (Tables S.8‐1 to S.8‐4).

Table S.8‐1. Predicted Crashes

Alternative Predicted Crashes per Year (2030)

No‐Build 1.30

1A 1.42

1B 1.31

1C 0.58

2A 0.26

2B 0.08

Table S.8‐2. Vehicle Delays

Alternative Vehicle Delay in veh‐min per day (2030)

No‐Build 47,500

1A 45,900

1B 28,500

1C 18,900

2A 13,500

2B 7,100


Table S.8‐3. Horn Blowing

Alternative Horn Blowing min/day (2030) No‐Build 314

1A 151

1B 151

1C 0

2A 0

2B 0

Table S.8‐4. Displacements and Access Changes

Alternative Displacements Parcels with

Total Residential Commercial Access Changes

No‐Build 0 0 0 0

1A 36 4 135 175

1B 102 31 219 352

1C 162 42 248 452

2A 108 49 29 186

2B 108 52 41 205

Based on this analysis, Alternatives 1A, 1B and 1C were determined to be not reasonable

and Alternatives 2A and 2B were carried forward for more detailed analysis.


S.8.4 Summary of Springfield Impacts

Table S.8‐5. Environmental Impact Summary of Alternatives 2A and 2B

Impact Category Alternative No‐Build

Alternative 2A 2B

Right‐of‐Way Acquisition (Acres) 42.0 42.6 0

Displacements 157 164 0

Residential 108 108 0

Commercial 49 56 0

Access Changes 29 41 0

Farmland Conversion (Acres) 0 0 0

Cultural Resources

National Register Listed (or Eligible) Sites 0 1(3) 0

Known Archaeological Sites 0 0 0

Natural Resources

Threatened/Endangered Species (Number of

Species) 0 0 0

Natural Areas (Number) 0 0 0

Native Vegetation (Acres) 0 0 0

Affected Lakes and Streams 0 0 0

100‐yr. Floodplains Crossings 0 0 0

Wetlands (Acres) 0 0 0

Parks (Number) 0 0 0

Special Waste Sites (Number within one block)

CERCLIS(1) 2 2 0

LUST(2) 20 20 0

(1)Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System. (2)Leaking Underground Storage Tank. (3) Current access to the Great Western Railroad Depot will be relocated to the west along the same block.

Therefore, there will be no permanent impact to this structure.

Only those categories with impacts are discussed below.

S.8.4.1 Land Use/Socioeconomic Impacts

As shown in Table S.8‐5 Alternative 2A has fewer displacements and parcels with access

changes than 2B. Residential and business relocations will likely affect a small

percentage of minority and/or low‐income individuals, however the cumulative impacts

are not anticipated to be disproportionate for the retained alternatives (2A or 2B).


S.8.4.2 Cultural Resources

The Great Western Railroad Depot at Monroe and 10th Street is a two‐story, brick,

Italianate‐style structure. It was constructed in the 1850s with only one story and later

raised to two. It was from this site that Abraham Lincoln departed his hometown for

Washington, D.C. on February 11, 1861. It also represents the oldest surviving rail depot

in Springfield. The Great Western Railroad Depot is considered eligible for the National

Register under Criteria A (commerce), B (in relation to Lincoln), and C. The property

abuts the existing railroad R.O.W., but this presents no change from its historic setting.

Vibration studies have assessed no structural impact to the property for the retained

alternatives. However, Alternative 2B would provide an underpass along Monroe Street

which would relocate the existing access to the Depot further to the west within the

same block. Therefore, the effects assessment on this property is “No Effect.”

S.8.4.3 Noise

Table S.8‐6. Summary of Noise Impact Results

Receptors

No‐Build Alternatives 2A and 2B

Number of Impacts Number of Impacts

Moderate Severe Moderate Severe

Total 5,978 1,789 9 9

S.8.4.4 Special Waste

Alternatives 2A and 2B both affect the same number of CERCLIS and LUST sites.

However, these sites are not anticipated to present significant impairments to rail

improvements associated with Alternatives 2A or 2B.

S.8.4.5 Travel Benefits and Transportation Impacts

There are no differences among the Springfield alternatives regarding:

Rail service alternatives

Travel time

Service levels/frequencies

Ridership/revenue


S.8.5 Summary of Mitigation

Table S.8‐7. Mitigation

Resource Impacted

Mitigation

Land Use

IDOT would implement the provisions of the State of Illinois Relocation Assistance Plan in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act as mitigation action where ROW acquisitions and land use changes occur.

Social/Economic Any adverse impacts of the proposed project would not be disproportionately borne by minority or low‐income populations yielding no need for mitigation action.

Cultural

The Section 106 process would continue with Memoranda of Understanding for any adverse effects to National Register or National Register eligible sites pending SHPO’s review of this Draft Document.

Natural Resources

Avoidance, minimization, and best management practices implementation would reduce adverse impacts. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act consultation would be ongoing to protect threatened and endangered species in the project area.

Air Quality

IDOT’s Standard Specification on dust control would be implemented during construction to limit dust emissions during construction.

Noise and Vibration

Quiet zones would be enacted throughout the City on all rail corridors traversing the town.

Water Quality/Resources

Best Management Practices would be utilized to protect water quality. Almost all runoff from construction would be diverted directly into the City’s combined sewer system during and after construction and treated by the Springfield Metro Sanitary District.

Visual and Aesthetic Quality

Views of trains and new rail lines would be considered a minor adverse visual impact. IDOT would determine potential ways to help reduce minor impacts, such as planting vegetation screens or providing aesthetically pleasing features as part of the design.

Special Waste Special waste sites purchased for additional right‐of‐way would be remediated prior to construction of the proposed action.

S.8.6 Springfield Preferred Alternative

IDOT recommends selection of Alternative 2A. FRA will identify the Preferred

Alternative in the Final EIS after consideration of public and agency comments on the

Draft EIS.

Alternative 2A is the Recommended Alternative for the following reasons:

Alternative 2A would have lower capital cost than Alternative 2B.


Alternative 2B would have lower delays, crash rates and lifecycles costs, but this

results primarily from constructing new grade separations at Monroe and

Washington Streets and closing Capitol Avenue and Enos Streets. The grade

separations both have a benefit/cost ratio much less than 1.0. The grade separations

and street closures create undesirable access and adverse travel issues.

Alternative 2B would require more right‐of‐way acquisition, and would result in

more commercial displacements and more parcels with a change in access.

Alternative 2B changes the access to the Great Western Railroad Depot due to the

construction of an underpass grade separation along Monroe Street.

There are no other anticipated differences between the impacts for Alternatives 2A

and 2B including environmental justice concerns, Section 4(f) properties, noise or

vibrations impacts.

Date post:	28-Jan-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	91 times
Download:	6 times

Volume IAREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance‐of‐Way Association ARRA America...

Documents